Smalltalk Redline: Running Smalltalk on the Java Virtual Machine - <AUTHOR> http://www.redline.st/

<comment><USER2> Interesting to see this. Smalltalk blew my mind coming off of a C and Java background. Everything from the development environment to dynamic variables to sparseness of syntax was just amazing to experience for the first time. It was one of the most enjoyable languages to program in, and it was poised to take over cooperate fat client programming. That was until java and the internet exploded onto the seen and pretty much killed it off. Is it poetic justice that it's revived on the JVM?

<comment><USER3> It's especially poetic given that the HotSpot vm that was purchased by Sun, and developed by Anamorphic ('Animorphic' in some articles) Systems, was originally designed to run Smalltalk / Self.

<http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?HotSpotVm>

[http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak- dev/1998-...](http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak- dev/1998-October/015221.html)

<comment><USER4>
      > A few months back, I went to a demo at Parc of the Xerox Star (I first saw
      > the Star in '81 at NCC). It was real interesting to be reminded that
      > hardware has improved a few orders of magnitude in the last 17 years, but
      > software mabey hasn't improved very much. So what can we do to get back on
      > track for the next decade or two? In 20 years will software be 40 years
      > behind hardware? Or will software be dramatically better than it is now.

I often find this sad, especially when thinking about software and systems that died on the vine in the past few decades. I remember fast, efficient systems running on processors of a few hundred megahertz, using 5400RPM disks, and a fraction of a GB of RAM. Why do the same tasks I was performing then take just as long or longer on systems with orders of magnitude more computational power?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There is a push to get IntelliJ to provide full support for Redline Smalltalk - it would be interesting to see that implemented.</comment>


Square Begins Offering Data Driven Cash Advances to Small Businesses - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/28/square-begins-offering-data-driven-cash-advances-to-small-businesses/?ncid=rss

<comment><USER2> When I started my first small business, I poured my life savings into it. Six months later all that cash was gone and I wasn't making rent or car payments on time. PayPal gave me the option for a lump sum of money ($10k) in exchange for a percentage of my sales (30%) - the loan cost me about $750 dollars in interest to PayPal, and saved the business. With enough runway for 2 months, I fixed the business model and cut unnecessary staff/expenses. Six months later, the business was profitable again, all thanks to a small cash infusion.

The point is, I could have been homeless. PayPal's financing gave me enough time to fix a broken business model, which is a situation I'm sure many other small business owners are in.

<comment><USER3> As a side note it's good to hear a positive PayPal story on HN.

<comment><USER4> The thing about positive reviews of PayPal(and by extension all products) is that they are going to be much less vocal and much less frequent because it's expected for the product to just work. Most of the time paypal does what it should and people are happy with them.

fwiw. the ones that I have seen that are negative w.r.t. paypal are the ones that are doing something forbidden by the tos or at least very close to the grey line.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Small business are just that: small. It takes time that they don't have to go through the normal loan application process.

Square wins because they already know its a good bet. The merchant wins because they don't have to spend time on something other than their core business (which is probably why they chose Square in the first place).

</comment><comment><USER6> My first thought: what a good idea.

My second thought: why didn't the card issuers think of this first? They're actual banks and their whole business model is lending money.

<comment><USER7> The merchant cash advance industry is already a huge thing. It probably provides more funding to restaurants, for instance, than banks do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> FYI PayPal started a similar program last fall: [https://www.paypal.com/webapps/workingcapital/](https://www.paypal.com/webapps/workingcapital/)

<comment><USER9> Based on the examples given in the article and at [https://www.paypal.com/webapps/workingcapital/success](https://www.paypal.com/webapps/workingcapital/success), which are presumably the most favorable ones possible for both companies given the nature of PR, Paypal also charges less than half as much ($800 on a $20k loan for Paypal vs $1k on a $10k loan for Square). That might be misleading, though, because Paypal's case study doesn't mention the repayment period.

<comment><USER10> I got a call the other day offering the working capital / the offer terms were absolutely amazing. I think some of that though was because they knew from our account we most likely didn't need the money.. Paypal also matched our CC rate to get us to accept Paypal on the site. I warned them when I signed up 'I've heard the horror stories and any sign of that and we're done' .. been 2 years and still great

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is a review we wrote for Square Capital [https://www.fundastic.com/posts/25-what-does-square- capital-...](https://www.fundastic.com/posts/25-what-does-square-capital-mean- for-small-businesses)

It's a much better than merchant cash advances, OnDeck or Kabbage in terms of cost.

</comment><comment><USER9> The example given is a $10k advance with $11k paid back, but the article also says that "fees appear to be 1/8 to 1/10th of what you'd pay a typical loan organization to get your hands on cash." I'm curious how they're defining "fees," since I can't imagine a "typical loan organization" would charge 80% annual interest.

<comment><USER12> If these small businesses could get a loan from a typical loan organization, Square wouldn't have a market

[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-22/wall-street- finds-n...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-22/wall-street-finds-new- subprime-with-125-business-loans.html)

<comment><USER13> The simplicity is probably going to drive their adoption. Typically securing a loan for a business is a lot of paperwork, back-and-forth, etc. In other words, time away from your business. If Square removes all of that, they're leagues above any offering from typical lenders

<comment><USER12> Solid point

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Does Square have a phone number yet? Last time I dealt with them support was only by web form and email

</comment><comment><USER15> This is the financial services industry's equivalent of "We'll monetise by sticking ads around it": "We'll monetise by advancing loans and collecting interest"

Whoever can find more borrowers at the edges gets plenty of short term profitable business, but we all know how it ends...

<comment><USER16> This is what makes capital markets work in the long run. A naïve lender treats all borrowers similarly. A new entrant, with better data or analytics, is able to discern a quality gradient amongst the borrowers.

This new entrant can now offer loans to the higher quality borrowers at a better rate. That makes it easier for sound businesses to borrow cheaply. The new entrant can also discriminate against riskier borrowers with a higher rate. That protects capital and makes the system sturdier.

Adding information, the way Square seems to be doing, to a financial process is sound economics. This is not the stuff of gimmicks.

<comment><USER17> Does Square have access to information that credit card companies do not? If not, why haven't CCs started a similar program (or have they)?

<comment><USER18> A credit card is by definition a loan, so Id say they have. Thats why when you open a new business you have an Orcas weight in "sign up for this credit card" envelopes at your door.

<comment><USER17> Good point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I find it funny that the article repeats several times the amount of data that square. Do you know who has more data? The bank where the business has its account ;)

That being said, the current process from banks seems old and not really clever to me

<comment><USER20> Square gets item level data on each merchant. That means exactly what was sold and when. Plus, they get info about who bought it and can see things like a buisness suddenly getting huge numbers of new buyers as opposed to returning, etc.

<comment><USER21> The real question is how much does that level of granularity really matter?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I could see this mostly serving small businesses that already use Square. The alternatives (AR funding, bank working capital funding,...) seem to be better/cheaper than Square. Can't argue with Square though trying to expand its business.

</comment><comment><USER23> financing working capital is a highly competitive business where banks are really good at (large balance sheets that can compete at 'no cost'). yes, this service might go to businesses that are underserved by banks, but then at what cost is this service to the smb? 10%, ouch.

</comment><comment><USER24> This seems like a weird turn for Square to take. I would think that the regulatory crap that comes with becoming a bank would be a nightmare for someone like Square trying to move from being a payments processor to an actual lending institution.

<comment><USER25> You don't need to be a bank to make a loan

[http://www.sba.gov/community/blogs/community-blogs/small- bus...](http://www.sba.gov/community/blogs/community-blogs/small-business- cents/financing-alternative-non-bank-lenders)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Forbes.com 4/21/2014 @ 10:59AM - "Why Square Needs To Sell Itself--And Do It Quickly" [http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2014/04/21/why- squ...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2014/04/21/why-square-needs- to-sell-itself-and-do-it-quickly/)

</comment><comment><USER27> This is a really scary thing for Square to be doing.

Remember the golden child that was Groupon? Their business model was not deals, but short term loans to businesses (I pay you now for X widgets minus a percentage, at some point in the future you need to provide X widgets). We all know how that one ended...</comment>


UXPin paper prototyping kit video - <AUTHOR> http://vimeo.com/17261765 Video presenting paper prototyping kit in action. Hope you'll like it. <comment><AUTHOR> And with HD quality on youtube: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZIVzkQZ_PQ></comment>


ChameleonMask: Embodied Physical and Social Telepresence Using Human Surrogates - <AUTHOR> https://lab.rekimoto.org/projects/chameleonmask/ <comment><USER2> outside of pretending to pick your nose why would it be useful?</comment>


Women Once Ruled the Computer World. When Did Silicon Valley Become Brotopia? - rwx<comment> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-02-01/women-once-ruled-computers-when-did-the-valley-become-brotopia </comment><comment><AUTHOR> One way to test that claim is to look at e.g. who worked at Xerox Parc in the 1970s:

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

</comment><comment><USER2> If you're interested in the history of how women got pushed out of computing, you should also check out Programmed Inequality by Marie Hicks as well. It's a thorough examination of how Britain squandered their early computing lead in the WWII & postwar periods by shutting skilled women out of computer-related work in government and industry.

</comment><comment><USER3> least favorite topic ever. women never ruled the computer world. they were secretaries. move on.

<comment><USER4> Would love to read more about this. I've read that early programming was thought of like a glorified telephone operator, but that these women had advanced mathematics degrees.

I can't find anything non-biased though, everyone just wants to push the female victim narrative.</comment></comment>


What websites would allow me to get writing jobs for startups? - <AUTHOR>

I'm between novice and intermediate as a web designer/developer, but can figure out how to write an article about any web design/JavaScript/Node/HTML5 tech that is thrown at me.<p>I actually met a few people through HN a little while ago who wanted to work with me, and that worked out. Is HN the proper place for this kind of engagement, or is there another place that I should be looking? <comment><USER2> Get off your couch and go join a local meetup. That's how you meet people.</comment>


Trying to Solve the L.E.D. Quandary - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/trying-to-solve-the-l-e-d-quandary?utm_source=nextdraft&utm_medium=email <comment><USER2> Quandary?

As a market matures, new markets appear. When LEDs become so cheap and you have all the light you need, you could add more light or find new applications.

For example, right now using LEDSs for growing food is cost prohibitive, but if prices go down a significant amount of agriculture could be done with it, as solar panels are way more efficient converting light to energy and you could close your plants away from pests without insecticides, or underground, or transport the energy to places in winter without natural light.

This application alone could mean hundreds of times more LED light than what is used today in houses.

<comment><USER3> Wouldn't growing food with solar cells and LEDs be less efficient in land usage than simply allowing the sun to shine on the plants?

<comment><USER4> You'd think so but not necessarily.

Photovoltaic cells can take in a broader range of energy from the sun than plants can through photosynthesis. LEDs can then emit that energy at specific wavelengths such as red or blue that the plants can take in.

The whole system can end up being more efficient.

Furthermore the prospect of growing plants in a completely controlled environment where you can control all the variables from light intensity, light cycle, temperature, humidity and remove the pest factor and therefore the cost of pesticides can result in a much better final product.

<comment><USER5> Honest question: Would this type of production be considered organic? There's no pesticides and such, but it's also not quite "natural".

<comment><USER6> I think it depends on which definition one subscribes to. Broadly speaking, there are two major lenses through which "organic" is viewed:

1) Focuses on holistic management, rejects intensive injection of industrial inputs into the farm/garden, and emphasizes applications of emergent activity of native species rather than aggressive "pest control".

2) Focuses on keeping "unnatural" chemicals or genes out of / off of the food.

I think this approach would tend to look organic under lens #2 but not lens #1. Various definitions of "organic" lend different weights to them and introduce other considerations, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't see how this is a "quandary." It's just a product becoming obsolete. The new product, LED bulbs, doesn't fill the same market niche. There should be no expectation that the same companies that once produced incandescent bulbs should transition into making LED bulbs. At least in an economic sense, they are very different things.

Thinking they are the same thing is like thinking that hard drives and cloud storage are equivalent to blank videotapes and cassettes, or camera film. They just aren't.

If LED makers are failing to make money, that is because there is too much competition. Companies will exit the business until a new equilibrium is reached. The price of LED bulbs may go up, and that's ok.

</comment><comment><USER8> I don't really see the long term problem. When light bulbs truly stop needing to be replaced, they will stop being _replaceable_. The market that will disappear is the light socket market. Consumers will buy a lamp with a permanently wired in LED and when they get tired of the way the lamp looks, they'll replace it along with the LED in it. This is already happening in wall and ceiling fixtures.

<comment><USER9> I considered buying a few of those, but I realized that if one lamp in the room failed, but the others were good, I'd have to replace them all since I'd be unlikely to be able to find an exact match.

So I decided to buy regular fixtures with replaceable bulbs.

The non replaceable kind only makes sense in places where you need light, but you don't see the actual fixture (for example edge lighting a room or stairs).

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I started reading the first paragraph and thought "ha ha I will sarcastically comment about "Light Bulbs as a Service"", because that would just be plain ridiculous, and then...

<comment><USER11> And just like almost every other FPAAS (Former Product As A Service) touted in the past ten years, it's got nothing to do with customer benefits and everything to do with milking an ongoing revenue stream from the suckers that use your product.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I had understood color rendering index (CRI) to be independent from color temperature. This article suggests CRI and temperature are—if not the same thing—correlated. Perhaps that is true, but I know that I have gone out of my way in the past to buy high-CRI, high-color temperature bulbs because I prefer "daylight" (~5100K) illumination. I've got some 5100K bulbs that were rated at 90+ CRI in my kitchen and I love it.

<comment><USER13> I suspect a lot of the R&D in LED manufacturing has been focused on bulbs which functionally replace incandescent. Creating functional replacements of incandescent bulbs is certainly a noble goal, but incandescent lights aren't uniquely suited to every situation.

For instance, I live in a row house. The south facing windows have shades over them, which I can't remove because I'm renting. This means the amount of natural light is extremely limited inside. I find that if I don't spend some time in the sun early in the morning, I feel extremely sluggish and lethargic.

Replacing the sun is really hard though. Not only does the sun have a "perfect" CRI, but it is extremely bright and provides a very diffuse light. (Not to mention, the sun is really cheap). I've found the easiest way to mimic the diffuse nature of sunlight is to have a number of light sources.

Right now, the only "sunlight" (7500k+) bulbs that I can find that are inexpensive enough to cover my living room, render color well, and are efficient enough to keep on during the day are florescent. Halogen uses too much power and generates too much head. I can't seem to find reasonably priced LEDs with a good CRI above 5000k.

I've only been able to find 2 kinds of "sunlight" LEDs. One is 75-watt BR40 (or lower wattage BRxx lights), which, as spotlights, are not very versatile. The other are "grow-lights", which I am hesitant to buy, since I have little interest in partaking in a no-knock raid at 2 AM. That might be paranoia, but I've heard stories at the homebrew/hydroponic store where I buy my homebrew supplies, and I don't think it's too unlikely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> >Cree is approaching L.E.D. lights as products, like smartphones, that people will regularly upgrade in order to benefit from new features or improvements.

Isn't that cute.

</comment><comment><USER15> What Cree is actually doing is replacing their claimed 10,000 hour bulb with a 5,000 hour bulb. However, their 10,000 hour bulb doesn't achieve its rated life; I now have four failed ones. The power supply, not the LEDs, fail.

The coming thing is a power supply that doesn't use electrolytic capacitors.[1][2] This should increase power supply life beyond LED life, to about 40,000 hours. But will we see that in consumer products?

[1] [http://www.ledsmagazine.com/ugc/2011/09/dali-power- unveils-l...](http://www.ledsmagazine.com/ugc/2011/09/dali-power-unveils-led- lighting-driver-solution-without-electrolytic-capacitor.html) [2] [http://www.rle.mit.edu/per/wp- content/uploads/2014/10/Chen-E...](http://www.rle.mit.edu/per/wp- content/uploads/2014/10/Chen-Electrolytic-Free.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER16> For the reference of people commenting here, the definition of quandary is "a state of perplexity or uncertainty over what to do in a difficult situation"

I imagine that if you are Sylvania, or if you are thinking about making large investments in LED manufacturing capacity, then yes, this is a quandary.

</comment><comment><USER17> I think LED opens the possibility for more custom lighting. If the lights are going to last over 20 years (or possibly longer with higher quality), why not do a custom lighting design for your bathroom or kitchen? You don't need to be limited to standard shapes of globes, tubes, circles, and A-lines, you want a wavy design or a varying radius, that's great. It will live until your next remodel when you can have a new custom lighting design.

<comment><USER18> I believe the same. Nobody writes an article called the granite counter top quandary. You won't buy leds, the contractors constructing the house will.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> It isn't a quandary. Innovation does not owe you a future. Electric cars, and self-driving cars, will reduce annual unit volume for cars, and might simplify cars, along with carbon reinforced plastics, so that lightweight, inexpensive cars are possible. Light bulb makers that forestall a cheap, lifetime LED product will fall to Asian competitors who will take whatever market opening exists, and worry about saturation later.

</comment><comment><USER20> What quandary? Let global demand fall off to replacement rates.

So what if there's only one light-bulb factory left in the world and they only produce three bulbs a year?

Heck, in about fifteen minutes or so nanotech will happen and all this is moot. I've said it before: there's an inflection point after which anyone in manufacturing that _isn 't_ doing nano is just playing with toys. And we may be past that point already.

<comment><USER21> I have the feeling that 99% of IT is "just playing with toys" already.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> _UrbanVolt solves the problem by replacing its customers' lights at no initial cost; each client then pays UrbanVolt a monthly share of the savings on its electrical bill._

This is exactly how the makers of advanced stationary steam engines operated after the start of the industrial revolution. The engine is "free," the customer pays a fraction of the fuel savings.

What I don't understand is: how come it's not the established players like GE or ConEd who are pursuing these strategies? If someone's going to eat your lunch, why not make sure it's you?

<comment><USER23> It's really, really hard to change an old organization to follow a different business model without effectively firing everyone, selling everything off, and starting over. There's inertia in the various forms of personnel specialties, management style, capital expenditures, and financing. A tiny company can change that stuff in the span of a single email because there isn't anything to unwind, but a big company that has gone to great effort to optimize its existing position and has a lot of stakeholders to appease will run into trouble even if it has visionary leadership that can see the problem.

For that reason, startups can persistently find opportunities: e.g. IBM had a rental-computing business model, so it gave up a big early advantage in the PC market while scarcely realizing it; Microsoft swooped in to occupy the new monopoly on software.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Here is the real problem. Incandescent bulb tech has been capable of being far more long-lasting, and therefore cheaper, since nearly the beginning. [1] The entire industry has been based on a kind of lie.

We are very fortunate that the LED industry has not been tainted by this mindset, and really most modern tech hasn't.

[1] [http://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/history/the-great- lightbu...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/history/the-great-lightbulb- conspiracy)

<comment><USER9> > has been capable of being far more long-lasting

Sorry, but that's not true. In order to make longer lasting bulbs you have to reduce the energy efficiency (i.e. don't run as hot).

> and therefore cheaper

You'll pay more in electricity than in bulbs with longer lasting type. It's not actually worth it.

That cartel had bad intentions but good results - if you run the number you'll see that they actually saved people money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> There's a reason why I've put in commercial-grade LED fixtures in my kitchen and garage. I'm willing to pay a premium for something that'll possibly last the next 20+ years with how few hours a day I use it.

Unfortunately most of those products don't really fit the decor of the rest of the house.

</comment><comment><USER26> If you consider the matter in the long-term, the sustainable model is the only approach that actually provides returns over time. At the end of the day the argument is everything now or a little now and a little later.

</comment><comment><USER27> "Yeah, and when are we going to see subsidies for buggy whips?!" -Confused Author

I'm not sure how else to interpret this article; are we supposed to buy shit for the sake of buying shit?

<comment><USER21> Isn't that what capitalism is all about? /s

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> "can't make money in the long run from products that rarely need replacing. "

What a ludicrous statement. Price = f(supply,demand). Just decrease supply, voila, profit.

<comment><USER29> That's like saying "I wish we could charge more for cell phones. I know! We'll decrease the supply and make a ton of money!"

It's a cutthroat market and someone will replace you.

<comment><USER30> It's not an individual firm that will decrease the supply, but the market as a whole. Largely this will occur as companies go out of business or shut down their LED operations because they're not profitable. Eventually when few enough firms are competing, the remaining firms involved in the market will be able to turn a profit and the market will stabilize. At least that's what I would expect.

Other sectors have experienced dramatic drops in demand, and the world doesn't end, even though some companies might. I expect the few companies that keep selling long-lived LEDs will outlast their more gimmicky counterparts.

<comment><USER29> I don't expect people to find much money in LED lightbulbs. You buy the LEDs from one of the big LED producers, and then the rest is commodity electronics. If there starts being money in it, new companies will jump in.

Which I suppose can get prices down to the point where someone can make a company that stays in business, but it won't get them to a point where there are significant profits to be found.

EDIT: The area where this is likely wrong is the locked-in home automation silos where you can get people into an ecosystem and then screw them as much as you like. I'm hoping we can avoid that being the dominant strategy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Sounds like I need to stock up now on LED bulbs for life, before the whole market is flooded with planned-obsolescent pieces-o-shit (if it isn't already).

</comment><comment><USER32> They should form a cartel: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel)

</comment><comment><USER33> > The question remains whether any company has an incentive to make a product > that is not designed to fall apart or become obsolete.

What a patently ridiculous question to ask. I can't even fathom how the writer thought it up, but I can only imagine they must have gone into a coma immediately afterwards. It's a question in the way "I wonder if elephants can fly?" is a question.</comment>


Google Readying Android Smartwatch with LG - <AUTHOR> http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/BL-DGB-33058

<comment><USER2> "Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-eight million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think [smartwatches] are a pretty neat idea." \- A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams

</comment><comment><USER3> Smartwatches are the greatest idea ever conceived. Just think about the NFC smart tag fever it will release upon earth.

It's not about apps, icons, UIs, it's all about presence.

Mere mortals still don't get it, but they will very soon.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> > The smartwatch category is getting crowded fast. Apple has been developing > its own according to people familiar with the matter and CEO Tim Cook said > in February that Apple is planning to enter "new categories" of products

Crowded. It is so crowded. What exactly does crowded mean here?

</comment><comment><USER4> "Readying"?</comment>


Delivery of a Nvidia Tesla V100 to Our Edge Data Center [video] - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@examesh/video-delivery-of-a-nvidia-tesla-v100-to-our-edge-data-center-40ecf64595d5 <comment><AUTHOR> What do you think about the video? :)

<comment><USER2> Very cool, got a real Tron / cyberpunk vibe to it. Not really sure what you do, but I'm curious now and might go check out your website - which I guess was the point, amiright?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. Glad you like it.

Yeah, check out the website and contact us at any time if you have questions!</comment></comment></comment>


Video based CAPTCHA - <AUTHOR> http://www.nucaptcha.com/products/basic

<comment> mike-cardwell Good idea, but its reliance on Flash locks out iPad/iPhone users. I'd rather use a traditional image based captcha.

</comment><comment><USER2> Awesome idea, I wonder why it hasn't been thought of before. One obstacle, however, would be the users whose browsers don't support the video.</comment>


PayPal robbed my bank account - <AUTHOR> http://www.jacquesmattheij.com/PayPal+robbed+my+bank+account <comment><USER3> The whole idea behind Paypal was:

\-- we'll do everything a bank does, but without all those "laws" and "accountability for mistakes" that the other banks labor under

Go on, look it up.

And they achieved that goal. Paypal largely escaped regulation as a banking entity. Banks are trustworthy with your money (to the extent that they are) not because they're magically trustworthy, but because there is a regulatory state forcing them to be. Paypal has no regulatory apparatus overseeing it. Paypal will steal your money and your only recourse is to sue them.

PayPal has made the calculation that the vast majority of their customers will not sue them. Therefore, it is profitable for Paypal to steal from these customers. This is now common knowledge. If you use Paypal today, you have no excuse for not knowing that they will steal your money.

<comment><USER4> How come nobody sues them? How come there hasn't been enough of an uproar to get congress involved in regulating PayPal?

Reading HN, these horror stories seem to be fairly common, or maybe I'm just hearing the same stories over and over again.

<comment><USER5> I've been using PayPal since 2001 when I signed up in order to send Sluggy Freelance a $5 donation. Since 2002 I've used it increasingly for payments from my freelancing customers - there was no other convenient way to get money from Europe to America, and PayPal revolutionized the translation industry (along with Moneybookers and similar services, but PayPal is the biggest).

Not once have I had any problem with them.

Jacques, I've had a bank - a real live regulated bank - deduct my paycheck instead of depositing it, and not notice until I complained. Granted, they fixed it immediately when I complained, and PayPal may not, but human error does occur. Certainly PayPal has never gratuitously deducted money from my account.

<comment><USER6> Here's the thing though: when the bank made a mistake, you had recourse. You actually had someone to complain to - you could go to a branch or otherwise deal with a human. With paypal, you have no recourse, except to hope your case gets voted to the top of Reddit and some paypal insider takes pity on you.

<comment><USER7> you're overestimating the worth of that human- retail banks are generally franchisees, and they have very limited powers. If the problem has to be escalated, you're in the same place as you would be with Paypal, except BoA insiders don't read reddit.

<comment><USER8> You're with the wrong bank maybe. Once upon a time I overdrew my account by $10 and was charged $35 overdraw fee. My account balance became -$45. Someone sent me $50. I then withdrew another $50, and because the account balance was negative again, I was charged another -$35 and left with -$80. When I found out I was angry, I knew the rules were that if you overdrew your account you have to pay a fee, but it seemed ridiculous that they'd charge me _twice_ when it only ever briefly went over 0 again. So I went to my local branch and asked one of the bank staff about it. They apologised and reversed not just the second overdraw fee but both as well! Quite happy with my bank that day; The rules were there and I knew them but they still refunded all my fees back.

<comment><USER5> I can't even imagine a Chase teller doing that, and I like the people at my bank.

<comment><USER8> It was the commmonwealth bank of australia.

<comment><USER7> I'm from the US, perhaps that's why we don't see eye to eye?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Ugh. Yet another PayPal disaster. I'm gearing up to go live with a new Mac application in about 6 months time, and I had planned on using PayPal as the preferred payment method, as it seems to come with the least headaches. But it seems you can't go a month without yet another PayPal tragedy popping up on HN.

Is there any other payment service out there that doesn't have as many problems (especially with customer service) as PayPal? Or better yet, is anyone on HN creating a startup to handle credit card payments that I could use instead of PayPal - ideally, it needs to be dead simple to use - I'm thinking less than 20 lines of ruby, or 50 lines of C to use. Anyone working on something like this?

<comment><USER10> Google checkout?

<comment><USER11> Nope. The experience is just as crummy, the support is even worse and there are pretty big geographical restrictions on both sides of exchanges (sales and buys).

For instance, as far as I know you still can't buy or sell from Canada (with a canadian bank account anyway) via Checkout.

Only alternatives are going straight for the credit card, or using international bank transfers (which I doubt are without hassles)

<comment><USER12> For single payments (freelance stuff or whatever), Western Union ( <http://www.westernunion.com/> ) might be the way to go.

I received money via WU for about a decade with zero problems.

But for online shopping, I don't have an alternative.

<comment><USER13> Western Union is aimed at transfering money, not buying/selling goods. I had to transfer money to someone with WU and had to ring them up to verify it. They explicitly asked on the phone if I was sending money in exchange for goods, and that they don't support that, and you shouldn't use WU for that.

This is would scare off most customers and is not a good business idea.

<comment><USER12> I think those kind of checks are country-specific... I always received money here in Uruguay (from Austria and Canada) and nobody called the senders (family members or friends of family).

Still, you're right... Wikipedia says: "Western Union advises its customers not to send money to someone that they have never met in person."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> jacquesm, There are two potential solutions. The first is having a separate bank account specifically for use with paypal. This gives your "real" bank accounts some degree of separation from the at-risk account you've used to become "verified" according to paypal (note the unhealthy amount of sarcasm on "verified"). This is the only working approach if you must be "verified" by them.

The second method is far better; _ONLY_ give paypal a credit card number. You will not be "verified" according to paypal, but you now have control. If palypal does anything stupid, you just file a dispute/charge-back with your credit card company. When you reach the stupid "spending limit" for an "unverified" account, simply delete your credit card number from your paypal payment methods, then close your paypal account. Now you can create a new paypal account with a new email address and the same credit card. The result is you just by-passed their spending limit that _forces_ "verification" when reached.

EDIT: Yes, I feel giving paypal your bank account credentials is absolutely foolish. They try everything they can to get access to your bank account(s), but at least there is a way around their stupid games.

<comment><AUTHOR> We're in the 'first' situation now, but the downside is that if paypal _does_ decide to plunder your account that you are instantly below 0. I never even realized they could do that until it happened.

The second method is better but unfortunately paypal would not authorize any payments (from my credit cards!) until they had a confirmed (and thus accessible) bank account.

<comment><USER14> > unfortunately paypal would not authorize any > payments (from my credit > cards!) until they > had a confirmed (and thus accessible) bank > account.

Please elaborate. I'm not sure what you mean by this, and there may be (are!) differences between how paypal operates in the .us versus the .eu.

Were you not allowed to _send_ money with only your credit card on the paypal account?

Or were you not allowed to _receive_ money with only a credit card on the paypal account?

Sorry. It's late here, I'm tired, and I'm not reading your words as clearly as I should. Though I haven't done much in recent weeks, I do volunteer work for a non-profit organization here in the US that specializes in helping victims of online fraud. Sadly, the "paypal drained my bank account" story is repeated regularly.

<comment><AUTHOR> > Were you not allowed to _send_ money with only your credit card on the > paypal account?

Yes. They kept asking for a verification of the account, without that no further processing possible. Please note that this is a corporate account, not a personal account.

> Sadly, the "paypal drained my bank account" story is repeated regularly.

ouch.

<comment><USER14> Ahhh, though you said "corporate account," I'm betting you actually mean a "Merchant Services" account. There are actually a number of different types of paypal accounts, each with their own set of rules and features. Paypal --very intentionally-- tries to confuse people by not clearly listing both the various types of accounts and the various risks associated with them. They also very intentionally do _EVERYTHING_ they can to get your bank account credentials.

For example, in your situation, there may have been a somewhat hidden link to "other payment options" but of course, the only default you saw was "enter your bank account number." Paypal pulls this shit constantly, and all it takes is one wrong click (or less than careful reading) to trap you into an endless page reloads of "please enter your bank account" nonsense. --It's extremely scammy and they use every anti-pattern in the book, heck, they probably wrote the book.

I should also note, NEVER use a bank account debit card with paypal or online. These are also another way your bank account can be completely drained by attackers or less than honorable businesses.

<comment><AUTHOR> > to trap you into an endless page reloads of "please enter your bank account" > nonsense.

That pretty much describes what happened.

I will take your information to heart and get paypals access revoked and I'm going to close that account and open a new one just to be sure.

Thank you very much for the helpful info, I knew paypal was bad, I always thought the 'bad' limited itself to my balance on their end (which I made sure I never had).

This is a bit of a shocker really.

<comment><USER14> I wish it wasn't such an unpleasant shock for so many people, but very few people even think about how something actually works and the risk models being used. In the case of paypal Max Levchin (sp?) created a brilliant fraud detection (risk analysis) system, and also made sure to mitigate risks to his company by making sure someone else could be put on the hook when something goes wrong (i.e. why they press so hard for direct access to your bank accounts). Even though it is a brilliant design, and a profitable business, the entire company is dubious because it profits from putting normal people (users) at risk without ever informing them of the risks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Real banks make mistakes all the time.

I once had a $35 check clear the bank for $4,035. That caused a domino effect of bounces. But the bank fixed it up -- I even got them to write me a letter of explanation to give to my landlord, and use in the future for any credit questions.

My wife is a bit anal about the bank (she's an accountant). She used to call the 800 number every morning (that was before online banking) to double-check the balance. It was quite common to see random discrepancies of as much as $5, which would resolve themselves the next day (this was a different bank than the anecdote above). I have no idea how that happened, but it didn't seem to make any difference to the monthly bottom line.

<comment><USER16> > Real banks make mistakes all the time.

Indeed they do. Not only do banks make mistakes, but the Federal Reserve does as well. For those who don't know this, the Fed is responsible for national check clearing (other than bank-to-bank cash letters, what we in IT would call direct peering). The Fed is the operator, for check clearing, of what we would call the core routers.

A number of years back, the Fed made a mistake in my favor (a sizable mistake). I discussed it with the bank. The bank said they had to wait for the Fed to resend them the correct item. We're both still waiting. Sooner or later I'm going to give up waiting :)

<comment><USER17> If it's a significant amount of money you should probably talk to a layer of some kind before you "give up waiting :)"

However, chances are this is one of those wait 7 years from the event then close the acount and keep the money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18>
        Now, for me a BANK (which is what PayPal is here in
        Europe)

If they are a bank, I'd anticipate that you could call them and insist on speaking to a compliance officer. Keep a log book, if they fail to do so, complain to the regulator.

<comment><USER19> They are registered as a bank in Europe so they must comply with European bank regulations...

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Just a tip for those who are looking for a US-based alternative. I have just done a study of various payment processors here for our startup (<http://commerce.exorbyte.com>). While PayPal may appear cheap with their low flat fees on all cards, their monthly fees, transaction fees, etc. end up costing you.

My conclusion was that there are much better rates and better service with the company that provides us already our accounting software (Intuit - <USER2> Pro). Their rates are about a third of what Paypal asked in terms of monthly subscriptions, even lower if you are referred by Intuit Pro Advisor (just say you are if you know one - or look for one in their online public DB).

I trust much more a company that provides more than just payment services than one that does that and only relies on payment fees to enrich itself. Good luck, Dan

</comment><comment><USER21> > Much to my surprise, about a half hour later, paypal _reversed_ the charge, > but the amount was paid in to the account of the recipient. Free money, or > so it seemed :)

If I understand this correctly, double entry bookkeeping should have made this situation impossible (or, at the least, Paypal should then notice their net loss). It's a bit worrying to see indications that Paypal's internal systems can't keep track of money correctly.

Have you considered reporting this to your regulator?

<comment><AUTHOR> > Have you considered reporting this to your regulator?

We're getting there.

I have plenty of stuff to do but if this is not resolved within the next 7 days or so (and that includes backdating all transactions so the effect on my standing with the bank and lost interest are corrected) there will be trouble.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I just want to be a lone voice for PayPal here. I expect downvotes but want to show a different point of view.

\- PayPal is not a bank, you don't get the same level of customer service or regulations. However, you don't pay anything like the sorts of fees that you would with a bank for sending/receiving money, especially as a merchant. Try applying for a merchant, online only, account with a bank as a startup and see how far you get.

\- PayPal processes a lot of transactions daily, globally, all with accounts that they know very little about. As such, their fraud detection is turned up a lot higher than a regular bank. They're obviously paranoid about any difference in patterns or strange occurences, and the usual response is to stop everything until it can be sorted out. In most cases it does get sorted out but that's after the anger has died down.

-Banks and credit card companies make mistakes all the time. My credit card issuer is always sneaking unjustified interest charges. I have to call and reverse them all the time. I've had banks bounce checks for no reason, charge me fees which cause the balance to go below zero, then charge more fees for it. That's stealing as well, but everyone shrugs their shoulders and says 'banks, what can you do'.

So my summary is : yes, dancing with PayPal is holding a Tiger by the tail, but there aren't really any alternatives. They can suck, but they're a cheap and reliable service.

But don't think that any amount of bank regulation would fix things. If they had the customer service of a bank, they'd have to charge higher fees. With the low fees, you should have low service expectations.

<comment><USER23> Another factor here is the "fear of the new". Which is worse, dying in a car accident or dying in a nuclear blast? Well, neither really. But which generates more fear in you? Dying in an accident can easily be a horrific, painful death, but everything else about it is familiar, so we turn down the knob on the fear-o-meter on the idea.

Similarly, banks treat their customers like crap all the time. But it's a crap that everybody has grown used to and come to expect. But when PayPal makes a mistake or has bad policies or poor customer service in any instance people will scream to high-heavens on the internet about it until the entire world has heard.

For myself, PayPal has treated me better than at least half the banks I've ever had accounts with (especially Bank of America), so I'm inclined to give them a little slack now and again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Seems that you're from the Netherlands or from Belgium.

Are such "wrong" charges really an issue there? In Austria I would just let my bank cancel those charges (you can do this for free) if they are not justified.

As far as I know, going below "0" wouldn't be a problem either, because the bank then retroactively "recalculates" your account history without the charges in question.

</comment><comment><USER25> How is all of this reflected (if at all) in the account history on the paypal website?

<comment><AUTHOR> It shows 13(!) transactions in total, let me try to put something together that you could make sense of.

The paypal transactions do not correspond 1:1 with the bank stuff, which makes it a lot harder to follow.

here is the png with the paypal situation (I'll add it to the post too).

<http://pics.ww.com/d/427289-1/paypal3.png>

Voltooid = completed Verrekend = corrected Mislukt = failed

I wished I had a reliable alternative to paypal, a company that just does one thing and does it well, transfer money from me to third parties without all the bs that paypal makes me deal with.

On top of that they caused me a bunch of trouble with my bank which I'm really not happy about.

What you would expect, for 3 transactions is three entries on the paypal side and three entries on the bank side.

Instead you get 8 transactions on the bank side, 13 on the paypal side and in some of those the amounts do not even match up with the invoices that were paid, which makes for a huge problem for the bookkeeper at a later date when he has to piece it all together again.

<comment><USER26> I think the last transaction mentioned in the body text should have referred to dollars (rather than euros).

<comment><AUTHOR> It says '$500' right ?

Or do you mean a different one ?

There are only 3 transactions, one E 550, one E 1000, one $500. That's it.

edit: Ah, my bad, that was not a transaction but an exchange rate calculation and I got the unit wrong. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> And I was reading this today <http://tortoisesvn.net/howpaypalscrewsopensourceprojects> ouch

<comment><USER28> More on this topic:

* <http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sourceforge/ticket/13993>

* [http://sourceforge.net/blog/warning-to-open-source-projects-...](http://sourceforge.net/blog/warning-to-open-source-projects-know-your-rights-with-paypal/)

I didn't realize PayPal also froze the account of the developer of minecraft (containing about €600,000):

* [http://notch.tumblr.com/post/1096322756/working-on-a-friday-...](http://notch.tumblr.com/post/1096322756/working-on-a-friday-update-crying-over-paypal)

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PayPal#Criticism_and_limitation...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PayPal#Criticism_and_limitations)

<comment><USER29> The Minecraft story isn't a good example. Markus had an account taking maybe 1k euros a day for around a year, then suddenly in a month it shoots up to 100k euros a day. It would have been negligent of Paypal _not_ to temporarily suspend payments when someone without a history of taking that much money suddenly does.

The solution is not to build a business around Paypal. If Paypal suspending an account you operate for 14 days is going to cripple your business you should look into new solutions.

<comment><USER30> As far as I can tell it was more than 2 weeks (or may still be a problem currently). I don't think freezing all of the money for an account because of some chargebacks and/or fraud should be what Paypal does. I understand if they need to freeze a certain amount - but make a phone call to the person when it concerns more than half a million dollars. Why collect phone information if they never use it to call in extreme cases?

<comment><USER29> It is no longer a problem, unless you count Paypal requiring that he retains at least 5% of total transactions in his account (until the start of 2011) as being a problem. It should also be noted that _many_ people have filed charge back requests for Minecraft through Paypal and their credit card companies, Minecraft has virtually no customer service, so when Paypal see sudden huge volumes of payments _and_ lots of charge back requests it seems mighty suspicious. It seems to me like part of an investigation would be waiting to see if any more complaints come through and something _bad_ is discovered.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Given all the horrible things they do, why do people still grant PayPal access to their money?

<comment><AUTHOR> Suitable alternative please?

The only one that I have that will work in all these cases is Western Union and their fees are horrible.

<comment> cool-RR I think PayPal has become bad enough to justify taking the "suitable alternative" search to the next level. Like considering a change of career or company strategy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> You have the same bank as I do, Rabobank. My suggestion would be to contact them and demand the money back. I've had similar problems when other companies stole money from my account. I've called Rabobank and they've gotten my money back.

Forget about PayPal they'll never help you. It's not in their interest. In The Netherlands once you give a company the right to take money out of your bank account you have to watch them. Because they can take as much money out of your account as they want whenever they want. And their only consequence as far as I can tell is that I can ask for it back and get it.

</comment><comment><USER33> Something similar happened to me -- <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1664224> for the gory details -- they didn't go in my bank account, but they did send me to a collections agency. I paid, sued in small claims court, and have never used Paypal again. That anyone would continue to use Paypal astonishes me.

<comment><USER34> _sued in small claims court_

Did you win?

<comment><USER33> Sort of. They gave me half the money back to make me go away. Given the amount of hassle getting that half of the money back entailed, however, I'd say I won the battle and lost the war. At the time I was filled with righteous anger at PayPal: How dare they treat me this way? Years later, and PayPal is still doing the same kinds of things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> If you feel like PayPal stole from you, shouldn't you be contacting the police?

</comment><comment><USER36> According to the PayPal agreement for the Netherlands "To obtain Verified status you must complete the following steps: 1) Set up Direct Debit and complete the Random Deposit Process (available to applicable customers); or 2) add a credit card and complete the Expanded Use Programme." So it seems you don't have to give PayPal direct debit authorization to lift the receiving limits. Am I right?

</comment><comment><USER37> I'm still flummoxed that people give PayPal access to their bank account.

I give access to a credit card, knowing that I'll only be liable for $50, but nothing more.

<comment><USER38> Good point. I give access to my secondary bank. This avoids extra charges when I pay to a friend.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I used money bookers (<http://www.moneybookers.com>) once and it was OK. A bit expensive but exactly what I needed.

I considered using PayPal but every time I read the contract it scares me away. I am required to allow them to get money out of my bank account. There is no way I'll ever do that. Money bookers works differently and it is more trustworthy.

</comment><comment><USER40> Jacques, if you're in the Netherlands (as your whois indicates), then you should file a complaint with KiFID, your financial services regulator.

<http://www.kifid.nl/overkifid/contact>

In India, most issues that the banks don't bother about get resolved very fast with a single complaint to the regulator!

</comment><comment><USER41> Does Visa/Master/Amex have their share of PayPal's robbery? Why are they not offering an alternative and credible service?

</comment><comment><USER23> Site appears to be dead now (DB appears to be down), here's a cached version via google: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?ie=UTF-8&q=...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?ie=UTF-8&q=cache:http://www.jacquesmattheij.com/PayPal%2Brobbed%2Bmy%2Bbank%2Baccount)

<comment><AUTHOR> Hm, strange, I checked and it works again...

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Solution for personal account:

I have a personal Paypal account associated with Visa credit card. The card is for the use on the Internet only and available money amount can be set by me as necessary.

If there is not enough money on the card then transaction fails.

I don't know if it is possible in case of company Paypal account.

</comment><comment><USER43> Yup, and when I pointed out a few weeks/months ago that I keep a "PayPal-only bank account" and regularly sweep funds out of that account to another they can't touch, people said I was being paranoid!

Well just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they can't get you!

</comment><comment><USER44> So what's wrong with setting up an account with a payment processor rather than paypal? The processor only provides the interface, but does not actually hold money hostage or have other arbitrary restrictions.

<comment><USER45> you must have much better credit than I do. Every payment processor that will do business with me 'holds' 25-50% of my money for a certain number of _months_ even when you aren't doing something suspicious.

Now, last time I looked was a few years back, so things may have changed, but this was my experience last time I had a merchant account... Paypal isn't any good, but they are the best of a bad lot, as far as I can tell.

<comment><USER46> 25-50%? I never saw that rate, and I've dealt with a LOT of processors. 5-10% is common. It's what the banks hold in case of chargebacks.

<comment><USER45> this was a few years back... so it's quite possible that I am misremembering. I do remember that it seemed like quite a lot, and these were the days before authorize.net was willing to hold the credit card numbers for you... between those two things, I decided that at the time, paypal was a much better option.

<comment><USER46> I operated in the high risk space from 2002-2007 and we never had holdbacks that high. 5-10% was normal.

<comment><AUTHOR> From which country ?

Define 'high risk' please ?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I only use PayPal to deposite into my bank.

I only allow them to access funds through a credit card, that way I can contest the charges.

Come to think of it, I never give any organization access to my bank account - ever!

If that is paranoide so be it.

</comment><comment><USER41> Why PayPal doesn't use escrow protection? <http://escrow.aliexpress.com/buyerprotection/index.html>

</comment><comment><USER48> I'm surprised that after more than 100 comments no one has mentioned Square as a PP alternative:

<https://squareup.com/>

<comment><USER39> Squareup doesn't provide the same functionality as PayPal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Dumb question, but with the free $1000 didn't he still come out ahead or did that eventually withdrawn from the account too, which I missed?

</comment><comment><USER50> Does anyone know how to unlink PayPal from your bank account? I can't find anything online other than "talk to your bank".

</comment><comment><USER51> Just removed my bank account from a (rarely used) paypal account.

How is paypal still the only player in this space? I don't understand it.

</comment><comment><USER52> you know what I don't get...is why with all the paypal stuff like this happening...why don't the banks themselves create their own paypal type service

you can use your ATM card at any bank...so banks can work together...they should just create bankpal and have it be a service you can use to send money to your friend's account

<comment><USER53> This already exists. For sending money to a friends account you just log in to the bank website, type their bank account number and the amount and voila.

For sending money to companies there is something called iDEAL. On the company's website you click checkout and you get sent to your bank's website where you get a page with the amount and a button to confirm. Unfortunately this iDEAL system is currently only available in the Netherlands.

<comment><USER52> account # is way too long, I meant something that is tied to an email address

<comment><USER39> Money bookers use the email address as identifier (at least some years ago when I used it). <http://www.moneybookers.com></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: best backpack for traveling(a lot)? - <AUTHOR>

The spring is comming(at least for us, here in Northern Europe) and it's time to prepare for traveling, and traveling kinda hardcore :) What would be your recomendation(solution) for such a thing like a backpack (45-60l)? <comment><USER2> I bought a Wenger Swissgear backpack when I was (probably) around 14. I'm now 21, and I still use it. It's capacious, got heaps of pockets and I've taken it with me throughout Europe. Oh, and it's got a carabiner attached to it, for some reason. And it's sturdy as. It's like the Panasonic Toughbook of backpacks.

So, yeah. Wenger are awesome. I like their stuff.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've had a Quechua 70L for six years and a Berghaus 60L for four years. Both have stood up well to heavy use over the years.

If it's going to be on your back for long periods of time, get something with good back support, but bear in mind that this will make the bag bulkier and less useful as carry-on luggage with Ryanair etc.

</comment><comment><USER4> Can't go too far wrong with a solid brand like Lowe Alpine, or Berghaus. Pick one up on sale if you can, backpack technology moves pretty slowly so you hardly lose anything from buying previous years models.

</comment><comment><USER5> You don't tell us, what kind of backpacking, where etc..for how long?</comment>


Draw.io Desktop App - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/jgraph/drawio-desktop <comment><USER2> One of the best features of draw.io is embedding the graph information into exported pngs. So if I save a version of a document as a png, and you open it with the Draw.io app, then you can edit the png as if you had opened the project file itself!

I know pico-8 also does this png embedding (where you can export a cart as a png, and others can load the png into their pico-8 machine).

Are there other apps that do this? It's really a cool hack!

<comment><USER3> LibreOffice can embed the source document when exporting to PDF. They call this feature Hybrid PDF.

<comment><USER4> draw.io / diagrams.net also embeds the data inside PDF.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Me: It's definitely an electron app.

Me: - visits github -

Github: "Official electron build of draw.io - [https://www.draw.io"](https://www.draw.io")

Me: Yep.</comment>


Man fitted with robotic hand can 'feel' again - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/14/robotic-hand-wired-directly-into-brain-feel-again-darpa <comment><USER2> I'm not sure why they felt the need to put "feel" in quotation marks, unless it's to imply it's not really feeling, but "we're just calling it as such", which I think is incorrect. Whether it's the exact same feeling (which is left ambiguous) is somewhat irrelevant. Plenty of people suffer nerve damage and have reduced feeling in portions of their body. I don't think we'd consider their loss of _fidelity_ in feeling to not really be feeling. And I don't consider it being through a prosthetic limb to be relevant at all.</comment>


Switching to Android - <AUTHOR> http://www.chadfowler.com/2010/7/11/switching-to-android <comment><USER2> If I might go off on a tangent about one of his points I've been thinking a lot about this lately…

"Speech recognition is actually useful. Big surprise here. I can tweet, search the web etc. with minor edits to my dictated text"

For those who don't know Android has a built in Voice Recognition API so any application can easily put use it for input while Apple has steadfastly refused to include this feature because "it doesn't work well" (Dragon has an app but you can't integrate that into an application).

This, to me, is a sign of what will cause Apple's lead to crumble. Apple's one real weakness is they demand perfection but some things just can't achieve that. As has been pointed out by several HN featured articles Voice Recognition may never be perfect. But it's still useful. It can still hit 90%+ efficiency much of the time and for many applications that's enough.

<comment><USER3> I have never understood the appeal of speech-to-text on mobile phones.

I don't want to sit next to someone on the train while they enunciate a long email or a text message to their girlfriend. Nor do I want to shout my own internet musings at those around me. Besides, these days most of us are used to editing as we write. Good PC dictation software makes that easy. On a mobile phone, you'll end up editing it by thumb anyway.

\- - -

The problem with not demanding perfection is that once a feature ships and it's "good enough", it's probably going to stay "good enough" forever.

Yep, Android's has lots of cool features that iPhone has not, but a lot of its core functionality isn't fucking done.

<comment><USER4> >Yep, Android's has lots of cool features that iPhone has not, but a lot of its core functionality isn't fucking done.

Like? I've had a G1 since launch, and I can't really agree with this sentiment.

Yes, Android has had some very rough edges in terms of UI, but, if we're talking core functionality, I've never felt like anything was flat out unfinished. There've been a lot of things added iteratively over the last two years that I wouldn't want to do without now, but everything has been building on the same fundamental base that they shipped with 1.0.

I think it's hard to claim that the competition isn't also guilty of shipping unfinished products. Take a look at the evolution of the iPhone -- all the moaning about copy+paste, multitasking as an afterthought, the fact that cross-app data sharing is still impossible under Apple's ToS, or the fact that Apple fed people a line of bullshit for nearly a year that "if you want to develop for the iPhone, make web apps."

<comment><USER5> If I was doing anything on my ADP1 when I got an incoming call, the phone would become completely unresponsive and quite warm to the touch while it tried to page out other activities in order to allow me to answer the phone.

Only about one time out of five did it actually finish whatever it was trying to do in time for me to answer the call.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Am I the only one that finds the Android UI (esp with HTC Sense) way better looking than the iPhone UI?

I think this is beautiful: [http://www.androidspin.com/wp- content/uploads/2010/02/modaco...](http://www.androidspin.com/wp- content/uploads/2010/02/modaco-htc-sense-screen-2-21-10.png)

The iPhone UI looks dated to me.

<comment><USER7> Static bits of the Android UI do like pretty nice. The article hits on an extremely good point that I haven't heard enough (but strongly feel myself):

Android's UI is just nowhere near as smooth as the iPhone's. "Clunky" is the exact right word. Scrolling on the iPhone is perfect - you can tell Jobs obsessed over making it zero-lag, perfectly smooth. That makes the whole UI -feel- better. And for a lot of users - me included - that's a big deal.

Everytime I pick up an Android phone to play with it - hoping they've fixed this - my immediate impression is "wow...this doesn't scroll as well, doesn't move as smoothly, and feels like an ancient UI." It is - quite literally - like Windows XP vs. Mac OSX.

I think if they figure out a way to NAIL the UI in Android, that will close the gap significantly....

<comment><USER8> I agree scrolling was an issue in the past.

However, using android 2.1 + JIT (sort of a pre-froyo) on an htc hero, I find scrolling _almost_ on par with the iPhone. I imagine Nexus One's with Froyo are near-perfect.

<comment><USER9> Nope, still not close. The 2.2 update did make a difference, but it is still far from perfect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "I've never met an on-screen keyboard I didn't hate. Android is no exception."

Swype. In beta now, but I got in on the beta, and man, does it make on-screen entry a lot better than any other on-screen keyboard I've used.

<comment><USER11> Very interesting... (<http://www.swypeinc.com/>)

Requires touch-typing ability, as you hide a large amount of the display as you swype, but easily stands to be much more efficient than repeated jabbing, but it doesn't prevent specific, accurate input. I quite hope this takes over, it's a great idea.

<comment><USER12> Hmm, that looks a bit like Shapewriter for the iPhone.

<comment><USER13> Which is also available for Android :)

<comment><USER14> Are you sure? Their site tells me otherwise:

<http://www.shapewriter.com/android.html>

I _think_ I read something about it them stopping selling it for Android. Does anyone know why?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I prefer iPhone 4's form-factor, yet I use Nexus One as my primary phone because of its seamless integration of google voice, free turn-by-turn navigation system, and built-in support for tethering.

<comment><USER16> iPhone has tethering built in since iPhone OS 3. Works very well over there with no AT&T in sight.

<comment><USER17> Can you get the iPhone to act as a wifi hotspot though or is it via USB?

<comment><USER18> It is bluetooth or USB only. I guess wifi would eat too much battery

<comment><USER17> Wifi is much more useful though, I can plug my Nexus One in so battery isn't an issue, then use _any_ device that knows about wifi - Nintendo DS, etc etc

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> If you don't like the stock Android keyboard (or even if you do) I'd highly recommend trying out Swype. It's pretty damn impressive. Not perfect, but it's definitely a strong alternative.

</comment><comment><USER20> When we rounded up a few small business people, the things they pointed out that they liked best about Android and iPhone were even more basic than Chad Fowler's report

[http://www.ringio.com/2010/06/29/iphone-vs-android- getting-o...](http://www.ringio.com/2010/06/29/iphone-vs-android-getting-over- the-hype/)

</comment><comment><USER21> Dude, iTunes music has been DRM-free for more than a year now.

<comment><USER22> Amazon has double the bit rate though. That may not matter to some people, but I'm not going to spend money on 128kps songs. I'm no audiophile, but there is a difference at that low of a bitrate.

<comment><USER23> As of April 2007, DRM-free iTunes songs are 256kbps AAC. Amazon MP3 is 320kbps MP3. Audio file formats are a highly-debated and subjective matter, but the consensus seems to be that "AAC is higher quality at the same bit rate, so you can use a smaller file to achieve the same quality as MP3" [1]. (Originally DRM-free songs on iTunes cost extra, but now they are the default.)

[1] [http://www.planetofsoundonline.com/articles/compression1.htm...](http://www.planetofsoundonline.com/articles/compression1.html)

<comment><USER22> News to me, thank you. I skimmed Wikipedia to double check my figures, but I misread it. In either case, I still prefer MP3 to AAC (though converting is trivial).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Other then the fact that he says iTunes music is DRM'd (I don't think it is any more), I'd say this is a pretty fair review of the Android ecosystem.

Edit: This is completely irrelevant, but Chad Fowler looks way different with shorter hair.

<comment><USER25> > he says iTunes music is DRM'd (I don't think it is any more)

No more DRM but they do stamp info about you into the metadata so you can be tracked down if you happen to share the files. Amazon doesn't do this.

<comment><USER26> The last album I purchased from Amazon MP3 has "Amazon.com Song ID: " in the comments field of the ID3 tag.</comment></comment></comment>


FB plans to pass your photos to advertisers, make users the stars of online ads - <AUTHOR> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/04/09/facebook-plans-pass-photographs-advertisers-make-users-stars/ <comment><USER2> The simplest explanation of why this is a tragically bad idea for them can be explained by a single product: "condoms".

If they automatically identify photos where someone happens to have left out a condom somewhere in the frame, and then use their likeness to advertise that brand of condoms (at the brand's request), they will destroy any remaining trust in their platform among teens and inspire hostile legislation after the progeny of a public figure have their face used in such an ad without their opt-in consent.

This is one of the worst ideas they could possibly have come up with. It's insane to think what kind of filter bubble they're working within that permit this to proceed to the patent stage.

<comment><USER3> It is the same filter bubble that leads an employee to triumphantly proclaim

"Remember, what Facebook is doing has never been done before. There are going to be mistakes."

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19321420](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19321420)

It reminded me of this classic tweet:

[https://twitter.com/emilylindin/status/933073784822579200?la...](https://twitter.com/emilylindin/status/933073784822579200?lang=en)

<comment><USER4> I wonder why we need to justify everything as a fault of a "filter bubble". Can't it be that these are bad/selfish/self-absorbed people?

<comment><USER2> Self-absorption and selfishness at the expense of others is a "filter bubble" that seems popular these days. While you could probably construct an argument that this slang isn't the best description, that's no reason to stop using it as shorthand for "a subgroup of modern social culture whose values are locally aligned but contrast with those otherwise proximal to them, whether physically or culturally". Being selfish does not imply that you are a member of a local 'cult' of selfishness, so a group-focused slang will be required if you seek to replace that usage of filter bubble.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Feels like the kind of feature that you monetize until there are too many voices against it at which point you probably made so much money that it's totally worth it.

<comment><USER6> I hope people stop being naive and finally understand they are product, not the customers. If you are not paying for the services it means somebody else pays for you to get the service and that your interest is only important to Facebook as long and as much as they can still keep you posting all your lives' details and carrying their spying app on your phone. Because that's what FB really wants from you, not your happiness.

<comment><USER7> You're always the product. Even paying for a product doesn't mean they aren't gathering and selling your data. As examples, cell phone companies selling location data, tv manufacturers selling viewing data, cable/isp companies selling your browsing history, credit card companies selling your purchasing history. The list goes on. If you don't have a specific guarantee in the contract at the time you paid for a good or service that your data isn't being sold to or shared with third parties, you are the product.

<comment><USER8> > You're always the product. Even paying for a product

Really! I am astonished that people seem comfortable that their products have prominent and sometimes dominant logos of a manufacturer, so that they have paid to be walking/driving billboards for somebody else.

Plenty of iphone and ipad cases have holes to show the mirrored Apple logo -- originally intended as a selfie mirror but obsolete for that purpose once the selfie camera was introduced. (I use both devices myself but don't worry about blocking the logo).

<comment><USER9> It's about status. If you can associate your brand with status, you can make people do anything.

<comment><USER10> I agree with gumby's comment, and also wanted to add that.. I can afford the most expensive clothes you can imagine. I really can. But since I was a teenager I always disliked paying someone £€$ in order to become their walking bilboard. I equally dislike when I give my car for service, and the garage sticks 1-2-3... stickers with their logo, without asking me. If they want advertising space, they should pay for it.

My typical 'uniform' is jeans and some long-sleeve shirt, the ones you buy from Primark for £5 or £10. I have searched for similar items without logo and I can't find anyting decent. Even Patagonia sticks a logo.

They can keep their brand to themselves. If Burberry makes a long-sleeve the way I want it, without any isnignia, and the quality matches the price, I will gladly cough up the £100 to buy it, because I know it will last me 10 years. Until then, I am keeping my money - my money. :)

<comment> daniel-cussen I took the little crocodile off a Lacoste shirt once. Took fucking forever, it was stitched on super tight, but once you remove it it leaves no trace.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Facebook's motto: 1\. Implement out-of-touch privacy antagonistic methods to earn money. 2\. Face public backlash. 3\. Say, we are sorry. We are stopping it (not totally). We are going to improve. 4\. Repeat.

</comment><comment><USER12> Business model that could make so much money that followed-up penalties for privacy violations already priced-in.

Until government steps in - this behavior will continue.

The question and blames should be directed to lawmakers - why they are hesitant to pass strong privacy laws to stop that.

Clearly FB is not going to do anything. It's way cheaper to send Mark Z. to be grilled once a year then abandon privacy violation based business models.

<comment><USER13> > why are they hesitant to pass strong privacy laws

Because companies like FB/Google/Amazon spend ridiculous amounts of money "lobbying" and trading favors with the government to prevent them from doing anything to get in the way of surveillance capitalism.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I thought they already did this. I'm pretty sure it says somewhere in their terms of service they can use your pictures for this(not that I don't think it's horrible or that it's excusable.) Wasn't there some trouble a bunch of years ago when someone found one of their facebook pictures being used in an ad? Or am I thinking of something totally different?

<comment><USER15> Maybe it was using your name/profile photo on ads for companies/products that you previously "liked" or interacted with? [https://mashable.com/2013/09/05/facebook-ads- photo/#Gam.tGNJ...](https://mashable.com/2013/09/05/facebook-ads- photo/#Gam.tGNJ0aql)

<comment><USER14> Yeah pretty sure it was that one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> When I was in college and Facebook was relatively new, I once saw a girl I went to college with in a dating ad. She wasn't a model, she didn't give them permission. But they scraped her photo from Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER17> It would make much more sense to just use the data for advertising and not peoples pictures.

Examples: \- If you see Steve's close friends all drink grey goose but he doesn't start advertising goose to him \- If you have advertised Polo shirts to John and then he uploads a picture of him in a new Polo shirt, fb can take credit for that sale \- Allow advertisers to exclude users who already own/use their product

etc.

This approach is much less visible to consumers and so would be more widely accepted (or just have less articles saying bad things about it).

<comment><USER18> So essentially their current business model?

<comment><USER17> Yep just incrementally better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I can't see how this would be legal. As a amateur photographer myself, I know that to do a commercial photo like this, to advertise a product, I'd need model releases and a potentially a property release. Neither of these are needed for editorial images or people's own personal pictures. I can't see the facebook could do this via the EULA, so they'd have to contact everyone identifiable in the pictures - which I suspect would mean it's not viable for them.

<comment><USER20> That thing where you click on the box that says "I agree to the terms of service." during signup.

Technically you are giving facebook all rights to reproduce and monetize any content you put on the platform... thus has it always been.

<comment><USER21> You're not claiming to have model releases for all subjects in your photos, nor allocate those permissions to Facebook. Very different thing from copyright, which they do get through the EULA.

And the T&Cs suggest they would only share things in a way that was "consistent with your privacy and application settings", and they terminate their license when you remove something from there (surprisingly noble).

But yes, you're the product, etc. Don't be surprised that they want to monetise your content.

<comment><USER22> So they detect and use only photos where you're alone with the product and stop the use in ad campaign, as soon as you remove the photo.

Easy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This is like the Netflix show Maniac, where Emma Stone's character had sold her likeness to be used in advertisements.

<comment> w-ll Not really, I'd say in that case its more like doing stock photo shoots, knowing it will be used for commercial purposes.

Vs what FB is doing, sure they mostly likely own any photo uploaded to them via their TOS, but people never expected for those photos to be used in commercial purposes, even if they say they can in the TOS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> So what if a user uploads a photo they don't own? If I take a group picture with my friends (but I'm not a Facebook user), send it (outside of Facebook controlled means) to one of those individuals pictured, and THEY choose to post it -- what happens, in this new scenario?

The poster doesn't own the rights to the photo, and thus doesn't have the right to implicitly (via some EULA rewrite) grant Facebook the right to use it.

<comment><USER25> Or what if someone uploaded copyrighted Getty images of famous people which then get used in ads. Whose liable in that case when Getty rolls around with DMCA notices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Well, this is just another piece of evidence that my decision to both not be a part of Facebook and to not have any pictures of me online were correct.

<comment><USER27> That's not enough, though—you also have to make sure your friends are not on facebook, and don't put pictures of you online. It's not an individual consent issue anymore in a wired-up world.

<comment><USER26> Yes, I know. In the end, you can't cover things 100%. I have made my preference very well known to my friends and family, though, and they have respected it so far to the best of my knowledge.

I will admit, though, that I do try to avoid having my picture taken by anybody for any reason if I can possibly do so.

Social media has made it too dangerous to engage in blind trust about these things anymore.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> They have filed a patent does not mean they will actually develop it.

<comment><USER29> To file patent, you have to have some prototype, but it actually cannot be in production for more than year (and does not have to be in production at all).

<comment><USER30> In US, requirement for a model dropped in 1880

<comment><USER31> Yup.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> This is absolutely literally precisely the practice that ignited the right to privacy movement in the late 19th century: misappropriation of likeness without notice or compensation for commercial advertising, in the case of Abigail Roberson, whose 1897 portrait photograph was appropriated by Franklin Mills to sell flour, reproduced over 25,000 times acros the United State. She sued and won, but lost on appeal.

[https://gizmodo.com/how-a-19th-century-teenager-sparked-a- ba...](https://gizmodo.com/how-a-19th-century-teenager-sparked-a-battle-over- who-o-1829572319)

</comment><comment><USER33> What an exceeding corrupt and useless tactic! Thanks Facebook, every time I think you've hit the rocky bottom of the Moral Well, you break or the shovels and pick axes and make stuff happen!

</comment><comment><USER34> Their mission is to make the world more open and connected.

<comment><USER26> No. Their mission is to monetize as much of the world's population as possible. That "open and connected" thing is just the pretty lie that they have to tell.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Is this connected to that creepy home device of theirs with the camera being constantly on?

</comment><comment><USER36> This is scary.

I can just imagine this being the new Instagram challenge for young people. Get good looking enough to get in an ad, make no money but be famous in your group of friends. Personally, I don't want to see anyone I know being "used" for an ad. Just imagine, grandma being featured in an adult diaper ad or your son's friend being used in an ad for some toy. Keeping up with the Jones' by seeing them in target ads.

</comment><comment><USER37> If you delete your account, is there any way to make sure your data is deleted? I feel like disabling my account probably only denies myself access to their data on me

<comment> swagasaurus-rex Better to confound FB by posting/uploading fake content. Even better if you can keep it consistently wrong. Be sure to tag your name to other people's faces to confuse their facial recognition algorithms.

<comment><USER37> reminds me of an extension that does that with browsing history:

[https://cs.nyu.edu/trackmenot/](https://cs.nyu.edu/trackmenot/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Lawyers and Para-legals of HN, what's your opinion on this; watermark all photos you upload to FB with a disclaimer saying something like:

"By leaving this picture accessible, Facebook agrees that I retain full copyrights, and Facebook can not use this picture for advertising purposes, all clauses of Facebooks EULA in contrary being void"

Would something like this work and be accepted in a court of law ?

<comment><USER39> No. You agreed to their EULA by signing up, but they are not agreeing to your disclaimer by virtue of you posting it.

<comment><USER40> Right. You're bound by their contract of adhesion, and they are not bound by yours.

Leonine contracts are enforceable only in one direction, after all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Im wondering if something other than my face could star in an ad, like say a body part with googlie eyes stuck on it and a big smile drawn on it etc.

It would definately skew or alter brand perception, so here we go with a filter being required.

</comment><comment><USER42> I can't see the full article so maybe this is covered, but I wonder what kind of protections they have to prevent users maliciously uploading photos featuring brands in photos the brands would rather not be associated with.

<comment><USER43> There are non-paywalled copies around, e.g. at [https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/1053866-time-to-rev- up-...](https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/1053866-time-to-rev-up-those- delete-buttons-facebook-plans-to-pass-your-photographs-to-advertisers-and- make-users-the-stars-of-online-ads/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I can see this being very popular on Instagram, it is already moving in that direction. People love aspirational images of "themselves in the future" and these ads always sell well.

</comment><comment><USER45> Google got in trouble with something very similar with "Shared Endorsements." One of many bad ideas that came along with Google Plus.

</comment><comment><USER46> After a certain amount of time I've stopped caring or even wanting to express any "moral outrage" at this situation. The users of Facebook have been given enough reminders to vote with their feet and move to other platforms that are more privacy-friendly.

If they choose not to and they are expecting a bunch of governments to address their problems, that is a pointless exercise also.

The network effect cannot be so powerful that the 5-10 people you frequently engage with online can't all move with you to other platforms.

</comment><comment><USER47> Facebook will always do questionable things because the value they get from these practices is way higher than the penalty cost.

</comment><comment><USER48> I think EBay has a clause like this in their terms, where you give them a non- exclusive right to your product photos.

What a mess.

</comment><comment><USER10> Very interesting infographic shows "How Tech Giants Make Their Billion". I think that we all have a good idea who the Big4 make their $$$$ but it is interesting to see it also in relation with some coutries' GDP as well as seeing how much each stream makes.

[1]: [https://assets.pcmag.com/media/images/551166-whyaxis-how- tec...](https://assets.pcmag.com/media/images/551166-whyaxis-how-tech-giants- make-their-billions-visual-capitalist.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER49> Such bullshit that this is a patent

<comment><USER26> Lots of patents are complete bullshit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Looks like it could be retrofitted for political content very easily.

</comment><comment><USER51> They already did this years ago. Has everyone really forgotten?

</comment><comment><USER52> google had this for ages. you can get to this permission from android google account settings.

if even shows an example of a user's innocuous review showing up in an Ad.</comment>


Out with BTFD, in with BTFR - <AUTHOR> http://thesoundingline.com/taps-coogan-out-with-btfd-in-with-btfr/ <comment><USER2> > Those policies were met by snarky critiques from a slew of traders and > bloggers who remarked that 'you can't fix a debt crisis with more debt' and > that 'you can't print your way to prosperity.'

I thought it was well accepted that austerity measures in a depression are a really horrible idea. Greece may be the most recent example. Is that not the case?</comment>


Why Creators Shouldn't Fear File Sharing - <AUTHOR> http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2010/05/piracy-again.html

<comment> ryan-allen Back when I was learning piano under a jazz pianist (who also was part of a electronic duo, signed to a label, that were becoming increasingly popular), he told me that when he released his albums they were not making a lot of money on them. His label told them it was because of "file sharing", yet as a musician, he made most of his money by performing live at venues and doing tours.

I said that "if more people are listening to your music, more people know about you, and more people will come to you gigs, right?", but he fully believed what his label was telling him.

The label were responsible for the bands website, and if you were a fan, you could not even go to this site and see where they were performing next.

I know this doesn't translate directly to ebook story, but I think it points out that perfectly rational people can be hoodwinked by this kind of thinking. A clever marketer would see this as an opportunity.

</comment><comment><USER2> _Q: Piracy is immoral, and illegal. We need to spread awareness, then people will stop doing it.

A: Sure... that's how religion was able to successfully put a halt to masturbation, pre-marital and extra-marital sex. And why the US successfully won the war on drugs.

Illegal doesn't matter. People do what they want to do. Immoral is subjective. And teaching people to behave in a way contrary to human nature DOES NOT WORK._

I've been trying to explain this to some people I know. I hope this helps. :)

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm tired of the straw man arguments used here. Regardless of if you agree with the gist of his posts, (and I do), no one is saying one download is one lost sale, but to say that no downloads are lost sales is disingenuous. You can say that they are sales you don't care about if you want, but there are definitely lost sales.

Secondly, you don't have to interview every pirate in order to find out. If that were true, it would be impossible to predict elections without... taking everyone's vote. I have a feeling Nate Silver would have a few words for this guy.

<comment><USER4> His point was that downloads also result in sales - and that there is no evidence that more sales are lost than are gained.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> As a past creator of downloadable software, I don't fear file sharing... because I am no longer producing downloadable software. I'm producing web applications, one of whose many benefits is that they make piracy obsolete.

Enjoy your BitTorrent and whinging about how DRM infringes on your "rights" to enjoy the content you "own", as you gradually realize that content producers are migrating from the forms of content you can conveniently steal to the forms of content that you can't.

I have rather limited sympathy.

<comment><USER6> Please don't pretend like a lot of people aren't going to make a lot of money selling things that could be pirated. You can migrate wherever you want, but you are only half the equation. If the consumers don't follow, someone will replace you and make all the money you are too proud to make.

But at least piracy will be zero.

ETA: I am pretty amazed by your use of scare quotes around the words "rights" and "own". It's almost like you are mocking people who expect to be able to buy things, and then own them.

<comment><USER7> > I am pretty amazed by your use of scare quotes around the words "rights" and > "own". It's almost like you are mocking people who expect to be able to buy > things, and then own them.

This is the thing that concerns me the most about the current battle between pirates and Big Media.

The pirate side likes to point out that copyright infringement is not theft. A ripped copy does not imply a lost sale, they say, and of course there is some truth in that.

However, these arguments are based on the fact that we are now dealing with pure information products rather than physical products that happen to contain the information. The other side of that distinction is if you no longer buy a physical product, you no longer have something you can keep and use as you see fit. Instead, you are only paying for a service, which provides information with certain controls and under certain conditions.

It is natural that people who put a lot of money into developing this information will react in this way, and clearly for now a lot of people are willing to sign up to on-line music services, games services, etc. But we are drifting into a world where the industry Powers That Be are going to hide _everything_ behind rental models, and it will no longer be possible to buy an open-ended, use-it-as-you-like version of information products. When they switch the servers off, it's gone. If you move account, it's gone, and you have to pay again on your new service, just like when they went from LPs to tapes to CDs.

I'm not sure that is a healthy direction to move in, but as long as significant numbers insist on breaking the law and ripping off others' hard work, that's the direction that market forces will push. If, as some artists believe, there is more upside than downside to allowing open sharing of works, then they will be free to continue releasing things on that basis, and time will tell whether they are right. But for an article that keeps talking about having no evidence for illegal downloads causing a reduction in sales, it is assuming a lot about a culture that shares freely that is also not really supported by evidence yet.

<comment><USER8> >But we are drifting into a world where the industry Powers That Be are going to hide everything behind rental models, and it will no longer be possible to buy an open-ended, use-it-as-you-like version of information products. When they switch the servers off, it's gone. If you move account, it's gone, and you have to pay again on your new service, just like when they went from LPs to tapes to CDs.

>I'm not sure that is a healthy direction to move in, but as long as significant numbers insist on breaking the law and ripping off others' hard work, that's the direction that market forces will push.

If it comes to that, I can safely predict one thing: piracy will increase enormously.

Just, as they said in the blogs comments, like Harry Potter books in electronic are among the most pirated because there are no official Harry Potter ebooks for sale.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> _I'd like to make it clear that I believe piracy is stealing._

<comment><USER10> _... I simply do not equate it with stealing something tangible._

Kind of like how that one guy that one time stole my web startup idea!!!</comment></comment>


Twitter CTO leaves company - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/adam_messinger/status/811326653339025408 <comment><USER2> Twitter seems to be having a big shakeup this year, what with the layoffs and shutting down Vine [0]. I wonder if this is part of it. I hope it shows that Twitter is becoming more serious. They've done very little meaningful innovation in the consumer facing product in years, but the product remains incredibly addictive. I spend 1-2 hours a day on it (unfortunately).

Twitter's an incredible service, I hope the execs can turn it into a great company.

[0] [http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/27/technology/twitter- layoffs-e...](http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/27/technology/twitter-layoffs- earnings/)

</comment><comment><USER3> CTO at Twitter, but no "Blue Check"?</comment>


How engineering leaders control product delivery of remote teams - <AUTHOR> https://valycs.com/blog/control-product-delivery-for-engineering-leaders <comment><AUTHOR> Please share your feedback here!</comment>


Autonomous vehicles and Transport as a Service (TaaS) will end car ownership - <AUTHOR> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ud-fPKnj3Q <comment><AUTHOR> Tony Seba predicts the end of personal car ownership due to the disruption of transportation by new technology (batteries, electric vehicles, autonomous vehicles) and new business models, such as ride hailing and Transport-as-a- Service (TaaS).

</comment><comment><USER2> Just like renting homes ended home ownership?</comment>