Microsoft sticks to its guns, keeps Do Not Track on by default in IE10 - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/08/microsoft-sticks-to-its-guns-keeps-do-not-track-on-by-default-in-ie10/ <comment><USER2> With the recent amendment ([http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/06/default- do-not-trac...](http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/06/default-do-not- track/)) to the spec of DNT that the header should only be honored if the user has actively chosen not to be tracked, I guess we've just created more data that is transmitted with every HTTP request and subsequently ignored on the server.

As IE10 sending DNT isn't a response to a conscious user decision ("I accept the defaults" is not consciously deciding "I don't want to be tracked"), servers are basically free to ignore the header if the browser is IE10.

This also means that IE10 will for all intents and purposes always be tracked regardless of what the setting is set to and whether the server in general honors DNT or not (currently I know of only twitter to do so).

Way to go!

<comment><USER3> That's a mighty suspicious amendment to the spec. Its almost as if they want to make sure you're tracked. Will they require certified mail and a witness to verify you really really mean DNT next?

Can the W3C justify this amendment at all being for the good of the user?

<comment><USER4> This seems to be the issue in question: <https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking- protection/track/issues/4>

Here's the working group: [http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=49311&publi...](http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=49311&public=1)

I don't know enough to determine what % of companies represented on the panel are ad-supported; per a comment on the Microsoft blog:

      > thank you for not folding to the corrupt w3c standards
      > body that is setting the standards with a full deck of ad
      > supported companies on the panel

[http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2...](http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2012/08/07/do- not-track-in-the-windows-8-set-up-experience.aspx#3513055)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Although I appreciate the idea of a Do Not Track header, isn't it a bit like a Do Not Steal sign? You don't use a sign; you use a lock.

It seems like it would be more productive to focus on helping users __not disclose their identity __than helping them __ask sites to pretend they don't see it __.

<comment><USER6> You don't start with using a lock either.

You start with the general consensus that stealing is socially unacceptable, and you make it illegal.

Which is exactly what will inevitably happen with tracking unless tracking with permission becomes the exception rather than the rule.

It might even take a few decades, but being tracked by corporations anywhere you go online is socially untenable in a free society.

Microsoft understands this, although their enthusiasm is probably more inspired by the fact that a certain competitor that has a major part of its business model depending on it than by ethical considerations.

<comment><USER5> >> You don't start with using a lock either. You start with the general consensus that stealing is socially unacceptable, and you make it illegal.

And then, as a sensible person, knowing that there exist people who don't care about laws, and knowing that law enforcement can't catch all criminals, you also use a lock.

I would love to have laws and penalties for lawbreakers here, but this is the internet: it spans many legal jurisdictions. Law is not a panacea, and it's also much harder to get than a software patch.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm not entirely sure the value of the DNT header in the first place, even if Microsoft doesn't end up completely derailing it with this move... The kinds of advertisers who would voluntarily opt out of tracking behaviors in response to user preference probably aren't the kind of company who would do things with that information that you need to worry about. I can appreciate the intent behind it, and any move toward increased user privacy is a move in the right direction, but I don't think that leaving it in the hands of the advertisers is going to be a particularly effective approach. It may even be detrimental in the sense that a naive user would turn that option on and get a false sense of security.

<comment><USER8> Personally I question whether Microsoft's main reason for enabling DNT is to protect their user's privacy.

If Microsoft can look like the good guys while sticking a knife in Google's back, preventing them tracking users and targeting ads, then they might as well go for it.

IE on it's own won't do much damage but other browsers will be under pressure now to also add DNT, after all, they don't want their users to think they're privacy online is safer in IE's hands.

If all browsers slowly make this move Google could be affected quite badly. And that is the logic I think Microsoft is using here.

<comment><USER2> The problem is that the spec of the DNT header says that the DNT header can only be sent in response to a conscious decision on the users part. By turning this on by default, the only thing MS accomplishes is that DNT will likely never have an effect for IE10 users.

Which could also be exactly what they wanted: Get the good press for enabling the header by default while ensuring that they and everybody else will be able to track IE10 users normally, regardless of the setting being enabled or not.

<comment><USER8> Maybe but I hope Google would take the higher moral ground and assume the user has consciously decided to enable it as they have no way to tell otherwise.

It would look a little bad if Google just straight up ignored the DNT header on IE10.

<comment><USER9> This would singlehandedly kill 10-20% of Google's profits. Microsoft is playing a smart game, now that they have accepted that they cant beat Google in search/web-ads.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Another pointless act which is simply for show. They want to be able market Internet Explorer by saying "The Browser That Does Not Track You". W3C clearly stated that this is considered an abuse of the DNT flag. As a result, thanks to Microsoft, the flag will start to be ignored completely.

<comment><USER11> Microsoft just can't win, can they?

<comment><USER12> This is the W3C's problem. "An ordinary user agent MUST NOT send a Tracking Preference signal without a user's explicit consent"? How, exactly, are they intending to detect the user's explicit consent via the medium of HTTP headers? Why introduce a header which almost everybody in the world would probably want to use by default in every one of their HTTP requests and then say that you can't do that? What if I chose my browser specifically because it has DNT by default? Why introduce a header which doesn't do anything unless you _really really want it to_?

The Explicit Consent Requirement is nonsensical. But then the DNT header itself is also nonsensical, because there's no legislation or tangible benefit to make request handlers respect it.

Nobody should be tracked unless they've explicitly asked for it.

<comment><USER13> _Why introduce a header which almost everybody in the world would probably want to use by default in every one of their HTTP requests and then say that you can't do that?_

Ask everyone in the world if they "don't want to be tracked" and 100% will say yes.

Ask everyone in the world if they "don't want to be tracked, understanding that is the economic foundation for almost all of the content they enjoy and thus they will either need to directly pay or go without" and somewhere approaching 0% will say yes.

DNT is like commercial skippers on PVRs -- it's beneficial to most user's experience if a small enough group of users partake, but very detrimental if a large enough group uses it.

<comment><USER12> > Ask everyone in the world if they "don't want to be tracked, understanding > that is the economic foundation for almost all of the content they enjoy and > thus they will either need to directly pay or go without" and somewhere > approaching 0% will say yes.

No, something approaching 100% of users will still say yes, adding that robust economic foundation is the content providers' problem, not the users'.

The content providers will then close down or find alternative business models.

<comment><USER13> _No, something approaching 100% of users will still say yes, adding that robust economic foundation is the content providers' problem, not the users'._

Who do you think "users" are? HN denizens?

Users -- most especially those using Internet Explorer -- are average people who are entirely unconcerned about tracking cookies. They really aren't. They don't care whether you know that they visit Facebook and TMZ. They care that they can access those sites for free, and anything that threatened that would be a threat to them.

There is a serious detachment from reality that occurs in discussions like this.

<comment><USER14> I don't know where you're getting your data, but I don't think most people are too concerned about paying for things.

Of course, if you ask them, "Do you want to pay for this or do you want it free?", they'll choose free.

But if you don't ask and just charge for it, I don't think most people would mind. It's the way things worked for thousands of years. It's the way things _still_ work for every product in the world except online content. Maybe it's a huge issue for you, but most people just don't mind paying for products and content they find worthwhile.

<comment><USER13> Virtually every paywall implementation has been a dismal failure. One of the greatest ways to get a viral message on the move is to claim that a common service will soon charge (see ICQ, Facebook, MSN Messenger, etc).

 _Maybe it's a huge issue for you_

Except that I've made the opposite painfully clear over and over again. But you apparently thought this would work as some sort of position antidote, pretending that I'm some sort of abnormally cheap person?

I am actually aware of the world around me. I watch how things work. I pay attention. My observations are not personal.

<comment><USER14> It's a self-imposed problem. Of course people will object now that they're used to getting a site's content for "free". The sooner those sites die, the better, IMO. If there are costs associated with creating the content, then it's a stupid idea to act like there aren't.

Sites and services that charge from the beginning, and/or offer a very clear value added payment option from the beginning are usually successful. Success being defined as self-sufficient without violating user privacy and whoring themselves to advertisers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Why is everyone here skipping the part in the first paragraph that says the user will be provided with a dialog on first-run asking him/her whether they want to turn on, turn off, or dismiss DNT?

<comment><USER16> I have no idea. Wouldn't that validate it? I don't see why people are so upset over this.

<comment><USER17> People are upset because they wanted to be part of the elite club that maybe possibly would have had their DNT header honored, but now that it's likely that a huge percentage of other people on the web will have the header enabled, suddenly the header will be useless for sure.

If this header would have only been useful if it was only enabled by a small set of people, then it has always been stupid, and is in no way Microsoft's fault. Imagine a perfect world where everyone using IE organically decided to poke around in their browser settings, find, understand, and enable DNT. Are the trackers now somehow less justified when they ignore it in this perfect world? No, the motivator is the same — they want to track as many people as possible and "disabled by default" is just a thin excuse. People that are defending the idea of trackers ignoring DNT because of IE are engaging in some weird kind of corporatism.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The DNT header was likely to be ignored to begin with, but this just seals it.

The only way that the DNT header even stood a chance was if it was only enabled by a select few individuals who are greatly concerned with their privacy. By defaulting it to 'on' for users who don't particularly care about their privacy, or understand any of the implications, they essentially guarantee that only a handful of sites will even consider honoring DNT.

Assuming they actually stick with this, DNT has lost all of the little meaning it had to begin with.

<comment><USER19> Not quite- this is a direct shot at Google's advertising revenue. Google doesn't have the luxury of ignoring this.

Microsoft isn't doing this to protect users against nefarious trackers, it's doing it to hurt Google's bottom line.

<comment><USER18> I suppose that makes some sense.

However, it doesn't change the fact that by enabling it by default, most other sites will likely end up just ignoring it, even if that isn't Microsoft's intent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> someone else pointed this out - if they do this during the initial install/setup of the browser (first time it's run, for example), having explanatory language and an option for DNT that defaults to something is 'good enough'.

However... this possibly is too broad. "DNT" may not be something you want to do for all sites/tracking-entities, and the 'experience' of the web as a whole (untargeted ads vs targeted ads) may end up being degraded for IE10 users, who may switch to something else and be less annoyed.

 _ALL_ of this would be wholly unnecessary if 'cookies' hadn't been (and continued to be) treated as some sort of backroom black-magic that is consistently hidden from users at every turn. A little extra chrome in the browser that displays cookies being set/transmitted, along with an ability to delete/block them - directly from the browser, without having to wade through 'advanced/privacy' menus - would go a long way to giving people easy control and insight in to what's really going on.

Paranoid privacy nuts wouldn't trust it anyway, and would keep using hand- compiled lynx or amaya, but the rest of us would be able to quickly see what's going on and prevent things we weren't sure of.

</comment><comment><USER21> This is just a poor attempt to try and damage the biggest online advertising network and their number one competitor - Google.

Realistically the DNT header will do nothing for user privacy.

Just when you think MS is making progress with IE and the web they pull this stunt.

</comment><comment><USER22> Did anyone think that sending a little DNT header was going to keep them safer or better off in the first place? It is an idea that I would call "cute".

</comment><comment><USER23> Ah, just a new incarnation of the evil bit[1].

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_bit>

<comment><USER24> Closer to a "Please don't be evil, kind sir" bit.

<comment><USER25> Worse, it conveys the intent of "Please don't be evil and/or I never change my default settings"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This shouldn't be necessary. The default behavior of web services should be no tracking, whatsoever, unless specifically agreed to in writing by the user. This should be enforced by laws, not a toothless organization like W3C, and there should be real punishments for disobeying.

However, this is a good PR move by Microsoft. They don't make too many of them, so congrats.

<comment><USER27> What would you count as tracking? Would websites only have analytics or A/B test results on users that have printed, signed and sent them consent forms?

<comment><USER28> I haven't thought of every corner case but I would set up something like this:

You can track a user during a single session on a single site.

To track across multiple visits the user must set up an account of some sort.

To track across multiple sites the user must provide some kind of explicit permission.

Anonymize any session records that don't have this kind of permission.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Microsoft is being overly aggressive and has ulterior motives that don't align with their users. Very typical of their short-term Machiavellian style of thinking. Tactically they are making a questionable decision.

They are trying to break a very reasonable compromise that would have benefited almost everyone. Instead, as one of the largest tech companies that doesn't depend on advertising revenue, they are trying to use their power to cripple competitors. They won't win. Online advertisers are too powerful (and drive too much of the growth in the economy nowadays), legislation won't regulate the industry in a way that will hand Microsoft a victory. Meanwhile, IE's users will lose because their choice to be tracked will be ignored.

<comment><USER30> Should Microsoft not act in it's self-interest? If you are critiquing Microsoft for doing that, you should be critical of Google for tracking you -- after all, couldn't they just charge for services?

At the end of the day, consumers will know that "Do Not Track" is on, and that big advertising networks are igorning it. They won't know or care about the T's and C's of some agreement.

They'll also know (because Microsoft will tell them) that Bing, Outlook.com, etc will respect DNT.

<comment><USER29> > Should Microsoft not act in it's self-interest

Only if it benefits them or their users, which it almost certainly won't. Hurting your competitor is not the same thing as competing with them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I wish someone made a virus which installed tons of anti-adware programs and plugins on target machines. Imagine - every single PC with adblock loaded with rules, wouldn't that be cool :) .

inb4: "but ads fund free open web" - I can live with paying subscription for every single site I really want to visit (even huge subscriptions if the site is that good). There are very few of those. AND many "free open" sites do not have ads even now.

<comment><USER32> Not everyone is rich enough to pay a "huge subscription" to every website they want to visit. In fact many of those who could benefit most from the information on the web are people without much monetary resources (developing countries , students etc)

<comment><USER31> Yeah, I know this argument - if ads are removed that EVERYTHING would be soo expensive and children in Africa are dying etc. etc. World is not black and white.

And by the way, please define "rich" and "rich enough".

<comment><USER32> A lot of small websites , phpBB communities etc are entirely ad supported because the owner may not be doing it as a money making exercise, the ads just cover the hosting costs.

The fact that results from these smaller sites show up in google searches (i.e not behind a paywall) is a good thing for the web in general as they often have good content, a few non obtrusive banners at the bottom seems like a small price to pay. If a site just bombards me with aggressive advertising I simply don't go back, these sites rarely have good content anyway.

I think that having access to free high quality information for people of modest means is a big net win for society at large, but maybe I'm just a socialist..

<comment><USER31> Small sites will just require small fee, one time or recurring. You see, we can't take all site, multiply them by some price and add all results to receive some ridiculous number and declare that man just can't pay that much. Because a single human can't visit all sites on the Internet, physically.

One individual has at most 16 hours a day for internet and if someone would estimate average times that the discrete number of sites to visit would be rather low. It is entirely possible (not 100% sure) that after initial shock communities will restructure a little, some really obscure sites with little unique content or services will die, but users won't leave. they'll just shift to occupy all the sites they really want to visit.

And right now I see that small and obscure websites are NOT findable in search engines. They don't do SEO and SMO, they are totally dominated by ad driven monsters they produce and produce and produce... well something. Sometimes good content sometimes not. Mostly not actually. I almost never find really good unknown stuff in Google&Co, only by direct links from friends and random people. Such sites are like dark matter of the internet, real but invisible knowledge. Invisible behind the noise from ad giants.

<comment><USER32> I don't know about you, but when I'm working, especially doing some form of research I can easily visit in excess of 40 websites or so a day and probably hundreds a month, having to pay up for each individual one could get expensive not be mention it would be a serious inconvenience. And how do I know if a site is worth signing up for if I have no idea of it's content?

Remember the site expertsexchange.com? The Q&A site that put their answers behind a paywall, now remember how stackoverflow ate their lunch with a few small unobtrusive adverts.

I actually do find plenty of useful content on small websites, phpBBs & blogs through google. Sites with unique content tend to rank well especially if you are searching for specific terms.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Do Not Track" should not be a default in a browser.

It should be the default for every individual in a free country, from birth.

The fact that I'm living, breathing human being with a right to privacy should already be enough to imply that no corporation has the right to track my movements with my very explicit, informed and legally verifiable consent.

Browser manufacturers should not even be a party in this.

</comment><comment><USER33> Microsoft owns part of Facebook. Is DNT the opposite of Facebook's own tracking goals?

</comment><comment><USER34> If sites respect the DNT flag sent by the browser then this really should be a great step forward for user privacy contributing to a better web _from a user's perspective_.

As a user I don't care about your politics, alliances, bias, or nefarious (to me) goals. I simply am asked when I start using the browser whether it is okay for sites to track me and I choose the "heck no, of course not" option or the "yeah, whatever, go nuts" option. If I accept all defaults including using Bing as my search engine and DNT as being on who are you (evil web developer at mega-corp) to say my choice is invalid?

</comment><comment><USER35> Sounds to me like MS is trying to call the advertisers' bluff. Perhaps they think government intervention is more likely than some others suspect (or are banking on advertisers believing that).

</comment><comment><USER32> There's a bit of a problem with having a binary do/don't track switch. For example if the default becomes "do not track" then that essentially make stuff like google analytics useless and removes a powerful tool for optimising and improving user experience on websites.

On the other hand I really don't like it the idea of a website trying to glean my "real" identity and use that to do things which may be anti privacy.

I'm going to brace for Windows 8 release when clients suddenly start asking why their traffic has dropped off a cliff.

</comment><comment><USER36> If they want to stick to their guns, aggressively block tracking pixels.

This is just messing around with marketing to 'be cool' with their new browser because Chrome is kicking their ass at the moment.

</comment><comment><USER32> If you want to get your conspiracy theory head on this could be an attempt to pick winners in the online ad world. What if it becomes: Do not track (apart from Microsoft preferred partners).

As an aside: Lots of people also seem to have big misunderstandings about browser privacy settings, for example I've spoken with people who believe that the "private browsing" feature in the browser would allow them to browse porn without the IT dept finding out..

</comment><comment><USER37> Just IE s#%&ing over web standards like it always has!

<comment><USER38> Embrace and extinguish.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I wonder if we can expect Hacker News posts in the next few months pointing out big name advertisers who ignore DNT as bad guys.

</comment><comment><USER39> I love the contrast in comments here as opposed to the astroturfing in r/technology. Thank you, HN, for being rational.

</comment><comment><USER40> If Microsoft wanted to make DNT completely useless and ignored - they may have accomplished their goal.

</comment><comment><USER41> Looks like Microsoft has added some language at setup to inform the user.

From [http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-sticks-to-default-do-not- trac...](http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-sticks-to-default-do-not-track- settings-in-ie-10-7000002289/)

>Customers will receive prominent notice that their selection of Express Settings turns DNT "on." In addition, by using the Customize approach, users will be able to independently turn "on" and "off" a number of settings, including the setting for the DNT signal. A "Learn More" link with detailed information about each recommended setting will help customers decide whether to select Express Settings or Customize. A Privacy Statement link is also available on the screen. Windows 7 customers using IE10 will receive prominent notice that DNT is turned on in their new browser, together with a link providing more information about the setting.</comment>


Sheriffs Release Sick Inmates to Avoid Paying Their Hospital Bills - <AUTHOR> https://www.propublica.org/article/these-sheriffs-release-sick-inmates-to-avoid-paying-their-hospital-bills <comment><USER2> Could a judge hold the sheriff in contempt for not executing the confinement order?</comment>


Show HN: Another way to bookmark - <AUTHOR> https://piconka.com?release=2

<comment><USER2> [https://dragdis.com/](https://dragdis.com/) much</comment>


Next Phase in High Tech Individualism - <AUTHOR> http://sramanamitra.com/2008/04/15/next-phase-in-high-tech-individualism/ <comment><USER2> Mike K makes a great point. As hardware becomes inconsequential, we identify less with what we have and more with what we can do.

No one cares what model of harpsichord Bach played (maybe harpsichord players do).</comment>


In Seattle, 22 Years to Get Light Rail from Downtown to Ballard - <AUTHOR> http://seattletransitblog.com/2016/04/13/22-years-to-ballard/ <comment><USER2> The first line of the now infamous Seattle Monorail Project [1] would have provided a downtown to Ballard link as well as downtown to West Seattle.

The final project proposal was clearly not workable, but instead of revamping the project, the city chose not just to pull the plug, but to (in my own humble opinion) drive a stake through its heart. I suspect that this might have been at least partly because the city leaders only had enough political capital for one major transportation project and at that time there was a desperate need for the SR99 viaduct replacement [2]. The latter is of course where we're having all the trouble with the tunnel boring machine.

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

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaskan_Way_Viaduct_replacemen...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaskan_Way_Viaduct_replacement_tunnel)

</comment><comment><USER3> Another irony to this is that both this and the new university line run north and south. It is relatively easy to go north-south in Seattle, the hard part is going east-west because of the way the hills and lakes are arranged. But for the same reasons, it is also harder to get a rail line built going east- west.</comment>


Cyberpunk Is Dead - <AUTHOR> https://thebaffler.com/salvos/cyberpunk-is-dead-semley <comment><USER2> This article just goes on and on and even halfway through I don't know what the destination is. Had to bail.

</comment><comment><USER3> The article does not seem to end in support of its title. He seems to want to define Cyberpunk specifically but then goes about highlighting that it is a concept subjectively bound by the context of the authors' environment.</comment>


The iPad's five worst surprises - <AUTHOR> http://www.macworld.com/article/145976/2010/01/ipadissues.html <comment><USER2> Everybody is outraged with the lack of camera. Is it really that important? I see myself using this device for watching video and casual surfing on the couch - no need for a camera for that.

<comment><USER3> Three big things that I can see:

1\. Lots of things in similar categories take pictures, so it just feels like an oversight.

2\. Video chat is one of the applications that would seem right up the iPad's alley.

3\. The number and types of augmented reality applications (such as the ones already appearing on iPhone) are more likely to increase in the future and the iPad as is would be left out of any of those developments.

<comment><USER4> Video chat would have been a truely killer application on the iPad. With an increasing number of laptops coming with built in webcams, I think personal video conferencing (think grandma to grandkids, etc) is just starting to really take off. The iPad _could_ have been the market defining device for video chat.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _The fact that it takes up to 80 percent of the CPU in a quad-core 2.66GHz Mac Pro to render a 400x300 Flash game just boggles my mind_

The reason is because Adobe developers don't use hardware 3d graphics acceleration. They do everything in the processor because they don't know how to write code that works on multiple types of hardware or maybe they are too lazy or cheap, I don't know.

The effect is that _ALL_ of their apps run dreadfully slow on all platforms because every single calculation has to go through the CPU.

This is just one of the many reasons Adobe software is some of the worst on the market.

<comment><USER6> It has absolutely nothing to do with the CPU or platform. Flash on Windows had no graphics acceleration at all until ~6 months ago.

Flash running in Virtualized Windows or Wine on top of OS X works terrifically.

<comment><USER7> In <http://theflashblog.com/?p=1641> the Adobe developers seem to complain about lack of possibility to use hardware acceleration on OSX. Yet as you said, Windows Flash has been fast the whole time. Could someone better versed in plugin development tell us if there is a difference in how the browser plugins are done between OSX and Windows (drawing the video part perhaps?).

Or what else could create the difference as I would think that much of the Flash VM code would be identical between Intel OSX and Windows?

<comment><USER6> The Flash plugin for IE is ActiveX, but all Flash plugins for other platforms use the same Mozilla NPAPI plugin system, whether it's Firefox on Windows, Safari on OS X, or Chrome on Linux.

Both Windows Flash plugins have the same good performance: it ain't an API issue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The article incorrectly claims the device doesn't have a microphone. The author added some weasel words "I don't think there's a microphone" to hedge something that would have taken a few seconds to fact-check on any of the liveblog sites that ran yesterday.

Having seen that, it was hard to take the rest of the article seriously.

<comment><USER9> Actually, apple.com had the iPad page up well before the publish date of this article and it had all the specs. It clearly stated that it had a microphone.

I'm also dubious of the article that it neglects to mention battery life. The iPad claims up to 10 hours wireless browsing/video/music, which to me is very odd. Web browsing should be taking significantly less battery than video, so what is the true battery life when watching full-screen 720P video like the iPad can allegedly handle with full brightness?

I know with my iPod, with brightness on minimum, it only barely managed to meet the maximum Apple stated. I can only imagine how much of a power hog the iPad's screen is at maximum brightness on a 720p screen. I have money riding that the iPad's battery life, max brightness and 720p video is only going to last ~3 hours, 5 at a major push.

<comment><USER10> >> on a 720p screen

There is no 720p video possible on that screen. It has 1024 pixels horizontal when in landscape, and it would need 1280.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If this is the worst, that bodes well.

</comment><comment><USER12> I know it's far-fetched since there is no flash, but is there a java support? Would be nice to trade with an in-browser java app on this device.

One could argue that browser is multitasking environment - so you could have gmail/gtalk in one tab and other web apps in others. But, with no flash and/or java support there is still a wide empty area to fill in.

Let alone my fantasies about a modbook like device (wacom!) - I'd just be happy if iPad supported flash and arbitrary PDF files. Heck, even just arbitrary PDF's would be nice damnit.

</comment><comment><USER13> Even with the 3G model the GPS chip isn't a "true" GPS chip. It's Assisted- GPS, and probably pretty unreliable without a 3G connection, just like the iPhone.

<comment><USER14> Assisted GPS is true GPS plus faster initial position finding (that's the "assisted" part).

Anyone who's owned a hand-held GPS can tell you it takes a few minutes to find your initial location, especially if you've moved location since the last time you turned it on.

An AGPS system uses hints from cell towers to get a rough idea of where you are. This significantly lowers the time required to get a lock.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_GPS>

So, yes, it will function without a 3G signal. The problem, however, is that when you're out of 3G range, you won't be able to download Google Maps data. So, if you need maps when you're out in the middle of nowhere, you'll probably want to buy the TomTom app, or one of the other "real" GPS apps.

<comment><USER15> _Anyone who's owned a hand-held GPS can tell you it takes a few minutes to find your initial location_

Yes, this is because a current (within the last few hours) version of the almanac (current status of the GPS constellation, which satellites are active etc) and ephemeris (more-or-less where everything is expected to be) needs to be downloaded. It's slow from satellites but quick via 3G.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I think that the awkwardness of using this as a camera, coupled with security policies against cameras in many companies, makes a camera a "why bother?" item. So they add support for an add-on, and especially for plugging in a SD card or camera for image management, which by contrast will be very popular.

</comment><comment><USER17> They complain about lack of video, but I have to imagine that holding up this object to take pictures or record video would be quite awkward. It is a large object. It would look kind of funny - in the way that large cellphones from 1998 look kind of funny today.

<comment><USER18> I wonder if it's possible to make decent bluetooth cameras? That feels more useful to me. A tiny camera you point and shoot that sends pictures/video to the giant iPad screen.

<comment><USER19> The latest bluetooth standard (from april of last year) supports transfer speeds of 24Mbit/s according to wikipedia, so yes. Unfortunately for manufacturers, there's a bit of a chicken and egg problem there.</comment></comment></comment>


The Hardest Game. For Adults. - <AUTHOR> http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.com/2011/09/hardest-game-for-adults.html

<comment><USER2> Well it's a good thing I never grew up, then. I found MineCraft every bit as addictive as these 'kids'.

Actually, I've always thought MC was more popular with adults than kids. I'm surprised to hear otherwise.

Maybe the author and his friends are 'hardcore gamers' that don't play games like The Sims and other sandbox games, and just aren't prepared for the ability to do anything their mind can imagine, and not -have- to do anything at all.

<comment><USER3> I think you're probably right. Although the article did remind me about something I noticed with my younger cousin. He was visiting (about 11 at the time) and would play Halo with his friends online. They would play custom games though and make up their own rules. A lot of them were similar to games I remembered playing outside (cops and robbers, tag, etc.). I played with him a few times and found it incredible boring (since most of the time they were just arguing with each other about who should play what).

I thought it was interesting that this kind of play moved into the digital realm and I could see how the lego-like nature of Minecraft kind of relates to this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Rider></comment>


An Awesome Car: Chevy Volt Review - <AUTHOR> http://techexile.com/impressed-the-chevy-volt-review/

<comment><USER2> I'm probably going to purchase a volt in the next year or two when my 2001 hyundai dies. I've got a little bit of sticker shock, but unless another car company comes out with a plug-in hybrid with a useful all electric range (prius plug in is only 11 miles, for comparison), the volt is the way to go.</comment>


John Carmack: Latency Mitigation Strategies - <AUTHOR> http://www.altdevblogaday.com/2013/02/22/latency-mitigation-strategies/ <comment><USER2> It sounds like we would benefit from GPU and display manufacturers providing a set of standard low-level control primitives so that people like Carmack who know what they are doing can really play around with the entire pipeline without having to worry about all the things the cards and the displays are doing behind their backs.

For example, a GPU could have a set of standard settings with full buffering and all the other things that "help them win the framerate wars", but a developer should be able to turn all of that off when needed.

It's the same with displays. LCD manufacturers could, I suppose, allow a modern day "CRT Mode 13h" where you just have scan lines mapped to memory buffers and whatever shows up in those buffers gets turned into a pixel as quickly as possible.

Are there technical challenges preventing this from happening, or is it mainly inertia and lack of need from the current market?

<comment><USER3> Regarding your last point: it's getting better. Modern TVs have "game mode", where latency is minimized. The latest LCD panels use embedded Display Port, eDP. The latest eDP standard introduces a frame buffer on the LCD itself, where you can just write deltas and tell it to "swap". I think this is quite similar to what you're proposing, in concept.

<comment><USER4> You may already know this, but the "Game Mode" on modern TVs is just turning off the 120Hz/240Hz interpolation that is done to "improve" the picture (or is required for certain 3D systems to work).

The interpolation introduces significant latency that its obvious (and frustrating) during gaming.

I actually run my TV in game mode by default, because the interpolation done in 120/240Hz mode makes everything look like it is slightly unreal and shot on video. Definitely uncanny valley territory.

<comment><USER5> This.

Some people aren't able to tell this apparently but it absolutely bothers the heck out of me. Probably the reason why I'm not a fan of 48fps either.

I still think it would be useful to have a variable rate player. 24fps for normal scenes and 48fps for action.

<comment><USER6> Is there a detectable (to human) difference between a 24fps screen and a 48fps screen where the image only changes every other frame. I can see how this would work with film based projectors, but my understanding of TVs is that pixels are always on and simply change states between frames, so 'changing' to an identical frame should have no effect.

<comment> Tuna-Fish Having the frame change every second frame would mean that the screen would be changing the picture only half the time, while it normally is always changing the color of some pixel.

Not sure that this is not just a pure win.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > Conventional computer interfaces are generally not as latency demanding as > virtual reality, but sensitive users can tell the difference in mouse > response down to the same 20 milliseconds or so, making it worthwhile to > apply these techniques even in applications without a VR focus.

I wish people would start treating text editors that they are developing this way. As hard real time systems. Don't care much about virtual reality, but I'm sick of text (and code) editors with unpredictable latency of basic operations [like typing a character, making find call, etc].

<comment><USER8> Would you be willing to pay a recurring fee for using an editor? I have toyed with writing an editor at multiple points but have backed away because I think in the grand scheme of things its a one time sale to a pretty small market (The number of people who care enough about text editing that they would pay for a good editor when they see one)

<comment><USER9> Doesn't seem to be too small a market for sublime or textmate.

What I would pay for would be an editor in the style of ST2 but with a few IDE features like being able to jump to method definitions by shift clicking etc.

Basically a very lightweight IDE with good text editing features (like VIM style keyboard shortcuts). Integrate a terminal into it, but do it in a very slick way with the ability to run "recipe" type commands.

For example if I forget the switches for a git command, I should be able to search for roughly what I want and have a result return which will populate a command in the terminal.

This might mean hyper focusing on a few languages however.

Not sure I would like the recurring model for just _using_ the editor. Since this would likely mean you would have to implement some sort of always on cloud integration into the editor which would annoy me and make me worry about losing access to my editor.

What I might pay for on a recurring basis would be access to a repo of high quality plugins that were well integration with every version of the editor. Also maybe some functionality to allow me to share the editor session with someone remotely.

<comment><USER8> I dont want to gimp the user experience or implement cloud features just to get people to pay. At the same time if I am going to be spending 2-3 years to build something I would rather it be something that has a recurring income stream.

<comment><USER9> What would happen if someone doesn't pay for a month, would you somehow shut off their editor?

It would be extremely annoying for that to happen because a payment got screwed up or something.

If you make an editor so good that everyone wants to use it you can probably make enough from one off sales assuming you set the price right.

By and large when it comes to tools I want to buy them and keep them rather than lease them.

<comment><USER8> This is a good question - I dont think I have a good answer. I lean towards not implementing a check or stop your use. Maybe a monthly reminder for one / two months saying you have not paid. After that I would just assume that the user has stopped using my editor.

<comment><USER9> In order to justify a monthly payment I feel you would really have to be pushing out frequent high quality updates that just kept making it better and better.

If development started to get stagnant I would probably "forget" to renew it after my CC expired or something like that. Or at some point I'd just feel "I've given this guy enough money" and cancel even if I kept using the editor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think head-mounted-display virtual reality is a huge missed opportunity for next-gen consoles. They could have really done it right in a way that PCs can't yet, with special hardware support for low latency and stereo rendering, and a guaranteed large audience so game studios could justify applying their full budgets to AAA VR titles. It would be a huge differentiator at a time when consoles seem to be converging to a very similar place. It could be as big as the Wii was.

<comment><USER11> I think VR is fundamentally broken, because you're going to try to react to things in a way that doesn't work. With a head-mounted display, the game can react as you move your head. Great. But then you'll instinctively try to walk towards something and it won't work (or you'll hit the wall). Same with picking things up, etc.

It seems like it's deep in the uncanny valley of experience.

<comment><USER12> I think it's just a matter of time before the other pieces to the VR puzzle catch up. Omni-directional treadmills are already in existence and are a basic step towards allowing you to walk in a VR environment. Developments in prosthetics with 'feeling' could help pave way towards shoes, gloves or other garments that could provide you with the sensory experiences of walking on different surfaces or picking up in-game items.

<comment><USER11> But at that point you've gone from a games console being something that takes up a small amount of space underneath your TV to something that takes up an entire room. From requiring you to pick up a controller to putting on an entire outfit.

I'm just not sure the average consumer is in any way ready/willing for that.

<comment><USER13> I think the first successful VR you'll see will be closer to an arcade machine than a home console.

<comment><USER11> Agreed. But that's at odds with the OPs assertion that " head-mounted-display virtual reality is a huge missed opportunity for next-gen consoles."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> A related article from Valve's Michael Abrash that may be a better introduction to the matter:

[http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/latency-the-sine- qua-n...](http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/latency-the-sine-qua-non-of- ar-and-vr/)

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4985100>

</comment><comment><USER15> With the proliferation of smartphones and projects like Google Glass and Oculus Rift taking off, I really think we'll start to see custom chipsets to improve the performance of augmented and virtual reality systems (battery life, lower latency, and more processing power).

</comment><comment><USER16> _> Updating the imagery in a head mounted display (HMD) based on a head tracking sensor is a subtly different challenge than most human / computer interactions._

Doesn't the military already have this solved for head mounted displays for attack helicopters and 4++ generation fighter jets? Heck, they have augmented reality displays for that matter.

EDIT: Many of these problems could be solved by putting an entire purpose- built gaming rig in the headset. There are nicely capable chips for mobile devices with lots of power in the GPU. Design such a system from the ground-up for low latency. Accelerometer and head-tracking inputs would be low-level interrupts, for example.

I wonder if this is how the military contractors solved this?

<comment><USER17> Yes, they have with very powerful hardware thats not very consumer wallet friendly.

<comment><USER16> _> very powerful hardware thats not very consumer wallet friendly._

Yes, but the mobile landscape may well have changed this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> You could cut latency further if you were able to measure the muscle contractions in your neck area.

Another option is smart eye tracking too. Generally if you are going to move your head in a particular direction, you'll likely start moving your eyes first.

</comment><comment><USER19> I feel stupid.

<comment><USER2> The view update part was the most confusing, but I tried to understand it this way:

Imagine you had a magical game engine that rendered the entire world perfectly accurately for every point in space and direction a viewer could possibly be looking at. All you had to do was say:

        RenderGameFrameForEveryPossiblePoint();

        ... // Who knows how much time

        viewerPosition = QuicklyGetViewerPosition();

        TellTheGPUToShowWorldAccordingTo(viewerPosition);

Well then, you could postpone calling those last two functions until the absolute last minute. This way you have very little or no movement of the viewer's head between when you read their position and when you show the view for that position.

But naturally, RenderGameFrameForEveryPossiblePoint() is _slightly_ out of bounds of current technology. A lot of what Carmack was discussing, as I understood it, was simulating this effect as closely as possible. The way to do that, it seems, is:

       StartRenderingGameFrameAccordingTo(lastViewerPosition);

       ... // Stuff

       viewerPosition = QuicklyGetViewerPosition();

       viewMatrix = ComputeViewMatrixDelta(lastViewerPosition, viewerPosition);

       FinalizeGPUFrameRenderWithNewViewMatrix(viewMatrix);

That final bit is just a perspective transformation of a bunch of rendering that was already computed and given to the GPU. But if the viewer moves too quickly, you can easily move somewhere in the world that wasn't actually rendered, or your perspective could shift such that and object that was once occluded is now visible, or vice versa. It seems a lot of the complexity is there.

The last thing he talked about, time warping, seems to be a similar thing only it's scanline by scanline. So in effect you're saying "hey, video card and display, I know you're going to force me to draw a whole frame at once, so I'm going to give you a frame where each scanline gets rendered a little bit into the future according to where the player is moving."

The effect on a monitor would probably look like a forward shear, but on an HMD (if done correctly), it would correct for the natural shear caused by having to "freeze frame" the viewer's perspective for one entire frame instead of just a scanline.

Some of this may be woefully incorrect, but it was how I explained it to myself. Please correct anything that's wrong or overly simplified.

<comment> T-hawk That time warping has already been implemented in the project of Lagless MAME. It compensates for input and display lag by always rendering a few frames into the future. It's commonly used for games where frame-accurate timing is critical, notably 2D scrolling shmups and fighting games.

Lagless MAME renders into the future assuming that the state of the input controls remains constant over that future time, and saves the emulation state every frame. When a button is pressed or released or whatever, Lagless MAME rewinds to the saved state for that frame and quickly re-emulates from that point forward. So the result is to send your input back in time past the lag, to the moment in the emulation exactly synchronized to when you saw it on the screen. The experience isn't perfect -- your spaceship would jump a few pixels then move smoothly -- but by and large it's far superior to playing with the actual lag.

This technique could be used for lag compensation in almost any environment. The limiting factor is the cost of re-computing several frames of game state on every input action. Of course, as Carmack says, actually eliminating lag is far preferable to masking it with such techniques.

The lag compensation in Guitar Hero and Rock Band games works essentially this way too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> It's amazing how much time Carmack spends working around the "added cleverness" of systems created by people, rather than the inherent difficulties of the problem. These days it also seems true about programming in general.

</comment><comment><USER21> Misread as "Legacy Mitigation Strategies" - that would have been a good read as well.

</comment><comment><USER22> Anyone any experience with a Wrap 1200VR from Vuzix?

</comment><comment><USER23> is there anyboy smarter than carmacck..maybe sweeneye</comment>


LinkedIn: Is it A Strategic Error? - <AUTHOR> http://sophisticatedfinance.typepad.com/sophisticated_finance/2010/06/linkedin-is-it-another-strategic-error.html

<comment><USER2> Lately, the majority of my experience with LinkedIn has been endless recruiter spam (They wardial all the tech people at my office by looking at who is listed as a "Developer" at my company, or just keep sending me email spam offering crappy job prospects) or discovering former coworkers who want recommendations. Looking at said coworkers often yields them taking credit for projects they didn't do or work on. It's like exposing the resume lies in an entirely new, social network-ey way!

Of course, LinkedIn is making huge contributions in the technology space - they are the minds behind Project Voldemort - one of the burgeoning Dynamo+Bigtable NoSQL hybrids. They're also a big user of the Hadoop stack and much of their tech team has written some great articles about their use of it over the last year or so.

Compared with MySpace, with which Mr. Hacker tries to inexplicably link LinkedIn (For doing "nothing" over 2 years), this alone is a huge boon to the community as a whole. MySpace was a SQL Server + ASP.net shop and as far as I know did nothing useful for the tech community except make us run away screaming in fear from the horror Murdoch hath wrought.

What exactly does a site like LinkedIn have to do at this point however? They're still technically relevant - I don't cringe and laugh at the mention of it like I would say, MySpace. It has proven for many people I know in recent months to be a boon. At the very least I get a weekly email with updates of people in my network. It's sometimes incredibly useful to know where people have moved to jobwise, etc. Or if somebody really, really good is now on the beach and just hasn't called you yet - it gives you a chance to grab them before someone else does.

Also - WTF is with the site layout? It looks like it's 800x600 fixed, with about a 200 pixel gutter for the content. It looks smushed in like crazy on my screen.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think the author goes too far in saying that LinkedIn is squandering its position. I don't think that any company is under obligation to expand in bold new (headline-grabbing) directions just for the sake of doing so.

Personally, the interesting thing about LinkedIn is this: in the good old days, company org charts were considered top secret for fear that the leaders would be targeted by headhunters. Now that's all in the open. Similarly, job descriptions can be mined to give clues as to company strategy.

I haven't looked closely at the extras that LinkedIn offers, but for the casual user such as myself, it's true that not much has changed. But that's fine.

The other thing about LinkedIn is that it will always be similar to the rate- my-(professor,landlord,etc.) sites, in that it's extremely useful when you're making (or considering) a big decision, but most of the time doesn't need regular interaction.

</comment><comment><USER4> Personally, I now almost totally ignore LinkedIn. My connectoins haven't grown in a year; my friends don't often update.

Maybe this is natural; its a professional management site, and we don't change jobs/titles very often. I DONT use it like facebook at all, and DONT care about social features e.g. Twitter.

<comment><USER5> I think there's a correlation between "just updated my LinkedIn profile" and "I am about to change jobs".

<comment><USER6> It is for this very reason that I update my profile regularly, even if insignificant ways. I actually have a Google Calendar to remind me to do it twice a month.

This can be great for your career.

If you don't work for a itty bitty startup you can count on someone above you in the org chart catching wind of every LinkedIn update you make. I have been asked about my frequent updates twice at my current job; the second time they were so concerned that I was looking around for a new position (and I had just taken a crucial role in a new project) that they offered me an unasked-for performance bonus following the completion of the project. It totally floored me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I started losing interest when LinkedIn turned into yet another Twitter status stream. I enjoyed it much more when it was pure, and focused on professional relationship growth (debatable, yes). In the most egotistical sense, it is still interesting to see who has been viewing your profile.

</comment><comment><USER8> While I like the idea of using LinkedIn more often the privacy implications put the brakes on that. The good old saying, don't put anything on the internet you don't want everyone to know still holds true. I know my employer is actively using it to recruit talent, I even get requests from colleagues to "link", but you don't know how that other person uses your information once you share it with them.

Honestly, using LinkedIn is like using the office fax to send out resumes. Except for recruiters and jobseekers I get no benefit from putting my career on the line.

</comment><comment><USER9> I did notice in the last weeks through friends I heard hthat LinkedIn has hire at much higher rate software engineers. My assumption is that they will integrate and add more features and try capitalize on it.</comment>


Quantitatively estimate the Covid risk to you from ordinary daily activities - <AUTHOR> http://microcovid.org/ <comment><USER2> This is neat! However I'm concerned it will embolden some people to carry more risk. I say that because I input the riskiest thing I've been doing regularly (hanging out at an outdoor park with a few friends with masks off, 6+ feet away) and the calculator told me it was less risky than I expected so I thought, "cool, I can do riskier things." And then I slapped myself. But lots of people won't slap themself, they'll just do it.

<comment><USER3> It's not better to keep the truth from people just because you are afraid they may make the wrong choice.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Open sourcing my email sending startup - <AUTHOR> Hi all,
I've posted a few times here about Maildown, a startup that I've been trying to validate lately.
Due to lack of time to focus on this, I've taken the decision to abandon the project as a startup, but to make it available as an open source solution instead. The (still very basic) github repository is here:
https://github.com/chris104957/maildown
Maildown now exists as a simple CLI wrapper for Amazon SES which bakes in Markdown and styling support, making it much easier to get transactional mails up and running in any project
Thanks for looking,
Chris <comment><USER2> Awesome! Could you please include a license in the repository so that we know exactly what kind of open source it is? GitHub makes it really easy: just click "Create new file" and if you type "LICENSE" as the file name, it will give you a button to click to pick a license.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah good point, totally forgot about that. Will add one right now

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It is simple and effective. I remember looking for a similar offering a few years ago. It would be nice if you could make it into a server and a bunch of APIs so that anyone can run it on a cheap VPS and then use the API to create their own simplified version of MailChimp and CampainMonitor.

</comment><comment><USER4> cool project!

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


Giant dinosaur unearthed in Argentina - bra-ket http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/17/world/americas/giant-dinosaur-discovery/

<comment><AUTHOR> A dupe of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7759674](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7759674).</comment>


Feedback welcome: Solving broken yearly performance reviews - <AUTHOR> http://www.braavoo.com

<comment><AUTHOR> We use gamification and instant 360 degree peer to peer feedback to provide a working approach to employee recognition and are looking for any feedback on our instant recognition platform Braavoo.com - Email: email@example.com - Thanks a lot!

<comment><USER2> If you are looking for feedback, please edit the title of your post to start with "Show HN: " so it will be sorted under "show" [1] in the top menu of HN. Also, the site guidelines for "Show HN" posts are good reading [2].

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/show](https://news.ycombinator.com/show)

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

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a lot. How can I do that? Seems I'm not allowed to change the title anymore, nor submit a new "Show HN" thread. Help?</comment></comment></comment>


Why I'm Quitting Gmail - <AUTHOR> http://archlinux.me/dusty/2009/08/23/why-im-quitting-gmail/

<comment><USER2> The response to this situation is the thing I take most offense with.

Google has too long operated on this notion - one we were exposed to in Fight Club, and horrified by - that reaction is an equation of cost. If they're nobody, fuck them. If they trumpet their displeasure on a blog, and no one cares? Fuck them. Oh -- people noticed? It hit an aggregator? Fix the problem promptly. They are now defused.

It's economical, reasonable even, but golly, it sure is /evil/.

It used to surprise us! It used to be that that would be the intriguing twist - "Google contacted them shortly afterward and fixed it! How quaint! We love google!" - but no more. Now it becomes clear that this is simply their practice. If you're being too loud about the shitty time you've had at Google they silence you. You either report that "there's nothing wrong now", or you're hiding information and being a bad netizen.

In this particular case, the user brought up an issue with their lack of communication or a face to deal with. Google responded by fixing an account without establishing any communication or providing an explanation. Notice the incongruity between response and complaint, and see how ineffective it is this time.

What happens when the failures are too common for people to take notice? When Google making a big mistake is just regular, shitty life, and no one cares enough to post it on an aggregator? No one's problems will be fixed, then.

Google's tipping point in public favour has arrived - they are evil. Blogs have questioned when it would hit for a long time, and I think it's safe to suppose the inevitable backlash has begun. I'm planning to move to a private mail server where there's some shred of accountability as soon as I can. And I swear, I used to absolutely love Google.

<comment><USER3> It's not evil to fix a machine when its users publish that the machine not working as expected.

It's not evil to refuse a human conversation regarding that machine.

You want reasons? What, some phone operator is going to be able to know the specifics of your exact circumstance and the entire Google system at a moment's notice and produce for you an actionable response? For all people in the world? For free?

You would prefer hold music and a canned response?

I'd prefer if Google fixed the problem as fast as possible. I prefer if that process didn't require my input, and Google probably doesn't need your input to fix their machines anyways.

<comment><USER2> I agree with your overarching point here, that a broken machine or account shouldn't need to have the customer call or email a support line to get it fixed, and that customer support tends to suck -- especially any sort of support we would expect for 'free'.

However, we are not straddling a line between "customer has to file a complaint to get things fixed" and "things are fixed automatically", where the superior option is automatic fixes and no customer involvement. We are between "customer has the ability to file a complaint, because things don't get fixed on their own" and "customer is forced to call a great deal of public attention to themselves in order to get Google to notice or care, and hopefully fix things", where the superior option (in my mind) is the ability to file a formal complaint which actually gets a response.

Particularly in a case like this, where there is no machine failure or error, but instead a calculated judgement to terminate a user's account with no clear reasoning provided, just some vague "risk" they present to advertisers, I feel that some accountability needs to be had.

Most egregiously, this case raises a serious question of Conflict of Interest. By pulling advertising to an open source project which 'competes' with some of Google's (and their affiliates'/advertisers') products, and being absolutely opaque about their reasoning, Google risks coming off as anticompetitive and ruthless - running some of the little guys out of town by cutting off a funding source. If that was at all part of their motive or reasoning, it absolutely was 'evil'.

If they would just provide clear reasoning, a reasonable degree of transparency, and some form of complaint system where you at least have a chance of hearing back, a lot of negative sentiment wouldn't be coming their way. It's clear that the PR/damage control response isn't carrying the same sway it used to, and also that it was never a special interaction, just visible end users being quieted down to save face.

<comment><USER4> Apparently, Google has decided that its formal complaint system is "the Internet". We should all abide by Google's wishes and, as long as no internal complaint system appears, use the Internet as our complaint system, calling public attention to such problems so that Google will notice and do something about it.

If that happens enough, and each such complaint contains some reference to the fact that it only appeared on the Internet where Google can see it because Google doesn't provide a more satisfactory, direct line of communication, I suspect Google will eventually rectify that little oversight.

<comment><USER3> > Apparently, Google has decided that its formal complaint system is "the > Internet."

Apparently that works if you're Google.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Your complaint with Google is:

        ( ) Their uneasy relationship with a country's government
        (x) You just realized they control all your data
        ( ) You just realized they control all your business
        (x) You just realized they have terrible customer support
        ( ) They're innovating too slowly
        ( ) They're innovating too quickly

Your response is:

        ( ) Grudgingly accept it, writing about it
        (x) Grudgingly quit, writing about it
        ( ) Litigation, writing about it

This will fail because:

        ( ) You don't really want to accept it
        (x) You don't really want to quit
        (x) They control all your data
        ( ) They control all your business

<comment><USER6> Definite meme potential here if you can flesh this out to the length of the /. spam solution form.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Until recently, when I bought used books from Alibris, I payed with Google Checkout. Then I found something peculiar, it appeared as if Google charged my CC twice per transaction ('). I went to my Google account, searched around, and found no way to contact Google and ask them what's up. I immediately remembered the stories about people having their accounts killed and not being able to contact Google and get a meaningful answer, because it is their policy not to waste resources on customer support. Google even went to court to defend its practice.

Anyway, I now avoid Google Checkout whenever possible as it's too much of a black box.

(') Alibris customer support told me they aren't actually charging twice the money, the first is a "virtual transaction" that makes sure I have the appropriate funds.

<comment><USER8> We have an app for sale on the Android Market (which uses Google Checkout for transaction processing), and it seems like every week we have a support email claiming we charged them twice.

We always apologize (even though it's not our fault), explain how the authorization charge works, assure them it'll be gone in a day, and point them to Google's help (bottom of): [http://market.android.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&an...](http://market.android.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=118685)

I do wonder why it's done that way on Checkout and not other payment systems, or why it seems more noticeable there; it seems to cause an awful lot of confusion.

<comment><USER7> Even as a power-user, I can tell you it's confusing as hell. Can't you use PayPal?

<comment><USER9> The Android Market application uses only Google Checkout. There's no PayPal (or any other) option.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Using gmail only as a convenient web interface for email addresses belonging to a domain you own and control, and backing it up elsewhere is a sensible step for any geek.

Similar applies to any of their other systems that you put anything valuable into. And not just Google, Twitter etc. too.

</comment><comment><USER11> Google's lack of customer support baffles me - how can anyone do business with them and take them seriously? Obviously, people do - and it is a mystery to me - myself included.

What I find even more shocking is that they got response and re instantiation of account after news hit the reddit. Why double standards then? Why not uphold the wall of silence once the shit hit the fan? It is unprofessional and cowardly.

Google really needs to work on it's transparency towards business clientele - this is their "major weak point for massive damage". I can't remember exactly, but I remember that sometime in the past microsoft tried to implement adwords/adsense platform... I don't know where/why it stopped.

<comment><USER12> Does google think of their users as their customers, or just as products they sell to their advertisers?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This leads me to a question that's nagged me, so I'll pose it here.

I am becoming more and more dependent upon google services. Picasa, Gmail, and Docs are my top 3.

I've recently started doing Adwords/Adsense stuff. Both of these pose the risk of "getting in trouble". Google could decide my Adsense clicks are fraudulent, or my Adwords sites are "dangerous to advertisers".

My question. I assume that if Google has a problem with you on any of their services, they block you from all of their services. Your account is suspended "across the board", since it's really just one account.

Is this true? Should I segregate my Adwords/Adsense from the rest of my Google activities into different accounts?

<comment><USER14> Once a site of mine on Google Sites accidentally got suspended, but I still could use Adsense with the same account.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Maybe I'm being naive here, but why are you quitting Gmail, when the problem is clearly with Adsense. I understand that you are furious at Google, and from what you've said you have every right to be; But why stop at Gmail, why not quit Google Search as well :).

I hope Google gets back to you with a more reasonable explaination.

<comment><USER16> I'd say because Google is clearly not interested in customer service. If they were, you'd not see all the stories of people unable to contact them to resolve issues with so many of their services.

So, why trust them with something as important as your email when they fail at other things?

Personally, I use a gmail account for non-important communication, and my primary remains a Yahoo account. I've never had a problem contacting a live person with any Yahoo service, or getting back a response that actually shows they read what I wrote.

Customer service is an area where Google could learn from yahoo, but I doubt they care to implement such an infrastructure.

<comment><USER17> I'd say Google is more interested in customer service where you pay them (AdWords) than where they pay you (AdSense) or where they give you stuff for free (Gmail, everything else).

<comment><USER18> Not really, in my experience. I sell educational software, but sometimes my ad gets flagged as a "term page writing service" or something or other (not real clear). Getting it cleared past the flag has taken over a week on occasion, and there is nothing that can help.

And the term-pages sales guys get their ads through anyway!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I recently had a similar problem with Google and my AdWords account. My quality score fell from an 8 to a 0 with no explanation and no way to correct the situation.

If Google decides not to let you play in their network you're just out of luck. It's worse than the Apple App Store process.

</comment><comment><USER20> If only gmail weren't that good. I'm not too excited about the way composing emails works, but the organizing features are pretty great. It's been a while since I looked, but other webmail providers just couldn't compete. For some kind of reason, they're trying to reinvent Outlook with AJAX -- not a new idea, if I remember the history of the 'X' part correctly.

I'd even be interested in a good OSS package for hosting your own service, but there, too, I haven't seen anything approaching gmails usability.

If I were looking for a access-mail-anywhere solution, it looks like I would have to switch back to GNUS and get an Emacs 23 server somewhere...

</comment><comment><USER4> Perhaps ironically, I agree that Microsoft had some good keyboards and pointing devices -- but that was about ten years ago. Since then, they've trended downward in quality. I'm not so impressed in even the mice and keyboards these days.

Since we don't know what questions they asked Google -- all we know is some of the response -- I'm hesitant to just go with the assumption that Google refuses to answer the posed questions.

<comment><USER6> The heavy, cream-colored two-button serial mice were the best on the market at the time, and the Sidewinder Pro was a very nice joystick. The mice they sell today are simply ordinary, and no keyboard of theirs has ever held a candle to the old IBMs or the current DAS keyboards (among others).

On the other hand, Windows 7 is the first Microsoft OS since 3.11 that I can use for a full day without doing unhealthy things to my blood pressure.

<comment><USER4> My all-time favorite pointing device was an optical trackball from Microsoft (I forget the model name). I haven't found one of those since the last I had one was stolen (yes, really) back in 2003ish.

The IBM Model M [1] (and certain imitators), the Das Keyboard [2], the HP Wireless Elite [3], and even the keyboards on Thinkpads [4] are among my all- time top-five favorite keyboards. The original run of Microsoft Natural keyboards [5] (back before they became bulbous "multimedia" train wrecks of UI design [6][7]) were a very distant fifth place, though.

1: <http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=61>

2: <http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=1193>

3: <http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=865>

4: [http://media.laptoplogic.com/data/reviews/images/73/keyboard...](http://media.laptoplogic.com/data/reviews/images/73/keyboard.jpg)

5: [http://images.tigerdirect.com/skuimages/large/M17-1806-main....](http://images.tigerdirect.com/skuimages/large/M17-1806-main.jpg)

6: <http://www.pctechguide.com/images/51NaturalKeyboard.jpg>

7: <http://tinyurl.com/na5pos>

<comment><USER21> You mean one of these? Yeah, Microsoft could make some good money bringing these back. I know I'd worry less about mine biting the dust.

[http://cgi.ebay.com/New-SEALED-RETAIL-PACKAGE-Microsoft- Opti...](http://cgi.ebay.com/New-SEALED-RETAIL-PACKAGE-Microsoft-Optical- Trackball_W0QQitemZ260462385106QQcmdZViewItemQQptZPCA_Mice_Trackballs?hash=item3ca4c497d2&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14)

[http://cgi.ebay.com/SEALED-BULK-RETAIL-PACKAGE-Microsoft- Opt...](http://cgi.ebay.com/SEALED-BULK-RETAIL-PACKAGE-Microsoft-Optical- Trackball_W0QQitemZ270442159660QQcmdZViewItemQQptZPCA_Mice_Trackballs?hash=item3ef79bde2c&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14)

[http://cgi.ebay.com/Microsoft-TrackBall-Optical-Mouse- PS-2-U...](http://cgi.ebay.com/Microsoft-TrackBall-Optical-Mouse-PS-2-USB- refurbished_W0QQitemZ130325738876QQcmdZViewItemQQptZPCA_Mice_Trackballs?hash=item1e5804f57c&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14)

<comment><USER4> Yes! That's the one.

. . . and no, I'm not willing to buy a trackball off eBay. Maybe I should start searching for old stock of these things again, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> "We thank you in advance for your understanding and cooperation." ~ Google

What's the word for that?

</comment><comment><USER23> I can understand Google's reasoning. I doubt people browsing the Arch Linux website are going to click on the ads. Google probably pays Arch Linux per impression, so Google and the advertiser are losing money. And what's Google to do, tell you that your users are just too smart to click on any ads? They pretty much did:

        while going through our records recently,
        we found that your AdSense account has posed a
        significant risk to our AdWords advertisers.

<comment><USER24> I thought AdWords was primarily CPC, not CPM?

<comment><USER23> Both? Source: [https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?answer=...](https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?answer=9902)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I wish I could pay someone to maintain a backup of my gmail account.

<comment><USER26> You can, even for free...

<http://www.messagebunker.com/>

<comment><USER27> Thanks for that link, I searched for something like that a while back and didn't find it.

But I worry about cloud-to-cloud backup services like this. If a major email provider goes down, all of its users will be trying to retrieve their backups at the same time. What are the chances the backup service will actually be able to handle this traffic? It's like a run on a bank.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I have to admit, after that court case awhile back where it turned out the "wronged party" was abusing the Hell out of the terms of service, I'm deeply skeptical of anyone who claims Google yanked their account for "no reason".

Naturally, though, the blog poster has no way to _prove_ he did everything by- the-book. And the account was reinstated. So it's a sticky matter.

Transparency on Google's part would only help.

</comment><comment><USER29> all great points. i love gmail's bells and whistles but there is something a little unsettling about how they "handle" customer service.

</comment><comment><USER30> If only Kafka were still alive.

<comment><USER31> He'd downvote you for bringing him up.

<comment><USER30> I understand your team loyalty. But if this isn't Kafka-esque, what is?

This is at least the third one of these I've seen on HN. Always the same story. Josef K. gets accused by google of bad behavior but he has no idea why and can't get anyone at google to tell him.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> _Update: This post unexpectedly hit Reddit, and within a few hours, Aaron got another e-mail telling us that our Adsense account had been reinstated._

Ah, the "significant risk to AdWords advertisers" must have suddenly ceased to exist then! Or perhaps the risk is just preferable to the risk this article caused to Google.</comment>


Tell HN: Developers get in free at co-founders meetup in Mountain View - <AUTHOR>

We are celebrating the first year anniversary of the co-founders meetup, in Mountain View (a few blocks from YC headquarters). We have a pretty strong line-up of founders. Normal entrance fee is $10, but all people with technical skills, not currently working on their own startup, are invited to attend for free.<p>That's Nov 2nd. URL is http://www.meetup.com/Co-Founders-Wanted-Meetup/calendar/14858537/ <comment><USER2> I'm based in Seattle. If I happen to be in the bay area that night, would I be welcome at the meetup? Or are most looking for a local co-founder?

<comment><AUTHOR> What's your background, business? Either way, it's a fun event for sure, so check out the website and unless it says sold out, then you can stop by. People will ask you to pay at the door though.

<comment><USER2> Naw, just a hacker looking for an interesting project.

<comment><AUTHOR> That sounds exactly like the profile people want to meet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I need a cofounder in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. I have a vision but I can't code. I'm looking to bring in a developer looking for a big project. Let's discuss.

<comment><AUTHOR> This was posted yesterday on HN. Do you meet those criteria? If so, you _will_ find a technical co-founder.

1\. Become a domain expert - know the problem you are trying to solve inside and out. Know the market size, sales cycles, etc. Make connections in the industry.

2\. Find Customers - Bring an idea, along with a 14,000 name mailing list that you generated via blogging on the subject.

3\. Bring a design - Actually mock up a set of flows for an MVP. Show it to 20 people, and iterate on their feedback. Find out what is important so when you do start building you build traction right away.

All of these are things that a good "Business Guy" should be able to do and will ultimately be responsible for when they do find a cofounder. Sure, pick up a little RoR or JS, but you aren't going to become a startup quality dev in 6-12 months (or likely more). However, in that same time you could do all of the above many times over.

<comment><USER3> Working within the timeframe of the current rate of development in web apps, I'm not the "business person" in my operation because I don't have the time or experience to accomplish what is listed above. I'm the "vision person", I need a developer to make my vision real in the form of an alpha version of the site, then I need a "business person" to come in and connect the dots for the investors to make the thing real.

I need a lot of help for sure but my hand is open, I know I can't do this on my own. I haven't found the people to fill the roles I need through my limited professional network.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I'm working on the connections listed in #1 by networking with local developers and applying to the YC winter session.

#2 is a big jump for me without a working demo which I'm currently contracting and developing. 14K name mailing list? Yikes, I need an expert for that one.

I've attempted #3 already but it's not efficient to design things and then not being able to pay for the coding of all the stuff I design.

I need cofounders who have the time, energy, and value system to take my vision and run with it and make it real.

I know I sound like a kid writing a letter to Santa but I know that someone is willing to pursue a dream. I just have to find them.</comment></comment></comment>


Developers migrate from iPhone to Android in droves - <AUTHOR> http://www.techeye.net/mobile/developers-migrate-from-iphone-to-android-in-droves

<comment><USER2> _60 percent of the developers asked had been or are working on Android projects, with the iPhone and Jave ME following behind with roughly 50 percent each._

Exactly how does the linkbait headline follow from any of the data on the page? Even if we assume that this difference is both statistically significant and not an artifact?

Even "Android developers and apps are growing in numbers", while apparently true according to other sources, isn't shown by this data. These data are from a single point in time.

<comment><USER3> Do you have any doubt that a year ago the numbers for Android were much less?

<comment><USER2> No. And that's not what the headline says.

Both Android and iPhone can gain developers at the same time. Or, developers can work on _both_ Android and iPhone and count twice. That's obviously happening, since the number for Android is "60%" and the number for iPhone is "50%". Obviously those are not mutually exclusive groups.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The question is will any of those developers make any money with the current state of Android's Market. On a related note, I just don't see that many people using Android phones but I see iPhone's all over the place.

<comment><USER5> Is that because not many people are using Android phones around you, or because they're using garden variety handsets with Android and you just don't notice them because a) they don't have that distinctive iPhone style, or b) people don't feel the need to flash their Android phones around like they do with iPhones?

I'm not trying to be snarky about it, but I've noticed multiple times in public that peolpe have Android phones just because I recognize one of their distinctive ringtones or notification sounds. I've also noticed that 9/10 people who keep their phone out and visible are basically wearing their iPhone as a fashion item rather than a functional device.

<comment><USER6> > _I've also noticed that 9/10 people who keep their phone out and visible are > basically wearing their iPhone as a fashion item rather than a functional > device._

I really don't understand this perception of the iPhone as a fashion device or a status symbol. Everyone has one, there isn't much status to that, and it works really well which might be why people have it out and ready to use. At least thats why at a bar or casual restaurant I'll have mine out 8 times out of 10.

<comment><USER7> _Everyone has one, there isn't much status to that_

I don't think scarcity is a prerequisite to fashion. See those big sun glasses. Many people had them but I would consider that a "fashion statement".

I do agree with having the phone out. I feel a bit pretentious when I have my phone out on a table/bar, but with the ability to check email/text/wiki/web and the fragility of the devices there is little reason not to.

<comment><USER6> Good point on the fashion bit.

> _I feel a bit pretentious when I have my phone out on a table/bar, (...)_

But _why_? People have been pecking away at their blackberries for years, who gives a damn if you have a modern smartphone on the table?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I can't develop for the Android since my company isn't registered in one of the few[1] countries Google supports. But we have do a developer account for iPhone as Apple does support a whole lot more countries.

Also, the general request isn't as much for Android apps. If anything, after the iPad and iPhone 4 I'm looking at an increase in iOS project proposals.

So maybe developers are migrating but I'm not seeing this in the apps the clients do nor in the phones people use (iPhones are everywhere). If anything, Android might be right now a 2nd platform after iOS: some customers do to want Android ports which could mean the iOS developers might learn some Android SDK to be able to do the port, but nobody is migrating away from iOS.

1\. [http://market.android.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&an...](http://market.android.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=143779)

</comment><comment><USER9> But do any of them have any UI design skills?</comment>


Drone drops hundreds of bags of cannabis in Tel Aviv - <AUTHOR> https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/drone-drops-hundreds-of-bags-of-cannabis-dropped-in-tel-aviv-640981 <comment><USER2> They are heroes, not the heroes we deserved but the heroes we needed.

(Seriously, there are a lot of people getting through this mess on the virtue of cannabis and Steam sales alone).

<comment><USER3> Where does steam come into play and what happened to alcohol?

<comment><USER4> Alcohol is a great stress reliever, but it's fattening, physically addictive (one of two drugs where sudden withdrawals can be fatal), frequent use is associated with multiple morbidities, and it hangs you over.</comment></comment></comment>


Scrum Board – Simple JavaScript Task Managament App - <AUTHOR> https://i-break-codes.github.io/scrum-board/ <comment><USER2> The delete button is broken: it changes size when dragging/hovering (which is totally unnecessary), but then when you move to the left before releasing it shrinks again.

The download button is counter-intuitive. Instead of letting you download your tasks, it downloads the source code instead.

Double-clicking on an item does not let you edit it.

Opening the app in two different tabs simultaneously does not work. When moving tasks in one tab, the changes are not reflected in the other tab.

<comment><AUTHOR> Please refer to GoTorO's comment, [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13004502](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13004502). There are few bugs hence the app is in beta, I'll be releasing a set of fixes by tonight, rest will be integrated soon :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Very cool!

I was assuming the app to be written with a framework like React or Angular, and was pleasantly surprised to see that it's just a html and a JS file with some styles applied - very refreshing.

<comment><USER4> Same here, nice to see an app that doesn't immediately add 300k of JavaScript before its really needed. This is 200 lines of code that's pretty useful. Great work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Wonderful! :) how about using firebase to save the data in cloud, rather than relying on local storage? Or maybe have an option to import/export to some storage.

<comment><AUTHOR> [https://github.com/i-break-codes/scrum-board#more-to- come](https://github.com/i-break-codes/scrum-board#more-to-come) :) thanks btw..

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's really cool.

I wonder how online scrum boards I've seen so far don't seem to visually integrate User Stories. On our physical Scrum board, we have big stickers for user stories, and tasks are written next to them. I've yet to see this implementation on a virtual board.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, feel free to post your suggestions via github issues - [https://github.com/i-break-codes/scrum- board/issues/new](https://github.com/i-break-codes/scrum-board/issues/new)

<comment><USER7> I've raised a github issue about providing backend support for your app, would you be interested in it? I can help.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'd want one of these boards to have a timer, for a change! None of the services anywhere offer embedded timer/stop watch. You start a task, you should be able to time it.

</comment><comment><USER9> Very nice look & feel. Sadly double clicking to edit doesn't seem to work in Chrome.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, and double clicking works, you need to expand your task and click on the Description text/Assigned to and so on. Your card will turn into editable mode. There are couple of bugs around editing if you try to edit a card after creating, fix for the same will be released by tonight.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is cool. I would like to have an option to select a lighter color theme.

Edit: Corrected the typo.

<comment><AUTHOR> Will work on the UI soon, thanks :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I don't understand. What is so cool about this board ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Nothing cool, just a simple app to track your tasks offline :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Looks good. But editig and deletion does not work for me.

<comment><USER13> To edit you have to open the task first. To delete you have to drag the task over the bin and wait for it to expand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> A question: I believe these kind of UIs/apps are not a complex undertaking in any sane desktop UI API. So is JavaScript dev/ecosystem in such state that it is worth showing off such stuff?

</comment><comment><USER7> I opened the site in firefox on android and it is not working. Unable to do shutting other than adding task. I think we also need a mobile UI :)

</comment><comment><USER15> Integration with Asana?</comment>


EU recognizes Internet access as a fundamental right, on par with freedom of expression - <AUTHOR> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-299414.html

<comment><USER2> Positive rights are very different than negative rights. Right to free speech means no one can oppress your speech, essentially barring action, so it's called a negative right.

A right to a trial by jury is the only positive right in the US Bill of Rights. It's a huge pain in the ass to do jury duty, in part because law mandates we take action.

A positive right to health care coverage or internet access are ridiculous, because it is a mandate for someone to provide service to you.

Instead of people operating in good faith through mutually beneficial exchange, the government steps in and makes people do it. That kind of violence or theft is bad.

I'm all for greater access to the internet. Calling it a right is a bad idea.

<comment><USER3> this is a naive viewpoint. government is not necessarily an 'other' which impinges on us; rather, it's an organization to which people can outsource the largest scale tasks, such as infrastructure or military defense. It would be nice if all commercial exchanges were mutually beneficial, but they're not.

<comment><USER4> this is a naive viewpoint. It would be nice if all govt activities were beneficial, but they're not.

Also, commercial enterprises can do very large scale tasks such as build dams, road systems, and the like. It's not much good at doing military defense, but for making stuff....

<comment><USER2> If I started a country, I'd keep defense lightweight by training people in small arms and getting a contract in place with Blackwater. Private warfighting and defense are already viable and popular.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It is actually hard to tell from the article whether the EU parliament recognized Internet access as a fundamental right. The article itself did say that's what it did, but there was no actual quote from what the EU parliament passed that corroborated that they actually said this.

In any case, I think that holding Internet access to be a fundamental right is confusing means with ends. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right. One could argue that freedom to pursue education and better oneself is a fundamental right. Internet access is an implementation detail of ensuring these rights in the 21st century.

Fundamental rights are about principles; something like universal Internet access is about implementation.

</comment><comment><USER6> I believe Estonia did this first, a few years ago. This only dilutes real rights, such as freedom of expression.

<comment><USER7> Wait what?

What makes freedom of expression a real right and not access to internet?

Who made you king of the universe?

<comment><USER6> If one can simply make up any rights someone feels like having, even when they contradict fundamental rights (see my earlier post), I don't think they can be considered "real".

If you believe in _equal_ rights (i.e., _nobody_ is king of the universe) then you can't support the infringing of some people's rights for the benefit of others.

<comment><USER8> Isn't taxation precisely that? I mean, if the government coming and taking some portion of your stuff isn't an infringement of your negative rights, what is?

Yet I'm all for tax, if it pays for necessary stuff.

<comment><USER6> Assuming you didn't agree to it, it sure is. But it's possible to want the necessary stuff without favoring a tax.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Unfortunately the EU Parliament has no legislative power. The Council of Ministers, which according to the article seems to contest that resolution is the final arbiter. However it seems quite a nice move and perhaps if it gets publicity and support the council of ministers might find their hands tightened.</comment>


Amazon and Microsoft employees caught up in sex trafficking sting - <AUTHOR> https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/25/amazon-microsoft-employees-sex-trafficking-sting/ <comment><USER2> For balance, it's worth pointing out that many law-enforcement agencies now use the term "sex trafficking" to describe cases that are merely prostitution. This case appears to be no exception. Further reading about this case by Elizabeth Nolan Brown in Reason Magazine:

[http://reason.com/archives/2016/09/09/the-truth-about-us- sex...](http://reason.com/archives/2016/09/09/the-truth-about-us-sex- trafficking)

<comment><USER3> This article specifically refers to trafficked women. The linked Newsweek article says: "One of the pimps netted in a review board sting in 2015 admitted that many of the women were in debt bondage, and in fear for their lives or the safety of their families."

<comment><USER4> So most prostitution is sex trafficking, it seems.

<comment><USER3> Well that's the problem - "sex trafficking" literally means selling sex, which covers all prostitution. But it has also been used as a short form of "human trafficking of sex slaves" which is a lot more specific.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This story is a good example of how the tide of public opinion has turned against the tech industry. There's no tech angle here - some percentage of people pay for sex, and some percentage of that group uses their work email to do so. Some of those work in tech.

These facts tell us precisely nothing about whether tech workers are more or less likely to pay for sex or engage in illegal behavior, or whether it's a particularly bad problem at Microsoft or Amazon.

<comment><USER6> Was thinking the same thing. What about (rampant!) misdeeds from manufacturing company email addresses!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Per the usual, article conflates standard sex services with sex trafficking. See the Amnesty International position for a more reasonable and balanced position. Maybe it is time for legalized sex work. Or would that threaten too many womens' bargaining chip?

<comment><USER8> > Or would that threaten too many womens' bargaining chip?

Can you clarify what you mean by this please?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This article is just a link to Newsweek [http://www.newsweek.com/metoo- microsoft-amazon-trafficking-p...](http://www.newsweek.com/metoo-microsoft- amazon-trafficking-prostitution-sex-silicon-valley-755611) which goes into a lot more detail, but unfortunately also has auto-playing video.

</comment><comment><USER9> Would be interested to see these employees' job titles.

<comment><USER10> The newsweek article claims 2 of them were directors.

I can see how Directors can afford to spend 30k - 50k a year for sex</comment></comment>


Coronavirus: Spanish study casts doubt on herd immunity feasibility - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53315983 <comment><USER2> Previous posts:

\- [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23780357](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23780357)

\- [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23777155](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23777155)

The way this result is presented is misleading. Antibodies are just one form of immunity.</comment>