Mental Health App Talkspace Raises $50M - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-29/mental-health-app-raises-50-million-as-digital-therapy-grows <comment><USER2> ycombinator startup 7cupsoftea also offers professional talk therapy from licensed providers. My recommendation is unless you are absolutely terrified of talking to someone in person, don't get e-therapy. So much of therapy isn't from the words but from the transfer of emotion and affect. I think the client will get some level of relief just from typing things out, getting it "off their chest", but it's not the same thing as going to their office, having that exclusive space and time, and seeing and hearing your therapist's affect and reflection of your emotion. Not to mention allowing them to use their expertise in detecting indirect issues. For instance, consider an alcoholic in denial, goes to therapy because of difficulty holding down a job. A well- trained therapist could sniff out the alcoholism even if the client was in denial or never even considered that to be the source. A chat system shortcuts all of that for pure informational content. Emotional problems are seldom solved with Sherlock-esque revelations of information.

<comment><USER3> what about video e-therapy?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Would one get the same counselor? I have schizoaffective disorder and there is no way I would want to "see" a new counsellor each time. One needs to form a connection and develop trust.

<comment><USER5> It's the same counselor. I personally have dealt with depression and anxiety (and am a satisfied yet former Talkspace customer) and I have immediate family with bipolar disorder. I would NOT recommend this service for someone who has complicated mental health needs. If you need "simpler" therapy such as for relationship issues or depression/anxiety than Talkspace is fine, but otherwise I wouldn't really trust them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Having previous worked in this space (for ginger.io), I'd really recommend against talkspace. The time between replies is so asynchronous that it's a really poor substitute for actual therapy, and their lack of HIPAA protections is unethical. They need to raise this money because they spend it all on marketing.

I haven't been at Ginger in a while but they were the best I the biz when I left, and the team really believed in the mission for the greater good.

<comment><USER5> My experience there sounds different than yours. I saw a cognitive behavioral therapist. At first we chatted a few times a day, then once a day, then a few times a week.

In between those longer breaks you can still write messages — and I did. It's like having a journal that someone is going to read and help you figure out what you need to be doing.

As for HIPAA violations everyone does this. In the last week I've been to a dentist and optometrist and seen patient information displayed inappropriately on screens or on paper work left out at both offices. I'm not saying that HIPAA violations are OK, but Talkspace seems no worse than a brick and mortar office.

Perhaps I'm biased here. TalkSpace helped me get my anxiety under control. For that I recommend them to everyone. But if you have a hard time applying cognitive behavioral techniques like mindfulness on a regular basis I would not recommend them.

<comment><USER7> There's a difference between doctors violating HIPPA protections on your data by gossiping, vs. you having no HIPPA protections to violate to begin with. Here it wouldn't even be a violation.

<comment><USER6> Not to mention your doctor's office is not only liable (consequences are no joke) for screwups, they also didn't raise $50M recently in addition to previous funding.

Ginger was HIPAA compliant well before delivering services -- it's unethical to not be, IMHO. It's also _not that hard_ to do the right thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > For a fee starting at $49 a week, users can leave text, voice and video > messages with counselors who respond five days a week. Customers can pay > more for live video chats.

Considering that people with mental health issues often don't have a lot of money, I'm not sure what market they're targeting with a price point of $200/month. That's more than a student loan or cheap car payment!

<comment><USER9> It's not for everyone, but the hourly cost for a therapist is typically between $90-$200. Also these new services could be covered under some insurance programs (I'm curious for some data points here).

<comment><USER10> *the 45 minute cost

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > We try to keep Talkspace.com safe, but you use it at your own risk. We are > providing Talkspace.com "As Is" without any express or implied warranties. > We do not guarantee that Talkspace.com will be safe or secure.

[https://www.talkspace.com/public/privacy- policy](https://www.talkspace.com/public/privacy-policy)

If you plan to use this service understand you get what you pay for. They seem to have no duty of care with your data. I'm not sure how they are able to get away with this without violating HIPAA though.

<comment><USER12> If they don't take insurance (EDIT: insurance or medicare), they don't need to be HIPAA compliant.

EDIT: This is advice my HealthTech startup received from a very well respected lawfirm. It's not as black and white as this. However, it is a good rule of thumb.

<comment> duncan-donuts HIPPA isn't only about insurance. If they collect any personal health information (which, by the very nature of their product, I'm sure they do) they need to be compliant.

<comment><USER13> No, they don't. Although it's not about insurance either. Here is a list of who is covered: [https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/covered- entities...](https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/covered- entities/index.html)

Note that a random app that gets "medical data" is not covered unless it counts as a health care provider AND transmits data in certain HHS electronic formats.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Best Web Hosts (2012 Edition) - <AUTHOR>

Hi guys,
I'm looking to move one of my sites from a shared host to something a little more professional.
What's a service i can start with and stay with for a while. Without having to worry about moving again?
I appreciate any help.
Cheers,
Tapha. <comment><USER2> Really depends on what kind of site you want to host, if it's just static you could use Amazon S3 & Cloudfront, there's even a free usage tier: <https://aws.amazon.com/free/>

</comment><comment><USER3> The only experience I have to offer is at the bottom rung, the smallest possible servers. The one's you use for sandboxes or low-traffic personal sites. I made my decision a week ago, and landed on Rackspace. Their cheapest option is about $12 a month, compared to Linode's $20. Also, if you're new to web administration you'll be helped tremendously by all of the accurate and thorough tutorials they host. However, the two or three people that I know that administer larger sites suggested Linode, so as always your choice should probably depend on your individual needs.

</comment><comment><USER4> I use hetzner, they are based in Germany. The customer service is stellar and servers are priced very competitively. You can check them out at www.hetzner.de

<comment><USER5> I second Hetzner. Moved back/forth between a number of hosts but always (ultimately) hosted my projects on a Hetzner VPS. <http://www.hetzner.de/en/> (English)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Am very happy with my VPS from prgmr.com which I've had for just over a year now.

I also have VPSs with Linode, Slicehost and Amazon ... but honestly prgmr is just excellent value.

</comment><comment><USER7> Since you manage to survive using shared host, your proberly dont need a "best" host as most of the host ( VPS ) will be good enough for you.

Check out Linode or Dediserve.

</comment><comment><USER8> I've been very happy with Liquidweb vps. High quality, excellent support, semi managed (fully managed available). Not super cheap, but not really expensive either.

</comment><comment><USER9> I absolutely love Linode. They have a fantastic service, amazing support, and they're cheap.

</comment><comment><USER10> Any good Windows web hosts?

<comment><USER11> Hostway.com. For nearly 10 years they've given me great servers on dedicated and shared servers.

<comment><USER10> Thank you. I will check them out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Linode or Appfog.

</comment><comment><USER13> I use Linode and prgmr. Both are excellent services, though I would slighly favor Linode.</comment>


RFC 8548: Cryptographic Protection of TCP Streams (Tcpcrypt) - mjl- https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8548 <comment><AUTHOR> Some historical context here. First, the project was begun over 10 years ago, long before QUIC, before widespread use of https for most web pages, and before widespread use of ECC certificates. (E.g., americanexpress.com was an http web page, and while the form had you submit your password to an https URL, obviously attackers could tamper with the page in transit and make you submit your username/password elsewhere. Similarly gmail and google search were unencrypted--only the authentication page had https.) At the time, performance was a huge deal, because the cost of public key operations severely limited the number of https requests/second that a server could handle.

So the goals of the tcpcrypt project back then were 1) solve the performance problem by making it practical to encrypt essentially all TCP traffic, 2) make undetectable widespread eavesdropping impractical, 3) provide a pathway for insecure applications to achieve high network security with minimal effort, and 4) avoid the traps applications commonly experience such as low-quality pseudo-random seeds, or leaking session keys through memory errors.

We solved #1 by carefully constructing the protocol to minimize public key overhead on the server and allow optimized server authentication. In particular, with low-exponent RSA (popular at the time), the server-side computation was only encryption (which is much, much cheaper than decryption). Moreover, for strong security (with server-side authentication), servers could perform batch signing in which a single signature could be amortized over many connections. The result was dramatically better performance for the original version of tcpcrypt, which you can see described here:

[http://www.scs.stanford.edu/~dm/home/papers/bittau:tcpcrypt....](http://www.scs.stanford.edu/~dm/home/papers/bittau:tcpcrypt.pdf)

We solved #2 by encrypting everything, and providing a mechanism to tie authentication to that encryption. So if an ISP systematically mounted a man- in-the-middle attack, they would cause authentication to fail. Moreover, it would be easy to run tests by, for instance, logging session IDs at connections between various endpoints and comparing them after the fact. That still meant ISPs could violate the privacy of unauthenticated connections, but then at least we would know about it and could decide, as a society, whether we wanted this kind of eavesdropping.

#3 was really the ultimate goal--strong security everywhere even with insecure legacy protocols. The problem with legacy protocols is that they didn't all contain a way to add a "STARTTLS" verb. So what we did was give tcpcrypt an "Application-aware" bit that would allow out-of-band signaling that the application knows about tcpcrypt. This bit would allow legacy application maintainers to shoe-horn in stronger security in a completely backwards- compatible way, and if the project really took off could then ultimately disable the insecure old unauthenticated protocol.

Finally, #4 was handled by keeping session keys in the kernel (so they can't leak in core-dumps, uninitialized data, buffer errors, etc.), and providing a fresh session ID that can be authenticated even without a good source of randomness.

As time went on, the performance argument (#1) became much less relevant, with the result that tcpcrypt now uses ECC crypto instead of RSA. (Though the batch-authentication optimization is still available.) However, #2 actually became more relevant (at least in 2013), and #4 even more so with all these catastrophic bugs (like heartbleed, or Debian disabling randomness in OpenSSL). It's also still much, much harder than it should be to write software that encrypts network traffic, particularly where one doesn't just want the standard anonymous-client to server-with-X.509-certificate setup. If people adopt tcpcrypt, setting up an authenticated, encrypted TCP connection will become comparable to checking a unix password--just a few lines of code.

A lot of this is clearer if you read the companion TCP-ENO RFC, rather than tcpcrypt. The goals and rationale and overall negotiation mechanism were broken out into a separate document to allow better upgradability to future encryption protocols: [https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8547](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8547)

</comment><comment><USER2> > In particular, tcpcrypt does not protect against active network attackers > unless applications authenticate the session ID. If it can be established > that the session IDs computed at each end of the connection match, then > tcpcrypt guarantees that no man-in-the-middle attacks occurred unless the > attacker has broken the underlying cryptographic primitives, e.g., Elliptic > Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH).

What am I missing here? An active attacker will just terminate the connection on both ends. There will be 2 authenticated session IDs at L3. At L7, how will an application authenticate the L3 ID in such a way as to discover a MITM? Even if it can, there needs to be a new ioctl (or similar) for the application to learn the L3 ID. That's rough for the large legacy of applications that might otherwise benefit from this.

I'm sure I'm missing it, since this has been 10 years in the making, authored by well known folks. The referenced USENIX paper discusses how both ends of the tcpcrypt connection can know there's no MITM. However, in the case of intercept, the other end of the connection _is_ the MITM.

Because tcpcrypt uses ephemeral public keys, there's no L7 identity proof, such as is offered by TLS (as far as it can). This further permits MITM.

An active attacker can also just strip the TCP-ENO bits from the SYN. If [just] one side insists, the attacker can strip it just from the other side, for performance.

<comment><USER3> They introduce a new IOCTL which you can use to discover the session id and then authenticate it however you like.

In particular, it is possible to use a zero knowledge protocol where a MITM attacker cannot determine if authentication were actually used or not except via changes in user behavior if there are any. For protocols which have a mixture of authed and non-authed usage, this can create a significant risk of discovery for an active attacker.

In any case, authentication is inherently tied up with "identity" which is significant UI and application specific considerations which simply do not exist for ephemeral encryption. TCPcrypt achieves an appropriate layering which separates these concerns while killing content observation by passive attack and increasing the risk of detection otherwise.

Re: stripping, again-- how to handle the absence of encryption is also an application relevant decision. TCPcrypt provides sufficient tools for applications to set appropriate policies.

<comment><USER4> > They introduce a new IOCTL which you can use to discover the session id and > then authenticate it however you like.

> In particular, it is possible to use a zero knowledge protocol where a MITM > attacker cannot determine if authentication were actually used or not except > via changes in user behavior if there are any.

I'd love for you to expand more on this. What I can't think of is a realistic scenario where it's possible to validate the session id in a secure way, but there is also some reason that we couldn't just use TLS with client certificates.

<comment><AUTHOR> > I'd love for you to expand more on this. What I can't think of is a > realistic scenario where it's possible to validate the session id in a > secure way, but there is also some reason that we couldn't just use TLS with > client certificates.

An example would be if you don't have a certificate. Maybe you just have a pre-shared secret or a kerberos ticket. Or worse, maybe you just have a password, and so need to use a PAKE protocol or something to authenticate the session. Or maybe you are using an RPC protocol, like NFS, that doesn't let you add TLS in a backwards-compatible way, but where the client and server do share some secret file handle.

<comment><USER4> > An example would be if you don't have a certificate.

Given that letsencrypt exists, I don't see why you wouldn't have a cert.

> Maybe you just have a pre-shared secret or a kerberos ticket.

The pre-shared secret could be a cert which would work with TLS.

> Or worse, maybe you just have a password, and so need to use a PAKE protocol > or something to authenticate the session.

I can't think of a realistic example of such a protocol. What protocol uses PAKE, but doesn't support encryption, but will verify a session id? It seems like using TLS would be simpler.

> Or maybe you are using an RPC protocol, like NFS, that doesn't let you add > TLS in a backwards-compatible way, but where the client and server do share > some secret file handle.

Such a scenario still requires modifications to the NFS server and client software, which, if done, isn't clear why it would be better than just layering TLS onto the protocol.

<comment><USER3> > Given that letsencrypt exists, I don't see why you wouldn't have a cert.

That makes an enormous number of assumptions-- that you have a domain name, that you accept inbound connections, and that "gee some server connected to my name and got me once" is a remotely acceptable criteria for identity in your application.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This seems to primarily only protect against passive listeners [1]. So, while I guess this could be useful to transparently increase security of unencrypted protocols, it seems like the use cases would be somewhat narrow and that TLS over TCP and QUIC will continue to be much better solutions.

[1]. From Section 8: "... tcpcrypt does not protect against active network attackers unless applications authenticate the session ID. If it can be established that the session IDs computed at each end of the connection match, then tcpcrypt guarantees that no man-in-the-middle attacks occurred ..."

<comment><USER3> In my view one of the most significant advances of TCPCrypt is setting appropriate layering.

Past cryptographic network transports have committed the sin of layer violation by conflating stream management with correspondent authentication. Authenticating that you are talking to whom you think you're talking to is a complex, highly application specific process which in many cases even requires its own UI.

The code to implement authentication is complex and has (e.g. x509 parsing) frequently been a source of vulnerabilities, making it unattractive for implementation in network stacks. Witness the use of TLS for non-webby applications where there aren't readily user provided domain names and things don't fit nicely into a one-side-authenticated server/client model-- they often turn into key management nightmares.

TCPcrypt handles the stream encryption and integrity in the network layer where it can do so seamlessly. It hands up the stack the required hooks so that authentication can be performed in whatever way makes sense for the application. As a bonus, even when authentication isn't used applications are protected against dragnet passive content surveillance.

<comment><USER5> WireGuard authenticates traffic, using modern constructions, and its kernel implementation is famously fewer than 5000 lines of code, and can be implemented without dynamic allocation. Just because TLS is complicated doesn't mean that cryptographic authentication is fundamentally difficult. Watson Ladd once said, on the CFRG mailing list, that if TLS 1.1 had been turned in as an undergraduate assignment, it would have gotten a D. (I'm paraphrasing from memory).

<comment><USER3> > WireGuard authenticates traffic, using modern constructions

Assuming you know in advance of your connection a correct public key for the corespondent. How you got it, how you know it's correct is ... left up to you. Yet it isn't secure if its not done exactly right.

This is like arguing that a one time pad provides for unbreakable encryption. True in one sense, often not true in practice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is this the same "Tcpcrypt" that was called a "marketing stunt" in this presentation?

[https://cr.yp.to/talks/2012.03.08-1/slides.pdf](https://cr.yp.to/talks/2012.03.08-1/slides.pdf)

<comment><USER7> It appears so: [https://web.archive.org/web/20180810123522/http://tcpcrypt.o...](https://web.archive.org/web/20180810123522/http://tcpcrypt.org/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Tcpcrypt seem it would not be so bad idea, although then there will need some way to configure it, such as a /etc/tcpcrypt file which you can specify what keys to use, where to force tcpcrypt, where to disallow it, what to verify certificates and so on. It can then be protocol independent and not have to deal with individual programs to get it to work properly; you can configure a program that does not understand tcpcrypt to use it, if the other end is also configured to use tcpcrypt (either mandatorily or optionally, depending on configuration).

</comment><comment><USER9> The RFC is written by and for people who have already discussed in depth what problem they are trying to solve. But little old I can't figure it out by reading the text.

Can anyone enlighten me about what it's for? How does it fit in compared on the one hand to TLS and on the other hand to things like WireGuard.

</comment><comment><USER10> Tcpcrypt + dnscrypt + https.. would it be too much overhead?

</comment><comment><USER11> The part about the middleboxes worries me more than mitm. If you're going to have a custom protocol, just make a whole new protocol. No need to call it "tcp-esque". We've already got quic, we just need to improve it and make it a 4th layer protocol. Give it a trendy name and make up some marketing BS about how it revolutionizes the internet, and then let middlebox vendors use its industry name to sell new gear. The special interests get rich and we get to offload implementing custom protocols and crypto to the operating system, with some glue to let the application do complex auth.</comment>


Show HN: Goodbye, Office Free e-book about managing remote teams - <AUTHOR> https://www.mironichev.com/goodbye-office-book <comment><USER2> Have you considered making the Table of Contents clickable?</comment>


Name.com: Another Unscrupulous Registrar - <AUTHOR> http://www.nathanhammond.com/namedotcom-another-unscrupulous-registrar <comment><USER2> Here's how to clean the ads from your domain.

Name.com's DNS editor won't let you remove the DNS record that serves the ads. You need to switch to a real DNS provider.

CloudFlare is a free DNS provider - generally people use it to hook up the CloudFlare security and auto-CDN system, but you just need it for DNS hosting.

1 Create an account and add your domain: www.cloudflare.com

2 Disable the orange cloud icons

3 Follow the steps that tell you to switch your name servers - that makes CloudFlare your DNS provider

4 Go to "Edit DNS Settings"

5 Find the "A * (some IP)" record, and remove it

That's it. No more parker ads. DNS and name server changes can take a while to propagate to the whole web so the change can take up to an hour to affect everyone.

Edit: this is the "*" record you need to remove: <http://i.imgur.com/jc48t.png>

<comment><USER3> Correct. I found if you have an A * record to an ip you control, and a plain X.TLD record it covers everything.

This policy is infuriating to say the least. I have sent them several emails about it and gotten various, "we don't care," responses. It's very hard for me to describe how enraged I was when I found out, even after finding a solution on my own.

If I could find a registrar that didn't treat me like crap I would switch instantly.

<comment><USER4> > If I could find a registrar that didn't treat me like crap I would switch > instantly.

Namecheap has been excellent for the domains I've bought through it. I haven't yet had to talk to their customer service, but their management interface is simple and flexible enough that I haven't had to.

<comment><USER5> I have used Namecheap's customer service (my fault entirely) and it has been super excellent. They usually have a turnaround time of a few hours and are 24X7.

They also have a forum where you can request for specific features - a couple of months back I posted requesting for account management pages to be made HTTPS.. and now they are. Dunno if the post made a difference.

However, their branding is stupid: I cant get my clients to register their domains on anything called "cheap" - especially corporate ones. I suggest gandi.net in that case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> As an anecdotal counterpoint, I'm an extremely happy Name.com customer. I transfered several domains to them a year or so ago from GoDaddy. They support two-factor authentication, their interface is uncluttered, I pay them less money than I paid GoDaddy, and I haven't had a single issue. I would highly recommend them to anyone looking for a registrar.

That being said, I don't use them for DNS. If this is a feature of their nameservers, I do find it strange that they don't offer a way to opt out (other than using alternative nameservers).

<comment><AUTHOR> This is what initially drew me to name.com, they seemed to have their act together. Unfortunately there just isn't a way to fully evaluate a situation without trying it first.

Just as I don't give GoDaddy business any longer due to their poor corporate ethics, I can't recommend name.com as a registrar because I must take into account the way in which they run the rest of their business. I will be ceasing my relationship with name.com as soon as reasonably possible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's a simple case of the company lawyer(s) overdoing a CYA clause and standing by it. However, the company seems to have gladly taken your call to discuss it with you, and then consult their lawyers regarding the potential for a change. While you didn't get what you want, it seems like they were fairly considerate.

So, just change the nameservers after registration and move on. I understand if you disagree with their policy, but there is nothing forcing you to keep their nameservers beyond the 5 minutes it takes you to change them post- registration.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have nothing bad to say about their support, and I hopefully made that clear in my original post. That doesn't, however, relieve them of their responsibility in my opinion to provide good services.

The problem I have is that it wasn't immediately apparent that I was serving ads on my domain because they weren't respecting the way in which DNS is supposed to work--basically typo-squatting me.

<comment><USER8> Disclaimer: I work for a web hosting company. They are NOT affiliated in any way with name.com

The problem is that you don't understand how domain parking works. If you want to just own a domain but don't want it to go anywhere yet, you need to make records for that. "Domain parking" is the shady practice of putting up a "palceholder" page filled with ads.

Also...you don't know what "NXDOMAIN" is / means. Here are the RFCs:

<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2308.txt> \-- " "NXDOMAIN" - an alternate expression for the "Name Error" RCODE as described in [RFC1035 Section 4.1.1] and the two terms are used interchangeably in this document."

<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1035.txt> "RCODE Response code - this 4 bit field is set as part of responses. The values have the following interpretation:

                    0               No error condition

                    1               Format error - The name server was
                                    unable to interpret the query.

                    2               Server failure - The name server was
                                    unable to process this query due to a
                                    problem with the name server.

                    3               Name Error - Meaningful only for
                                    responses from an authoritative name
                                    server, this code signifies that the
                                    domain name referenced in the query does
                                    not exist."

That's right, NXDOMAIN = "domain name referenced in the query does not exist", which is FALSE in this situation, so why would their DNS server return that?

Name.com provides a FREE nameserver service which happens to have some strings attached. If you don't use their FREE DNS hosting service, those strings are NOT attached. I have been using name.com for years and have never had any problems. They don't do the same BS that places like Network Solutions do where they monitor what domains people are searching for an increase the prices based on that.

Seriously, learn what you're talking about before bashing a company publicly as much as this. I'm sure that a quick call or e-mail (also, who sends an e-mail requesting that a company call them? Protip: people in tech support HATE that...just ask your question in the e-mail) with a properly-worded question like "Yo, why does my domain name NOT return an 'nxdomain' code when I query your nameserver?" would have resulted in a clear and concise answer from them.

Is it BS that ads are put on parked domains? Sure, but then again, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PARK A DOMAIN.

<comment><USER9> From the article

"at a non-existent subdomain of Typewire's site"

Surely a non-existent subdomain should return a Name Error?

Unless you explicitly asked for a wildcard subdomain (which I realize the T&Cs _say_ you did, even though you never intended too), then I'd expect ww.realdomain.com and qqq.realdomain.com to return NXDOMAIN.

(and I agree with the post, adding a wildcard domain and putting ads on the parked pages is nasty, insisting it's a core part of your business model when called on it is evil, trying to then claim I'm somehow responsible for the ad content on this pages is beyond stupid! I'd certainly never use a registrar that chose to do that to me.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've used name.com for many years and have always been satisfied with their service. The advertising the author is complaining about only shows up if you do not configure the DNS records or name servers after buying the domain. Usually I spend 30 seconds setting this up as soon as I buy the domain, so the advertising doesn't even cross my mind.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought this practice was pretty standard across the industry. The "unscrupulous" registrar tactics that I'm more concerned about are registrars that take domains when they sense demand (such as from searching or whois lookups) and hold it from you until you pay a premium. I've never had this issue with name.com and have found it very easy to transfer domains with them as well.

<comment><USER11> Actually, this isn't just if you don't setup DNS records for your domain name. If you configure some subdomains with name.com, then all other subdomains for that domain go to a parked page.

For example, my wife's website is jesleephotos.com. The subdomains store and www (along with some others that I don't wish to advertise :) go to the correct destination. The subdomain stuff, x, random, mail, etc all go to parked domain.

I might end up adding an A record for *.jesleephotos.com as a catchall and point it to some IP address I can get that will forward everything to www.

<comment><USER12> So, don't use name.com's name servers if you don't like what they are offering?

<comment><USER13> Yes, that's the logical conclusion. But purchasing a domain with the thought that dns hosting is included in the purchase price only to find out the the service doesn't work as it should, is valid a reason to be upset IMHO.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Have you tried Namecheap? I register all of my domains with them and they've always exceeded my expectations.

<comment><USER15> I second this, I have used namecheap for the past 5 years and have had no problems.

<comment><USER16> really happy namecheap customer here, have converted serveral friends and never had problems, live chat support and cheap prices always :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is disheartening to read because I have been using name.com for over year now and over, I had been happy. I did check one of my domains and found this issue, but since for most of my domains, I don't have DNS managed by the registrar, it doesn't affect me that much.

I guess I have to mull this over.

<comment><AUTHOR> It is the predatory behavior that basically amounts typo-squatting a domain that I find most repulsive. I'm completely technically capable and yet I was serving ads on my domain without being aware of it because they aren't respecting the way in which DNS is supposed to work.

<comment><USER12> Basically, you were using another aspect of their service without being aware of what that service was. Making assumptions isn't smart, no matter what company is involved.

Personally, I rank using a registrars DNS beside using a registrars hosting service: it's common sense that you don't do it. I mean, do you really feel sympathy for people who stick with GoDaddy's hosting service?

<comment><AUTHOR> As with everything, you have to learn the hard way the first time. The difference though is that no other registrar I've used (6 of them) has used such an aggressive tactic that breaks DNS for monetization purposes. Typically you change the default A record and you're rid of their parked page for good.

The conclusion of my post was that one should not use name.com for DNS at all, and, if you have any ethical concerns with their aggressive monetization strategy (which I do) to not use them as a registrar, either.

<comment><USER3> Who do you use? I'd like to switch.

<comment><USER17> I have very good experiences with both namecheap and gandi... Gandi is by far my favorite but they are a bit pricy...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> For those of you looking for a good registrar.

My hands down favorite is Fabulous.com right now. Caveat is they cater to large portfolios and certain extensions (com/net/org/info). They don't screw you over on anything though. Even if your names expire and someone buys it through drop process, you get a cut of the sale. They don't keep any domains for themselves. Prices (for portfolio holders, retail side is as expensive as Netsol/register.com) are barely above cost.

Since Fabulous isn't available for most of you (unless you want to pay retail). I would recommend NameCheap.

<comment><USER19> Fabulous requires that your portfolio either makes $750 a month (with their parking services) or have at least 750 domains with them.

I have a personal goal of one day consolidating my domains with at Fabulous :) I'm getting there. In the short term I have my own private label registrar through Directi that isn't to shabby.

I think I'm paying around $8.50 USD per domain, with privacy included.

Bulk management is a bit of a pain - but that's what DomainManager is for :)

<comment><USER18> If you've got a few hundred I may be able to help you out in getting an account. Contact me from my profile.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I've been using iwantmyname.com and I have yet to have any issues. Sorry to hear about your troubles, Nathan. DNS hijacking is bad enough, but the fact that they claim you're the one who is liable for what they happen to put on their parked pages is completely unethical.

</comment><comment><USER21> Am I the only one that uses DynDNS? Their service is excellent.

<comment><USER22> I use DynDNS for all my Registrar and DNS-related stuff; I couldn't be happier with them. Whenever I change a record, it populates hella-fast; and considering how wishy-washy I am about sticking with an email provider, it's very helpful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I use name.com for quite a few domains. They have a very convenient way to do bulk changes, so you can, for example, select 50 domains at once, and tell name.com to change all of them to your name servers. They email you a few minutes later when they've done it. I always just change them to linode as soon as I buy a domain.

I don't begrudge them this income stream from people who buy domains but don't do anything with them for awhile. What's the harm?

<comment><AUTHOR> The harm is that they're effectively typo-squatting my domain, as well as all the rest of their customers' domains which don't use wildcard A records. They're breaking DNS.

Typo-squatting is addressed by both the ACPA ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticybersquatting_Consumer_Pro...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticybersquatting_Consumer_Protection_Act)) and the UDRP ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Domain-Name_Dispute- Res...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Domain-Name_Dispute- Resolution_Policy)).

And worse, you're held responsible for the content of that page.

<comment><USER21> _And worse, you're held responsible for the content of that page._

I feel like you're not. When the subpoena is served, it will be to the owner of the IP with the content on it, not the owner of a random DNS entry that happens to resolve to that IP. Even if it does, I imagine the exchange going like this: "Your honor, I have no access to that server and can't control the content in any way." "Right, this is a waste of my time."

Contracts can say whatever they want. Whether or not they are actually enforceable is a whole 'nother ball game.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I've managed thousands of domains over dozens of countries. This is NOT standard practice and should never be accepted to be so. After using many, many registrars there are only a few to recommend..

\- Namecheap (my favourite, all my domains are here, excellent customer service - the Zappos of domains - instant support, live chat 24/7, friendly/educated staff, and just a real pleasure to use)

\- Domain Monster - UK/European based domains. Good services, good response times

\- Europe Registry / Instra - used this commercially, more expensive, not the greatest of control panels, but more than likely you will be appointed an account manager (hence good for businesses) and pretty much have the largest database of domain extensions to register against. If you are interested in moving to them, I can also put you in touch with a very friendly chap who can help you make the move.

I hope this information helps - reply me up on @o6uoq if you'd like to chat about anything else :)

</comment><comment><USER25> So, um, what's a good alternative to all of these?

<comment><AUTHOR> My next registration will be with these guys: <http://www.gandi.net/>

I can't speak from experience but I've heard good things about them.

<comment><USER26> They're very good. I use them for several domains, and I have never had any issues with their service.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> " _I am now convinced that domain registration is the seedy underbelly of the entire Internet and only attracts companies with questionable ethics._ "

this is the market equilibrium, in any industry, for companies that compete on price.

</comment><comment><USER28> I know I'm late to this thread, but I'm curious: how come actual entrepreneurs, people that get things done, do not set up a catch-all the Record Host "*.example.com" immediately after setting up their domains? I did that with mine (not worthy of being published), with Name.com, and had no domain parking ever.

By the way, to me the most incredible part is this widespread practice of domain parking by default and without sharing revenues, not the threatening legalese. Not much domain ownership there!

</comment><comment><USER29> I sometimes use Bluehost for domain registration and they do the same thing. I don't really have a problem with it because I know that once a domain is registered, my work isn't done until I've pointed nameservers somewhere else or set up a site on Bluehost and changed the default.html.

For $10 a year, I don't mind doing this.

Having said that, I do agree that it's hard to find a good domain registrar that covers lots of TLD, has a good interface and runs an ethical business.

</comment><comment><USER30> I agree that the situation is legally impossible: basically they are trying to hold you responsible for code they add and which you cannot touch. Won't keep up in court.

Secondly it does not look good for the site owner, as some have a few subdomains and users might make a typo. 3rdly, Godaddy and others also do this, but at least they 'share' any 'profit'.

Anyway, I just got my first few domains at name.com and just forwarded them to another domain. No spampages. Cheers

</comment><comment><USER31> The best domain registrar of which I'm aware -- everyone I know who's used it has been happy with it -- is <http://nearlyfreespeech.net/>. I've also used DynDNS and been very happy with them; someone else mentioned them as well.

NFS doesn't make it obvious that they do domain registration -- you have to click through to "services" to see it.

</comment><comment><USER32> Ive been using <http://Dynadot.com> Its run by developers. They are awesome. Make it really easy to manage your domains and get new ones. Give it a shot - youre bound to love it. (no i do not work for them)

</comment><comment><USER33> TLDR; name.com will insert a page under your domain, against your will, that may or may not have illegal material on it. If it does, YOU ARE LIABLE! Fucking ridiculous.

Wouldn't creating a wildcard subdomain prevent it from hitting one of their parked pages?

</comment><comment><USER34> Why is there no one on HN that runs a registrar? Seems like there could be room for a startup here that could compete on pricing and offer some unique services.

<comment><USER35> Judging by the information on the ICANN and Verisign sites, there are quite steep financial requirements to fulfill and paperwork to submit to become an accredited registrar.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Number one favorite registrar and DNS host of all: DNSimple.

No upselling, no adverts at all.

Sweet REST API.

Account sharing so multiple users can manage domains.

There's a Ruby gem so you can register from the command line.

They also have an iPhone app.

<https://dnsimple.com/r/4f322c139863f6>

(disclosure: that's a referral URL that gives me and the person who uses it a free month of service, but I do love DNSimple)

</comment><comment><USER37> Moniker.com -- simply the best, no jokes.

</comment><comment><USER38> I am in process of determining which registrar to choose for some startups I am setting up..HN users thoughts on past registrars that you have used?

<comment><USER39> When I was searching for a registrar I consulted several HN threads and settled on namecheap.com. It has been great and I would definitely recommend it, as have a few others in this thread.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Considering you can easily change the default nameserver settings, I don't see how this is an issue. Really, your just trying to imagine problems. Maybe you'd be so kind as to direct our attention to when this specific issue has caused problems for Name.com customers in the past?

<comment><USER18> A ton of domains have been brought to UDRP for showing parking ads. Some domains might have been legal except the ads infringed on someone else's IP. Imagine owning apple.com for your apple store but apple computer ads started appearing contextually. You're screwed through no fault of your own.

At least with domain parking companies, you get the profit, name.com is plain old screwing you over.

<comment><USER12> Care to share some of these domains then? A link would be helpful.

<comment><USER18> "The Panel also believes that in using the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to websites that host links to external websites, including websites of Complainant's competitors, the Respondent has registered and used the domain names in bad faith"

[http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003...](http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003-0031.html)

There is a starting point.

<comment><USER12> The argument here is that this was intentional, not unintentional. Nothing in here leads me to believe that someone claimed the domains and just happened to leave them dormant on a registrar. Rather, they setup the domains with the expressed intent to redirect internet users.

This is not what is being argued against Names.

You say it's a starting point. Considering it has no relation whatsoever, I fail to see where it can lead. My searching has turned up nothing. Until someone presents otherwise, I consider this entire argument and article FUD.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I personally don't care what kind of crappy parking pages they put up. When I register a domain, I immediately point it at either dreamhost, ec2, or heroku, depending on my fuzzy ideas about what it will one day become. I'd rather type-in-traffic see an error page than a tacky parking page.

I'll stick with Name.com for all my non-COM/ORG/NET tld's.</comment>


Ask HN: Building a new web app, lots of content, what to use for database? - <AUTHOR>

I expect the site-traffic will be fairly high, decent amount of db writes, medium amount of reads (most pages will end up cached). I have experience in SQL but not in setting up the infrastructure to build scalable SQL database architectures.<p>I am considering Redis and MySQL. Not too keen on Mongo or Couch and Cassandra seems overblown for my needs. Currently planning on using MySQL and figuring out the optimization stuff as necessary. What are the cost/benefits as you see them? If you were approaching a new project such as this what would you consider? <comment><USER2> I'd use MySQL if its what you know best - it is definately scalable. I like using MySQL to populate Redis (for all reads) since Redis is blazing fast. My last tip is to think horizontal while building your app detailed speed and query based optimizations can always be added.

</comment><comment><USER3> PG is far superior to MySQL. Incremental backups are a default on PG, while on MySQL is far more sketchy. This thread: [http://www.quora.com/What-are-the- advantages-and-disadvantag...](http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-advantages- and-disadvantages-of-using-PostgreSQL-over-MySQL) has some thoughts as well. Redis is great.

<comment><USER4> Yes, however, I'd strongly suggest optimizing for development time in the early stages of a project. This may influence how you evaluate the pro/con sheets for a given technology.

There is a significant body of existing code and tools which assume MySQL, so I often use it for that reason. It's also not always an either/or proposition; there's usually nothing stopping you from using X for user accounts and Y for inventory tracking.</comment></comment>


Pizza Hut's First Website - <AUTHOR> https://www.pizzahut.com/assets/pizzanet/home.html <comment><USER2> This is not strictly Pizza Hut's first website.

Pizza Hut's first website was built in 1994 [1]. This webpage has Javascript (1995) [2] running Google Tag Manager (2012) [3]. The article about Pizza Hut's first website [1] provides more context than just the webpage.

[1]: [https://thehistoryoftheweb.com/postscript/pizzanet/](https://thehistoryoftheweb.com/postscript/pizzanet/)

[2]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript#History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript#History)

[3]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_products#Advert...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_products#Advertising_services)

<comment><USER3> Amusingly, the date on this article and the fact it still loads today.

[https://www.latimes.com/archives/la- xpm-1994-08-25-fi-31168-...](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la- xpm-1994-08-25-fi-31168-story.html)

<comment><USER4> Wow, very prescient amazing article!

Quote near beginning to put things in context of where we were back in 1994 :

" To participate in the pilot, hungry Santa Cruzers need computers with Internet access and a version of an Internet interface program called _Mosaic_."

But other interesting predictions:

"Instead of simply letting people order a pizza, why not let them design it as well? Instead of showing an ordinary menu with a list of toppings, show a picture of a pizza with the toppings clustered on the side."

And then : "Why not customized T-shirts? Log on to the Internet and browse through assorted logos and designs. Mix, match and modify them to suit your interest. Then superimpose them onto the virtual T-shirt on the screen. Hit the right key and within 48 hours your new shirt is Fed-Exed to the desired address.

Of course, this network designability concept easily extends to bouquets of flowers, boxes of chocolates, fruit baskets and the $6.85-billion annual market in mail-order clothes shopping. It would be perfect for all kinds of gift giving."

<comment><USER5> Fun fact: Googling "mosaic" today returns a page full of results about art. Even if you search for "mosaic software", you get a bunch of software for creating mosaics. If you want to read about Mosaic today, you need to already know that it's a browser.

<comment><USER6> You can also find it if you know its full name, "NCSA Mosaic".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> At my university, someone did a demo of what ordering a pizza would look like online, using Pizza Hut's site as an example, sometime in 1994-95.

I remember thinking to myself that was a ridiculous idea, because all of the stores would have to be wired up to the Internet, and who would do that?

That ignored, of course, the possibility that a central location could take the orders and communicate them to the individual stores (which is how it worked for phone ordering at one point, maybe even today), and I completely whiffed on the future ubiquity of the Internet.

You could have made a fortune betting against my computer prognostications in the 90s.

<comment><USER8> > That ignored, of course, the possibility that a central location could take > the orders and communicate them to the individual stores (which is how it > worked for phone ordering at one point, maybe even today)

Wait, really? I worked in several pizza restaurants around the early 2000s and we always took the phone calls directly. It was very common to get questions about stuff like directions and opening hours, or weird special requests, which I can't imagine working very well with a remote call center setup. I don't want to doubt your claim, I'm just surprised to hear it.

<comment><USER9> It's actually true of Pizza Hut right now. I had to call in an order because the online form didn't have the option I wanted, and the operator on the other end definitely wasn't even in the same state I was.

I agree though, it was very surprising.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I got a 403 forbidden message, but archive.org works.

* [https://web.archive.org/web/20140123215657/https://www.pizza...](https://web.archive.org/web/20140123215657/https://www.pizzahut.com/assets/pizzanet/home.html)

> PizzaNet is Pizza Hut's Electronic Storefront and is brought to you by Pizza > Hut® and The Santa Cruz Operation®

What, the original SCO, THE Unix company, built the website for Pizza Hut? The original SCO dissolved in 2001, so it must be earlier?

<comment><USER11> The Web was a _huge_ driver of Unix adoption. Before the Web came along, Unix was on the ropes. The conventional wisdom was that Windows NT would eventually finish it off, owning the server space the way regular Windows owned the desktop. But all the early tools for standing up a Web site were Unix-centric, simply because the Web's roots were in science and academia rather than traditional corporate computing. So when the Web started getting big, Unix started getting big too, and never really stopped.

Presumably someone at SCO thought an online pizza ordering service would be a good way to demonstrate the value a Web site could have for businesses. And that demand for Web sites would in turn mean demand for SCO's Unix products.

<comment><USER12> But the web-scale demand for SCO Unix never really materialized. Linux took much of the marketshare while SCO went after IBM [https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/02/ibm_vs_sco_revives/](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/02/ibm_vs_sco_revives/)

<comment><USER13> That wasn't the same SCO, the SCO that sued IBM was the Linux vendor Caldera who purchased SCO's assets and renamed themselves as such.

<comment><USER10> Yes, the original SCO was "good". It was Caldera Systems's CEO who started the lawsuits, suing everyone, they even sued Novell for the Unix trademark, and obviously got a notorious reputation and turned SCO into a dirty world. And of course, it almost lost all cases and his company became an utter piece of garbage.

Seriously, what was the CEO thinking about?! I guess Caldera Systems purchased SCO, thought it was a good deal, but they suddenly found the days of commercial proprietary Unix were ending and the purchase was a mistake, and this is how they started its assaults.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Let's collect all the internet's historical pizza moments. I've collected a few from the comments here and added a few.

\- 1990, Don Hopkins uses the PizzaTool to fax a pizza order.

\- 1992, Snow Crash is published. Readers imagine interconnected virtual worlds and action packed pizza delivery. Often quoted book in regards to internet, MMORPGs and pizza.

\- 1994, Pizza Hut's Pizza Net allows users in Santa Cruz to order pizza.

\- May 22, 2010, Laszlo Hanyecz buys two pizzas for 10,000 bitcoins (valued at around 30 USD at the time).

<comment><USER15> > May 22, 2010, Laszlo Hanyecz buys two pizzas for 10,000 bitcoins (valued at > around 30 USD at the time).

10,000 BTC = 63,317,800 GBP or 82,204,100 USD as of 2019-10-21 at 16:00 UTC

A lot of pizza these days.

<comment><USER16> I wonder if Pizza Hut still owns those 10k BTC they bought for the price of two pizzas?

<comment><USER17> If I remember correctly he traded the BTC to another user who then put the pizzas on his credit card

<comment><USER18> And it was Papa Johns, not Pizza Hut.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Redirects to the pizzahut.com.au main page for me.

<comment><USER20> Yeah, looks like regional redirect. For me redirects to .lv which returns SERVER NOT FOUND error. Probably should have been PIZZA NOT FOUND error or PIZZA UNDELIVERABLE.

<comment><USER21> FoRbIdDeN pIZzA

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> In a way, I miss the naive old web. Now you get popups, requests to have your location, prompts to sign in before you can get deals, etc. In many ways a simple web form asking for pizza is a better user experience.

<comment><USER23> Imo, whatever annoying tradeoffs a commercialized web brought with it, it was wholly worth it for giving literally anybody the ability to learn anything they are curious about.

1080p Harvard compsci lectures[0] available for free would have been a pipe dream in 1995.

[0] [https://youtu.be/e9Eds2Rc_x8](https://youtu.be/e9Eds2Rc_x8)

<comment><USER24> I agree It's pretty amazing what a resource the web has become, but I don't think it's all that clear what trade-offs have been made, and if the implications of those are just mere annoyances.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> "Y'know what? There's only four things we do better than anyone else: music, movies, microcode (software),

and high-speed pizza delivery."

—Snowcrash by Neal Stephenson

<comment><USER26> "2020 was the year that would decide between two pizza deliveries techniques. Amazon-Google drone-based delivery or the MIT's supersonic pizza railgun"

<comment><USER27> An hypersonic railgun could cook the pizza using air friction. Also, it would be faster.

<comment><USER26> But more expensive. However engineers estimate that an appropriate rail gun would have 10 times the range of an average drone so would cover a wider area.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Apparently, the site automatically redirects me to the standard German site. Fantastic. My hate for the modern web continues to grow. You could replace the protagonists of I Have No Mouth with walking, talking websites and it'd roughly mirror what I'm feeling right now. The only way I could see what everybody was talking about was by checking out [https://thehistoryoftheweb.com/postscript/pizzanet/](https://thehistoryoftheweb.com/postscript/pizzanet/) and the archive.org page which were linked by somebody else.

</comment><comment><USER29> My father was head of marcom at SCO went this went live and my 8 year old self was one of the first people to use this site!

</comment><comment><USER30> I thought I'd see a very old version, but I just see the current website... is that their first?!

<comment><USER31> Yeah, I'm getting redirected to the current website too. You can see the page archived here: [http://archive.is/https://www.pizzahut.com/assets/pizzanet/h...](http://archive.is/https://www.pizzahut.com/assets/pizzanet/home.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> What I see is :

"Access Denied You don't have permission to access "[http://www.pizzahut.com/assets/pizzanet/home.html"](http://www.pizzahut.com/assets/pizzanet/home.html") on this server. Reference #18.8a0a1602.1571725900.474a5bfd"

This could have been the old Pizza Hut web site, but I think this is just an error, maybe due to server load?

</comment><comment><USER33> Pizzanet was started in August 1994, and was hosted at Pizza Hut Headquarters in Wichita, Kansas.

[https://web.archive.org/web/20120609100313/http://www.intere...](https://web.archive.org/web/20120609100313/http://www.interesting- people.org/archives/interesting-people/199408/msg00057.html)

</comment><comment><USER34> By comparison, the current pizzahut.com home page makes 92 network requests, including 34 potential trackers according to Privacy Badger.

</comment><comment><USER35> Looking at this old site, I see the future of the web. This navbar + hero + a bunch of marketing fluff that nobody reads.. it's grandma/grandpa shit. It's like those walmart photograph frames with teddy bears on them. It seems cool now, you can make six figures making this shit, but it's ridiculous.

</comment><comment><USER36> Didn't know they had Google Analytics back then.

<comment><USER37> Came here to say that I bet that wasn't part of the original site!

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> While probably not really Pizza Hut's first web site, I think this goes a long way to show how a lot of the internet has actually regressed. We've gone from this simple form that just asks "Who wants pizza and where can we call you?" and, instead of going to "Who wants pizza and where should we bring it?", we went to ads and pop-ups and to a place where, arguably, the process is way more complicated than it needs to be.

Advertising kinda ruined the internet.

</comment><comment><USER11> And ten years later they were innovating online again with "slash-pizza": [https://money.cnn.com/2005/02/17/commentary/game_over/column...](https://money.cnn.com/2005/02/17/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/index.htm?cnn=yes)

</comment><comment><USER39> The first time I saw anything on a computer related to pizza ordering was the Sun NeWS pizzatool:

[https://medium.com/@donhopkins/the-story-of-sun- microsystems...](https://medium.com/@donhopkins/the-story-of-sun-microsystems- pizzatool-2a7992b4c797)

</comment><comment><USER40> A few years back their site wouldn't work with some adblocker options, I believe their js didn't handle the circumstances of if their geoip analytics was blocks.

I just emailed their support, gave them the details, and they fixed it and gave me a $20 card. Was a nice transaction.

</comment><comment><USER41> What was the actual date on this? I assume it was wayyyy before 2014 haha.

Imagine telling them back then that someone could fill out all the details on the website, choose their pizza and customise toppings AND have it delivered by a robot.

They'd think you were high!

<comment><USER42> You could already select the toppings. Drone technology was not prevalent back then, but no one would think you were high. They were living the dot-com bubble. They would probably invest in that idea if anyone pitched it the right way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> I remember the pizza ordering scene in The Net (1995) seemed very futuristic at the time:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUSqX7B5DXs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUSqX7B5DXs)

</comment><comment><USER44> Ah, memories. The frustration was they wouldn't deliver from CA to NY.

Fascinating to watch technology go from world-changing bleeding-edge to archeological discovery.

</comment><comment><USER45> It is ... glorious!

       <BODY BGCOLOR=#d0d0d0 TEXT=#000000 LINK=#0000ff VLINK=#5500cc ALINK=#ff0000">

</comment><comment><USER46> Requests too much PII! Run away!

<comment><USER47> Pizza Identifier Information

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> The Story of Sun Microsystems PizzaTool: How I accidentally ordered my first pizza over the internet. (Oct 1990)

[https://medium.com/@donhopkins/the-story-of-sun- microsystems...](https://medium.com/@donhopkins/the-story-of-sun-microsystems- pizzatool-2a7992b4c797)

</comment><comment><USER49> I got redirected to the MX site

</comment><comment><USER50> Wow, reminds me of the good ol' days of SCO Unix bashing.

</comment><comment><USER51> Now THAT is a tech company!

</comment><comment><USER52> I wonder if they will be forced to add a GDPR notice for an unlisted subpage :)

Oh they have Google Analytics and a link to a now-404-ed JS [https://www.pizzahut.com/akam/11/6df12bd5](https://www.pizzahut.com/akam/11/6df12bd5) . It is like they tried to maintain/upgrade at some point.

</comment><comment><USER53> Mozart's Ghost!

</comment><comment> d-sc It loads so fast!

</comment><comment><USER54> Who is The Santa Cruz Operation®?

<comment><USER22> SCO is synonymous with evil old school unix. A lot of mainframes ran it, and my first job was dealing with some old SCO/ATT bastardized system. Interestingly enough, I never bothered to know what SCO stood for until now.

<comment><USER10> > _SCO is synonymous with evil old school unix._

The full name _Santa Cruz Operation_ only refers to the original SCO company (which sold itself in 2001), not the _SCO Group_ which purchased SCO and turned its name into a dirty word. Unlike the SCO Group, the original SCO was old-school commercial Unix, but it didn't have such a bad reputation. Quite a few hackers in the Unix world worked with the original SCO.

<comment><USER22> Thanks for the history, seriously interesting! My interaction was shortly after 2001, but on an ancient system. Guessing it had some parts from both histories.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


A city with 180km traffic jams - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19660765

<comment><USER3> > "No city in the world will ever manage to end congestion because when > traffic flows, people are drawn to their cars.

Tokyo is proof that this is not true. There are many, many people who own cars but only drive them on the weekends because the public transportation system is so great.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, what a ridiculous quote. I'd give it maybe ten years before a number of world-class cities have ended congestion issues. The shortsightedness of people is incredible to me: "this is a problem in my city, _therefore it will be a problem in every city on the planet for the rest of time_ ".

Uh, okay. Ridiculous pessimism.

<comment><USER5> I think the 10 year estimate is a bit optimistic. Public transportation construction projects can easily take 10+ years from planning to construction to completion.

The California High Speed Rail project, for example, is estimated to take 18 years just for construction, not including all the planning time it took just to get to this point.

My personal opinion is that in areas with high traffic, car registration fees (or gas taxes) should be increased dramatically and the fees should be used to provide public transportation. Public transit should only charge fees as a means of controlling the number of people using the system (in other words, as low as possible to maximize usage but high enough to reduce overcrowding).

In other words, make people that want to drive subsidize public transit. This would encourage fewer people to own or drive cars and push them to the less expensive public transit.

It's all a matter of incentives.

<comment><USER6> Which pushes people to mass transit, lowers overall consumption of gasoline, decreases revenue from car registration and gas taxes and bankrupts the transit system.

Edit #1: I'm being intentionally glib, but the point is that it's not as simple as "raise taxes" or "take the bus."

Edit #2: I'd love to hear a counterpoint instead of just downvotes. Please explain to me how the spirit of what I said is incorrect.

<comment><USER5> Your statement makes the assumption that this will happen quickly, which it will not. It will likely take decades to incentivize people to move from cars to mass transit and other systems. As they do, taxes and budgets will be modified to reflect the current state of affairs.

For example, I suggested to use gas and vehicle taxes to subsidize public transport to push people toward using mass transit options. Obviously as that transition occurs, prices on mass transit tickets will increase to stabilize demand, and the revenue burden will shift for a subsidy by car owners to mass transit riders paying for their tickets.

Since the transition will take a long time, laws and budgets will change to reflect the new norm.

To stephengillie's point (since I can't reply), fees for mass transit should not be viewed as revenue generators but as means to restrict demand for a limited supply. In other words, the price on mass transit should be as low as possible (even free) to attract as much usage as possible, only using the price to restrict demand when too many people are trying to use the system. I truely believe that this type of pricing model would push a LOT of people toward mass transit.

As an example, here in Denver, CO we have a light rail. It costs (for me) $4.50 each way to downtown Denver. I can find parking in downtown for as cheap as $5 (if I want to walk a bit) to $10. It literally takes long as costs just as much to ride light rail as to just drive. Where's the incentive? If the light rail were $1-$2 per ride, then hell yes I'd use it.

<comment><USER6> For the most part, rail travel is private industry in the US - that means it has to make a profit. Obviously if you make something very cheap or free you're going to have a lot more people willing to use it. It will also cease to exist as a private enterprise very quickly.

I don't want to make this solely a political point, but it's a hard sell to convince me that it's inherently good to incentivize mass transit in the first place, let alone that it should be nationalized by default and offered below cost or for free.

<comment><USER7> The biggest argument for incentivizing mass traffic is that private car usage is heavily incentives in the United States. Gasoline taxes don't even come close to paying for the primary cost of roads, let alone the secondary external costs. Subsidies for mass transit would be much more palatable to the voting public than $20/gallon gasoline and toll roads everywhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation." @petrogustavo Mayor of Bogota

As a brazilian from São Paulo, who nowadays lives in Europe, I can confirm that. That kind of traffic is unsustainable. It doesn't matter how much of a good job you have, if you have to face this routine every day, your life WILL suck.

<comment><USER9> That's a great quote. If you get on a bus in Manhattan, you'll see bankers making $5 million/year sitting next to social workers making $40k/year. More than half the people on the island don't even own a car. I think that's progress!

<comment><USER8> Yep. Here in Germany it goes something like that too. Being in college gives you right to ride busses/trains for free, but a lot of people and I rather ride our bikes everywhere. I really see no use for a car here. It would do more harm than good.

<comment><USER10> Here in Washington (state), university students can get a 3-month bus pass for $100 at the time they pay tuition. The bus service is pretty good in parts of King County (around Seattle) but almost the entire state is inaccessible by public transportation. Part of the reason is population density: Germany has 229 people per square km, while Washington has just 39.6 people per square km -- outside of the Seattle-Tacoma-Everett region, population density is about 1/2 of that. No buses because nobody lives out there.

Outside of cities, almost no roads have sidewalks and walking to the grocery store would be a several-mile journey being constantly passed by pedestrian- hating drivers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "No city in the world will ever manage to end congestion because when traffic flows, people are drawn to their cars." - I disagree with this statement. There may be something about São Paulo that makes this true, but it's not a guaranteed universal truth.

Vancouver, British Columbia has taken an interesting approach - they don't run freeways into the city, and have, over the last 40 years, zoned a large stock of residential units in the downtown/west side of the city.

The goal is "Live where you work."

People still commute by car, and skytrain - but, in general, there is an approach to ending congestion. Affordable, high quality, inconvenient mass transit is a large factor. But, generally, just avoiding having to travel long distances to get to work is another.

<comment><USER12> The most interesting thing about Vancouver (disclosure: I grew up there) is not only the willingness to build density, but also the willingness to mix zones.

Downtown Vancouver is the kind of place where you can find a surprisingly even mix of residential towers sharing space with commercial office buildings.

You see this pattern in places like NYC, where many neighborhoods exist that are equal parts work and live.

Compare with cities like Seattle or San Francisco, where there is an almost religious adherence to geographically segregating commercial developments from residential, and you can start explaining major quality of life issues.

<comment><USER13> San Francisco is starting to get away from this, particularly in the fringe / expansion areas of the CBD in the South of Market and Mid-Market areas.

There's actually always been residential space close to downtown, but it's generally been either tremendously expensive (Telegraph Hill), or near- tenement conditions (Chinatown). Parking is extremely limited and expensive, if you do own a car. There's also an issue with out-of-town HNVIs purchasing condos in or near the CBD but spending very little time there (other major cosmopolitan metro areas have similar issues, notably London).

<comment><USER14> Telegraph Hill is a bit of a hike from downtown, isn't it?

It's tough to get a shared metric here; San Francisco is small to start with, and "downtown" San Francisco is even smaller.

<comment><USER13> Well, yes, if you consider 2-4 blocks to be a hike.

<comment><USER14> Union to Geary? A mile to Embarcadero, ~mile to Transamerica Tower? I agree these are trivial distances and agree with the parent that SF has mixed commercial/residential.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Deficient public transit systems create areas where owning a car is THE thing that lets you into the middle class - this is bad for the environment, bad for traffic, and creates a barrier to social upward movement. Here on Long Island in New York, the bus system only serves /certain/ areas and the train system (Long Island Railroad) is expensive and designed to bring people to and from Manhattan and back and does anything else quite poorly.

p.s. Anyone remember the Doctor Who episode Gridlock - where people actually lived and died in traffic? (:

</comment><comment><USER16> Here you can check traffic in Paris and its suburbs: <http://www.sytadin.fr/> Last friday night there were 350km of traffic jams.

Looking at the "barometer"( [http://www.sytadin.fr/opencms/sites/sytadin/sys/courbes/cour...](http://www.sytadin.fr/opencms/sites/sytadin/sys/courbes/courbe_cumul.jsp.html_63.html) ) you can see that 200km of traffic jams is a daily occurence.

</comment><comment><USER17> Part of the problem is human psychology where people do not rationally put a value on the time spent commuting. For instance say you are offered job A at $60k/yr and the commute is 30min. You also are offered job B at $75k/yr but the commute is 1h30min.

Most people would choose job B because they don't put enough value on their time (a similar argument goes for waiting in line at the gas station to save a few cents per litre/gallon) but is magnified here by the over discounting of future time. All we see is the extra $15k.

With an average of 2080hrs working hours per year, your time in this situation is valued at $30/hr (not talking about taxes). The additional 2hrs commuting per working day results in 520 extra hours which works out to the $15k difference.

Of course if you LIKE driving in traffic because that is how you catchup on your podcasts, practice singing or harmonica, good on you :)

</comment><comment><USER18> I used to live in São Paulo and I moved in the exact same path the girl in the article. Up from the North Zone all the way across the city to the South Zone. Without traffic, during the night this would take me 30min but during a normal day it would take 1.5 to 2 hours to get to work and the way back was even worse. On Fridays it get's even worse as people tend to use cars so they can hang out after work.

I did that for 2 years and moved to Canada a year ago. I know the situation got a lot worse recently, although I can't tell why.

This is really a pity. São Paulo is really one of the most exciting and thriving cities I have ever been on. The nightlife is awesome and it's a great place to work. The traffic jams are by far the worst problem the city have.

I agree with the article that public transportation is a solution. We have a large subway system, it's not the longest of the world but it's the one with more passengers per mile, also known as the tuna can coefficient. Getting around using the bus or subways is often more painful than on a car.

If you ever go to São Paulo get a place near where you work. If you don't you will have a bad time.

<comment><USER10> _I used to live in São Paulo and I moved in the exact same path the girl in the article_

Looking at the distance marker on the lower left of the map, her route looks to be about 10 miles. A 2-hour commute means she's moving about 5 miles per hour. This does not make sense to me - why would she drive? Why does she not bicycle or possibly walk?

<comment><USER19> I believe it is not safe to bike there. There are also probably some areas that are dangerous/unpleasant to walk through.

<comment><USER10> Why don't people start some sort of Safe Streets or Neighborhood Watch program? Take Back The Night? If there are really so many productive people in the city, can't they at least travel together in groups for protection?

It sounds as if the entire city has this problem in common, but nobody is interested in solving it, and most people view it as their own personal issue.

Is it more dangerous to walk somewhere, or to be stuck in traffic with your large asset? If crime is so bad, why do people feel safer in cars, if the car is constantly stuck in traffic? What's to stop a criminal from going up to a stopped car and mugging/kidnapping the driver?

<comment><USER18> Almost everyone in the city got robbed at least once while in their cars, but it's still safer than walking or biking. I got robbed once, in over 16 years I lived in the city. They stole just some bucks I had laying around and a cellphone.

You see a lot of people that share rides, but you have to live almost in the same street and work at almost the same place so it makes sense.

You could bike, but keep in mind that the city is very rainy, so it's not a solution for everyday. There are not many bike lanes in the city, and the few that exist are not on the most busy roads, so you actually have to bike way longer than 10 miles in that example. I would not bike in São Paulo on a day to day basis for that distance.

But robbers don't usually take cars, they rather go for wallets, watches and cellphones instead.

kidnaps are very common as well. São Paulo has what they call lightning kidnaps. The robber enters your car and makes you drive around the city cashing money out of ATMs and then they just leave. The banks have adapted to that, and if you take money from 2 different ATMs in a short spam the card will get blocked for a day or two. I was never kidnaped but I know at least 4 people who had.

<comment><USER10> So people that work together but live a couple neighborhoods apart will just drive separately? Wow, it sounds like nobody has seen this poster:

[http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3615/3399729832_330d4a5bed_z.j...](http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3615/3399729832_330d4a5bed_z.jpg?zz=1)

<comment><USER18> > So people that work together but live a couple neighborhoods apart will just > drive separately?

If someone lives a couple neighborhoods out of my way than no. That can easily add 30-40 minutes to my travel. So sorry pal but just can't do it. If it's on my way than sure it's possible. but otherwise it just doesn't work. The streets inside the neibourhoods are just as crowded as the highways and avenues or worse. And the city is just too much spread out. The chances of someone that works with you to live close by are slim in a city with over 11M people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Traffic is the #1 cause of unhappiness in the world. Move yourself close to work, even if you have to pay the premium. Do not put a price tag on your happiness.

<comment><USER21> Fully agree, and that is my philosophy as well. It's working great since I live on my own and can therefore choose exactly where I want to live, but that is often (usually?) not an option for families.

<comment><USER9> It depends on where you live and what your priorities are. I grew up in an 1,150 square foot house in the DC suburbs. My parents had two kids. The house is now worth about $390k, according to Zillow. For that much money I can buy a 1,300 square foot condo in Lincoln Park, Chicago. No back yard, except for the 1,200 acre park next door with zoo, duck pond, flower conservatory, etc. Good public school within walking distance (how many dads can walk their kids to school every morning?) The central business district is a 10 minute walk + 12 minute subway ride from the school.

I agree that not everyone has options like that, but I think people make it harder on themselves than they need to. A lot of people have kids and decide they couldn't possibly raise their kids anywhere except a far-out suburb with 1 acre for the dogs to run around in. They spend just as much money for a house as they would in the city, except they get 1,000 extra square feet they use to store a lot of junk. Then they complain about their commute and all the traffic. They do it because well their parents did it and oh cities are so dangerous, forgetting that teenage driving is a much bigger danger to a middle-class kid than city crime. There is a lot of inertia built-into peoples' choices in this matter, IMHO.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Couple of fun data points:

I grew up in Caracas, where traffic was just as bad. It would take me ~1 hour to get to school in the morning, and 2-3 hours to get back home during rush hour. My school was only 6 miles away. Caracas is a terrible city to bike in (very hilly and unsafe).

Traffic was so slow that people would walk the highways selling stuff to bored drivers. What would they sell? Apart from snacks, you could fancy yourself a beer or a copy of the lastest leaked celebrity sex tape...

In Bogota, to control traffic, the government only allowed you to use your car on certain days/hours depending on your license plate. Otherwise you'd be fined. Very constraining IMO, but it seemed to work to some extent.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> We suffer the same here in Istanbul. And to solve this they heavily construct more streets and bridges instead of invest on public transportation infrastructure. It is insane, because more streets means more cars and therefore more jams in the long-term.

</comment><comment><USER23> My city, Warsaw (the capital of Poland), is being mentioned as the worst in the Europe. The commute here is really painful -- and we're only a ~2 million people city.

It's not unusual for a 10km bus trip to take over an hour. Commuting from the suburbs is even worse. My guess, our greatest problem is the lack of carpooling culture. Rarely I see people sharing a car, usually it's just the driver.

I can only imagine how bad it is in Sao Paulo which is twice as densely populated.

<comment><USER7> I think the only places with strong commuter cultures are those places that encourage them with high occupancy vehicle lanes.[1] Otherwise there's a strong free-rider problem. If I ride-share it benefits others but inconveniences me.

[1] <http://www.slug-lines.com/Slugging/About_slugging.asp>

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I've commuted by bicycle in both San Francisco and São Paulo and the claim that one city is far less safe than another is simply not true.

It's about about changing your riding style, your routes and determining where you will and will not bike.

In SF, the roads are safer for bikes, so you spend more time on the roads. In SP, the roads are less safe for bikes and pedestrians, so 99% of people are in cars or buses. This fortunately leaves 90%+ of sidewalks wide open to use as a bike lane.

The simple rule of being able to bike safely is "If I can walk safely from point A to point B, then I can also use that same route to bike safely"

If anything, the 180km of stopped traffic makes SP in many ways safer than SF. Biking through SP during rush hour is like biking through the Disneyland parking lot.

</comment><comment><USER25> Two hours to go ten miles? Ridiculous! You might as well get out and walk. Riding a bicycle would cut that in half, easily, even in a place like Sao Paolo.

This reminds me of reading about a practice in the epic traffic jams around Beijing and Shanghai. Two guys on a scooter will cut through the traffic jam and one will offer to "car sit" for you while the guy with the scooter drives you to work.

[http://gizmodo.com/5738525/chinese-motorists-are-paying- peop...](http://gizmodo.com/5738525/chinese-motorists-are-paying-people-to- sit-in-traffic-jams-for-them)

<comment><USER26> I guesstimated her start & end locations. Google gives a one-way walking time of about 3.5 hours.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Jesus, and here I thought Toronto was bad during rush hour. That's insane.

Interesting the divide in class aspirations for a car vs. helicopters for the super rich.

<comment><USER28> All that construction on the 401 makes it suck sometimes, but it keeps us from having this. That and there's the 407 for those so economically inclined.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'm starting to feel this way about the traffic in the Bay Area. I moved back here after living in New York for four years and am absolutely astounded by how bad the traffic has gotten. It takes me upwards of an hour and a half to get from my house in San Jose to my office in Menlo Park (a distance of ~30 miles.) Definitely makes me miss the amazing public transit infrastructure back east.

<comment><USER30> Tell me about it. I commute from Pleasant Hill to San Jose, ~60 miles, and it's a 1:45-2:00 hour ordeal each way. If there's an accident or a stall -- forget about it.

If that south bay Bart line was going, I'd be golden. I've actually taken to riding Amtrak from Martinez part of the time. That's a fun commute, but pricy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Why the hell is anybody still driving then? Surely after sitting in traffic for half a dozen hours a couple of times inspiration strikes and you buy a motorbike?

<comment><USER32> Simple: public transportation sucks and will probably take twice the time to get to your destination. Motorbike: you have no idea how madly people drive down here, and how many motorbikers day each day. Also, it rains (heavily) almost daily from November to April - definitely not fun on a bike

<comment><USER8> This. Also:

\- City is simply too damn big to ride a bike to places;

\- Zero lanes for cyclists;

\- It is unbelievably scaring to ride motorcycles/bicycles in São Paulo. This kind of traffic get the worst of everyone out;

\- The way I see it, there is already somehow a tragic 'rivalry' between car and motorcycle riders. There is no kindness at all. Motorcycles keep rushing in between the car lanes and - as if it wasn't stressful enough - <USER2> their annoying horns like crazy. Cars eventually try to change lanes recklessly. Things can get ugly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Business opportunity: Run around on a bicycle selling snack foods and other products to people stuck in traffic.

<comment><USER22> Already happens in most cities in South America I've been to (and in Caracas, where I grew up).

They sell all kinds of stuff: snacks, jewelry, car freshners, cold soda/beer (they carry around little coolers -- and yes, they sell beer to drivers), pirated dvds, etc.

Also, juggling acts and car washes at lights... Sometimes, even if you don't want it, they'll wash your windshield so that you're guilt-tripped to pay them something. If you disallow them (by screaming at them), they may mark your back windshield with some soap. Later down the road they'll rob you if they see your car bears the mark. This means you have to get out of your car and clear it to be on the safe side. Truly annoying...

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> MOVE.

Downvoters: I had a 2-hour-each-way commute too. It sucked. I moved.

<comment><USER34> Honestly. I know life is not so obvious but I would just pour every resource I could into moving as far as I could from such a mess.</comment></comment>


Amazon Homepage is Down - <AUTHOR> https://www.amazon.com/ <comment><USER2> Boy, I can't wait to read the post mortem on this one.

<comment><AUTHOR> Just the homepage being down makes me think the entire site is down, but as another user pointed out, you can still search and links work.

I wonder if checkout works. Can anyone confirm?

<comment><USER3> Checkout works, you just have to search for the item and once you're off the homepage everything is normal.

<comment><USER2> Thanks for confirming. I was curious too, but all the small purchases I have are "Add on items" ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm really curious how much this actually causes Amazon's revenue to drop. You can still buy things and search, but consumers are probably going to be put off by the home page message.

EDIT: And now it's back up.

</comment><comment><USER5> Just the home page it seems, deep links and searches working for me.

<comment><AUTHOR> edited

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Small e-commerce companies should really use cloudfront for their homepage!

</comment><comment><USER7> FWIW: I wouldn't notice since my bookmark goes directly to my orders page. I never see the home page. I also never see the home page of google or github.

<comment><USER8> > I also never see the home page of google

What do you see instead?

<comment><USER9> IDK about github, but for google I generally just type stuff into the search bar and press enter. When do you see the homepage of google?

<comment><USER7> Ditto. Github goes out of their way to not show you a home page. If your cookies are logged in then going to github.com takes you directly to your personal page.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This has to be costing Amazon a fortune at the moment

<comment><USER3> Better today than Monday.

Using numbers from 2013, Amazon makes $2000 per second, down for 30 minutes = 3.6M

Edited: per hour to per second

<comment><USER11> Per hour? Do you mean per second?

<comment><USER3> Good catch, you're correct it's per second not per hour.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Looks like just the desktop homepage is down.

Mobile works. Detail and search works.

</comment><comment><USER12> amazon.com desktop homepage is back up for me!

EDIT: Though it looks quite minimal, there's very little content showing on the front page. Three rows of content.</comment>


Udacity – Machine Learning 1–Supervised Learning - <AUTHOR> https://www.udacity.com/course/ud675

<comment><USER2> As a student who finished the Coursera Machine Learning course, this seems more hardcore. The problem is I do not see any practical applications, just theory quizzes. In Coursera ML, after every chapter, we had to write the algorithms in MatLab. We even built our own neural networks that recognized digits.</comment>


Top 10 Best Flash Website Designs of 2007 - <AUTHOR> http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/top10_best_flash_website_designs.html <comment><USER2> The #1 Site is awesome!</comment>