I want privacy because I break the law - <AUTHOR> http://zachaysan.tumblr.com/post/364510410/i-want-privacy-because-i-break-the-law <comment><USER4> I want privacy because

(1) I break laws I don't know about (2) I do things which might be _misinterpreted_ as breaking the law or as being immoral (3) I do things which are considered immoral by most people, but which are not illegal.

For these reasons, I cannot act autonomously or creatively without privacy.

<comment><USER5> The biggest reason why privacy matters is because there are _always_ going to be crimes committed so there will _always_ be people that have nothing to do with the crime caught in the dragnet around the crime scene. Coincidences do happen and if you happen to be around the area of two murders you'll have a very hard time to explain that away, whereas in a society with good privacy you would never even appear on the radar.

So even if you haven't broken the law or done something that could be misconstrued as such you are still at risk.

All this lack of privacy does is increase the size of the haystack while keeping the number of needles constant.

But hay looks a lot like needles and plenty of 'hay' will end up being prosecuted for stuff the needles get away with.

Less privacy means more solved crimes, but it also means many more false positives.

The 'if you've got nothing to hide why do you want privacy' crowd seems to be completely oblivious to this, until they end up being hauled in to the station for something they had nothing to do with themselves. That's when reality kicks in and suddenly they switch sides (but by then it's obviously too late).

We live in a society that is predicated on fear, fear of crime, of terror and so on. And most of us are willing to trade their freedom for security all too easily.

If you want absolute security, you should realize that that is only possible in a society that has more in common with a prison than with a park.

Robert Heinlein wrote a whole bunch of books around this theme, if you like SF and you haven't read those book yet I suggest you do so, there is some really good stuff in there.

<comment><USER6> I like Robert Heinlein, but I don't recall any of his books touching these topics. Can you give some specific recommendations for my reading list?

<comment><USER5> Farnhams Freehold, Friday and a bunch of others that I can't quite catch the title of right now (my books are in storage in a warehouse nearby, I'll have a look when I get there again).

The one I'm thinking of (but not sure what the title is) features a park that is a reclaimed stretch of highway where people are free to do as they please in a society teeming with surveilance. The park is supervised by cops eyes, floating cameras that double as little weapons platforms.

A tinkerer brings them down and chaos ensues.

Nice insight in the human mind in there, and how thin the veneer of civilization is.

<comment><USER7> That last one is Niven's "Cloak of Anarchy", and he has it online at <http://www.larryniven.org/stories/cloak_of_anarchy.shtml>.

<comment><USER5> Ah, yes, you're absolutely right.

That's why I couldn't find the title :)

thanks!

It must be 15 years since I last read those and it was in pretty quick succession while quite ill.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The article pretty much repeats the main points Bruce Schneier, and other privacy advocates, keep making: the fact that some individual or the government doesn't consider your behavior offensive _now_ , doesn't mean they don't will in the future. A message I think cannot be repeated often enough in the current climate.

Once, stealing an apple from an orchard was kiddie mischief, punished by a spanking from the owner. Now it's a criminal activity, which gets you taken away from your parents if you run into the wrong police, or 'children safety' officer. Writing about stealing an apple when you were eight won't cause employers to blink currently (at least, I think). Who knows how moral values will have evolved ten years from now?

<comment><USER9> _"stealing an apple from an orchard [is] a criminal activity, which gets you taken away from your parents if you run into the wrong police, or 'children safety' officer."_

Got a reference for that? It seems unlikely on the face of it.

<comment><USER10> Do a search on the web for "zero tolerance" policies in schools. Read a few of the horror stories, and you will no longer doubt our ability to blow things out of proportion.

<comment><USER11> I was unable to find a school zero tolerance policy that would remove a child from the parents' home.

<comment><USER10> Schools almost never have that power, but zero-tolerance policies typically mean that police officers are brought in to deal with almost any situation. Once police officers are handling what ought to be simple disciplinary action, it's easy for a student to get charged with something like assaulting a teacher, and then it's almost certain that social services will be involved, and they _can_ take kids away from their parents.

This whole process could be triggered by a small child throwing a pencil, and if none of the bureaucrats speak up on behalf of common sense, things can quickly escalate until there are serious investigations into whether the child needs to be removed from the home.

<comment><USER12> > _Once police officers are handling what ought to be simple disciplinary > action, it's easy for a student to get charged with something like > assaulting a teacher_

Certainly in the UK more kids assault teachers than get arrested for it; far more than get charged.

If the kid does something that looks to the law like assault to their teacher then what do you think is proper punishment? "Don't do that again!"?

When a kid does violently assault a teacher then this strikes me as more than sufficient cause to investigate the child's home-life and upbringing to ensure they're not themselves subject to similar abuse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The real power of masses of laws that are regularly broken is selective enforcement. When you add lack of privacy to the picture, it can look downright dystopian.

<comment><USER14> "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." - <USER2>

<comment><USER15> Here's the alternate interpretation for the modern day: Once you nail enough senators with outdated laws, the law will be repealed.

<comment><USER16> Or they will pass a law exempting themselves from those laws

<comment><USER17> They usually make sure to do that from the outset: most federal work-related laws, for instance, don't apply to Congressional staffers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The book "How to be Invisible"[1] makes a few good arguments for privacy too.

For example, if you are charged with a serious felony, but later released because you are actually innocent - lack of privacy almost ensures that your life is ruined anyway, even though you are innocent, because the media loves to blow everything out of proportion - but rarely seems to go back and correct their earlier stories when you've been found innocent, or if they do, most people have already read the sensationalized news condemning you and the damage is already done.

So, without even breaking any laws or doing anything wrong, without privacy you might find your life ruined anyway.

[1] How to be Invisible, by JJ Luna, [http://www.amazon.com/How-Be-Invisible- Essential-Protecting/...](http://www.amazon.com/How-Be-Invisible-Essential- Protecting/dp/0312319061)

<comment><USER19> He is currently giving the 2000 edition away for free in exchange for an email address. <http://dealzon.com/deals/how-to-be-invisible-by-j-j-luna>

<comment><USER20> Irony, anyone?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> 'Why should I care about privacy, I have nothing to hide" is one of the most harmful, narrow but yet common arguments put forward for this.

I _strongly_ recommend people with viewpoints on either side of the argument to go read D. Solove's essay on the subject over at <http://crysp.uwaterloo.ca/courses/pet/F07/cache/solove.pdf> \- it's quite short and a great read.

His "Understanding Privacy" work is a fantastic book which develops this and his other essays, and provides a great methodology for understanding the scope of - and breaking down the harm inherent in - modern privacy problems. I studied it for my Master's in Cyberlaw, and would highly recommend anyone with an interest in IT / cyberlaw / philosophy to track down a copy and read it. [http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Privacy-Daniel-J- Solove/...](http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Privacy-Daniel-J- Solove/dp/0674027728)

</comment><comment><USER22> There are many more good reasons for privacy. Laws are sometimes inconsistent, and it turns out to be impossible not to break at least one of them in a particular situation. Sometimes you have to break the letter of the law in order to comply with its spirit. Making such breaches visible to everyone would do nothing but open the floodgates to blackmail.

Also, there are moral issues. Abortion is legal in many jurisdictions, but many people will still treat it as homicide. Am I really under any obligation to argue about abortion with a potential employer or suffer the consequences of not sharing the employer's opinion? I think not. Keeping professional duties and private opinions separate is my right and it is necessary for any company to remain functional.

</comment><comment><USER23> Privacy isn't about having things to hide. Privacy is about who has the right to control the flow of information that is your identity. It is a human _right_ and a basic human need. Any argument based around "having nothing to hide" misses the point entirely.

</comment><comment><USER24> Am I the only one that find it a _tiny_ bit ironic that he uses Google Analytics on that page?

Probably.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I do a whole lot of ironic things. Including using Gmail, Google Reader, etc. If only Google didn't make such good products.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I don't think that privacy in this case is all that good.

If there is a law that you could break without knowledge and without harming anybody then this law is against common sense and should be abolished.

Upholding privacy as a way to get around stupid laws is like suppressing exceptions in computer programs so that errors would not manifest themselves.

Because no one is bothered there is no incentive to fix it.

When it comes to laws we don't need privacy as much as we need common sense and latitude.

<comment><USER26> Given the track record which is more likely to be effective? Continuing to wish for common sense and latitude in our public officials or protecting yourself from their normal behavior?

<comment><USER27> Honestly, in my experience - wishing for common sense and latitude in public officials.

I _know_ its fun to rag on public officials on Internet forums. But _most_ of the ones I know have been fairly decent people who are just doing their jobs. There're a few bad apples, but there're a few bad apples in any population. Even the TSA officials (which gets my vote for "worst government bureaucracy") were very apologetic when they confiscated my toothpaste.

I think that you're more likely to get absurd institutional behavior - <USER3> confiscating toothpaste - when you _deny_ latitude in employee judgment. The TSA screeners have this massive rulebook that they have to follow, and they risk losing their job when they deviate from it, even if they personally believe the rules are stupid.

Same with the private sector. Companies that have the best reputations tend to be those that empower their employees to solve the customer's problem, like Virgin or Nordstroms. Companies with the worst reputations tend to be those where the employees can't do anything but follow the playbook, like most telecoms.

<comment><USER25> That's exactly what I'm talking about. Silly laws exist because they may not be obeyed. Citizens get around them, enforcers get around them and the message never bites the policy makers in the ass - the people that are responsible for this mess are often not even aware that they made a mistake.

So I am claiming that loss of privacy that I perceive inevitable in face of modern and upcoming technology is not necessary bad thing because it may create the demand for fixing some stupid rules that may cause some of us harm.

<comment><USER27> I used to think the same way, but I'm not so sure it's a good idea now.

Problem is that it's much easier to ignore bad rules than it is to fix them. You're assuming that if everyone had to abide by the bad rules, they'd get fixed. I'm not sure that's the case - the examples I gave indicate that when you force employees to abide by bad rules, they just start acting badly.

When I was younger, I used to find it very frustrating that the rules said one thing but the way everyone acted was something else. We even have a word for that: "hypocrisy". But as I've gotten older and occasionally even been responsible for creating some of those rules, I've started realizing that the rules are an abstraction. They're there to set expectations. They aren't followed exactly because they _can't_ be followed exactly, and if you try you end up with absurdities like confiscated toothpaste. I'm not so certain that fixing the laws will work, both because it's difficult and because it's quite possible that the reason the laws are broken is because they can't take every situation into account, not because their authors were stupid.

<comment><USER25> > I'm not sure that's the case - the examples I gave indicate that when you > force employees to abide by bad rules, they just start acting badly.

If there is a strong asymmetry between law makers and people who must respect the law (such as in case of employers and employees) people will obey because they have no choice. But even then they will vote with their legs leaving environment that is governed by stupid laws. In case of state and citizens in democracy there is no such strong asymmetry because government must maintain appearance that it works for the people.

> it's quite possible that the reason the laws are broken is because they > can't take every situation into account, not because their authors were > stupid.

Same thing with computer programs or any complex system but it should not stop us from striving for improvement and inventing tools that may make such improvement possible.

I think that surveillance is one such tool that allows to monitor how much harm enforcing given law can cause and may lead to fixing the law.

<comment><USER26> I think you really underestimate the desire of people to not have to be bothered with this kind of stuff. No matter how insane things get people tend to say "well, it could be worse. We've still got beer and football".

I would, for example, never consider moving to the UK with their surveillance, etc., but they obviously have a large populace that disagrees.

Trying to force people into doing something they just don't want to do never works.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I want privacy because it's a self-explanatory, daily part of the human condition that every human understands from the time they're small. I don't have to explain it, I refuse to justify my need for it, and I will do whatever I have to do to protect it. Including breaking your __$#)($ & laws.

Consequently, I will never take a job for which a piss-check is a condition of employment. For one thing, that is self-incrimination, from which I'm protected by the 5th amendment. And I'm not signing away my constitutional rights to work for some totalitarian employer.

<comment><USER29> I don't disagree with your premise: I'd never work for a company that did drug checking.

But: private companies are not bound by the 5th amendment. The Constitution and Bill of Rights covers only what the government may or may not do.

<comment><USER28> I understand that; I'm saying: for an _American_ company, I won't give up my rights at the door. They can insist, and I'll walk away. Forced self- incrimination is not consonant with reasonable liberty. Should that stop at the door of a business?

Consider who got the piss test started: Ed Meese, Attorney General of the U.S. at the time. Purely contradicts the Fifth.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Relying on privacy to avoid liability for inadvertently breaking laws does not seem to me to be a good solution to the real problem: that laws can be so numerous and obscure that one can inadvertently become a criminal. Privacy does have a role in helping to avoid prosecution: if the government doesn't know about my lawbreaking, it can't prosecute me for it. But privacy should also limit government's power to legislate and prosecute: Government should not make criminal what is not its business. A citizen ordinarily should not have to live in fear that he could be prosecuted if only the government knew what he was doing.

In this sense, privacy can harm freedom because it allows government to expand its claims without public resistance. Privacy has enabled the government to make most American teenagers potential felons because they share music. If there were less privacy, if the government knew and prosecuted all the file sharers to the full extent of the law, the resulting public backlash would cause the law to be repealed. The best way to change an unjust law is to enforce it.

</comment><comment><USER31> There's an interesting book that I've read about, but haven't picked up yet, called "Three Felonies A Day". It discusses the selective enforcement of vague statutes and the incredible number of said statutes. [http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target- Innocent/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target- Innocent/dp/1594032556)

</comment><comment><USER32> While he makes a valid point I am worried about a few things he says:

 _Say there is only a 0.1% chance that in the next year Google's servers have a search history leak_

Sounds like meaningless speculation; and what does "leak" entail. Even if 0.1% _of the data_ is leaked there is a pretty low chance that his data will be included - or if it is, obvious.

 _between all their sharing of data back and forth with the US government_

Im not sure what this refers to; all data given under a subpoena should be a matter of public record at some point (at least it is here) and I was not aware Google handed out any other data to the government - if he has evidence of that it would be good to see it.

 _A Google search you made tipped off your local American authorities that you are breaking 16 USC 3370. Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200. Instead go to prison for 1 to 5 years after laying out up to $250k on a fine, unless you get an understanding judge._

Is this a scenario that exists? Answer is no. Of course I support the argument that this set up should never exist in the future - but I've not seen a suggestion Google would roll over to this lightly anyway.

Unfortunately this guy takes a good point to a somewhat surreal extreme - while that is often useful for pointing out flaws in things, his fruit example points out flaws in the law (which you could fall foul of in any number of ways beyond google searching) rather than making any specific point about privacy.

EDIT: any specific rebuttals? Did I get any facts wrong?

<comment><USER33> _all data given under a subpoena should be a matter of public record at some point (at least it is here) and I was not aware Google handed out any other data to the government - if he has evidence of that it would be good to see it._

Are you kidding? It would, of course, be covered by a National Security Letter (or whatever they're calling them these days), and illegal to even talk about. I have zero doubt whatsoever that the FBI, CIA, NSA and anyone else who wants it has full access to everything Google stores.

<comment><USER32> _It would, of course, be covered by a National Security Letter, and illegal to even talk about._

I can only speak for here; but a subphoena through the normal courts probably wouldnt - I cant see it being any different over there.

As to the CIA/NSA etc. having _allowed_ access lets see your evidence - otherwise your just propagating paranoia...

 _and anyone else who wants it has full access to everything Google stores._

Whom else are you referring to? Dont you think such a massive conspiracy would be fairly quick to come to light if it was _that_ accessible ;) conspiracy theories are usually the root of their own downfall - case in point.

<comment><USER34> Most of the information people give to Google is not encrypted when it passes across the internet so this would be relevant to revealing people's Google searches :

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

<comment><USER32> Agreed; but that was not the assertion made.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I recently watched _The Judge and the General_ , a documentary about the bloody rise of the Pinochet regime in Chile (link below), and the recent legal action against it. I recall a particularly chilling moment when Pinochet declared (paraphrased): if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. Of course, thousands and thousands of people had everything to fear, and thousands lost their lives for the dubious crime of being left wing supporters of the ousted Allende regime. Some things only become 'crimes' in retrospect.

<http://www.pbs.org/pov/judgeandthegeneral/>

</comment><comment><USER36> Agree totally.

I'd be so screwed if everything I've done came out.

Today, I'm a pretty law abiding citizen (if I break it, it is in ways that hurts no-one).

I was a rather confused and angry teenager growing up though, and did a lot of things I shouldn't have.

I really take offense to the notion that that should have fucked me over for the rest of my life.

There is such a thing as wanting to start with a clean slate.

Make exception for pedos, etc, if you want, but don't use them as a justification to screw everyone out of privacy.

For fucks, sake.

</comment><comment><USER37> Juries are (hopefully) your defense here. If the govt really did start prosecuting lemon buyers, one would hope that juries would not convict.

<comment><USER38> Hopefully you get some jurors who are familiar with Jury Nullification. Otherwise the instructions from the judge and persuasion by the prosecutor might convince them they have no choice but to follow the letter of the law.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Perhaps the unspoken point is, we want to be able to _deliberately_ break the law, should such a need arise. Yes, the citizens are potentially at odds with the government. Privacy from government isn't just finding the most effective and just policy for both parties, it's also a give and take negotiation.

</comment><comment><USER40> I want privacy for the same reason I wear clothes - I don't want you to see certain things. That has been my right since these nations (both Canada and the US) were founded.

You'd probably find, if you removed my clothes, nothing remarkable really. That doesn't mean that because of that, I should walk around in the buff.

</comment><comment><USER41> Not too mention loads of arcane laws that haven't been cleared (probably because of the cost).

I.e. "In Toronto, it is illegal to drag a dead horse down Yonge Street on a Sunday."

more: <http://www.mundayweb.com/weirdlaws.php>

</comment><comment><USER42> We need privacy because we may have to break the law...

</comment><comment><USER43> Just want to add what a fantastic thread of comments there is on this page. Thanks for such well thought-out debate and discussion guys.

</comment><comment><USER44> Either this is a work of fiction or else the author doesn't actually want his privacy very much.

<comment><USER45> You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether the stories are real or not. They're just there to illustrate his point that all of us commit minor infractions of the law from time to time and avoid the repercussions thanks to the level of privacy we're afforded by society. If our privacy is stripped away we get in a situation where we could be prosecuted for giving our mothers a couple of pain killers after her back surgery.

Also, he's disclaimed up the top that

 _To the police and future employers:

       1. I don't really do illegal things. I'm actually a pretty top notch guy.

       2. Some of the stories in the article may be embellished/fabricated. I do have to say that, right?*

<comment><USER27> Is it really because of privacy though, or is it because of reciprocity? Do people not get prosecuted for trivial law-breaking because the relevant authorities don't know about it, or is it because they're afraid that if they set the precedent that these laws will be enforced, they wouldn't want to live in the world that results?

It's always been fairly easy to dig up dirt - even felonies - in peoples' pasts. All you need to do is find one of their childhood friends, act all buddy-buddy, and buy him a few beers. Then as in now, these usually only get prosecuted if somebody has a vendetta against you.

Think of the times that people commit crimes right in front of a police officer and walk away. Haven't you ever driven a few mph over the speed limit when a cop pulls up behind you, think "Oh shit, there goes my insurance premium" as you pull over - and then watch him speed past you, because he's got something more important to do than write you a ticket? When I was in college, the campus police would regularly turn a blind eye to underage drinking right in front of them, as long as no property was being destroyed and nobody had alcohol poisoning. When teachers show a movie to their class, does anybody actually believe that they've acquired public-performance rights to the movie?

In polygraph tests, questions on these sorts of crimes are asked as a control, on the assumption that _everybody_ lies about them. The theory is that a normal person will be more nervous about the little crimes that they're sure they must've committed at some point in the past (even if they can't remember exactly when), but will _know_ they didn't commit the particular crime they're being accused of. A real criminal will be more nervous about the big crime they just committed, and all the petty misdemeanors pale in comparison to that. Makes me wonder if polygraphs give false results for those saints who don't actually do anything wrong.

It's not lack of information that stops most people from being prosecuted for giving our mothers a couple of pain killers, it's that most of the people doing the prosecution figure that they would do the same thing.

<comment><USER45> The problem is that with the internet evidence of your minor crimes is available to a far wider audience than usual.

To expand on your underage drinking analogy, it's the difference between being seen by a member of campus police and being seen by all members of campus police, including the really uptight one and a range of other people (potential employers, etc.), continuing for years after the actual night of drinking.

<comment><USER27> Possibly. One would hope though that there're checks on that one really uptight cop so that he can't single-handedly ruin your life. After all, the situation beforehand was arguably _worse_ , where it was just random chance whether or not it was the asshole cop who happened to see you when you were drinking.

The employer issue is already like that, at least for software engineers. I don't care if a potential employer wants to turn me down for something they saw in a FaceBook photo, because there're plenty of other employers who don't give a damn.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


If Architects Were Developers - <AUTHOR> http://forward-slash.in/2017/04/23/if-architects-were-developers/ <comment><USER2> In my experience, places that can't hire talent tend not to filter to people with strong skills (either in specific or in general) and just want bodies in chairs that they can use to manipulate <specific material>, so they write that into descriptions.

Also in my experience, places that can hire talent tend to get to be picky and can look for folks which have the general skills (which they interview for) but also can look specifically for people that already have experience with <specific material> so they write that into their descriptions.

In neither case does it make sense to write a description that asks for skills that require subjective self-assessment, since people who don't know what they are doing also have no ability to accurately self-assess. In neither case does it make sense to look for generic skills and train for specific ones when you can just acquire specific ones.

Conversely, there's no way for the organizations to put an honest signal into a job posting that distinguishes them as one or the other class of organization above; anyone can (and probably will) say "we only hire the best", "our product(s) are high-quality" or "we take engineering seriously".

There's too much money to be made as it is, with e.g. the average enterprise IT team or the average startup, software teams don't generally have to be both effective and efficient with their labor, just maybe or the other if either.

</comment><comment><USER3> As a Unity3D game developer, I find tech jobs that get specific about what tools are used to be _helpful_ to me.

I _want_ to stay in my toolset and do things I'm especially experienced with and good at.. there _is_ , for me, a significant difference between using Unity3D and Unreal or making 2D games versus 3D games. Sure, I could move to other domains but I _would_ be less effective (at first).

I feel like this is a false problem with a few valid points that are blown way out of proportion.

</comment><comment><USER4> One thing I've pondered a lot is where UX fits in the domain of software engineering.

While we should certainly be open to new ideas, I think there is too much of a tendency to completely ignore the medium. Imagine if we did physical construction like this. Since building construction analogies are often used to describe software development, we can get a really good idea of what's wrong with neglecting the medium.

Here[1], a UX designer ponders why we can't "deprecate" door handles, and asks why we can't simply rip out all load bearing door frames, which would incur great expensive and compromise structural integrity, all in service of removing a feature nobody wanted removed.

[1] [https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/60287/why-don-t-we- re...](https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/60287/why-don-t-we-remove-door- handles-and-let-doors-open-both-ways-inwards-outwards/60294)

</comment><comment><USER5> The statements made in the article do not align with reality - just the idea of what an architect does. After many delivered buildings and many delivered systems/apps/API's I can say for certain that the analogy just doesn't hold any water. It's probably worse than the 'car engine' mechanic analogy to software.

Software is missing a layer of people that role of the Architect provides. They are used more like your lawyer - acting as an advisor and agent on your behalf in your best interest. And allowed to make certain kinds of decisions for you when you are not present (ask to see the contract first!). It just so happens that there is a 'creative' step at the beginning.

I wouldn't spec (which is a written doc accompanying the drawings) which brand of steel is used, only the size (W10x44 36ksi). And I don't spec what brand of concrete is used (4" 2500 psi on WWM and #5 rebar on 4" crushed rock on top of a VB, maybe the color and finish if it's fancy). I do spec that it's a brick wall, some steel columns, and the use of bar joists for the membrane roof. I would spec where and how your fire alarms and exit signs are placed due to codes, and I would determine the maximum building volume that could be put on site. And certainly have some details on how to work with seismic-related or energy conservation issues such as the R= value of insulation.

But it's up to the General Contractor to submit to the architect during construction - and sometimes provide an 'Alternate bid' during the bidding phase that all of these details get worked out. In other words, after the design is completed but before construction (and finance) has begun. That's when the Software engineer says, 'Hey, let's use Python and Django' to build this - it meets or exceeds all the constraints and fits in the budget.

<comment><USER6> Exactly. For the kinds of job ad the author describes I think a metaphor of developer to framing carpenter is more apt.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Part of the issue is that our profession is so young. Engineers, in particular, have had centuries to professionalise. I our field, though, there are still lots of open questions, particularly with regard to the economic tradeoffs between development speed and code safety, and much of the argument is qualitative vice quantitative.</comment>


The 1,000-Pound Car Challenge - <AUTHOR> http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/leisure/2010/10/22/pound-car-challenge/?test=faces#slide=1 <comment><USER2> "....BioNectar4534.... " of Merc - that is so funny. Where do they come up with names like these?

The energy density of batteries is probably going to be the single most critical deciding factor for future car weights. The day the battery densities reach 10 times the current ones... the possibilities would be very, very interesting...</comment>


The Education of Dasmine Cathey (2012) - <AUTHOR> https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/dasmine-cathey <comment><USER2> Fascinating and saddening read.</comment>


Indonesian cave paintings show the dawn of imaginative art and spiritual belief - <AUTHOR> https://theconversation.com/indonesian-cave-paintings-show-the-dawn-of-imaginative-art-and-human-spiritual-belief-128457 <comment><USER2> > The depiction of the part-human, part-animal hunters may also be the > earliest evidence of our capacity to conceive of things that do not exist in > the natural world. This ability is a cornerstone of religious thought and > experience with origins long shrouded in mystery.

This irks me a little. The claim that the figures in the painting "do not exist in the natural world" stinks of the "we already know all the things" philosophical bent. Making this claim overlays a rather modern conception of a strictly materialistic world onto a culture we have little to no knowledge of. Our whole worldview mars our ability to conceive of a culture different than ours. I suppose we must view the world within _some_ context, _some_ worldview, but I think more awareness of our preconceptions is necessary.

I think any analysis beyond "there are old paintings in this cave, and these are the paints they used, and these are the things they painted" are almost certainly pure speculation and should be relegated to publications that deal in pure speculation.

<comment><USER3> Are you saying we can't be reasonably sure there weren't actually "part-human, part-animal hunters" at that place and time, or am I missing your point?

<comment><USER4> Maybe it wasn't figurative. Maybe people wore parts of animals in some circumstances (for a hunt "for magical power", whatever) and that's whats in the paintings rather than a centaur type thing, although we don't know and it could be a centaur type thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> An article about the paintings was recently discussed here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21773479](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21773479)</comment>


Benjaman Kyle - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjaman_Kyle

<comment><USER2> Benjaman Kyle is the pseudonym adopted by a man who has dissociative amnesia</comment>


Mixtaping.fm - Rediscover a Lost Art - <AUTHOR> http://mixtaping.fm/# <comment><USER2> I am of an opinion that it's quite rude to ask someone to 'Connect with [Facebook|Twitter|etc]' before actually telling the visitor what it's all about.

The bounce rate would drop significantly if you were to add more than keywords "Mixtaping. Rediscover a lost art." -- I don't supposed people younger than 30 know what it's all about.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. The ability to log in with facebook or twitter can streamline the sign-up process, but sites should really also provide the option to sign up via more traditional (email) means. Not doing so limits your ability attract a broader user base.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> If you're going to get me to 'sign up' via facebook or twitter, at least please make it clear that i'm only signing up for a mailing list, and that there is not yet any product to use. Thanks!

EDIT: received a welcome email after about 20 minutes, so I may have spoken too soon.</comment>


Okay. So what are you going to do about it? - <AUTHOR> http://www.sebastianmarshall.com/?p=387

<comment><USER2> If only there were a cheap, easy way to automatically send appointment reminders in Mandarin. ;)

(Sadly, HIPAA -- American health privacy legislation -- means that there is a lot of uncertainty about whether they can actually _use_ it or not, and since I'm not a lawyer and don't have an extra $100k lying around I can't resolve that ambiguity at the moment.)

<comment><USER3> AFAIK you're good to go as long as you don't reveal any patient information (called PHI in the HIPAA world). So instead of leaving a message like, "Calling to confirm John Doe's appointment at Johnson Health Institute" it would need to be "Calling to confirm an appointment at Johnson Health Institute". That way if the number is incorrect for some reason there hasn't been a breach of privacy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Unless I am listening to my wife. Usually, she doesn't want solutions from me, just an ear :)

That, and no more lists...

<comment><USER5> Arguably this is more sound advice than the one in the article. More often than not (particularly in relationships) complaining is a toll on the road to getting over it, whatever it is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Great post. This is similar to the idea of a site my friend and I put together called Lessons Learned (<http://lessonslearnedby.us/>).

We've only just started coding on it again after focusing on ramping up another more easily monetizable project with investor interest, but even in its simplest form we found that it makes a huge difference when walking away from a situation to say not just "well that rocked/sucked" or even "won't do that again" but to ask ourselves "what lesson can I learn from this?"

It seems being mindful and asking the right questions, consistently, pays immense dividends.

I'm adding this question to my list. One could even say I've "learned" a "lesson" :)

</comment><comment><USER7> This is exactly what happened to me 2 days ago at my haircut. My barber and I enjoy talking about the Pittsburgh Steelers (American football). Somehow, our discussion turned into my nonstop complaining...

"I hate when they run up the middle on first down!"

"The referees call too many penalties!"

"The kicker should go back to bagging groceries!"

"The announcers don't understand the game!"

"Instant replay ruins the experience!"

"They should just pounce on fumbles instead of trying to pick them up and run with them!"

Finally, he said, "Well then, what are you going to do about it?"

I answered the only way I could, "I'm going to drink more beer and yell louder at the TV. Maybe, just maybe, someone will hear me and do what I say."

<comment><USER8> Yelling at the TV is a long-established American tradition. :)

Sebastian's got a great article here -- he's really been on a roll lately. The only thing I'd add is that sometimes you can't do anything. When I read that book on stoicism last month, one of the key points was that you need to sort out the things you can change, the things you can't, and the things you have some bit of leverage with. Ignore the things you can't change, act on the ones you can.

The ones in the middle -- the things you can change but only a little bit -- you internalize, separating the parts that you own and the parts you don't. For instance, you can't make yourself win a sports match. But you _can_ make sure you play the game as absolutely the best as possible.

This is such a simple observation -- almost stupidly simple -- yet we keep getting the three categories mixed up, worrying about stuff we can't change, and giving up on things we can.

<comment><USER9> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenity_Prayer>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> What do you do when the answer is, "Nothing"? I find myself in situations that I really really want to change but can't come to a solution that I feel will work for everyone involved (family). My solution is basically to delay action and tell myself that THAT is my solution, for now. One of the comments in the post was to "change your mind". Maybe that's what I'm doing.

</comment><comment><USER3> I have come across this in my city--lots of people complaining and fewer people changing things (almost all of whom are quieter than the complainers). The easiest thing to do is complain and it's very rarely helpful. The reason why things aren't optimal (for you) isn't because no one has had the opportunity to complain.

</comment><comment><USER11> While I agree with the sentiments behind this post, complaining is often used as a way of venting frustrations that you can't do something about (trivially anyway).

It helps people feel less frustrated if they can complain about it.

</comment><comment><USER12> A former boss of mine had a simple rule: you can't complain unless you can suggest an alternative. It was a great source of ideas.</comment>


Found: A Quadrillion Ways for String Theory to Make Our Universe - <AUTHOR> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/found-a-quadrillion-ways-for-string-theory-to-make-our-universe/ <comment><USER2> This is fascinating.</comment>


Ask HN: Programming jobs in Utah? - <AUTHOR>

I'm curious if any Utah hackers know of good job leads in Utah (specifically in Salt Lake City or the surrounding area). Thanks in advance for any help :) <comment><USER2> drop me a line - my email is in my profile.</comment>


Additional iPhone tracking research - <AUTHOR> http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/04/more-iphone-tracking-research.html <comment><USER2> I hope this episode ends with Apple pushing an update to truncate and encrypt the file and people get over the fact that location services by definition use location data.

<comment><USER3> Seems to me that Apple is caught in a cleft stick--- on the one hand, the fan- boys don't see a problem and on the other hand the rest will not be reassured by anything Apple is likely to do. As for the general public, their lack of technological discrimination is more likely to result in a chicken little 'oh privacy; the sky is falling' effect than anything else.

<comment><USER2> Much depends on their press release and convincing the media to tune the hyperbole down a notch.</comment></comment></comment>


Aussie startup scene hits boiling point - <AUTHOR> http://e27.sg/2012/07/26/optus-innov8-announces-top-ten-finalist/ <comment><USER2> Where are the startup hotspots in Australia? Sydney? Melbourne?

</comment><comment><USER3> 2 of the startups are from Pollenizer!

</comment><comment><USER4> How's Sausage Software going?</comment>


Ask HN: Who is working on services? - <AUTHOR> With the widespread adoption of containers as an easy way to develop and deploy applications, should we be thinking of open-source solutions to system problems in terms of services instead of language-specific libraries? What are some of the problems keeping that from happening?<p>I've seen some great SASS products like Auth0/Algolia/Pusher/Stream. But if instead of working on Devise (Ruby auth), someone worked on an open source version of Auth0 that can be run as a service, couldn't that solution cover a bigger surface area for devs? (who may use other languages) <comment><USER2> Doesn't that happen very often, that people work on such services?

I'm part of a small team that works on portier[0], which is what one could see as open source alternative to Auth0 (it's not the same thing, and it is more inspired by Mozilla Persona, but close enough). It's a service, as we run a broker online for everyone who wants using it, and the whole concept is having self-hostable brokers that handle the login of users (via email or Openid).

But: While that broker has a proper and simple API one can use to use the service with every language, it is still so much easier to just include a library/module that does that for you. Interpreting the jwt, fetching the jwk to check the signature, packing the request to the broker properly. We currently have one for Python, node, php and ruby/sinatra. They are not all at the same level, the one for sinatra does almost all the work for you, while the the python library is more a set of helpers.

And I don't think that's something weird we're doing, look at services like stripe or superfeedr, they all have language specific libraries to make calling their web part easier.

So what I'm saying: If you run a service that targets devs you might still end up writing language-specific libraries. And I don' think there is much keeping language-agnostic services from happening, as there are a lot of them.

 _Edit:_ Though open source there is less, right. I think that's a mixture of the skills you need (having a proper server online and programming the software, not every team can both), the popularity of self-hosting in that community, and that it might cost money to run the online service.

[0]: [https://portier.github.io/](https://portier.github.io/)

<comment><AUTHOR> It's possible service development is happening very often, just not in the dev circles I spend time in. (web based startups)

Regarding writing interfaces for the service, that's fine too. It's just an easier way to integrate with a service. But there's a big difference between writing a service interface and a library that implements the service's functionality.

We do have plenty of open source services (e.g: Zookeeper, Redis, Kubernetes), but few product level like Stripe/Auth0. Yet there's a lot of duplicated effort in things like writing ecommerce/forum/blog/geolocation/social software. I wonder why we don't have more of these.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Libraries offer tight integration with the language. A generic service that provides a HTTP API doesn't.

If you are currently using a library that operates synchronously on in-memory objects and offers an idiomatic API in the language of your choice, switching to a web service may feel like a bucket of cold water because suddenly you're dealing with an async-only interface that sits behind a slow socket and requires serializing everything to a lowest common denominator API. It's a huge tradeoff that requires serious justification.

Back in 1990, there was an industry standard called CORBA that attempted to turn libraries into services: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Object_Request_Broker_A...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Object_Request_Broker_Architecture)

There's a reason why we're not using any CORBA-based software. (Well, the GNOME desktop was based on it for some time, but they gave up eventually.)

<comment><USER4> During the time I worked for Amazon, the entire Amazon infrastructure was written as services. It indeed felt like a bucket of cold water in my first month at Amazon, especially after having worked in software products company for 10 years prior to that.

But gradually, I got used to the services based architecture, where something as simple as presenting a login page would lead to dozens of REST API calls back and forth between various backend services.

I am not saying that one approach is better than another. I would have to dedicate a separate comment to discuss that. All I am saying is that developing an entire software system composed purely of generic services with HTTP based REST APIs indeed exist and are very successful in very successful companies.

<comment><USER3> Absolutely. At Amazon's scale, the justification is there. Things are different for invididual developers and small teams where the mesh of services will be maintained by the same people anyway.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _What are some of the problems keeping that from happening?_

Here's one: Money.

A service will cost me (more) money. A library I can deploy on already- existing infrastructure. Keeping in mind that "Cloud" is 3x to 6x more expensive over running in house, this is a significant drawback.

</comment><comment><USER6> The thing about containers is that they tend to make everything more complicated and resource hungry. Devise is a very good example for 'it Barely could be easier at this point'

</comment><comment><USER7> Open standards are such, but in a heterogeneous software landscape one will always have challenges integrating vendor specific implementations of such and such services.

</comment><comment><USER8> Do you mean fabric8/openshift/kubernetes+docker images ?</comment>


Show HN: Send emails via the 5 most popular email API services - <AUTHOR> https://turbovar.com/turbovar/emailbroker.jsp <comment><USER2> AFAIK, Show HN posts are supposed to be something the HN crowd can interact with. I think the only meaningful interaction on your website is the order form. The service is interesting but i'm not sure that this is the right place to post it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for pointing out. I was not aware of that guideline.</comment></comment>


Getter Setter: To use or not to use - <AUTHOR> http://muhammadkhojaye.blogspot.com/2010/10/getter-setter-to-use-or-not-to-use.html

<comment><USER2> This is mostly a java disease, though it affects a few other languages. In python, you wouldn't design this because you can change the implementation of the class without having to go and rewrite all the callers.

<comment><USER3> In python you can expose and integer within a class and later, when the API changes, convert that exposed integer to a property which upon access invokes a function call. I love this and wish c++ had it. It allows for a much more fluid evolution of the codebase.

for more info see here[1], official docs here [2]

[1][http://adam.gomaa.us/blog/2008/aug/11/the-python-property- bu...](http://adam.gomaa.us/blog/2008/aug/11/the-python-property-builtin/)

[2]<http://docs.python.org/library/functions.html#property></comment></comment>


The WRT54GL: A 54Mbps router from 2005 still makes millions for Linksys - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/07/the-wrt54gl-a-54mbps-router-from-2005-still-makes-millions-for-linksys/ <comment><USER2> Ten years ago I was studying CS in a conservative small religios city in central Iran. My girlfriend was living in a dormitory one kilometer away. Due to limitations I was unable to meet her freely. I borrowed a WRT54G and an outdoor antenna and made a WAN. The default output power was insufficient for my antenna and my intended target laptop in the other side of the city, however. With WRT54G having its firmware open sourced, I downloaded a custom built of it and hacked the device to increase the output power. Not only I circumvent the limitations, but I used an old 300mhz Intel PC as an internet gateway to let her access internet using her laptop. We were finally able to communicate freely at any time. My thanks to Linksys for crating this fantastic hardware and opening it to the world.

<comment><USER3> And this is why the FCC requirements make little sense. Such products are used all over the world. Forcefully limiting the freedom in one locale is catering to the lowest common denominator.

Instead, the ability to use spectrum should be controlled by the end user, through some hardware measure (ex: jumpers) that is done at the user own responsibility.

<comment><USER4> "The government should not regulate the shared limited resource of radio bandwidth because it is useful to work around restrictions on free speech" is nonsensical.

If your government significantly curtails free speech, then it either is also so fascist that it doesn't care what you think about bandwidth regulation, or (as in the case of the GP) it is so technologically incompetent that it effectively does not regulate the airwaves. Either way your suggestion is useless.

<comment><USER5> You're misrepresenting what the GP post said and being obnoxious about it.

Given that there are different regulatory regimens, locking down hardware to a particular locale may be inappropriate. For example, Channel 14 is fine in Japan and 13 in the EU but not the US. Restricting the whole world to 11 channels to comply with US law would be silly.

<comment><USER4> Yes, I misread his post. My mistake.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Do you hear that hardware manufacturers? People are willing to pay a lot, and you don't have to redesign/upgrade every year, if you make a simple, hackable, usable system!

I wish more hardware companies thought like this

<comment><USER7> Most companies don't want to make open/hackable solutions, because it makes the hardware a commodity. After all, they don't make the chips, they probably contract out the PCB design and manufacture or it's at least done via some sort of JDM process.

What's left at that point? Brand, mechanical design, and software... There's not a whole lot to differentiate yourself if you let go of the software piece.

<comment><USER8> > There's not a whole lot to differentiate yourself if you let go of the > software piece.

And yet it's letting go of the software piece that differentiates the WRT54GL.

<comment><USER7> Really? DDWRT supports a ton of routers.

<comment><USER8> So then why do you think the WRT54GL has lasted so long? Is there something else about that router that keeps it selling (it's #28 in routers at Amazon)?

<comment><USER9> The best hardware in bad situations. They just work, no matter what, and never die.

The software is just a part of the success.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Besides DD-WRT, which can be at times quite flaky a unreliable on WRT54GL with its outdated OS base and a slow UI (and also a real pain to keep track on the few working firmware revisions as time progresses over the years; many DD-WRT users and the DD-WRT site will sadly keep suggesting to use half a decade old firmware for it [1][2][3] and any 'official' activity seems to have stopped years ago) and the Open-WRT which sadly hasn't supported WRT54GL for the last several generations [4] despite its by now somewhat ironic name, there's also Tomato by Shibby [5] (note: This is a fork of the original 'well known' Tomato that stopped its development half a decade ago - though surprisingly people sill run even that one), which is amazingly supported today with regular and frequent updates [6], latest security fixes and modern revisions of base software and OS tools, with properly working kernel 2.6-generation, IPv6, QoS and not at the very least with the staple slick Tomato configuration interface. If you happen to run a WRT54GL, you must give Shibby's Tomato a try sometime to see what this piece of hardware can still do.

Disclaimer: I'm by no means affiliated, but run WRT54GL hardware actively and at times I'm still regularly amazed at what Shibby can squeeze out of the mere 4MB of flash space and a hardware that wouldn't properly run a smartwatch alarm applet in 2016.

\--

[1] - [http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Linksys_WRT54GL](http://www.dd- wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Linksys_WRT54GL)

[2] - [http://www.dd-wrt.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=51486](http://www.dd- wrt.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=51486)

[3] - [http://www.dd-wrt.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=288371](http://www.dd- wrt.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=288371)

      If you're lucky, you may also end up with gems like this:
      > Malachi - DD-WRT Guru
      > Your router was made in the 1800's. Why do you need firmware made yesterday.

[4] - [https://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/linksys/wrt54g](https://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/linksys/wrt54g)

[5] - [http://tomato.groov.pl/](http://tomato.groov.pl/)

[6] - [http://tomato.groov.pl/?page_id=78](http://tomato.groov.pl/?page_id=78)

<comment><USER11> I always loved Tomato; ran it on my 54GLs which I still have (though one is pre-L branding).

I had a Cisco E3000 that I tried to love; bought it because it supported DD- WRT so once I got sick of the Cisco firmware I tried DD-WRT. It seemed like an endless headache and never worked quite right, so I flashed back to the stock Cisco stuff; I realized the stock OS supported everything I needed anyway, and was more stable. I wish consumer stuff had more cool graphs and the like.

<comment><USER12> >It seemed like an endless headache and never worked quite right

The E3000 is based on a Broadcom SoC without free drivers. That's always a bad sign for third party support. Basically you are limited to some ancient kernel which may or may not be running stable. I know the E3000 and DD-WRT on it is indeed a mess.

"Supported" with proprietary drivers often means nothing more than that it boots somehow. The same goes for the new Linksys models with "official" OpenWRT support. The wifi isn't stable at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If anyone is looking for a cheap up-to-date replacement that runs OpenWRT, I recently replaced my WRT54GL with a TP-Link Archer C7, and I've been quite happily running OpenWRT on it for the past few months.

Note that you have to do a bit of hackery to install OpenWRT, since the stock firmware refuses to install unsigned updates through the web interface: [https://pappp.net/?p=1525](https://pappp.net/?p=1525)

<comment><USER14> OpenWRT on the Archer C7 doesn't support the hardware NAT acceleration (aka cut through forwarding), so you won't be able to achieve more than ~150Mbps.

<comment><USER13> Do you know a similar speed device where this is supported?

Also I don't think this is an issue for most home router situations, since few home internet connections in the USA offer more than 150Mbps. But if you were shopping for routers to install in an office building or something, it might be an issue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I have a WRT54G [not GL] that currently lives as the wireless interface an XBox 360. Most versions of the G are upgradable to to DD-WRT. That's what the "WRT" in DD-WRT was all about. Around the time I bought it, and in the years when the G's were still available, the GL's sold at a substantial premium.

Maybe there's something magical about $69 pricing. The HP12C lives on after 35 years.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP-12C](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP-12C)

[http://store.hp.com/us/en/pdp/hp-12c-financial- programmable-...](http://store.hp.com/us/en/pdp/hp-12c-financial-programmable- calculator-p-12c-aba-- 1?jumpid=ba_r329_hhocse&aoid=44661&003=6663635&010=12C%23ABA&ci_sku=12C%23ABA&ci_gpa=pla&ci_kw=)

</comment><comment><USER16> What I want to know (and what the article doesn't address) is: Why are so many other wi-fi routers such trash?

I mean, I sort of know why: Because manufacturers keep making new hardware without the long-term support commitment that's necessary to get the firmware truly sorted out. But how did the market come to this?

I would have thought that the average home router customer, at this point, groans in dread when its time to buy a router. To heck with crazy speeds my "broadband" cannot realize, never mind bleeding-edge protocols and questionable NAS USB ports. Don't we all want something that doesn't need a manual reset every couple of days? Why isn't uptime the #1 selling point by now?

<comment><USER17> Up until a just few years ago the Internet was fueled by extensive growth: router manufacturers (among others) made profits by selling to people who had never bought routers before.

This has all but ended now, and people shopping for their second or third router will be making different decisions.

<comment><USER18> You can sell a lot of garbage to consumers who have never bought that product type before.

If the full-performance product is crowded out, it's sub-type can be lost forever.

Once you enter the Garbaceous Period it can be the actual end of a higher quality era.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Mine went dead after about 8 years of use, and really 11G is a bit slow these days when multiple devices started streaming. I wish Linksys can have a reasonably priced 11N version that can load open source code to continue this legacy.

<comment><USER20> You could look at the WRT1200AC. It's available as a certified refurb on amazon.com for $90, and as part of their WRT line is intended to support open source firmwares.

<comment><USER21> > as part of their WRT line is intended to support open source firmwares

Not sure about the 1200, but I have the WRT610N and it has never worked completely with Open/DD-WRT. The best I got (before leaving it and returning to the original firmware) was a functional router but no USB and no 5GHz band.

<comment><USER22> Wow that's really surprising. Is it one of the later revisions? I'm running the 610N with DD-WRT and I the 5GHz band running just fine @ 300 mbps

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I have a powerline adapter (made in 2014) that hangs every other day if I let it operate in 802.11n (and it hangs every day if in mixed mode). Pinging it from my Raspy mitigates but does not eliminate the problem. I even installed a wall switch in the wall plug so it would be easier to recycle! In the end, I had to put it in 802.11g mode to have a slower but dependable home network. There are 3 routers in the house, fortunately the others do work in 802.11n without needing a power cycle from time to time (the most stable is the one supplied by the cable company - that's really surprising).

This is the scenario of consumer-grade WiFi - way less reliable than 10 years ago. When I replace the powerline by a blue cable, I can choose between buying a very expensive AP, or a 'modern' AP that freezes, or a WRT54GL that works.

</comment><comment><USER24> I have been curious, given all the echoes here about FCC wireless radio regulation, if these devices will in fact increase in price, and those like it, as this niche community covets them.

Kind of like as I watch the OpenGarages movement, the next time I buy a car I might pay premium for something vintage with the most minimal computerized components. Haha.

</comment><comment><USER25> I have a WRT54G that I bought in 2004 or 2005. I haven't even replaced its firmware because it does what I need, and it still just works and always has. No lagging, no crashes, nothing but straight uptime year after year. I do wonder if I should buy a GL model as a "spare" in case it goes dead at some point.

<comment><USER26> Have you tried to log into the admin web page lately? The default firmware generates SSL certificates signed with algorithms that modern browsers have black listed and won't access the page.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Still have two originals in operation in older relatives' houses. God bless this little device.

</comment><comment><USER28> I love these things. They were the basis for my first article in 2004. Its horrible to read now, but I had so much fun tinkering and researching and getting my first story as a tech journalist out to the readers.

</comment><comment><USER29> Hm, it costs EUR 47,73 here in Amazon... How is it still at that high price?

<comment><USER30> The model's reputation for reliability probably plays a big role here. Read the reviews of almost any other modern wifi router, and you'll see lots of complaints about even expensive models frying themselves in the first year.

<comment><USER31> I still keep old wrt54g's around for backup duty. But I really do want a router that's actively kept up to date.

Last year i bought a xiaomi mini miwifi (less than 20usd at the time). With openwrt it ran mostly okay but the AC was occasionally locking up requiring a reboot. Thankfully with 15.03.1 that now seems to be fixed. Ordered another one of these for my parents who were having serious problems with netgear router that I hope to get soon. Not having gigabit is a bummer on these but they do well for low speed residential service and they are super cheap!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Could it be that the ability to more fully control a computer, e.g., a router, makes the computer more valuable?

What use are greater feature specifications if the user does not have anything close to full control over the computer?

How about a computer that where the seller makes it deliberately difficult to open, or impossible to add RAM, or threatens repair shops with litigation?

When the user powers on, the computer immediately starts phoning home to various endpoints controlled by the seller and the user cannot turn this off. Are users presumed to be inept?

Does it matter if this computer has a sexier form factor and better specifications, not to mention a higher price tag, than another one without the restrictions on tinkering?

</comment><comment><USER33> I have a 11 year old WRTGL that got hit by lightning, fried two ports including the WAN port, but the other ports still work and it is still going strong.

</comment><comment><USER34> I still have mine, going strong with Tomato firmware on it. Haven't touched the thing in years. Amazing piece of hardware, even at 50/5mbit service.

</comment><comment><USER35> Doesn't the TI 83 calculator still sell quite well? It's a solid machine that does one thing and does it well.

<comment><USER36> I don't think that's quite an accurate comparison, considering schools almost nearly force you to purchase the Ti-83 (or they have been for the past few decades until very recently, when the Ti Nspire took over)

The WRT54GL is a purely market solution in a commoditized market where the consumer is not pressured or forced into buying it.

<comment><USER35> You may be right. Haven't thought of that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Obligatory comment/question: What routers do you use to run OpenWRT? What's the price like?

<comment><USER38> I have a DIR-505L ($15) I use for traveling. Has OpenVPN and SSIDs setup to bridge to the VPN (on layer 2). So when I connect to that special SSID it's as if I'm still onsite. It's also just a wallwart, so it's easy to travel with and doesn't look suspicious.

I also have a DIR-835 ($20). Also use it as a VPN router (both client and server). It's a lot more powerful than the DIR-505L and does 5ghz.

I used to use a WRT54GL, but then 802.11N came along and I also wanted 5ghz. So I got a Linksys E3000, but I later bricked it during a botched firmware upgrade. The uptime on that thing was like 400 days until I had a power outage.

Unfortunately, I'm having trouble finding a OpenWRT router that will support gigabit routing for the WAN. So now I use the AT&T supplied router/modem. Unfortunately with AT&T, bridging just does double NATing (and the box has a connection limit of ~2000 for ipv4).

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Great and just today it made me quite angry, wifi on mine is not very reliable.

</comment><comment><USER40> I bought mine around 2007 and I have used it continuously.

</comment><comment><USER41> my father is still using one which i bought 8-9 years ago. running dd-wrt, its unbelievably stable.</comment>


CryptoKitties: breedable cats on the blockchain – ETHWaterloo winner - <AUTHOR> https://alpha.cryptokitties.co/ <comment><USER2> This is, of course, pretty cool. But I don't really share much enthusiasm for the blockchain. It reminds me of Bit Torrent in the early 2000s. Sure, it had a decent impact on the Internet, but not really as _revolutionary_ as everyone was hyping it to be.

Smart contracts are cool, but it's nothing you couldn't achieve with any other decentralized protocol. The only interesting part of cryptocurrencies (imo) is the ledger, and from what I've seen, the BTC ledger is becoming a bit unwieldly. ETH will probably follow suit.

<comment><USER3> > It reminds me of Bit Torrent in the early 2000s. Sure, it had a decent > impact on the Internet, but not really as revolutionary as everyone was > hyping it to be.

It forced two gigantic industries (music and movie) to re-invent themselves, how can you say it only had a decent impact?

<comment><USER4> The hype around BitTorrent was a lot more hypey than that, and the revolution you're describing was already well underway by then by means of Napster and LimeWire and what not.

I think the "let-down" is akin to what it would feel like if the end-result of the blockchain in a decade would amount to little more than cheap, low- friction international payments (and those not even powered by a blockchain, but simply by the banks getting their shit together). That's great and all, but the blockchain hype is way up there with enabling anarchist utopia.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Wow, you built all this from scratch in a 36-hour hackathon? How much experience did you have with Ethereum?

</comment><comment><USER6> Please do Pokemon next. It's about time I get some respect for my shiny Mudkip.

<comment><USER7> Final Fantasy 7 on the PlayStation had a Chocobo breeding mini-game. Chocobo were a type of flightless bird and by breeding there was a chance to get birds with different characteristics, denoted by different colored feathers, which granted you access to different parts of the game.

<comment><USER8> You know, when I think back to FFVII (I never played any others after this). Trying to breed the correct chocobo is probably the worst part of the game. For the gold, did you not need a special potion or something (and many guesses) bred with different colours of chocobo? It makes stressed just thinking of it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > Challenge 1: Solid grey fur pattern + no tail + teeth (1st place - Cat #105, > 2nd place - Cat #135, 3rd place - Cat #177)

What does this mean? Has cat #105 already won? I thought it wouldn't start until late November.

<comment><USER10> We ran an alpha challenge during ETHWaterloo this weekend, on one of the Ethereum testnets. The official, mainnet release is still scheduled for November.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> In all seriousness, this seems useful as an educational tutorial on how smart contracts work.

<comment><USER12> I agree, and I think the author should write a blog-post/tutorial about it, it might be useful for a lot of people that are looking into blockchain/ethereum/solidity, me being one of them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Hi all, trying to fulfill requests for the kitties! We got over 100 while we were on the plane back from Waterloo.

</comment><comment><USER7> Finally, the killer app for blockchain tech.

I knew it would be porn or cats.

</comment><comment><USER14> And cryptocurrency/blockchain enthusiasts tell me it's not a hype train and/or bubble!

<comment><USER15> Because people have fun with it? I don't think this is valid argument. That does not mean it is not a bubble, but I can't take project like this as indication of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> figures 3 and 4 are swapped?

</comment><comment> eric-hu Will I have to buy ether to participate in this?

<comment><USER10> The first release will be Ether only, but we hope to enable non-crypto payments soon after. (Behind the scenes everything happens in Ether, on the Ethereum blockchain.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> We're all doomed.

<comment><USER18> Why?

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> mining cats, thats finally some useful blockchain tech, has to be first for everything

</comment><comment><USER20> Relevant SMBC:

[http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2932](http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2932)

<comment><USER21> So I was going to point to [http://www.ratemykitten.com/](http://www.ratemykitten.com/) ... but it's gone :(

And so is [http://rotten.com/](http://rotten.com/) :(

Finally, after almost a decade in zombie mode. That's impressive. I wonder where it was running.

<comment><USER7> Damn, I was browsing rotten only a few weeks ago. Related and more (though only slightly) on-topic was bonsai kitten. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonsai_Kitten](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonsai_Kitten)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> tldr;

<comment><USER23> Please don't.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Shut up and take my money!</comment>


No Response Needed - <AUTHOR> http://okdork.com/2007/07/25/no-response-needed-nrn/ Tired of Pointless email responses? <comment><USER2> "Are you sick of emails that say 'thanks' or 'sounds great' and other pointless ones that you really didn't need to read?"

I never want to work with anybody that has that attitude. You don't have to time even READ (let alone politely respond to) a "thank you?" But, I bet you have plenty of time to read and respond to everything on digg, reddit, slashdot, news.yc, and facebook.

</comment><comment><USER3> A single most powerful line I've been using when communicating to people is: "Thank you."

The author of this article is clueless.

PS: I linked this: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36709></comment>