U.S. Judge Orders "Immediate Removal" of Website Critical of Voice Lie Detector - <AUTHOR> https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2019/05/19/federal-judge-orders-immediate-removal-of-website-critical-of-computer-voice-stress-analysis/ <comment><USER2> Title:

> U.S. Judge Orders "Immediate Removal" of Website Critical of Voice Lie > Detector

It was a default judgement, the judge didn't "order" anything. If the other side fails to answer the case at all ("Dektor has not timely responded to either motion."[0]), the judge simply grants the claimant what they asked for.

You can apply to vacate a default judgement and get your day in court, but that requires you to take part in proceedings. It should also be noted that "Arthur Herring III" of Dektor has an interest history (just google it, I see multiple unrelated news articles/lawsuits), and that both sides are selling voice "lie detectors."

[0] [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237...](https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237.95.0.pdf)

<comment><USER3> Default judgements are not as simple as you disingenuously claim.

"Answering the case" = paying a lawyer at least a low five figure USD retainer to write a ~20 page document, 15 of which is a template, and then show up in court on your behalf.

No money, no justice, unless you successfully beg for probono work (ie: find a lawyer willing to volunteer).

<comment><USER2> You didn't refute anything I posted, just posted an unrelated point while calling my post "disingenuous" for no clear reason.

One of the sides didn't turn up at all, nor write a response, after having been served. Lawsuits being expensive is a valid point, but it is an separate point than what I posted about above.

<comment><USER3> You didn't refute anything I said, either ;-)

The sad truth is that medium and large enterprises can use the crushing burden of legal costs to impose their will upon the little guy. Said little guy has to make a decision when they get sued: a.) get a second mortgage to pay the lawyers; b.) grovel: "please sir, let me go, I'll stop saying mean things about you, even if they are true"; or c.) pretend it doesn't exist. Default judgements are generally people irrationally opting for option c.

This is just like an engineer saying "I could replicate this product in in a weekend", knowing full well that it would take a team of 10 a year to do so at a fully-loaded cost of a few million dollars.

IMHO this is a spat between two quacks (you devoted the last sentence of your comment to this), one with slightly more money than the other (you failed to mention this, and it's significance, which is why I brought it up). Guess which quack will prevail.

<comment><USER2> > You didn't refute anything I said, either ;-)

I also didn't insult you, your post, or call it out. I actually said you made a valid point, apples and oranges to what you did above.

<comment><USER3> My whole point is that they are apples to apples. It is not possible, and dare I repeat, disingenuous, to divorce legal outcomes from their monetary costs.

Update: IMHO, every legal case should publish, at every document submitted to court, their billable costs to date so as to color the historical public record.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > _On March 12, 2019, a Clerk's default was entered against Dektor based upon > its failure to appear, answer, or otherwise plead to NITV's Complaint, > despite having been duly served_ [1]

Yeah..... if you publish allegedly defamatory claims against a competitor, are ordered to appear in court and don't even show up to defend yourself, then not exactly surprising.

Not sure what's newsworthy about this. At a glance, the title almost suggests the government is trying to suppress information critical of polygraphs, which doesn't appear to be even remotely the case?

[1] [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237...](https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237.95.0.pdf)

<comment><AUTHOR> The reason I think this is newsworthy is that the website whose "immediate removal" has been ordered includes voluminous unflattering but apparently true information about the "National Institute for Truth Verification," information that is of public interest that is at risk of being suppressed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Not clear there's any intent to censor here by the courts, so much as mediate a dispute between two equally disreputable vendors of bogus lie detection systems.

More concerning is the fact that so many large law enforcement institutions continue to use these systems even after the fact of their ineffectiveness has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. If such institutions cannot weigh and respond to evidence correctly as it relates to their own investigatory methods, why should we have any faith in their ability to handle evidence correctly in the course of those investigations themselves?

</comment><comment><USER6> And here it is anyway:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20190518135724/http://www.nitvcv...](https://web.archive.org/web/20190518135724/http://www.nitvcvsaexposed.com/)

Looks like a link collection and a video (which doesn't play). That video may hold the key to the judge's decision because ordering a takedown of a link collection seems like overreach.

On the current version of the site it's just an ABC clip from YouTube:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsufvxgLf0g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsufvxgLf0g)

From the video:

ABC: "Has there been a single scientific study that shows that this works?"

"Dr." Charles Humble: "I don't believe that there has been an independent scientific study that shows that this works."

Yet it's been used by police around the country to elicit confessions and convictions, according to ABC.

This case is more complicated than the article lets on:

> This case involves two competing businesses that sell truth verification > technology. NITV is a Florida limited liability company based in Palm Beach > County whose members are all Florida citizens [DE 1 ¶ 1]. Dektor is a > Pennsylvania corporation headquartered in Coopersburg, Pennsylvania [Id. ¶ > 2]. Dektor's President and sole shareholder is Defendant Arthur Herring III, > who is a citizen and resident of Pennsylvania [Id. ¶¶ 3, 22].

[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237...](https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237.95.0.pdf)

Edit: Charles Humble was in fact lying, as the ABC clip shows. The Pentagon conducted an independent investigation and found the device to be no more accurate than flipping a coin.

<comment><USER7> > This character has all the hallmarks of a quack. The judge's decision is > questionable at best.

This is an adversarial system, not an inquisitorial one. It's not the judge's job to decide the truth of the matter without briefing from both sides. If one side doesn't show up, that side loses by default because otherwise it would be advantageous for a party being sued to just not show up to court.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> [https://web.archive.org/web/20190519153139/https://antipolyg...](https://web.archive.org/web/20190519153139/https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2019/05/19/federal- judge-orders-immediate-removal-of-website-critical-of-computer-voice-stress- analysis/)

</comment><comment><USER9> As others have pointed out, a default judgement implies the defendant basically doing nothing, which is the worst possible "defense".

This is what a lot of litigators bank on - send threatening letters (perhaps en-masse) to rake in the default judgements but then only proceed on appeal if it's worth the hassle.

</comment><comment><USER10> Datproject mirror

dat://0e7edf972270a5901dc434591f6bf865dc24d24823adfee277628a29b59fae98/

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm a huge fan of true crime, listening to thousands of hours of podcasts, endless TV shows and documentaries, I own at least 30 true crime nonfiction books, etc. But I don't have any formal credentials in criminology.

After all my listening, I believe that if I was law enforcement I would appreciate the lie detector. It doesn't actually detect lies, and a trained person or a sociopath 100% in control of their emotions and heart rate can beat it. And many people have.

However, the power in the lie detector comes from its name - "The Lie Detector" \- and the common belief that it actually works.

The interesting result of a lie detector isn't that it actually detects lies. No matter what the result is, if I was an investigator, I would tell the suspect that it said they lied and it is 100% accurate. The reaction to telling the suspect this, and what they do next, could very well result in a confession, or at least meaningful information. It's a psychological trick that is quite useful. The lie detector is such an absurd piece of theater, and most people have never seen one before let alone had one taken, that they cannot prepare for the result. If you interrogate 100 suspects, you can use their reaction to further your opinion of whether they are truly guilty by comparing to your past interrogations.

Now, would I ever agree to take a lie detector test? Hell no! And they are also not admissible in court, as the law understands that they don't actually work.

But in an interrogation process, where cops are lying and deceiving and tactically revealing information, it is a good arrow in the quiver.

<comment><USER5> Firstly, who has more reason to research lie detectors and realise they don't work, a criminal or an innocent person? Clearly, it's the former, so you're using a "trick" that is weighted _against_ innocent people.

Secondly, most criminal justice systems reward early confession with reduced sentences and plea bargaining. In such systems, presenting a suspect with fabricated evidence—which is what a "positive" lie detection report is—seems just as likely to induce a false confession as a real one.

If we allowed cops to plant evidence and falsify statements, we could probably get a lot more confessions. If we eliminated the "innocent" verdict at trial, or reintroduced trial by ordeal, we could do the same. But we don't do this because these are fundamentally unjust, and so is allowing law enforcement to claim they know people are guilty due to magic.</comment></comment>


What is up with the insane long Google results URL now? - <AUTHOR> http://mergy.org/2013/01/what-is-up-with-the-insane-long-google-results-url-now/

<comment><USER2> I assume someone at Google reviews and approves each one of these parameters that gets added, and each one of them has a good reason for existing (even if we don't know what it is or believe its a good reason).

As a thought experiment I figured if I worked at Google how would I quantify the expense of a query parameter. Users don't really know or care what URLs look like anymore as long as the page is fast, so apart from measuring the gallons of tears generated on Hacker News, I guess resource usage would be the first logical thing to look at right?

Assuming every search is exactly like the one provided in the linked article, and using some public numbers from 2011 on searches/day, these are the top 5 parameters in terms of bandwidth used just transmitting the key and value to the server.

       gs_l	    42.3 Mbps
       bav	    11.7 Mbps
       bvm	    9.1 Mbps
       fp	    8.7 Mbps
       sclient  6.1 Mbps

For just the top 5 thats almost 78 Mb of inbound data per second. Being sent over end users pipes (which are often limited by upload), hitting my transit and peering links, passing through my routers, hitting my front end load balancers, being turned into GoogleInternalProtocolX and fanned out to dozens of servers inside the datacenter over switches and internal routers, and being logged on durable storage for 18 months (assuming they dump this extra data when they strip personal information from the search record). Wow.

A general rule of thumb would be for every 20 bytes you add to URLs by way of keys or values, you've increased the overhead of almost every part of the Google infrastructure by 1 MB per second. (Note I did switch from bits to bytes in the final conversion, and this number is sourced from shaky data to start with)

<comment><USER3> Maybe I missed it, but where are you getting this data from? It looks quite interesting, and I'd love to see more. Would you be willing/able to share?

<comment><USER2> I googled for "google searches per day", kept clicking around until I found a few sites that agreed on a number for a recent year. Counted the number of bytes for each URL parameter, then just did a bunch of back of the envelope math. None of it is scientific or probably even close to the actual numbers. Just a thought experiment I did that I thought might be interesting enough for a comment.

<comment><USER4> You were correct, but maybe add some more details and links to your sources?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Google's search URLs have slowly been creeping up in length over years. Some of the parameters like hl are for user interface control (in this case, langauge). Others like sourceid are for broad tracking of who's using Google how. And lately there are many more nonces mostly related to tracking individual users, Google+, instant search, etc. Many of those change based on who you are logged in as.

Google is also responsible for all the utm_source spam in Feedburner and other tracked URLs. And they are the ones behind the #! / _escaped_fragment_ nonsense. Google's first search product worked so well mostly because it relied on standard URLs as unique pointers to web pages. It's a shame they're breaking URLs in so many ways now.

<comment><USER6> I don't have a problem with the _escaped_fragment_ stuff, since no human is supposed to ever see those. I utilize those on my single-page JS website and it is fantastic. Google can index my site while I can serve blazingly fast pages to my users.

If a human ever sees an _escaped_fragment_ page...something terribly wrong has happened.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Speculation: way back in the day if you Googled for [software marketing service], liked what you saw, and had me Google for it, I'd get substantially the same results. That has been increasingly untrue for years, due to geotargeted results, personalization, persistence across searches, search refinement, their datacenter model, yadda yadda. If users expect copy/pasting a link to a search so that someone can repro it to actually work, then that search query now has to carry more state than just "What I typed into the Internet before I clicked the Googles" (totally baffling to users, who think this is what selects their results).

<comment><USER8> but what the hell is the point of that if the url redirects to another url? do they really want to track people copy-pasting urls into email/ims? if so, why not use goo.gl?

<comment><USER9> What redirect? And, did you even read the comment that you're replying to?

1\. There isn't a redirect from that huge link. 2\. The post replying to just explained a theory that doesn't involve tracking: the URL needs to be that long to be unique enough to specify a page with the exact same search results.

<comment><USER10> Perform the following experiment:

1\. Visit <https://www.google.com/search?q=hackernews>

2\. Mouse over first result, note the url news.ycombinator.com shown in your browser's status bar.

3\. Right-click the first result and 'copy link location'

4\. Check what's on your clipboard. For me it's www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.ycombinator.com%2F&ei=fRb5UNSeD- am0AW88YGQBg&usg=AFQjCNGKJHXhsq1s0-gYR96B--m47G9oRw&bvm=bv.41248874,d.d2k

5\. Visit said URL in your browser and note you get redirected to news.ycombinator.com

As you can see, you are redirected via a huge link.

<comment><USER11> As janzer said, that's not the URL patio11 is talking about, however this redirect is here for a good reason too. It's needed to preserve the search terms in the referrer header for links that are triggered by JavaScript - which is needed if webmasters want to see which search terms are driving traffic to their sites.

<comment><USER12> I presume it's also handy for tracking click-throughs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is Google keeping search keywords for their paying customers (changing referer), among other things. Honestly I wouldn't care so much if it weren't so dang slow at random times!

Firefox addon (useful many places):

[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/redirect- remo...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/redirect-remover/)

Chrome:

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/undirect/dohbiijnj...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/undirect/dohbiijnjeiejifbgfdhfknogknkglio)

Edit: This comment is relevant to search results, not the address bar, my bad!

<comment><USER14> Thanks for linking to that one, the redirect thing is very annoying (and time- consuming, relatively speaking, which for a speed-obsessed party like google isn't a good thing or very representative)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> But I really want it to stop. I hate not being able to just "copy link address" off of the results page

<comment><USER16> This is really insane. The only important params from my point of view are (apart from query) hl (language -- important if you use google.com outside of US to have results in English or any other lang), page number, and safe (for filtering).

The solutions that could be applied on Google side for this:

1\. Perhaps they could add some button like on YouTube and other pages to share the search (be it web search, image search etc.). Of course it will clutter the UI but it's already cluttered and non-intuitive, especially given their experiments (AB testing?). Each few weeks I see something moved, changed, colors tweaked. Think what if Microsoft were doing sth like this with Windows or Office... :)

2\. Use the History API to decrappify the URL after the load (it's a kind of cheat, but I would like it).

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Easy to work around, no plugins or silliness require.

Get to Google via Duck Duck Go as your intermediary. Either from your search bar (if DDG is your default search engine), or directly from the DDG search page, search for

!g testing

!g tells DDG to send the query to google, and you land on the google results page (not DDG), at the following URL:

[https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=testing](https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=testing)

Even if you prefer google to DDG, you should make DDG your default search, and get to google via !g.

!gi searches google images. !am searches amazon. !imdb searches imdb, etc.

<https://duckduckgo.com/bang.html>

<comment><USER18> I am really interested in this, any tips for automation on chrome so I can use the omni bar and don't have to type !g ?

<comment><USER19> Click on the "Zebra Crossing" (that used to be the wrench/spanner :sigh:) icon > Settings > Search > Manage Search Engines

Scroll to the bottom and add "DDGooG" as Name, duckduckgo.com as the keyword and <https://duckduckgo.com/?q=!g%20%s> as the URL.

Hover over the URL and select "Make Default".

You are all set :)

<comment><USER20> That's a start, but it's a pretty roundabout way to do it.

You can just use [https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%s](https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%s) directly :)

<comment><USER21> ...and make ones for Google Images, Google Maps, Wikipedia, and lots of other sites...

<comment><USER20> right, but that's different than what the GP to my post was asking, which was how to automate a regular google search with the clean URL without having to type !g every time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Sucky side effect - Safari's browsing history just lists a whole bunch of really long google URLs. If I'm looking for something particular I have to try every link in the list.

Edit: See [http://bartkowalski.com/2012/02/google-urls-in-safari- browse...](http://bartkowalski.com/2012/02/google-urls-in-safari-browser- history/) for an example.

<comment><USER23> Well the original post was about the results pages. These urls are the redirects when you click on one of the results.

This seems like a bug in Safari though and not an issue with Google's URLs although I admit they are not too pretty.

An alternative to trying every link would be to try a different browser.

<comment><USER24> It's entirely due to Google's client-side redirects. Which are stupid and annoying and Google should fix them.

But since Google doesn't care, the Detox extension works nicely. Though it's always somewhat sad when you have to resort to browser extensions to work around web programmers' stupidity.

EDIT: Also, I just tried your suggestion of a different browser, and tried Google's own browser. The stupid titleless redirection URLs are still there, cluttering up your history. So that doesn't really fix it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> my job involves copy & pasting URLs into mails, IMs, documents, .. all the time, that's why my google chrome omnibar triggered default search URL is i.e.:

      https://www.google.com/search?q=hacker+news&pws=0&hl=en
      (pws - no personalization, hl = language)

how to: Google Chrome Settings -> Section "Search" Button "Manage Search Engines" -> Overlay "Other Search Engines" -> Scroll Down -> Add new search engine with the URL [https://www.google.com/search?q=%s&pws=0&hl=en](https://www.google.com/search?q=%s&pws=0&hl=en) -> "Make default"

sadly custom search engines aren't synced in chrome, so every time you set up a new browser, you need to add your custom search setting again...

<comment><USER26> This is fantastic advice. Thank you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> It's been like this for a while. A Twitter friend of mine created a simple bookmarklet that you can click which will remove the extra data and allow you to right-click and copy the URL alone. You can drag the bookmarklet from here to your bookmark bar [http://techkp.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/copy-pasting- googles-se...](http://techkp.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/copy-pasting-googles- search-results.html)

Click the bookmarklet before copying the link to get the actual URL.

<comment><USER28> Or you could use this greasemonkey script that doesn't even require you to click on the bookmarklet, and it makes all result links direct, so you can reach them faster:

<http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/134151>

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> In chrome I set my default search engine to "Googol" with the search query: <http://google.com/search?q=%s>. Seemed to fix it for me

<comment><USER30> but then you have to tell everyone who visits your site to do this...

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Some of the parameters are there to enable certain performance enhancements. For example:

-The home page, after rendering the search box and all that, asynchronously downloads the css, images and html needed to display the chrome around the results listing.

-That way it is cached on the client, and when they perform a query, less data has to be downloaded from Google's servers (just the actual results & ads), making the result page render faster.

-It knows not to download all the chrome due to the presence of the 'fp' GET parameter, the absence of that parameter will cause the entire results page, including chrome, to be downloaded.

I presume the rest of the parameters are useful for similar reasons.

It should also be noted that for non-HTML5 compatible browsers, modifying the hash fragment with JavaScript is the only way to change the url that gets bookmarked without causing a page reload (which would add latency), so if you want a bookmarkable local results page for images with certain preferences, adding a bunch of crap (latitude, longitude, preference hash, query, search type, etc.) to the fragment is the only way.

</comment><comment><USER31> DuckDuckGo URL: <https://duckduckgo.com/?q=test>

<comment><USER32> <http://www.google.com/search?q=test>

<comment><USER33> Click the search button.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> CoralCDN link:

[http://mergy.org.nyud.net/2013/01/what-is-up-with-the- insane...](http://mergy.org.nyud.net/2013/01/what-is-up-with-the-insane-long- google-results-url-now/)

I couldn't get through to the main site. Fortunately someone had fetched the page over coralcdn at some earlier point. I wonder if someone wrote a proactive coralcdn bot for HN links.

<comment><AUTHOR> Throwing some more bandwidth on it now. Thanks for the mirror link.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> One side effect of these is that it's hard to figure out what the minimal parameters are needed to search when you're trying to create a keyword search (or similar task). E.g., I can type "gna harry carey" in my address bar to search in the Google News Archive, but they've broken my URLs several times and sometimes the fix was far from intuitive. (Right now, for gna I use "[https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws...](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=%s&tbs=ar:1) )

Since we're on the topic of Google searches, have other people noticed that advanced searches have become quite a bit worse over the last couple of years? The basic search is often quite astounding in how it gets what you want at the top of the results, but using advanced operators often produces quite strange results.

This is even more obvious in the non-web searches, such as Google News, Google Groups, patents, and Google Books. There you can see a result, but then if you add a restriction to the search, such as date range, or "group:" or "ininventor:", it won't find any results--even the ones you just saw which match new criteria.

</comment><comment><USER36> If you want to share a Google search, you can always use the short and sweet: google.com/#q=keywords

</comment><comment><USER37> I don't believe this is a new development.

<comment><USER38> I think it used to happen only if your User-Agent parsed a few specific ways. I did just recently notice the broken "Copy Link Location" in places where it wasn't before.

All the more reason to stick with DDG.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Does someone know a working Chrome extension / userscript that will disable the Google search results redirects?

<comment><USER28> Yep, <http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/134151>

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Not sure if this is related but I started using this goo.gl extension and it has been great to paste links in emails. I use it all day long especially for Google docs links.

<http://goo.gl/Ya1kC>

</comment><comment><USER41> In Chrome, you can lessen the pain by using the "goo.gl" (or similar) extension.

</comment><comment><USER42> Google: slowing fucking up a good thing.</comment>


Are Noise Cancelling Headphones Worth It? - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffreymorrison/2014/02/21/are-noise-cancelling-headphones-worth-it/

<comment><USER2> Depends on the environment, and whether you can tolerate proper earphones with a good seal. If you can, they provide pretty good isolation without mucking with the sound. If you can't, then noise reducing can will knock back the surrounding noise (I've seen people use them on planes to sleep, for example). But to me, they nuke the high end - YMMV.

I have a pair of Etymotic ER4P's. Ety's are pretty good earphones, but so are Shures. Cans, like speakers, are something that must be experienced first- hand. It depends on your ears, the kind(s) of music you listen to and the quality of the signal path and signal.

</comment><comment><USER3> No.

$4 earbuds with whitenoise in them are much better, imo.</comment>


The arrogant VC: entrepreneurs share their horror stories - <AUTHOR> http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2009/12/08/the-arrogant-venture-capitalist-a-view-from-the-trenches/

<comment><USER2> The horror stories are real but the environment has changed to the relative advantage of founders/entrepreneurs.

In the 1980s, founders who approached VCs were more like supplicants who had comparatively little knowledge or sophistication about how to deal with an elite group on whom they utterly depended and whose power in relation to theirs was lopsidedly overwhelming. Due-diligence cycles, for example, could easily extend a year or more as the founders hoped for the best that their much-needed capital would come to them one way or the other.

Today, founders have far more knowledge and sophistication in dealing with VCs and, even more important, a typically broader range of choices. It is much easier today to come up with winning business models that either bypass or defer VC funding in ways that give founders potentially more leverage than they once had. When dealing with VCs today, founders also have a much greater understanding of potential pitfalls and abuses (such as those highlighted in this piece).

It is the same dance as 25 years ago but the average founder no longer is led (more or less) blindly as before. The dynamic has tipped more in the founders' direction, and this change is here to stay. Think of it as a _relative_ empowerment of founders in relation to those of the past.

<comment><USER3> I think entrepreneurs had more leverage in the '90s.

In 2009, with the economy in such a damaged state, VCs know that entrepreneurs would be in severe pain if they entered the traditional labor market right now, and they're using this as leverage. Taking the $120k job at mid-size, promising startup is not an option for as many people right now.

Knowledge (of VC tactics, terms) doesn't help the entrepreneur very much. This is about power, not knowledge. Everyone knows that multiple liquidation preferences are evil, but how many people are going to select death over bad terms?

<comment><USER2> Of course, during the bubble, the leverage shifted greatly in favor of entrepreneurs.

The main advantage today for entrepreneurs (if their business model allows it) is to use bootstrap/angel-based methods of working around the VCs while building the core parts of their companies and dealing with VCs later, if at all. In other words, many entrepreneurs today have the luxury of being able to work around the VCs and to use them only when and if it suits their purposes.

Believe me, this is huge. I have many _serial_ entrepreneurs coming to me today who used to go strictly through large firms because, in the old days, their only option was to work with such firms and their VC allies. Today, they readily avoid such large firms precisely because they want the independence of developing their companies in a more flexible way.

It is the power _not_ to have to come to the VC table at all that gives the new-found leverage (of course, for some companies, this is not possible). This is very new and very significant in today's climate. When combined with the added knowledge available to entrepreneurs today, the power balance is definitely shifted to a degree in their favor over the old ways.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> A classic leveraged 1:n problem. Every VC has many entrepreneurs to worry about and so in conclusion does not give a damn about most, especially if they show early signs of failure. Every entrepreneur depends heavily on his or her VC, so from that perspective, the relationship is naturally a different one...

</comment><comment><USER5> The unabridged version, linked at the end:

[http://www.freddestin.com/blog/2009/12/the-arrogant-vc-a- vie...](http://www.freddestin.com/blog/2009/12/the-arrogant-vc-a-view-from- the-trenches-full-length-version.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Here's the problem: most technology entrepreneurs could, with a couple years' training, do the VCs' jobs as well as they do. The only thing they lack is the connections necessary to get the job.

Yet VCs hold the cards, and the reason for this is that they have rare social resources, which are (unfortunately) valued more highly than talent.

I'm not disparaging VCs as a class. Some of them are great, but I'm a 26-year- old with no MBA and know for a fact that I'd be a better candidate for an entry-level VC position than 95% of the people getting them (because I've worked on Wall Street and know some of these people).</comment>


The New World Atlas of Artificial Sky Brightness - <AUTHOR> http://cires.colorado.edu/artificial-sky <comment><USER2> This is really poor resolution and less useful than the many previously existing tools that do the same thing. I like shooting pictures of the Milky Way so dark skies are a must and I use this map most frequently:

[http://www.jshine.net/astronomy/dark_sky/](http://www.jshine.net/astronomy/dark_sky/)

<comment><USER3> Is Dark Sky Finder US-only? I don't see anything over Europe or Asia while OP seems to offer global coverage.

<comment><USER2> [Eastern] Europe has little dark sky, but here is a similar source that has global coverage (the advantage of the other is suggested viewing sites, this one is just a map):

[http://darksitefinder.com/maps/world.html](http://darksitefinder.com/maps/world.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Based in (imho) the best city in the US: [http://darksky.org](http://darksky.org)

I never realized how awesome it is to have almost no street lights until I moved here. It's wonderful. You get to keep your night vision when you go on a walk.

<comment><USER5> Am I missing something, or did you not mention the actual location of "the best city in the US"?

<comment><USER4> Tucson, AZ. Home of the International Dark-Sky Association, The University Of Arizona and it's Mirror Lab. Wrapped by ~9k mountains on 3 sides (Lemmon, Rincon, and Wrightson). We have damn good thunderstorms too.

[https://vimeo.com/107450172](https://vimeo.com/107450172)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVS5DekZ7VQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVS5DekZ7VQ)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3glyRZLZAR0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3glyRZLZAR0)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41gM6lwAOo4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41gM6lwAOo4)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I was just in Mitzpe Ramon, IL with my family on a moonless weekend night. It is supposed to be the darkest point in Israel. The viewing was fairly good that night.

And yet my kids were disappointed upon seeing the Milky Way. They'd expected it to look like what they've seen in pictures, like shown in this NPR article on the subject:

[http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2016/06/10/481545778/...](http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2016/06/10/481545778/light-pollution-hides-milky-way-from-80-percent-of- north-americans-atlas-shows)

I'd even forewarned them not to expect the night sky to look like it does in photos they've seen of it. :-(

</comment><comment><USER7> Interesting to look at the North Sea (off Scotland for those not familiar). The magnitude of the light pollution from the oils rigs seems extremely high, comparable to large cities. Seems unlikely.

Cool project regardless!

<comment><USER8> Oil rigs producing as much light a large city does not seem unlikely at all to me. The Prudhoe Bay oil field in the north of Alaska has always stood out in its disproportionate brightness and size in any night-view of the earth I've seen (and light pollution is the least of our worries when it comes to this place's environmental impact).

That being said, oil fields being overly visible might be a symptom that they used data based on satellites capturing slightly lower frequencies (near infrared) rather than precisely representing visible light. I know I've seen night maps of the earth that turned out to be based on near-IR imagery.

<comment><USER9> A hotspot on the map highlighting Mt Yasur Volcano, Tanna, Vanuatu is an example of the near-IR. No light pollution there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Interesting to see that the Randstad area i live in ( Zoetermeer) is one of the biggest hotspots. We have a lot of greenhouse farming around here where they take the CO2 from the petrochemical plants in Rotterdam harbour, pipe them in the greenhouses and run lights during the night to make the plants and flowers grow as fast as possible.

When my English friend came over he was amazed at how light it was out here, i had to tell him i hadn't seen stars at night ever when i was out at night around this area.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHyQx4eckkc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHyQx4eckkc) < about a minute or two into this you see the yellow hue on the sky, this not first rays of light from the sun hitting the clouds, its light pollution.

</comment><comment><USER11> What on earth is going on in northern Alaska? I feel like that has to be a data error, because there is literally nothing up there. I verified on Google Earth... Couple microscopic towns hundreds of miles apart, nothing like the map is showing.

Update: Prudhoe Bat / Oil Fields

</comment><comment><USER12> Is there an explanation for the large hotspot to the Northwest of Bismarck, ND?

<comment><USER13> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Dakota_oil_boom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Dakota_oil_boom)</comment></comment>


Snowden: Dangerously naive or a liar - <AUTHOR> http://joshuafoust.com/dangerously-naive-or-a-liar/

<comment><USER2> A liar looking for attention or a hero?

I'm not sure. The facts are the government has reacted quite defensively (not in the way you would expect one who is not participating in these activities _to some extent_ ).

It's an open book, and as usual, the whole internet is getting into a hoo-haa because they generally don't have anything better to do with their time. Is it important? Yes. Does voicing false or circumstantial evidence to the ends of the earth do anything? No. Especially from the intelligence level that I would expect from around here.

I'm personally tired of seeing the continuation of this story on HN - I am used to more engaging content.</comment>


YubiKey for Windows Hello – Protect your Windows 10 login with your YubiKey - <AUTHOR> http://yubi.co/yubikeywinhelloapp <comment><USER2> Just to be clear, "Yubikey" is a _brand_ of FIDO key. See: [https://fidoalliance.org](https://fidoalliance.org). You can find other brands which in my experience, are just as functional but often less expensive. I have a yubikey, one from hyperfido and most interesting is the open source 'U2F zero'. All of them work equally well. Unless MS has a non- standard implementation or does not use FIDO, then any FIDO would work.

<comment><USER3> This is the part I don't understand... the Yubikey U2F-only option (1/2 the price) is not listed as supported by this application.

As best I can tell, U2F as it is used today isn't supported by Windows Hello; this is a custom app to support the more advanced Yubikey products.

Apparently there is some v2 of U2F coming down the pike that vendors are waiting for before implementing support; however, I couldn't find much information on how this currently affects Windows Hello:

[https://groups.google.com/a/fidoalliance.org/forum/#!topic/f...](https://groups.google.com/a/fidoalliance.org/forum/#!topic/fido- dev/ZSa1HZMvozM)

<comment><USER4> Windows Hallo will usr FIDO 2.0 but this is just a normal HMAC ChallengeResponse, not FIDO.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I got as far as plugging in the key, and then it said "Windows companion devices are disabled on your system. Contact your system administrator." My computer is a standalone desktop, not connected to a domain.

Edit:

If you run into this problem, here's how to fix it

To modify local security policy

Open the Local Group Policy Editor. To do this, press the Windows key, type R, and then type gpedit.msc. In the Local Group Policy Editor, from the top level Local Computer Policy, navigate to Computer Configuration > Administrative Templates > Windows Components > Microsoft Secondary Authentication Factor. In the right pane, click the link to Edit policy setting. (You can also double- click the setting to Allow companion device for secondary authentication.) The default state is Not configured. In the setting screen, select the option for Enabled, and click OK. If this option is already selected, your policy is set and you can click Cancel. Exit the Local Group Policy Editor and the Management Console.

</comment><comment><USER6> And apparently with macOS Sierra it's possible to once again use a Yubikey to configure login on a Mac. I'd missed that news, will have to go dig mine out of the drawer!

<comment><USER7> How useful is that, really, considering you couldn't possibly use a Yubikey to configure disk encryption? Unless you actually put the unlock key on the Yubikey somehow (I've never heard of someone attempting or succeeding at that), anyone with physical access - which is what this is intended to protect against - could still wreak all kinds of havoc with disk access.

It's certainly easier and may even be safer (in the case of a malfunction, which _has happened_ on OSX) to just use a longer password.

<comment><USER8> With FileVault, the disk won't decrypt until the user enters their login password.

Here's Yubico's documentation on Filevault integration: [https://www.yubico.com/support/knowledge- base/categories/art...](https://www.yubico.com/support/knowledge- base/categories/articles/smart-card-implementation-macos-sierra-replace- filevault/)

It seems an attacker with physical access still requires your password to unlock the disk. At that point, they'd need the Yubikey to login (assuming they haven't already decrypted the disk and taken your data).

Someone on Reddit suggested saving a static password to the Yubikey and then entering that at boot time to get around this: [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskNetsec/comments/3dpa2q/how_do_yo...](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskNetsec/comments/3dpa2q/how_do_you_secure_os_x/ct7plbr/)?

<comment><USER9> Furthermore, just encrypt your disk with a password concatenated with said static yubikey password and you've got effective MFA.

<comment><USER10> I feel like a static password doesn't really count as MFA. Someone can keylog that static password without you knowing.

<comment><USER9> If it's long and random enough to be very hard to remember, then it's MFA, in my opinion. A private key (e.g. the one used for TOTP) is nothing more than a quantity of random bits (with specific properties, grant you). I'll give you that the output is certainly reusable for a statically stored key, but you're still adding a second factor that, barring some alternate attack like keylogging, still adds security beyond a password.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I don't like something that I have to plugin. What I greatly prefer is what PacBell gave me as a consultant in the 1990s to access their secure inner networks remotely: a device that would display a new random number every 10 seconds and I would add that number to my password when logging in. I was given the same sort of device at Google in 2013 when I was a consultant there.

For laptop and mobile devices, I like the idea of password and biometrics (finger print reader and/or facial recognition).

<comment><USER12> A serious problem with biometrics is credential revocation. The best answer I've seen to this is using the biometric to locally unlock some other credential like a certificate that can be revoked. There are other problems that are flashier, like spoofing and liveness, but revocation is a real show- stopper that is frequently ignored.

<comment><USER4> The new FIDO UAF standard solves exactly this problem, all biometrics are only unlocking a local identifier preferable on Secure Element or in a Trust Zone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I have never owned a YubiKey before. What happens if you lose it or if it gets damaged? Can you get it replaced or is it like losing a keyfile?

<comment><USER14> You lose it and it's gone. You can't remove credentials on the device. This is why you buy two, register both, and save one in a safe.

EDIT: I mean you can't copy credentials off in most cases, like this one. Credentials can be replaced.

<comment><USER15> If you program your own keys into the Yubi, then you know them and can archive them for reprogramming on another device. You can do this with the Yubi Personalisation tool [1] for a few modes the device supports.

[1] [https://www.yubico.com/products/services- software/personaliz...](https://www.yubico.com/products/services- software/personalization-tools/)

<comment><USER14> Eh. Hence why I said it like I did. In most cases, the device generates the secrets. And that's how it should be done, it guarantees that they can't be compromised easily (vs if someone compromised wherever you backed up those keys to).

<comment><USER15> Sure. There are also other instances where the Yubis keys maybe exposed, such as when using their OTP protocol which requires the keys stored in a validation server (either theirs by default, or your own [1])

[1] [https://www.yubico.com/products/services-software/open- sourc...](https://www.yubico.com/products/services-software/open-source- servers/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Does it protect you also from the spy/ad/malware that Windows 10 is?

<comment><USER17> I'll extend the question: from what does it protect at all? (Answer: nothing, FIDO keys is a hype)

<comment><USER18> Can you expound on that a bit? It seems like a reasonable solution for a hardware security token. What don't you like about FIDO keys?

<comment><USER4> Dont ask this troll, this article is not even about fido.

<comment><USER17> I'm not a troll, I have an article on this [https://sakurity.com/blog/2015/07/18/2fa.html](https://sakurity.com/blog/2015/07/18/2fa.html)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google Chromecast review - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/28/review-google-chromecast/

<comment><USER3> I really like what Google has done here.

There are a lot of "smart TV converter" boxes running android being sold for ~100$. They are great for bringing things like skype/youtube/presentations to the big screen. The main problem is controlling the UI via wireless mice/keyboard or special remotes. They really suck. And it looks like Chromecast has solved this input issue by turning ones smartphone/tab/laptop into the input system.

One thing I would like to see is eliminating the need for the TV remote in this process, which would still be required to switch between AV/HDMI input coming from my STB to chromecast input.

<comment><USER4> if your TV supports it (HDMI CEC) it already does this . [http://gigaom.com/2013/07/24/chromecast-hdmi- cec/](http://gigaom.com/2013/07/24/chromecast-hdmi-cec/)

<comment><USER3> Great! Thanks for the link. Have to figure out whether mine supports it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The hype around this is kind of weird to me - really, watching Netflix Instant on your TV is exciting? I mean, I talk about watching shows on Netflix instant pretty regularly with fairly non-technical people, and I'm assuming there's an easy way they're watching on their TV. It's almost comical how many devices I own capable of streaming Netflix, from my (fairly cheap) plasma TV to my 2009 Samsung HTIB to my PS3. I mostly use Apple TV.

Chromecast is cheap, but for the demographic that's been paying $9 - $25 a month for Netflix for a while, this is a solved problem.

<comment><USER6> I've never seen a TV that has Netflix/YouTube built-in that doesn't have a horrible interface. The [low] cost may be worth it just for less pain.

<comment><USER7> Is it really less pain if you can't use the thing if your phone is charging in the other room?

<comment><USER6> For me it would be, I have much more rage with trying to type with a remote control than I do finding a device with battery left (you can use a phone, tablet or computer and I don't foresee a time when all three are out of juice and my power isn't out).

The Apple TV is the worst of both worlds because the remote is required but is smaller than any other remote out there so that it's very easy to lose.

<comment><USER7> That's true, but it's definitely more of a hassle to pull out a laptop, or go digging through a box to find that tablet you never use, than it is to grab a remote that only exists to fulfill this one function.

<comment><USER6> I guess it's differing tastes, but I'd much rather have one less remote control and just be able to use one (or more) of the devices that I always have within arms reach. If the Apple TV had a decent app to use instead of the remote I would use it and dump Apple's joke of a remote. It doesn't, the app is literally four arrows so you can navigate around like the very limited remote. Steve Jobs hated buttons and as a result his ideal remote is garbage.

Using WiFi also means line of sight isn't necessary which is a nice perk.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The price shouldn't bee too surprising because there is similar dongle with DLNA and AirPlay support for $30 : [http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA1NV0UA14...](http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA1NV0UA1453) The advantage of Chromecast is that it's integrated with YouTube and Netflix which are harder to do with DLNA.

</comment><comment><USER9> Sorry, I'm going to be "that guy"

OK, so it does exactly what the chinese players are doing since 2011?

Examples (with beefy hardware and way more capabilities): [http://dx.com/p/android-4-1-mini-google-tv-player-w-512mb- ra...](http://dx.com/p/android-4-1-mini-google-tv-player-w-512mb-ram-4gb-rom- wi-fi-hdmi-white-white-205043)

[http://dx.com/p/reko-mk802-android-4-0-mini-pc-w-wi-fi- hdmi-...](http://dx.com/p/reko-mk802-android-4-0-mini-pc-w-wi-fi-hdmi-esd- black-1gb-ram-4gb-rom-us-plug-217874)

They can login into pandora, netflix without extra hardware (yeah, only 36 bucks and youre done!) and you don't need to bother using another device to start playing stuff.

Plus, you can play your own files, access your network resources...

OH, HYPE

<comment><USER10> "OK, so it does exactly what the chinese players are doing since 2011?"

Those two links don't offer a lot of detail, so I'll have to make some assumptions. But, for starters:

\- Chromecast is tightly integrated with existing devices, so you don't need a second workflow - you can "cast" content right from whatever you're doing, instead of needing to grab a remote, launch an app, and re-find whatver content you want to play.

\- The Chromecast SDK means sites will be able to more easily create TV- friendly interfaces.

\- As The Verge's review leads with: it's surprisingly difficult to put a web browser on TV. Even if it's buggy (for now), if I'm going to browse on my TV, I'd rather use my laptop trackpad + keyboard than a TV remote.

"beefy hardware and way more capabilities"

Looks like Chromecast is on par, actually: 512MB RAM, 4GB storage. No dumbed- down processor details that I can understand, but based on all the reviews, it's capable of playing 1080p video no sweat. Not sure what "capabilities" you're referring to, but again, the SDK is open to pretty much anyone.

"They can login into pandora, netflix without extra hardware..."

Chromecast can also do this. And Rdio, Spotify, Flash video and pretty much any website.

"Plus, you can play your own files..."

Chromecast does this. Drag the file in to a new Chrome tab.

"...access your network resources..."

Can those dongles do that? I don't see software details. Regardless, I'd be shocked if there's not a Plex app for Chromecast in a matter of weeks.

The "HYPE" argument only makes sense if the product being offered is in some way worse. Chromecast is the same price, offers nearly all of the same features out of the box - and many additional features - with a workflow that's significantly more convenient for most users. That's not hype. At worst, it's better execution.

<comment><USER9> 1) got my first android tv around 2012 and that was the second version of mk802, early models were available before.

2) grab a remote is better than grab a laptop and fire an application, plus you need to power it on, etc. but if you prefer that it's ok. Netflix and pandora apps are available in Android, no need to use a web browser.

3) " but based on all the reviews, it's capable of playing 1080p video no sweat" well, is not what the review says:

"If you're using the Chromecast extension for Chrome on your laptop to project an otherwise incompatible video site (like Hulu or HBOGO), however, video quality can dump quite a bit depending on your setup. It's using your laptop as a middle man to encode the video signal and broadcast it to the Chromecast, whereas the aforementioned compatible sites just send video straight to the dongle, mostly removing your laptop from the mix. When casting video tabs on a 2012 MacBook Air running on an 802.11n network, the framerate was noticeably lower and there were occasional audio syncing issues."

You even need an additional transcoder! the mini pcs can decode MKVs by themselves (and lots of formats more)

4) network resources, yes they can: [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ws.plattner.ci...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ws.plattner.cifsmanager&hl=en)

Look, I got an apple TV and one of those "dongles" connected to my TV, and trust me, when I need to play an MKV is way more easier to use a remote to access the File NAS than firing up Beamer app ([http://beamer- app.com/](http://beamer-app.com/)) from my mac to watch a movie.

Chromecast requires extra hardware to complete almost anything, so yes, I think it's less capable than the mini pcs at 36 usd that ship free.

<comment><USER10> 1) Cool! That doesn't have any real bearing on Chromecast, though, and those devices don't have the extensibility that Chromecast does.

2) Anything that reduces the amount of hardware I interact with is a net positive, IMO. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "in Android". Netflix and Pandora are on the web and iOS devices, there is no shortage of ways to find their content. In my experience, browsing YouTube has been a giant PITA on every single device I've tried. I'd much rather browse videos on my computer and send ones I find to my TV as desired.

3) Tab mirroring is in beta, as Google has said, which is not the same as an app streaming directly from the web. (No middleman device required.) It's already pretty good, but does need improvement. In the meantime, Netflix - which has "native" support - is great, with none of those issues. The rest are simply good, and will become great once Google improves their mirroring feature.

4) That's a feature that 95% of users won't ever need. If the other dongles you mention do that, fantastic. I'll concede that Chromecast isn't doing that now, but I think we can agree it's definitely not a major selling point. (Not to mention, there's no reason someone couldn't write a Chromecast app to do something exactly like that. Just because it doesn't exist yet doesn't mean it can't or won't.)

I play my MKVs from a local Plex server to my Roku ($80). Chromecast ($35) will likely replace that soon, either via the Plex Web Client (which organizes all my media in a nice, friendly format, no ugly directory tree browsing required) or a "native" app. Plus, a remote control _is_ extra hardware. I'm never more than 5 feet from my phone, and I regularly lose my TV remotes.

Those dongles you linked to seem to be running Google TV. Chromecast runs a stripped down version of Chrome OS. Two sides of the same coin, but Chromecast is far more integrated and extensible. Seems worthy of some praise to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Yes! I'll happily pay $35 to turn my "Smart" TV into the dumb screen it should be. Compare:

My Samsung "Smart" TV: Find TV remote, power on. Wait a while, after which the TV will default to showing static (not very Smart of it not to notice I don't have cable attached, and never will). Press the Smart-button on the remote, again wait a small eternity while it's "Loading". Use the navigation buttons to quickly navigate to the Netflix icon. Oh, you were too slow to reach Netflix, now the UI is locked up for 5-10 seconds because the homescreen is refreshing the Samsung app store icons and ads. OK, now Netflix is finally loading, which takes a good 20-40 seconds. Now to find what I want to watch using the damn arrow keys. God help me if I need to enter some text to search, at that point it's just easier to reach over for my laptop and add what I want to my instant queue from there.

Chromecast: Using my phone or tablet, load the Netflix app (near instant). Click the Chromecast button (instant). Click the show I want to play, or search using a decent keyboard or voice input. TV powers on (HDMI-CEC, yay), plays my show (in a few seconds).

Moving all of the UI out from the TV screen is a fantastic move. And no, a Roku, Chinese Android players, Apple TV, etc. aren't interesting to me at all because I don't want to interact with my TV screen.

</comment><comment> chestnut-tree I can see the Chromecast being useful for presentations in an office environment too. Instead of a projector or messy cables, just plug the Chromecast into a suitable TV and display your presentation on a large TV screen to an audience.

</comment><comment><USER12> One interesting implication is that Chromecast will probably affect Smart TV sales -- because justifying the extra few hundred bucks to get a smart TV vs. just a dumb 1080p TV just got a lot more difficult. I was planning on buying a Smart TV (~46") for 800 bucks, now I think I'll just get one for around 400 or less and use Chromecast for Netflix, Pandora, etc.

<comment><USER13> Smart TV is a gimmick. Buy a PS3 and enable streaming from your computer. Boom, all the movies you want. YouTube. YouTube from your mobile phone just like chromecast. An Internet browser. Netflix. Blu-ray. As a bonus you also get to play games.

Just buy the biggest TV you can afford that doesn't have 3D nor Smart TV or other features. You'll get your money's worth.

Don't want to buy a ps3? Just connect it to your laptop or computer. Or buy a raspberry pi and run Linux. Or chromecast of course.

<comment><USER14> Smart TV most certainly is not a gimmick. Among all the parents I know, including myself, we all bought smart TVs to have the built-in Netflix streaming without an extra box or anything to think about. The price difference of TVs with and without apps is almost nothing at this point - <USER2> bought a 60" Vizio for around $900 - they don't even offer a version without apps as far as I know.

But I do agree with you about 3D. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I want one now, but I'm in the UK. I hope Google don't drag their heels on this one.

Can anyone who has it tell me whether the web based spotify player will cast from a laptop?

</comment><comment><USER16> Can I plug it into an LCD projector and then wirelessly stream my presentation (keynote, PowerPoint, PDF) or even screen mirror, from my laptop? Would be great for presentations.

<comment><USER17> It just plugs straight into the HDMI port, so I don't see why not. Before the presentation started you'd need to set it up on the local wi-fi however.

<comment><USER18> And hope no-one in the audience has videos of their own that they want to share.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It will be interesting to see if google open up the chromecast protocol to third parties.

My guess is that they won't --- I expect the margins on this are low or non- existent, and it anyway would be very unlike google to attempt to make money out of this as a hardware product.

It's clearly a strategy to sneak the web onto the TV. There seems to be little incentive for google to extend it to mobile apps, where they make substantially less from advertising.

Also, I have no idea why Apple haven't released a similar dongle purely for airplay streaming. Seems like a no-brainer for them.

<comment><USER20> You mean this? [https://developers.google.com/cast/](https://developers.google.com/cast/)

Where it allows Android/iOS/ChromeOS/MacOS/Windows developers to integrate a little code into their apps to make it very easy to send stuff to a TV w/Chromecast?

<comment><USER21> It looks like the Windows/OS X corners of that compatibility list are really because of Chrome. The dev kit is available for iOS, Android, and Chrome Apps: [https://developers.google.com/cast/developing_a_sender](https://developers.google.com/cast/developing_a_sender)

Since I'm completely unfamiliar with the structure of a Chrome App, I don't know what's sandboxed away in that environment. But I'm stopping short of calling full Windows/OS X compatibility there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> do you get the hdmi cable for that 35$ price ? i see that thing almost like an advanced wireless port. i don't understand what's the big deal ( especially since apple tv does that for some time now). anyone could enlighten me ?

<comment><USER23> It plugs directly into an HDMI port. No cable included, no cable needed.

It is, in fact, a moderately smart wireless port: whatever you send to it that it recognizes, it plays. That's it. If you want a pause function, you need to tell the source, not ChromeCast. If you want a rewind, a fast forward, a seek... ditto.

It's a big deal because it's $35 in a usable form. Nearest competitor is Roku, who has a slightly better box -- one with an interface for selecting sources, pause and fast forward and rewind -- for about twice the price, and a nicer one for three times the price.

<comment><USER18> There's a short HDMI extender included in the box. This is for when the HDMI port is inaccessible for the Chromecast itself, or if you need to move it get slightly better Wi-Fi.

<comment><USER24> Seeing as how the HDTV in my bedroom is about 7 years old and only has two HDMI ports right next to each other, I'm willing to bet I'm going to need that when my Chromecast arrives Saturday.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> A $35 bottleneck between my laptop and TV?

I thought HDMI-out was becoming standard.

<comment><USER26> One of the differences between Chromecast and an HDMI cable running across your living room is convenience.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What language will you learn in 2015? - <AUTHOR>

What language/s will you learn this year? Are you doing it to chase after a market or to expand your mental horizons? I'm planning to spend some time with Nim, specifically to explore its metaprogramming facilities. #lang2015 <comment><USER2> Elixir/Erlang my next project (starting tomorrow) looks like it will really benefit from the things that the Erlang VM brings to the table, and Elixir is very promising, and rapidly maturing, way to write code for it.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm going to be focusing on Clojure, JavaScript and Rust. First though, I'm taking a break from Clojure to read SICP and do the exercises/problem sets, because I think that's going to help in the long run. After that I'm reading Joy of Clojure and going back to working on web apps with ClojureScript and Reagent. As for JavaScript, it's easy to work with Node and I'm interested in React.js and WebGL so I'll just keep using it regularly. Rust is very appealing to me, and having just taken a course in assembly at uni, I'm craving some lower level programming. The documentation has improved considerably, right now I'm just working through Rust by Example ([http://rustbyexample.com/](http://rustbyexample.com/)) here: [https://github.com/bryangarza/rust-by- example](https://github.com/bryangarza/rust-by-example) and then I want to make a Vi clone.

</comment><comment><USER4> The language that I most want to learn in the short term is Ocaml, been seeing a fair few posts about the language showing up in the past year, it seems like the community is a good fit for me.

MirageOS looks very intersting, and I want to try a language with a strong type system (of the static languages I have only really used C and Java, and Ocaml, Haskell etc seem to be further along the continuum of type systems.)

I also would like to learn about compilers and static analysis and Ocaml appears to be quite popular for such projects.

I would also like to reacquaint myself with Python, and maybe dabble with some Julia as well.

Coq looks pretty intersting as well, but that will probably be late 2015 or 2016.

May start playing around with Rust a little as well, they have some intersting ideas that I am curious about.

I am also keen to play around with assembler again, my only real usage of assembler was in a Uni paper a few years back and looking at some x86 aseembly from GCC and Clang. Thinking of MSP430 and some ArmV7

<comment><USER4> Forgot to mention some form of HDL, probably Verilog and further delving into problems with parallel code and the various models on offer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Jepsen[1] is the killer app that's leading me to learn more about the Clojure and Go ecosystems.

I mostly write Python by day but since Jepsen revealed consistency problems in etcd[2], I've had to learn more Clojure/leiningen to see if the ?quorum=true option fixed them.

What I've learned so far is that Clojure's error reporting sucks unless you use something like Cider[3] and that etcd till fails to pass Jepsen with ?quorum=true

1- [https://github.com/aphyr/jepsen](https://github.com/aphyr/jepsen)

2- [https://aphyr.com/posts/316-call-me-maybe-etcd-and- consul](https://aphyr.com/posts/316-call-me-maybe-etcd-and-consul)

3- [https://github.com/clojure-emacs/cider](https://github.com/clojure- emacs/cider)

</comment><comment><USER6> Rust. It's been many years since I ran across a programming language whose innovations I'd call exciting. It's still early days, but it might be the language that finally overtakes C++.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm familiar with C and Java, and I can build viable projects in Python/ Django.

To expand my understanding I'm looking at Go or Haskell next, although I might take a quick spin through Rails to see how it compares to Django. I'll continue to build the projects I care about in Python, though, because I'd rather go deep with what I know than spread myself too thin. I expect to become better at Python by dipping into these other languages.

</comment><comment><USER8> Less tools, but stronger and sharper tools.

I'm going back to the basics. No more jumping to a new language or framework for each new project. My goal for 2015 is to have better results (output) in my projects, not focus on tools.

My goal is to learn enough Python and Javascript to build a significant sized project by the end of the year. This will be a nice change from my job where I use a Java stack (Jetty, Jersey, Jackson, Hysterix)

</comment><comment><USER9> I will be writing a lot of Elixir in production. 2014 wss learning Elixir and convincing people to let me use it in production :)

As a hobbyist, if I have time, I plan to spend a lot of time with Rust.

In 2014 I spent at least a month each with Elixir, Rust, Clojure and Scala (I gave Go a long hard look in 2013 already). Elixir and Rust are the two that have stood out to me for the types of problems I want to solve and the types of growth I want to experience as a programmer.

</comment><comment><USER10> Probably Swift, I am getting into mobile development. For actual languages I will probably attempt French.

</comment><comment><USER11> Scala, for sure!

I've been procrastinating learning Scala for a long time and have a project this year on Spark, so, yay! :)

</comment><comment><USER12> 2014 was my year of Python, I learned how to make actual tools rather than scripts for myself.

2015 will be at the very least JavaScript. One of my Master's units is in C++ which I have never done more than hello world in before. I am very interested in Scala.

Best of luck to everyone learning something new this year!

</comment><comment><USER13> C++ - I've been making games with Javascript and Python for a while and I want to learn a lower-level language. C++ has quite a few frameworks and engines for game dev so I'm combining the two.

I'll also brush up on Node and ES6 to help with my day job.

</comment><comment><USER14> I want to do some more programming in python. I always plan to. I even have small scripts that I've written in python. But I wanted to try some serious web development with it. My default language is C right now. (not for the web)

</comment><comment><USER15> In 2015 I would like to make something useful with what I've learnt so far. I also want to try my hands on scientific programming languages but I will have to find a mock scientific problem first :)

</comment><comment><USER16> Swedish. :-) (My main new year resolution)

Other than that, most likely taking javascript more seriously. I've never really studied it, just picked it up as I've gone along over the past several years.

</comment><comment><USER17> Looks like my 2015 will be a lot of python -- specifically to build more robust systems with Django, Scrapy, and NLTK.

And if I get a new Mac this year I might attempt Swift.

<comment><USER12> What are you building in Python!?

<comment><USER17> A few things, but this is my baby at the moment: [http://3cosystem.com](http://3cosystem.com)

It is a global calendar for tech and startup events.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm thinking of Rust, as I've becoming more interested in system programming again and not only web development

</comment><comment><USER19> Go or(and) Rust. I've heard good things on both and they all looked pretty damn fun and productive.

</comment><comment><USER20> Lisp. I have a basic knowledge, but one of my goals for 2015 is to become competent with it.

</comment><comment><USER21> Rust and/or Nim, depending on which will feel better as I learn more.

</comment><comment><USER22> More of J, I'm thinking.

</comment><comment><USER23> Elixir

</comment><comment><USER24> There are so many languages on my "to learn" list that it's ridiculous. And I never seem to find much time to actually spend on new languages. But, realistically, the one(s) I may actually be able to spend some time on in 2015 are probably:

Javascript - OK, strictly speaking I "know" javascript to some extent, but I don't consider myself an expert on it, and I'll probably be using it more and learning more, for the foreseeable future.

Scala. I keep saying this, but I think I'll have more reasons to _actually_ spend time on this in 2015.

Clojure. See above, re: Scala.

Prolog. Probably wishful thinking that I'll find time to put into this, but we'll see. Some of my interests include NLP, and Prolog has a reputation for being good for NLP applications, so I may finally start exploring that world.

R. The interest is there, but time is, again, the limiting factor. If a real world reason to use R emerges, then I might actually get somewhere with it.

The stuff that's on my list that I seriously doubt I'll even touch in 2015 includes: Erlang, Julia, Nim, Haskell, Ceylon, Kotlin, Ada, Go, Rust, Elixir, etc.

<comment><USER25> If you haven't got it yet, I'd recommend the 7-in-7 book on languages ([https://pragprog.com/book/btlang/seven-languages-in-seven- we...](https://pragprog.com/book/btlang/seven-languages-in-seven-weeks)). It covers the 5 of the languages you mention and could help you determine which one you'd want to go in more depth on.

Hope you're healed up from your adventures btw.

<comment><USER24> _If you haven 't got it yet, I'd recommend the 7-in-7 book on languages_

Yep, I have it, I just haven't gone through it yet. My problem is I'm so busy doing all the actual day to day "stuff" of working my dayjob AND trying to build our startup product, AND do marketing, sales, etc. for the startup, that there's very little time left for experimenting and tinkering with new stuff and outside interests.

 _Hope you 're healed up from your adventures btw._

Working on it. Thanks!</comment></comment></comment>


Ants self-medicate on toxins when sick - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-08/21/ants-eat-poison-to-survive-self-medicate

<comment><USER2> Pretty sure this is what I'm going when I drink Mountain Dew Throwback when I'm sick. Or late for a deadline. Or stressed.</comment>


Nerds, we need to have a talk - <AUTHOR> http://www.thingist.com/item/4372/

<comment><USER2> Currently number 3 on the front page:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2322696></comment>


Google trends for "Sell Bitcoin" over last 90 days  - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Sell%20bitcoin&date=today%203-m&cmpt=date

<comment><USER2> And the comparison: [http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Buy%20bitcoin%2C%20Se...](http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Buy%20bitcoin%2C%20Sell%20bitcoin&date=today%201-m&cmpt=q) (Only for 30 days)</comment>


Changes to the rules on using cookies and similar technologies for storing info - <AUTHOR> http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/library/Privacy_and_electronic/Practical_application/advice_on_the_new_cookies_regulations.pdf

<comment><USER2> This information is so wrong and misleading that I would class it as dangerous. Here's some choice bits:

> A cookie is a small file of letters and numbers downloaded on to a device > when the user accesses certain websites. Cookies allow a website to > recognise a user's device.

> At present, most browser settings are not sophisticated enough to allow you > to assume that the user has given their consent to allow your website to set > a cookie. Also, not everyone who visits your site will do so using a > browser. They may, for example, have used an application on their mobile > device.

> One possible solution might be to place some text in the footer or header of > the web page which is highlighted or which turns into a scrolling piece of > text when you want to set a cookie on the user's device. This could prompt > the user to read further information (perhaps served via the privacy pages > of the site) and make any appropriate choices that are available to them.

> An analytic cookie might not appear to be as intrusive as others that might > track a user across multiple sites but you still need consent.

So, anyone in the EU running a website has a choice: Either tank your user engagement rates, confuse and alienate your customers, stop using Google Analytics (unless the user opts in - watch your bounce rate fall to 0%), or willfully disregard EU law. For me, this is an easy choice.

<comment><AUTHOR> What's wrong and misleading about each of the four quotes you've picked?

<comment><USER2> "a small file of letters and numbers downloaded on to a device" isn't a very good summary of what a cookie is, in my opinion.

> Also, not everyone who visits your site will do so using a browser. They > may, for example, have used an application on their mobile device.

What do they mean by this? A mobile browser should still have an option regarding cookies. If it's not a browser but some other user-agent... well what could it be? If it's an app hitting your site over an API cookies are unlikely to be involved, but shared state could be maintained any way you want it to be (plus this hardly counts as a "website").

The third quote is just horrible, horrible advice. A lot of the options they discuss are genuinely dreadful from a user experience point of view, and it seems that European websites will be forced to have worse experiences than all other websites. From a competitive view this is not good.

Finally analytics cookies... If you have to opt-in to Google Analytics that will put a severe selection bias on your data, it'll make many important metrics (uniques, page views, time on site, bounce rate) completely worthless.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This seems like such a hugely expensive policy to enforce for what problem exactly?

<comment><AUTHOR> The problem is tracking the sites a user visits and building profiles of user behaviour based on that information without the knowledge and consent of the user.</comment></comment>


How To Advance In Your Job – The Dirty List - <AUTHOR> http://spoiledtechie.com/post/2012/02/22/How-To-Advance-In-Your-Job-%E2%80%93-The-Dirty-List.aspx

<comment><USER2> This list reminds me why I hate working for other people. You can do all this and more and some buffoon at the top decides they don't want to give you a raise or there is some internal politics going on that prevents you from moving up the corporate ladder.</comment>


The Hype Cycle - <AUTHOR> http://www.nplusonemag.com/?q=hype-cycle

<comment><USER2> "...the important thing is no longer what a song, movie, or book does to you. The big question is its relationship to its reputation. So instead of abandoning yourself to the artifact, you try to exploit inefficiencies in the reputation market."

The investment metaphor is interesting. I often meet people who are clearly trying very hard to like obscure bands. Perhaps they do this (consciously or not) so that if the group becomes famous, they can retroactively claim coolness; they can point to their early investment as evidence that were (and supposedly still are) in tune with artistic trends.

But this theory predicts that people who make a point of liking obscure bands will be happy as the band gains popularity. And that doesn't always match my observations. These people often seem genuinely upset as their favorite obscure bands become popular.

At least for this example, the investment metaphor doesn't seem to work. These kinds of people appear to be after _social exclusivity_ , not growth.

<comment><USER3> The metaphor still works for me even with your example: I think of the people who behave as you describe it as "investors" hoarding cash under their mattresses. The important thing, for them, is to make sure that nobody else can have their money (exclusivity), whereas growth is either not considered or even rejected (since you have to at least partially relinquish control, by giving your money to a bank, fund, whatever).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This article's worth reading just for the stock market metaphor. And the Artic Monkey references.</comment>


A Future Without Webpack - <AUTHOR> https://dev.to/pika/a-future-without-webpack-ago <comment><USER2> Some benchmarks would go a long way to make a compelling case for this new bundler. I'm not the biggest fan of webpack, but I'd like to have some numbers to make sure I'm not regressing in some way.</comment>


Ask HN: Review my startup, sponzu.com - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> I like the idea, low friction for people that want to help a cause. My concern is getting people engaged when they land on the page. The graphic on the home page doesn't really tell me enough in just a glance. It's relatively small and hard to read.

Very cool concept though. Watched an ad to help buy new schoolbooks for some kid in NY ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you! We are making a video about How It Works, should make it easier to understand the concept.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The layout of the site and the diagram in the forefront makes it clear what the premise is. Nice job there.

It seems like the revenue generated by watching ads is very small. How many viewers of a 30s ad would someone need to raise $500?

<comment><AUTHOR> During beta, the payout is between 5 - 10 cents per view. We are, however, working on bringing it up to a dollar by giving users an option to rate videos, provide feedback to advertisers, sharing the videos on the network and taking other actions which are all payable by sponsors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Clickable link: <http://www.sponzu.com>

Feedback:

The main problem of this idea is that I don't see how an advertiser would see a benefit from being involved in this because, people aren't really going to engage in the adverts they are going there to "support" an idea and letting the advertisement run rather than be engaged in it.

You need to show a benefit to the advertiser, as to why show an advertisement with yourselves as this would aid the advertiser problem and allow them to see a value in advertising on your website.

Additionally, you also need to look at how to keep users engaged when they come to the website because, when you first go to the website you are presented with the "How It Works" and if you want to get people engaged and involved in "supporting ideas" then you need to change this graphic as it is too small and isn't really engaging.

You need a 3 step "How It Works" from a user pespective AND not from an idea submitting pespective as well, save this step for the "Submit your idea" page.

Additionally, there are a few call to action buttons on this website soon as I arrive "Register" "Fb Login" "Submit Your Idea" (which is repeated twice) etc which don't benefit you at all because, there are so many of them. You should focus on one call-to-action button and acquire the user sign ups when submitting the idea in a slick user interface instead of trying to get them to click "Register" etc because, if they aren't submitting an idea there doesn't seem much value (if any) to join the service.

Additionally, when I went to click submit an idea I was immediately presented with "Login" or "Register" that really sucks from a user perspective, you should have a page with a form where people can fill out their information and at the bottom have a "create account" setting where a user registers a username, password and email etc (additional information can be acquired when they have signed up) as this will significantly improve the UI from a user perspective.

Also, why does it just have to be for "ideas" I mean you could contact charities to get them involved and they can get users to view the ads as a "donation" to their charities. Continuing with this idea, you should have a "widget" so people can place their ideas on another website etc, then they can go and view the ad such as on a Charities Website for instance.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your feedback. We do support organizations and non-for-profit, I guess we should make it clearer. Also, the widget is available under each idea if you click on the Share button.</comment></comment>


Code for engineers, Comments for mathematicians - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/deckar01/digit-array/blob/master/DigitArray.js

<comment><AUTHOR> I just published the first revision of a arbitrary base conversion math library. I thought it would be interesting to add mathematical proof-styled comments to bridge the gap between formal mathematical notation and its technical implementation.

Although the comments are not proofs (mainly definitions), I am planing for tests to be commented with mathematical proofs.

If you enjoy this library, consider contributing by opening an issue, pull request, or comment.

</comment><comment><USER2> What exactly would you say you do here?

I talk to the programmers and the mathematicians so they don't have to talk to each other. I'm a people person!</comment>


There's Something Enormous Buried Beneath the East Antarctic Ice Sheet - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/theres-something-enormous-buried-beneath-the-east-antar-1752746808 <comment><USER2> It's a large alien spacecraft. There was [a movie]([http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120902/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120902/)) about it a while ago.

Does this site not use Markdown?

<comment><USER3> The X-Files movie was probably referencing "The Thing From Another World[0]," a 1951 movie based on the novella "Who Goes There?[1]" by John W. Campbell, which was remade[2] by John Carpenter in 1982.

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

[1][http://nzr.mvnu.edu/faculty/trearick/english/rearick/reading...](http://nzr.mvnu.edu/faculty/trearick/english/rearick/readings/manuscri/Who%20Goes%20There/Who%20Goes%20There%20Index.htm)

[2][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_%281982_film%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_%281982_film%29)

<comment><USER2> Cool, I didn't know about that. The John Carpenter version was fantastic, but I didn't realize it came from an early-50s story/movie.

It's sad how there used to be so much more sci-fi back in the 50s-80s than now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sounds like a 1950s film trailer.</comment>


Show HN: I built a fake product (BreakStreak.com) as a lean startup experiment - <AUTHOR> http://alexlod.com/2012/04/16/what-i-learned-from-making-a-fake-product/

<comment><USER2> I think that your experiment will (I hope that you'll keep it up as the concept is interesting) be even more valuable if you: 1. ask escaping visitors why are they leaving the page 2. do some A/B/C testing for other funnels because in my opinion it's not that BreakStreak idea doesn't work but the current implementation. I've used your wizard after reading the blog post (so I knew what should I expect) and still got literally bored on 'choose incentive' screen. And stopped :) Could you try to simplify the process, reduce the number of steps or simply put that all on one page? Anyway thanks a lot for sharing!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback :). I'm terrible when it comes to design, and I totally agree that there's an opportunity to go somewhere with the BreakStreak concept -- back to the drawing board :). For now, though, I'm pleased with the experiment!</comment></comment>


Software piracy rate by country - U.S. lowest, at 20% - <AUTHOR> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_sof_pir_rat-crime-software-piracy-rate

<comment><USER2> It seems there is a very strong correlation between software piracy and GDP per capita. This may point to a cause for software piracy, namely that many people simply can't afford the software they need or want.

In Armenia buying Microsift office would set you back roughly 1.2 months pay. (rough numbers here: office $500, Armenian GDP per capita $4900 according to wikipedia)

<comment><USER3> This reminds me of how international editions of books are sold at discount rates to match local economies. Also, DVD region encoding. There doesn't seem to be any equivalent for commercial software.

<comment><USER4> If that is true, I'll start questioning why the price of the DVD LOTR Trilogy Extended Editon here, costs us around a third of average monthly salary.

<comment><USER3> There are other factors at play.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Everything in the US is a lot cheaper too, I'm not surprised then that people decide to actually buy the software.

</comment><comment><USER6> Curious if anyone has any numbers for software piracy historically speaking? We'll forever be hearing how piracy is destroying companies, so one has to wonder how current piracy rates stack up against previous years.

<comment><USER3> Historically speaking, software piracy has skyrocketed since the nineteenth century CE. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computing_hardware#1...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computing_hardware#1801:_punched_card_technology))

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> _DEFINITION: The piracy rate is the total number of units of pirated software deployed in 2007 divided by the total units of software installed.

SOURCE: Fifth Annual BSA and IDC Global Software Piracy Study _

The ten countries at either end of 107 listed:

      #  1   Armenia:        93%
      #  2   Moldova:        92%
      #  3   Azerbaijan:     92%
      #  4   Bangladesh:     92%
      #  5   Zimbabwe:       91%
      #  6   Sri Lanka:      90%
      #  7   Yemen:          89%
      #  8   Libya:          88%
      #  9   Venezuela:      87%
      # 10   Iraq:           85%

      # 98   Switzerland:    25%
      # 99   Austria:        25%
      #100   Denmark:        25%
      #101   Belgium:        25%
      #102   Sweden:         25%
      #103   Finland:        25%
      #104   Japan:          23%
      #105   New Zealand:    22%
      #106   Luxembourg:     21%
      #107   United States:  20%

      Weighted average:      59.9%</comment>