Google Chrome's amazing growth spurt. The top web browser by June 2012? - <AUTHOR> http://royal.pingdom.com/2011/07/01/google-chrome-growth-top-web-browser-june-2012/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+RoyalPingdom+(Royal+Pingdom) <comment><USER2> I use Safari. Strangely, it's like the better tempered half-brother of Chrome and doesn't come with a Flash plugin I can't uninstall. Oh and it doesn't claim to have adoption statistics that are as dubious as the Enron financial statements.

<comment><USER3> you could use chromium for the same effect. also, you can disable the built-in flash plugin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Ah extrapolation by mean difference. My favourite part is the assumption that growth will continue to accelerate as market share increases, when firstly, that doesn't make any sense, and secondly, we have data from Firefox's growth showing that the opposite happens.

<comment><USER5> Yes I must admit as soon as I saw their graphs this sprung to mind. <http://xkcd.com/605/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Of course that kind of extrapolation is mostly just wishful thinking, but Google's success in this market _is_ impressive. IMO they've raised the quality bar for all the other browsers in a very short time.

<comment><USER7> Indeed. Even the comic book that they released to explain the innovations of Chrome was a great idea to make people understand and care more about this important piece of software.

<comment><USER8> For those who haven't seen it: <http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/index.html>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> statistical trolling. EVERYONE knows the IE browser share takes 5 years to budge. Great projections, but it just means Chrome _might_ be eating Firefox's lunch for a minute.

</comment><comment><USER9> I'm as big of a Chrome fanboy as anyone else, but that chart is wrong in so many ways.

Just to give an example: the end points of the chart show the browsers at roughly 22%, 34% and 54% -- around 110% market share..

ok, maybe they're actually predicting the total growth of internet users to grow 110% in a couple of years, but you can still do a percentage calculation...

Also, like te_chris mentioned, IE is getting better and I doubt we see such fast changes. But hopefully IE goes below 40% even 35% sooner than later

</comment><comment><USER10> This article seems to forget that 1. IE is getting better, as much as we all hate to admit it, 2. IE is still the default browser of the world's most popular operating system, 3. People are lazy and, as IE keeps getting better/faster, are going to be even more happy to just settle and get on with browsing the web - not argue over which browser is better.

<comment><USER11> > IE is still the default browser of the world's most popular operating system

While true if you look at current hardware numbers, I think your statement is misleading and incorrect. More people today purchased a computer running a Google OS than a Microsoft OS. I know that Windows is "the world's most popular operating system" by total installation numbers, but it is _not_ the most purchased today.

I'm not sure what is, but I'd bet Android is "the world's most popular operating system" if you measure it by today's sales.

<comment><USER12> sources ? i highly doubt that.

<comment><USER13> In its first 18 months windows 7 sold about 650.000 licenses a day. According to Andy Rubin there are currently around 500.000 android activations a day. Since not all windows licenses that are sold are actually used, and the number of licenses sold is probably declining, while the number of android activations is increasing, I'd say it's fair to say that they're roughly as popular, and android will probably overtake windows some time this year.

Sources: [http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/b/bloggingwindows/archive...](http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/b/bloggingwindows/archive/2011/04/22/windows-7-at-18-months.aspx) <https://twitter.com/#!/Arubin/status/85660213478309888>

<comment><USER14> I think you're kinda right but the force of your statement:

 _More people today purchased a computer running a Google OS than a Microsoft OS._

Isn't backed up by your source, there's a lot of hand waving going on there.

Also remember that phones have a much shorter life cycle than computers.

Edit: And remember that safari isn't on those graphs, you're talking about computers and smart phones, the article doesn't seem to be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm fairly sure that the percentages in the second chart add up to about 110...

<comment><USER16> One of the many reasons this sort of simple extrapolation of current trends makes no sense in the long run.

<comment><USER15> Actually, their prediction for Chrome in particular looks kind of polynomial. To be fair it _does_ look a little polynomial on the left side of the prediction line, too, but as you point out, using this kind of extrapolation on percentages is ridiculous in any case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> For as popular as chrome is, I feel like the browser market is going to become bifurcated between "normal users" and developers. Chrome is speedy, stable, and I recommend it to everyone since I'm the computer guy in my circle. But Firefox is still my development browser, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

<comment><USER18> What makes Firefox superior as a development browser? The Chrome Developer tools are, IMO far better then firebug...

<comment><USER19> Firebug with

Firecookie <http://www.softwareishard.com/blog/firecookie/>

Firequery <http://firequery.binaryage.com/>

Firepicker <http://thedarkone.github.com/firepicker/>

Jsonview <http://jsonview.com/>

Colorzilla <http://www.colorzilla.com/firefox/>

<comment><USER20> > Firecookie <http://www.softwareishard.com/blog/firecookie/>

Built into the Webkit Developer Tools

> Firequery <http://firequery.binaryage.com/>

jQuery objects visualisation (in console and inspector) are in the Developer Tools, rest is not (though the injection is a bookmarklet/browser extension away)

> Firepicker <http://thedarkone.github.com/firepicker/>

Missing indeed, Opera's Dragonfly has a color picker but the webkit devtools don't.

> Jsonview <http://jsonview.com/>

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chklaanhfefbnpoihc...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chklaanhfefbnpoihckbnefhakgolnmc)

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ddngkjbldiejbheifc...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ddngkjbldiejbheifcmnfmmfiniimbbg)

<https://github.com/rfletcher/safari-json-formatter>

> Colorzilla <http://www.colorzilla.com/firefox/>

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hmdcmlfkchdmnmnmhe...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hmdcmlfkchdmnmnmheododdhjedfccka) ?

<comment><USER19> Well for cookies chrome only shows the value, gives less control than firecookie. Other extensions seems 'hacky' solutions, doesn't feel integrated, some time slow. Also for css editing like add style, increasing/decreasing css rule value firebug is still better than chrome inspector (chrome still does not support increasing/decreasing in metrics tab). But javascript debugging experience is better in chrome. Chrome has good profiler, can add XHR breakpoint, listen for various event listener.

On an unrelated note I can't live without tree style tabs(On average I have 30+ open tabs, which is unmanageable in chrome, hangs some time) and vimperator. All in all I still prefer firefox.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I think it will level out eventually IMHO mostly because the other two probably will have users that really don't want to switch.

<comment><USER22> I think it will level out because:

(1) the quality of Firefox and IE have shot up over the last year in response to Chrome.

(2) Chrome's users are the most fickle and thus the most susceptible to new (or old) competition.

<comment><USER23> I can relate to number one, but what's your evidence for number two?

<comment><USER24> Just an anecdote, but I have been using chrome for the last six months because everything else was slow as a dog on my Mum's MacBook Pro, and chrome was super-fast. But the lack of decent keyboard link navigation is driving me crazy, and may drive me back to firefox soon.

<comment><USER25> Interesting, I've found Chrome to be slightly faster than Safari on my MacBook, but also much more prone to stalls and complete catatonia than Safari.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I am looking at Google Analytics of a site popular with US teens that has >12M monthly uniques:

1\. Firefox 32.40% 2\. Chrome 31.63% 3\. IE 30.20% (last 30 days)

</comment><comment><USER27> Argh. Same crap as with all the population predictions. Everybody always assumes the graph is exponential. It is not. It always levels off. The real trick is predicting where/when that will happen.

</comment><comment><USER28> [http://royal.pingdom.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/07/110701-c...](http://royal.pingdom.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/07/110701-chrome-prediction.png)

Is that the predicted market share "growth" as the chart claims, or the predicted market share? I think they were trying to get at the latter, but if that's the case, by Dec 2012 (according to their projections), Chrome will have 55% share, IE 35%, and Firefox 22% or so. That adds up to be more than 100%...

So it can't be projected market share, right?

</comment><comment><USER29> Depends how effective they are at converting people that don't really care. Pretty much everyone that really spends any time at all thinking about browsers and their differences would have already tried chrome.

I think they will continue to make inroads into IE with word of mouth recommendations and user frustration, a lot of the Firefox crowd though would be pretty happy with it and unlikely to change.

<comment><USER7> I've installed Chrome on at least 4 people's computers and they are still using it. If you win over the geeks, you get a lot of other 'dependent' people.

Business usage will be harder, though... Maybe if Chromebooks really take off.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> One thing to note is that when you think mobile, WebKit (Chrome, Safari, Android, iPhone) is already a dominant force. We don't know what our primary web browsing device might be 10 years from now and IE is trapped in PCs (yes I'm ignoring Win Mobile phones). Kind of interesting that IE and Firefox actually share Mosaic heritage.

<comment><USER20> > One thing to note is that when you think mobile, WebKit (Chrome, Safari, > Android, iPhone) is already a dominant force.

Warning: there is no webkit[0] especially not on mobile[1].

While not completely true, it's important to remember three things about webkit:

1\. The core engine progresses fast, and actual browser implementations fork the core, two webkit browsers may have very different capabilities and bugs due to the precise trunk revision they were forked from

2\. Webkit relies on a number of abstract interfaces which are implemented differently on each port, depending on the quality of the port and the underlying platform's capabilities two webkits on two different platforms (or toolkits) may behave very differently

3\. Webkit is an HTML/CSS rendering engine, javascript engines are built separately, which means (again) two webkit browsers may have very different behaviors and capabilities as far as JS and DOM go, and provide completely different sets of APIs.

[0] [http://ariya.blogspot.com/2011/06/your-webkit-port-is- specia...](http://ariya.blogspot.com/2011/06/your-webkit-port-is-special-just- like.html)

[1] <http://www.quirksmode.org/webkit_mobile.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I, as mostly everyone else, was not paying attention to Opera. I rely on shortcuts, so pentadactyl and FF seemed the only way to go. Well, I have to say Opera with vimperopera is better. The shift-arrow navigation is a killer feature.

M2, the mail client, actually makes me open gmail much less...

</comment><comment><USER32> Especially with the newer web apps coming out, Chrome 'just works'. Even though I personally use Firefox most of the time, I am telling others to use Chrome more over time. I know they'll always be able to see the web the way (I think) they should.

<comment><USER33> Firefox is automatically updated these days just like Chrome is, so there isn't much of a difference between the two in this regard anymore.

<comment><USER3> automatic update is only for security updates. major updates still do popups for users to install

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Installing Chrome as default browser on my mother's computer felt a lot like when I set Google.com as her home page in 1998. And I did it for very similar reasons. Chrome is the fast/lightweight/awesome version of what already existed.

</comment><comment><USER35> So, by the end of 2012, Chrome (56%), IE (35%) and Firefox (22%) together will have over 110% of the market? ;-)

</comment><comment><USER36> So by 2013 it should have captured 100% of the market and by 2013 130%?

</comment><comment><USER37> ...and yet I still can't ctrl-tab to my last active tab.</comment>


Electric motorcycles are already here – and more are likely on the way - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/05/electric-motorcycles-are-already-here-and-likely-more-are-coming.html <comment><USER2> I'm sure electric bikes would be great for commuting, but so much of the joy of owning a bike comes from the mechanical aspects of maintaining it and bonding with it over time—I'm not sure an electric bike would ever be more than a laptop in that sense. I'll keep my aging Triumph going for as long as I can.</comment>


At Google X, a Top-Secret Lab Dreaming Up the Future - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/technology/at-google-x-a-top-secret-lab-dreaming-up-the-future.html?_r=1 <comment><USER2> One nitpicky-type thing for me in the article is saying that Sebastian Thrun invented the first driverless car. Yes, he was the head of the Standford team who won in 2005, but he was on the CMU team the competition before where Red Whitaker was the team lead. The fact that these teams were quite huge also prevents someone from saying that one person invented the driverless car. Being team lead on a team who wins the second competition certainly doesn't mean that person invented the tech. I know I'm being anal about it, but there were a lot of people who competed in the DGC, and it is quite annoying to hear people mention his name in that regard. Having talked to Sebastian a few times during the competition, I would think he thinks the same way.

<comment><USER3> It's important to put some face to tech/science breakthroughs otherwise the general public doesn't relate. Also, in that vacuum you'll get politicians gaining credit. Kennedy gets a lot for credit the moon landings because their wasn't a clear face to put it to, while in the manhattan project at least oppenheimer gets credit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Here's a collection of quotes from the triumvirate about artificial intelligence.

[http://ignoranceisfutile.wordpress.com/2008/09/13/google- fou...](http://ignoranceisfutile.wordpress.com/2008/09/13/google-founders- artificial-intelligence-quotes-archive/)

(Except, ignore the Moffett field thing. That has nothing to do with AI research as far as I know.)

Anyway, any Googler will confirm that Sergey Brin, in particular, keeps returning to this idea: that Google's ultimate destiny is to realize Strong AI.

I'm not saying they've achieved anything. But I would not be surprised if they were putting substantial resources into it. It's even directly related to their bottom line. It doesn't have to end in HAL 9000. They may come up with some technology that is just more insightful about search queries. But even that would be worth billions and billions.

<comment><USER5> > I'm not saying they've achieved anything.

Clearly you're not aware of the CADIE incident a couple of years ago.

<http://www.google.com/intl/en_us/landing/cadie/>

Be sure to check the blog.

(By far my favourite piece of Google whimsy, for the detail and number of teams involved) (You're right, muro)

<comment><USER6> It took me much longer than I'm comfortable admitting to realize that this was an April Fool's joke.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "It's a place where your refrigerator could be connected to the Internet, so it could order groceries when they ran low. Your dinner plate could post to a social network what you're eating. [...] These are just a few of the dreams being chased at Google X, the clandestine lab where Google is tackling a list of 100 shoot-for-the-stars ideas. "

Those are shoot-for-the-stars ideas? I hope those are at the lowest end of the scale. They seem pretty boring to me.

<comment><USER8> I've been hearing talk of self-restocking fridges for at least 10 years. It's the ultimate go-to cliche for the "connected devices" hype, that's now called the "internet of things."

It's the modern-day version of the Honeywell H316 Kitchen Computer: <http://jdh.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/2/163/F9.large.jpg>

<comment><USER9> apropos: <http://valerieaurora.org/kitchen.html>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There have been times in my life where I've thought that I've had a "genius" idea and every cell in my body has said "Don't tell anyone. Hoard it. Cultivate it. And you'll be a revolutionary!"

And then I end up sharing. And there never ceases to be one or two or four perspectives shared that I never thought of before. And in the end, I think the idea flourishes because I was open and shared and iterated and shared those iterations.

Do these "top secret" labs ever make the big cognitive leaps that we hope for?

<comment><USER11> PARC gave the world Graphical User Interfaces, object oriented programming, ethernet, laser printers, precursors to PostScript, and a few other major breakthroughs.

It wasn't necessarily a "secret lab", but its distance from XEROX management on the east coast made it effectively an under the radar operation (to their detriment, of course)

<comment><USER12> Most of these only really took off once PARC shared them with other people and companies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> _It's a place where your refrigerator could be connected to the Internet, so it could order groceries when they ran low. Your dinner plate could post to a social network what you're eating._

The stuff that could have been invented 5-10 years ago but was not interesting enough to warrant the effort

<comment><USER14> I've been hearing about fridges-that-order-groceries for at least ten years. It's one of those dumb ideas that just keeps coming up, despite the fact that there's no demand for it. Basically, I don't trust my fridge with my credit card... and besides, I don't want to order groceries by delivery anyway, particularly not the kind of perishable goods that I'd be keeping in my refrigerator.

I suppose I wouldn't _mind_ having a fridge which knew what was in it, so I could check what I needed to pick up on my way home before I left the office. But I doubt the system could be made smart enough that it actually saved me more mental effort than it consumed. The low-tech version is to simply put cameras in your fridge so that you can check its contents remotely... but even if I had this set up I doubt I'd use it all that often.

Maybe I'm being overly harsh on the smart-fridge idea. But I think it's representative of a huge _class_ of dumb ideas: let's use fancy technology to save some minor effort for the consumer, at the cost of the consumer now having to go to the effort of acquiring, learning and maintaining yet another fancy piece of new technology. Screw it, I want my microwave with dials back.

<comment><USER15> Although I share your sentiment, there is contrary evidence.

Consider this essay:

[http://www.taquitos.net/chipworld/articles/snaxpo- learned.sh...](http://www.taquitos.net/chipworld/articles/snaxpo- learned.shtml)

> Convenience in foods will continue. Anything that takes the steps out of a > process will become successful. Witness the "chip/dip" combo packs that > Frito Lay is now selling. Open the package, you have chips and dip right > there. No need to go to the fridge! At the testing area, Jays demonstrated a > combo pack that had mini pretzels and honey mustard that was extremely > tasty. Other examples included a pre-cooked baked potato that includes the > sour cream, butter and salt and pepper inside the package. All you have to > do is nuke the potato for a few minutes and you've got instant lunch.

<comment><USER14> I'm really not sure how fast food product ideas contradict my point about adding unnecessary complications to home electronics, but... damn, a one-step microwaveable baked potato sounds _great_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I am hacker and a geek, but nowadays I am more and more interested in marketing. I am wondering in what part the existence of such a lab and the emphasis in their communication on A.I. is a conscious marketing effort. I can imagine that even if nothing from that lab will make direct profit for them, and even if their search engine will never be even close to strong A.I. they can communicate an excellent marketing message: when you use Google you use strong A.I. (or at least almost). If we think about it this way the secretiveness can also make the story more exciting from a marketing perspective. Also if this is their main motivation then they will create more 'spectacular' prototypes rather than just honestly trying to solve deep problems.

<comment><USER17> Being more and more interested in marketing in the way you've described means to me that you are cultivating a more and more robust, healthy skepticism of the messaging that comes from our media/corporate centers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> "Because Google X is a breeding ground for big bets that could turn into colossal failures or Google's next big business — and it could take years to figure out which — just the idea of these experiments terrifies some shareholders and analysts.

"These moon-shot projects are a very Google-y thing for them to do," said Colin W. Gillis, an analyst at BGC Partners. "People don't love it but they tolerate it because their core search business is firing away." "

Is it just me or does this represent the worst of Wall Street short-term thinking? I mean, the first sentence could really be read as an indictment of venture capital as a whole.

</comment><comment><USER19> I think what Google's best at is not so much innovation as taking existing innovations typically reserved for Dept. of Defense/B2B uses and bringing it to consumers for free.

We already know the DoD already has tech that is years ahead. Google is one of the few companies who can not only afford to bring crazy breakthroughs like Google Street but to do so in a financially profitable or feasible manner.

<comment><USER3> I disagree that dod has the best tech already in "top secret". The best tech is often dod sponsored, but is made public by the university researchers who usually create it. And it's not costly, you can go read it and use it, often the stuff is released as open source software on the researchers' website.

<comment><USER20> "But is made public by the university researchers who usually create it" <\-- yeah, the stuff you know about is made public, and the stuff you don't.... isn't. That's what secret means. I think I heard that 50% of the research in Neuroscience labs today is DoD sponsored and never sees the light of day. Mind-hacking anyone?

<comment><USER3> Tech that could be applied to civilians and made money on doesn't stay hidden for long - this is one place where the "greedy" mba types are the good guys.

<comment><USER20> I take it you think there are MBA types that wander around NSA headquarters, grab the dragonfly-size spy robots and bring them to market?

<comment><USER3> yeah, exactly.

there has to be a management structure even at nsa, and management types are "networkers" who'll talk to people with money to invest.

<comment><USER2> NSA gets their money whether you like it or not. They certainly have people in charge who talk to the legislative branch, but they aren't MBA/marketing people. The are usually ex-generals. Other agencies might seek outside contractors, but the NSA is one of the few who do most of their work themselves. I didn't work there, but that was my understanding at the time I worked in other parts of the government.

<comment><USER3> Doesn't matter about their backgrounds, mba or ex-general, people who rise to executive levels rub shoulders with investors at cocktail parties and deals happen.

<comment><USER2> Seriously, what are you talking about? What investors? You have proven you don't know what you are talking about in this thread, but I am curious what you think is true? Who are the heads of the NSA meeting with who would be considered investors? The NSA meets with the Armed Services board and the Senate intelligence board, and that's about it. I get it, you think the government is b.s., but groups like the NSA don't seek outside investment.

<comment><USER3> No need to get rude, I'm not some teenage troll guy, I'm here for intelligent discussion. I don't seen where I've "proven" myself wrong.

This thread is not about investment into nsa, but commercialization of nsa (or other military/government org) technology. My point was that regardless of nsa'a official stance of secrecy, tech gets "leaked" out into the commercial sphere. You can't stop a good thing from spreading, no matter how hard you try.

<comment><USER20> Are nuclear bombs good? Do the heads of our national security agencies take technologies that could potentially kill the whole world's population and, because they, like every other executive in the world, are an MBA-types, sell it to whoever they happen to meet at a cocktail party? You may not be a teenager, but I can't say that you aren't a troll.

<comment><USER3> Nuclear tech, in the form of reactors has been commercialized for quite some time if you haven't noticed. And no, I'm not a troll, just because someone takes a contrary view they are not automatically a troll.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I can't help but feel the article starts by missing the point. Connecting random devices to the internet is only a good thing when you get something neat out. Sticking a 3G modem in random devices & a bit of hardware is low- hanging fruit.

</comment><comment><USER22> Awesome to see both Andrew Ng (ml-class.com) and Sebastian Thrun (ai- class.com) involved in these projects.

</comment><comment><USER23> I wonder if they will ever work on a flawless mobile OS that has tons of great apps and great offline support for Google Docs.

<comment><USER24> Nothing is ever flawless. If you focus on refining one technology too long, the world will change around you and it'll become obsolete. Imagine Microsoft patching Windows 95 for 15 years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> X for Xerox? When can I expect futuristic visualizations from Google Design?

</comment><comment><USER26> Maybe it's somehow an important proof-of-concept AI challenge, but restocking my fridge does not make the list of things I desperately need better technology for.

The driverless cars are old news and space elevators are a niche at best. Whatever makes Google X interesting must truly be top secret.

<comment><USER27> > space elevators are a niche at best

What does that even mean?

<comment><USER24> Only Willy Wonka and Richard Branson would buy one?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> this is where Google Labs went when it was "cut"

<comment><USER29> not sure if you're being serious, but no, google labs was a bunch of experimental projects run by normal google software engineers. this is an entirely separate thing.

<comment><USER28> partially a joke and partially just hopeful, yes. to explain myself, Google seems to have attempted to appease investors by focusing on their core money making products, while still maintaining their commitment to innovation with spinoffs like this. so it's the best of both worlds for Google and for us in this case. now if we could only find Google Code Search, Google Labs, and the old design of Google Reader somewhere in there too....

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> The spaghetti cannon continues to boom.

<comment><USER31> Too bad I can't watch the spaghetti cannon at work during lunch. I know it's silly, but silly is fun.

Stuff like YouTube (as well as Netflix) is helping to kill broadcast TV (alright, reality TV and other low value cruft is also helping to kill broadcast, as well as fixed show schedules). Long term, internet video is more democratic, as well as flexible and fun. Perhaps stuff like YouTube will have more effect on society that internet-fridges and AI cars?</comment></comment>


Show HN: Tech Internships All in One Place - alex-wallish https://www.techinternship.io <comment> alex-wallish I'm a student and have been through the struggle of applying to hundreds of companies just to land a single tech internship. I've built this site to help simplify the entire process and save a lot of time.</comment>


Canada: Wet'suwet'en leaders reject PM Trudeau's demand to remove the barricades - <AUTHOR> https://www.thespec.com/news-story/9861830-wet-suwet-en-leaders-reject-trudeau-s-demand-to-remove-the-barricades-setting-the-stage-for-clashes/ <comment><USER2> This can be resolved when Trudeau is willing to take a PR hit and act against his impulses, for the good of the nation.

That is to say, never.</comment>


Demonstrating WordPress Exploits- WP Mobile Detector 3.5 - <AUTHOR> https://app.bugreplay.com/shared/report/4d616006-57a9-40df-a4d3-d7b9cb87dd8a?utm_source=hn&utm_medium=post#/view <comment><AUTHOR> Accompanying blog post here[1]. Last time I posted a vulnerability walkthrough[2] for fun on hn (that one was of an eBay info leakage issue) I got a couple of requests for more demos like it, so here's a fun one of how easy it is to compromise an un-patched vulnerable WordPress Plugin.

[1]: [http://blog.bugreplay.com/post/152117721734/demonstrating- wo...](http://blog.bugreplay.com/post/152117721734/demonstrating-wordpress- exploits-wp-mobile)

[2]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12002579](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12002579)</comment>


Building the Feed for the Reddit iOS App - <AUTHOR> https://redditblog.com/2017/06/08/building-the-feed-for-the-reddit-ios-app/ <comment><USER2> Thanks for submitting this, I'm one of the authors. Please feel free to AMA about it!</comment>


Bypass Paywalls Clean for Chrome/Firefox - <AUTHOR> https://bitbucket.org/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clean/src/master/README.md <comment><AUTHOR> Refactored Bypass Paywalls Clean extension/add-on (no google analytics)/add-on with lots of new sites (200+ sites + all (custom domains) Medium), bug-fixes, option to add custom sites and update-notification. [https://bitbucket.org/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-chrome- cl...](https://bitbucket.org/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-chrome-clean) [https://bitbucket.org/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls- firefox-c...](https://bitbucket.org/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox- clean)</comment>


Windows 8 Consumer Preview is available for download [Video] - <AUTHOR> http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/b/windowsexperience/archive/2012/02/29/introducing-windows-8-consumer-preview.aspx

<comment><USER2> Anybody else having trouble with the videos? Can't seem to get them to play in FF or Chrome on Mac 10.7

<comment><USER3> Most of what of what I thought at first glance were videos were just pngs. When I found the video at the bottom (right above "Windows 8 Consumer Preview for developers and IT pros" heading) and hit play it wouldn't run for me in Firefox or Chrome on XP, and the video player didn't appear at all in IE. I couldn't figure out how to watch the video.</comment></comment>


Mark Zuckerberg Named TIME's 2010 Person of the Year - <AUTHOR> http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,2036683,00.html

<comment><USER3> Obviously Assange should be the person of the year. Although I personally dislike him for being such a popularity whore, it's obvious Time magazine has been pressured to choose someone less controversial.

But what happened to original principles of this award? Hitler was the person of the year for 1938. This award went always to the person with the highest impact on news. What the heck happened this year? Time magazine is becoming irrelevant.

<comment><USER4> "Obvious" doesn't mean what you think it does.

I don't know what Zuckerberg is doing there, but let's hold off on peddling completely unfounded conspiracy theories. More likely, and less unfounded: Old-style news organizations are scared positively pantless by the fact that a blogger (He's a guy with a computer, if that's not a blogger, WHAT IS!?) was in charge of not just one, but quite a few, of the top news stories this year.

<comment><USER5> "blogger" doesn't mean what you think it does.

<comment><USER4> It was an unsuccessful attempt at sarcasm towards the disdain traditional media shows towards un-traditional (internetbased) media.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> In other news, Time magazine announced a new version aimed at adults:

[http://www.theonion.com/video/time-announces-new-version- of-...](http://www.theonion.com/video/time-announces-new-version-of-magazine- aimed-at-ad,17950)

<comment><USER7> Yeah. Time is an infotainment magazine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Facebook isn't a 2010 phenomenon.

2010 was the year Wikileaks changed the world.

<comment><USER9> Can someone explain to me how Wikileaks changed the world? I'm not trying to be provocative, but seriously what is all that different now than it was two months ago?

<comment><USER10> The technology is nothing new, I'd grant you.

However, in historical context, Wikileaks is (very likely) revolutionary.

Wikileaks challenges the whole concept of closed government. Governments have assumed that they can keep secrets, whether out of national or selfish interest. Suddenly that's not true any more. Any secret will eventually become public. And there's little you can do - national newspapers and TV stations can be dealt with, but how can you shut down a server on the other side of the world ? And if you do, so what ? The secrets are on a million sites and torrents.

For good or ill, this changes the way governments, especially democratic governments, do business. If you know that your innermost secrets will be revealed, not in 40 years time but in tomorrow's evening news, how do you conduct affairs of state ?

Maybe this is something we've all realized for a long time, but only now, it appears, do governments realize the full implications of what "World Wide Web" really means.

<comment><USER9> I guess I'm just unwilling to grant the point that the idea of closed government is dead. If anything, the reaction to this leak may be worse than the disease. But, nonetheless, these were a ton of `secret' cables. They were embarrassing, they make it more difficult to conduct foreign affairs, but they were not actually that destructive or informative. For two key reasons:

1) The cables are the opinions of low-level functionaries, no matter how good they are at their job. These were not TS cables, they did not include a shocking set of information. In fact, it is all sort of "meh, we pretty much knew that.

2) "The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it's in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets. Many governments -- some governments deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us. We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation."

The first point is that we pretty much didn't learn anything, and the second is that it won't really matter.

<comment><USER10> It doesn't really matter about the content of the cables themselves, other than the immediate diplomatic embarrassment (and if an Army private in Baghdad was able to access this information, you can bet the Chinese/Russians/French/Iranians/anyone else has been reading US diplomatic cables for a _long_ time).

Nor does it really matter about whether the United States is "indispensable" or not (worthy of a more detailed reply on US foreign policy, but this isn't Reddit).

The point is the long-term implication of governments being able to keep secrets. Of course, leaks are nothing new (for example, the Pentagon Papers). But if you have technology which allows instantaneous transmission and replication of data around the world, then governments will have a hard job of keeping secrets from their citizens except for very short periods of time. In the same way that that the internet is destroying the record business - despite their attempts to hold back the tide through legislation - the same technology is destroying the secrets business, both public and private.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> What is everyone's opinion on the Chilean Miners getting a runner up place (as opposed to none)? I was a bit surprised. It is incredible and inspiring that they survived, and the feats of engineering required to save them were remarkable (although those people aren't receiving an award), but do you think even they feel they should be runners up to this prize?

It was fortunate that they survived, and they did what anybody in their position would by trying to stay calm and hold out, but their circumstances were not that unique. In West Virginia in April this year 29 miners died, but that is "old news" now to everybody except those in the immediate area. How many people are tortured, raped, wrongfully imprisoned annually? It is horrible but I'd rather suffer being in a dark, hot and humid mine for a few months and escape a hero and celebrity (with book deals) than be tortured or raped continuously, with nobody fighting to get me out of that situation.

Maybe I am missing the point of the prize; which is to reward media attention. In which case why not reward X Factor, American Idol or whatever winners instead? Far more people know them.

<comment><USER4> I don't even know about inspiring. It's just accident-porn, inflated by a publicity-craving Chilean government and blow way out of proportions by an all too willing international press.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Proving once and for all that Huxley is better than Orwell...

<comment><USER13> I didn't expect that comment, but it's so true. If it was a vote for the most influential person (is it?) basically people would be voting for themselves.

I still don't get why people give Zuck all the credit. And I'm not talking about the creation myth about the company. I'm just saying that for a long time his company has probably not been steered by a 20 year-old. These days he's likely been coached just to not come off as a robot. But business-wise I don't get the impression it's all him either.

<comment> brown9-2 "has _probably_ not been steered by a 20 year-old", "he's _likely been_ coached just to not come off as a robot"

How much of this is speculation and how much of this is fact?

Either way, it's not like having advisors or help makes someone's accomplishments important. Presidents have armies of staff, all CEO's have advisors and aides and coaches, and Assange doesn't run wikileaks alone.

<comment><USER13> Do you really believe that Facebook is driven by Zuckerberg? All things considered there are a lot of descisions an a lot of deals to be done. Couple that with a lot of investors and a lot of money, and you're not going to let the Zuck learn by making billion dollar mistakes.

The comparison with Steve Jobs etc have been more marketing than fact. It's kind of unbelievable that you're believing any differently. Steve Jobs also likely had a great deal of coaching at the beginning, that's why they hired real business people and that's why Facebook has done the same. Not to mention partnering with countless tech businesses.

<comment> brown9-2 _Do you really believe that Facebook is driven by Zuckerberg?_

No, but I'm not quite sure why it matters. No business with 1000+ employees is driven by a single person. If Steve Jobs was "Person of the Year" for 2010 for some of Apple's accomplishments, would we be sitting around discussing how it's wrong to give him the award because he doesn't run every aspect of Apple all by himself?

The CEO and founder is the face of a company, that's just the way it is.

My other large nitpick here though is making criticism based on personal speculation... "probably doesn't make all decisions", "is likely getting help" etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Wait?! Time's person of the year WAS Julian Assange as decided by the online community. TIME just chose to make Mark Zuckerberg the person of the year. In their words "though TIME's editors who choose the actual Person of the Year reserve the right to disagree".

Julian Assange led the vote by ~ 150000 votes.

[http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2...](http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2028734_2028733_2028727,00.html)

<comment><USER15> "Assange won our poll by a great margin — but of course, Lady Gaga was No. 2. We take all that into account."

<comment><USER16> Why hold these polls if you are going to discredit it yourself and put such snide remarks?

But anyway does anyone even read Time here in US?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm kinda sad Assange didn't win

<comment><USER18> Feeling sad would imply that you hold some respect to the judges that decided who won, but I think Time magazine just lost the respect of many readers. I'm kinda sad for _them_ , not for Assange.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I totally agree with this. Farmville is such a game-changer. Distributing whistleblower messages that expose corruption doesn't bear any significance in front of Facebook's vision of making everybody friends. <3

</comment><comment><USER20> Related:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2003942> \- readwriteweb.com - <USER2> comments

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2001882> \- time.com - no comments

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1990612> \- time.com - 1 comment

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1975517> \- time.com - no comments

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1968958> \- time.com - no comments

Edited to add comment count in response to replies below.

<comment><USER21> Novelty accounts? In my Hacker News?

RiderOfGiraffes, is that you? If not, I suggest that you do the same as he; pointing people to the stories that have tons of comments on them. In this case, none really do yet, so maybe a note about that?

<comment><USER20> It's semi-automated scripting from RoG. I'm trying to work out the most useful method(s) of detecting duplicates and cross-referencing. In this case I didn't put the number of comments, and marked the referenced items as "related". Compare with:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2005790>

and

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2004764>

where one is marked strictly as a duplicate, the other lists related, along with a note of how many comments.

I'm working on this. There's a sort-of A/B testing, since I'm able to go back and see which cross-references get up-votes, and which get down-votes. Currently I'm getting precious little of either.

<comment><USER22> This is a slippery slope. It's just a matter of time before we have novelties like <http://www.reddit.com/user/keanu_reeves/> :)

<comment><USER20> I don't think of it as a novelty account. I think of it as a robot providing a service. Since it's still under human supervision it lags somewhat, but it's already found a discussion that's been split between two duplicate submissions, something I find annoying, and a waste.

It's still an experiment - I may yet give up entirely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> While I have hoped that Julian will win this one I'm happy that both the winner Zuckerberg and runner-up Assange are one:

Hackers.

</comment><comment><USER24> Great choice, forget about that Nobel Peace prize guy who is locked up for freedom of thought and speech or something about democracy... It's a hard name to remember anyway.

<comment><USER25> Nice contrast, huh? Instead of some guy who fights for freedom and democracy and symbolizes a struggle against a tyrannical regime, let's choose some smug rich punk who is working with the government to catalog info about every citizen in the US.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Facebook is sooo 2009, time.com seems to just have no balls to make Assange the person of the year.

</comment><comment><USER25> What a joke. If I had any respect left for institutions like time, I'd be shedding it.

Facebook is a new, proprietary way for people to do what they were going to do on the internet already, without Facebook. I don't feel that it has been influential on society as a whole - the entire electronics revolution has.

I'd rather see Steve up here with an iPad, personally. Or perhaps someone who has influenced the actual direction of history.

Nice safe choice for Time, huh? Underscores their commitment to undermining the entire world of journalism by making news as bland and irrelevant as possible.

</comment><comment><USER27> Times had better prepare for a DDOS.

<comment><USER28> the legion of unknown has moved on to operation paperstorm

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I am sure TIME had this picked out by October at the latest - it just had to go through editing, proof-reading, printing, etc. for a while and they kind of missed Wikileaks in the process. While I think it's not an excuse, it was probably chosen before Wikileaks released even one of the cables that are a big deal now.

<comment><USER30> The problem is that they specifically made it sound like it was a late- breaking decision in their wording on the online poll and elsewhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Single-page version (best for Instapaper or just reading online period) - [http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/printout/0,29239,...](http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/printout/0,29239,2036683_2037183_2037185,00.html)

</comment><comment><USER32> While this isn't the first time wikileaks has been in the news, am I the only one that sees a problem with people's seeming interest in awarding this to whatever person is in the news closest to the time of the reveal?

Wikileaks has been in the public conscious for maybe a month (combined) this entire year. Regardless of your politics, you have to admit the Tea Party has been ever-present and incredibly effective at changing the makeup of our government and getting their message out. I don't see how wikileaks has that same (perceived) effect on everyday Americans' lives.

</comment><comment><USER33> Ironic if you think of how much Facebook has been criticised this year with regards to its privacy settings and data governance tactics.

</comment><comment><USER34> The guy deserves it. He created a tool that a lot of people find very useful. I don't use it myself but I recognize how valuable it is to others.

I still haven't seen any significant revelations come out of wikileaks, so I think they were right to not pick Assange

<comment><USER33> He created it in 2004. The only thing FB received during 2010 was criticism about the way they handle data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> spineless

</comment><comment><USER36> Big deal. I was Time's person of the year back in 2006 - [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00....](http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html)

</comment><comment><USER37> Shouldn't the credit go to the soldier who leaked the documents (I am ashame don't even know his name). He is the one who is going to spend his life in prison.

<comment><USER25> Yeah, there's a nice story out about Bradley Manning's less than hospitable confinement conditions. I'm sure they're getting the biting dogs, exotic chemicals, sexual assault team and waterboard ready for Assange.

[http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14...](http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning/index.html)

Love how they're dosing him with antidepressants.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> They are trying to sell magazines. If they did Assange a "cancel your subscription to terrorist magazine" campaign would be started by Fox News.

</comment><comment><USER39> My personal stance in refusing to read that drivel stands as personal protest. What is TIME turning into anyway, Teen Idol Mania Essays? Meh.

</comment><comment><USER40> Just like Time to suck up to power instead of those who challenge it.

Mark totally deserves this.... but not this year. After the IPO.

</comment><comment><USER41> Apparently, concentration camps are not evil when compared to a whistleblower website. Enough said.

I feel sorry for Zuck though.

</comment><comment><USER21> Note that this is who was named by the editors, not who won the "Reader's Choice": [http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2...](http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2028734_2029036,00.html)

"though TIME's editors who choose the actual Person of the Year reserve the right to disagree"

</comment><comment><USER42> thats it. the time is dead to me. i can take amazon, paypal etc. because those are companies and heck they can kick whoever they want, its their business. but when a magazine ignores its readers votes... well i guess the time just adjusted to its country. democracy adieau, long live the republic.</comment>


Introducing OpenType Variable Fonts - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@tiro/https-medium-com-tiro-introducing-opentype-variable-fonts-12ba6cd2369 <comment><USER2> This is the return of Multiple Master fonts that I always wished would happen but gave up hope on.

Color me very, very impressed.

<comment><USER3> Metafont also had similar capabilities, if I recall correctly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> So how can I get the different variations of the font in CSS? (e.g.: I want condensed ultra light for instance)

Will it work with font-weight and font-stretch?

e.g.: Will this use the font variations instead of letting the browser do the interpolation?

       font-weight: 100;
       font-stretch: condensed;

<comment><USER5> Google's announcement [1] about OT font variations mentions that a CSS proposal is in the works:

> _Together with other browser makers, we're already working on a proposal to > extend CSS fonts with variations. Once everyone agrees on the format, we'll > support it in Google Chrome._

[1] [http://opensource.googleblog.com/2016/09/introducing- opentyp...](http://opensource.googleblog.com/2016/09/introducing-opentype- font-variations.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is this like MetaFont?

<comment><USER7> No. Metafont (at least for format, not the interpreter) is more akin to TrueType or Postscript font definitions.

This is more akin to the old Adobe MultiMaster fonts, where the user installed one font that could then be dynamically tuned in various ways - weight, descenders, etc.

<comment><USER8> That's what Metafont was supposed to be, too. See, for example, [http://www.antonvasetenkov.com/metafont- demo](http://www.antonvasetenkov.com/metafont-demo) .

But it seems that it ended up being used for a much more narrow purpose in the actual TeX stack that people use.

<comment><USER9> I took it as basically nobody else used METAFONT.

I hate the conservative, everything is old and has been done view; however, it is easy to look at some of the original large projects that people chose to ignore and be amazed at what they were already doing. It isn't in XML, but METAPOST/METAFONT are two really really cool projects.

<comment><USER10> > I took it as basically nobody else used METAFONT.

yeah, well, same true for Multiple Master fonts. It ended up that Adobe gave the font metrics to the TeX[0] community. The complexity of the fonts was obviously too much for the "graphic designer".

0 [https://www.lcdf.org/type/mm- metrics-1.2.tar.gz](https://www.lcdf.org/type/mm-metrics-1.2.tar.gz)

<comment><USER9> What are the odds that _this time_ , things will take off? :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Very promising!

Is there anywhere we can play with creating variable fonts? Guessing it'll be awhile before it hits FontForge...

<comment><USER12> most of the type-design world is moving towards a ufo-centric workflow. ufos are basically simple to grok xml files defining bezier curves. Adobe's AFDKO (Adobe Font Development Kit for Opentype) supports ufo and generates from them full-fledged otfs. Another great resource is the more recent fonttools fork on github at [https://github.com/behdad/fonttools](https://github.com/behdad/fonttools) .

I used to like fontforge, it's a fine application, but the move to ufo has made it easier to apply older svg-based tools to editing splines and saving out as ufos. here's a free application, it looks promising! [https://github.com/trufont/trufont](https://github.com/trufont/trufont) .

finally it's worth looking at [https://github.com/LettError/MutatorMath](https://github.com/LettError/MutatorMath) which has lots of the tools for interpolating masters. There are actually loads more resources and, if you are short on time or attention, my guess is that the tightest workflow will be coming to Robofont (which hovered around 500 euro for a while).

Still, it's all very accessible to you even outside of fontforge and all the libraries for modifying ufo-style paths are freely available. take a look, it seems very fractured, but i think it's a nice distributed workflow all things considered given the final output.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> So, will this add significant weight to webfonts, if they include multiple variants of the same font?

<comment><USER14> You did not read very far if you missed the bit where it said only deltas will be stored beyond the base. Though I'm sure some klutz will find a way to make obcenely large font files regardless, possibly by including the astral pnanes.

<comment><USER15> It's not clear to me how that's actually going to result in smaller file sizes. Are they quantizing these deltas? Are they planning to exploit certain consistencies in font design that will lead to the deltas being more compressible? A delta does not intrinsically require less information than an absolute value.

<comment><USER16> > _It 's not clear to me how that's actually going to result in smaller file > sizes_

In the obvious way that when A and B are similar enough (as font variations are) a delta between A and B is substantially smaller than bundling A AND B.

> _A delta does not intrinsically require less information than an absolute > value._

In the abstract, no, but in 99% of the cases where it's used in computing, e.g. it software updates, rsync, etc, it does, and that's exactly why it's used.

Why would font variations, which intuitively are more alike than different, would have diffs larger than the "absolute value"?

<comment><USER9> How much of this could have been solved by simply using compression? That is, instead of making up a new delta language, just store the full files, and let compression tools do their job.

I thought this was the definitive reason why git tracks full files, and not diffs. Turns out, that is just a better way to do things in most cases.

<comment><USER17> Compression as in zlib works well on 1-dimensional data such as text. Fonts are vectors, described by geometric generator functions, i.e. : render "O" as: Circle with center at 50%x50%, line strength 1.2%.

That description is already a (excellent) compression: A bitmap for the 1000px x 1000px "O" for your poster would be 1MB.

Whereas before fonts only had rules to change with size changes, this standard defines weight as another dimension.

It's quite similar to how jpeg, mpeg, and mp3 are better compression methods for their respective domains than WinZip could ever be by incorporating knowledge about data being encoded.

<comment><USER18> You're right in general, but you gave the example of jpeg, mpeg and mp3 which are all lossy compression. LZW/ZIP compressed images are lossless. I suspect that applying Zip compression to font files might not reduce file size enough to be worth doing for the reason you initially stated.

<comment><USER19> I guess by interpolating glyphs you also will loss information, so the comparison to jpeg makes more sense.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Private equity controls the U.S. voting machine industry - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-03/private-equity-controls-the-gatekeepers-of-american-democracy?srnd=premium <comment><USER2> The problem here isn't private equity control of the industry...it's state & local governments choosing to actually use these things. PE can call a lemonade stand a voting machine, that's what it means to live in a free country, but that doesn't mean we have to use the damn thing. It's a joke. It's not like we don't know how to design reasonably secure electronic voting mechanisms[1]...these companies just don't bother. There is no reason anyone should ever be using these things.

[1] [https://crypto.stanford.edu/pbc/notes/crypto/voting.html](https://crypto.stanford.edu/pbc/notes/crypto/voting.html)

<comment><USER3> I disagree with the notion that false advertising is a right characteristic of free countries. Free does not mean anarchy.

<comment><USER2> Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that. My point is that these companies ought to be able to sell 'voting machines' that suck, and we ought to be free to not buy them. They should not be free to make false claims about them.

<comment><USER4> absolutely agree on all three points. unfortunately it's well known that governments often go with the lowest bid for a plethora of goods and services, and it's all to easy to lowball a bid to push machines that suck.

<comment><USER5> In California at least there were ballot iniatives that mean the CA government _must_ go with the lowest bid, even if it is from a company that has consistently run far over budget.

Honestly I feel the solution to this is: lowest bid, but the company cannot charge more than their bid and needs to have completion/bankruptcy insurance. That way companies that routinely under bid will go bankrupt/have the bankruptcy insurance bills increase until it becomes unprofitable to underbid.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is there a solid argument for not having more regulation on these organizations? We have so much regulation on slot machines and casinos for example because we know that a lot of money passes through there and there's high potential for money laundering. Why not have strong regulations around voting systems too? We know that if voting systems are compromised the impact could be devastating to the entire country - far more critical to America's security and continuity than regulation in many other industries.

I just don't get the opposition to that. It seems like it's in everyone's best interest (those that are honest and are looking for a fair foundation to build from that is).

<comment><USER7> I honestly think that a lot of people in the US think it's more important that their party wins than having fair elections. So I don't expect a big push coming from the people who are responsible for these purchases.

<comment><USER8> I'm not sure why you see that as irrational? If I had a genie that made sure whoever I voted for won I wouldn't really hesitate to use it. It would be silly of me to refuse.

The party in power is expected to lie cheat and steal to maintain their position and the opposition parties are supposed to keep them in check. Adversarial systems seem to work pretty well since the incentives align -- way better than I would expect an honor system to work at least.

<comment><USER9> It's irrational because they should understand both from both civics education an intuitively that the success of the system depends on good faith participation. If we don't respect the process or the outcomes, act like adversaries to our own country, it ends up a steaming pile.

<comment><USER8> Why do I care about 'the system'? It's just a means to make a decision. Holding the process as the highest ideal ignores the consequences. If a wrong decision gets made but we followed the process are we really saying we're somehow better off than if we made the right one?

<comment><USER7> It seems you are advocating outright war between factions and let the strongest win. In this case we should abolish all laws.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Why is it that Bloomberg has run an article so light on the details of the financial ownership of these companies by private equity firms (something they should be quite expert in), and instead mostly consisting of old news stories about how close some past elections have been (not their area of expertise and barely relevant if the idea is that the entire voting system can be wholesale rigged)?

My guess is that it's because if you dig into the details, there is little actual control being exercised by those PE firms, making this a non story.

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm not even sure there's a good answer. It's not just federal and state elections. There is a lot of complexity that isn't considered. Localized districts (water, fire, school, parks, etc) have weird and overlapping boundaries compared to other districts. Add in some gerrymandering and it gets horrific to write software against.

While I'm genuinely concerned over security considerations, not to mention equipment. It's hard to coordinate even the paper/scantron style ballots. What bugs me more about the visual/touch computers is the _time_ that those stations take relative to cost... a few cardboard privacy booths and scantron is _much_ better, but we're spending billions on systems that are demonstrably worse.

And anything over the internet is a non-starter now. In the end, I really hope that more states/districts realize how bad the cost/benefit of the computer voting stations are. Not even considering the coordination, lack of paper trail, before considering the relative consolidation and closed-source nature of the system.

Disclosure: I work for a company that does ballot printing and other election services, but not voting machines specifically.

</comment><comment><USER12> Maybe everyone should vote by mail, which currently is done by paper ballot.

The current voting machines have problems, and I'd rather use paper ballots today, but let's not make the mistake of thinking that paper ballots are the ideal long-term solution. Remember "hanging chads" and voter confusion caused by the ballot layout in Florida back in 2000?

<comment><USER13> Voting by mail is fraught with huge problems. Zero proof the person filling it out and mailing it are actually the person they should be. Campaigns often block walk, "helping" people complete their ballots, for example. Also ballots get sent to dead people quite frequently. Voting by mail should only be done for those overseas and hand delivered to a consulate where ID can be verified.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more- vote-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more-vote-by-mail- faulty-ballots-could-impact-elections.html)

[https://www.themonitor.com/news/local/article_983f423e-d3e9-...](https://www.themonitor.com/news/local/article_983f423e-d3e9-11e8-9bd6-a7ddaa46a712.html)

[https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/community/fort- wort...](https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/community/fort- worth/article219920740.html)

A single person at a polling location committing fraud affects one vote, but a few people committing mail in fraud can affect hundreds or thousands of votes. "Helping" people vote, while not illegal, is definitely ripe for abuse. "Want to keep your social security checks? Here, sign this ballot."

In person voting with your thumb dipped in dye just like they do in developing countries along with photo ID, along with auditable paper ballots is a sure- fire way to eliminate fraud. Those that oppose this generally are the ones who benefit the most from the current system.

<comment><USER14> The counter argument is that it is much harder to intercept the mail en-masse than it is to interfere with elections in person.

Every year there are stories of polling places having "technical difficulties" or being "moved at the last minute" in certain neighborhoods. Roads get closed down, signs directing people where to go to vote are not put up, and 4+ hour lines out the door become common place in areas where those in power want to suppress votes.

In contrast, with vote by mail people don't have to take a day off of work, they don't have to wait out in the cold for hours, and they don't have to risk not being able to vote at all if their local polling place decided that all the machines are "no longer working".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> democracy dies because people couldn't be bothered with the "mundane technical details".

its like this is a flaw of intelligent civilization that Carl Sagan didn't think about. it's not global nuclear warfare, it's not climate change, it's not some mad virus...

it's that the species becomes disinterested in performing maintenance because maintenance tasks don't produce a dopamine rush. the civilization becomes too incompetent to perform even the most basic upkeep on the structures they set in place - whether physical like roads and bridges, or social-political, like election systems.

nobody becomes famous or wealthy for performing upkeep.

</comment><comment><USER16> I don't see why we can't use open source voting software, low cost PCs and old fashioned punchcard machines.

The problems in 2000 were all about data not be correctly recorded. That was solved a long time ago. There never was a need to start transmitting the data electronically.

Now we can use electronic gathering of the data AND automatic counting of the physical ballots to help prevent fraud. But replacing physical ballots with electronic vote collection wasn't really needed.

But lobbyists saw an opportunity.

<comment><USER17> The City and County of San Francisco has started funding a project to do just this. More info can be found here: [https://osvtac.github.io/](https://osvtac.github.io/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Before I saw this today, I saw this opinion piece from the ny times:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/opinion/midterm- election-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/opinion/midterm-election- hacked.html)

I can't help but think, if private equity already controls the industry, that there is ample room for a startup or non profit or even a government owned business to disrupt the industry. Create real secure optical scan voting machines based on the best practices that have been come up with, and with independent audits and sell them with a contract where the machines are updated with security fixes for a fixed period.

Sell the machines a bit like razors, The machines themselves are relatively cheap, but come with a required subscription to the security fixes for the lifetime of the machine.

<comment><USER19> Los Angeles County is one of the few jurisdictions with the resources and heft to move the needle on their own.

They're making their own OSS tabulators. I've been out of the election integrity game for a while, so I'm not immediately familiar with the scope of their effort.

Any one wanting to reform USA's election administration stack should start in LA. Help their effort. Lobby to import their gear to their own jurisdiction. Study their effort, roadmap.

<comment><USER17> No, Los Angeles County's new tabulator isn't open source. Look what happened when someone tried to request the source code for their "open source" system (as LA County's press release called it). LA County replied that it's "exempt from disclosure" for a whole host of reasons (2 pages worth):

[https://osvtac.github.io/files/meetings/2018/2018-09-13/pack...](https://osvtac.github.io/files/meetings/2018/2018-09-13/packet/LA_County_Records_Request.pdf)

[https://osvtac.github.io/meetings/2018/2018-09-13/agenda](https://osvtac.github.io/meetings/2018/2018-09-13/agenda)

In contrast, the City and County of San Francisco _is_ working on developing and certifying an open source paper-ballot system.

<comment><USER11> And that's not even close to the most shady action a government has tried with software that I've heard about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Open source software and hardware could be a solution for these problems me thinks. Or at least a requirement for shared source of both

</comment><comment><USER21> ...just the gatekeepers?

</comment><comment><USER22> > Can we trust the outcome?

Clearly not.

</comment><comment><USER23> Uhg now PE is the new boogieman? If these voting machine firms were public companies, or family owned, or a subsidiary of a conglomerate, would that somehow be better?

<comment><USER24> A family-owned voting machine company's main incentive is to sell voting machines. A PE firm might be able to hedge themselves into vast upsides from particular election outcomes — much larger amounts of money than the sale of voting machines — and then affect the outcome.</comment></comment>


The Tar Pipe (2010) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.extracheese.org/2010/05/the-tar-pipe.html?hn <comment><USER2> > stdin, stdout, and stderr are files 0, 1, and 2. Always.

Shouldn't this be something closer to "stdin, stdout, and stderr are always _initially_ fds 0, 1, and 2"? I thought that one could play some trickery to change this. (I'm not being intentionally snarky, and might be quite wrong.)

<comment><USER3> They can, yes. If you close all of them, the next files you open will get the 0, 1, and 2 file descriptors.

It's a fairly common idiom to close everything, open a handle to /dev/null, and duplicate it twice to get 0, 1, and 2 pointing at /dev/null.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A nice writeup, but I'm curious what the tar pipe gains over a more normal way of copying directories like 'cp -a'. (Or is that what it means by 'mostly obsolete'?)

<comment><AUTHOR> For some reason, 'tar|tar' is many times faster than 'cp -a' (at least, when you're copying thousands of small files in deeply nested directories, on OS X). I noticed this once through experimenation, tried to find out why, and never got a good answer.

The other thing is that hard-linked files are apparently handled differently: [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/316078/interesting- usage-...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/316078/interesting-usage-of-tar- but-what-is-happening)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> What's the point of "-f -"? Why not just omit -f entirely?

<comment><USER6> Most tar implementations default to the first streamer (e.g. sa0) instead of stdout.</comment></comment>


Why Nissan.com Isn't a Car Website - <AUTHOR> http://www.yalelawtech.org/ip-in-the-digital-age/why-nissan-com-isn%E2%80%99t-a-car-website/ <comment><USER2> Lost in this overview (and I couldn't really tell the point of the overview) are the probably 10 000 + people per year who go to this site by mistake. It's odd to me that Nissan didn't just offer him those 7 figures worth of legal fees and solve it (or maybe they did to no effect)

<comment><USER3> I've actually met the guy and did some contract work for him. After hearing the story from his mouth, what stuck with me is his utter dislike for the Nissan CEO and Arabs. He seemed very passionate about Israel and cited Nissan's Arab CEO as a huge part of why he dislikes that company.

<comment><USER4> It's quite strange to see Carlos Ghosn described as an Arab. As far as I know, he has never spoke publicly about Israël.

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

<comment><USER5> Why would one's status as an Arab depend on public statements about Israel?

<comment><USER4> If I understand badclient correctly, the (alleged) attitude of M. Nissan towards Arabs and Israël comes from his problems with M. Ghosn. I'm just saying that if it's the case, it make no sens.

<comment><USER6> Other way around. His attitude towards Ghosn/Nissan Motors comes from his problems with Arabs and his feelings on Israel.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > a final injunction which allowed Nissan Computer Corporation to maintain > control of the domains Nissan.com and Nissan.net so long as it neither > advertised nor mentioned/made disparaging comments about Nissan Motor.

First thing I see on nissan.com is a massive "Nissan's motor lawsuite against us" with crossed Nissan logos and "it could happen to you too", then a massive ad below this. Doesn't Nissan have a case that not only he doesn't respect his side of the bargain but he's obviously using Nissan's popularity for his own benefit?

<comment><USER8> No. He no longer has to refrain from posting or linking to disparaging remarks about Nissan.

"Injunctive relief may not restrain Nissan Computer from placing links on nissan.com and nissan.net to other sites that post negative commentary about Nissan Motor; to this extent, the relief granted is overbroad, reaches non- commercial speech, and runs afoul of the FTDA and the First Amendment."

Source: Last page of [http://www.citizen.org/documents/CourtofAppealsRulingNissanM...](http://www.citizen.org/documents/CourtofAppealsRulingNissanMotorvNissanComputer.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment> fsck--off Wow. I think the source code belongs in The Daily WTF. Just look at this gem:

      <form name="menuform4">

      <select name="menu4"
      onChange="window.open(menuform4.menu4.options[menuform4.menu4.selectedIndex].value);
      return false;">
      <option value="http://www.nissan.com" selected>People's Opinions  </option>
      <option value="http://www.digest.com/people/page_1.shtml">Page 1</option>
      <option value="http://www.digest.com/people/page_2.shtml">Page 2</option>
      <option value="http://www.digest.com/people/page_3.shtml">Page 3</option>

      (Snipped about 500 lines)

      <option value="http://www.digest.com/people/page_503.shtml">page 503</option>
      <option value="http://www.digest.com/people/page_504.shtml">page 504</option>
      <option value="http://www.digest.com/people/page_505.shtml">page 505</option>
      </select>
      </form>

<comment><USER9> True, but also keep in mind the site is still up with this spike in traffic.

Must be Varnish, Nginx, CDN edge servers, sprites, gzip, pre-fetching and efficient CSS selectors.

<comment><USER10> I'm not sure if everyone sees your sarcasm here...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I simply do not understand why Nissan Motorcompany dont just offer the guy a good pile of money. He has all the rights to use the domain, as its his name, and simply bought it first.

That or spend millions and a decade on lawsuits that lead nowhere...

<comment><USER12> > He has all the rights to use the domain, as its his name, and simply bought > it first.

Neither of those would be sufficient. The decisive factor is that he's actually operating a legitimate business under that name.

<comment><USER13> How is that a factor? That means that anyone can take my domain by registering a company with the same name and suing me for it.

<comment><USER14> No, they need to pass the three-step test:

* The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;

* The registrant does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and

* The registrant registered the domain name and is using it in "bad faith".

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Domain-Name_Dispute- Res...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Domain-Name_Dispute- Resolution_Policy#Process)

<comment><USER13> Ah, right, so the decisive factor of the GP is not whether the guy is running a legitimate business, it's whether the guy is using the domain to mislead people into thinking he's Nissan cars.

So, for example, a personal site with a few family photos of someone called Nissan, or whose nickname is Nissan, or who just liked the word, would not be infringing, so they couldn't take it away, correct?

<comment><USER15> Correct. They couldn't take it away, but (like Nissan Motors tried) they could make it financially difficult for you to keep it.

Now, if Mr. Nissan started doing something like setting up a car forum and reviews on his site, he would get into very dangerous territory.

Right now (at least for me) nissan.com has an advertisement for an insurance agency that sells car insurance. I would say that is about as close as Mr. Nissan can come to blurring the line to car.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> A friend of mine operated a movie review site that mentioned Netflix in the name. Netflix sued him, but settled out of court by having him change the name, and buying the original domain for a few thousand dollars. They then let the domain expire.

</comment><comment><USER17> Since Nissan is the only major international company unable to acquire their first choice of domain, it appears an outlier. The lesson perhaps is that the market, coupled with the dispute resolution system, works well with respect to web domains.

</comment><comment><USER18> The article inexplicably fails to mention if Nissan [car company] ever simply offered up a large amount of money to transfer over the domain. It's pretty human nature to dig in when you are attacked.

<comment><USER19> It would be interesting to know how the process would go - if he just accepted an offer, then Nissan might take him to court saying he was squatting on the name. Or he might be OK if they approached him first. IANAL.

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> How much traffic do you think they actually lose by not having Nissan.com? I would have thought as soon as someone looking for Nissan cars visits that URL, they would realise it was not the right site, then try the ccTLD version i.e. Nissan.co.uk, or simply search "Nissan" in their search engine of choice.

It's a bit like Google AdWords - some choose to bid on their own brand keywords, but are they actually gaining incremental visitors, or just spending budget on acquiring traffic that would otherwise arrived for free anyway?

</comment><comment><USER21> If only he had gotten the domain for his first name, he wouldn't have to worry about legal issues.

</comment><comment><USER22> Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. was founded in 1934. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Motor_Company#Nissan_Mot...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Motor_Company#Nissan_Motor_founded_in_1934) And the word "Nissan" was used before that as a stock market abbreviation in Japan. The name Nissan, however, was probably not well-known outside of Japan. Mr. Nissan had probably never heard of the company. He was first to register the domain name, and presumably Nissan "the company" had the same opportunity at the time. But it is disturbing to read comments such as this on a page ([http://www.digest.com/people/page_1.shtml](http://www.digest.com/people/page_1.shtml)) linked to from his home page:

"Mr. Nissan,

I congratulate you, and thank you, for your perseverance in standing up for what is honorable and legitimate, for each of us and our children. NMC's attempt to leverage their size and importance (as it is the Asian way), will not be tolerated. I will post your information for everyone I know to read and boycott their products."

Boycott! Wow.

After reading several such posts, I wonder if the posters realize that Nissan has factories in the U.S.

Someday, I speculate that the current nissan.com will be subject to a cyber attack in a case of mistaken (or "mistaken") identity. What goes around, comes around.

So, while Mr. Nissan has the rights of "first dibs," he should realize that real damage is being done, and that he is fanning flames that do not speak to the "better angels of our nature."

</comment><comment><USER9> Here's the site Uzi put up regarding the lawsuit. Last updated October 17, 2007...

[http://ncchelp.org/](http://ncchelp.org/)

Edit: Here's the original PR...

[http://web.archive.org/web/20000510174513/http://www.ncchelp...](http://web.archive.org/web/20000510174513/http://www.ncchelp.org/)

</comment><comment><USER23> There is a similar story about Armani brand and a person named A.R. Mani.

</comment><comment><USER24> I looked at nissan.com, and its a shame that the site is basically internet trash and lame ads.

<comment><USER25> It looks like it was created in FrontPage 98. That said, the buttons on the left work and he is actually running a small business selling computer products and services (such as programming @ $90/hr).

<comment><USER26> The HTML source says FrontPage 4.0, but Wikipedia says there was no version 4 [1].

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_FrontPage#Versions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_FrontPage#Versions)

<comment><USER27> FrontPage 4.0 is FrontPage 2000. I know because I remember using it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The design of nissan.com takes me back to the days before the '.gif' patent war.

</comment><comment><USER29> Used to work for a credit card company, MBNA. They wanted mbna.com, which was owned by Mercedes Benz, North America. Not so amazingly enough, hand Mercedes a million or so and voilà we now had mbna.com, and why Mercedes is now mbusa.com.

<comment><USER30> You might mean "voila", not "wala"

<comment><USER29> Yea, that would be a wee bit more accurate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> What was the situation with Dodge? I can remember in the early-late 90s (heh, 1997is?) that dodge.com belonged to some financial group. The actual Dodge car company had 4adodge.com, I believe.

</comment><comment><USER32> Nobody remembers urls any more (if they ever did).

If I type the word nissan into the address bar on IE, firefox, chrome or opera I get a page full of links to the motor company.

</comment><comment><USER33> Domain isn't important anymore: [http://lmgtfy.com/?q=nissan](http://lmgtfy.com/?q=nissan)

</comment><comment><USER34> This post is clickbait with basically zero content. The story of Nissan.com is well known to anyone who's been around the web for long. After all the battle started in the '90s.

This article is saying "The web is important! Nissan Motor Company wants to own nissan.com!"

No shit.

<comment><USER35> I found it very informative, I mean Wikipedia[1] only gives a scant 140-ish word overview of the subject (and basically the same thing on the page for Nissan Computer itself), and though it does give 3 references, 2 of those are PDF's from the court judgements and the 3rd is an expired link to the USPTO. Oh yeah, Nissan.com[2] actually contains the most information, though it looks biased and sensational (to be expected). Otherwise, I'm not finding just a whole lot of recent information about this out there. I see a Wired article from 2001, and a Salon article from 2002, but other than that the chatter is few and far between.

Meanwhile, the site that OP's article was posted on is "the course website for the suite of law & technology courses at Yale University offered by Elizabeth Stark and Brad Rosen" (which is apparently CPSC 183, 184, 185 at Yale University). Publish date of the piece was 2011. So as far as sources go, I'm not sure how much better you could get than this. Not even a single ad, and right under 500 words, which is a nice size for a short take on the subject.

1\. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan#Nissan_Motor_Co_v._Nissa...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan#Nissan_Motor_Co_v._Nissan_Computer_Corporation)

2\. [http://www.nissan.com/Digest/The_Story.php](http://www.nissan.com/Digest/The_Story.php)

<comment><USER36> "The court ordered NMC to pay $58,000 as cost under rule 68, this is less then 2% of what the cost was to defend this case."

It has cost Nissan Computer $3M to defend itself? For a local PC repair shop? Either he's highly principled or just lying.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Domain isn't important since Google.</comment>