Oslo made its city center basically car-free - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcompany.com/90294948/what-happened-when-oslo-decided-to-make-its-downtown-basically-car-free <comment><USER3> I want this so bad. My hatred for the automobile grows every day. The cost, the noise, the time wasted in traffic, the pollution, the ridiculous space wasted on parking. When you really add up the costs, both individual and to society, it's absolutely insane. I wish the cost of gasoline was high enough to internalize all the costs and change behavior. Like really high. A dollar a mile. We are slaves to the automobile in so many ways.

I'd love to see a major metro area in the US do this. San Francisco would actually be a decent candidate for this. Market St + 4 blocks in each direction.

Cities existed before without cars and I suspect they will exist again after they leave. Sucks that I had to live in the time period with them.

Life is more than just figuring out how quickly and cheaply you can go from one place to another. I feel like a lot of you are missing that.

<comment><USER4> I'm amazed that so many people who consider themselves inclusive in their thoughts don't realize how exclusionary anti-automobile policies are. As someone who suffers from mild arthritis, the trip to the back of a Wal-Mart can be painful for me, and a walk or bike ride across a city block absolutely foreboding. On the bad days, even standing in line at a checkout for an extended period of time can send my knees and hips into a painful state (and the thought of riding across town standing on a scooter, frankly, horrifies me).

Cars and the point-to-point transit that they offer are a GODSEND for me and many other people who are somewhat mobility restricted, but not so bad that we need wheelchairs or crutches. They enable me to live a very normal life that would be impossible in a heavily pedestrian optimized environment. The fact that you don't even consider some of the alternatives as viable - <USER2> shared cars, electric cars, strong hybrids ... all of which solve the problems you identified (wasted space on parking, pollution, etc.) leads me to believe that you actually just hate cars, and not any of the (solvable) problems that are caused by their current embodiment.

Consider that everyone's circumstances are not the same as yours. Have some compassion for your fellow humans.

EDIT:

To those who are saying that we'll still allow those with disabilities to have cars: many states require that you be able to walk less then 200 feet to get a disabled plate. On most days, I can walk at least 500 ... so by almost all standards, I do not qualify. However, walking 5-600 feet doesn't get you far enough to survive without a car. If the world were to go this route, we would have to reconsider what constitutes 'disabled'.

Another thought that surfaces is that with my 36-37" inseam (I wear 36" pants because that's as big as they sell, but they're really still too short), I do not fit in most public transit, and most cars. Thankfully, because cars are privately owned, I can pick from the 2 or 3 models that I actually fit in. A public transit world is a world that marginalizes peoples who are in the last 5-10% in terms of height/weight.

<comment><USER5> I broke my foot and ankle in several places in a rock climbing accident 1.5 years ago, and was put in a similar place to you (unable to stand for more than 20 minutes, unable to walk more than a few hundred yards, etc). This was a huge lifestyle impact to me -- before the injury, if it was less than a 30 minute walk, I almost always walked. If I wasn't in a hurry, up to 60 minutes.

What helped me a lot was getting an e-bike that I'm able to cruise around town at 20mph (32kph) in. I understand that this particular solution doesn't apply to you, since arthritis is triggered by joint movement, whereas my pain is triggered by impact on the damaged foot and ankle (and e-biking is low impact).

But this experience got me thinking a lot about small electric vehicles.

One could imagine a city center where most people walk or bike, and people with a medical permit could drive around in speed-limited, electric golf carts, which are fairly compatible with pedestrian-only areas. Perhaps the city itself would staff the golf carts with drivers who were summonable via app.

So people like us could drive to a parking garage on the outskirts of the city center, and then there would either be rentable golf carts at the garage, or golf carts able to be summoned to go into the city center.

<comment><USER6> Similar experience: I broke my leg, while I happened to be living both with a car, and in a building with underground parking.

This really made staying independent possible, for the months it took before I could walk properly. Sure it was slower to drive to the supermarket & park underground there, instead of walking... but much quicker than waiting for someone else to have time to help.

I agree that solutions other than a traditional car would be possible. But right now, thinking through other places I've lived fine without a car, they would all have been hell.

<comment><USER4> I was in Shanghai for work for about 3 weeks a few years back. For the first week, I tried to use mass transit, because everyone said it was the best way around (and in shanghai, their mass transit is absolutely world-class, the best of the best). It was absolute hell - a perfect description; I was in constant pain.

After the first week I broke down and just took cabs everywhere. Perfectly practical, but only when somebody else (in this case, my employer) is paying for it.

<comment><USER6> I can well imagine! Good on you for going all the same.

In defence of the transit, it has to be said that (in a city that size) those cabs could not work without it. The roads are only passable because 90% of people aren't on them.

Which is to say, the fares have to be out of reach (as a daily expense) for > 90% of people. I imagine most employers would balk at the cost of catching cabs everywhere in Oslo.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I live in Oslo. Calling it car-free is a stretch.

The city council have done a great deal of improvements - increased frequency of public transport, city bikes, most parking spaces in the inner city are removed (still plenty of private parking garages), paid roadside parking per hour in outer city districts (only residents can park long term) and a $5-$8 toll road around the city. They have also opened up the seaside to the public - you can walk along the sea for from one side of town to the other for hours.

This has definitely made for a much more lively city, but it comes with a hidden cost that is not so easily visible - gentrification.

The lively city with its hundreds of new bars and restaurants are attracting young, educated people, while the difficulties of owning a car drives away the families that need their car to visit their grandparents, go to IKEA, drive to kindergarten on the other side of town etc. Sure, it's possible to use public transport, but everyone who has has small kids know that you do not want to spend an hour to get home with hungry kids.

We (family with two small kids) moved 5 miles out and get the best of both worlds instead. I would never live downtown though.

<comment><USER8> I live in Oslo too. And I work in the center.

This article is a HUGE lie. Our city center not car free, not even almost.

I don't think Oslo is any more car free than it was 10 years ago. And roads that are made car free don't become traffic free. We still allow busses, trams, lorries and taxis on all the recently made "car-free" roads.

Oslo is about as car free as any other decent european city.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> What the PR piece doesn't show is that during winter (4-6 months a year), very few ride bicycles around. In winter most people don't stay outside a lot, the weather is harsh (people do ski, but not inside the cities). They have installed play and outside work areas, which are mostly empty during winter, and require maintenance to get them in shape again for the next summer. A lot of shops are moving or closing down. Young people sporting bicycles in summer surely looks good. It doesn't look quite as good with 5-6 shopping bags with groceries for the kids. It's an interesting experiment for sure. Hopefully the single kids have enough money to keep the city thriving, because families are moving out to be able to have a car. Parents in Norway also spend a lot of time caring for their children, which includes driving them around to various activities. Most people who say raising kids in Norway without a car if fine usually haven't had any kids yet.

<comment><USER10> > It doesn't look quite as good with 5-6 shopping bags with groceries for the > kids.

Here in the Netherlands people seem to have no problems doing exactly that on a bike. Is Oslo any significantly different than, say, Amsterdam? Last week we had all sorts of harsh whether (sub-zero temps, heavy rain, snow) during my morning commute, which didn't seem to affect bike traffic one bit.

> Parents in Norway also spend a lot of time caring for their children

The subtext being if you are against cars you are a bad parent?

> which includes driving them around to various activities

No, parenting includes _taking_ them to places, not driving.

<comment><USER11> I also live in Amsterdam, and while I bike to work every day my wife isn't as confident in the snow and when it snowed this past week took the tram.

On that day two full trams passed her stop before she was able to get on one. Something that otherwise _never_ happens in the city.

So I think you've got a very different impression of how Amsterdammers stop cycling when there's a bit of snow. My own impression is that there's at least a 10x difference in the number of cyclists the day after some snow at rush hour compared to the same time of day on a weekday in the summer months when you can bike to work in a T-shirt.

Also, as someone from further up north than Oslo you may not be appreciating the logistical difference in cycling in the sort of snow they get up there v.s. what you get in Amsterdam. Most of the time when it snows in Amsterdam you've got 2-3 cm at most, no icing, and major cycle paths clear up down to the asphalt on at least the center-line by 8:30 at the latest.

None of which means you need a car. I cycled to work year round to work when I lived in Iceland, but it's definitely a very different challenge. You need studded tires, a mountain bike etc.

<comment> m-s Semi-related: Because of a defective transformer some tram services had their frequency reduced in the morning. [1] This has been going on for the entire week and might explain why your wife couldn't get her tram.

[1] [https://twitter.com/GVBnieuws/status/1087946558677635073](https://twitter.com/GVBnieuws/status/1087946558677635073)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I moved from Snap Diego to Amsterdam last year and loved giving up cars. We don't own or use cars anymore. I've got three kids. They bike to school, to piano lessons, etc. If it is raining, I give them rain pants. They love the freedom, I love the freedom from schlepping. I commute to work by bike then train then bike and back again. It is beautiful -- and no more traffic. I get exercise built into my day. Sucks about the rain pants.

My problem with America: low expectations. No one thinks the vision is possible. Too bad, so sad.

</comment><comment><USER13> Vienna also turned one of its biggest shopping streets into a mostly pedestrian zone a few years ago. The results are great, the only issue is that two thirds of it are shared spaces where cars are still allowed to drive, albeit witout priority over pedestrians. Mostly because some parties vehemently fought against pedestrian areas, claiming businesses will lose customers and shops will have to close. Turns out, there are more people than ever and at times it's so crowded that you can't even get through on your bike. Simply because it's a nice space now where people can enjoy shopping, food and going for a walk without constant car noise and smell. It's great.

* [https://www.wien.gv.at/verkehr/strassen/images/mariahilferst...](https://www.wien.gv.at/verkehr/strassen/images/mariahilferstrasse-fuzo-gr.jpg)

Also, large parts of the inner city district are exclusively pedestrian areas and it makes these areas so much more enjoyable:

* [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Wien_01_...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Wien_01_Stephansplatz_a.jpg)

Compared to when it was still a car street up until 1977:

* [https://images.derstandard.at/img/2014/02/20/1392699545647-s...](https://images.derstandard.at/img/2014/02/20/1392699545647-stephansplatz.jpg?s=90cfd14d)

* [https://images.derstandard.at/img/2013/08/12/1375652399990-U...](https://images.derstandard.at/img/2013/08/12/1375652399990-Unbenannt-2.jpg?s=c648175e)

<comment><USER14> Keep in mind that some infrastructure has to stay in place to allow for things like supply vehicles or emergency services.

The "losing business because you can't park right in front of it" is BS in most big western European city centers where you either go to a paid parking or to a spot on the street 10-15 minutes away from your intended destination sometimes.

<comment><USER13> > Keep in mind that some infrastructure has to stay in place to allow for > things like supply vehicles or emergency services.

There are designated time slots for suply vehicles in the core pedestrian zone, and the pedestrian friendly streets support these without issue. The two outer zones are the shared spaces where cars may drive at any time, which is a mistake in my opinion. Should be the same as the center. Pedestrian only, except for designated time slots for supply vehicles.

> The "losing business because you can't park right in front of it" is BS in > most big western European city centers where you either go to a paid parking > or to a spot on the street 10-15 minutes away from your intended destination > sometimes.

Yes, that argument appeared often and it never made sense because there never was any available parking space before, except for nearby parking houses that are still available. So pretty much nothing changed, except that some neighbours lost a few parking spaces.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> >...as in other cities that have converted some streets to pedestrian-only areas...

These "pedestrian-only" zones certainly aren't unique to Oslo. See Drottninggatan[0] in Stockholm, Grafton[1] in Dublin, Strøget[2] in Köpenhamn (Copenhagen), Kärntner Strasse[3] in Vienna, ad infinitum...

I'm nonplussed that this is in any way news-worthy; however, it seems to be an American website, so maybe that's why?

[0] - [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/Drottnin...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/Drottninggatan_sommaren_2006.jpg)

[1] - [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Grafton_...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Grafton_St%2C_Dublin.jpg)

[2] - [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Str%C3%B...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Str%C3%B8get%2C_Copenhagen.jpg)

[3] - [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/K%C3%A4r...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/K%C3%A4rtner_Stra%C3%9Fe%2C_Ecke_Walfischgasse.JPG)

<comment><USER16> Isn't part of the interest here that Oslo made a shift, rather than always having had it this way?

This is starting to catch hold in cities of all sizes in the USA, too. Usually a couple roads in an already somewhat-popular commercial district will be shut down, either certain days or all the time, and many cities are seeing noticeable impacts on economic activity.

<comment><USER17> > Isn't part of the interest here that Oslo made a shift, rather than always > having had it this way?

Copenhagen made the shift in 1962. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Str%C3%B8get](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Str%C3%B8get)

Interestingly, many local merchants opposed the shift in fear of losing customers. But then soon saw how the pedestrianized street started to boast more shoppers to their stores.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Oslo is still heavily lacking in bike accessibility, more so than the article presents.

New bike paths are around the periphery of the center. In the city center, there are close to zero bike parking spots. Everyone who wants to take the bike to work, must have parking in the workplace. In addition the tram tracks on many streets are a hazard to taking the bike. But things are improving here slowly

Public transport though is probably the best in the world per capita, with subway, buses or trams going every couple of minutes. So this compensates (as the article states). Overall the reduction of cars is a great improvement overall.

<comment><USER19> > Public transport though is probably the best in the world per capita, with > subway, buses or trams going every couple of minutes.

I believe Zürich would like to have a word. Not that this is a competition, but it's an even smaller city (by population) with incredibly extensive public transport that's well-known for its punctuality.

It really is quite easy living without a car when you have a multiple reasonable options in any of these cities with well-developed public transport.

<comment><USER20> > I believe Zürich would like to have a word. Not that this is a competition

I don't know, public transport accessibility, frequency and quality is finally a competition I could get behind.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I seriously think that San Francisco can benefit from this.

Each zone in SF is actually very small - and very walkable.

In my extreme SF transport utopia - SF would only allow pedestrians, bikes, and electric muni transport in certain regions of the city.

<comment><USER22> The biggest issue with bikes and walking in SF (as well as Seattle) is the hills. Oslo is relatively flat, as are other very bike centered cities like Amsterdam. Mind you, the rise of electric bikes is helping a lot, but it seems like hilly cities would only be able to get rid of cars if they replaced them with better, efficient, clean public transit. And it doesn't have to be just buses. Seattle, where they exist, escalators are very helpful. Maybe trams? I'm not a public trans expert by any means though. But as a guy who's not getting any younger, I definitely start to appreciate a hill escalator (there's a couple here in Seattle, some public, some parts of buildings) when my knees are hurting.

<comment><USER21> Calling utter bullshot on this post as i have literally been a bike/pedestrian in SF for now going on a decade exclusively.

In working in tech and knowing the city inside and out. This is flatly not an issue.

Further, i used to live upper market at twin peaks - and taking the bus was not a problem other that the normal muni issues whoch this discussion is not about.

Ive biked and walked and commuted literally every area in sf. Lived twin peaks, presidio, biked and commuted all of down town marina etc.

Hills is a literal non issue.

<comment><USER23> I guess you don't live in Russian Hill, Nob Hill, Pac Heights, etc. And even if you, personally, are able to bike up those hills, the vast majority of residents would have a very tough time.

Plenty of SF is bikeable, but to say hills are a non-issue citywide is ridiculous.

<comment><USER21> Are you literally focusing on that population of residents?

Name a freaking company who's office is in ANY of those locations who's employee population we are talking about.

What's ridiculous is you sound like a person who thinks their millenial perspective is the only thing that matters.

Let me leave you with a litteral quote from my interview at twitter in 2008:

" So tell me how you will do things differently because most people I interview came from facebook as their first job out of college and think that their way is the only way to do anything"

Yeah - you sound like those people. Moronic to think that we are worried about "commuting to russian hill" jeasus.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Fantastic. I also believe we are slaves to the cars, in such a way that we have become blind to the fact how they destroy our societies and people.

Most people are so used to the cars that they find it hard we would be happier without them, like my dad who grown up in the 50's with the mindset that every man should have a car. Not to mention all the developing countries with a middle class who see it as a step towards happiness (can't blame them though).

The car ia a great invention, and I love to drive them. Our family does not own a car, but rather a few bikes including a cargo bike which we use to do the shopping including Ikea visits.

It makes me cry a bit of happiness every time I read about this kind of initiatives.

</comment><comment><USER25> What's interesting is that almost all traffic in eastern Norway goes through the city. Instead of having the highways go around it, they go through it. So while the city center is "car free", there is still alot of traffic and pollution.

<comment><USER26> The highway from from east to west straight though Oslo center is underground since som years now. If you ever go to the Oslo Opera, the highway is below you somewhere.

To call Oslo car free is an oversimplification, but the efforts and results over the last 15 years are tremendous.

<comment><USER27> It comes above ground quite close to the city center. There is plenty of pollution from the motorway by Frognerstrand and the massive road junction by Gamlebyen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I keep running into this assumption that everybody loves somewhere with a pleasant climate. Or at least somewhere cool. In summer, many Southern cities are extremely hot and humid; you couldn't pay most people enough to walk or bike. We like our AC, thank you very much. Maybe better public transit would help, but we don't even like walking the last mile.

It's a good plan, but this is the "San Francisco Bubble": assuming what works for you works for everyone else. Another good example is electric scooters.

Many people live in situations where, if they walked or biked, even for the last mile, they would have to shower literally every time they moved a mile or more. I also read a very astute comment pointing out that biking is not good for hauling kids, moving groceries, etc. The best solution for kids is probably a stroller, whic means now you have to walk rather than bike.

Lastly, speed. Outside of peak traffic, no comparison. I lived in Houston for a while; it could take an hour and a half to drive from one end of the city to the other in usual traffic. Walking or biking, it would probably be something like six and twelve, respectively. Only one city has been truly constrained; NYC. You can't just make everybody move into a little urban core and expect they won't leave. Can't fit that many people.

For reference, Oslo has population 600k. Greater Houston Area is estimated to top 10m by 2040.

</comment><comment><USER29> It is interesting how the "vice mayor of urban development" only talks about getting rid of "private cars".

While train, bus and bike can get your quite far, in large enough cities it will still be a challenge to get to and from many places. Not in the city center, but in the outer areas where people commute to and from.

I live in Hamburg (Germany) where we have a subway, S-Bahn (similar) and a quite good bus network. Still, three big car sharing companies are successfully operating: Car2Go (by Daimler), DriveNow (by BMW) and Miles (private startup). They _do_ fill a need.

Another experiment will be started in April by the company I work for, MOIA (by VW): They provide ride sharing with a completely electric van (based on the VW Crafter) with 6 seats and permanently employed drivers. The focus is on the commuters who don't have a train-/subway-station nearby.

I think there are two lessons here: Just removing all cars will probably not work, we need at least intermediate solutions to slowly move people from owning a private car to shared solutions. And second, many of these mobility on demand/mobility as a service-solutions would be very hard to pull off without mobile phones and uniquitous mobile internet access.

</comment><comment><USER30> This is my dream for downtown LA. Never gonna happen, but a man can dream

<comment><USER31> I'm an avid driver who lives in LA (Westside), and this sounds pretty great, honestly. Driving in and through DTLA is a total nightmare, and public transit has a hard time covering enough of the relatively large area.

I love being able to take the Expo Line to LA Live, especially for the LA Auto Show (amusingly enough), and would welcome more of that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Until living in city centers becomes more affordable, restricting vehicle use only creates problems.

Sure restricting vehicles is nice for people who live in the city, but people who can't afford to live in the city depend on personal vehicles to get around.

Public transportation doesn't solve it either, it creates a distinct inequality in mobility. Where those in the city can access things whenever they please by walking or bike, those who would depend on public transportation are at the mercy of the transportation system.

What the vehicle does is provides those outside the city equal freedom and flexibility as those inside who can walk or ride a bike to their destination.

</comment><comment><USER33> I live in Oslo. This article is exaggerating how far this process has come as much as its pictures exaggerate the amount of sun. Come summer and they'll both be around, but for now there's plenty of cars.

</comment><comment><USER34> This article is complete bullshit.

Yes, there are some streets that are mostly free of cars during the day, but the surrounding streets are as busy as ever. Reducing parking spots and increasing bike lanes has not made a noticeable difference in the number of cars on the road, at least from a pedestrian standpoint.

I would love to see fewer cars in Olso, especially during days like today when they lowered the speed limit due to the weather causing increased pollution, but even with everything the current government has tried, it isn't making a real difference.

</comment><comment><USER35> Prediction:

Once the initial excitement/novelty wears off people from the surrounding suburbs/communities will find it more difficult to shop/visit/etc in the city and revenues will drop.

As a result, businesses will move to the outskirts so they can make more money, making living in the city more difficult (and thus less attractive). So people will move outwards as well.

This will leave the city center either desolated or turned into some sort of historical site or park.

</comment><comment><USER36> _It focused on Ring 1, the innermost ring road of Oslo's three motorways, a 1.7km sq area that is home to around 1,000 people of whom 88.1% do not own a car._

1.7km sq is... not a lot really?

I measured the distance between the NW and SE ends of the zone and it's 1650m - or about a mile. That's a 25min walk at a leisurely pace.

</comment><comment><USER37> More information from 2017 about the fight to remove cars in Oslo: [https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jun/13/oslo-ban- cars...](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jun/13/oslo-ban-cars- backlash-parking)

It's interesting to see the political pushback from conservatives. Still, removing parking seems like a good way to get rid of cars (especially that large fraction of traffic that circles around cities searching for parking).

</comment><comment><USER38> Would it be possible to build public transit, i.e. light rail and regular train, on top of concrete? This could leverage the current state of American infrastructure, and eliminate the need to demolish road, to replace with rail lines.

</comment><comment><USER39> This affects a whopping 1.9 out of 454 square kilometers. So don't imagine a car-less capital city in Europe. The effect on pollution and noise will be very small, unless you live in or visit the city centre.

</comment><comment><USER40> I would be very careful about outsourcing our basic civil right to move around freely. Very careful, extremely careful. I live in Europe and I fully appreciate cheap public transport and decongested city centers, but I appreciate more a going fully electric revolution, and still keep my EV and drive wherever I please at any time.. I would not trust any government with the power to own my means of transportation fully,ever. We are living in an era of infantilisation of the society, where we close our eyes to any risk or danger and give up our basic freedoms for a fear of responsibility, this could have catastrophic consequences if the 'wrong' type of ruling class gets into power.

</comment><comment><USER41> Just as a general reference on how to design carfree cities, check out this site: [http://carfree.com/](http://carfree.com/)

</comment><comment><USER11> We need to end socialism for cars, but I think this way of going about it is probably counterproductive.

Here in Amsterdam we also have an increase in car-free zones, but one effect of that is just to increase car parking pressure in the neighborhoods of those of us who live adjacent to the center.

I think the real solution is to end socialism for cars. This problem will solve itself as soon as the land being used by parking spaces isn't specifically zoned, and thus would need to compete price-wise with using the same amount of land for residential developments or shops.

It's also interesting to see how this breaks down as a political issue. E.g. in Amsterdam the generally free market party (VVD) has a notable break from their "their market will take care of it" policy of wanting _more_ government- subsidized car parking, v.s. the leftist parties.

<comment><USER42> I highly doubt throwing this issue at the free market will result in less car traffic in the city.

<comment><USER11> Why not? E.g. now the market price for where I live is to a first approximation something like 2000 EUR/month for an apartment on a single floor in a 4 floor house.

Meanwhile I can simply apply for a parking space right outside my place, and only need to pay something like a 250 EUR/yr road tax (depending on vehicle & weight etc.). That's a flat fee for the entirety of Nord-Holland (my "state"), I'd pay nothing for parking other than needing to apply.

Assuming a parking space is 6x3m = 18m^2 then 4x of those add up to 72m^2, a typical size for an apartment around here.

So if someone parking a car in a 18m^2 parking space had to compete with the market for real estate they'd need to pay 2000 EUR/month for parking their car, because we could otherwise build housing there.

That's before you even get to the problem that the fact that you can only build up to 4 floors around here is _also_ an artificial government restraint, so the true market price of a 18m^2 parking spot is way more than 2000 EUR/month in the center of Amsterdam.

There's no reason to ban cars. You just need to make them pay a fair price for the land they're using and the problem will take care of itself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> If you have an infinite amount of money (from Oil), burying your freeways is a great idea. Google maps gets confused in those tunnels though, at least it did for me.

</comment><comment><USER8> "Hahahahahahahahahaha.

The city center in Oslo is not even close to being car free."

\- someone who works in the center and has to cross multiple roads with cars to get to the office

</comment><comment><USER44> Sweet; headed to Norway and Sweden this summer, I'll definitely make it a point to visit Oslo then. (Although I was probably going to anyway).

</comment><comment><USER45> A much easier way to reduce pedestrian traffic fatalities than inventing a perfect automatic driver.

</comment><comment><USER46> The problem is really not cars, but (if any) the way they have to be built. You could easily fit 4 people in a 400kilo vehicle on 2,5m length and move them safely at speeds of up to 100km/h. But crash regulations are so strict and the buildable types of cars so restricted that we all have to have the heavy, expensive, has driven cars that we now have.

</comment><comment><USER27> Meanwhile in the real world outside of this PR piece most journeys in Oslo are still by car, the air pollution continues to be terrible and the local government is deeply unpopular. Property prices in the center are lower than around the ring road as people with families are forced to move out of the center.

</comment><comment><USER47> While I really like the changes, this article reads like a PR piece from Urban Sharing and/or the city government.

<comment><USER27> The city government is deeply unpopular. Largely because of these changes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> We did? TIL.

</comment><comment><USER49> I do not like Oslos city center. Everything seems so over-engineered and non- organic

</comment><comment><USER50> Madrid is doing the same.

<comment><USER51> The article concludes with that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Maybe I missed something but how do old people get around?

<comment><USER53> Old people are often capable of walking as well. Or taking transit. It's in best interests to encourage the elderly to stay fit and capable.

A better question is how do disabled people get around, and how do we prevent people from becoming disabled.

Obesity and lack of activity often cause disabilities more than age.

<comment><USER54> >A better question is how do disabled people get around

according to the oslo public transit website, all buses are wheelchair accessible, and all except three tram lines are wheelchair accessible.

[https://www.visitoslo.com/en/oslo/practical- information/acce...](https://www.visitoslo.com/en/oslo/practical- information/accessibility/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Huh. I didn't realize Oslo hadn't done this yet. All (or most) European City centers are car free.

<comment><USER56> > All (or most) European City centers are car free.

I don't know how someone can say something so obviously and demonstrably false with a straight face.

<comment><USER55> Easy. I write based on what I've observed.

<comment><USER56> Which European city centres are car free?

Let's just think about capitals. London? Brussels? Paris? Berlin? Dublin? Lisbon? Bern? Rome?

None of these places are car free. You can go on Google maps and see cars everywhere. So we know 'all' is nonsense for a start. And 'most' is looking pretty doubtful already.

<comment><USER57> It's possible that the GP is comparing against their experience in American cities. If that is the case, then yes, most European cities are "car free". _I_ would qualify Amsterdam, for example, as "car free" even though it technically isn't, it's just not a city I would ever think of driving in because every other way of moving around, including walking is so much nicer and you see few cars compared to any place in the US. Many times when going to towns in the US I notice than myself and my wife are the only people walking on the sidewalks for considerable amounts of time.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Hotlinking to jquery.com will be disabled on January 31, 2011 - <AUTHOR> http://blog.jquery.com/2010/12/30/hotlinking-to-be-disabled-on-jan-31-2011/ <comment><USER3> We did a lot of analysis of the sites that were actually hotlinking, and are planning to reach out to those that are above board and should know better. By and large, however, most of the sites that were hotlinking were porn/phishing/generally nefarious, which weighed heavily into our decision to pull the plug relatively soon. Serving people who need jQuery and jQuery UI documentation, etc., is a higher priority than not-pulling-the-rug-out-from- under networks of porn sites - people who have more than adequate access to their own hosting and distribution resources.

<comment><USER3> OTOH, TaylorSwift.com was also hotlinking, which is pretty awesome.

<comment><USER4> I am currently trying to talk to Taylor about sharing cdn resources.

If anyone is not aware, one of the best CDNs out there for getting jQuery is the Taylor Swift "TaylorNation" cdn.

[http://cdn.thetaylornation.com/taylornation/resources/displa...](http://cdn.thetaylornation.com/taylornation/resources/display/js/jquery/jquery-1.4.2.min.js)

I encourage everyone to use it.

<comment><USER5> slexaxton imma let you finish... but amazon has one of the best cdns of all time

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I like the one comment about serving up evil.js to hotlinkers instead ([https://github.com/kitgoncharov/evil.js/blob/gh- pages/evil.j...](https://github.com/kitgoncharov/evil.js/blob/gh- pages/evil.js)).

How have I never heard about this hilarious script before?

<comment><USER7> For those of us who do not know javascript (a rarity on HN, I know) could you explain what it does?

<comment><USER8> It does... many things. All sort calls are hardcoded to return [4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42], regardless of input. It scrambles the log bases for the math logarithm commands, it hardcodes the output of the upper-casing string call to a constant, and what I've reported is just a sampler. It is very well-named.

Could be improved a bit, though. Many of its entries lack subtlety. If you really want to be _evil_ , make uppercase do something like uppercase all but _one_ letter, or "uppercase" the digit 1 into exclamation marks, 2 into at signs, etc., convincing the poor developer that the JS upper case function is broken and affect digits. ("Must be unicode or something.")

<comment><USER9> How would this not start a backlash of "JQuery (or whatever) is broken."? If the only indication is that a hotlinked .js suddenly stops working, what exactly is the debugging process there? I simply don't think most web developers are going to find a useful path from "scrambled log bases" to "hotlinked js," if they even _identify_ "scrambled log bases."

Then again, maybe the point is to muddy your own waters? I'm reminded of an aphorism dealing with activities that should not be undertaken near one's place of slumber.

<comment><USER10> I don't think it's a serious suggestion that evil.js be included, just a funny thought.

<comment><USER9> Ah, dopey me!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Crockford used to prevent hotlinking to his JSON library (its now on github) in an interesting way: right at the top there was an alert() line that you had to remove before using.

This would probably be the best way to transition. If they add an alert to their library and leave it up a week, most people should notice and fix it.

<comment><USER12>
      <script>
      var oldAlertFunction = window.alert;
      window.alert = function(){};
      </script>

      <script src="crockford.com/json.library.js"></script>

Arms race, but just sayin'

<comment><USER13> The point would be to give webmasters a heads-up and time to fix their sites before hotlinking is disabled, not so much to prevent them from using the file.

<comment><USER12> Indeed. I was just being silly :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Frankly I'm surprised jquery even allowed this to begin with. Now there will be sites that rely on this tha break, some of which won't be fixed for ages (if ever).

I guess I shouldn't be but I'm still surprised people would even do this given that Google s offering the service for free. Hotlinking has always been antisocial.

<comment><USER15> Never doubt the laziness of people, especially other developers.

I'm actually more surprised that the site didn't either use Google's API to host the download, or provide a hotlink button right there.

<comment><USER16> Some might be from laziness, but I would imagine most of the hotlinking is from ignorance.

<comment><USER17> Agreed. I'll bet a significant portion of it is coming from cut-n-pasted html where the users don't even realise they're using hotlinked javascript, and have probably never even heard of jquery (and, unfortunately, are spectacularly unlikely to hear about this change on jquery's hotlinking policy).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Always seemed to be to be a bad practice from a security point of view - <USER2> are putting the security of your site in the hands of whoever is hosting the .js

This also applies when .js is dynamically included as a type of API call to embed widgets and whatnot - but in those cases there's a necessary reason - it's the only practical way - but for a simple .js, you should be managing your own .js library and publishing on your own (including all the speedup tricks you know you should be doing)

<comment><USER19> > Always seemed to be to be a bad practice from a security point of view

This is why I can't understand people's recommendation to use Google's or Microsoft's CDN. Even if you assume they're not going to be malicious, you have to trust that they're secure. Not to mention that the CDN owner can derive accurate traffic stats from the number of requests for the JavaScript.

<comment><USER20> Why would I be less sure that they're secure than my own personal hosting?

<comment><USER21> No reason you would be. But you can be sure that your personal hosting is more secure than (your personal hosting ∪ Google). In the latter case if either breaks you're screwed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Perhaps a little harsh. Is the problem bandwidth or connection quantity? If it's bandwidth then they should just 301 to the Google CDN.

<comment><USER23> Straight connection overloading. We're already redirecting the majority of the files - but somehow the hotlking continue to persist.

<comment><USER24> How are you preventing hotlinking while still allowing the files to function normally on jquery.com? Inspecting the referrer or checking to see if other resources were previously downloaded?

<comment><USER25> You can do it in your .htaccess file. Define some extensions that are blacklisted and redirect referrers outside your own domain to a place of your choice.

CPanel allows you to do this directly (although you might want to back up your .htaccess file first).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Now is probably a good time for a reminder: <http://scriptsrc.net/>

(Up to date CDN links for a bunch of javascript libraries, including jquery)

</comment><comment><USER27> Damn shame. I used to hotlink during testing when I was too lazy to download the actual JS and host it. It was a nice way to build wicked fast little sites.

<comment><USER28> Just hotlink to Google's version.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Ways to solve the problem once and for all:

\- Listing the sites that hotlink it would be a nice idea.

\- Changing the script on the hotlinked files to pop-up a warning that the site is doing something improper and urging people to contact the owner.

\- When that doesn't work, break the sites.

</comment><comment><USER30> When the change is made, changing the results of the HTTP GET to some javascipt comments explaining what happened and pointing them to some CDNs which offer the same service would be a good idea.

</comment><comment><USER31> The jquery people are being incredibly generous. Others would have just tweaked the JS to produce some shock site or text to the effect "you are a bandwidth thief".

</comment><comment> mike-cardwell It should be trivial for them to scan their access logs for referrers, and then send a mailshot out to each domains webmaster address.

To me, that seems like the polite thing to do.

<comment><USER32> _It should be trivial for them to ... send a mailshot out to each ... webmaster address_

Well indeed, but even if you ignore the time taken to do WHOIS lookups and presume that they'll go to the right person (e.g. blogs hosted on Wordpress.com) you're still ignoring the serious amount of computing power that it takes to send a significant number of emails.

<comment><USER9> Shouldn't need to do whois lookups, webmaster@ is required by RFC.

<http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2068.html>

<comment><USER33> Well, then. They can just report any domains that bounce webmaster@domain to the local authorities, and a round of arrests and/or fines will definitely be in order.

<comment><USER34> rfc-ignorant.org is all over that already.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Just for the record, here are the CDN versions:

<http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1/jquery.min.js> (always the latest version)

<http://code.jquery.com/jquery-1.4.4.min.js>

<http://ajax.microsoft.com/ajax/jQuery/jquery-1.4.4.min.js>

<comment><USER36> Avoid using the "latest version" reference. In order to ensure that it's serving the latest version, it serves the script with an extremely short expires header.

<comment><USER37> Not to mention that referencing the latest version means that your code will be untested against anything but the library version you built against.</comment></comment></comment>


History of the Talos Missile (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://www.okieboat.com/Talos%20history.html <comment><USER2> The Talos missile was an early long range air-defense missile, about the length of a city bus, powered by a ramjet and guided by beam following radar. It was so large that the storage and launchers took up the rear two thirds of a 700 foot cruiser.

The site [https://okieboat.com](https://okieboat.com) covers all aspects of the ship and missile system and is a goldmine of information about naval technology in the beginning of the guided missile era. Lots of detail about fire control systems, missile development, operations and capabilities as well the ship, it's systems, and it's history. It would be easy to spend a fun week diving into all the rabbit holes. It is one of the greatest sites on the internet if you are interested in the topic. Highly recommended!

</comment><comment><USER3> Fascinating that they had Fire and Forget Anti Ship missiles in WWII. I thought that stuff emerged in the 50s. Makes you wonder how far ahead some of the stuff in the Military is that we don't know about.</comment>


Ask HN: Where to code in Houston? - <AUTHOR>

Just wondering if there are any places in Houston indoor/outdoor where you enjoy coding. Any places to share ideas/projects? <comment><USER2> What part of town are you? Houston is pretty spread out, so it may be better to specify a region.

Outdoors is pretty tough, since there are only about 6 hospitable weeks per year in Houston. I did spend some time at a company that officed on the BMC software campus, which I would definitely say was conducive to coding. Downtown, Discovery Green may be worth checking into since you have houstons city wifi available there. Indoors, pretty much every starbucks in town has at least one person working for extended periods. There are a few pubs that are open during the day that have wifi access that could do the trick as well.

<comment><AUTHOR> I live by the Galleria area. Sorta right in the middle I guess. I was looking for places strictly for coding. Not much of a fan of Starbucks. I regular Diedrich's and Antidote, but they are more of a social place, and I'm looking for a place to meet coders.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> There's a coffee shop called 'Coffee Groundz' that bills itself as the meeting place for the Houston start-up scene. I don't live in Houston and have only been once, but there were plenty of people there on laptops.

I think there's also a co-working space in Houston called the Caroline Collective. Never visited, so I can't say more than that.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!!!</comment></comment>


The coming hyper-verticalization of labor marketplaces - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/craft-ventures/linkedin-is-the-new-craigslist-39e71238e995 <comment><USER3> * At StubHub, the company I founded, we picked off the "tickets" category.*

[...]

 _3\. Develop a strategy to defend against disintermediation [...]

4\. Consider building a data moat_

It's worth reading this because it's unusually frank about the deliberate exploitation customers and suppliers and essentially advocates MITM economic attacks by splitting trusted suppliers and consumers from each other and establishing and maintaining convenience, economic, and information asymmetries in order to milk the market for profit.

We need more things like craigslist and less, much much less, of this sort of thing. Verticalization can create value, but as described here it is far more about extracting it, by commoditizing and centralizing what were previously distributed peer-to-peer relationships. The argument is that these verticals are more economically efficient, but this is only true in the sense of maximizing the dollar value of each transaction (and taking a commission); this comes with significant negative externalities for the participants - <USER2> of privacy, loss of transparency, loss of negotiating ability, loss of autonomy, and loss of opportunity.

They're not creating a marketplace, but a company store in which the management has been automated away. Because it's distributed, striking is impossible and the only way workers in the system have any relief is to organize off-platform and then attempt legal action, via a court system which the corporation can stack directly (through hiring very high priced legal representation) and indirectly (through lobbying and campaign contributions).

Craigslist created a marketplace and charged a small fee for very high-value transactions selling vehicles or hiring for employment. This is just a land grab.</comment>


Informant Says Hacks, Threats Followed Release Of Occupy Wall Street E-Mail - <AUTHOR> https://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/informant-says-hacks-threats-followed-release-occupy-wall-street-e-mail-101811

<comment><USER2> I find this very interesting, because it reveals some level of hypocrisy on the part of Anonymous, IMO. They demand openness and transparency from the companies they hack, but react badly when that same transparency is demanded of them.

If I'm going to support OWS, why can't I see all the communications involved in organising it? It's a democractic, open protest after all.

</comment><comment><USER3> I find all this confusion about Anonymous' involvement kind of odd. It seems pretty transparent that they have been heavily involved in pretty much every way you could think of, that much seems self evident.

FWIW there has been a delegation from "Anonymous UK" in attendance at the Occupy London camp since it started on saturday. They are providing the internet uplink there, and perhaps other support.

Here's a photo of some of them, but there were more, lots of them in quite nice suits.

[http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02028/occupypa_2...](http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02028/occupypa_2028705i.jpg)

They've been present at many protests of this nature in the UK for a couple of years now.

</comment><comment><USER4> > He gained access to the September17 list merely by adding his email to a > paper sign up sheet that was being distributed at an early organizing > meeting by what would become the OWS.

So Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Dylan Ratigan, etc. are emailing on a listserv that join by just adding their email address to a signup sheet? I find that hard to believe.

</comment><comment><USER5> It's not like he decrypted emails and published them, he republished emails from a publicly accessible mailing list. What's all the huffing and puffing about?

Sounds like a lot of smoke and no fire, topped off with a heaping helping of hypocrisy. It did tickle my funny bone though hehe.</comment>


Reddit co-founder on NSA snooping [video] - <AUTHOR> http://money.cnn.com/video/technology/2013/06/11/t-co-reddit-alexis-ohanian.cnnmoney <comment><USER3> Goddamn right.

Every now and then we have defining moments of global consciousness. This has the potential to be one of those moments and we should never let a good crisis go to waste.

The danger here is that if we do nothing, that will be seen as tacit acceptance of the world's largest spying apparatus. While I acknowledge there's some necessity globally, domestic spying through secret courts is more synonymous with the Gulag than the American dream.

Stand up for what you believe in; this is one time you can.

<comment><USER4> It's time for a new political party. Forget the people who say it can't be done. Now is the time. We are stuck in a rut and its time to get out. You have a choice, be lazy and accept what is happening or step up and make change. Its clear our current system is rotten.

<comment><USER5> Please share your vision of that party's platform.

<comment><USER4> The vision that I have includes allowing web based voting on party issues for party members. Complete financial transparency. Debate and decide what the party should support from within. Decide what issues are most important and attempt to tackle those first. I think the platform is that there is no real platform and the members decide what is important. Forget about gay marriage there are real problems in America. (education, war, privacy) I could go on and on about what I think are the issues in America but the point is we need to have a place to discuss these issues and have a group of people that can decide what should be done and then do something about it. Leaving it to a group of old men who are constantly lobbied is no longer an option.

<comment><USER5> That's not a party, that's more about process (which I do agree with, btw).

A party _has_ to have a platform -- that's the whole point of a party: shared core values. But those values have to be actionable otherwise they are just platitudes.

It's all about money: who pays and how is it spent. Gods, Guns and Gays are distractions, but they have to be addressed in some way or they will remain distractions. The "right" uses those tactics because they are very effective. It just needs reframing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _What is to be done? The answer is easy. It has always been easy. Stop saying "not in my name" and start saying "over my dead body". That's what we did. It works. Do it._

\--Julian Assange, receiving the Global Exchange Human Rights Award [http://wlcentral.org/node/2818](http://wlcentral.org/node/2818)

</comment><comment><USER7> Alexis is a good speaker. It's refreshing to see a founder talk about his startup in down-to-earth terms instead of being egotistical and speaking in platitudes.

<comment><USER8> He's actually improved over time. I saw him on a panel and he was rolled over by a MPAA/RIAA shill. I'm glad he's grown more confident and poised on screen.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've been doing public speaking for a while now (e.g., my TED talk was back in '09 [http://www.ted.com/talks/alexis_ohanian_how_to_make_a_splash...](http://www.ted.com/talks/alexis_ohanian_how_to_make_a_splash_in_social_media.html)) but live TV 'debate' is a whole 'nother beast.

You're talking about my first 'debate' on MSNBC (it pains me to link to it but....) [http://upwithchrishayes.msnbc.com/_news/2012/01/15/10161056-...](http://upwithchrishayes.msnbc.com/_news/2012/01/15/10161056-debating- sopa)

Yeah, I was totally unprepared for that format (my first 'debate') and it was covered in failsauce. I just couldn't believe he'd so brazenly lie like that, interrupt, etc. The feedback on reddit and HN was pretty helpful, though, and the day of the blackout I was on literally every other network much better armed.

(shameless plug: I write about all of this in great detail in my forthcoming book, Without Their Permission)

[http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/01/18/exp- poi...](http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/01/18/exp-point- ohanian-sopa-pipa.cnn?iref=allsearch)

[http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ol56z/reddit_found...](http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ol56z/reddit_founder_alexis_ohanian_on_cnbc_why_is_it/) (never do an interview on a cell phone)

[http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1400506693001/websites-go- dar...](http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1400506693001/websites-go-dark-to- protest-anti-piracy-bills)

[http://www.bloomberg.com/video/83688294-reddit-com- oppositio...](http://www.bloomberg.com/video/83688294-reddit-com-opposition- to-stop-online-piracy-act.html)

The next time I was invited for a debate (fast company conference in NY) it was a different story, imho: [http://www.fastcompany.com/1834779/reddit- cofounder-bands-ex...](http://www.fastcompany.com/1834779/reddit-cofounder- bands-ex-tour-manager-debate-sopa-antipiracy-and-levon-helms-legacy-video)

<comment><USER9> I was about to ask you a couple of questions about the book, but details are on your website. For the lazy -

[http://withouttheirpermission.com/](http://withouttheirpermission.com/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh silly me, forgot to link! Thanks. You can AMA here too :)

<comment><USER10> Will there be an eBook version outside Apple's walled garden (DRM-free, preferably)? I dislike dead-tree books, with their fixed typography and whatnot!

<comment><AUTHOR> Right - Kindle and nook!

[http://www.amazon.com/Without-Their-Permission-Century- ebook...](http://www.amazon.com/Without-Their-Permission-Century- ebook/dp/B00BAXFJ16/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1362364308&sr=8-1)

[http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/without-their-permission- ale...](http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/without-their-permission-alexis- ohanian/1114308524?ean=9781455520039)

Would that suffice?

<comment><USER10> Ah, not available on Amazon UK, that's why I couldn't find it :(

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, sorry, it's US + Canada launch on Oct 1. We haven't yet sold the intl rights, I think. BUT! I'm thinking of doing something w/o my publisher's permission :) and doing events in London, Berlin, HK, and maybe Paris where I just bring a giant suitcase or two full of US edition books for an event & signing.

<comment><USER10> I love how appropriate this is, given the title (and I assume content) of the book! :D

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Nice ddg plug at the end there. Always be closing. :P

<comment><AUTHOR> You'd think I were an investor! Just a superfan.

<comment><USER12> That's great! Do you get down to Philly or Baltimore much? We've got a big fan base here that would love to chat with you at a TechBreakfast in Philly or Baltimore - let me know.

<comment><AUTHOR> I was raised in Columbia, MD and my dad lives outside of Towson these days, so yes. I'd love to stop by on the http:/withouttheirpermission.com book tour! Details will be on the site soon, but I'm planning a legendary 100 stop tour :) and will definitely be hitting both cities...

<comment><USER12> Awesome - how can I reach you to schedule that? TechBreakfast is huge here and glad to host you at our 200 person venue.

<comment><AUTHOR> contact AT alexisohanian.com

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Perhaps the number one priority of those in tech should be to educate the public about the potential intrusiveness of data surveillance.

Politicians and idiot TV hosts have made statements akin to "all they are collecting are phone numbers, times and cell tower data".

Ha! Give me that and access to other sources such as LinkedIn, Facebook, your email on Gmail, your Google docs, IRS and state tax filings, court documents, vehicle registration, travel records, Amazon, Ebay, college and university records and a myriad of other publicly and not-so-publicly available data and those phone numbers become powerful unique identifiers through which I can learn just about everything about you, your family, your friends, colleagues, occupation, hobbies, history and more.

There's nothing innocent or insignificant about "just collecting phone numbers".

</comment><comment><USER14> Glossing over the data that you could glean from reddit was a mistake. Even if there isn't that much valuable data directly from reddit's back-end it's probably more useful to tie it to data from the same users extracted from other websites. You shouldn't have down-played that.

</comment><comment><USER15> I think it's time we give up on the idea of communicating privately over a centralized network. Wiretapping was invented only a few years after the invention of the telephone[1]. It won't be stopped by technology and certainly not by legislation. People need to get used treating the Internet as a public space: cover your mouth when you cough, don't pick your nose in public and don't communicate sensitive information over the Internet.

The next big thing (hopefully soon) will be communication through a decentralized, infrastructure-less device.

[1][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_tapping#History](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_tapping#History)

<comment><USER16> It seems like no matter what you do, it will always be possible for someone to tap into a wire or node between point A and point B (unless some revolutionary point-to-point information teleportation is invented). So isn't the next big thing just the strengthening (or proper application) of encryption?

Otherwise, how can a "decentralized, infrastructure-less" system really guarantee any privacy beyond simply making it more of a hassle to wiretap?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Reddit has information that can be used to identify the author of a submission or comment. I was a disappointed to hear the soft stance on protecting reddit user data.

<comment><USER18> Hanging out in /r/redditdev and /r/ideasfortheadmins, you'd be surprised how often ideas come up that could potentially harm users that some admins will either champion or agree with.

I guess it's the same as any small company in that everyone is going to have an opinion, I just wish they had someone more anal about protecting users first on their staff.

I do my best to speak out against anything that could compromise user privacy/security, but in the end it's not up to me!

<comment><USER9> Have you got any examples of this? There are plenty of terrible ideas on /r/ideasfortheadmins, but I don't remember seeing Admins agree with them very often.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is all nice and good. Unfortunately, it means absolutely nothing. Since we know that lying is (by law) part of what corporations are forced to do when addressing questions of "national security", no amount of denies, press releases, public outrage or congressional talk will restore trust. Even new legislation specifically forbidding snooping will not help, since we can never be sure that there is no "secret legislation" specifically allowing it - <USER2> forcing companies to comply.

I am sure lots of people want to genuinely change the situation in the US. Unfortunately, we can not believe it. For all the talk that the reddit co- founder will, as a private person, make, the simple question to reddit-the- company: "are you snooping on me" has no meaning whatsoever. Either the answer will be a "no comment", or it will always be perceived to be lie.

<comment><USER20> > Since we know that lying is (by law) part of what corporations are forced to > do when addressing questions of "national security", no amount of denies, > press releases, public outrage or congressional talk will restore trust.

What law are you referring to? The FISA gag orders do not mandate lying.

<comment><USER19> Corporations have been denying participation for years because acknowledging being part of the program was a crime.

<comment><USER20> What law are you talking about? Google has hardly been denying participation with NSL gag orders; they've been pretty vocal about it. What they aren't legally allowed to do is to disclose details about them or inform the subjects of them.

They publish aggregate numbers of the non-secret ones here, by the way: [http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/US...](http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/US/)

<comment><USER19> [http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/06/google- wan...](http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/06/google-wants-come- clean-about-fisa/66135/)

"The FISA requests don't already show up in Google's regular transparency reports because they are top secret, according to the law. So now Google wants to tell the world exactly how much they cooperate with the U.S. government."

So now that a whistle blower has tell us all about it, they want to come clean. Of course we know that there is now a "FOSA" program, which is the new top-secret program, which nobody will tell you about, until a whistle blower tells us about it - in 13 years.

That I call lying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Good piece. His personal concern is for "chilling effect".

His public concern beyond that is for blackmail of national leaders. That actually worries me less, as the public is becoming much more tolerant of "vice" in its leaders. (For example -- President Obama is an admitted cocaine and pot user; President Bush was an admitted drunkard and widely-suspected cocaine user; President Clinton was a widely-suspected adulterer and pot user.)

</comment><comment><USER22> I think one of the ways this bullshit is solved is liquid democracy. Allow people to transfer votes to people they feel are experts via a bitcoin like system. 90% of people have only an interest in a very small subset of topics that they vote on. They aren't qualified to cast a vote, why not allow them to delegate to an expert? Of course buying votes would be highly illegal.

<comment><USER23> I think that's what's known as a representative democracy...

<comment><USER22> Kind of, but not really. In a representative democracy, you are voting a professional politician into office, who's sole existence is to stay in office. They are beholden to money, and outside interests. With a liquid democracy, it is essentially a direct democracy, without all the headaches.

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I have some ideas and some plans in mind for getting around this. If anyone in particular would be interested in helping to set up or back a privacy-oriented startup aimed at defeating a lot of what's been going on, then please get in touch via my profile.

</comment><comment><USER25> Tangentially ontopic: I remember an offhand comment from someone in the intel community a few years ago that went along the lines of "you can't really have privacy unless you run your own DNS servers". Can they really store all dns lookups?

</comment><comment><USER26> The entire conecept of pre-crime is everyone is a suspect, and you can never be proven innocent because you haven't yet committed the crime you are alleged to eventually commit.

It's scary stuff yet surprisingly innevitable given the direction of AI.

</comment><comment><USER27> Thank you, Alexis. Well done.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're quite welcome! Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Off-topic but I wish there was a way to filter out all these NSA stories. It has really destroyed Hacker News for me and I hope it doesn't go on for too long.

<comment><USER29> So you're cool with what the NSA is doing?

<comment><USER30> I don't think discussion here is particularly going to contribute to the voice of the public that would actually do something to change it.

Sorry for the fuzzy expression there, nothing better jumped to mind.

<comment><USER31> If you know of a place where a more informed and intelligent response is being crafted I'd like to know about it. The type of people who frequent HN are the same people who work in Silicon Valley and other high tech areas where much of this technology was created and promoted. Most regular folks I know don't know what to think about it and are waiting for leaders to come up with a rational and measured response that offers some push back.

<comment><USER30> In that context, I'm more pessimistic than that. I expect some push back against what I would certainly label overreach, but I don't expect any sort of long term memory or change to come of it.

<comment><USER31> I'm more optimistic because the norm for Americans through out history was for independence from government intrusions. The last decade has been an anomaly because of 9/11, when everyone decided to that safety trumped those concerns. The pendulum could very easily swing back the other way.

<comment><USER32> > I'm more optimistic because the norm for Americans through out history was > for independence from government intrusions. The last decade has been an > anomaly because of 9/11

Sure, just like the decade before that was an "anomaly" because of the threat of terrorism that became a concern with the first Gulf War made safety trump those concerns, and the 5 decades prior to that were an "anomaly" because of the threats associated, first, the second World War, and immediately following that Second Red Scare the Cold War, made safety trump those concerns.

And just a couple decades before that there was the "anomaly" produced by the First Red Scare. (The increasing intrusion of which, based on safety concerns, wasn't actually _reversed_ when the immediate impetus faded, just as the vast majority of the increasing intrusion motivated by the Cold War, the First Gulf War, or 9/11 wasn't -- as well as some of that motivated by the Second World War, though some of the biggest intrusions motivated by the Second World War were, and you can probably view the continuation of the rest as a 'silent reenactment' motivated by the Cold War.)

Or, maybe the intrusion-ratcheting-upward thing isn't a temporary anomaly, but the norm.

<comment><USER31> Sure, these anomalies have occurred before after a major threat and in the shock over it, such as Japanese internment camps or the suspension of suspension of habeas corpus during the civil war, but the pendulum always swings back against govt over reach. You write as if the American Civil Liberties Union has done no good at all and it a hopeless cause.

<comment><USER32> > but the pendulum always swings back against govt over reach.

I don't think there is much evidence of that. Its true that over time _some_ of the expansions of power are clawed back, but the overall trend isn't neutral with a pendulum swinging back and forth with a stationary midpoint of degree of government intrusion.

> You write as if the American Civil Liberties Union has done no good at all > and it a hopeless cause.

The ACLU has certainly done some good, and I've never said anything about hopelessness (or even about what is desirable). What I've pointed to is the facts that call into question your presentation of a norm of non-intrusive government that is subject only to occasional "anomalies" followed by reversion to the pre-anomaly "normal" state.

Hope, in terms of realizing political objectives -- whether that's non- intrusive government or something else -- starts with recognizing the realities of the status quo, because without that, you can't tell what the problems are you need to address.

<comment><USER31> I wasn't speaking literally of a stationary midpoint. I'm speaking of the American character over history, which has been to throw off the shackles of Kings and oppressive religious control. I think that character is alive and well, although advances in technology may have finally have given those in control the upper hand. We may be waking up to that fact now. I'll concede that it may be too late for remedies, but as an optimist I don't think so. I think we'll be seeing a big uptick in interest in encryption, the TOR network, online personality obfuscation, etc... For a good example, look at how people are concerned about their health information and how HIPAA was born. Having worked in health care I can attest that organizations and the govt are dead serious about it, which those who wish to develop mobile medical apps are now discovering.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Why the hell does CNN's video player play on load?

<comment><USER34> Use click to play for all plugins. Problem (and many other problems) solved.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Couldn't get past the fact that the interviewer probably did 0 prep work for this.

</comment><comment><USER36> Hastily-transcribed transcript for those who can't watch the video:

Q "NSA and PRISM - what's the sentiment in the valley?"

A "Maybe this is indicative of the fact that I live in New York; that I've never really been part of that herd. We are as citizens I think really upset, really frustrated because we have an expectation that whether it is our private property offline or online, that it will be respected, and that's what the Fourth Amendment protects. And needless to say it was rather disappointing to see all this news come out and apparently much more on the way."

Q "You're building a startup that could become the next Reddit or Facebook: At what point do you say, 'I think I got to get a Lawyer?'"

A "Yeah it will certainly come up a lot sooner for founders and founders who were maybe thinking, 'move fast and break things' will now think 'move fast and break things but don't break the constitution.' And this is an opportunity for us as citizens to start to draw a line in the sand for what is off-limits and private in the digital age."

Q "If the government asked you for information, what information could you give them?"

A "Well there really isn't any. When people use reddit as a platform to publicly share links and publicly have discussions. So the primary use of the site is that is in public so there really isn't a ton of useful data there."

Q "What advice do you give these young folks who are building these companies and this is becoming a reality?"

A "There's my investor hat, my founder hat, and my citizen hat - and that citizen hat trumps everything else. And I want to make sure that the environment we are starting companies in has a government that respects the our right to privacy so that these kinds of discussions going forward aren't even a factor or an issue and I think the ability for us to use this technology has sort of outpaced - unfortunately - some of our legislator's understanding of what kind of laws they should be writing. Whether it's making sure our elected officials understand the internet and understand technology is just as important though as making sure we get more of these people who inherently and innately understand this technology into office. I think the other interesting thing is more and more founders are really rallying behind companies now that are themselves built on a model of respecting privacy. One that I know rather well is called duckdduckgo and it's a venture backed by USV here in New York - a search engine competitor to google and their core business proposition is 'we don't track anything you search for on our site.' And so I imagine more startups to kind of take that lead."

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I've already got a few offers from vendors who want to make "Citizen" hats... all proceeds to EFF of course.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Kind of surprised this isn't on the front page of reddit right now.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hmm, yeah, it did so-so on /r/politics, maybe it'll have more luck on /r/technology -- most of the time I'm happy there isn't a Kevin Rose <-> digg relationship between me <-> reddit, but every now and then it'd be helpful.</comment></comment>


South African Democracy – The hollow state - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21684146-two-decades-after-south-africas-transition-non-racial-democracy-its <comment><USER2> I concede that it's hard to stay positive, but I think SA will bounce back. Sometimes a hard fall gives you a reality check.

The article mentions that many people have left SA, but just as many stay. SA offers an amazing quality of life : I'm writing this from my office looking out across the Stellenbosch mountains. Later today I'll drive home through the countryside and spend the evening with my family. This weekend I may choose to go running at a wine-farm (for free), or take a short drive to Melkbos beach. This lifestyle is available to anyone with an "average" job.

I'm not denying that we have our problems, but we do have a lot going for us as well. My hope is that good will triumph over evil.

</comment><comment><USER3> So, South Africa is sinking down to the level of most other African countries. But most won't dare say so over the fear of being called a 'racist'. Such is the PC world we've created. Congratulations.</comment>


WWJ celebrates 100 years since launch as nation's first commercial broadcaster - <AUTHOR> https://www.detroitnews.com/story/entertainment/television/2020/08/19/wwj-radio-celebrates-100-years-radio-detroit/3343646001/ <comment><AUTHOR> When WWJ launched in Detroit in 1920 there were fewer than 100 radio sets in Detroit. The next year the number jumped to 10,000 and my grandfather was one of them. Even though he was only five my Dad remembered it well.

My late father in his 101 year life saw the launch of radio, TV, the Internet and cell phones. Kind of makes you wonder what will launch in the next 100 years? I'd imagine we can't even imagine</comment>