Study finds reduced brain volume in expert chess players - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2014/10/beware-playing-lots-chess-will-shrink-brain/

<comment><USER2> Smells like bullshit. The only publication linked to in this article is one that has nothing to do with chess players[0].

0: [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4118031/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4118031/)

<comment><USER3> Probably a mistake, as the article discusses that paper later on. The study in question is probably

[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393214...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393214002395)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Headline: "Beware, Playing Lots of Chess Will Shrink Your Brain!"

Last three sentences: "...shrinkage are not necessarily a bad thing. They can be a sign of neural efficiency and a reflection of behavioural expertise. Remember that the next time a journalist tries to scare you with a brain shrinkage story."

</comment><comment><USER5> This might be consistent with the finding that homo sapiens 30,000 years ago (such as those in found in Europe, often called Cro-Magnon) had larger brains that moderns homo sapiens. One argument that I have heard about this is that humans might, nowadays, be more clever about using their brains, using better algorithms, or simply are more specialized, doing brilliant in some areas, while losing some skills that no longer seem relevant. There is also the possibility that homo sapiens are, in some sense, "domesticate" and have lost brain size for the same reason that domesticated cows have lost brain size.

</comment><comment><USER6> "bees have tiny brains and are very smart". Smart in what sense, exactly?

<comment><USER7> As a swarm, they forage for nectar with a pretty neat algorithm[1]. As individuals, they are capable of learning [2]. Apparently, honeybees can even learn to identify human faces. Oh, and they can also beat me at chess.

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

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Tighten the tinfoil!</comment>


The Price of Free Is Actually Too High - <AUTHOR> https://www.feld.com/archives/2018/04/the-price-of-free-is-actually-too-high.html <comment><USER2> Nearly every first level reply on this post are in response to the title only (price of free is too high).

But if you read the actual article, that was only the intro/lead-in. The main point of the article is near the end:

> I think something more profound is going on here. We are getting a first > taste of how difficult it is for a world in which humans and computers are > intrinsically linked. Tristian's punch line "The problem with Facebook is > Facebook" hints at this. Is the problem the leadership of Facebook, the > people of Facebook, the users of Facebook, the software of Facebook, the > algorithms of Facebook, what people do with the data from Facebook, or > something else. Just try to pull those apart and make sense of it.

> ... the big transitions are hard to see when you are in them but easy to see > with the benefit of decades of hindsight. This might be that moment of > transition, where there is no going back to what was before.

Brad is bringing up a question here. He's not making a claim about anything. Our world is being changed. We don't know how things are going to turn out yet.

<comment><USER3> My feeling is the problem with the link between humans and computers is that the people funding things like Facebook and other high-profit digital services are applying an economic model which may have worked in an age before computers, but is completely absurd when it meets computers. Let's think of Facebook for a second as a "public meeting space", like a dog park. How many dog parks do you know valued at hundreds of billions of dollars?

You could run a social media platform instead as a service for users funded by donations, in the vein of Wikipedia. This way you don't need to convince most people to pay. You only need a small passionate few who keep the service going for everyone else. I think the business model would generally incentivize much more user-friendly operational decisions than an ad-sponsored approach does. And since this is a digital service, the operational cost can be scaled proportionally to the donations received.

<comment><USER4> How much do you think a company would have been valued that let you create a meeting space for people with very little work, communicate it almost instantaneously to everyone you wanted invited, and to have the meeting space focused on any subject you liked - not just dog parks.

I believe Facebook is overvalued, but comparison to the value of a dog park is not exactly fair either.

<comment><USER3> You make a fair point. Facebook does provide a lot more functionality for users than the comparison gives them credit for.

What I was trying to convey was that a social network doesn't necessarily need to move the mountains of money that Facebook does. Diaspora* is an example of a free open source social network platform. Of course it still cost people a lot of time and money to build and host it, but nowhere near Facebook levels.

I also think the business model of running specifically a social network as a profitable business is likely to lead to "perverse incentives". Making a profit isn't necessarily opposed to helping people connect (e.g. OKCupid's business model of being free to all but selling advantages to power users), but it takes both the willingness to align your business model with your users' interests and the fortitude to stick to that approach even though other approaches could be more profitable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I find whenever I consider the alternative to free, I need to examine deep within myself to ask if I'd be willing to pay for the half a dozen services or so that I use every day for free, subsidized currently by an advertising model. Although the idea would be great if companies existed solely to serve people like myself for free, it isn't realistic. Weighing the cost of free vs the potential loss of privacy at some point in the future, I can't help but choose free today and kick the proverbial privacy can down the road. Thus, I'm a bit hesitant to go find my pitch fork in this fight for privacy.

<comment><USER6> This is an honest answer that I think many people who are outraged about privacy and advertising would begrudgingly have to admit if forced to really answer. The only way to know whether the price of something is too high or not is to put up two options. A free version where privacy is lost, and a paid version where it's not. See how many people opt for the paid version. Now unfortunately many services that go the advertising route do not offer a paid version. I happen to be in the camp that does pay for several services I use online, and I run a service that charges customers too. Where I can I like to pay and be free of advertising.

<comment><USER7> Here's the thing though, would we ever get privacy? Even if we were to pay?

I know that there are several defendants [drugs etc] even in my small area who have had deleted snapchat posts, deleted texts, deleted emails, "anonymous" forum posts etc etc etc show up as evidence in court. Now I'm obviously unfamiliar with the legal and technical means by which police investigators made things like that happen, but the fact that they happen means that we can assume that at LEAST the government has access to a record of most everything we do online. Free or otherwise.

Even ignoring the question of the government surveillance net, once your data is on that company's server, how would you even be able to reliably validate what's being done with it? By which I mean, they say they don't share it, but how do you KNOW?

So maybe we would get some pretty compelling new features in a lot of our services if we were to pay for them, but I'm not at all certain that ironclad privacy would be one of them.

In fact, I'm fair certain that it wouldn't be.

<comment><USER8> I don't think paid-for services are going to solve anything. We pay up and out the ass for television, which obviously has ads, but I'm sure they're tracking as much as possible too.

Unless you've been extremely diligent, there's no way you're going to escape a targeted invasion of privacy when someone, or some group, government or not, wants it bad enough. Trying to stop that would be exhausting and futile.

Right now, we're allowing highly coordinated, highly detailed, nearly invisible, for-profit, stalking to take place legally. There's no doubt that's bad for society. We have anti-stalking laws for good reason. It's worth doing something about the current state of things, even if it doesn't bring the tracking down to nothing. The free market and tech has failed to fix it so far. They don't have forever to keep trying. Laws are the next line of defense. Laws might not stop criminals from crimin' but I'm sure the Tim Cooks of the world aren't going to risk their company profits (or personal freedoms, if the laws are strict enough) to get a little extra info on everyone.

<comment><USER9> What if there were paid services that promised no ads? Ever? Make it part of their policy?

<comment><USER10> Naive: instead of serving ads directly, the service would just eagerly sell your data to someone else for possibly worse purposes than ads (e.g. denying you health insurance, mortgages, a job, etc.)

<comment><USER11> Why? Why wouldn't the income from subscriptions be enough?

<comment><USER12> There is no such thing as "enough" when corporations seek perpetual growth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> "We cannot afford the advertising business model. The price of free is actually too high. It is literally destroying our society, because it incentivizes automated systems that have these inherent flaws."

This is ridiculous. If nobody knew that this was happening, we'd be going on with our lives and nothing would be different. Society is not being destroyed by advertisements being delivered more effectively with user data. Whatever they're doing with it, it's preferable to having to pay to use websites.

How about the very small vocal minority of people who legitimately care about their data being harvested get to pay every website they want to visit, and the rest of us stick with ads?

<comment><USER14> I don't think the author is talking about simple advertising, I think he is talking about the power to influence the public on a mass scale. I think it is fair to say that western societies are more polarized than they were ten years ago, and a reasonable argument can be made that social media has something to do with it. Ad-based business models make it necessary, to a degree at least, for platforms to monetize their user base.

<comment><USER15> I think it's fair to say Western societies have at least one millennium of being easily roused by pretty crude propaganda and much more polarised when the economy's not going so good. It's not like good old fashioned paid-for newsprint had a reputation for not provoking hysteria on a mass scale, or like the most obnoxious political commentators on the internet don't have Patreon accounts. Nothing to do with the payment model and everything to do with people being willing to influence and others being easily influenced.

<comment><USER14> If membership on Facebook was paid rather than ad based, is it not reasonable to think there would be less people available to be influences on that individual platform?

Add some more restrictive legislation on what major online platforms are allowed to display to users, and I think it would be a very different ball game.

<comment><USER14> So, at least two people _disagree with the assertions that_ :

\- Facebook being a paid platform for subscribers would reduce subscribers

\- Adding restrictions to what Facebook was allowed to show users would have some affect

Very interesting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Almost everyone making this claim is pretending to speak from a highly priveleged position on behalf of people who aren't priveleged.

They assume that just because _they_ don't have a problem paying $5/mo, rest of the world doesn't either. Their naive solution ("charge me money!") is all about providing them some privacy while leaving the overwhelming majority of the world either without the free services or without the same privacy the relatively-rich would get.

<comment><USER17> Sure, that's mostly true. It doesn't mean they're wrong.

As Jaron Lanier pointed out in his recent TED talk, with previous information technologies like books we figured out how to both charge for the information being distributed while providing access free of charge to those who could not afford it via public libraries. [https://www.ted.com/talks/jaron_lanier_how_we_need_to_remake...](https://www.ted.com/talks/jaron_lanier_how_we_need_to_remake_the_internet)

Furthermore, what Feld and others are describing here is an economic externality. You could both be right that many people would not and/or could not pay $5/month, yet still the negative social cost of a free product costs that user far more in the long run in the form of political unrest.

<comment><USER16> _social cost of a free product costs that user far more in the long run in the form of political unrest_

I believe you're referring to the last elections. But the way I see it, this is mostly a case of people whose candidate lost wanting to change the rules of the game because their candidate lost. I voted for Hillary but I'm not delusional to blame the results on any nefarious use of ad targeting before blaming the campaign's poor strategy (specifically, pouring money into states like Arizona to end up with 3m+ votes while getting too few votes in states that made a difference.)

<comment><USER17> I'm not blaming the outcome on nefarious ad targeting, rather I would say that engagement-maximizing algorithms massively amplified Donald Trump's voice during the campaign. My concern isn't so much that my team lost, but rather what sort of candidates will succeed in this new media landscape. No other 2016 candidate from either side was really comparable to Donald Trump in how he used social media, both organically or with ads.

Political campaigns are waged within the media landscape of the day. When Nixon sweated during the first televised debate, he lost the debate and the election. That signaled a transition from radio to TV as the dominant medium for political campaigns, and the types of candidates who won national office in the TV era were different from those from earlier eras. In that way the dominant medium of the day has a filtering & selection effect on who succeeds in a political race. Trump's election signaled another transition, this time to the era of social media. It's not partisan to worry about the type of candidates that transition will push to the fore.

<comment><USER16> Did you have the same concerns when Obama won?

<comment><USER17> No. But FWIW my concern is less about data harvesting & ad targeting, and more with how the algorithm itself is amplifying extreme views. But yes, I am aware that the 2012 Obama campaign used the same data collection API that Cambridge abused (although Obama's campaign didn't buy the data from a 3rd party)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Actually, the problem is centralization, as Tim pointed out. The early pioneers are often proprietary systems (Windows, IE, Britannica) followed by open source software (Linux, WebKit, Wikipedia) which are better in tons of ways. For one, the long tail is served better (Linux has even been known to run on toasters, Wikipedia has way more articles). For another, people own their own data, identity and brand.

Look, you are writing this on YOUR domain because Wordpress gave you that ability. It powers 20% of all new websites. What we need as a society is a Wordpress for social networking.

<comment><USER19> Exactly! The peer-to-peer file sharing services prove that we can have nice things and not pay for them too.

(Although there is a problem if you want to make nice things and get paid for them...)

There already are P2P social network platforms, the problem is how do you get mass adoption?

<comment><USER20> I think it is important to realize that you are actually paying for the service, and that that is actually the right way to pay for it: You pay for the infrastructure of the internet by paying your ISP, and for the processing and storage of your own hardware by buying it. That is the service that someone actually has to operate for us, and it is a product everyone does already buy.

<comment><USER19> Yes, distributed infrastructure, including mesh networking in a hypothetical ideal world.

The actual _cost_ of what e.g. FB does for its users is tiny.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> What ought to happen is that people have more than enough money to buy things they're likely to use, driving money into the economy for things that are useful.

Instead, wages are _terrible_ for the most part. Income inequality is so off the scale now that you _can't_ expect people to just pay for all the little things they use. Making all these free things might have the side effect of distracting people from realizing how little they can actually afford.

Since no one is paying for things that are useful, instead money goes to whatever can trick the most ad viewers: sensational news, outrageous things, etc. Anything that can't be made interesting to most people has trouble making money.

<comment><USER22> So if people had more money they would buy useful things, since they don't have money they buy useless things?

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Facebook is a mirror, and a magnifier. "Fixing" FB is, at best, curing a symptom. A general lack of critical thinking is not FB's fault. To promote otherwise is naive and dangerous.

<comment><USER24> I personally see the biggest problem with FB (and others) is their continuing focus of making their platform as addictive as possible. While I agree that people will likely always be addicted to something, we've gone after the tobacco industry already and are starting to hold the food industry more responsible. For gambling, every advertisement comes with a warning and free resources about how to stop that _MUST_ be funded by the people making the money. I think that is the thing that we should be making these social platforms fund, resources to help break the chase of the constant need for dopamine via likes.

<comment><USER23> Yes. But that's still a mirror.

No doubt humans are flawed. But is that FB's fault?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> _" It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."_ – Upton Sinclair

SV makes too much money from advertising to be able to admit the truths about it.

There is no free lunch: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8585237](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8585237)

Advertising is our C8: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10047706](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10047706)

</comment><comment><USER26> "There are a few mentions of Zynga (which we were investors in) in the various article chain which caused me to reflect even more on the 2007 - 2010 time period when free-to-consumer (supported by advertising) was suddenly conflated with freemium (or free trials for enterprise software)."

Is that the company that sold "virtual goods" on Facebook.

Pay real money to "send" a cartoon image of a brownie to another Facebook user.

"What is going on here ("free services") is nothing new.

The entire television industry was created on it (broadcast TV was free, supported by advertising, dating back well before I was born.)

Nielsen ratings started for radio in the 1940s and TV in the 1950s. The idea of advertisers targeting users of free services based on data is, well, not new.

Propaganda is not new either. The etymology of the word from Wikipedia is entertaining in its own right."

Questions:

What if a user simply wants a method of communicating with a friend, family member or colleague

Is that type of communication done via television, radio or propaganda

How about telegraph, telephone or internet service

What is the "service"

Is it entertainment

Is it a means of communication between friends, family and colleagues

If it is entertainment, then is it _dissemination_ [1]

1\. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16840205](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16840205)

Is advertising also dissemination

Is communication with friends, family and colleagues different from "dissemination* See [1]

Is there any history of surveillance of _communication_ over telegraph, telephone or (until recently) internet service in order to inform advertising

<comment><USER27> This is such a great point.

I remember first seeing ads in gmail and trying to figure why it made me feel physically nauseous, while the early implementations of Google search ads seemed completely reasonable and inoffensive.

It was definitely the fact that they were showing me ads based on private communication as opposed to my previous consumption habits that caused the visceral reaction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> It's paradoxical b/c paying customers are even better ad targets.

I think advertisements are OK, as long as personal data not aggregated, nor cross referenced/shared. I'm OK with google display few search related ads along the page. But it's insane to see van ads on youtube after I searched for one.

</comment><comment><USER29> > We are getting a first taste of how difficult it is for a world in which > humans and computers are intrinsically linked.

It's not just the humans being linked to computers. They're also linked to other humans.

<comment><USER30> And computers that pretend to be humans. And computers that process, redirect and focus stuff from other humans.

Unless AIs have a higher ethical standard, free will for humans will become more and more an illusion.

Edit: I'm thinking of Ian Banks' Culture novels. In _Excession_ , there's a ship mind that doesn't respect human autonomy. Other ship minds call it "meatfucker". As a slur.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Yet another false dichotomy.

There is a difference between free as in beer and free as in freedom. Only the latter can offer us privacy and security.

</comment><comment><USER9> Exactly why RealPeople.io ([https://realpeople.io](https://realpeople.io)) was created. The business model of using targeted advertising needs to go away. With ads, platforms have the incentive to sell user data and keep users online as much as possible to maximize ad impressions. AI creates and uses phycological profiles of users and not only shows them targets ads but decides who sees what.

We need to support social media that use paid subscriptions with no ads. And we need to support platforms that make it core to their offering that they are not going to share user data, and which have a business model that will align with that.

There is a lot of discussion around this nowadays which is good, but it's time for people to actually take action and be leader and make the change themselves.

<comment><USER32> I like this idea. But... you really need to put up more content or content preview so users know what they are getting before signing up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Oh please. The price of free -- being shown ads -- is not too high. It's free.

We need good advertising systems. Businesses need to be able to pitch new customers. We need to clean up some issues wrt privacy of course. But well- targeted, relevant ads are a good thing.

<comment><USER20> > Oh please. The price of free -- being shown ads -- is not too high. It's > free.

Seriously? That's supposed to be an argument?

> We need to clean up some issues wrt privacy of course. But well-targeted, > relevant ads are a good thing.

How do you define privacy that using data about a person to target them is compatible with that concept of privacy?

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Just as you think the introduction is done, the whole article is over. It feels very incomplete and there are some punctuation mistakes and incomplete scentences. Sheep-like upvoting seems like the cause of it reaching the top here.

</comment><comment><USER35> Pretty good. The one thing in this article I found off was the notion that regulation by "the community" was preferable to regulation by, well, regulation. That is a fundamental mistake. "The community" is a bunch of businesses that follow this system because if they didn't, someone else would, and get market share. This lack of privacy is just capitalism at work. The problem to excesses in capitalism is government regulation. True that, for child labor, pollution, whatevs. "The community" is just mouthwash.

</comment><comment><USER36> Good point to the article, though the quote about Cambridge Analytica seems a bit misguided - the leak there was as a result of Facebook _Platform_ which is antithetical to the ad targeting model which the rest of the article is about.

FB leaking user data through CA _is not_ part of FB's business model.

</comment><comment><USER37> I completely agree, and this is a prime example of when government intervention is absolutely necessary:

Consumers cannot protect their long term interests and someone is taking advantage of it.

There are many reasons why they can't. Sometimes there's competition that forces you to only consider your short term interests. Other times a limited resource (ie time, expertise) is required to evaluate a set of choices and the consumer can't afford it on it's own. Or maybe the widespread adoption of one thing creates a monopoly and makes other choices impossible. Whether the end result is nutritional deficiencies from unenriched food or complete and total misinformation, someone needs to intervene, and the only organization that has the obligation and means to do so is the government.

The governments all across the world need to stop this cancer of misinformation and deception from spreading any further. We need to make them stop it.

<comment><USER23> "The governments all across the world need to stop this cancer of misinformation and deception from spreading any further. We need to make them stop it."

The irony is, a good number of these govs persist because of misinformation and deception. Until a tool like FB actually undermines that status quo the odds of change are low.

Look at the alleged Russian interference in the USA. The USA's spin was on the order of "we would never do that." Obviously, we know, that's no true. The US has been "protecting American interests" for ages.

<comment><USER38> But Facebook does seem to have undermined the status quo in the US and Britain, if we attribute anything to fb. Actually, what they have to do is almost undermine the status quo but not quite, and still look threatening. If the status quo is undermined, the new people have no motivation to change it.

<comment><USER23> Allow me to be blunt.

1) The rich and powerful have gotten more rich and powerful since the birth of FB.

2) Cyber-surveillance by state and non-state actors has increased since the birth of FB.

Yes, on one hand it's correlation (but on the other it's an assessment of the status quo). If 1 depends on 2 then FB is not to be considered on the side of the people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> There is an alternative to this method of providing a free service: Mining cryptocurrency on the users computer. Yet doing that, even floating the possibility of it, is met with great, vociferous anger. "How dare you use my CPU." Even if you are up front and ask people first. And so joining a massive surveillance system is the alternative left. People are their own worst enemy. No one is putting a gun to anyone's head to use facebook, and even when people find out what's going on, 90% keep using facebook.

<comment><USER40> The problem is that cryptominers are not an alternative to ads, they're used in parallel with ads.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> _> The Price of Free is Actually Too High _

The price of centralized "free" is indeed too high.

</comment><comment><USER22> Facebook is not bad because they leak your data, it is bad because it hypnotizes people.

</comment><comment><USER42> Stupid clickbait.

</comment><comment><USER43> I'm amazed that storage is cheap enough that companies can afford to keep all that data.

<comment><USER31> The type of data we are talking about has not grown, while storage capacity has.

Back in the 90s, that sentiment reflected reality; but not today.</comment></comment>


Steve Forbes: Link dollar to gold or face Great Depression II - <AUTHOR> http://washingtonexaminer.com/steve-forbes-link-dollar-to-gold-or-face-great-depression-ii/article/2549231

<comment><USER2> I risk circularity here, but...

Does anyone other than cranks believe that we should go back to a gold standard? Have we considered going on a silver or platinum or rhodium standard?

And a serious question: why should any country link its money to quantities of precious metal? I mean, don't we have to adjust the amount of money in circulation to account for the greater value of stuff we've made since last year? I mean, sure, we drank all the booze we made last year, but we've turned wood into furniture, iron into buildings, brake presses, ships & etc, and we've mined a lot more copper, tantalum, gold, silver and platinum. We've got a lot more valuable stuff lying around. Don't we need more money this year than last year? And don't we need to adjust the amount of money in circulation to account for things like wars and natural disasters, where everything gets turned into rubble and we've got a lot less stuff than last year?</comment>


Ask HN: Why do email lists get spam signups? - <AUTHOR> I have a mail chimp signup on a side project site. I haven't added anything new to the site in over a year. All of a sudden I'm getting about one signup per day. If I google the email address most show up as being on a spam or blacklist.<p>Why do spammers sign up for lists? Seems like a waste of time and that they don't get anything out of it. <comment><USER2> I think some of them might be testing to see if you double opt-in. I also think I might have pissed somebody off once and then faced a campaign from somebody who spammed with fake sign ups to hurt my deliverability.</comment>


Funders Club raises over $1M for startups online — including itself - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2012/08/16/funders-club-raises-over-1m-for-startups-online-including-itself/ <comment><USER2> It's a joke that in this day and age the funding process that seeds silicon valley startups is only legal offline and to the privileged rich. Democratized access to small equity investments in germinating companies that may one day be giants, is exactly what is necessary to help the non-rich get richer too. The social and economical benefits of the need for this democratized access is real. Even if the SEC ruling does not go in favor of it next week, the US government should not and can not deny its citizens such benefits for much longer. It's clear that Funders Club has got the right idea of what needs to be in place to enable this change in history.

<comment><USER3> You are so unbelievably wrong that it is quite simply incredible to behold. I'm talking about where this is going to lead (specifically the JOBs act).

We deny people many rights for the simple reason that they abuse a lot of them. Or conversely, they get abused by others who use those rights for personal gain. This is such a bad idea and it kills me that I know that it's going to happen anyway.

Unsophisticated investors should not be able to invest in start-ups - at all - ever. They can barely handle regulated houses, bonds and equities - and you're throwing things at them that even VCs can't handle - what is wrong with you?

This is bad - it will happen - and I will watch it burn for the same reason that shoe shine boys shouldn't be recommending stocks - they just don't know what the hell they are doing.

<comment><USER4> > We deny people many rights for the simple reason that they abuse a lot of > them.

There is a vast amount of elitism embedded in your thought process. I don't fully disagree with your view point, but that line of reasoning scares me. We sell the poor lottery tickets hand over fist, but I get to buy a $2800 lottery ticket with better odds.

<comment><USER3> You don't give inexperienced people guns. That's just stupid - they'll shoot themselves in the foot.

Oh wait this is America - carry on.

Lottery tickets are heavily regulated industries with defined probabilities, players and outcomes conditional on government oversight. These tickets aren't.

<comment><USER4> I am missing your point about firearms. I am from the south where is it tradition to give a person their first firearm on their 10th birthday. I don't know anyone that has shot themselves in the foot... except for my neighbor who shot his foot off while climbing down from a deer stand. He now has a prosthetic foot. He gets around fine as far as I can tell.

As for the lottery being regulated, do you really believe that it is okay given the terrible odds? If the lower class are suggested to bet on the lottery, and I invest startups, how are the poor ever going to escape poverty?

<comment><USER3> > I am from the south where is it tradition to give a person their first > firearm on their 10th birthday

How's that working out for yah?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Stat...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Violent_crime_related_to_guns)

Yay dead people! You don't give unsophisticated people access to firearms - they get dead. Same with most investment options - do not allow people to trade derivatives, over lever their houses or borrow for stocks.

> believe that it is okay given the terrible odds?

No I don't - but its regulated and small stable losses in comparison to unsophisticated losses that destroy lives in housing, equities and bonds. This will expand those losses.

> how are the poor ever going to escape poverty?

Have you ever been poor?

Here is how you escape poverty - you don't. I'm not kidding.

There is no such thing as social mobility - it's false to argue that the poor can in any way benefit from this.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio- economic_mobility_in_the_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio- economic_mobility_in_the_United_States)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I used Funders Club to make a small investment and it worked flawlessly for me. It has document signing and wire transfers built in. After reading legal documents for a few hours, it took about 3 minutes to make a $2500 investment in virool.com.

I am completely impressed by what the Funders Club has built. It is easy, complete, and actually works. Kudos to the team.

I unfortunately missed the $250,000 cutoff, so I'll get to see how they handle the overage or reimbursement.

</comment><comment><USER5> This is a bit like Seedrs (www.seedrs.com) in the UK, except with Seedrs more or less anyone can make investments and the minimum investment is only £10 so you can get real crowd-sourced funding.

</comment><comment><USER6> How long before someones raises a "spray-and-pray" fund just to invest in Funders Club startups?

</comment><comment><USER7> How does Founders Club compare to AngelList?</comment>


A Big Week for the Mobile Web - <AUTHOR> http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/10/a-big-week-for-the-mobile-web.html

<comment><USER4> A blogger that I used to read once did a Google Blog Search for the terms "serious iPhone competitor" and "iPhone killer". TechCrunch has reported a few dozen "serious competitors", and it's been wrong every time.

Now, Droid's ad is taking cheap shots at Apple, and that's a bad start. If your ad campaign is based solely on dissing your competitor, chances are you don't have anything revolutionary.

Look at the promises it makes. "Real keyboard" - yeah, so does every other phone, but they're getting criticized for it now, so this doesn't mean anything unless the keyboard's astonishingly good. "Simultaneous apps" - <USER2> _we_ care about that, but the average user looks at that and sees gibberish. "5 megapixel pictures" - probably the least sexy way to advertise a camera ever, especially if you're not comparing your photo quality to the 3GS's. "Customize" - doesn't mean as much to most users as a lot of companies seem to think. "Widgets" - what the fuck are widgets supposed to be in the context of a phone? "Open development" - again, Joe Watchescommercials won't give a shit about this. "Pictures in the dark," "interchangeable batteries" - <USER3> fucking Christ, if these are your _selling points_ you've already fucking lost.

Companies seem to think that fighting the iPhone is simply a matter of creating a product with slightly better features in certain areas. (Either that or that's the merely impression they're trying to give to the public, while they secretly know just how screwed they are here—I'd bet on the latter. Companies aren't usually stupid.) It's not. If you want better features than an iPhone, you've got Blackberry, which incidentally is doing very well now _without_ attempting to directly compete with Apple in any way. But the iPhone is untouchable. We're talking a cell phone that sparked the revolution, that's designed by the most reputed company on the planet, by the most famous designers on the planet, that pioneered not only multitouch but the app store model that's being leeched everywhere, and whose design is possibly unbeatable in terms of simplicity. Other companies aren't even _trying_ to be simpler; they're attempting to be _nearly_ as simple. I'd bet Apple's figuring out how to make a phone that's even more physically minimal right now, though, because Apple doesn't rest.

I go to a city school right now; two months ago I was watching over young children; in both scenarios the iPhone is equally prevalent. The _only_ modern phone people recognize on sight is the iPhone. People without an iPhone get a shitty phone and an iPod touch.

And Verizon thinks that it's possible to lower its reputation, which is hilarious. The iPhone is the single strongest brand in the country, possibly on the planet. What Verizon knows or ought to know is that part of that brand is an anti-phone brand. The iPhone was the first phone that said "fuck you" to a decade of sterile designs and complicated set-ups. It was a "fuck you" to Verizon and its insistence on over-branding its products. It was a phone that suggested an incredible potential in mobile devices, not just in breakthrough technology but in personal happiness, which is something Apple, despite its being an asshole of a company, cares about a _lot_. And after it invented its revolutionary new phone model, _then_ other companies decided maybe they could make cool new things too, and they're making them _by ripping off the iPhone_.

It's possible to make a beautiful phone without once winking over Apple's way. No American company does it. Look at all the phones designed by Naoto Fukasawa. He's shown that it's possible to make multiple phones without overlapping ideas and keep them all memorable products. We have no memorable phones in the US, except for the iPhone. Until companies decide it's time to start competing by making _good_ products, we won't have any.

<comment><USER5> "Now, Droid's ad is taking cheap shots at Apple, and that's a bad start. If your ad campaign is based solely on dissing your competitor, chances are you don't have anything revolutionary."

I used to agree with this thinking, however, Apple's very successful marketing campaigns (Mac guy vs PC guy) are entirely based upon this.

Regarding some of the other things you brought up, I've been seeing some real [anecdotal] evidence of cracks in the iPhone love from people with it. This may be ATT's fault in some ways but I've been hearing some outright dissatisfaction, which has been surprising. These people (not all developers!) may not be ready to jump ship any time soon but I've been hearing a lot of "meh" coming from them, mostly unprompted by myself - just from hearing iPhone users talking to each other. There's some opportunity there for someone to compete seriously with Apple.

<comment><USER4> There's a difference in attitude. Actually, the best way to look at attitude is to look at Apple's ads and then to look at Microsoft's "Laptop Hunter" counterads.

Apple's ads are very friendly. I mean, yes, they relentlessly diss PCs at every turn, but the attitude's very happy. The white background is very warm, the music is quiet and cheery, and John and Justin have a nice chemistry going. It's two friends, one of whom is dorkier and a little more competitive than the other friend. It comes across as being friendly towards Microsoft, while criticizing its products. The attitude isn't "Look at Microsoft and how it sucks", it's "We can do these things better, but you're pretty cool too." It's lighthearted; it takes potshots like John Hodgman freezing in place and "crashing". It's all in fun, even when it's not.

Then Microsoft decided it would be a good idea to target ads against Apple, because CP+B, their ad agency, thinks Microsoft can't possibly beat Apple unless they take huge risks (and, sadly, they're probably right). So we get the Laptop Hunter, which pretends its message is "Look at how cheap our computers are", while really the message is "Apple overprices". So you get people, real-life people, going "I can't afford that" and "I guess I'm not cool enough to be a Mac user". It's like they're trying to present it as a real-life situation, where we identify with the shoppers.

Two problems. Problem One, the ads, just like this Droid ad, aren't really dealing with real-life situations. They're just pretending. If I buy a Mac, it won't be because it's cheap, it'll be because of iLife, or because it's virus- free, or doesn't crash. You can see Apple's selling points at <http://www.apple.com/getamac/whymac/>. Microsoft can't refute any of those in an ad. Their only option is to ignore Apple's advertising and deal with the constant bashing, or attempt a counterattack that uses irrelevancies.

When I buy a phone, I'm not worried about open development or 5 megapixel cameras. In fact, the genius of Apple's advertising is that they're very good at _not_ focusing on irrelevancy: They figure out what people want and they offer it. Right now their web site advertises, in order, the complex/beautiful applications they offer, their video camera/built-in video editing, their new compass edition to their GPS, and then a few things that probably aren't as urgent to the consumer. If I'm looking for a new phone, then seeing an ad that shows how I can plan out my wardrobe via phone, or figure out trains and flights, or any of the hundreds of things the App Store can offer, that's a strong selling point. Knowing I can use my phone to find where I am, that's a strong selling point. 5 megapixel camera versus video camera/editor? That's a weak sell.

Problem Two is those latter ads are very negative. Microsoft sounds snippy; Verizon just sounds deluded. It's all about being badass: Look at those fractured images at the end, so much better than Apple's gloss. Problem is, Apple doesn't overgloss like that, so it's a caricature rather than it is an honest depiction, and its _actual_ iPhone ads, which are very warm and friendly, come across much better than Verizon, which didn't get the memo that "aloof and cool" isn't cool anymore. So instead of being effective, the ads just seem mean and deluded. It's like the kid in debate class whose solution to every topic is "Let's settle this outside". Verizon's not able to sell their own product, so instead they attempt to knock in teeth.

The Get A Mac ads aren't teeth knocking. They're poking fun at Microsoft. Microsoft's counterads backfired for the same reason these Droid ads will fail: Mean doesn't sell unless you've already got the upper hand.

<comment><USER6> >> _the ads, just like this Droid ad, aren't really dealing with real-life situations_

So you think that being able to make calls on the phone is irrelevant to the typical user of the mobile phone?

Biased much?

<comment><USER4> The Droid ad don't mention making phone calls. Not once. Way to RTFA.

I'd argue, actually, that most users _don't_ care much about their phone calls. Phones aren't used for talking nearly as much as they're used for other things. But either way, neither Apple nor Verizon is making ads that mention phone calls whatsoever.

<comment><USER6> >> _neither Apple nor Verizon is making ads that mention phone calls whatsoever_

Have you seen this? <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37NKnDRPFKU>

<comment><USER4> I have. It's not a Droid ad.

<comment><USER6> Let's try this again. You have said, and I quote "neither Apple nor Verizon is making ads that mention phone calls whatsoever". This clip proves you wrong, yet you can't bring yourself to admit it.

<comment><USER4> You're a smarmy little fucker, Denis. I said that in regard to your original post, which accused me of bias because I didn't mention phone calls. I said that you hadn't seen the Droid ad, which _doesn't_ mention phone calls. Then you brought up a separate Verizon ad which has nothing to do with the original argument.

I liked that other Verizon ad. If they argued that at all in the Droid campaign, I'd think it an effective ad. That's what marketing _should_ be. Instead, Droid doesn't mention Verizon at all, and brings up a whole bunch of things that don't matter. The name Verizon isn't mentioned once. So my point still stands.

Now, you come in ready to argue against me, ready to point out a week-old advertisement that's got nothing to do with the argument. When I say your argument has nothing to do with what I said, I make the mistake of saying "Apple and Verizon" rather than "iPhone and Droid", which is what matters here. Now you're nitpicking that choice of language, pointing out that _technically_ I was wrong, ignoring that the argument I was making was and is entirely correct. Now you're being a bit of a cunt because you'd rather win the argument than admit that your counterpoint had nothing to do with the point.

You're doing what the Drone ad is doing. You're pointing out a slight misstep on my part and pushing it forward with negativity, with your "Let's try this again" and "yet you can't bring yourself" smarminess. It doesn't work on Internet arguments either.

If you're going to be an ass, then be an honest ass rather than a snide one.

<comment><USER6> Now, now who's being all negative?

The point I was about to make is that Verizon went on the offensive against AT&T and Apple by using a two-pronged approach: on one side they attack features of the phone and the other the network. Different parts of the campaign target people who care about different things.

For some people customization is really important: the multi-billion industry of ringtones is just one sign of it as there are other venues for customizations as well.

For other people (a lot of them) being able to make calls reliably is very important.

I'm not clear about 5mp camera, but judging by the fact that the megapixel race has engulfed the consumer digital camera market it has a good chance to lure in a bunch of people.

You may not care about some of these things, but many other people do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _In fact, as I've written here before, Android is a lot like Microsoft's Windows OS. It was a copy of Apple's operating system in many ways, but it was open and it could run on many devices._

what a savage nonsense..

<comment><USER8> if it is savage nonsense, i'd like to hear why.

maybe i could learn something from you

<comment><USER7> It is so funy. OK.

If you're comparing two operation systems, you probably should compare the code bases, availability and price of development tools, community and volume of information in google search, instead of comparing and images you can see on screen.

With that second approach it is possible to tell that, say Nokia Symbian OS is the same like Android or this absolutely different Maemo5 system.

For this particular sentence, iPhone OS and Android have nothing in common, except that they both uses some sort of GUI and runs on ARM-bases hardware. They have totally different code bases, different development tools, closed and open communities and different amounts of hype.

Excuse me, but I didn't see any reason to explain it farther.</comment></comment></comment>


Tau-PET, not β-amyloid-PET in early Alzheimer's may predict future brain atrophy - <AUTHOR> https://stm.sciencemag.org/content/12/524/eaau5732 <comment><USER2> Thanks BookofJoe, your submissions are always very interesting. However there are some limitation to this study, notably that there are only two times points per patient if I understand correctly, isn't?

<comment><AUTHOR> True. But it's a start. PET scanning is VERY expensive: I would venture that the paucity of data points stems from that limitation.</comment></comment>


An example of command-line bullshittery in computer science research - <AUTHOR> http://www.pgbovine.net/cmdline-bs-example.htm

<comment><USER2> I had Professors David H. Hubel and Torsten N. Wiesel for a really great undergraduate class. Later, to satisfy some undergraduate EE research requirement I did some work for Dr. Hubel. Hubel and Wiesel went on to win the Nobel prize for their research on the origin of visual perception in 1981.

It all sounds like a great story to tell my kids except for one thing: I didn't end up helping them in their research even one tiny bit. All I ended up doing was extreme command-line bullshittery for a semester trying to get a PDP-9 (an 18bit machine!) to talk to a system with some home-brew crt-to-film based output device. Everything had to be coded in low level assembly language and even booting up the PDP-9 in a dark lab was intimidating for someone starting out in CS, not to mention the strange hardware it was hooked up to ("flip this switch but not until the power supply to the film writer stabilizes", etc.)

In the end, Dr. Hubel couldn't have been more understanding, and it ended up as a good experience for me. Not because I did anything productive but because I had a sympathetic professor. Today, I've been programming computers for almost half a century and it's been great. I'm so grateful for the teachers, professors, co-workers and colleagues that have helped me over the rough spots, command-line bullshittery, and my own ignorance over the decades. It's nice to hear the concern Dr. Guo has for his students in the originally cited article (despite the frustration it ends up causing for him).

</comment><comment><USER3> Another name for phenomenon is: "reality". And the typical way non-"computer science researchers" overcome it is through a system known as "working" or "doing work". As a software developer, I sometimes do so much work in a day that I can barely write a line of code.

<comment><USER4> Gotta concur. Setting up an SSL certificate or firewall do not constitute bullshit. The complexity of these systems lies in their solid engineering, not any inherit flaw.

SSL is designed to be secure, not easy to learn. I remember how painful it was to set up root certificates the first time I did it; combining certificate files, setting permissions correctly, configuring nginx. It's a pain in the ass. But as a result nobody can snoop on messages between me and my users. Worth it.

Firewalls are firewalls; having one in place means when you send a request to your server sometimes nothing will come back. Yes, if you've forgotten you have a firewall this makes it hard to debug. But if the firewall returned any kind of response it would be less secure.

I am bemused that the author finds this to be demeaning, merely annoyances blocking him from doing his pure "research." I suggest he take the time to study these systems and learn why the annoyances are there. Who knows, out of that might come a new research project that improves the way the world uses SSL!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Man, tell me about it! I needed to do some original research the other day and had to get to an out-of-the-way library.

Do you know how hard it is to learn to drive? Took me 3 months! And don't get me started on buying cars and insurance... All I wanted to do was read some papers!

</comment><comment><USER6> Professor discovers that actual system creation is painstaking and easily becomes very painful unless great care is taken to manage the complexity... and all he's trying to do is hack two servers together. Imagine if his service had to be reliable!</comment>


Sheep learn to recognise celebrity faces from different angles - <AUTHOR> https://www.newscientist.com/article/sheep-learn-recognise-celebrity-faces-different-angles/?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&cmpid=SOC|NSNS|2017-Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1510100450 <comment><USER3> I was worried this was another #metoo incident where sheep were identifying the celebrities who sexually assaulted them from a line-up.

</comment><comment><USER4> Move over deep learning, hello sheep learning.

<comment><USER5> SheepMind

I must say, these past couple days on HN have been exceedingly sheepish. Yesterday I believe there was a story about [Google] Sheep View.

<comment><USER6> Did you hear about the new BaaS from AWS, Lamb-da? I hear bleat learning practitioners fleeced by Google Cloud are flocking to it

<comment><USER7> Word from the field this summer is the practitioners are advancing rapidly through sheer will. They literally shed the fluff and get down to business. With skin in the game, they jump hurdles in the field overnight!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> How do they decide when the sheep gets a reward? To me it looked like it was quite ambiguous sometimes what the sheep was doing, it kind of waddled to the left/right and once it was at the right choice it got a reward... Anyone knows how the reward was determined? Was there a person observing?

It would be more convincing if the sheep had to commit to a choice by selecting a left/right door it needs to enter based on the information presented.

</comment><comment><USER9> I find celebrity worshipping a bit... mêh.

</comment><comment><USER10> (Sheep? Is this political science research?)

>For the first time, the study reveals that sheep can mentally take a two- dimensional image of a face and rejig it into a three-dimensional representation

Visual cortex can automatically adjust and learn some tasks, but some others require intentional mental effort, at least initially.

I haven't read the paper yet. But what I want to know how much intentional processing the sheep do to achieve this. As far as I know, best way to detect mental effort is the delay before action.

In humans mental rotation of picture is not automatic after the angle grows past some threshold. Then humans must intentionally rotate the image in their mind.

</comment><comment><USER11> Huh, I'm more surprised that most other animals _can 't_ do this...

<comment><USER12> i don't think there is study saying other animals can't do this. There is also much to be said about successful construction of the study like the one in the article. As for example dogs studies show, dogs are more interested in other dog faces than human faces. And dogs are the animals who have the most contact with us. Even shelter dogs show less interest in human faces then the dogs who normally live with people. One can expect that other animals who have even less contact with people would have even less interest in human faces. They should have did this sheep experiment using photos of celebrity sheep - <USER2> think the results would be off the charts :)

Anyway, studies on dog recognition of human faces (and dogs are very good at it, recognizing emotions, etc..) show that dogs pay much attention to eyes. Another clue here is that deep learning networks trained for human and animal faces contain a lot of eye and snout kernels in the internal layers - it seems that image processing by our brain as well as by DNNs is mostly edge based - edge means high spatial frequency and higher frequency means more informative signal - and snouts and eyes are high density edge clusters compare to the rest of face. That suggests that eyes is a key element in face recognition. The sheep looking at left or right profile photo of a face still see one of the eyes which were shown on the straight mugshot photo of the same face, and thus i think the sheep has enough info to recognize the face. Somebody running a human face recognition DNN can perform the same test using the DNN instead of a sheep and see which neuron paths would get activated. My bet is on eye kernels.

<comment><USER11> The article says:

> Humans and monkeys are the only other creatures known to do this from two- > dimensional images.

I have to assume they have at least tried it with other animals?

<comment><AUTHOR> Publication bias could be a factor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This open the door to a new age of solving crimes against sheeps. Show the survivor sheeps in an attacked herd a photo of each domestic dog living in the area and see what happens.

</comment><comment><USER14> This seems a candidate for the ig Nobel prize..

</comment><comment><USER15> Now if only sheep could recognize each other from different angles:

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=91ClBEM6JAU](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=91ClBEM6JAU)

</comment><comment><USER16> Finally we can replace those kludgy ANNs with these nice sheeps!

</comment><comment><USER17> This is the very definition of animal cruelty!

<comment> King-Aaron You signed up to HN just to say that?

<comment><USER3> Slow night in St Petersburg.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Sheep-based facial login, anyone?

</comment><comment><USER19> "Jack Gyllenhaal"</comment>


Free Trials and Tire Kickers - <AUTHOR> http://www.marco.org/2013/05/10/tire-kickers

<comment><USER2> I really wish free trials were available for some of the more expensive iOS software. Even for things like Garageband or Pages, I'd like to be able to compare them to other music software on the app store. I don't even consider some task managers (omnifocus) because their price is prohibitive without a trial, even with glowing reviews.

<comment><USER3> Since you specifically mentioned OmniFocus, it's worth noting that Omni Group stands behind all of their apps and will issue you a full refund within 30 days if you are unsatisfied--App Store sales included (they will eat Apple's 30% cut). <http://www.omnigroup.com/support/store/refunds/>

Most developers don't do this, of course.

<comment><USER4> Anecdotally, if you contact Apple directly (not the developer) and ask for a refund for an app or an IAP, they will refund your money. They may not do it repeatedly if it looks like you are abusing it, but iOS developers can see refunds Apple has issued for their products, with no insight as to why.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is escape velocity required to get to outer space? - <AUTHOR> I was just reading about how Elon Musk is trying to make it so rockets are reusable since they're one of the most expensive parts of space flight, and then I had a thought... -- What if instead of a rocket to get out of the atmosphere, you went to a specific location in the stratosphere and some sort of tow cable would be launched from a platform(maybe anchored to the moon if needed?), the tow package attaches to the spacecraft and pulls it slower out of orbit without the need for excessive speed.
I guess this is similar to the space elevator idea, but wouldn't a space elevator need to at some point exceed the escape velocity for earth?
Curious what other possible theoretical methods of escape could be available.. like some sort of magnet that defies or pushes against gravitational forces essentially nulling the gravitational pull? -- <comment><USER2> Yes, escape velocity is required. Mere position won't do it.

Remember that velocity is what carries a spacecraft away from Earth's gravitational field. Anything less than escape velocity and the spacecraft is pulled back into the atmosphere.

> What if instead of a rocket to get out of the atmosphere, you went to a > specific location in the stratosphere and some sort of tow cable would be > launched from a platform(maybe anchored to the moon if needed?) ...

You need to think about how far away the moon is. The mass of the cable would very far exceed the mass of the spacecraft, and it would certainly cost more than a chemical rocket, however inefficient.

> ... but wouldn't a space elevator need to at some point exceed the escape > velocity for earth?

The space elevator idea relies on tapping earth's own rotational velocity, by having a counterweight located sufficiently far away that it is held perpetually aloft by centrifugal force, countered by the tension on the elevator cable. That means the counterweight must be substantially more than about 22,300 miles above the earth's surface (the geostationary orbital height). This is another idea that requires very ingenious engineering to prevent the mass of the cable from ruining the overall plan.

I think eventually people will think of something that none of us have thought of yet, using advanced and possibly future technologies, to solve this kind of problem. But it won't depend on a long cable stretching to the moon.

<comment><USER3> This is completely wrong. Escape velocity is the speed, which is required to break free of the gravitational pull, BUT in the case that no additional propulsion is available. In other words, you shoot an object with that speed from the surface of the earth and provide no additional force to accelerate it or keep the speed constant. You can leave the earth's gravitational pull with ANY speed. Assume that there was a magically (geostationary) floating platform 300 km above earth. There are absolutely no problems for someone on that platform to pull you up with a rope. Imagine a 1km high skyscraper... Do you need to reach certain speed if you were to be pulled to the top of the skyscraper?! No, speed is irrelevant. What is important is to have a constant force, which is in the opposite direction of the gravity which is equal or greater than G.

<comment><USER2> > This is completely wrong.

On the contrary, it's completely right.

> Escape velocity is the speed, which is required to break free of the > gravitational pull, BUT in the case that no additional propulsion is > available.

You just changed the subject, and we could always branch out into a discussion of perpetual acceleration sources, but that would depart the realm of reality. The OP's question asked about reality.

> You can leave the earth's gravitational pull with ANY speed.

As a matter of fact, no, that's not possible -- unless you have a continuous energy source and don't care how much energy you expend. Which is your new topic, not the topic of current propulsion methods, the topic of the OP's post.

Without benefit of something exotic like a space elevator you can stay in place, stationary, 100 kilometers above the earth's surface, motionless with respect to the surface, in perpetuity, but only by a constant expenditure of energy. But that's a different topic.

> No, speed is irrelevant.

Without invoking technologies that don't exist, speed is completely relevant.

> What is important is to have a constant force ...

Be careful that you don't confuse static forces and those created by a dynamic source of acceleration that require an expenditure of energy. Static forces require no energy, but most accelerations involving motion do (apart from the class of friction-free orbits).

My reply answered the OP's inquiry, not the science-fiction idea that you could have an infinite, inexhaustible energy source.

<comment><USER3> I am not talking about sci-fi either ... only giving a simple example about how it actually works. Anyone with even basic knowledge in physics will know that you are wrong. Please research a little bit to see why you are wrong. An object can leave the earth's gravitational pull at ANY speed. I just googled the topic, one of the first results: [https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=200709040459...](https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070904045946AAzXoFb)

<comment><USER2> > An object can leave the earth's gravitational pull at ANY speed.

Yes, but as I have already explained without effect, science fiction is not the topic. You need to understand the topic under discussion before replying, not after.

In a discussion like this, it seems someone must always suggest building a beanstalk that reaches to orbital heights. Fine, but not constructive, and not the topic.

> Anyone with even basic knowledge in physics will know that you are wrong.

Please troll somewhere else. The OP asked for practical suggestions given the realities of present-day aerospace engineering, a field in which I am more than qualified. I can also wave my hands in the air, but that doesn't get hardware into space.

\-- Former NASA Space Shuttle engineer.

<comment><USER3> 1\. The OP stated that he is interested in what theoretical solutions there are + is it required to reach escape velocity.

2\. You stated: >Yes, escape velocity is required. Mere position won't do it.

> Remember that velocity is what carries a spacecraft away from Earth's > gravitational field. Anything less than escape velocity and the spacecraft > is pulled back into the atmosphere.

Which is wrong, regardless of the context. And you agreed to it after I pointed out the first result from a google search. And let's not even start with this statement:

> Remember that velocity is what carries a spacecraft away from Earth's > gravitational field. Anything less than escape velocity and the spacecraft > is pulled back into the atmosphere.

This is ... you guessed it ... wrong. I am not sure if I should explain you why. Lets just say that an object can have no velocity (a.k.a. not moving at all) and still not be "pulled back into the atmosphere".

You are one hell of a troll for a space shuttle engineer :)

<comment><USER2> > The OP stated that he is interested in what theoretical solutions there are

No, the OP asked whether there were _practical solutions, not theoretical ones_ , and he gave several examples to make the point. I replied in that context.

> Which is wrong, regardless of the context.

The context is _practical_ ways to leave the earth and make one's way into space. The OP's post makes that perfectly clear. Read his post -- he suggests a tether cable leading to the moon -- how exactly is that a theoretical argument?

> And you agreed to it after I pointed out the first result from a google > search.

I was agreeing that, if magic carpets existed, or if Jack and his beanstalk were a rational proposal for getting into orbit, then my way of describing a departure from earth's surface would be unnecessarily complex.

>> Anything less than escape velocity and the spacecraft is pulled back into the atmosphere.

> This is ... you guessed it ... wrong.

Look -- learn physics. Stop trolling about topics about which you know nothing. Your magic carpet, Jack & the beanstalk objections to everyday reality really are just as absurd as they sound to an educated reader.

And STOP TROLLING.

<comment><USER3> I am not trolling, but trying to lead a conversation based on arguments. You, on the other side, do not have any arguments... your only argument is that I am trolling. Look, check this video: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGimzB5QM1M](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGimzB5QM1M)

This is how it works - at one point the rocket has 0 velocity, but does not fall back to earth. They can do that at any altitude. You made so many false statements, that clearly show that YOU are the one that should learn about physics Your statement: "Anything less than escape velocity and the spacecraft is pulled back into the atmosphere." is simply ridiculous.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> As I understand it, you wouldn't need to reach escape velocity in a space elevator.

Think about it this way, if instead of an elevator, you have a space ladder, in theory (if you have unlimited energy) you could climb to whatever height you want, without reaching escape velocity.

AFAIK escape velocity is the minimum required to "throw" something away from earth such as it would never come back because of gravity.</comment>