How Can Yahoo Be Worth Less Than Zero? - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-04-17/how-can-yahoo-be-worth-less-than-zero <comment><USER3> In the 1950s and 60s, American capital markets produced conglomerates. These conglomerates offered an unsophisticated investing public pre-packaged diversification. They were also able to leverage their mass to reliably tap the capital markets. Through the 1970s and 80s, the American finance matured. Investors found portfolios better vehicles of diversification than conglomerates. New capital markets negated size as a pre-requisite to financing. The inefficiencies of having unrelated businesses under one roof became a greater liability than any prior advantages. The LBO tigers dismantled the titans.

A similar story seems to be playing out in tech. The dot com bubble scarred a generation of management. These firms hoard cash, disdain debt and covet the reliability size brings. This is not irrational–the technology capital markets are notoriously capricious. LBOs don't work on an equity-rich capital structure where management holds all the voting rights. Perhaps this will bring an alternative to the acid pens of activist investors.

</comment><comment><USER4> The liquidation value of a company only serves as a floor for the value of the company if there's actually a chance that the company will be liquidated (or sold).

Yahoo's board and management have shown that they take a long view on Yahoo and will not liquidate or sell the company. So it's completely logical that the market price of Yahoo be less than the sum of its parts, so long as you think that the value of their businesses will continue to decline.

<comment><USER5> The liquidation value in this case is $13 billion greater than the market cap. They would absolutely be acquired if their market cap weren't $37 billion. There are only a handful of potential acquirers that have that kind of cash/equity, and to them the extra $13 billion - that could vanish in a few bad market days - isn't worth the risk and negative perception that buying Yahoo would likely bring.

In any event, it appears that Yahoo's investment decisions are the the only thing that have saved the company. They should shut down all non-profitable parts of the core company, liquidate most of their of their Alibaba/Yahoo Japan stake, and use the newly empty offices and $50 billion war chest for a private equity/venture firm/hedge fund. They could reassign some of their brightest engineers to write trading algorithms. With $50 billion to play with, and some smart people, they could be throwing off $5-$7+ billion in profits for their shareholders per year.

They've lost the battle for web supremacy. They should recognize their strengths and capitalize on them.

<comment><USER6> _They 've lost the battle for web supremacy. They should recognize their strengths and capitalize on them._

I've already raised this in the previous Yahoo thread, but I don't understand where this perception is coming from. Yahoo is absolutely massive, and their sites now have _more unique desktop users than any other web company_ is the US — Google and Facebook included. If anything, they have _won_ the battle for web supremacy.

They're not that popular in the tech bubble – but there are hundreds of millions of other people in the US who are clearly using Yahoo. Seriously, they've something like 800m monthly active users globally, which isn't that far off of Facebook.

I do think that Yahoo should indeed cut out non-profitable parts of the company, but they I hardly think that's a minority opinion. But they're still consistently profitable as it is, and they have oodles of cash.

They've languished somewhat over the years, and grown a bit fat and lazy. But that's nothing that some refocusing, trimming, restructuring and good management can't fix.

<comment><USER7> > Yahoo is absolutely massive, and their sites now have more unique desktop > users than any other web company is the US

Yeah, but having more unique _desktop users_ shows dominance in the modern online world in way similar to how having the most _equine-propelled vehicle sales_ does in the modern world of personal transport.

> Seriously, they've something like 800m monthly active users globally, which > isn't that far off of Facebook.

Facebook has over 1 billion active monthly _on mobile_ , 1.3 billion total. So, yeah, I'd say that's pretty far off

<comment><USER8> Many people use desktop at work, and this will likely continue for a while. Desktop is also often preferred for more complex tasks. Though mobile use is growing, no evidence that desktop will go way of horse-and-buggy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The idea that market cap (current marginal stock price × total outstanding shares) is valuation is, well, convenient to get an easy way to calculate a number and call it the overall valuation, but doesn't really hold up.

All this article does is point out that if you use that (flawed) method to value Yahoo, and then use the same method to value Yahoo Japan, and then use even less-reliable means to value the non-public Alibaba, and then subtract the last two from the first, you get an unexpected number.

And even if the assumptions underlying the "negative" valuation of the core business were inassailable, its quite easy to have a business to have a negative $10 billion value. Suppose a business has $11 billion in total liabilities, and $1 billion is total assets. Voila, Owner's Equity is -$10 billion.

And this can still be a profitable company. Obviously, making profits means that profit stream has a value (the current value of the stream of future income), but that doesn't mean that you don't have liabilities that exceed that (and the valuation of that stream is not just based on current profit, but expectation of its future continuation. A company can be profitable but the market can lack confidence that it will _continue_ to be profitable.)

<comment><USER9> actually, market cap === valuation

<comment><USER10> FYI, valuation is defined as enterprise value, not market cap. And in general, things like liquidity discounts and control premia also mean market cap is a poor proxy for acual or fungible value, even for the equity. The reason is that the marginal price of the equity is not the average price (in terms of market depth). simply multiplying a market that is 1-2% deep @ p=X x 100% of shares outstanding is flawed from the perspective of suplly and demand. these comments are made by others in the thread elsewhere, but worth repeating.

<comment><USER3> Enterprise value is an M&A metric. As an equity holder, equity value is the valuation of concern. Market cap is generally the best estimator of equity value.

Takeover value, equity value in the event someone wants to own all (or a controlling part of) the equity, is a different beast. It includes the strategic optionality that comes with owning a company. Having to take what management doles out thus produces a different equity value than takeover value. Market cap is the best estimate of this passive investor's equity value.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> You can read about this in Securities Analysis (1940). Basically you don't trust management, so companies can trade for less than liquidation value [edit: and investors don't trust / overlook that a negative subsidiary can be unwound, although that's not technically true in yahoos case if all subs are profitable].

It's really amazing how nothing changes in finance; it's just that memories are short.

<comment><USER12> Wouldn't this just provide an opening for a investment firm to swoop in, buy Yahoo, sell all their assets and cash out?

Because no one is doing that... I'd have to guess there is more going on

<comment><USER13> There's likely a bunch of liabilities and break-up fees involved in such liquidation.

Real estate, data center space is likely to be under long-term leases with penalties for early termination.

Personnel layoffs are not a trivial thing either - there are severance costs which in case of upper management can run into tens of millions - [http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2014/04/17/fired-yahoo-coo- ge...](http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2014/04/17/fired-yahoo-coo- gets-58m-severance-package-for-15-months-of-work/) And that's just US - Yahoo! has a network of European offices which likely have more protective labor laws.

<comment><USER14> Rather than liquidating the entire company, Yahoo could sell its Yahoo Japan and Alibaba shares, pay a one-time dividend, and keep its core business intact. The now-isolated core business would have positive value.

But it might be difficult to acquire a controlling interest in Yahoo without driving up the price.

<comment><USER7> > Rather than liquidating the entire company, Yahoo could sell its Yahoo Japan > and Alibaba shares, pay a one-time dividend, and keep its core business > intact.

Except there is not a lot of reason to believe that either:

1\. Yahoo could dump its holding of Yahoo Japan shares at current market prices (current share price is a good rough estimate of realizable value if you aren't trading enough to move the market, but selling off around a third of Yahoo Japan isn't that small of a block...)

2\. Yahoo could actually find a buyer for its Alibaba holdings (a non-public firm) at the analyst estimate of its value used in the article.

> The now-isolated core business would have positive value.

The article doesn't really make the case for that. It says the core business is profitable, but current profitability doesn't mean positive value; it could be in debt, profitable, and not expected by the market to remain profitable long enough to get out of debt -- that would give it negative market value.

Really, all the facts in the article tell you is that at least one of the following is false:

1) The author's implicit assumptions about the market value of Yahoo's core business, or

2) The estimated value of privately-held Alibaba, or

3) The assumption that realizing the value of its holdings in YJ and Alibaba would be transaction-cost free for Yahoo (and thus that those holdings should be undiscounted when aggregate to determine Yahoo's worth), or

4) The efficient market hypothesis.

I have no problem believing that _all four_ are false, and misleading in this case.

<comment><USER14> > > The now-isolated core business would have positive value.

> The article doesn't really make the case for that. It says the core business > is profitable, but current profitability doesn't mean positive value; it > could be in debt, profitable, and not expected by the market to remain > profitable long enough to get out of debt -- that would give it negative > market value.

Stock can't have negative value. If a company becomes insolvent, its stockholders aren't forced to pay its debts.

The article agrees: "Unless the probability of that outcome is 100 percent -- a rare thing in this life -- then Core Yahoo should have some positive value."

<comment><USER7> > Stock can't have negative value.

A component of a business can. Ignoring the problems that make marginal stock prices problematic for overall valuation, and transaction costs, etc., the stock price of a corporation should be max(0,sum(value of all components of the business)). The fact that this value should never be less than zero doesn't mean that no component of the business has a negative contribution.

<comment><USER14> I think we're in agreement. I agree that "Core Yahoo" might presently have negative value, because it could lose money in the future and eat into the company's other assets.

I'm just saying that if Yahoo sold its major stock assets and transferred most of its cash to shareholders, the remainder of the company (consisting of "Core Yahoo" and not much else) would have positive value.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The answer is really simple: nobody with billions actually thinks Alibaba and YHJ is worth as much as their share price, and not many common people know about Alibaba and YHJ.

It's the same reason you don't see high flying stocks like FB, LNKD, YELP, etc. actually getting buyout or tender offers for their shares.

In the event of having to sell a large block of shares, all of the share prices will crater, Alibaba included. Prices are set at the margins, so until there is a stampede the stock price will go with the flavor of the month.

Stock price != company value. Nobody will enter a position they can't get out of easily unless there is real worth in holding.

<comment><USER16> > The answer is really simple: nobody with billions actually thinks Alibaba > and YHJ is worth as much as their share price, and not many common people > know about Alibaba and YHJ.

Are you saying that Yahoo Inc.'s share price is heavily determined by billionaires, but Alibaba's and YHJ's share prices are not?

<comment><USER17> They are both traded overseas, so only billionaires, funds and banks usually care for those.

<comment><USER18> Or people who actually live overseas. I hear there is quite a few of them.

<comment><USER19> Alibaba hasn't IPOed yet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The article explores a few theories and none really make sense. The only theory that can explain why Yahoo can be worth $13 billion less than two of its three components is that the market believes that its management is so bad that they are going train wreck the group - the hp effect.

<comment><USER21> To me this idea conflicts with the fact that they are minority shareholders in the two international components. I'm not sure exactly what the management structure is, but if Alibaba really thought it might be run into the ground by Yahoo it seems that they could do something to kick Yahoo out.

<comment><USER22> The argument is not that Yahoo! will burn Alibaba to the ground. It's that their asset holding in Alibaba will have to be liquidated to make up for losses by Core Yahoo!

That is, they might burn their _stake_ in Alibaba to the ground.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Some additional reasons:

Yahoo's different parts cannot be traded and thus have no liquidity. There's a huge liquidity discount associated with that.

If Yahoo were to sell the pieces of Y!Japan, Alibaba, etc. on the open market, it would have to do it a structured and delayed process or else it would flood the market, dropping the respective stocks. More discount.

</comment><comment> ldd- Basically, the Yahoo valuation builds in some expectation that it will sell its shares in Alibaba and Yahoo Japan, but instead of returning the proceeds to shareholders (fully realizing its value), they will attempt to reinvest in Yahoo and destroy some of the value

</comment><comment><USER24> What are good ways to play this besides just buying the stock? In or out of the money calls? Leaps?

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think there is anything to play. What do you think is the mispricing?

<comment><USER25> did you read the article?

<comment><AUTHOR> Twice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This isn't even remotely a puzzle.

The cash value of the Alibaba etc. holdings is always going to be discounted some % (often a significant %). The supposed puzzle implies that those assets are valued at max value inside the market cap of Yahoo. They are not, and historically, cash, cash equivalents, or future expected cash value, is _always_ hit with a discount as far as the market cap is concerned. You can see this in action across every type of public company (from Apple to Berkshire).

Investors simply do not put a full value on cash holdings. They prize earnings and growth drastically more than cash on a balance sheet.

</comment><comment><USER27> There seems to be a flaw in the article's line of reasoning:

* whatever you think Yahoo is, * a 35 percent stake in a separate but similar publicly traded company called Yahoo Japan

These two have a similar value, presumably. So setting them to different values in the author's valuation equation doesn't really make sense.

If Yahoo! was actually worth less than just the Alibaba stake, that would of course be very significant, since that's not a similar company at all.

</comment><comment><USER28> Yahoo would need to pay taxes on it's gains on the other companies stock before it could return that money to it's shareholders so effectively that stock is worth less than it's stated value. Also, Alibaba is not a public company so there is a fair amount of uncertainty in it's value.

Thus, Yahoo is not worth negative 13 billion.

<comment> nappy-doo Actually, it doesn't have to. They could do a stock swap with present Yahoo shareholders. They can spin the shares into a separate company, and given those shares to the current share holders. There are plenty of tax advantaged games they could play.

Besides that, taxes are only a problem when you sell. If you look at the Yahoo Japan and Alibaba investments in terms of lookthrough earnings with all earnings held by the companies, the tax hit doesn't matter in the short term.

<comment><USER29> To qualify as a tax-free spinoff, the parent company must own a controlling stake in the company to be spun. Yahoo does not own a controlling stake in either Y! Japan or Alibaba.

However, there is a tax maneuver being considered, called a "cash rich split off" [0]. Yahoo would do a tax-free swap of its Alibaba shares for a 5-year historic business owned by Alibaba. This historic business can have as much as two-thirds of its assets consisting of cash. Warren Buffett did something similar with his shares in GHC.

One question is why did Yahoo not pursue a cash-rich split off in its 2012 transaction with Ali? I would argue that it's most likely for political reasons. As unfair as it may be, the optics of Jerry Yang and Jack Ma teaming up to deprive the US Treasury of tax revenue is very different from the optics of Warren Buffett and Don Graham doing the exact same thing. I think they might still pursue it, just because that's a lot of money to leave on the table.

[0]: [http://taxdidactic.blogspot.com/2011/10/yahoo-evaluating- cas...](http://taxdidactic.blogspot.com/2011/10/yahoo-evaluating-cash-rich- split-ups.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> As many have said, this happens often in the stock market. And in other markets. All of these numbers are just numbers on paper, not actual cash in someone's pocket. This is one of the ways Mitt made so much money - <USER2> companies for less than what he could make by selling the pieces or repackaging the whole.

</comment><comment><USER31> Last time I checked years and years ago, yahoo was kind of a search engine/directory. What does it do now?

<comment><USER25> From watching a few of Marissa's interviews, it seems Yahoo is (or trying to become) a network providing services that people use daily, with a focus on mobile moving forward.

Weather, news, sports, stocks, email, social networking (Tumblr/Flickr). They are also appear to be trying to get into video and search.

<comment><USER31> Thanks guys for clarifying. So am I right to think that they don't have any "identity" that makes them "yahoo" anymore and they just collect rent from a bunch of properties they acquired? In my mind, google is google (identified primarily by search) microsoft is Microsoft( primarily identified by windows and office) yahoo is? ... Is it like if Facebook abandoned social media altogether and became a simple owner of "stuff"?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> In the absence of a direct way of arbitraging between YHOO, Alibaba and Yahoo Japan, is it not surprising that the respective valuations of these entities will become disconnected.

The market value of a company does not represent its actual worth. Yahoo is not worth negative 13B.

</comment><comment><USER33> Market cap isn't the value of a company, but rather the value investors place on the shares times outstanding shares.

In Yahoo's case it's priced so cheap because investors aren't betting they'll get a lot of return (dividends and buybacks).

<comment><USER34> > Market cap isn't the value of a company, but rather the value investors > place on the shares times outstanding shares.

What's the difference? (honest question)

My understanding is that, theoretically, share price is intended to reflect expected value of future payouts (dividends) assuming the company lasts forever. In practice, I would think share price is more likely to reflect expected value of future payouts over some fixed time period plus expected time-adjusted price appreciation over that same interval, which seems to be at least as reasonable a method.

What is the (monetary) value of a company other than return to owners?

<comment><USER35> it is certainly one valuation but there are other measures too. To give an example of one problem with that measure it would imply that when the stock market is volatile that the company value is too when there may be no news or changes in the company prospects so for me it is hard to regard the market cap as a measure of true value (although it does give a quick estimate).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> On the not so unrelated topic: does anyone know where you could learn 'basic business'? Something like programming languages first-steps tutorials to be able to understand what they actually are talking about.

<comment><USER37> I use Treehouse for learning web dev and they have a course on business fundamentals e.g. what type of company to incorporate, accounting fundamentals. Haven't tried it yet myself, but their programming stuff has been good so I reckon it would be worth a try. You can get a 2-week free trial to check it out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> For most companies, the value hits zero when the share price hits zero. When a stock drops from $10 to $5, investors see this as "halfway to zero" and adjust. For yahoo, given its valuable holdings, the zero line happens to be somewhere above actual zero (let's just say $10). However, when yahoo drops from $20 to $15 investors are not switching to "halfway to zero" mode.

As simple as it sounds, I think the elevated numbers have allowed the market to go too low. The whole thing is very psychologically driven after all.

</comment><comment><USER39> _Meaning that Yahoo 's actual business -- Yglesias calls it "Tumblr and Flickr and the iOS weather app that I love and all the news sites and the mail and the fantasy sports stuff" \-- is worth a negative amount of money_

Poor Yahoo! Let me have them for $0 which is a lot more than negative billions.

Of course, Y! Japan and Alibaba cannot be sold without incurring taxes or lowering the price. And they are worth this much, right now. Tomorrow their stock might drop

</comment><comment><USER40> Yahoo has a pretty bad history with investors, at least with me. I had a ton of options ready for if they sold to Microsoft at the price point Microsoft offered, it was a huge win for share holders, but they didn't do it. I don't think I'll ever trust them to do what is right for the share holders ever again...

<comment><USER41> > _I don 't think I'll ever trust them to do what is right for the share > holders ever again..._

How abou them doing what is right for the company's future?</comment></comment>


Was Theodore Kaczynski the Zodiac Killer? - <AUTHOR> http://unazod.com/essay.html <comment><USER2> This is just absurd: Let's compare writing style:

Zodiac Killer: >I LIKE KILLING PEOPLE BECAUSE IT IS SO MUCH FUN IT IS MORE FUN THAN KILLING WILD GAME IN THE FORREST BECAUSE MAN IS THE MOST DANGEROUE ANAMAL OF ALL TO KILL SOMETHING GIVES ME THE MOST THRILLING EXPERENCE IT IS EVEN BETTER THAN GETTING YOUR ROCKS OFF WITH A GIRL THE BEST PART OF IT IS THAE WHEN I DIE I WILL BE REBORN IN PARADICE AND ALL THEI HAVE KILLED WILL BECOME MY SLAVES I WILL NOT GIVE YOU MY NAME BECAUSE YOU WILL TRY TO SLOI DOWN OR ATOP MY COLLECTIOG OF SLAVES FOR MY AFTERLIFE. EBEORIETEMETHHPITI

Unabomber: > 1\. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in "advanced" countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in "advanced" countries.

Those are not the same people, come on. The zodiac killer's notes were barely literate and Ted Kazcynski went to Harvard.

<comment><USER3> Kazcynski went to Harvard at the age of 16, and has an IQ of 167.

<comment><USER4> I don't doubt that Kazcynski was highly intelligent, but I would be careful of throwing out IQ scores like that. It very much depends on the test. More to the point, I believe that both Wechsler and Stanford-Binet have a maximum score of 160, so a number like 167 is not possible and meaningless with some of the most commonly used tests. Intelligence tests are normed and it's difficult to have enough data to do that properly on the the tails. Further, a good diagnostician uses the results of an intelligence test to determine areas of strength and weakness, so while the overall score is used to satisfy the legal criteria for children when placing into special education, it's not the only criteria.

tldr: Most modern tests stop at 160, so 167 is not possible in that context. If another test generated that score, then it's difficult to compare it against modern test scores since they have a different cap.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> No. That is a really long ad for a book by a "Zodiologist and Kaczynski theorist"

"The odds of any single criminal bearing all the qualities outlined above has been conservatively estimated at more than one in two billion" According to whom? Even if accurate, that isn't particularly sound evidence of anything.

</comment><comment><USER6> No

</comment><comment><USER7> They way he keeps saying 'one in a billion' seems to negate the whole thing.

</comment><comment><USER8> Whenever I see articles like this, I always remind myself to apply Betteridge's Law.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines)

</comment><comment><USER9> > Kaczynski was living in Lombard, Illinois during most of the Zodiac events.

...?

What is the point of this page?</comment>


ShortestSudokuSolver - reinstated - <AUTHOR> http://blog.davidsingleton.org/sudoku

<comment><AUTHOR> I reinstated this with Mark Byer's permission. Since it was wiped off the face of the web for several years, code golfers might well be able to find some quick improvements to many of the solutions. Looking forward to hearing from you!</comment>


Yahoo's Parting With Thompson Will Be for "Cause" - <AUTHOR> http://allthingsd.com/20120514/yahoos-parting-with-thompson-will-be-for-cause/

<comment><AUTHOR> Essentially she had a TIA from all news reports at the time. This is known as a "mini" stroke. Just found it interesting that in an article about embellishment of a resume she refers to it simply as a "stroke".

More on TIA:

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001743/></comment>


Facebook Bluetooth Beacons - <AUTHOR> https://www.facebook.com/business/a/facebook-bluetooth-beacons <comment><USER2> "Designed for privacy"

Let me guess, instead of broadcasting a textual description of the location and a Facebook URL that's visited if you click the interaction button, the beacon contains a URL that's automatically downloaded from Facebook every time you enter the location (presumably to download "up to date and accurate information").

Couldn't find any details on the page though, anyone know?

<comment><USER3> This will work in a very similar way to iBeacons. Basically BLE beacons can transmit 31 (or 32? I can't remember exactly) bytes of data in their advertisements.

Apple uses that to send GUIDs which they look up in their online database. Google uses it in their URIBeacon proof-of-concept to send URIs (but only _really really_ short ones) that then don't depend on an online database of IDs (or rather, it uses the DNS database).

Facebook's will use Apple's approach. The beacon transmit's your facebook business ID. The facebook app then looks that up.

It is very unlikely that the business will receive any direct information about physical visitors - though facebook probably give them aggregate statistics ("150 people looked at facebook while in your shop this month"). I think facebook's main motivation (other than making Facebook more useful) will be to get this information for themselves so they can improve their advertising targeting (i.e. if you've been to clothes shops, show you clothes adverts).

It's probably not that great from a privacy point of view, but I doubt they're doing anything really sinister.

<comment><USER4> From a privacy point of view it's pretty much taking active "checking in" and making it automated. If you don't mind that then enable the feature in your Facebook app. If you do mind that, then don't (though I guess there's a good chance you're someone who doesn't have a Facebook app installed? "you" the hypothetical reader, not specifically IshKebab)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Facebook just fix the biggest issue with (i)beacons today : You need to have an app that read them install on your device to get notify. This was a show stopper for most small business application as you will have needed the small business app installed on your phone. Now you will just need you costumer to have Facebook installed and they certainly do. This could revive the (i)Beacon industry.

<comment><USER6> One more reason not to install the app and use the smartphone browser for Facebook, and not Chrome if on Android, but Firefox of course. But then again, I rarely have Bluetooth on, only at home for streaming music.

<comment><USER7> I don't quite understand; what's the reason, exactly?

<comment><USER6> The app uploads your contacts, and probably monitors many other things that you don't want. Firefox won't let Facebook do this. And I prefer Firefox as Chrome will do similar things for Google - not the contacts, but keeping history of websites you visit etc.

<comment><USER8> I actually find both of these features to be really useful.

<comment><USER9> It's an invasion of privacy for either you or (if you don't care) your contacts' privacy. You're probably on the wrong forum if you don't consider these "features" to be overreaching.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There is little mention of the technology used, but if Facebook is really interested in the kind of openness they claim when talking about Internet.org etc., they should adopt an open standard.

The Physical Web project ([http://google.github.io/physical- web/](http://google.github.io/physical-web/)) aims to set up such a standard based on existing technologies (Bluetooth, mDNS etc.), but it's being held back by lack of browser support. If Facebook were to adopt this, it would be a huge boost.

<comment><USER11> They're very likely using the same tech as iBeacons (which is part of Bluetooth LE)

<comment><USER10> But that's the thing: the iBeacon protocol does very little to specify the data payload, whereas Physical Web Beacons always broadcast URLs, for example.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "Designed for privacy" part made me laugh. A lot.

<comment><USER13> Why? It is privacy minded in a way. The business does not get to know any data about who was near the button or who was near the button. I mean if this wasn't designed with privacy in mind you would probably expect the business owner to get a list of all the Facebook users who were in the business.

<comment><USER14> There's a pretty big difference between "private for the businesses, but Facebook continues to know All, as is usual for them" which is what you basically describe, and "actually private, including from Facebook" which is probably what a reasonable person would understand from "designed for privacy."

<comment><USER13> Well I mean Facebook kinda _has_ to know based on how this works. It seems like the beacon essentially instructs the app to grab data for a specific page and display it. Based on this Facebook will know that a page was requested. Page data changes, it wouldn't make much sense for the button to store that data. The unique id however for a page wouldn't be changing, so that is what the button uses.

If you're that concerned about such a feature it is easy enough to not use the app, or simply not use this feature of the app.

<comment><USER14> You're probably right, but it doesn't suddenly become OK to lie just because the truth is evident if you think about it. Especially when the average person does not have the knowledge needed to reach that conclusion.

<comment><USER13> I think you're thinking about it more from the technical persons view of privacy. Most non tech people do not think about these kinds of privacy concerns or worry about what Facebook knows about them. They already have likely shared a ton of data with Facebook and don't care and likely don't care to share more. However they may be concerned if they found out every business they go to was getting a bunch of personal information about them.

So I think the general consumer would be more concerned about all these random places they go knowing who they are and details about them. This is what I believe Facebook is trying to state, that no business gets any of your information. Not that Facebook doesn't get anything. So yes they poorly worded what exactly is private and what isn't.

<comment><USER14> Do you think the average non-technical person interprets "designed for privacy" as "Facebook gets information about all your movements"? I wouldn't think so personally.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Has anyone else been keeping an eye on estimote? Any idea how this will measure up against their offering? In many ways this looks similar too. Just wondering if this is going to make business hard for estimote. Although, estimote just seems to be a lot more developer friendly, and open to more applications.

<comment><USER16> I really like Estimote, but it seems like they're selling premium hardware in a space that's racing to the bottom. Most beacons really don't need the temperature sensors or accelerometers. I finally got my nearables order last month, over six months after the first promised delivery date, and as great as those are ten dollars each is still a bit much IMO. Their solid SDK and developer relationships aren't going to matter too much if stuff like Facebook's beacons take off, making it so that businesses don't even need people to download an extra app.

<comment><USER17> Just got one of these:

[http://www.amazon.com/Bluetooth-Near-field-Positioning- Wirel...](http://www.amazon.com/Bluetooth-Near-field-Positioning-Wireless- Acquisition/dp/B00O2UDZU6/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1434989722&sr=8-2&keywords=ibeacon)

and it works great.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> "Designed for privacy" -> misleading people who don't understand they are being traced and manipulated. Disgusting...

</comment><comment><USER19> Yes facebook, please track me more. Bluetooth -> Off.

</comment><comment><USER20> This looks incredible. They've taken the fact that people will scroll through their Facebook feeds when sitting at a cafe or shopping at a retail store and monetized it! Also, if they were to integrate push notifications for every time you walked into a store to inform people of your specials that could work great.

<comment><USER21> I don't really get why you need to have a beacon for this though? The Facebook app is already installed and knows your location anyway. Provide businesses with a page to enter the details to be pushed to the phone and then just let the app pop up a notification once the user enters the associated geofence.

If the location is not accurate enough, you can tie it to a Wifi point of the business (the Wifi doesn't even need to be open). And it doesn't need to use Bluetooth at all (which I always leave off on all my phones until I really need it as it consumes a lot of battery).

Given the fact that the Facebook app is already installed anyway on literally any phone, they could pull this off right away. This is what Foursquare should have done years ago to survive.

<comment><USER22> I think you might underestimate how big is the error in the normal (wifi) location sensing (e.g. see here[1]). Bluetooth beacons add a much more localized spot, so much less likely to pop up the wrong place on your device, which is very important for this to be any real use.

[1]: [https://gigaom.com/2012/08/17/how-much-better-is-gps-over- wi...](https://gigaom.com/2012/08/17/how-much-better-is-gps-over-wi-fi- positioning-yelp-knows/)

<comment><USER23> Exactly. GPS could probably work well enough in suburbs and other areas with fairly wide spaced buildings, but in a urban environment there could easily be ten or more businesses within the margin of error for GPS location detection.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This could be huge for small bands and artists. Yesterday at a show in Berlin the drummer kept talking about the bands Facebook page and handing out paper with the link. If a band could just have a becon that sent out push notifications to the fb app it could increase engagement significantly.

<comment><USER25> Beacons can't send push notifications. Beacons are equivalent of light houses in 2.4GHz spectrum. They just keep broadcasting their presence and send their UUID. Everything else is done via the apps installed on your device.

(That's, coincidentally, is also why a lot of dream scenarios for beacons can't take off - they literally require you to have an Internet connection and a vendor-specific app on your phone to do anything interesting, which is not something you can expect of people outdoors. Facebook has a really good chance of making some of the beacon ideas work, because a/ almost everyone has their app, and b/ it's an app that people actually want to use outdoors, and they power up their mobile connection for that.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I've read some papers that claims that Bluetooth and Wi-Fi signal does interfere each other. And in my group project, we tried out transferring files from phone to phone via Bluetooth while there is another file transfer going on from laptop to laptop via Wi-Fi; and the result is that the time taken for the Bluetooth transfer to complete is longer than that when there is no Wi-Fi file transfer going on. Well, it may depend on the version of Bluetooth and Wi-Fi frequency used though. (but in my scenario, we're using 2.4GHz Wi-Fi and Bluetooth 4.0)

<comment><USER27> Of course they interfere, Bluetooth and Bluetooth LE use the 2.4-2.48 ISM band, and so does WiFi. WiFi has up to 14 overlapping 20MHz channels, and Bluetooth 4.0 has 40 2MHz channels. Though I guess Bluetooth could be clever enough to avoid the channels with interference.

<comment><USER28> BLE has 3 advertising channels, spaced to try to avoid the WiFi channels. Once a connection is made (probably not relevant for beacons anyway), it uses frequency hopping over the other 37 channels to avoid interference as much as possible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> It seems to me like this is the realisation of the personalised advertising billboards they had in "Minority Report", except instead of billboards it's your phone (for now...).

<comment><USER30> Well I'd doubt it will ever be billboards. They're so clunky and impersonal. In my opinion, they'll get pushed to your most distracting or annoying device (watch, glasses, surgically implanted HUD, etc).

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> This seems to be a "standard" iBeacon with Facebook branding? Or is there anything different here?

<comment><USER25> There's nothing interesting in any iBeacon sold, they're just (mostly) Nordic 2.4GHz chips in cool package. What matters is the software and related services; in this case Facebook has a chance to make iBeacons actually useful for retailers because they want to make Facebook app itself be able to use beacons to deliver you localized information. With a typical beacons you'd have to install a special app for every store or service that wants to use them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Looks like a cool idea and I'm excited for Facebook, but I'm also quite happy I never have Bluetooth enabled except when I'm at home. Do other HNers tend to have it on? Bluetooth headsets seem to be on the decline but with cars getting smarter I'm not really sure.

<comment><USER33> I always have it on. I'm already being tracked using Wi-fi and GPS; BT beacons are unlikely to pose much more of a threat.

If you don't want to be tracked, you're better off not installing Facebook or any other closed-source app with BT or location permissions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> The problem with beacons to date is the lack of a happy medium between controlled network and openness for 3rd party developers.

Most developers are not Facebook and won't be able to ship thousands and thousands of beacons to businesses for their apps.

Also, this is a super haphazard deployment by FB. Their installation instructions are "take it out of the box, set it up somewhere in a central area and you're good to go." Well not really - these beacons are going to end up in weird places, giving people "Place Tips" when they're walking down an alley, or live upstairs from a restaurant with a FB beacon.

</comment><comment><USER35> Quick a dirty beacon: set the SSID of your wifi network to a URL.

</comment><comment><USER36> Ha, I made something very similar 9 years ago as a POC, but the tech and battery life didn't really work back then, J2ME was a bitch.

Give a shop a "beacon". Track customers in a mall. Find general walking patterns. Give time limited offers. Give awards if you stay in a shop for x minutes. Main one I liked Find a friend feature.

Also looked at installing them in Theme Parks and at Concerts mainly for the Find a friend.

Probably a privacy nightmare, bluetooth battery nightmare.

<comment><USER37> I know someone working on this right now and a bunch of cities are already on board to get the data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> The first thing that came to mind was "wow Life Invader isn't so far off as a parody". Life Invader was a parody on Facebook in Grand Theft Auto V.

</comment><comment><USER39> Am I missing something, or can you just leave Bluetooth off for this to be a non-issue from a privacy standpoint?

I usually never have it on anyway due to battery drain.

</comment><comment><USER7> Practical question: I participate in promoting events that take places in different venues every time. Will these beacons work for business like this?

<comment><USER6> I bet you can buy ads to promote your events. FB will know the location of the beacons, and can serve your ads to people walking there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I actually saw this in full effects near alexandra steakhouse Cupertino. It is a really impressive experience. and also surprisingly, it works for even when I was quite far away, at least like 20 meters. I wonder how the technology works. Dose it has something to do with the one way transmission?

</comment><comment><USER41> I doubt this does anything unless you have location services enabled for Facebook.

Most people do, of course.

</comment><comment><USER42> I'm impressed with their focus on privacy, but for me as a business owner I am probably not as interested in my customers privacy as my customers are in their own, so the privacy issue should probably be communicated more to fb users than to businesses.

Secondly, this page is very vague about what benefit I as a business owner will gain from service. Seriously, what will I gain?

I remember Facebook announced a free WiFi service for businesses, where I as a business owner could give my customers free WiFi if they checked-in at my location on Facebook. Now there's a benefit for the business!

<comment><USER43> If as a business owner you're not interested in your customers' privacy, remind me not to do business with you.

<comment><USER44> You misinterpreted what he wrote. It's entirely possible to care about customer privacy a great deal yet the customer will generally still care more. It's an exceedingly rare business that would actually care _more_ about your privacy than you would yourself.

And it's entirely possible a business could care too much for your privacy by taking cash only ("Sorry, credit and debit cards will track you. Checks leave a paper trail."), have a faraday cage around the entire building to block any RF signals ("You don't want big brother tracking you!"), etc. while you just want to buy that item with your credit card and be able to get messages while shopping.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I'm so sick of FB. FB pages are really a joke at this point.</comment>


What does `void 0` mean? - <AUTHOR> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7452341/what-does-void-0-mean

<comment><USER2> It is idiotic that undefined isn't a reserved keyword. But add that to the list of bad JavaScript design decisions.

</comment><comment><USER3> Modern browsers don't actually let you redefine `undefined`.

</comment><comment><USER4> I think i'd go for 'void undefined'.</comment>


HMS Queen Elizabeth is 'running outdated Windows XP', raising cyber attack fears - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/27/hms-queen-elizabeth-running-outdated-windows-xp-software-raising/ <comment><USER2> It takes millions of pounds and several years to develop military systems. The computers running the systems (everything from heating/cooling, to engine management) are integral parts of these systems, and explicitly configured to do these specific tasks. These task-orientated units would have be designed down to the nth degree, complete with extensive operating/troubleshooting manuals and config guides, including approved 'gold images' to rebuild them easily if required. Swapping out the base OS needlessly (if it's still capable of performing its duties) would require an extensive rebuild of the system concerned, again taking years to get through all the admin, testing, and sign off hoops.

I very much doubt when it says 'running XP' it means the general purpose computers for end-users to use.

Obviously, if these XP machines are not air-gapped, or behind hardware firewalls (with very restrictive rulesets) away from the general internet, then that's insane. Cynical as I am, I still have a hard time believing that these XP machines would be remotely accessible from outside the ship in question.

Edit: I've zoomed in on the image in question. Yes that's a Windows XP lock screen (the header of the dialog is blue, if it was Windows Server 2003, it'd be grey) However it's in 'classic theme' mode. As it's on the lock screen, then that's a 'system wide' setting, which infers that the themes service is disabled. If they've disabled the themes service, then it's safe to assume that lots of other parts have been disabled or locked down also. This doesn't make XP safe, but it does at least a) mitigate the risk somewhat, and b) indicate that steps _have_ been taken to secure the OS.

<comment><USER3> For the requirements you correctly identified - very long service times, very strict reliability requirements, etc, I think it's insane to rely on a closed source operating system in the first place. With open source you can always hire some programmers to fix bugs. With Windows you're at the mercy of Microsoft.

<comment><USER4> > With open source you can always hire some programmers to fix bugs.

That might work for changing the text on a web site running Drupal 6 ten years later, but thinking that this sentence makes _any_ sense when you're talking about a huge distributed system ported from probably some commercial Unix-like or even bare-metal Ada or whatever to NT then that's just a very naive sentiment.

<comment><USER3> It's expensive, sure, but it's at least possible.

<comment><USER5> Possible maybe, but highly unrealistic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I cannot think of many reasons to run RHEL and pay Redhat, but if I was building a warship for 3.5 billion, I'd install RHEL on it and pay to have my version of the OS maintained indefinitly.

<comment><USER7> My understanding from an engineer who worked on UK military projects and UK satellites (not sure if there was overlap there) was that RHEL was far less willing to enter extremely long-term support contrtacts than Microsoft, and THAT was the one requirement that allowed even Vista to trump RHEL for some mission-critical systems.

<comment><USER8> Wonder if that has changed recently as i swear i read about a new destroyer or something that would get a RHEL based "datacenter" installed.

<comment><USER7> Could be the different use cases, too. Also been a few years since I was up to date, but Windows certainly used to dominate the control systems market a bit more than the server market.

<comment><USER8> And i have long wondered if the real push behind Wayland is not that X is "broken" but that X is a bad fit on IVI and similar uses, because of various overheads.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I used to work for a defense contractor. MS does offer continued support for XP if your pockets are deep enough. The US Navy has deep enough pockets IIRC. I dunno about anyone on the wrong side of the pond but it's possible they shelled out for it. A different commenters mentioned paying to have an OS maintained indefinitely. That's probably exactly why they're running XP.

Systems like this have the same "we proved it worked correctly once, do you really want to screw with it?" factor as the space shuttle. Proper functionality has been verified with those systems using XP. That goes out the window if you do a major upgrade. All the layers of security you need to implement elsewhere because the OS is fundamentally outdated and insecure is still easier than upgrading the OS. Finally, if an attacker can manipulate those systems then you've already lost. Defense in depth is important but serious defense at these levels is like a "no trespassing, police take notice" sign on the inside of your bank vault above a pile of gold bars.

I agree they probably should have been based on a unix system from the beginning but a lot of these hardware/software system passed the point of no return for the OS portion of their design a decade or more ago when XP wasn't an insane choice. The industry is slowly coming around.

edit: There are a lot of people in here who need to realize that you know very little about the hardware, performance and software requirements of the system. Just because you can write code in the trendy language of the day and use docker to cover up systemic reliability issues that would cripple a LAMP stack does not make you qualified to armchair engineer a software stack that people's lives depend on. This article should make you wonder what set of constraints resulted in them running XP. They did it for a reason. Nobody runs an OS that old without a really good reason.

<comment><USER10> Indeed. Anecdote: Several years ago I worked on a U.S. GOSS (Government Open- Source Software) project that was a web app that allowed different apps running on different domains to function as "widgets" and allowed cross-domain communication between these apps in a drag-and-drop window environment in the browser. The intention was small apps could be composed into larger apps by allowing them to communicate with each other in this environment.

It supported multiple browsers, including IE7 in as late as summer 2014, because end-users in the U.S. Navy had machines that only had IE7. Countless man-hours (and U.S. taxpayer dollars) were spent to ensure all features worked in IE7, including drag-and-drop and responsive UI.

That project was the single biggest driver for me to get the hell out of the government contracting world and into the "truly" private sector. At least at a startup I can say more or less "if it works in Chrome, it works."

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's a bit disingenuous to say that a ship is 'running' an OS. It isn't like a computer that is entirely managed by a given software system. Here computers are but one component of an integrated system, and I'm presuming these systems are air-gapped and not connected to public networks. I'd be very surprised if these machines were reachable by public networks, or indeed any network at all that originates beyond the confines of the ship itself.

And by God doesn't it irk me to hear mentions of 'cyber' as if it were an object.

<comment><USER12> Just because they're only a part of a system doesn't mean they're not crucial[1]. Also its alarming how many systems you would presume are air- gapped but actually aren't, and air-gapping doesn't prevent PEBKAC errors (eg stuxnet being spread by flashdrive)

[1] See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Yorktown_(CG-48)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Yorktown_\(CG-48\)) where a divide-by-zero error brought down the ships propulsion for almost 3 hours.

<comment><USER9> You've got it backwards. That situation happened because a "more technology because computers and buzzwords and shit" resulted in political pressure to get stuff done and the end result was an OS jammed into a place it shouldn't have been without more testing and 3hr of downtime. That's why we run software that's been verified to work even if it's old.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> ''Despite the concerns of some engineers, SMCS-NG was created as a port to Microsoft Windows of the SMCS infrastructure and applications, a move which some commentators have termed "Windows for Warships".

The UK's Defence Ministry later gave assurances, through questions in the UK parliament, that this is a low risk use of Microsoft Windows. However, some other suppliers have taken a different path.

The console for the new Sonar 2076 supplied by Thales Underwater Systems for the Astute class submarines, and which may be retro-fitted to other classes, are built as PCs running Linux rather than Windows.''

</comment><comment><USER14> [https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/18/windows_for_warship...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/18/windows_for_warships_not_on_queen_elizabeth_class_aircraft_carriers/)

There was an MOD denial some years ago but the phrase 'when the ship becomes operational' was used. So possibly 'Windows for warships' during trials.

</comment><comment><USER15> Maybe I'm being myopic here, but is there any sane (as opposed to red-tape based or political) reason to use Windows in an application like this? HMS Queen Elizabeth wasn't ordered until 2008, and construction didn't even begin until mid-2009, so there's not even the excuse that some Linux or BSD distribution wasn't production-ready. I really can't think of a single advantage that XP has here that some more open, safer operating system doesn't, and I can think of plenty of disadvantages with XP.

<comment> k-mcgrady >> so there's not even the excuse that some Linux or BSD distribution wasn't production-ready

Possible there's a lot of custom software used across the navy which is only support on Windows XP. Maybe too costly to rewrite than for another system and have it interoperate with other ships etc. on the old (current) system.

<comment><USER16> More likely, the manufacturer simply couldn't be arsed to use anything better. This sort of contract is rarely decided on features - it's settled by long- winded political process (where will the ship be built? What country will supply parts? Etc etc) between a very small array of suppliers (if there is an array at all, more often it's a single company in each country), where OS choice is probably the lowest priority. In fact, UK Navy upper echelons might have even _preferred_ XP because it didn't require any extra training for their existing workforce.

<comment><USER17> That's it exactly. The software was already written to run on XP and the crew trained to use those versions of the software. As long as the ship's hardwired-only network is secured from the outside and physical access is limited (disable USB ports, lock down BIOS, locked cabinets, sealed ethernet conduits, etc), you won't have any problems with typical malware and people will have less opportunity to infect systems. Additionally, you can run whitelists to limit what files can even exist on the system or be run. As long as the firewall is strong, network access is restricted to need based, and any servers are fully patched, the various clients on the ship don't need any additional protection from attacks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The UK Trident strategic nuclear submarines also run Windows XP.

[https://mspoweruser.com/uks-nuclear-submarines-runs- windows-...](https://mspoweruser.com/uks-nuclear-submarines-runs-windows-xp- submarines/)

[http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a19061/brit...](http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a19061/britains- doomsday-subs-run-windows-xp/)

</comment><comment><USER18> "And senior officers said they will have cyber specialists on board to defend the carrier from such attacks."

Well then everything is fine I guess...

<comment><USER19> Here's a video of their cyber specialists defending the ship against a cyber: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8qgehH3kEQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8qgehH3kEQ)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Here's a very interesting link I came across from December of 2015, which claims:

"The MoD can confirm that Windows XP will not be used by any onboard system when the [HMS Queen Elizabeth] becomes operational," the spokesman added. "This also applies to HMS Prince of Wales."

[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/18/windows_for_warship...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/18/windows_for_warships_not_on_queen_elizabeth_class_aircraft_carriers/)

</comment><comment><USER21> From last year:

[https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-our-new-aircraft- carriers...](https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-our-new-aircraft-carriers- dont-run-on-windows-xp/)

If a mirky shot of a login screen is the only thing informing this article, it's poor journalism IMO.

The Royal Navy have a specialisd version of Windows, and I'm happy to believe they didn't spend a lot of time tarting up the login screen.

<comment><USER22> It sounds to me as if it's still a version of Windows XP (or 2000)? That means that although it's adapted, it likely still has problems that appear in Windows XP.

If you use a specialised, highly adapted version of an OS, why not base it on Linux? Wouldn't that be easier than paying Microsoft to be able to change the kernel of XP?

<comment><USER4> > If you use a specialised, highly adapted version of an OS, why not base it > on Linux?

Why not something that isn't made of "swiss cheese"? With an old Linux system you have _exactly the same problems_ as with an old Windows, probably even more.

Sticking "Linux" and "Open Source will save this" into it does not tangibly improve the situation.

(There _are_ operating systems with a very good maintenance, stability and security track record that _could_ be used for _some_ of these cases, but _seemingly_ aren't)

<comment><USER22> You could potentially patch the kernel without support from another company. If Microsoft never gave them the source code, could they fix a bug with no help from Microsoft?

<comment><USER23> It's reasonable to assume that they have access to Windows XP source code and also the extended non-public support for Windows XP by Microsoft itself; MS is known to provide such services to defence contractors.

<comment><USER22> But can you build the kernel by yourself? Aircraft carriers are designed for several decades, so you need to make sure that you could fix a bug in 2035. Wouldn't rely on a contract there. Especially if it's a company in another country (even for allies).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Well some of the US Navy computers still use DOS 6 and Windows NT4. Can't say which ones but they are not connected to any network and still use 3.5 floppies.

</comment><comment><USER25> Sometimes truth really is stranger than fiction. This is not an old computer producing colours in a paint shop. This is on a war machine, can't believe it.

<comment><USER26> Between XP and it's pathetic ramp, it really has an image problem eh?

<comment><USER25> What do you mean? Am I wrong in thinking weapon systems should not be running known (extremely?) vulnerable systems?

<comment><USER26> You're right. I was also alluding to the fact that they don't have catapult system, but instead a lame-looking ramp on the end. So not only does it visually look pathetic, but it is also running Windows XP which can't help its rep either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> While clearly it's not ideal for them to be using XP wasn't the British government one of the purchasers of extended XP support? Has that ended now?

<comment><USER28> Yes that ended in April 2015. The then Government decided to end the contract under the guises of austerity.

[https://governmenttechnology.blog.gov.uk/2015/05/22/update-o...](https://governmenttechnology.blog.gov.uk/2015/05/22/update- on-the-customer-support-agreement-for-windows-xp/)

I don't think it work out as a cost effective saving of course, as the NHS was badly hit by WannaCry as we all know.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I thought this was going to be about the queen herself :(

<comment><USER30> You might have been correct if the title had said "HM" instead of "HMS".

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> This will be a special version of windows XP with all the rubbish taken out and only the required services running etc. We used a similar version of XP as a base OS for a security camera control device.

It will have been security validated to the extreme and to assume it is anything like the commerical version is wrong

<comment><USER22> Does it feature the bugs that WannaCry utilised? When you were tested those bugs were probably not known yet, so what if they are in the specialised version as well? I guess a security camera is connected to a network?

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> To be honest Windows XP was probably the most solid operating system Windows have ever released. It was very efficient and reliable.

It got progressively worse with every SP pack installed but the original system was very well engineered.

I hope these computers are air gapped and USB ports are removed / disabled though.

<comment><USER16> _> probably the most solid operating system Windows have ever released_

That's damning with faint praise...

 _> It got progressively worse with every SP pack installed _

Well, SP2 removed craptons of exploitable scenarios. Anything before that was a security nightmare, and that includes my beloved Windows 2000.

 _> I hope these computers are air gapped and USB ports are removed_

That's optimistic. At some level, there will be some sort of port for servicing requirements anyway. Chances are that it will be an USB.

<comment><USER32> Btw, how do you use italics?

<comment><USER33> Asterisks on either side of the text to be italicized. See also, via the FAQ: [https://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc](https://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Don't worry... they have an air gap ;)

</comment><comment><USER5> I know a lot of people think that choosing XP is crazy but I did an evaluation of an operating system for a video processing system around 2003. I was sure that Linux would win easily but after looking at support options, long term maintenance, software availability and a few other factors Windows XP Embedded actually came out ahead.

I probably would have gone with Linux anyway but if you have to do a "neutral" vendor assessment Windows doesn't look that bad. You can't just put "Windows sucks" into your report.

EDIT: I wonder why this is being downvoted.

<comment><USER35> I think it's because it's XP, not Windows, being used on a ship that won't even be deployed for several years yet, not for one that was deployed back in 2003.

<comment><USER5> I know the article is about XP but a lot of the commenters here were more about the choice of Windows in general.

<comment><USER36> So? That has also changed a lot since 2003.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Hackers use security camera DVRs as Bitcoin-mining rig - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/04/02/dvr_botnet_mines_bitcoins/

<comment><USER2> To get a sense of the scale of inefficiency, writing this code was certainly less profitable than walking down the highway picking up bottles to return for their 5-cent deposit.</comment>