Apple to Lodsys: you'll have to go through us to sue iOS devs - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/08/apple-tells-judge-intervention-against-lodsys-should-be-granted.ars

<comment><USER2> A few thoughts:

1\. Under Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court must grant Apple the right to intervene as of right if Apple can show: (1) that it has filed a timely motion to do so; (2) that it claims an "interest" in "property" that is the subject of the action; (3) that its ability to protect its interest in that property may as a practical matter be impaired or impeded if the legal action is allowed to be disposed of without its participation; and (4) that existing parties cannot adequately represent that interest.

2\. Consistent with this rule, Apple's legal argument boils down to the idea that it has a license from IV to protect, and rights under that license, all of which will be impaired or impeded if Lodsys is allowed to pursue infringement claims against developers who develop apps for the environment to which Apple's license applies. Hence, Apple must be allowed to step in to defend the integrity of its license and to argue, based on that license, that Lodsys is barred by the doctrine of "patent exhaustion" from pursuing claims against the developers.

3\. Apple thus argues that it needs to be in the case to protect its own interests, not those of the developers. Now, _de facto_ , this might amount to the same thing since Apple does not want to face a revolt among its developers. But there is irony here in that Lodsys is arguing, as one of its major points on why Apple should not be allowed to intervene, that Apple has no obligation legally to hold the developers harmless (i.e., based on Apple's agreements, the developers are on their own). In seeking to intervene to argue the patent exhaustion doctrine, then, Apple is saying it will protect its license rights primarily and developers only incidentally and, again, without undertaking any legal obligation to indemnify any developer.

4\. All that said, "patent exhaustion" is a potent defense, the effect of which (if upheld) would be invalidate the patent for misuse. "Misuse" here lies in the idea of extending the exclusive rights afforded by the patent grant beyond their legitimate scope. Apple's ability to prove misuse, though, is by no means easy. To show misuse, it will essentially have to show that the IV license was intended to cover separate products (apps) that did not even exist when the license was granted and that do not constitute an integral part of the Apple product when sold. This will be tricky at best and obviously will take a party of Apple's sophistication and wherewithal to marshal the arguments and factual development effectively. That, of course, is why Lodsys does not want Apple in the case. It would much prefer to bully smaller and less sophisticated parties because that is how patent bullying works best.

<comment><USER3> Is the fact that Apple earns revenue from the 3rd-party developers' sales material to the case for either party?

<comment><USER2> It is relevant on at least two counts:

1\. Motion to intervene: the fact that Apple earns revenues from third-party developer sales confirms that its interest in the "property" at issue in the litigation (the IV license) is potentially impaired if Lodsys is allowed to sue the developers for infringement when in fact (as Apple would claim) its patent rights were "exhausted" in this area when it (or its predecessor) granted the license to Apple. This fact, then, strengthens Apple's claim that is has a right to intervene to protect its interests.

2\. On the merits: Apple will claim an unimpaired right to earn revenues from its developers owing to the strength of its license - this bolsters its substantive case that Lodsys is abusing its patent by trying to double-dip in having taken payment for the license in the first place (from Lodsys's predecessor) and then over-reaching to try to get further licensing revenues from those who should have the right to rely on Apple's license.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Bears repeating:

Lodsys acquired its four patents from former Microsoft CTO Nathan Myhrvold's Intellectual Ventures patent holding company. It turns out that Apple already has a license to those patents by virtue of an investment deal in Intellectual Ventures.

<comment><USER5> It also bears repeating that "Lodsys" is a shell company with a vacant office in Marshall, Texas whose sole business is licensing and litigating four patents purchased from IV under (we can only assume) a secret revenue-sharing agreement. For all intents and purposes here, Lodsys _is_ IV.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I hope the two-pronged defense works.

1) Apple tries to shield the iOS developers using its previous licensing agreement.

2) Someone else tries to get the patents invalidated. _Several companies whose clients were targeted by Lodsys have filed preemptive lawsuits requesting declaratory judgements that Lodsys' patents are invalid, and some independent developers led by former Apple engineer Mike Lee have formed a legal defense fund to fight Lodsys and other patent trolls. Even if Apple believes the patents wouldn't stand up to reexamination, it is suspected that the secret terms of the license agreement with Intellectual Ventures prohibits Apple from attempting to have the patents invalidated._

</comment><comment><USER7> What Apple should do, is worse come to worse, if they can't intervene in all Lodsys cases against each individual developer, they should setup a 'trust fund', with say $2B earmarked just to cover the legal costs for all developers that get sued by Lodsys.

It might be expensive, and maybe even get abused, but the positive PR it would generate and the goodwill it would build up among third-party developers would far exceed the $2B spent (if it even gets spent) on behalf of said developers.

That would be a first and be very interesting.

<comment><USER8> That's exactly what Lodsys would like. If Joe Startup sees a patent lawsuit and Apple is offering to pay the bills, heck yeah, just let them take care of it. In which case, all the money likely goes to a patent troll for them to scoop up more and repeat the cycle.

<comment><USER9> Wrong. Lodsys would like the little devs to pay the license fees and possibly settle after Lodsys sues them.

Having a defense fund would force Lodsys to actually do more than put up a front and go and sue each licensee... this becomes much much more costly either in time (serial cases) or money (parallel cases).

<comment><USER7> Exactly..I agree with r00fus.

If both Lodsys and Apple go head to head in the courts, then it really comes down to a game of attrition. Who has the most cash to pay the attorneys. Even if Lodsys is run by attorneys, and the principals work free, they still have to pay everyone else.

Lodsys can't outpay Apple. They just don't have the cash. So it should be a deterrent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'd really like to see the corporate veil pierced and individuals civilly or criminally responsible for abuse of the patent system. (this would probably require some modifications to the law, either by congress or by a seriously activist court, but the end result would totally be worth it)

<comment><USER11> Why is this an abuse? They patented something and are suing people they think are infringing on their patents.

The problem is the concept of software patents in general, not the various ways of "enforcing" them.

<comment><USER12> _> Why is this an abuse?_

From Wiktionary:

 _abuse: (n.) Improper treatment or usage; application to a wrong or bad purpose; misuse; perversion._

In my understanding, the intended purpose of the patent system is to protect and foster innovation. Clearly, the patent system is being _misused_ for a very different purpose, which many would call _bad or wrong_. As such, this _perversion_ of the patent system qualifies as abuse to those who agree.

The patent system itself being "the problem", as you say, in no way makes this abuse of it _less_ of a problem.

If you don't believe that this is abuse, it might be because of your second statement:

 _> They patented something and are suing people they think are infringing on their patents._

Lodsys did not patent this. At best, Intellectual Ventures patented it, and Lodsys "bought" the patents, probably through some more nefarious means, with the sole intent of profiting through litigation. No innovation there.

<comment><USER11> _Lodsys did not patent this. At best, Intellectual Ventures patented it, and Lodsys "bought" the patents, probably through some more nefarious means, with the sole intent of profiting through litigation. No innovation there._

I see this on some level, but on some other level, it makes sense to be able to transfer property. You invented something. The government gave you exclusive rights to sue anyone who did anything remotely resembling what you invented. You decided the best way to profit from your invention was to sell this right to someone else.

Clearly, this is fine. The problem is not that you cashed out on your work. The problem is that the government shouldn't have given you the right to sue other people for doing something similar to what you do.

We can't blame Lodsys for exploiting the holes in the patent system. For that, we have to blame the system itself.

The right way to monetize innovative software-related ideas is to write innovative software, which is protected by copyright. But the law says differently -- just coming up with an idea is more valuable than coming up with a product that uses that idea to be innovative. And there's your problem.

<comment><USER13> _We can't blame Lodsys for exploiting the holes in the patent system. For that, we have to blame the system itself._

Yes, we can. We can blame Lodsys, IV, et. al. for behaving legally but unethically and/or counterproductively to society, while also blaming the system itself.

Otherwise, this statement is roughly similar to saying that you can't blame bullies for beating up nerds; it's the nerds' fault for being weak, and the playground's fault for not having nerd protection.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I complain about apple a lot - even though I keep buying their stuff, but this is definitely a case of apple doing the right thing for its developers.

<comment><USER8> I applaud them as well. It's better than just sitting on the sidelines (see: Google & Microsoft) while their "partners" get sued.

But, let's not forget there is a lot for Apple to lose in this if Lodsys is victorious. If developing iOS apps becomes a patent minefield, AAPL stands to lose a lot of money.

<comment><USER15> I think that Apple probably has more of a leg to stand on when it comes to intervening because of the way their app marketplace is setup.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The article mentions that Google and others (Microsoft) got in on the same financing deal granting them similar licenses. RIM licensed the same portfolio this past March.

Anyone know why Google/MS/RIM haven't filed to intervene as well?

Edit:

List of investors: [http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011/05/intellectual- venture...](http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011/05/intellectual-ventures- revealing-investors.html)

RIM: [http://www.intellectualventures.com/newsroom/pressreleases/1...](http://www.intellectualventures.com/newsroom/pressreleases/11-03-30/Research_In_Motion_Enters_License_Agreement_with_Intellectual_Ventures.aspx)

<comment><USER17> >Anyone know why Google/MS/RIM haven't filed to intervene as well?

Perhaps because, in terms of dollars spent by users, the iOS market is by far the biggest ongoing concern.

I'm sure that, for RIM at least, the cost-benefit analysis is pretty prohibitive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Even if it weren't a term of their protection agreement with IV, it's not so surprising Apple isn't questioning the validity of the patents. Apple already pays for it, so if they get their protection extended to iOS developers, invalidating the patents would only be bad for Apple.

<comment><USER18> I think it's more likely that as a part of the licensing agreement Apple agreed to not challenge the validity of the patents. This is not uncommon.

<comment><USER5> That's what I mean by "protection." I did read the article.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's good to see apple stand up for their developers, but does the license Apple has apply to the developers? The developers are, after all, the ones technically infringing on the patents.

<comment><USER20> From the article: _This defense is known as "exhaustion" — the third parties in question should be covered by the original license, so patent owners can't claim infringement by those third parties._

 _The company asserts that developers are its business partners, and therefore Apple has a material interest in protecting those partners from being sued over technology that it has previously licensed. The heart of the dispute hinges on the licensing terms Apple received from Intellectual Ventures, though the details of those terms apparently cannot be publicly revealed._

Apple believes the licence it has protects its partners. Without seeing the terms of the licence it is impossible to say if this is the case, but it is certainly possible.

<comment><USER21> > Apple believes the licence it has protects its partners. Without seeing the > terms of the licence it is impossible to say if this is the case, but it is > certainly possible.

And it certainly seems silly that Apple would not have sought those terms in its license. Of course, patent licenses don't often appeal to common sense, but the one thing Apple has is foresight.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Okay, as (nearly) the most valuable company in the world, why don't they avoid all the legal maneuvering and resolve the problem with an acquisition?

<comment><USER23> For the same reason you don't negotiate with terrorists: If Apple pays up without a fight, then patent trolls everywhere will begin suing iOS devs with hopes of being acquired by Apple.

<comment><USER22> Okay, that's a pretty good point. I clearly do not think enough like patent troll.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I would not be surprised if this is just a proxy attack from google and apple's enemies. Main suspect: Microsoft. Second suspect: Nokia

<comment><USER25> Ten years ago called and wants its anti-Microsoft conspiracies back.</comment></comment>


Facebook Hidden Friends Vulnerability? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.cyberint.com/2014/05/facebook-hidden-friends-vulnerability.html The vulnerability allows attackers to discover (more precisely: reconstruct) the private Friends List of any Facebook user. <comment><USER4> People have been writing about variations on the so-called "mutual friends vulnerability" for years and years now. Facebook's response has always been the same. You can control what people see on your own profile, but you cannot control what people see on your friends' profiles. Just as if you write on your friend's wall, revealing the fact that you are friends with that person, simply being friends with that person will also reveal to people who can see that friend's profile that the two of you are connected. The name of the setting is "Who can see my friend list", not "Who can see me on my friends' friend list", nor is it "Conceal all links to my profile from my friends' profiles."

<comment><USER5> It does reveal to the person you have mutual friends with, who those mutual friends are, but I just can't see an obvious reason why this additional information should be broadcasted to everyone, even persons that are strangers to you and the person you share part of your friendslist with.

Edit: To clarify my standpoint I tested this on a friend of mine (person A), that hides his friendslist from everyone but his closest friends.

It just happens that I also befriended the persons best friend (person B), and therefore I tried to get the mutual friends between person A and B. What I received were 38 mutual friends, even though I can only see one mutual friend between myself person A.

That is clearly information that person A didn't intend to share with me, therefore there has to be a bug or stupidity on Facebooks side involved to uncover this information to me.

<comment><USER6> Even from the example link the post gives, I am neither friends with Mark Zuckerberg (who has a private list) nor Chris Hughes (who has a public friends list). In this instance I have not had to befriend anyone!

[https://www.facebook.com/zuck/friends?and=ChrisHughes](https://www.facebook.com/zuck/friends?and=ChrisHughes)

And given that FB has a history of just changing the default security for things without telling anyone, or making the defaults fully open/public, this is a little worrying!

<comment><USER7> It seems like this could be pretty easily fixed by just not allowing arbitrary usernames in the "and" parameter and instead using the currently logged in user.

It wouldn't fix everything, but it would mean you at least need to befriend someone in their network before being able to use this attack.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The title seems very misleading, his friends list hasn't actually been discovered, but rather a method that could discover parts of it.

Question for the arm chair lawyers: If he published said friends list could the FB denial of a vulnerability be construed as evidence that he didn't hack them as the functionality is intended and authorized?

<comment><USER9> HN, 1492. Christopher Columbus discovers America. HN user comment : pretty misleading title, large parts of America are most probably not discovered yet. Joke aside, I've seen far worse titles than this one.

<comment><USER10> To be fair it would really be misleading as he wasn't the one who "discovered" America.

>>He was the first person to establish long and meaningful

>>connection with the New World that would eventually tie

>>Europe to the Americas, but it is a misconception that he

>>was the first to "discover" America.

[http://sites.psu.edu/mmancini/2012/09/08/1-columbus-was- the-...](http://sites.psu.edu/mmancini/2012/09/08/1-columbus-was-the-first-a- misconception/)

Additional source: [http://email@example.com/FO...](http://email@example.com/FOV1-00141BFF/FOV1-00151235/Vikings%20%231.pdf)

<comment><USER6> To be really fair, Columbus was searching for India when he first discovered America so I doubt he even knew what he had stumbled upon

<comment><USER11> IIRC, he continuously _insisted_ that he had reached the ("East", as we now know them as a result of him being wrong) Indies, in fact.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This: [https://www.facebook.com/search/4/photos- of](https://www.facebook.com/search/4/photos-of) is also quite interesting. Did Zuck really want us to see this? [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=914230961663](https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=914230961663)

Yes, it's a public photo. But seeing all tagged public photos in one place is a different thing. These photos are not shown when you click "Photos" on his Timeline: [https://www.facebook.com/zuck/photos_all](https://www.facebook.com/zuck/photos_all)

<comment><USER13> That's interesting. For your friends, there is a "Photos of <friend>" item on their photos page, but for non-friends it doesn't show.

But OTOH, if you're tagged in a public photo, like this case, I'm not sure what expectation of privacy you should have. You can trivially untag yourself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Well all I discovered is I have 0 mutual friends with Mark Zuckerberg, so now I feel even less important than usual, lol.

<comment><USER15> You are important to somebody, Peter!

<comment><USER14> Group hug!

<comment><USER16> That and you should be happy you do not share "friends" with an antisocial network operator that has an active neglect of other people's privacy.

<comment><USER17> Take that, Zuck!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Once this exploit has a logo and a GUI then it becomes serious.

<comment><USER19> Reminds me of Firesheep. Simple side-jacking implemented as a Firefox extension with a real simple GUI. I recall that this prompted so many websites to migrate to HTTPS.

<comment><USER20> It wasn't just a GUI, it was even a browser extension.

I'm surprised there isn't a popular point-and-click Windows GUI for ARP spoofing yet. Something like driftnet but all sorts of data, and with automatic spoofing done.

<comment><USER21> There is, and I've used it yeaaaars ago. It's called Cain & Abel and you can find it at [http://www.oxid.it/cain.html](http://www.oxid.it/cain.html)

It has a bunch more features, but with a few clicks you can arp spoof your entire network and start logging passwords.

<comment><USER20> I've used Cain & Abel before long, long ago. It's pretty close to what I'm talking about, but I was thinking more of something revamped to be pretty and user friendly even to someone who has no idea what ARP is or what "spoof" means.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> There are certain conditions to be met.

A - Friends Hidden. B - Friends Hidden. A and B are Friends. C - Not friends with A and B.

if C views mutual between A and B, C sees only the list of mutual friends between A and B whose friends lists are open.

i.e. if the list shows D and E.

D - Friends should be viewable to everyone. E - Friends should be viewable to everyone.

</comment><comment><USER5> It is beyond me why Facebook would not consider this a privacy issue, if not a bug.

I just can't imagine they intended to allow strangers to view the mutual friends of anyone, so the person that responded to this bug report probably didn't understand it, or is clueless, because the way this feature should work is obvious.

Just allow to view the mutual friends between yourself and your friends.

<comment><USER23> Between yourself and anyone, I assume you meant. If not-your-fb-friends make their friends list public, I don't see why you shouldn't be able cross reference that.

<comment><USER5> Like I stated in a comment above:

The current behaviour allows you to uncover mutual friends between person A that has all connections hidden, and another person B that does not.

There's no way that I could know which specific friends of person B are also on the friendslist of person A just by looking at person Bs friendslist.

I also tested that "hack" with one of my friends that has all connections hidden. (I only see 1 mutual friend and no other friends)

The result was that I could see 38 mutual friends between him a the mutual friend I have with him.

And yes, that's what I meant. English is not my native language.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is an issue - private friends should not have you as "public" friend in their friend list. It makes it not private.

<comment><USER25> With friendship, there are two people involved. One person can't demand the friendship be private if the other disagrees. If one person makes it public, it's public. It works that way in real life too.

<comment><USER26> "Tell you what, we both go to the same summer camp, so we can be camp friends. But if I see you at school, I won't admit that we are friends. If you try to bring it up, I'll deny it."

Facebook is always biased towards sharing information, instead of respecting privacy. They also apparently don't have the technical ability to keep private things private, as shown by the multiple leaks of Zuckerberg's information. When was the last time that Larry Page's gmail was hacked?

In any case, I disagree with your point. I think if either party makes the friendship private, it should be private.

<comment><USER27> Your example seems contrived. I didn't have friends as a kid, so I don't really know, but that seems like an unusual arrangement. At the very least, it requires you to do it explicitly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The problem here is Wittgenstein in nature - not some flaw in Facebooks security but a misunderstanding of the word "privacy".

Surely at some point we need to revisit the word "privacy". The _expectation_ that one can keep secret our links to people when posting those links onto any "public" forum must surely be disabused in our brave new world - <USER2> expectations do not fit the economics of reality anymore.

<comment><USER29> >>misunderstanding of the word "privacy".

What? Facebook sold something as private but its not.

>> The expectation that one can keep secret our links to people when posting those links onto any "public" forum

Facebook told me it was private...

<comment><USER28> but privacy is not a "thing". it's not real, they can't sell it in the same way they can't tell you it's secure.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> We changed the title because "Mark Zuckerberg's private friends list discovered" is shameless linkbait and added a question mark because the nature of this vulnerability is in dispute.

</comment><comment><USER31> I saw the interface designer Mike Matas was in the list.

Mike Matas joined Facebook _a few days ago_ (incorrect! see bottom), before that he founded Push Pop Press (digital publishing company). For some time he worked at Apple designing new interfaces (presumably iOS7) for iOS and MAC. He was also de founder of Delicious Monster, the makers of Delicious Library, which interface was later copied (inspired?) iBooks from Apple.

Being Mike one of the +400 friends of Zuck and also working at Facebook, I wonder if they where real-friends before being aqui-hired. Or maybe its Zuck adding him as facebook-friends a way of welcoming Mike to the company.

EDIT:PushPopPress was acquired by Facebook 3 years ago, not a few days ago. [http://pushpoppress.com/about/](http://pushpoppress.com/about/)

<comment><USER32> Mike Matas has been at Facebook for almost three years.

<comment><USER20> And now you see why Zuckerberg doesn't want people seeing his friends list. They'll make speculations and assume certain things without any strong evidence.

Of course, you'd think that'd encourage him to pressure devs to change this "feature"...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Interested to see an entry for the name "Boz" among the friends

Facebook employees don't have to follow the real names policy? [https://www.facebook.com/help/292517374180078](https://www.facebook.com/help/292517374180078)

<comment><USER34> > Nicknames can be used as a first or middle name if they're a variation of > your real first or last name (like Bob instead of Robert)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boz#People](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boz#People)

<comment><USER35> But in that case, shouldn't he show up as Boz Bosworth?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Well it is a social network. THe social network, in fact. I would think if you care about privacy you just wouldn't use it.

<comment><USER25> Some might think this a glib response, but I've come to the conclusion that there is no way to use Facebook and keep perfect privacy. You have to allow other's to interact with you, and their privacy settings combine with yours for your mutual information. There's no way to keep 100% control of everything that concerns you.

If you want 100% control, Facebook is not for you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Since Facebook says this is not a privacy violation, I totally expect Facebook to not condemn the author of this hack.

<comment><USER38> Wrong. [https://www.facebook.com/apps/site_scraping_tos_terms.php](https://www.facebook.com/apps/site_scraping_tos_terms.php)

<comment><USER39> Yes. The author isn't seeing the ads this way and that's how the value proposition is created. So yeah, the author should deal with it and watch all the ads now...

If you give them your data, you should have little expectation of privacy. Privacy, otherwise known as "doing the kabuki dance of selling me to advertisers while making me feel like I am in control."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> So don't use facebook.

</comment><comment><USER41> I bet he wishes he used something a little more private right about now.

</comment><comment><USER42> Privacy is obsolete, so I'm sure Mark has no problem with all his private lists being posted. Right?

</comment><comment><USER43> I wonder how long it'll be before Google uses this to scrape Facebook's social graph...

</comment><comment><USER44> How do I access that "Edit Privacy" dialog shown in the screenshot?

<comment><USER45> Go to [https://www.facebook.com/me/friends](https://www.facebook.com/me/friends), click on the pencil icon, select edit privacy.

Yes, it makes zero sense that this is the only privacy setting outside of the whole privacy tab in the account settings.

<comment><USER46> There are several things that aren't part of the privacy tab as I recall - <USER3> privacy settings for group membership and various other profile information are elsewehre thoo.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> It's about time that facebook will take privacy seriously!

</comment><comment><USER48> Misleading title, I don't see a list of Mark's friends. So it is still unexposed

<comment><USER49> Did you click on the link: [https://www.facebook.com/zuck/friends?and=ChrisHughes](https://www.facebook.com/zuck/friends?and=ChrisHughes)

I can see 61 mutual friends, who are Mark's friends.

<comment><USER50> 114 friends here: [https://www.facebook.com/zuck/friends?and=aaron](https://www.facebook.com/zuck/friends?and=aaron)

<comment><USER51> 167 friends: [https://www.facebook.com/zuck/friends?and=aditya](https://www.facebook.com/zuck/friends?and=aditya)

<comment><USER52> You can get a list of their likes too [https://www.facebook.com/zuck/friends?and=aditya&sk=favorite...](https://www.facebook.com/zuck/friends?and=aditya&sk=favorites)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Where can i get the program ?

</comment><comment><USER54> Fun!</comment>


The experiment that keeps Appalachia poor, sick, and stuck on coal - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/1167671/the-100-year-capitalist-experiment-that-keeps-appalachia-poor-sick-and-stuck-on-coal/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=&stream=top-stories <comment><USER2> "For much of the hundred-plus years of its existence, the industry has been on a kind of artificial life support, as state and federal governments have, directly and indirectly, subsidized coal companies to keep the industry afloat."

That is not capitalistic as the article claims.

"A deeply cynical capitalist experiment has taken place, in which coal companies are kept profitable by passing on the costs they incur to the public."

This is corporate welfare. I hate how this sort of thing is being labelled capitalistic, most who support capitalism hate this sort of thing.

<comment><USER3> The deep mutual dependency between firms and governments in capitalism and the distorting effect that had on policy is a feature observed by Marx and other contemporary critics who coined the term "capitalism" for the then-dominant system in the developed West.

Whatever the fantasy system you have in mind that lacks this feature is, it's not capitalism, that name's already been taken for the system in which this is a central problem.

<comment><USER4> > Whatever the fantasy system you have in mind that lacks this feature is, > it's not capitalism, that name's already been taken for the system in which > this is a central problem.

Anymore, the vast majority of times people say "capitalist system", I believe they mean "market economy". Because of this, although I would agree that the letter of what OP was false (capitalism [a term coined by Marx] does not include corporate/government corruption), his intent is true as soon as you replace "capitalism" with "market economy", and because of this, discrediting his point that people bash market economies based on the corruption that ought to be excluded from them seems intellectually disingenuous.</comment></comment></comment>


IPad TV - <AUTHOR> http://lonelysandwich.com/post/662129889/ipad-tv

<comment><USER2> Although the article is purely speculative, it is interesting to note that the iPad's "Videos.app" could easily be replaced by the Apple TV's touchscreen- friendly interface.

Also: _"So, one more sidetrack: If video is moved off of iTunes, the App Store is a marketplace for apps, and our books are bought in iBooks, could this mean that iTunes could return, gracefully, to serve its original purpose? Could iTunes just be for music? I just blew my mind."_

Unfortunately, this seems extremely unlikely.

</comment><comment><USER3> _And then it hits. The iPad is for the nightstand. And for the sofa, and for the places between where you stand in line and where you sit at your desk. That's why every iPad poster and billboard features it on a lap or a knee. They've stopped short of showing it on a chest in bed, but that's where mine gets its most use._

Another use for a compact tablet/slate: shower radio. No, you don't put it in the shower, but it does quite well on the windowsill right outside to the shower, at the other end of the tub from the shower-head. There's no danger of it getting wet, yet I can use the NPR app to continue listening to the radio.

I've been doing this with the old Windows XP slate. The iPad is lighter and more convenient for this purpose.

<comment><USER4> I agree. I'll get up in the morning, sit on the john and either add things to my NPR playlist (the NPR app is great- required download IMO) or read some news (or Hacker News), then listen to my playlist while I shower.

I haven't gotten in the habit of using it over my laptop for a lot of things, yet, but I think it will come. Just being able to lie in bed and watch something on NetFlix streaming, switch viewing positions, etc. is really convenient.

<comment><USER2> Throw in some some velcro and you're set.

<http://vimeo.com/11886557>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A lot of these iPad reviews sound like they missed the netbook revolution because Apple never made one.

A small, light computer that you can sit on your chest to watch video in bed? Genius! Now if only it had some kind of weighted section with a hinge that would let you prop it up at an appropriate angle, maybe we could add a keyboard there too.

</comment><comment><USER6> This author completely lost me here...

>I came close once to getting the QuickTime logo tattooed on my calf.</comment>


Why gaming is necessary for crypto adoption - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@lunomoney/why-decentralised-gaming-could-be-vital-for-cryptocurrency-adoption-8ef9a442153c <comment><USER2> Can we not cross gaming (a good thing) and cryptocurrencies (a very very bad thing)?</comment>


Now that is a splash page - <AUTHOR> http://combosaurus.com

<comment><USER2> Does anybody know what Combosaurus is about?</comment>


BlowFile is private FTP with unlimited bandwidth - <AUTHOR> http://www.blowfile.com/

<comment><USER2> Low cost unsecure FTP transfers to Italia? Ok...</comment>


1Gbps fiber for $70—in America? Yup. - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/06/1gbps-fiber-for-70in-america-yup.ars <comment><USER2> Sonic is the only ISP I've ever had that hasn't sucked. They're terrific. Their techs actually know what they're talking about and, as I'm sure others on HN can relate to from dealing with other ISPs, they don't treat you like an idiot when you call up. It was a great decision by google to have sonic act as the ISP for the Stanford deployment. I hope they're able to roll fiber out quickly.

<comment><USER3> It's like Techsavvy in Canada, except I effectively get 3Mbps, not 1Gbps, from them :(.

<comment><USER4> Former sonic.net customer here, then speakeasy, current teksavvy customer. Speakeasy just isn't in the ballpark, teksavvy is great service, but sonic.net was hands-down the best ISP I've ever had.

This article makes me happy to read.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I saw a news bit about how breakout ISPs in the UK are selling 100mbps(I believe I might be wrong on the speed) for as low as 6.99 quid. American utility bubble? I think so. At this point I am positive the Verizons and the Comcasts could offer free service to everyone of there existing customers and still make positive returns from just new contracts. Can somebody please tell me exactly what you are paying for with 100Mbps for 199.99? Are they using solid gold equipment? There can't possibly be that much overheard, someone please set me straight.

<comment><USER6> I completely agree, when I moved to the US from Germany about 7 years ago, a large majority of the people I got to know were still running dialup. In Germany the years prior to my move, I cannot remember a single person not having at least DSL. Then the next major shock I got was when looking at ISP and Cellphone carrier prices! at the moment I am paying 60$/mo for 12down 2up (in boston). My Brother in a small town in southern Germany gets 2 unlimited phone lines, cable TV and 50down 12up for 40euros/mo so about 60$/mo. Im not sure how this difference in price can be explained, Especially because in boston my internet goes down every few days since all the lines are run overground.

<comment><USER7> Since you seem to have more up-to-date experience I'll ask this: what are the other fees Germans pay for telecom? Are there other taxes or fees that are payed separately?

I moved away from Germany almost 20 years ago but at the time my parents were still paying "Anmeldungsgebuehr" for their TVs/radios, the basic phone service was really cheap but local calls were metered in 8min increments.

I believe one of the big problems for the majority of Americans (myself certainly included) is the limbo created by poorly regulated local monopolies - I can choose between Qwest DSL and Comcast, neither are particularly good and both are expensive. There's not enough regulation to create a good minimum service level but there's enough regulation to prevent local players from really growing.

One thing I have to say, though, the pictures of the Sonic guys installing fiber look really scary. I could never get away with a crappy wiring job like this at work yet around town you see the worst kind of spaghetti jobs, crooked masts chewed up by woodpeckers, home-made looking junction boxes, etc.

<comment><USER8> Telekom wasnt even a private company 20 years ago and they had a monopoly. Today you can choose between lots of ISPs/Telco companies. I get 64/5 Mbit with 2 unlimited phone lines and cable TV for about 50 EUR in a small german city. No one i know still has metered calls in germany. Prices fell and speeds have risen dramatically in the last 5-6 years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm going to be moving back to Chicago soon, and I wonder if any fellow HNers have some advice as to who's the best ISP for quality, high-speed internet in the Chicagoland region for someone that lives their life online?

<comment><USER10> Comcast Business Class. Not the consumer stuff, the _good_ stuff. 20 mbps sustained download and 14ms ping to google.com. There's a different (and much better) tech support tree for businesses too. Pricey but easily the best internet I've ever had. Beats the pants of my old AT&T DSL.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Honestly, I'm tired of the way companies try to market Internet to the masses. Too many people/articles focus on "1Gbps, blazing download speeds". Yeah, for a day, _maybe_. With bandwidth caps, you can't actually use your connection at full potential all of the time, so I question the way they market it as "1Gbps". Call me when it's confirmed that the 1Gbps package comes with no bandwidth cap, that would be something to write home about.

<comment><USER12> "No bandwidth cap" doesn't actually work, though.

The average user (and even the average programmer) wants to use the internet for 1) entertainment, and 2) information. Those tasks don't require sustained, maximum bandwidth usage.

The only people who actually need that kind of bandwidth are either bittorrent... um.... addicts, for lack of a better word, or infected computers, and consist of about 1-2% of the customers.

Their usage patterns degrade the service for everyone else.

<comment><USER13> Netflix is mainstream.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I wonder why they don't put the wires and fibers underground. It is much safer and less prone to strong winds and other natural hazards. Is the cost of having underground wires that high?

<comment><USER15> The problem seems to be that no one thought ahead when they built the streets in the US. Back in Sweden, it's _all_ underground. You won't find anything less than main HV transmission lines above ground. I don't know how they did it, but based on the lack of ever digging up the streets in the neighborhoods I lived in, they must have put in conduits when they build the streets. Why they don't do the same in the US baffles me. It makes absolutely no sense.

<comment><USER16> > It makes absolutely no sense.

The US was first. Everyone else had the experience in the US to learn from.

New areas in the US do use underground conduits, but most cities in the US are pretty old.

<comment><USER15> _most cities in the US are pretty old._

That's a joke, right? Every place I've lived in the U.S. (which granted is not that many) was built much later than most European cities, yet there are still overhead wires strung all over the place.

<comment><USER16> Not the city, the installation of electrical service.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> For 700 homes.

</comment><comment><USER18> That's pretty good, the fastest I can get is 170Mbps/30Mbps for almost $300 plus taxes but capped at 250GB/month, $1 per GB going over 250GB, and torrents throttled.

</comment><comment><USER19> Just curious, why would anyone need 1Gbps internet right now? And what %of the population is that which needs it?

<comment><USER20> So you can stop thinking about outdated things like the "local network" vs "the internet".

If you can store all your stuff remotely, and get it as quickly and easily as if it were on a local NAS suddenly things get a _lot_ easier.

Ironically, it's the non-geeks who need this the most, because they can't setup a NAS. How many people do you see emailing images to themselves so they can get it on their other computer? Every person who does that needs 1Gbps internet so they can do that for their entire photo and film collection.

(And yes, I know Dropbox helps with this scenario, but even Dropbox is better with 1Gbps intenet...)

<comment><USER21> That's mostly true, but there's still the latency benefits of physical proximity. For example, just for an electric signal to travel 6000km across the country, it will take t=6000km/v where v=c/n (c = speed of light, 3e8 m/s and n = refractive index of fiber, 1.62). So it'll take 32.4 ms just to send a packet across the states, and another 32.4 ms to receive one back. This doesn't even take into effect the latency from the routers in the way, and other things like that your message doesn't go in a completely straight path.

So latency is really important if you're doing something like playing a real time game. 32ms is basically a single frame if you're playing at 30 fps. Some people will notice if they're constantly a frame behind.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_fiber>

<comment><USER20> I'm well aware of latency. I chose the example I did specfically because high bandwidth trumps locality when emailing a picture across the room..

<comment><USER21> I wasn't saying that high speed internet is not good, just wanted to be careful in declaring that it'll make everything feel as fast as LAN.

Not to mention the fact that the other endpoint needs to be as fast if you want fast communication.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Everyone needs to make sure each candidate answers two questions during the upcoming election cycle:

      1. Do you believe higher speed internet service will lead to a better jobs
      economy?

      2. What policies will you pursue to so that more Americans have internet access
      comparable to our global counterparts? E.g. Germany where speeds are 10x's as
      fast at 2/3 the price?

<comment><USER23> On what rational basis are these two questions pertinent to managing the executive branch of the United States government?

<comment><USER22> To answer your question; because any federal law passed by congress in an effort to improve consumer choice in the ISP market would require the signature of the president without a supermajority. However, my call for answers to these questions applies equally to candidates for congressional, state and local offices too.

Unless you feel the current regulatory structure has no responsibility for getting us in this situation, how are they not pertinent?

<comment><USER23> You use phrases like "improve consumer choice" and "regulatory structure" as if it was possible for your interests to be aligned with those of the regulators and politicians. Nevermind those being regulated are donating many, many times more to politicians than your interest group is, to either not be regulated or regulate their competitors out of the market.

<comment><USER22> It's called democracy. I'm sure there's an excellent civics course online somewhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> > is a trial and will reach about 700 homes when complete

Don't get your hopes up just yet.

<comment><USER25> 5 square miles down, 3,500,000 to go. Sounds like a plan to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> God I love sweden, 100/100 dedicated for 16$/month (~100 SEK)

</comment><comment><USER27> Nice to see an effort being made.

Bring on the FTTH providers!

<comment><USER25> It's an uphill battle. Local governments in the US sign franchise agreements with cable companies and telecom providers. Many of those agreements give the cable company exclusive geographical rights to the area in return for hooking up the entire town.

So when another ISP shows up and wants to string cable all over the poles...guess what? They're turned away. Verizon FiOS found this out when trying to get into markets where AT&T had the telephone franchise.

Call it a monopoly, call it anti-competition. But America is _huge_. There's no other way to get a company to invest in so much infrastructure to cover all of the land.

<comment><USER28> Franchise agreements aren't exclusionary. They just lay out what a company will pay to the city for the right to use the public right of way. They also cover things like in-kind contributions for schools and libraries and minimum service levels (which set out that they can't cherry pick neighborhoods and must offer service to everyone in a geographic area). A second provider would have to agree to conditions at least equal to the first one.

I worked for a city-owned electric utility that would regularly negotiate with outside entities to do pole-attachments. We did fiber loops around the city and started to offer Internet service. When it looked like we might actually make some meaningful progress, Bellsouth and Cox went to the state government and got a law passed that forbade ANY governmental organization or political subdivision from getting into the telecomm business.

If we had the national political will to insist on a competitive telecommunications infrastructure, we'd have one. I'm happy to see that some ISPs are giving it a go. Unfortunately, the capital costs are so high that it's hard for an upstart to really gain traction.

Our best bet for a truly competitive marketplace is for the CableCos to finally get into the business of doing SMB (small/medium biz) customer service that gives the ATT/Verizons a run for their money.

<comment><USER27> That is not necessarily true.

In Florida, prior to the deployment of Fios, as a competitor to cable television, Verizon lobbied the Florida legislature to rescind the minimum service level requirements to offer television to all citizens.

As a result, there are random neighborhoods with Fios access and others without. Verizon cherry picked the neighborhoods it wanted to service.

As you pointed out, the real problem seems to be the politicians.

<comment><USER28> Like I said, franchise agreements are hardly uniform and the large telcos can often muscle the politicians to doing things their way. Add in tax revenue promises and other inducements to side with the telcos and it's easy to see where the loyalties of our elected officials lie.

I wish it was different but telecom market domination is close to network neutrality in being out on the minds of the citizenry. Unless you can connect it to jobs or taxes, it's unlikely to interest any outside of a select few.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I didn't see any mention of bandwidth caps. I hope they don't cap it. I'm not sure people see the flip side of having an extremely fast connection with the current model of pricing for most telecommunication providers. The speeds keep going up but the caps don't. I live in a building that has fiber provided by Telus, capped at 50MBps. I'm hitting 1TB down per month on average, I'd be screwed if they started capping my bandwidth. It's interesting how as soon as companies implement bandwidth caps we start seeing speeds go up.. just another money grab.

</comment><comment><USER30> What's the upstream speed? Hope it's symmetric. High speed clusters are possible. Imagine a cluster of Beowulf...</comment>


Rant: I hate how login buttons are hidden - <AUTHOR> I get that you want people to sign up so you prominently display the option to do so.
But why does the link to log in have to be so small and hidden away in that corner?
Just sayin'... <comment><USER2> haahaa. Just implemented something like that on my project - [http://classroom.ng](http://classroom.ng) ... I guess the rationale is

1\. that the login is the less desired task at the moment. A true user will always look for that button no matter how small 2\. but making it bigger could distract signups ;-)

3\. Plus most of the time, after signing up, a user lands within the product or given a link direct to login where the user gets hooked (hopefully), taking us back to reason 1.

<comment><USER3> While I agree with your reasoning, it's still best to make it easy for users to find what they need to locate.

On your site, changing the login and forgot password links to white helps them stand out better against the background.

Example: [https://imgur.com/ATcpp8k](https://imgur.com/ATcpp8k)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Apple's buttons are well displayed, yet once i created an account and confirmed all emails and what not - it still won't let me to download damn free app, claiming that i "have't used my new account at store yet".

I am ok with small buttons as long as they work.

Make sure your backend actually works from this point on, not like apple's piece of crap they couldn't put together.

</comment><comment><USER5> Just yesterday three people in my family needed all of five minutes (if not more) to find the button to log in to web.de webmail interface. They have a homepage bursting with pictures and videos and all kinds of news junk you really don't care about, but they do an incredibly good job of hiding what you actually need. That's why I hate web interfaces.

</comment><comment><USER6> Completely agree. What's worse is when services provide you a subdomain they expect you to never forget it and always go there with no login link on the homepage at all.

It's very strange to me.</comment>


Ransomware attack puts KQED public media in low-tech mode - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Ransomware-attack-puts-KQED-in-low-tech-mode-11295175.php <comment><USER2> Bravo to KQED for owning up to the compromise!

Meanwhile, there are countless lawyers, accountants, doctors, architects, engineers, landlords, and other small and medium businesses that suffer similar attacks and don't talk about it publicly. If you have an important relationship with a business like that, the time to ask them hard questions about security and reliability is now, before the court date, tax audit, surgery, construction commencement, etc.

<comment><USER3> Then be prepared to find out that not only do they not have a good plan, they don't even really understand what you're talking about.

<comment><USER2> Yes, this will be true 99% of the time. Although I think that most people understand the concept of "backups" in a basic way, and backups are one of the best tools for mitigating ransomware and wipers. Especially for small businesses which are not going to be able to mount a coherent defense.

But if the relationship is _important_ , they will be open to the conversation and it may be worthwhile. For some of us, it may also present a business opportunity.

<comment><USER3> All good points, especially about creating an opportunity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> We had that happen at a company I worked for. Someone blindly opened an "invoice". We were back to work within a day. For each computer, a full malware scan and then back online. Dumped the one hard drive which was infected.

The NAS (which used to be writable to the victim) took a few days to restore from Amazon Glacier. To me this is key: always have an offsite backup which can't be erased by a non-admin. Use BackBlaze, CrashPlan, S3, Glacier, B2, Arq or whatever. Backups forgive a lot of stupid user sins.

<comment><USER5> If you think a malware scan is enough to detect malware, I have some malware to sell you. :)

I suppose there's not much else to be done, but scans aren't enough to prevent pivots.

<comment><USER6> Exactly. There's too many rootkits and other malware that won't be revealed by most of the common malware and virus scanners.

A business that transacts with protected data should never try to remove malware - these systems need to be wiped and reinstalled.

<comment><USER4> That's why we wiped any system which showed sign of infection. Keep in mind this was ransomware so... probably... it is reasonable to assume the infection will not be subtle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Interesting.

I've been wondering if we're simply too over-connected at the moment and if there will be a regression back to using different networks that are literally physically disconnected with one other for certain kinds of professional work.

Meaning, the wonder of the internet is that there are now billions of people who have access to your office door. If a guy in Romania decides he wants to jimmy your lock and steal your filing cabinets, there's little stopping him from trying.

Will some offices simply disconnect entirely?

<comment><USER8> Attackers certainly hope so: then their work will still be easy, as long as they can get a rogue device into the building.

We need to actually write (and purchase) better software.

<comment><USER9> > We need to actually write (and purchase) better software.

Ransomware is not a software problem, this is a human problem.

We keep putting up barriers to make it harder for malicious software, but so long as you put a prompt infront of users saying "Whoa, this looks dodgy, are you sure?" they're going to click yes. Even if you make clicking yes more difficult and the warnings more obvious, they'll blame the software for being difficult and run it anyway.

The only long term 'solution' to this from a computing perspective is to run only signed applications from trusted publishers on a restricted list which are sandboxed to such a high degree. No scripting beyond very basic building blocks. Effectively an end to general-purpose computing.

Every time something like this comes along though, everyone loses their minds.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> ryan-c > The attackers who hit KQED asked for 1.7 bitcoin per file.

Is that really right? That seems _much_ higher that other ransomware attacks I've heard of - usually it's per computer.

<comment><USER10> I was surprised by that bit too. Doesn't seem to make sense - with those prices payment isn't an option for most victims.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Really sad. The hackers behind this should be ashamed of trying to get money out of a group which gets a good chunk of their budget from donations.

<comment><USER8> These kinds of things are usually indiscriminate. Reading too much into the kind of organization or even country vicitimized is probably counterproductive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> >> Everyone with computers running Microsoft Windows was told not to touch them.

Good advice.</comment>


Pinterest just figured out how to make shopping awesome - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2013/12/12/pinterest-just-figured-out-how-to-make-shopping-awesome/

<comment><USER2> is it just me, or is this article just a (possibly unpaid) advertisement for target and pinterest?</comment>


Custom Picture Framing: Fallen Glass, Razor Blades and Rogue Lint - <AUTHOR> http://pjbrunet.com/custom-picture-framing-falling-glass-razor-blades-rogue-lint/

<comment><AUTHOR> Note: I decided this was too off topic and deleted the post.</comment>


The Rush to Stop the Asian Giant Hornet - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/02/us/asian-giant-hornet-washington.html <comment><USER2> I learned that to defend themselves, some bees pile up on the hornets and vibrate, generating enough heat to cook them to death [1]

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbMLzSMJ12U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbMLzSMJ12U)

<comment><USER3> Asian honeybees do that, european honeybees don't have that skill :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is _exceptionally_ bad. European honeybees are no match for suzumebachi. Asian honey bees can kill them, but Asian honey bees have a dramatically lower yield of honey. 500 ml (a pint) of honey costs me up to $20 in Japan.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm 90% confident I saw one of these hornets in upstate NY a couple years ago.

It was active at night, I thought I heard an electric short somewhere on my porch and that's when I looked up and saw it flying between beams.

A few weeks later we find a dead mouse on the back porch. I was about to go remove it when its head slowly lifted up, then back down. So I thought maybe it was still alive but as I watched it more, it appeared something was actually inside the mouse, eating it from the inside out.

A couple days later I find the large hornet on the front steps, dead. I wish I would have taken a picture in hindsight.

A few weeks later I was pretty sure I saw another during daytime flying past me in the yard. Could have been a cicada killer wasp though, as the cicadas were out at this time too.

</comment><comment><USER6> I don't think 30 to 50 people currently die due to stings from Asian Giant Hornets in Japan. At least not according to these statistics [http://www2u.biglobe.ne.jp/~vespa/vespa0562.htm](http://www2u.biglobe.ne.jp/~vespa/vespa0562.htm)

Wasps and Hornets are just as deadly in the USA [https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6829a5.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6829a5.htm)

<comment><USER7> The wasps and hornets we have in North Anerica don't chase you half a mile and sting you to death quite as much. Nor do their stings leave quite the same large scars. Our CDC stats didn't say whether the decendent was allergic. Ordinary yellowjackets can force us out of their territory in my local parks, I really don't want the AGH's getting a toehold.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Needs more details on the tagging traps along with any suits that are too thick to get pierced by their stingers.

<comment><USER9> Intellectual Ventures has shown off a prototype laser detection and kill system (photonic fence) for mosquitoes many years ago; it can differentiate between male and female mosquitos by wing flapping rate, and if a female mosquito, increases power to kill the target. I am curious if such hardware could be repurposed for defending honeybee hives from these hornets, at least those under the control of humans.

[https://www.fastcompany.com/3059127/what-happened-to-the- mos...](https://www.fastcompany.com/3059127/what-happened-to-the-mosquito- zapping-laser-that-was-going-to-stop-malaria)

<comment><USER10> A camera and some machine learning could probably detect when a bee hive is being attacked by one of these.

<comment><USER9> You want to kill the hornet before it can make its way to the hive(s).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Plague, meet pestilence.

<comment><USER12> Killer bees are not pestilence. That category is reserved for locust swarms.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_locust_infesta...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_locust_infestation)

<comment><USER7> And what term would the ancients have given to a plague of hornets?

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

</comment><comment><USER14> I was once alone in a forest in Japan, covered in sweat due to the weather and hiking all day, when a giant hornet landed on me and apparently collected some salt off my T-shirt. I stood there completely frozen for what felt like ten minutes until it was done.

Only later did I learn that their sting can be fatal.

<comment><USER15> Reminds me of a hike I did near Camden ME mid-afternoon that took me quickly up a hillside to the top of a cliff with incredible views over a lake.

When I turned around to come back there were literally snakes everywhere. Or at least about every fifty feet, and all of them only on the path back down and nowhere else.

No one else around, no cell reception, and my first time in Maine ever. I assumed they were deadly and so every sun bathing snake meant I had to find a route off the path into the woods and back out. It was rocky and I risked snapping an ankle or, I guessed, treading on a hidden snake. I had to do this about twenty times in total on the way back to the trailhead and it was terrifying.

When I finally got online I found out they were Eastern garter snakes. Primary attack: run away. Secondary attack: spray a bad smell.

<comment><USER16> That's funny. One of the many joys of living in Maine is enjoying the outdoors free from the worry of venomous snakes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> time to search and destroy. lets not have another fucking killer bee fiasco.

</comment><comment><USER18> Oh first it was "Africanized Bees", and now it's "Asian Giant Hornets", what's next "Russian Communist Ants"? Everything that's bad, must come from afar. There be dragons yo.

(j/k)

</comment><comment><USER19> Killer bees, redux? Only now do I realize it was all bullshit.

<comment><USER20> What was bullshit about killer bees?

<comment><USER19> The name and what was made of the story.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> "A genetic examination, concluded over the past few weeks, determined that the nest in Nanaimo and the hornet near Blaine were not connected, said Telissa Wilson, a state pest biologist, meaning there had probably been at least two different introductions in the region."

Is this warfare?

<comment><USER22> Extremely unlikely. Unintentional introductions happen all the time. Someone imports something, and a species comes along. It's even known to have happened because someone imports _nothing_ — empty ships need ballast, and the most conveniently available ballast for a ship is water. So sea species are picked up near port X and transported to port Y.

There's such a lot of trade in the world.

In this case, whoever ordered a doodah from Japan may have ordered eleventy thousand, and a couple of them came with an unintentional extra.

<comment><USER23> For instance the introduction of Asian hornets (vespa velutina, not the giant one) in Europe was traced back to a single shipment of Chinese pottery to the South-West of France in 2004. Apparently one queen is enough to invade an entire continent. The lack of genetic diversity hasn't stopped them to spread to Spain, Italy and so on.

<comment><USER24> Dismissing the advice of biologists and doing nothing for years about it, until it was too late was definitely a Sarkozy major fiasco. The first two years it token french by surprise, it was understandable, but the lack of measures and comptempt by the conservationist voices after that, was unjustifiable. Spanish politicians didn't practically anything for almost 10 years about it of course, until a politician relative was killed at 32 Yo.

Now is in most France, half of Spain and some locations in Portugal and Germany, and is causing economical damage by millions and killing several people each year. For a decade I didn't hear none of those holy cow economists just mention the problem</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Creatively Share Your Message - <AUTHOR> http://tackk.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> Not my startup. Just found it online, found it awesome and noticed that it has never been posted on HN before.</comment>


Problems of Reproducibility in Computer Science - <AUTHOR> http://blog.michaelpankov.com/2014/04/problems-of-reproducibility-in-computer.html

<comment><USER2> I've been particularly bothered by the way that almost all "real numbers" in CS papers attempt to explain the advantages of one algorithm over another based on small performance differences of two partially optimized implementations, compiled with a single compiler with arbitrary options, and then tested on a single older machine. The few that go further merely repeat the exercise with an even older compiler an an even older machine with a forgotten architecture. While it's a step up from simply counting pseudo- instructions and memory accesses, and while there is room for theoretical analysis of asymptotic behaviour, it's painful how much is read into the particular tea leaves of one or two data points.

</comment><comment><USER3> Recently I was asked to help judge the 2014 iGEM competition which includes software entries in the field of biology, I made a special point to the other judges that we should give special consideration to those teams who included instructions or configurations for setting up their environments - too much of the software entered wouldn't compile (or run) when checked out of SC!

</comment><comment><USER4> One of the trade-offs we've continually made in computing is between general performance and _legibility of_ performance. Caches (i.e. the memory hierarchy) is one example of that, but we also have pipelining and ILP. Moving up into software, we see this with garbage collection and (more dangerously) with databases. PostgreSQL is great at taking complex queries (many, many joins) and turning them into things that (often) can be very quickly executed. Of course, there's no silver bullet. If your join is a full Cartesian product over two or more large tables, you're screwed. If you assumed that the table was set up with certain "obvious" indexes and it wasn't set up that way, you can get burned on that.

We've built systems that are very fast, but almost no one knows _why_ they are fast and when those speed advantages go against us (which is quite rare) it's often unclear why. For the most part, all of this has been a huge win. It might make reasoning about performance from first principles ugly, if not impossible, but the economics favor it. That said, we're at the point where the only way to reason about performance in many real-world systems is empirically, because there's just so much going on in terms of memory hierarchy, network traffic, etc. that is hard to predict in advance. Combine this with the myriad variables, some in the physical world, that can influence performance... and what we end up with is that results that seem meaningful (30 percent faster!) might be artifacts of differences in configuration.

That said, I don't think the term _computer science_ was coined with performance measurement in mind but, all that said, the field is not really a science. It's a mix of mathematics, microeconomics, design and engineering... with a lot of science involved, but most often not _scientific_ under the original, strict definition of the word. Science is about investigating the natural world and finding the right answers; CS is about _making_ answers. And they're both extremely important, but fundamentally different.

Also, just to underscore how difficult CS _is_ , I tend to think of it as a branch of mathematics that lives on an unfair playing field. Reasoning about _arbitrary_ code, in even the most trivial ways, is known to be impossible (Turing, Church, Rice) and much of CS is contending with the obscenity of arbitrary programs (i.e. often having to quantify over the space of programs) and, typically, that means limiting what can be written while still retaining as much power as is needed.

<comment><USER5> >We've built systems that are very fast, but almost no one knows why they are fast

It's pretty simple, all code can be modelled as a fluid flowing through a landscape. i.e. imagine a river (which represents code), it courses over the land and there are "cliffs", rocks and hills (representing bottle necks/loads).

The reality is as bus's got wider and transistors were able to be packed closer, it just allow for more water to flow faster. There's no big conspiracy at all. Because software ultimately can be expressed as a circuit.

<comment><USER4> Excellent metaphor. I agree.

No one (to my knowledge) is suggesting "conspiracy" or malicious intent, or even incompetence. Hardware designers know what they're doing, and on the tradeoff between maximizing performance vs. making performance simple, the former is usually the best option.

<comment><USER5> It's all about limits, as systems grow in size and complexity and do more computational work you can build more massive systems. But at the same time the programming/maintenance work requires grows.

So you either need

1) a smarter approach 2) focus on whether the problem is tractable or not 3) If you're going to be ambitious you're going to have to pay for it.

Human beings aren't really known for their wisdom however.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Even if there's no publicly published code, any credible CS researcher will give you access to their code and tests for research purposes if you ask (excepting the rare case where they include someone else's IP), for exactly this reason of reproducibility.

Secondly, testing in a number of different environments is part of the nature of scientific reproducibility, to check if the claimed result is robust or simply an artifact of the experimental setup, so releasing more detailed specs of the hardware used is not so essential.

<comment><USER2> Given that reproducibility is the standard by which scientific publications are usually judged, what would be the reason for only making the code available upon special request rather than simply making it available as part of the publication? This feels like publishing a paper about an experiment and saying "methodology available by special request".

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Moyix's Panda will get you most of what you want: [http://moyix.blogspot.com/2014/12/reproducible-malware- analy...](http://moyix.blogspot.com/2014/12/reproducible-malware-analyses-for- all.html)</comment>


Chef gives up a Michelin star, reflecting hardship of 'the Other France' - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/27/world/europe/france-chef-michelin-star.html <comment><USER2> Would it have been possible to change to a cheaper menu while still keeping the Michelin star? There's plenty of affordable — and even cheap — Michelin starred restaurants.

<comment><USER3> Maybe, but there still would have been the worry that the star was scaring people away.

Also, I could be wrong but I thing the "Michelin starred food truck" and other cheaper starred restaurants are all outside France, in France there's still much more of a common standard that Michelin starred restaurants feel they need to live up to including experience and price.

And of course, it's much better to renounce the star than to lose it.

<comment><USER4> This. For example, I talked to the chef of the restaurant that won Le Fooding's best chef in 2017 about his older restaurant and there is a whole movement in France called bistronomie, which is all about serving great creative food, without the trapping of the luxury restaurant. That is no tablecloths, no hierarchy of waiters, just a bistrot, but with Michelin level food.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> >> _"Maybe the star scared people," Mr. Mathus said. "I understand. He's saying, 'Don't be scared to come here.' Here, it's simple people, with modest incomes."_ <<

100+ euro menus in a town of 18,000 sounds _ambitious_. Above quote from previous mayor sounds about right to me.

<comment><USER6> Bray in Berkshire (UK) has a population of less than 10,000 people, but contains two of the UK's 3 star restaurants.

<comment><USER7> Being 5 miles from Windsor castle and also from Eton college might have something to do with it. Heathrow is only 15 miles away on motorway. Bray has about 300 millionaires and Windsor around 900 [1] (few other villages from that list are also just short drive away).

[1] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10054043/Top- te...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10054043/Top-ten-most- affluent-villages-in-UK.html?frame=2561506)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is another canary in the coal mine example of the rapidly shrinking middle class in the western world IMO

<comment><USER9> There are only 18,000 people in this town. To hit his goal of 60 diners a day would require the average person in town to visit more than once a year. How many middle class people are going to spend $130 on an entree on an average Tuesday night? I've never spent that much on a meal and my income is too high to be considered middle class in the US.

<comment><USER10> There are about four Michelin starred restaurants within a 30km radius, there are also other towns within that radius, so its a little more complicated than one town of 18,000 one Michelin starred restaurant. Also menu items started at 30 and went up to approx 110 euros.

<comment><USER11> > _menu items started at 30 and went up to approx 110 euros_

Is it another restaurant than this one [http://www.jeromebrochot.com/media/original/575147df7d79e/ca...](http://www.jeromebrochot.com/media/original/575147df7d79e/carte- entrees-viandes-desserts-jerome-brochot.pdf) ?

Prices are rather reasonnable here, on the expensive side but I would consider eating there. While a menu where items go from 30 to 110 euros is completely out of the question for anyone I know.

<comment><USER10> No, that's it. The prices I "sampled" were from 29 to prix fixe 130 (which I erroneously wrote as 110, but close enough)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> For anyone who has reached the free article limit for NYTimes, while the article is loading just cancel loading in your browser (this works for me in mobile). The limit popup won't appear and you'll be able to read the article.

<comment><USER13> Paying for a subscription also works.

<comment><USER14> Sure. Might not be an attractive option though for people who already subscribe to multiple newspapers. [Edited for clarity.]

<comment><USER15> Or for people who don't care about morals and just want free stuff.

<comment><USER16> i submit that if you transmit data to me, i have a right to observe it. the immoral thing is to expend my bandwidth, cpu and memory with data and content you're obscuring.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> "He could no longer pay for the personnel, produce and precision that go into charging one-star prices." Apparently the NY Times can no longer pay for the precision that goes into subject-verb agreement.

<comment><USER18> This sentence looks fine to me vis-a-vis subject-verb agreement: "[personnel + produce + precision] go."

How do you think it ought to read instead?

<comment><USER19> I think he thought produce was a verb and not a type of raw food

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> perhaps i'm uncultured swine, but the first i've heard of 'michelin stars' is when a few of these sorts of articles popped up. does it really matter?

how much do the stars impact a restaurant's business? i usually just talk to people (even strangers) and ask for personal recommendations.

</comment><comment><USER20> I've never understood the point of Michelin stars or their relative value, compared to, for example, 500 5-star yelp or trip advisor reviews.

The last thing I care about is advice on food from a tire company. In fact if it wasn't for Gordon Ramsay related conversations, I would have never known Michelin Stars are an actual thing.

<comment><USER21> You can easily buy 500 5-star yelp reviews. You cannot easily buy a Michelin star.

<comment><USER22> Can you? I thought yelp and google were very aggressive about burying businesses for this sort of thing. Maybe you could go on fiverr or something and collect a few, but there's no way that yelp doesn't catch 500 fraudulent reviews. They are way too aggressive with false positives as is, such that a good third of my actual reviews are hidden.

<comment><USER21> Yelp is notorious for asking business owners to pay to bury bad reviews. You don't even need to buy good ones if you can sink all the bad.

Trip Advisor was recently in the news for having a #1 restaurant in London that didn't even exist.

AFAIK, there have been no such scandals with the Michelin Guide in recent memory.

<comment><USER20> In spite of all that, Michelin guide is just about as relevant to the average person as the spot price of uranium.

When was the last time you heard "this is not a michelin star restaraunt, I won't eat there" ? The answer should be never.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I am missing something. The chef believes that in order to maintain his star he must do something different to what he was doing to achieve the star in the first place?

I am not an expert on Michelin guides, but that seems unlikely.

Consider the recent news of the street hawker getting a Michelin star: [https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/singapore-cheapest- mi...](https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/singapore-cheapest-michelin- star-restaurant/index.html)

I wonder if his new menu will be cooked well enough to earn him a star?

 _He has cut his prices and is offering a more down-to-earth cuisine of stews, including the classic blanquette de veau, and serving cod instead of the more expensive sea bass._

<comment><USER24> From what I always heard, the Michelin Guide has very very particular demands on your service. It has to be so and so. It's not only how it tastes, but also the formality with which it is served. (This has to be checked though.)

It's indeed strange about the hawking stall, but I suppose the standards are not the same abroad as domestically - or for a stall for that matter.

Having been to 1-star restaurants thrice, and to gastronomic restaurants a few more times, I have to say the distinction isn't that helpful, and didn't reflect the quality of the food or service. For contrast, Trip Advisor is a better discriminator for lower-level establishments, even if it has its faults as well.

<comment><USER25> No. While it's impossible for imperfect humans to completely separate the meal from the overall experience, Michelin claims that its star ratings are solely based on the cuisine.

On the other hand, diners often have a certain level of expectation of the service and ambiance surrounding a meal that costs as much as is typically required to economically produce Michelin-ranked cuisine.</comment></comment></comment>