Why did Borders Tank and B&N not? - <AUTHOR> http://www.quora.com/Borders-Books/Why-is-Barnes-Noble-performing-well-as-a-business-while-Borders-is-near-or-has-even-reached-bankruptcy

<comment><USER2> I think the common answers to this question are a good illustration of people inventing logical reasons post factum for something they don't understand, much like described in the Black Swan.

My experience is exactly the opposite to what most people are saying. I know of plenty of Borders locations, and almost no Barnes & Noble location. Borders stores are always excellent - well stocked, pleasant atmosphere, etc. The checkout lines are always full, people browse for hours and buy a ton of stuff.

I suspect the problems have much more to do with the economics of running their operations which you can't see with a naked eye. Their customer experience is top notch - they just couldn't do it in a scalable way long term.

BTW, what exactly is Barnes & Noble's eBook strategy? How many people do you know that bought a Nook?

<comment><USER3> I own a Nook. I don't know anyone with a Kindle, and one person with an iPad.

I'm a 4th-year Software Engineering student at a pretty Linux-heavy university.

<comment><USER3> 1\. How many people do you know that bought a Nook?

2\. [reply with numbers and context]

3\. [downvoted]

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't think Barnes & Noble is out of the woods yet. While the company has certainly fared better than Borders, the company is going to face a difficult road going forward.

First, the company is still heavily dependent on its brick and mortar retail operations, but the demand for physical media (including books) is declining rapidly. Second, the company's future depends on its ability to transform itself into a digital distributor of content. In digital distribution, B&N must contend with Amazon, Apple, Google, and others (e.g., Sony). These competitors have significant advantages in the areas of economies scale and scope and technology.

Borders bankruptcy will give B&N some reprieve, allowing the company to direct cash flow from its bricks & mortar operations to its developing digital strategy (e.g., BN.com, Nook). Nevertheless, I think B&N will face a rocky future. Investors seem to agree, with B&N trading at close to a 5-year low.

<comment><USER5> Current trends are supposedly looking better. I saw an article last year that claimed 1 million sold before Christmas and continuing to trend upward:

 _He is also forecasting that 2.4 million Nooks will be sold this year, and more than 3 million in 2012._

[http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20110215/FREE/110219913...](http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20110215/FREE/110219913/0/REAL_ESTATE)

I think the key difference between B&N and Borders is that BN actually had a digital strategy long before Borders ever did. According to this article they were already dabbling with ebook delivery in 2001:

[http://pocketnow.com/software-1/the-bn-ereader-remembers- my-...](http://pocketnow.com/software-1/the-bn-ereader-remembers-my-books- from-10-years-ago)

Right now though, I think one of the best things is they have the cheapest Honeycomb capable tablet in the Nook Color (with some hacking). The screen is IPS and the processor is a 800Mhz A8 ARM, capable of overclocking to 1100Mhz. It's effectively a scaled down IPad in terms of processing/screen. From a hacking perspective it's more interesting than anything Amazon has shown.

[http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/28/nook-color-processor- reve...](http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/28/nook-color-processor-revealed-arm- cortex-a8-based-ti-omap3621/)

I think the real problem is that Borders is trying to pivot on a dime. They saw the .com implosion and assumed the digital revolution was hot air leaving their position unassailable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I really think the impact of having a Starbucks in every Barnes and Noble is huge.

<comment><USER7> I agree, and I'm assuming you actually mean that the impact of having a coffee shop in each location is huge. Borders failed at this, they originally ran their own coffee shops, then outsourced it to Seattle's Best. BN outsourced coffee while Borders outsourced the web business.

I have never been able to understand the fascination with Starbucks in BN. At my local BN, it's noisy, small tables, and no power outlets available. Can't do that.

Also, Peet's is so much better than Starbucks.

<comment><USER8> > Also, Peet's is so much better than Starbucks.

This is only relevant if there's a Peet's anywhere near you. This is untrue at the majority of places I've been to with a BN.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I asked this same question to a tech analyst at an investment bank I used to work for. He said the Internet was a big one, of course, but he also pointed to the music sales and said that Borders went heavy into that market at the height, whereas BN had largely stayed out of it. He said the music commitment was the big resource drain that put Borders at a huge disadvantage.

</comment><comment><USER10> Chairs. B&N has comfy chairs where I can peruse a pile of books. Borders doesnt. But Amazon won for us. We live 40 miles from either so my GF gets everything from Amazon or other Internet sites. Even though I work not far from both, free 2 day delivery has won me over for anything other than the occasional mass market paperback.

<comment><USER11> _free 2 day delivery has won me over_

I like it too, but it's not really free. It's $79/year for an Amazon Prime membership.

<comment><USER12> You could use John Dvorak's trick--buy all your Amazon items through an affiliate link for an affiliate you own. If you purchase enough, your affiliate rewards will cover your Amazon Prime membership.

<comment><USER13> I tried this a long time ago -- maybe 10-12 years back, not long after they first introduced the affiliate program -- and got a friendly but pointed letter from Amazon to knock it off. Have they changed the rules?

<comment><USER14> No. It has always been against the rules.

<comment><USER15> Any clues on how Amazon identifies this kind of behavior?

<comment><USER14> It's the same Amazon account for Associates and purchases... It's quite simple to match up. You may able to sneak around with different email and mailing addresses, but you still have cookies to deal with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This question is probably premature to ask. B&N hasn't tanked...yet. Their future existence is far from guaranteed.

<comment><USER16> Well, Borders did just file Chapter 11. That's not really "tanking" in the sense of going out of business, but it's tanking in the sense of appear to be on its way down.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Their Ann Arbor store has been a dump for months at a time as they reorganized and relocated books. Seems like a third of the store is just paper goods-- cards and wrapping paper crap. 5 miles from HQ and they still couldn't figure it out.

<comment><USER18> And yet their new flagship store on Lohr Road by Best Buy is pretty gorgeous, well staffed, and well laid out. Just gotta get in the car and drive, unfortunately.

<comment><USER19> Wow, we need an Ann Arbor HN meetup!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Censorship.

While not THE answer, it's why this longtime faithful Borders customer quit cold turkey.

When the "mohammed cartoons" flap broke, Borders responded by refusing to carry issues of magazines which printed the images. In a market where "banned books" are celebrated as an exercise of rights, this act of censorship alienated more than just this customer. The competition did not so violate this basic principle, and with B&N and others just as easy to visit, we took our business to where we could trust that discussion of controversial content would not be suppressed.

Trust is hard to build and easy to lose.

</comment><comment><USER21> Poor real estate location. This killed them in my area. They built two Borders near me, each so close to an existing Barnes and Noble that I swear you could stand at a spot across the street and see both competing stores. Meanwhile, new malls and complexes of big box stores were built with no booksellers in the area at all.

The broader selection than Barnes and Noble was one of the things I loved about Borders - in 1995.

But the K-Mart acquisition and subsequent management team deserves a lot of the credit for this disaster.

</comment><comment><USER22> Fumbled early Internet strategy. Amazon and B&N both had affiliate programs - Borders wanted to keep control.

<comment><USER23> i think rather more fundamental was the years they spent with borders.com basically pointing to amazon.com.

<comment><USER22> Probably - but I think that was itself symptomatic of the fact that they Didn't Get the Internet.

I wanted to affiliate with them, back when - I always preferred them to B&N and Amazon was still nearly unknown - but _couldn't_. I didn't expect it to bring down their bricks and mortar stores, but I'm not surprised.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> It's hard to quantify, but personally, I never found Borders stores that pleasant, whereas B&N was overall much more appealing to go to.

<comment><USER16> My feeling is exactly the opposite. B&N feels generic to me, a larger version of a crappy mall bookstore. Borders always felt more like a real bookstore. Plus: you can search Borders store inventory before actually visiting the store; you can apparently now do this with B&N but the B&N website keeps this quite hidden -- I only know it's there because if you search for "barnes noble store inventory search" it leads you to:

[http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/store.asp?EAN=97...](http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/store.asp?EAN=9780470100929&distance=&zipcode=10004&x=0&y=0&z=y)

which is the result page for a PHP book including store inventory search option. I've then been able to manipulate this into a general store inventory search with some success. Completely ridiculous that you cannot find this easily. No, it's beyond ridiculous.

Edit: apparently most -- but not all -- book results pages do have a "pick me up" slot where you can search a local store. Not exactly intuitive, but at least it's there now.

<comment><USER25> I used to find the similar thing, but then all the borders near me removed all of their seating (this was probably 6 or 7 years ago). That was pretty much the only reason I ever went to borders instead of buying stuff off Amazon.

(well, that and their air-conditioning on hot summer days when I didn't have any. Of course, with the amount of money I always spent there during those days I could have bought a window-unit AC in two visits, but I like books...)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Borders was my first big bookstore. The Chestnut Street store in Philadelphia near Rittenhouse Square, when I went to college. It was practically a religious experience. Growing up in Connecticut I only ever had the crappy mall stores like B Dalton and Waldenbooks, and a rare visit to the Yale Co-Op. Borders was multiple stories, a huge computer section with lots of academic books, it was awesome.

There I saw Douglas Adams read from 'Last Chance To See', and saw Ally Sheedy read from her crap poetry book, which I bought and had autographed.

The Rittenhouse Square store closed at some point and moved, I think to a location on Broad Street.

</comment><comment><USER27> Well this is timely. For anyone near San Jose, the Borders at Santana Row has "store closing" signs out today. Most things 20 to 40% off.

<comment><USER28> The problem is 20-40% off is still basically the same as ordering from Amazon.

<comment><USER29> I picked up a couple of travel books at my local 20%-off going-out-of-business Borders today. Hefted them in my hand. Then looked them up on my iPhone and found that their Kindle/iBooks price was 50% lower than the Borders retail price.

So I left the store with no books, but with a pretty good idea of why Borders is bankrupt.

A wistful day to be sure. I remember twenty years ago, when the arrival of Borders in my midwestern city was akin to a religious experience.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> In the long run they are all dead. Look at the financial ratios [http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/Ratio...](http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/Ratios.jsp?tkr=BKS)

EBIT -0.2%.

</comment><comment><USER3> Borders dying makes me a bit sad. These four years I've been in university, I've watched our B&N's tech book section shrink and convert to "iPads for Dummies" books, and the manga section go down to a quarter of the previous size. Our Borders does tremendously better on both these sections.

Amazon's cheaper, sure, but I only tend to buy things there when I'm looking for them, while physical stores get me to browse (and allow me to read samples!). Since I got a Nook for Christmas, though, I'm starting to use its samples to browse books from the comfort of my home, which is certainly leading to more money going to B&N.

</comment><comment><USER31> I wish they pivoted into being a small purveyor of eclectic, non-bestseller books, almost like a Trader Joe's of bookstores. But no one seeks little-known books like they do with music or even food.

<comment><USER32> That's not the problem. The problem is that there's _no way_ they can compete with Amazon in the eclectic book market.

As I see it, Borders lost its volume business to Barnes and Noble, and then lost its eclectic book business to Amazon. Between those two companies, there just wasn't a niche for a semi-specialty bookstore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Bill Ackman, uber hedge fund manager, lost $125 million on Borders. Sounds like his plan was to fund a Borders + B&N merger.

So I suspect Borders tanked because Bill Ackman or some other hedge fund wanted it to tank to get out, cut loses, or some other behind the scences financing deal they had in mind such as sell off the commercial real estate "closed borders stores"

Wonder how many of the Borders stores now become B&N stores? You never know.

</comment><comment><USER34> I'm curious if there is any model at all under which bookstores will survive. Presumably, used bookstores can hang on for a while. Perhaps the future is some sort of mix of new and used books, along with a coffee shop and diversified inventory (games, for instance).

</comment><comment><USER35> There was an interesting post when news hit of borders woes stating their real estate was valued at something like 5 figures per store. Can't remember where it was though

</comment><comment><USER36> Was Borders as widespread as B&N? I've lived in Arkansas, Ohio and DC and I've only seen a Borders in DC, while I've seen and shopped at a lot of B&Ns.

<comment><USER26> When I lived in Cincinnati, 95-97, there was a Borders near where 75 meets 275, in the Tri-County mall area. Looks like it's still there and is staying open.

Quite a few Borders stores in Illinois.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Amazing content:

It's 'business news' and a 'business case study' and for business better information than on Bloomberg, Forbes, Fortune, etc.

So, generalize and formulate the implications for the future of media?</comment>


Poor land use in the world's greatest cities carries a huge cost - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21647614-poor-land-use-worlds-greatest-cities-carries-huge-cost-space-and-city <comment><USER2> I may live in the densest neighborhood of any HN participant: North Battery Park City [1] in Lower Manhattan. As an example, my son's 500 kid elementary school serves _9_ buildings.

And I'm here to tell you, the future feels great. Specifically, living vertically has all sorts of wonderful aspects in terms of community (the kids can trick-or-treat without leaving the building), access to resources (my kids can ride the elevator barefoot to the waterpark out the back door in the summer) and environmentally (we live in the first LEED platinum residential building in the US).

The only problem is that it is expensive, and it doesn't need to be as expensive as it is. Building lots more residential skyscrapers, eliminating parking minimums [2], and reducing the incentive to warehouse vacant lots through land taxes or similar can all make New York City even more livable than it already is.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_Park_City](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_Park_City) [2] [http://www.streetsblog.org/2012/03/21/report-details-how- one...](http://www.streetsblog.org/2012/03/21/report-details-how-onerous-nycs- parking-regressive-minimums-really-are/)

<comment><USER3> High density doesn't always equate to pleasantness though. It still has to be done right to be livable.

I spent last year living near Columbus Circle (the southwest corner of Central Park in Midtown Manhattan) which is probably equally dense as Battery Park, and didn't care for it much primarily due to its mixed use. The population density is quite high there, but it is mixed in with office buildings that suck the character out of the area. In particular, returning there at night didn't feel like "coming home" to a neighborhood. We've since moved to a neighborhood that is almost exclusively residential (but still dense) and the difference in character and livability is very noticeable.

High density if not done right also can have a negative psychological impact (tall buildings means less sun), constant crowds might mean less chance to destress, no greenery, etc.

The point is, density isn't the only requirement, it has be done right, so practicing a bit of restraint in allowing building might make sense.

<comment><USER4> Interesting. Mixed use is often touted as a way to reduce dependence on cars and promote local economy.

<comment><USER5> Depends how you do it. I live in a mixed use neighborhood, with lots of shops and stores and it's great.

Likewise, downtown montreal is pretty interesting. As a pedestrian, there are plenty of things for you to do at street level, while people live and work above.

Versus downtown toronto, where there's little for pedestrians to do in much of downtown. You don't see nearly as many people walking around.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > Land taxes are efficient. They are difficult to dodge; you cannot stuff land > into a bank-vault in Luxembourg. Whereas a high tax on property can > discourage investment, a high tax on land creates an incentive to develop > unused sites. Land-value taxes can also help cater for newcomers. New > infrastructure raises the value of nearby land, automatically feeding > through into revenues—which helps to pay for the improvements.

+1000

Living in West Oakland next to a vacant lot, I think there's a lot of merit to this idea. As it stands right now, there's no harm to the owner of that lot to just let it lay vacant for a decade. If it cost the owner some money, people might actually do something with these kinds of lots.

<comment><USER7> I don't wish to be confrontational, but in my view, taking other people's property without their voluntary consent is wrong.

As I understand the last paragraph of your comment, you wish to see the owner of the vacant lot forced into a situation where he had to act in some way other than how he currently chooses to act.

In other words, you want to substitute your judgment for his, when it comes to the use of his property.

Again, I don't mean to be confrontational, but this is how I see the situation.

How do you see it?

<comment><USER8> That the value of land is substantially based on the environment around it, one that is largely driven by societal factors. 1 acre of land in Manhattan is extremely expensive. 1 acre of land 20 miles north of Manhattan is not expensive. The difference is everything surrounding the land.

If the people in a community have decided to spend a lot of their money to reduce crime, improve transit, improve schools, and improve the economy, every land owner benefits. Yet the way that we do taxes (based on the improved value of the land), means that those that sit on the sidelines and do nothing gain quite a bit of value by freeloading on those around them.

If we figured out the taxes based on the underlying value of the land, then the vacant lot owner would be paying as much as the person that just invested in building a new business next store. That seems fairer to me considering that the vacant lot is now worth more due to its proximity to a shiny new building.

<comment><USER7> Thank you for your comment, and for obviously being concerned with issues of fairness.

If a person makes an investment, and that investment goes up in value, even substantially, and even with no additional effort on the part of the investor, does that justify others taking some or all of the resulting value?

If I bought stock in Apple years ago, because I thought it was a smart thing to do, and I simply held the stock, should other people get a cut of my gains when I sell?

What if the stock goes down? Am I then entitled to someone else's gains?

<comment><USER9> Stock is different. Your stock certificates in Apple don't increase or reduce the value of other stock certificates you own just by their proximity and configuration.

To put it another way, if you own common stock, and later develop some of it into preferred stock, does the value of your remaining common stock also go up? If you have shares of Microsoft also, and those certificates are next to the Apple stock in your safe, does your Microsoft stock benefit from its proximity to Apple stock certificates rather than, say, Hewlett Packard? Suppose someone else places some of their Facebook stock in a safe next to your own. Do they benefit from their proximity to existing Apple stock? Do safes full of penny stock drag the value of your Apple stock down?

The fact that something is real property means that it has a direct impact on other peoples' property around it, especially in how it is developed(or not). I would say that there is an argument to be made for deincentivizing sitting on land as a "real estate investment" without using it to benefit the neighborhood it sits in.

<comment><USER7> Thank you.

You write that there is an argument to be made for discouraging sitting on land as a real estate investment, without using it to benefit the neighborhood that it sits in.

Let's say that you are right, that there is such an argument to be made. In other words, the neighborhood in which the property resides would benefit from some improvements to the property in question.

In this case, why should the affected parties not try to work together to accomplish it?

For example, if I own a vacant lot in the middle of a neighborhood, and my neighbors want to use the land for a park, I'd be happy to discuss selling some or all of it to a neighborhood association.

On the other hand, if the neighbors are going to get together and petition the local city council to confiscate my property, say through eminent domain, that seems like an unreasonable intrusion on property rights.

I understand that people want things. However, I think we'd all be better off it we sought to work things out through voluntary cooperation and free trade – in an environment where individual rights are respected – rather than empowering politicians to pass laws that grant special favors to certain groups.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > Lifting all the barriers to urban growth in America could raise the > country's GDP by between 6.5% and 13.5%, or by about $1 trillion-2 trillion. > It is difficult to think of many other policies that would yield anything > like that.

And it would also reduce the real but unaccounted-for environmental and social externalities of our sprawling homogenous suburbs. Someone living in New York has half the energy footprint of the average American. And while the city is pretty segregated, the New York subway is a unique setting of rich and poor people of all races utilizing a public service together.

<comment><USER11> I can only find stats on carbon footprints. Somewhat surprisingly, California does very well on this statistic, despite its suburbs: it's just behind New York.

So at least for carbon footprints, those don't necessarily seem to be linked to density.

I couldn't find anything on energy footprint though.

<comment> guard-of-terra Maybe it's because in California you don't need as much heat/conditioning as in other places?

We humans use land extremelly inefficiently, we mostly live in places outside of our temperature optimum despite no longer being busy in agriculture.

<comment><USER12> The NY Times suggests that inefficient boilers in old buildings could be the culprit [1].

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/realestate/15cov.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/realestate/15cov.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Something that annoys me about these articles is that they're basically saying "the world's densest cities should make themselves denser"

Maybe we should just copy what those cities did. Imagine what america's GDP would be like if it had ten cities like the current NYC.

I live in one of the densest neighborhoods in north America, the plateau in Montreal. It achieves this density with low rise buildings, and it's a very pleasant area.

People say we should build taller buildings here. But I say we should build more plateaus elsewhere.

The problem is that our current regulatory environment makes it very difficult to build new versions of the world's most popular neighborhoods. So instead the call is to modify existing, successful neighborhoods.

<comment><USER8> I think if you expand a low-rise city you end up with Washington DC or LA, meaning debilitating traffic. The density is not high enough to support mass transit effectively, but it's too high for effective roads.

<comment><USER13> As I said in response to another comment, you actually can. Paris has a density of 50000/sqmi (to compare with Manhattan's 70000) without high rise buildings.

What you can't have though, is large avenues and parking lots everywhere. Every inch of space than can be build has to be built.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "land-use regulations in the West End of London inflate the price of office space by about 800%; Milan and Paris the rules push up prices by around 300%."

I live in Milan so I think I'm qualified to write about this. The office space one wants is close to home or to metro or train stations, unless one lives outside the city. In that case the best office space is close to the highways on the same side of the city you're from. I used to work at 10 minutes by feet from office, then exactly at the other side of the city. It took one hour to get to office, by car or public transport. I preferred public transport because of the free time for reading. I work mostly from home now with customers within 30 minutes (walking of cycling), which is even better.

I can understand that zoning rules limit the number of offices and houses that can be build close to the best areas but as a city dweller do I really want to see buildings built everywhere, in every single space between existing buildings or replacing smaller ones? Call me selfish because I don't care about raising the country GDP but I don't think so. Maybe it's because I'm European but my ideal of a city is not a large archaeology. It's more like this [http://goitaly.about.com/od/moreitaliancities/tp/small- itali...](http://goitaly.about.com/od/moreitaliancities/tp/small-italian- cities.htm) and Milan is a reasonable compromise between access to fast Internet, customers and quality of life. People born in those other cities won't agree but they still come here to work :-)

<comment><USER15> > my ideal of a city is not a large archaeology

You mean arcology: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology)

<comment><USER14> Yes, thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This seems like a very interesting subject but the analysis seems very one- handed. You can't just project like that, remove current regulations and expect the city to remain the same except for all the economical growth. Would people with money actually stay there or would those cities turn into a unbreathable bee-hives from which people would flee as soon as they had any money to do it?

It would be interesting to see comparison inside the same country of cities with harsher versus lighter regulations and how they actually evolve economically and socially. Maybe it's not even possible to remove certain regulations in western cities without committing political suicide and having them removed once the next major comes to power.

</comment><comment><USER17> "Two long-run trends have led to this fractured market. One is the revival of the city as the central cog in the global economic machine (see article). In the 20th century, tumbling transport costs weakened the gravitational pull of the city; in the 21st, the digital revolution has restored it. Knowledge- intensive industries such as technology and finance thrive on the clustering of workers who share ideas and expertise. The economies and populations of metropolises like London, New York and San Francisco have rebounded as a result."

Is this really true?

seems like anyone with an internet connection can interface with someone from SF or NYC

</comment><comment><USER18> Ah skip to the last paragraph. It's just the usual "things would be better if only we took away more of people's money by force" article.

Ignore it. It's just pro-tax stupidiy

</comment><comment><USER19> Tokyo is a public-transport-centered city and has an interesting structure. The land value depends directly on the distance to the metro or train station and the importance of the line. The train station is the center of a self- contained community and most of the services like shops, restaurants, supermarkets, etc use to be next to the station. Also, the buildings tend to be taller the closer they are from the station. I find it a quite convenient way to organize a city.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> "According to one study, employment in the Bay Area around San Francisco would be about five times larger than it is but for tight limits on construction."

</comment><comment><USER20> Eventually the market would eliminate wasteful land use because whatever was occupying the land would be willing to sell to someone who could benefit from it more.

Bureaucracy and entrenchment get in the way of that though.

</comment><comment><USER21> _Knowledge-intensive industries such as technology and finance thrive on the clustering of workers who share ideas and expertise._

So allow people to cluster in high quality virtual environments.

<comment> guard-of-terra Is there anyone preventing you from doing that?

<comment><USER22> there are no high-quality virtual environments (except for killing each other)?

you literally cannot even throw an idea up on a whiteboard and have it be there two weeks later: there is no such thing online. (virtual second-life collaborative spaces.)

online collaborative meetings are a joke compared to real life - as a piece of evidence, if they weren't you wouldn't have teams having to scramble to move to silicon valley, you would just have virtual incubators: in terms of its "manufacturing" output anything an online startup needs can be done over the wire. (phone and server costs are basically it.)

<comment> guard-of-terra "there are no high-quality virtual environments"

But there are high-quality cities - tech hubs. That answers your question.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> We need to rethink our cities as commerce/life supporting machines instead of aggregate plots of land for private investment. Or are we not mega-scale engineers yet...?

</comment><comment><USER24> The problem is not the poor land use, it's the inefficient capital use!

<comment><USER25> Also too much paved surface area.

<comment><USER26> I keep wondering when building over roads will become common. Traffic only needs a couple stories of vertical space; everything above that should be profitably/affordably usable (once ventilation is addressed).

<comment><USER27> Unless the road was built in a tunnel in the first place, there are structural issues as well. You can't just put some concrete structure over the top of a road and have it support multiple stories of building on top of it. Plus, streets work better as open-air outdoor spaces, especially for pedestrians.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> We need to do a few things. I agree on shutting down the NIMBYs. It's zero-sum activity that hurts young families and contributes to the generational screw- over that Generation X and Millennials have experienced.

We also need to block nonresident foreigners from buying real estate here. They can stay in hotels. Until housing is cheaper than 0.35% of the median annual income per SF (at that level, you can afford 1200-1500 SF on a median income) it is a crime to let these nonresident foreigners (often laundering dirty money) buy properties that will go uninhabited for 11 months each year.

Finally, there's a capital allocation problem. Look at Silicon Valley itself. It takes in passive capital from all over the country-- teachers' pension funds from Ohio, firefighter AD&D funds from Georgia-- and distributes the job-creation in a tiny geographic area: Silicon Valley. Jobs disappear in Ohio and Georgia, while NorCal booms. Now, the passive capitalists would be fine with this if that were a working investment strategy. It's not, though: VCs have been losing money for more than a decade. The concentration of funds into the Bay Area (which makes that area unaffordable, because housing creation is always slower than job creation) has more to do with feudalism than any sound investment policy.</comment>


Ask HN: Where should someone buy a SSL certificate? - <AUTHOR>

There always seems to be talk about some SSL cert service (VeriSign) that has been hacked or gone under. I'm trying to buy my first SSL certificate and there are so many options out there that its hard to know which one, what are the risks? Is any certificate authority okay? Will self signed certs be good enough?
Clearly the issue is the man-in-the-middle attack, which I have a high level understanding of, and makes every CA susceptible to the same attack if they are compromised.. but are there good CA's that people have had experience with? Is it less safe to get a wildcard cert than individual certs for each domain?
Thanks HN <comment><USER2> If you're worried about certain governments MITMing you, the answer is that it's hopeless to rely on SSL to provide protection.

I don't know a good recommendation. I just wanted to clarify that SSL provides no protection in that particular case.

<comment><AUTHOR> Makes sense, does that in turn mean that SSL is really a 'hopeless' cause and using self-signed just for the image of 'https' showing in the location bar on a browser enough? Seems like a pointless exercise to me knowing that someone somewhere (government or not) could still access it

<comment><USER2> Just to clarify, I think using some reliable and trustworthy SSL cert vendor is the way to go. It just won't protect you from the aforementioned parties. Nothing will at this point.

SSL protects you and your users from many other attack vectors, and is important. It wasn't my intention to argue against SSL, just to point out the truth of our modern day situation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I used StartSSL class 1 certificate for my app (unherd.co). Its free and valid for one year. Here is a good guide that might be of help - [https://konklone.com/post/switch-to-https-now-for- free?hn](https://konklone.com/post/switch-to-https-now-for-free?hn)

<comment><USER4> I also used StartSSL class 1 for my site (peercube.com) and will highly recommend the help link you provided for getting and installing the certificate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> My domain registrar (namecheap) offers SSL certificates cheap.

All you need is for your domain to show up with the little special icon in the browser when you use https. Other than that, it doesn't matter. Get the cheapest one that browsers recognize.

<comment><USER6> I just bought a Comodo PositiveSSL Wildcard cert from them last week. It was a little confusing, but they were quite responsive when I pointed out some bugs in the registration service. I would definitely recommend them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> StartCom/StartSSL thwarted a recent hack attack, according to: [http://www.informationweek.com/attacks/how-startcom- foiled-c...](http://www.informationweek.com/attacks/how-startcom-foiled- comodohacker-4-lessons/d/d-id/1100043)

Their due diligence on verifying who is requesting the cert probably helped; but I've seen some people complain that it's not a quick/easy process: [http://danconnor.com/post/50f65364a0fd5fd1f7000001/avoid_sta...](http://danconnor.com/post/50f65364a0fd5fd1f7000001/avoid_startcom_startssl_like_the_plague_)

</comment><comment><USER8> You get a standard SSL certificate free for a year with domain names at Gandi.net. I think I'm also right in saying transfers are included. Can't really vouch for their security but from what I have read the company's "no bullshit" approach is right up my alley. The riseup.net collective recommend them too.

<comment><USER9> +1 on Gandi.net from me too. Got several domains/SSL certs from them. The base (free) SSL certificate is pretty basic, but they also offer higher levels of security at a cost.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> >Will self signed certs be good enough?

For public consumption, no. For anything internal, yes.</comment>


How the West got China wrong - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21737517-it-bet-china-would-head-towards-democracy-and-market-economy-gamble-has-failed-how <comment><USER2> A very well-written piece. A large part of the misunderstanding of China is due to cultural differences. Western political theory applies best to Western cultures.

Most Westerners tend to have knee-jerk reactions to non-democratic forms of government, but there are tradeoffs to each form. Yes, China is not the best when it comes to corruption, censorship of its citizens, and some basic human rights - but it is a strong and centralized government, and the U.S. needs to take China even more seriously than it does now.</comment>


Star Power: Carl Sagan's 1970 Porsche 914 (2016) - <AUTHOR> https://barnfinds.com/star-power-carl-sagans-1970-porsche-914/ <comment><USER2> They should have used it for the test payload instead of Musks Tesla.

</comment><comment><USER3> I would argue "no" on Sagan's effect on the car's provenance.

Not an expert, but years of watching Barrett-Jackson and Mecum auctions (along with their commentary) leads me to conclude the following will generate interest:

1) Cars owned by famous racers

2) Cars owned by other famous people who like to race, e.g. Paul Newman

3) Cars involved in a well-known incident, e.g. Bonnie and Clyde [http://www.weirdca.com/location.php?location=283](http://www.weirdca.com/location.php?location=283)

4) Cars owned by celebs who have expertise and resources to maintain their cars well, e.g. Leno and Seinfeld

The car itself must be exciting - Jeff Gordon's minivan won't cut it.

For instance, I think people are still looking for James Dean's Porsche.

One of Howard Hughes' cars did OK - [https://www.hemmings.com/blog/2014/12/19/howard-hughes- recor...](https://www.hemmings.com/blog/2014/12/19/howard-hughes-record- setting-1953-buick-roadmaster-heads-to-auction/)

OJ's Bronco? Maybe not so well.

<comment><USER4> Carl Sagan also owned a 911 in orange, this adds to the man being a Porsche fan.

This 914 has been unlucky in that it has not been loved since the man passed on. It has been loved but not made it to be a devoted project. I think that it deserves to be fully restored and shown. It would do well if it was in Europe, at events such as Goodwood, not on the track, as an exhibit.

Heritage is really important with the Goodwood type of scene. Those Ferraris (and Porsches) that are worth untold millions do get raced, crashed and repaired. They are not garage queens and if they were taken out of circulation and made into garage queens then they would not command the sums they do. Legends like the McLaren F1 are legendary because you can see them get sent round the track at Silverstone, if they didn't do that then the cars would become antiques, of interest only to museums.

Clearly Carl Sagan was not from the world of motorsport, however, if this 914 was fixed up properly and restored to stock then I think it would provide a lot of pleasure for the owner and have resale value far above what a 914 normally commands. I don't think you would be able to shaft Elon Musk $2.5 million for it, however he did pay $20 million for a tweet not so long ago. I think that he would make it worth your while to restore it to stock, as if Carl Sagan had just driven it back from the lab.

Most cars from the last century aren't any good when it comes to that key metric of safety. They are all antiques so it doesn't matter that this 914 has less horses in it than today's cheapest family saloons. It was a competitor to the FIAT X1/9, those British MGB efforts and other gutless efforts of the era.

Although period 911s are of value none of them are special. Everyone has seen a 911 already and they all look the same to non-petrol-heads. The 914 is of an entirely different body shape and even people who think they know cars will take a second look at a 914 due to the rarity of them.

Who the heck is Jeff Gordon? People don't say that about Carl Sagan.

<comment><USER5> I'm more of a Formula 1 fan but even I've heard of Jeff Gordon. Not everyone know him though as this test drive shows.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nu9yiGUeqE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nu9yiGUeqE)

<comment><USER4> Thanks for the video. I will remain oblivious to the guy, due to the disguise!

So he is an American version of the Scottish F1 driver David Marshall Coulthard, MBE, known to anyone in the paddock as 'DC', still doing stuff for Mercedes and Red Bull. DC does commentary and people know his voice more than his driving nowadays.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Q: Will the new car have to put additional money into that 914 to make it reliable and presentable?

A: Billions and billions....

</comment><comment><USER7> Dr. Tyson might want it.

</comment><comment><USER8> TIL Carl Sagan didn't have particularly good taste in sports cars.

<comment><USER9> 914 is a really nice car, mid engined and as small as that engine is it is a hoot to drive. It was also quite cheap at the time.

<comment><USER8> No, it is not. It's a poor implementation of a great concept.

<comment><USER9> I've driven one for a bit and I thought it was quite ok given the time it was developed in. A 911 from the same era would park you backwards in traffic if you tried the sort of thing with it that a 914 would be happy to do. Especially the /6 are neat (but unfortunately very rare). The main drawback they have is that they are super unsafe, but this goes for almost all cars from that era.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Amazon, Advertising's Sleeping Giant, to Awaken in 2013 - <AUTHOR> http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/amazon-advertisings-sleeping-giant-awaken-2013-145964 <comment><USER2> There have been rumblings for a while that advertising is one of Amazon's upcoming long-term bets like cloud services were 3-5 years ago.

I feel like this is a little bit outside of HN's normal areas of interest, but it's worth stressing that this seems like it has the potential to be a Big Deal.

That's for a few reasons:

1\. The display advertising ecosystem has, for years, been talking about data- driven display. The truth of the matter is, though, that most of the data is indirectly inferred and extremely low-quality. Companies like Google and Facebook tread very lightly when it comes to offering data for targeting for fear of massive privacy backlash, but it seems like Amazon could sidestep that. If Amazon is allowing implicit/indirect access to Amazon purchase history, it will be far and away better than anything else out there. More importantly, the unevenness of the data and of performance has really held back broader adoption -- if they're smart they may be able to bring over many of the holdouts.

2\. Advertisers and agencies have an extremely wary relationship with Google and are cautious about Facebook too. If they play it right, Amazon can be the major non-aligned player in the industry -- a technology without inventory.

It's also worth noting that I've recently noticed Amazon ramping up its own retargeting programs more aggressively. Assuming that retargeting performs for them like it does for virtually every other e-commerce site out there, I would not be surprised to see a significant jump in Amazon's revenue attributed to that over the next few quarters.

There should be some very interesting opportunities for startups to piggyback themselves on this when it comes out.

<comment><USER3> "major non-aligned player in the industry -- a technology without inventory"

Huh? What am I missing here? Amazon is a combination of own inventory and x2C inventory right?

<comment><USER4> I think he's assuming Amazon will rent its data for use across other inventory sources rather than build its own ad network.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Amazon bought a digital marketing agency in NYC a few years ago, they often make smalll buys that later are related to major offering they make a few years later.

I think the great tension for all of this will be, Amazon can sell almost anything itself so if they're selling you ad space it's value to them is going to be less than the price you paid. Amazon is pretty smart, thus I suspect it will often be a bad deal to buy Ads from them.

</comment><comment><USER6> On a side note: As a third party seller on Amazon (jewelry), my experience with Amazon Product Ads is that it is a poorly put together product. The metrics are unreliable and the interface is difficult and time consuming to use.

I would, of course, still try Amazon's new ad platform if it comes out.

<comment><USER7> I just started using Amazon's Product Advertising API (for referral marketing) and it too seems to be fairly obtuse. They clearly don't put as much effort into their not-as-public products.

<comment><USER8> I don't really think those ads are something they are pushing very hard. From what I have read online people have had limited success with them, the main game is still just to be listed on the marketplace.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Amazon's access to my entire purchasing history hasn't helped it produce a remotely enticing store on my Kindle device or the Android App.

The suggestions are incredible mediocre and the list is pretty much "Here's a few suggestions. Like them or lump them" with very little filtering or sorting.

<comment><USER10> Yeah; I really like my kindle, but I got it with advertising, 'cause I'm cheap, and hell, even from a "how I'm seen" point of view, I don't want to be seen as the sort of person that would pay $40 extra to change what is on my kindle when it is turned off.

But I'm pretty sure that amazon is targeting their ads... not to get me to actually click on them, but instead to embarrass me into paying the $40 (you can pay the money you saved buying the kindle with ads and turn off ads later.)

I mean, my kindle is full of technical books, and has a bunch of project gutenburg history texts, too. A smattering of sci-fi. And I get ads for "Dove for men" - or "twilight"

Yeah, only thing I can figure is that they think that I'll pay them because I'm afraid of that girl in the coffee shop thinking I'm some kind of fruit.

Or, maybe it's just that technical books don't have marketing budget? who knows?</comment></comment>


The Generator Functions of Existential Risks - <AUTHOR> https://futurethinkers.org/daniel-schmachtenberger-generator-functions/ <comment><USER2> "He also proposes a new system of governance which would allow groups of people that have different goals and values to come to decisions together on various issues." Summarized concrete details would be nice.

<comment><USER3> My guess is the whole article is bait for _' nootropic supplement'_ \- not worth mentioning the product name - he is selling. The proprietary, all natural formula includes:

-Nootropic compounds -- like Huperzine A and Theobromine and Phosphatidylserine -Neurovitamins -- including Niacin B3 and Vitamin B12 as methylcobalamin -Antioxidants -- including PQQ and DHA -Adaptogen Extracts -- including Bacopa monnieri Leaf Extract and Mucana pruriens Seed -Amino Acids -- including Acetyl-L-Carnitine and Taurine -Choline Donors

Another miracle drug.</comment></comment>


Baby's First Reaction: A "Hello, World" Example for React - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/javascript-scene/baby-s-first-reaction-2103348eccdd

<comment><USER2> Love the pics!</comment>


How To Create Products With Hooks - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/product-design/d36cd8fe4d18

<comment><USER2> The hook brings you back, I ain't telling you no lie.

A great brand can help be a hook or collection of hooks as well. i.e. Apple is beyond just hooks, we're hooked up like Hellraiser with that brand.

New products definitely need the hook just like new artists. But after a while the brand or artist take over as a collection.

</comment><comment><USER3> The hook of Toms is that they donate shoes to third world countries, quite a few companies make shoes like Toms does

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree, that's also an important part of their hook. But the sort of weird look is I think the main one because it's immediately visually noticeable. People make shoes that look like that now but they didn't before Toms made that look popular.

The reason the weird look works so well with Toms is because of the Greenbeard effect: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green-beard_effect>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Short and sweet but lacking in examples.</comment>


Bletchley Park Trust to undergo organisational restructure - <AUTHOR> https://bletchleypark.org.uk/news/bletchley-park-trust-to-undergo-organisational-restructure <comment><USER2> That's disappointing. Given the size of the UK intelligence budget and how much the whole military must spend on recruiting, being a part of the story that began there is one of the things that gets smart people into public service.

<comment><USER3> Statist mindset.

Why not simply eliminate the private sector to ensure all smart people can't go anywhere but into public service, and get peace and prosperity for all?

Smart people shouldn't go into public service.

<comment><USER2> Well, then you'd have the UK in the 70's pre-Thatcher, or now, basically.

There is some wisdom to putting dull people in charge of governance tasks as they manage to keep themselves mostly out of the way. Too sharp, and you get sophisticated corruption as a way of life, which is the irony of countries where their cleverest people are in government. Too dull and you get mob rule and petty corruption, a junta with proverbial DMV clerks all the way down. The modern UK 'elf'n'safety state seems to lurch a bit toward the latter, so Bletchley could be a rallying point from a time when ordinary people were indeed capable of extraordinary things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Worry instead about the National Museum of Computing.[1] Those are the people who did the bombe rebuild and the Colossus rebuild. Separate admission. They had a falling-out with the building-oriented Bletchley Park Trust.

I've been there, but before it was built up into a major tourist attraction.

[1] [https://bletchleypark.org.uk/visit-us/the-national-museum- of...](https://bletchleypark.org.uk/visit-us/the-national-museum-of-computing)

<comment><USER5> > They had a falling-out with the building-oriented Bletchley Park Trust.

Does anyone know what this was about?

<comment> m-_- [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-25916048](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-25916048)

<comment><USER5> Thanks, but that explains absolutely nothing. Even the guy being fired says 'I haven't got a clue'. The say that they want to develop a new visitor centre because they have lottery funding, but I don't see why that means they can't work with the National Museum of Computing.

Why doesn't the interview just ask them 'just tell me what is the problem here?'

I don't understand how we get these news reports that explain nothing.

<comment> m-_- I personally thought it was reasonably clear. Bletchley park estate split into two museums, one large one small. Tour guide from large museum takes visitors to small museum too as this is a major part of the story (i.e colossus, the bomb, witch) allowed for a number of years, now against policy (basically to pretend the small museum does not exist/is not worth visiting) and as such volunteer fired for his transgression.

Not in the video, but worth noting is that the small museum are a tenant of the large museum who get use of the estate basically free from Govt.

<comment><USER5> > I personally thought it was reasonably clear.

Well I must be mad because I still can't understand it from your explanation. I know it's against policy to take them to the smaller museum and this is why he was fired... but... why?

Why did they make it against policy? Why do they not want to work with the other museum? Why do they not get along?

> basically to pretend the small museum does not exist/is not worth visiting

Why do they want to pretend that the small museum does not exist and is not worth visiting?

There's like ten fundamental and completely unexplained why's still left after your explanation. I don't know how that can be 'reasonably clear'.

<comment><USER4> The Computer Museum in Mountain View has a similar problem. The museum management and the people restoring old computers don't get along.

<comment><USER6> This is a really common theme in the museum space. I've worked with a lot of museums over the last 10+ years and just about every single one has a very us vs them feel when it comes to upper management.

I don't know if every government department ends up like that but these ones here certainly do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Disclaimer: I'm not saying it should be different

I absolutely love how prior payments to executives/trustees escapes all scrutiny. Its like "ah we didnt get Xmillion this year there is nothing we can dooo". Which is very responsible for personal finances. Never spend your own, use other people's money. And in a trust it is almost impossible to do it any other way. Its still interesting to me.

<comment><USER8> This is exactly why I refuse to give to big brand-name charities. The amount of troughing going on in large charities is absolutely disgraceful.

Whether its the remuneration given to those at the top table, the fancy offices the charities occupy in prime real estate locations, the generous use of taxis and business class flights. The list goes on.

Until such day the charity regulators put an end to it, I shall continue my no-execptions refusal to give to large charities.

<comment><USER9> There are organisations that go to some length to assess which charities give you the most "bang for your buck". GiveWell is the one that I am most familiar with, which reccomends the AMF, amongst other organisations. Donations there can save many lives for little money, so if you're worried about, eg UNICEF spend, I suggest you check it out as an alternative!

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I had a free Saturday after some boring Friday sales meeting/presentation in London maybe a decade ago. Decided to take a field trip to Bletchley Park instead of wandering aimlessly in London. I just loved the whole experience (including the train trip and the walk from the Bletchley train station) so much. I want to do it again, so I hope it will be able to keep going.

<comment><USER11> Unfortunately since then the managers got rid of all the volunteers who had intimate knowledge of the computer science: [https://www.theregister.com/2014/01/28/bletchley_park_sacks_...](https://www.theregister.com/2014/01/28/bletchley_park_sacks_elderly_volunteers/)

I was very lucky that I got to meet Tony Sale a couple of times before he passed away, back in probably 2008 or thereabouts and he demonstrated the Colossus that he had rebuilt to me, which was a tremendous experience ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Sale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Sale)).

<comment><USER12> While you do have to know what you are looking for, and walk the long way around from the larger Bletchley Park site, the National Museum of Computing is still (as of last year) there with volunteers showing off the workings of a bunch of rebuilt computers including the Colossus. I can't recommend a visit, with a guided tour, enough. And you might as well visit Bletchley itself while you are there, which is a different experience, but still worth while.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> You'd think or hope GCHQ could be involved - or are they already?

</comment><comment> Pick-A-Hill2019 This coming after their data breach (13 August 2020).

[https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53771942](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53771942)

</comment><comment><USER14> Presumably cock-up rather than conspiracy, but you can search the UK Charities Commission for information on any charity. Bletchley Park says that its registered charity number is 1012743 - [https://bletchleypark.org.uk/about- us/contact-us](https://bletchleypark.org.uk/about-us/contact-us) \- but I can't find anything when searching the Charity Commission website: [https://beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity- search/?search...](https://beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity- search/?searchText=1012743&pageNumber=1)

I'd be interested to know a bit more about the breakdown of their finances. As another comment says, I wonder just how much Iain Standen, their CEO, gets paid, and whether he offered to take any kind of pay cut. Not saying it would eliminate all layoffs and / or furloughs, but it would be a meaningful gesture of solidarity.

<comment><USER5> Looks like at most £110k when you read the accounts. Not sure why you're not finding them and mentioning words like 'conspiracy' and 'cock-up' \- they're right here if you bother to look for them:

[http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfC...](http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/FinancialHistory.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1012743&SubsidiaryNumber=0)

<comment><USER14> Didn't mean anything arch by that. I tried looking for them by name and charity number but nothing turned up. I consider it a cock-up that I couldn't find them by searching by charity number on the Charity Commission website, which has worked for every charity I've done that for. The only other explanation was that they were going to change their charity status, but I considered that unlikely, hence "cock-up rather than conspiracy".</comment></comment></comment>


Power Analysis: A Complete Break of the KeeLoq Code Hopping Scheme (2008) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.emsec.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/media/crypto/attachments/files/2011/03/crypto2008_keeloq.pdf <comment><USER2> Differential power analysis vulnerability is still pervasive. Why can't the CPU cut itself off and switch to internal power (supercapacitor) while it does sensitive computations? Even external switch+supercap potted together with CPU would be an improvement.

<comment><USER3> Often using a magnetic probe is better than a current shunt in any case, due to power regulator noise.

I can only imagine that shielding a device intended to be a radio transmitter would not be an easy proposition. :)

Would it really be that much of an improvement to remove one vector when there is another equally good vector immediately available?

<comment><USER2> IMO magnetic probe requires proximity - prying the package open instead of just measuring current from power supply (battery, USB). Is that equally good?</comment></comment></comment>


Beta invite for an android app discovery service - <AUTHOR> I'm currently running an open beta of
http://brite.li A curated apps discovery service for android<p>Please share any feedback, opinions and suggestions. <comment><AUTHOR> Why curated apps? I found that many good apps are way below the top charts and users rely on search and community suggestions. Started playing with blogging about good apps and gradually had a framework running on PHP.

Today I believe I have a useful service to discover interesting apps as the store charts are dominated by the usual chart toppers and mostly games.

I'm running an open beta and its free too, so do give it a try and let me know your thoughts.</comment>


From Idea To Paying Customers In 7 Weeks – with Joel Gascoigne - <AUTHOR> http://www.beyondthepedway.com/joel-gascoigne-buffer-interview

<comment><USER2> Who is upvoting this? This is outright spam.

<comment><AUTHOR> It would be cool if HN showed who made each vote.</comment></comment>


You are committing a crime right now (2012) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.erratasec.com/2012/11/you-are-committing-crime-right-now.html <comment><USER3> Selective enforcement is the real power government and police wield over the common person. If the laws were fairly enforced, against everyone, equally, citizens and law enforcement would be on more common ground.

Instead, the breadth of laws on the books is far too wide for the average person to understand, with many of them vague enough to cast any person a criminal at any time. So those who have the power to cast down these punishments make deals. And the power to make those deals is where they derive this power. Do this, they say, and we won't throw the book at you. But defy us, and we have all manner of perfectly legal tools we can use against you.

<comment><USER4> American criminal law is rooted in intent. There is a strong element of selective enforcement in the process, but it's by design. The flip side of selective enforcement to jerk someone around is being able to not punish someone whose conduct falls within the letter of the law, but who didn't have criminal intent.

It's this reason that I think the book "3 felonies a day" is very weak. See some examples: [http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.asp...](http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx).

The examples play fast and loose with the facts and the law. In the first example, the page leaves out a lot of the facts: [http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2000/November/647enrd.htm](http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2000/November/647enrd.htm). The defendants imported $4m of undersized and egg-bearing lobster tails in violation of multiple state and federal laws, and took measures to conceal the action showing their criminal intent. The page makes it seem like they were convicted based on one vague statute.

The second example leaves out the fact that the driver was fined only $75. The law in this case is very sensible: it's illegal to operate a motor vehicle in a Federal Wilderness Area. The driver did, even if he did only because there was a blizzard. Ironically, the page seems to have a beef here with the _lack_ of selective enforcement!

<comment><USER5> Aren't there many new laws nowadays where there is strict liability, intent is not needed? And on top of that there is the entire section of negligence law, with no intent by definition, which is easier than you think to get caught in.

<comment><USER4> There are strict liability violations, but they tend to be things like traffic ordinances, not felonies. For example driving a motor vehicle in a wilderness is a strict liability offense, though its a misdemeanor punishable potentially by jail time. I think those are very troubling, and I'm against jail time for any non-violent crime, but they're not that pervasive.

But lots of otherwise troubling laws aren't strict liability. E.g. Child pornography possession requires knowledge of both possession and its status as child pornography. Drug laws are generally not strict liability.

Negligence law is civil, not criminal, except to the extent that reckless disregard is a state of mind satisfying intent requirements for a few limited gross negligence crimes (e.g. Locking the doors of a tightly packed nightclub).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The CFAA is a shitty law, but this article apparently can't be troubled to read all of 18 USC 1030(a). All of the subsections require something more than mere access, and all require "knowing" intent. For example, subsection (1) requires knowing access to certain national security information. (4) requires a "protected" computer, knowing intent, intent to defraud, and obtaining something of value other than simple use of the computer.

In the common law there is this concept of implied license. You don't need explicit permission to enter a public store, but the store owner can revoke permission and if you enter the store knowing you don't have permission, you're committing a trespass. That's why the "knowing" part can't be ignored in the CFAA. That's why 3Taps lost against Craigslist--the IP block gave them notice of the fact that they were no longer entitled to access what is otherwise a public website.

<comment><USER6> _" the IP block gave them notice of the fact that they were no longer entitled to access what is otherwise a public website."_

The same logic could presumably criminalise the behaviour of making a new account on a site after your old account has been blacklisted.

This isn't so much about banning people from entering a premises, this is more like banning someone from looking at your roadside advertising signs by standing between them and a sign and then taking them to court when they glance round you.

<comment><USER7> A billboard is bad metaphor for a website. With a billboard, you can get the information while standing in public or private space not owned or controlled by the advertiser. So a billboard is more like banner ad than a website. A website as a public store seems to be the better metaphor.

That could mean that creating a new account after your old account was banned could be a crime. That's like putting on dark sunglasses and a beard and walking back into the store after you've been kicked out. It's trespassing which is a crime. The difference is in the real world, simple trespass does not result in a life-altering felony conviction with a jail sentence.

<comment><USER8> >The difference is in the real world, simple trespass does not result in a life-altering felony conviction with a jail sentence.

Isn't that enough of a difference? Property owners be responsible for security of their property to some extent. If there is a door with a key hanging next to the door and anyone is allowed in by simply using the publicly available key, is it really trespassing?

<comment><USER9> It is still trespassing. It doesn't have to be difficult to do something for it to be illegal.

I think the bigger issue is that trespassing is usually handled with a warning and, if it does go to court, is usually a misdemeanor or a low-grade felony. For this, it seems that accessing a server that you do not have permission to use is seen as much more serious than merely trespassing.

I can't see an argument that supports that position. Certainly, if you do anything to vandalize or disrupt the server, then you have crossed a line and should be prosecuted. Anything less should be handled more reasonably.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Frankly government does not care at all for fairness of the law all they care for is control and funding. The former feeds back on latter you see, if you don't have right kinds of guards in place.

As such I don't see government making any move to make for fairer laws - because they would have to work harder and incidentally they will get less clout/control of the populace. Computer Trespassing act is just that a wild card in hands of police to persecute nearly anyone who dares to cross them in the way they do their business.

my 2c.

</comment><comment><USER11> I think there is an enormous difference between accessing a public website and what weev did. He walked into an unlocked house, copied personal documents, and published them. Just because he didn't use a crowbar doesn't make it any less intentionally criminal.

<comment><USER12> If what Weev did was criminal, then why isn't AT&T guilty of some sort of criminal negligence for making it so easily accessible?

<comment><USER11> They probably should be, but I'm not aware of any law against it. Failure to secure sensitive customer data? That should at least be a fineable offense. If a customer was provably injured by this hack, they would probably have grounds for civil suit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Most of us also commit a crime every time we drive a car by driving over the speed limit.

Selective enforcement is pretty wide spread. It would be wonderful if at some point in the future the law was changed, however it is too powerful a tool for the police to give that power up without a fight.

<comment><USER4> Speeding isn't a "crime." They're civil infractions. See: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_infraction](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_infraction).

<comment><USER14> Depends on the country. It's a crime in some countries

<comment><USER15> You can get jail time for speeding in Norway, so definitely criminal.

<comment><USER16> Thats really interesting. I had a foreign exchange student from Norway come to the States during high school and I remember him telling me that cops had to apply to a judge to bring a gun with them for a specific task, and didn't just carry one around. Big change for him coming to a school that had cops with hand guns at the entrance. Just interesting how different systems work and what goes into making them different...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> URLs are public and modifying them should not be considered unauthorized access or hacking, especially semantic URLs. I mean, if there's a querystring parameter on the end like "page=2" and I modify it to be "page=3", I'm simply using an interface in a logical manner. The onus should be on the website owner to secure resources within their URL space, especially since there are a myriad of easy ways to do this in 2013.

</comment><comment><USER18> "ignorance of the law is no defense" only applies to the "natural" crimes like murder or theft.

<comment><USER19> > "ignorance of the law is no defense" only applies to the "natural" crimes > like murder or theft.

It really doesn't (at common law, at least). If you don't believe me, try pleading ignorance of the law when you're arrested for breaching a traffic regulation. It's your responsibility to know the criminal law - <USER2> impractical that might be.

There is a bit of leeway on the boundaries between mistake of law and mistake of fact -- e.g. in England, a tenant who destroyed something he'd installed himself, not knowing that under civil law it'd become the landlord's property, had his conviction for destruction of property quashed (R v Smith [1974] QB 354). And apparently in Canada there's a defence of "invincible mistake of law" in situations where it's literally impossible for the person charged with a crime to have known it was a crime at the time it was committed. But the general principle is that ignorance of the law is no defence to any crime, however 'unnatural'.

IANAL.

<comment><USER20> There are similar concepts in American law.

Some crimes, (it used to be almost all crimes, now it's very few) require a particular state of mind, or mens rea. Mens rea, or "guilty mind", is a classic precept that goes all the way back to Roman law, and would have been considered an ordinary requirement for all criminal laws at the time the Constitution was written.

Unfortunately, the Constitution was silent on the issue of mens rea, and the Supreme Court refused to create a universal mens rea requirement for all criminal cases under the due process clause. As a result, there are now a great deal of "strict liability" crimes, which don't require any ill intent on the part of the accused at all. For example, a car accident in some states, even absent negligence, can be grounds for felony charges.

Prosecutors moved for this shift during the 70s-90s, since state of mind is so difficult to prove in court. In doing so, they overturned a precedent that goes back literally two millennia. What nobody realized was that mens rea was there for a reason, that it was difficult to prove by design. As a result we see lots of prosecutions for strict liability crimes that leave the defendant at a distinct disadvantage.

The second defense that comes up in this context is vagueness. Since penal laws must be strictly construed in favor of the defendant, i.e. any ambiguity in interpretation open in the statute must be resolved in favor of the defendant, vague laws can be and are struck down as being void for vagueness.

The theory here is not that the defendant did not bother to learn the law, it is that even if he _had_ , the text of the law was insufficiently clear to give adequate notice to the defendant that his actions were illegal.

The real problem here, however, has nothing to do with the mens rea requirement. The real problem is that we have de facto dispensed with the presumption of innocence. In today's justice system, it is not a conviction that ruins a person's life, it is the decision to merely to bring a charge.

At the moment a felony charge is filed, before any determination of guilt has been made, the defendant may be incarcerated, for as long as nine years in some jurisdictions without violating the speedy trial requirement. All of his assets may be seized, before they have been proved to be involved in a crime of any kind. He will almost certainly be expelled from educational programs, usually with little or no due process, and lose his employment.

All of this happens before any proof has been shown, any arguments have been heard, any witnesses have been questioned, any evidence has been challenged, and before the defendant has had the chance to utter any words other than "not guilty." The fact is, in today's American justice system, your life is effectively over at the mere pointing of a finger.

The checks that were supposed to be the last line of defense, probable cause hearings before neutral magistrates and Grand Juries, similarly failed. Local magistrates often work hand-in-glove with the police, often in the same building, and since the probable cause standard is so low there is little obstacle to charging anyone for anything.

In states that use Grand Juries, jurors often meet repeatedly with the same prosecutors, month after month. The prosecutor is the only one that can call witnesses, present evidence, make argument, and even testify. He can refuse to present exculpatory evidence and witnesses, and the defendant is not even present to respond. From this fact comes the common saying among prosecutors, "I could indict a ham sandwich for the murder of a pig."

Most citizens are comforted by the notion, that no matter the unfairness in the initial process, eventually they will be able to present their case to a jury of their peers. However, even juries are no longer a right in most trials. Since the federal constitution's jury trial requirement was never incorporated against the states, most local magistrates are given the power to sentence defendants for up to six months in jail _per count_. Because most defendants face multiple charges stemming from the same conduct, there are countless American citizens spending years in jail, never having had their case heard by a jury.

We've given prosecutors the unbridled power to destroy anyone by signing a piece of paper.

Our justice system is just barely hanging on. Our rights still exist, but it's becoming impossible for an average citizen to effectively assert them. It's an interesting case to me. The decline of the legal system will be slow, and it's still far preferable to virtually any other system I've studied in detail, but it's scary to see it starting to happen.

The system still functions well, in some areas, especially for the rich. But the new unchecked system, (advocates would call it "streamlined"), pioneered upon inner city black and hispanic minorities is gradually moving up-market. Remember when you think about policies that seem to only apply to others, like loosening criminal law requirements, sovereign immunity, rampant disregard for the warrant requirement in poor neighborhoods, vehicle checkpoints, and stop- and-frisk: once the precedents are set, there is nothing to keep the government from applying them to you.

<comment><USER21> Can't upvote enough because this is the single most troubling aspect of our (US) justice system today: as soon as you are charged, your quality of life is ruined unless you are both wealthy and lucky enough to avoid pretrial incarceration. Even if you are both wealthy and lucky, the stress, effort and money required only to be found "not guilty" or get charges dismissed is a huge burden.

Even if there were redress for cases when "the system" makes a mistake, you can never get your quality of life back.

<comment><USER5> Unfortunately this seems like the trend internationally. It's just the justice systems in other countries just seem to be less aggressive, but have similar or even worse privileges.

The human rights court for example in Canada is known as pretty much a kangaroo court. But Canadian law enforcement is not nearly as aggressive and militarized, and the country does not suffer from an as large historical SES gap that can cause this aggression to develop in the first place.

<comment><USER20> It's funny to hear that perspective from a Canadian. In comparative constitutionality, the prevailing scholarly opinion is that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a modern update to the US Bill of Rights.

The United States Constitution has served as the template for countless founding documents, especially those written constitutional documents in most of the Commonwealth of Nations.

The innovations in the Constitution were threefold. First, a federalist system in which states ceded only specific enumerated powers to a central government. Second, a balance of powers between three branches with differing missions, members, and procedures. Third, a specific list of tasks that fell explicitly outside the powers of the central government. These are commonly termed federalism, separation of powers, and the Bill of Rights.

The federalism experiment failed, beginning with the establishment of true Federal supremacy following the Civil War and ending with the SCOTUS decisions that expanded the definition of "interstate commerce" to include virtually everything. The United States Federal government is for all intents and purposes now a government of general jurisdiction. This is what they have in e.g. Britain, so this is neither a good nor a bad thing, but it's simply no longer a differentiator from other modern governments.

Separation of powers is failing us right now. Without controlling both houses of Congress, with a supermajority in the Senate, and the Presidency can accomplish any coherent agenda.

Our third contribution, the Bill of Rights, is still holding relatively strong. Unfortunately, it's a few centuries old, and we've had to update it quite a bit by quite creatively reading rights into text where they might not really exist.

So the search is on in academia for a bill of rights that's a better model for new documents than the United States version. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the most commonly examined alternative. And the Supreme Court of Canada is generally considered more activist than SCOTUS.

So it's strange to hear that tribunal described as a kangaroo court. I'm not saying you're wrong, just wondering how the experience of an informed citizen differs from the prevailing winds in academia here.

One thing that troubles me about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is that it has an explicit escape clause to suspend it. In fact, I believe it was invoked two years ago during the student protests in Quebec. An off-button seems like a major anti-pattern for a bill of rights.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Maybe we should grant amnesty to all crimes committed by xx% of the population? If not, we could end up where it becomes the norm everyone is a criminal to something, and the government can selectively prosecute only when it serves their purpose.

</comment><comment><USER23> Lots of previous discussion here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4812496](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4812496)

</comment><comment><USER24> I'm glad I don't live in America.

</comment><comment><USER25> The thing about these articles that I hate is that they all try to play to the letter of the law as if we're playing word games. But in real life, in the courts( of public opinion and the judicial ones), where this stuff matters, its almost always been about the spirit of the law.

People do get thrown into jail for technicality (minimum sentencing laws are moronic), but this is one of those cases where circumstance and plain common sense would prevail.

<comment><USER26> Did you not see the Auernheimer case mentioned in the article? What happened there is the exact opposite of what you describe.</comment></comment>


The Mission rejects SF bike share expansion - <AUTHOR> https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/08/san-francisco-gobike-launch/532083/ <comment><AUTHOR> The wild, total absurdity of California's housing politics and crisis appears again.

See [https://www.citylab.com/housing/2017/05/californias-legal- as...](https://www.citylab.com/housing/2017/05/californias-legal-assault-on- nimbys-begins/525840/) and [https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf- housing/](https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/) for political background on the crisis.</comment>


A Gentle Introduction to the Basics of Machine Learning - <AUTHOR> https://miguelgfierro.com/blog/2016/a-gentle-introduction-to-the-basics-of-machine-learning/ <comment><USER2> Good! What books do you recommend for experienced devs getting started with ML

<comment><AUTHOR> I believe that the best way to learn ML is by first learning to program the algorithms and then learning the math. This is the opposite to what people is used to do, but I think it's better. The reason is because programming ML is easy, but the math behind it is very complex. I would suggest to start with scikit tutorial [http://scikit-learn.org/stable/tutorial/](http://scikit- learn.org/stable/tutorial/) and later with Ng course [https://www.coursera.org/learn/machine- learning](https://www.coursera.org/learn/machine-learning). Then a good book is Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning, from Bishop.</comment></comment>