75% of New Zealanders to get 100Mbps fiber by 2020 - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/06/75-of-new-zealanders-to-get-100mbps-fiber-by-2020.ars

<comment><USER2> So, I don't think that's so unlikely for the United States - hear me out ;-). 2020 is 10 years away. By the end of this year, around a third of Americans will be covered by 4G technologies. 4G technologies (in order to be considered such) must have a theoretical peak exceeding 100Mbps for mobile usage and 1Gbps for fixed usage (ie. home broadband). Now, initially, these 4G technologies won't get anywhere near those speeds. It will be very much like 3G where 300-400kbps was the norm, but now 1Mbps is more the norm.

When talking about what people see in the real world from these theoretical peaks, we can look at Verizon and Sprint who are offering a theoretical peak of 3.1Mbps and AT&T who is offering a theoretical peak of 7.2Mbps. In real life, tests show:

                Sprint  Verizon  AT&T
      PCMag     0.99M   1.01M    1.79M
      PCWorld   0.8M    0.88M    1.41M
      Gizmodo   ~0.9M   ~1.3M    ~1.4M

With that data in hand, it looks like average real-world speeds come out to about 28% of peak theoretical speeds. If that holds true in the 4G era, that would be 280Mbps of real-world speed wirelessly. Even if they only achieve 10% of 5% of their theoretical peak, that's still 100Mbps or 50Mbps (and I think that 5% is being very conservative).

Now, that is clearly years away. What wireless companies will be pushing in 2012 will likely be in the 10Mbps range for mobile devices. However, I think it's reasonable that we might see 100Mbps broadband to more than 75% of the American population by 2020. Some companies like Clearwire are counting on home broadband as an important source of revenue. As customers start getting increased choice in home broadband (likely from 2 or more wireless providers), cable companies and local telcos will have to enhance their offerings to stay competitive (or maybe the economics is such that wireless makes more sense given American geography).

2020 is a long time away. 4G wireless technology is exciting and is promising to reach very high speeds for fixed wireless. Wireless companies are much more competitive than telcos and cable companies with most Americans having the choice between at least 4 (and MetroPCS has been coming on strong in many urban areas to create a fifth). Companies like Sprint/Clearwire are even thinking about making their own microwave backhauls which would eliminate a huge cost in network rollout (fiber to the site). There's a good decade for 4G to really ratchet up the speeds before 2020 is here. I'm hopeful. At the very least, the competition will give a swift kick in the pants to wired providers.

</comment><comment><USER3> Do Kiwis even have >100Mbps _leaving_ New Zealand? :(

</comment><comment><USER4> I wouldn't count your Mbps before they hatch.

The australian plan was announced in a somewhat similar fashion. The original estimate soon blew out to 40 _billion_ dollars. The government admits that they don't have the money, and that there will be no commercial return for at least 20-30 years. They, so far, have spent $17 million dollars in studies and reports by consultants, and have delievered a pitifully low amount of Broadband to Tasmania, the smallest (by an order of 10) state (think Rhode Island vs Alaska). Already it is covered in scandals and rorts, the head of the project gets a $400k salary and is an ex-union hack who was given the job on the basis of being friends with the minister responsible. The main opposition party has promised to scrap the entire project for fiscal responsibility reasons and turn the market back over to private competitors, with government backing for rural areas, as was the original plan. The opposition are currently polling better than the government with under 6 months to go to the election. I think it is fair to say that the National Broadband Scheme in Australia is a dead project walking. Thankfully the overturn of the government will also spell the death of the proposed internet filter.

These projects sound good in theory but are terrible in execution because Governments just cannot understand commercial returns, and as such are a giant sink hole of money and rorting. It's like the Concorde : neat idea and great tech, but an absolute financial disaster area.

<comment><USER5> >The government admits that they don't have the money

As with all large government infrastructure projects, the government will borrow money to fund development. This isn't a problem considering that Australia has the lowest public debt of any Western country, and net debt will peak at _6%_ of GDP in 2012.

>I think it is fair to say that the National Broadband Scheme in Australia is a dead project walking.

Centrebet 2010 Australian Federal Election

Labor $1.46

Coalition $2.65

It's likely that Labor will win the next election and continue with its plan to build a national broadband network.

>These projects sound good in theory but are terrible in execution because Governments just cannot understand commercial returns

I would say that China is an example of a Government that's been able to roll out a significant amount of infrastructure in a small amount of time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> We'll have gigabit fiber by then. 100mps will be wireless.

Think back 10 years. How far have we come in a decade?

<comment><USER7> I think 10 years ago, the best I got was GPRS data on tmobile on my cell, but it was uncapped! I had a high end "gold" orinoco 802.11b card that only worked at 2 places on campus. I also bought a new low-end laptop that year, a Dell 366Mhz celeron -- cost me $2000 and I worked all summer to save that much.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Yup, complete with 20gb bandwidth caps because we only have the one pipe out of the country.

<comment><USER9> You do have 2 pipes - one to Sydney and one to Hawaii.

<comment><USER10> Here they are: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Cross_Cable>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> with 72% of population in 16 main urban centres, I hope there's some emphasis on rural locations too.

<comment><USER12> hm, 16 metro areas growing from 72% to 75% of the population in the next 10 years... sounds like that would explain how they decided on 75%.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> yay .. except I have '40Mbps' now which works fine as long as I connect to a server here in NZ. Soon as its offshore (ie just about anything on the net) I'm back to nasty old half meg connections. I can barely stream the daily show.

I far prefer the experience of a 2Mbps connection when traveling in NYC to the sorry ass excuse for '40Mbps' I have at home in NZ.

</comment><comment><USER14> That's nothing. I predict 80% of humans will have 1 Tbps fiber by 2060. I have it on good authority. From the same man who stepped out of a Time Machine as the one who gave them their New Zealand numbers.

</comment><comment><USER15> The only unfortunate point is that its a government project.

<comment><USER16> I don't think you understand how things work down here.

\- The current government will build this at a cost to the taxpayer of (say) $300m. \- The next government will sell it for $100m to raise some cash and create an effective monopoly owned by one party with a verbal contract not to screw everyone over, at least not initially. \- The government after that, under pressure due to the relentless screwing of NZers by the monopoly company, will buy back the network for $600m. \- The new state-owned company will hire consultants for $50m to design a new logo. The logo will resemble a puppy shitting on a Rolex. \- Due to ineffective management, the company will be split up into chunks and sold for a fraction of the original cost. The chunks will immediately merge into a monopoly.

<comment><USER15> haha, this is brilliant. I believe its called Corporatism? Its not quite socialism, because well like you said it'll be owned privately at some point. And its not quite capitalism, well because the government will own it at some point.

The only defying factor of all of this is that in every transaction inevitably the same people will be involved making money off your money. Sometimes they'll be in government and other times they'll be in the 'private' sector.

<comment><USER16> We did it with our rail network.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Seriously, that's TEN YEARS from now. I had a 100Mpbs up and down connection almost TEN YEARS AGO. It surprises me to no end how backwards some countries are.</comment>


Online Collaborative Modeling; Still Sketchy - <AUTHOR> http://tiny-giant-books.com/blog/online-collaborative-modeling-still-sketchy/

<comment><AUTHOR> Author here. If anybody has any other tools they'd like to share, I'd love to hear about them. Happy to update the grid.</comment>


How some cool silent film effects were done - <AUTHOR> http://imgur.com/a/wUAcl <comment><AUTHOR> This was originally posted here it looks like: [https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/5mjomm/how_some_coo...](https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/5mjomm/how_some_cool_silent_film_effects_were_done/)</comment>


Ask HN: Any $business owners? - <AUTHOR>

With all of the tech startup entrepreneurs, does anyone have experience in starting a $business? Any facts or figures you could provide about the cost to setup, info for getting licenses, etc.? <comment><USER2> What's a $business?</comment>


Browse the Web with Your Voice - <AUTHOR> https://voice.mozilla.org/firefox-voice/ <comment></comment>


3D scanning like a pro - <AUTHOR> http://kurokesu.com/main/2017/05/08/3d-scanning-like-a-pro/ <comment><USER2> CSIRO/Data61 have demonstrated with their Zebedee system [1], that the precision mechanical system is optional. Their handheld LIDAR head bounces around randomly and the system is able fit and register the new measurements within the 3D model that it is progressively building.

Such a handheld LIDAR would be a very cool hobby/amateur project, as the mechanical side can be simple and low cost, making the capital cost low. The smarts are in the software and maths. There is also that fascination/aha factor of working though the maths and realising that smart processing means that some "obvious" things, such as precision mechanics, aren't actually necessary, then seeing it work.

[1] [https://www.data61.csiro.au/en/Our-expertise/Expertise- Cyber...](https://www.data61.csiro.au/en/Our-expertise/Expertise-Cyber- physical-systems/Zebedee)

<comment><USER3> And it not just a demonstration.

At GeoSLAM (joint venture with CSIRO) we sell scanners and software based on the Zebedee (ZEB1) and a mechanically rotating version (the ZEB-REVO [1]).

The rotating version is easier to use (don't have to worry about nodding the head too fast or too little) while still having the same cost/speed advantages over terrestrial scanners.

[1] [http://www.geoslam.com/hardware-products/zeb- revo/](http://www.geoslam.com/hardware-products/zeb-revo/)

(disclaimer, GeoSLAM employee)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Great project! but the title "3D scanning like a pro" is quite a stretch. Real 3D scanning pros use something like this Leica P40 scanner: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnmerVV5-T4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnmerVV5-T4)

And produce outputs that look more like these: [https://truviewglobal.leica- geosystems.com/welcome](https://truviewglobal.leica-geosystems.com/welcome)

(full disclosure: I work for Leica Geosystems).

<comment><USER5> "like" meaning not "as". I was unaware anything could be done for low hundreds of dollars. That's very interesting. Looks like your system is > $100k?

<comment><USER6> The definition of pro varies! Here's a short rundown of 3D imaging:

Laser triangulation systems (laser stripe + turntable) will give you extremely highly detailed models at close range. You could build one for under £100 and the accuracy can easily be sub-mm. Downside is it'll only work for a short range.

Long range you're not going to beat a scanning LIDAR system like the sort that Leica offers. A comparable system from Faro (with a public price-tag) is around £30-50k depending on spec. For 'set and forget' scanning, these systems are great. They're also pretty much the only reliable solution for robust, kinda fast capture of large sites. Velodyne's automotive LIDAR (the one on the older Google cars) came on the market for around $75k. The future of 3D imaging is _probably_ low cost MEMS scanning LIDAR, which is being bankrolled by autonomous driving.

Short range you also have time of flight (Kinect 2) which is used in research and also by several large companies for commercial RnD (e.g. Ocado - [http://robohub.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/SoMa-Ocado- RBO...](http://robohub.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/SoMa-Ocado-RBO- Hand2.jpg) \- see the thing on the tripod?). My local second hand stores sells the Kinect 2 for about £25, but you need the USB adaptor (£30). Lots of companies make ToF sensors, but Microsoft really forced the price down.

Then you've got Kinect 1-like systems (Primesense), which include Google Tango (and other clones from Asus, etc). I think the Intel Realsense does something similar. These are mono cameras and an IR pattern projector. They don't work in sunlight, but are pretty good indoors. The Kinect 1 was (is) huge in 3D vision research because it was so cheap and relatively robust.

Finally you've got stereo which is the only real competitor to LIDAR outdoors. Much more dense than LIDAR, and you get true intensity information, but poor accuracy at long range. Performance is mostly dependent on the distance between the cameras. It's also the only technology you can reliably use in space. There are very few spaceborne LIDAR systems (e.g. LOLA, MOLA, etc). Stereo is the bread and butter of 3D on rovers and for planetary mapping. Prices vary, but you're looking at around £400-500 for a _good_ pre-built stereo rig.

I think it would be unfair to say NASA and ESA (Exomars should also have stereo cams) aren't pros!

There are also several niche industries like handheld structured light scanners which can also get sub-mm accuracy. These are used for a mix of industrial inspection, capturing props for movies, etc.

<comment><USER7> You can also take the Kinect 2 apart and modify it for using external power input and regular USB3 (Type B?) cable. I have done that and it works well, see: [http://www.tatsch-it.de/kinect-2-usb-3-modification/](http://www.tatsch- it.de/kinect-2-usb-3-modification/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> By comparison, actual pro scanning: matterport grabs textures and verticies simultaneously, originally using a Kinect. [https://matterport.com](https://matterport.com)

Here's an DIY instuctable (untested) which also uses a Kinect [http://www.instructables.com/id/EASY- Kinect-3D-Scanner/](http://www.instructables.com/id/EASY-Kinect-3D-Scanner/)

The Kinect range IIRC is less than most LIDARs so it won't be 1:1.

<comment><USER9> And since we're in shameless plug territory already:

By comparison DotProduct [1] is doing full 3D model creation on tablets since 2013 (our first product was based on a Google Nexus 7 with just 1 GB of RAM -- no cloud required).

[1] [https://www.dotproduct3d.com/](https://www.dotproduct3d.com/)

<comment><USER10> Maritime Archaeologist here: we take photos with a DSLR camera of terrestrial and underwater sites, and artifacts, and then extrapolate 3D models with Agisoft Photoscan.

Is there any advantage to using one of these devices?

<comment><USER9> > Is there any advantage to using one of these devices?

Yes, you can get the fully processed 3D model within minutes of capture, no cloud or desktop computer required. Plus our file format is very compressed so you can share scans right from the field over your mobile connection.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Another way of doing this is something like Google's project tango, right? [0][1]

So you can build and code this up (which sounds like a fun project) or if you're lazy or lack the time you can buy a $512 portable device that probably has an app or two to do 3D scanning out of the box.

Both approaches have their pros/cons but both are pretty neat and it's exciting that it should only be cheaper and easier for hobbyists to play with in the years to come.

[0] [https://youtu.be/Qe10ExwzCqk?t=34](https://youtu.be/Qe10ExwzCqk?t=34) [1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_GD7kUbogk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_GD7kUbogk)

</comment><comment><USER12> Some of the visual SLAM techniques are also getting fairly good results for cheap. In particular, see DSO (same research group as the previous LSD-SLAM).

[http://vision.in.tum.de/research/vslam/dso](http://vision.in.tum.de/research/vslam/dso)

<comment><USER13> Nice paper, hadn't seen this one before, seems pretty recent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Is there any economical (we'll say sub-$2K) method that an individual can produce 3D scans of typical interior residential spaces? I've taken a lot of 2D photos of various places that are sentimental to me, but I'd love to make even low-quality 3D scans if an economical option existed.

The Matterport product mentioned elsewhere in the comments seems interesting, but they specifically disclaim that they don't offer a local hosting option. Since this is for personal use I really just want the data from the scans, not a recurring service model.

Edit: I'll clarify. Is there a "packaged" scanning hardware product in the sub-$2K range? I don't follow this technology closely and I'm really just sticking my head in to see where things are right now? I'm all for cobbling together software to deal with the resulting output, but I'm not in a position where I can cobble together hardware.

I don't know enough of the associated terminology, so I sound wholly uninformed here. What I see in the linked article are point clouds, which are definitely interesting, but I'm wondering if something exists to allow an individual to capture textured scans and store/view them on their own hardware. The Matterport product looks like what I'd want (at a $3.6K price- point for the camera, and arguably with higher quality output than I desire) but it sounds like it's really a service offering and doesn't just give you the resulting data for your own use w/o their recurring service.

<comment><USER15> Is this article not literally about doing 3D scans of interior spaces using cheap components? The stuff listed in the article costs $549 (plus a laptop/arduino/tripod etc).

<comment><USER14> I dropped on an edit. I'm a rank amateur here, and admittedly trying to use HN readers' knowledge as a substitute for research I should be doing on my own.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Completely unrelated shameless plug: Reminds me of my toy 1 led 3d scanner. I haven't had more time to play with it.

[https://arjo129.wordpress.com/2017/01/08/diy-3d-scanner- via-...](https://arjo129.wordpress.com/2017/01/08/diy-3d-scanner-via-inverse- square-law/)

</comment><comment><USER6> This is cool!

I built essentially the same kind of contraption for my PhD, except I used a gimbal scanner (±90 degrees in two axes) and an industrial 1D LIDAR (a Dimetix FLS-C). You get some interesting calibration problems, because if your LIDAR isn't perfectly centred on the rotation centre of both axes, you'll get offsets; in one direction you'll overshoot, in the other you'll undershoot. The basic trig works well enough for demonstrations though.

Similar downside: the LIDAR I used was extremely accurate (±1 mm stdev), but could only capture at around 20Hz. 500Hz would have been a luxury! I believe I could have pushed it to 200Hz with analogue out, but I wanted the accuracy.

</comment><comment><USER17> had an idea to scan semi convex objects using a web cam and a green screen (something like this has probably been done before Im guessing). Just trace the outline of the object at various rotations (i.e. using a turn-table) and produce a model from the result. Probably do two passes, rotating the object 90 degrees on its side for the second pass.

<comment><USER6> Yup, this is called shape from silhouette. Quite a lot of research on it over the years:

[https://www.cvg.ethz.ch/teaching/compvis/2011/lecture/vision...](https://www.cvg.ethz.ch/teaching/compvis/2011/lecture/vision08.pdf)

EDIT: Better link

<comment><USER18> See also: Visual Structure from Motion, which I believe works off static light sources (same stuff you see in 123D Catch and similar software, this one is free though).

[http://ccwu.me/vsfm/](http://ccwu.me/vsfm/)

For a less detailed/easier to use process, you can also try Regard3D: [http://www.regard3d.org/](http://www.regard3d.org/)

<comment><USER19> Another open-source, full 3D reconstruction pipeline is COLMAP: [https://colmap.github.io/](https://colmap.github.io/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Bravo! This is really impressive! I have always wanted to do something like this with a kinect, but I think I like this method way more because of the lack of any black boxes. You can really see how the whole thing works, top to bottom.

</comment><comment><USER21> Beyond the technical tour de force, I find the visual results artistically pleasing. Androids definitely dream of electrical sheeps.</comment>


A Study in Brand Minimalism - <AUTHOR> http://imgur.com/a/67AS0

<comment><USER2> I think it's interesting that some of the premium/upscale brands appear more "premium" with the minimalism, but the commodity brands appear cheaper with the same minimalism. Sometimes the last images take it too far though and leave a lifeless product.

For example (just my opinions)

Premium:

* Guinness #2, #3

* Evian #3, #4

* Redbull

* Schweppes (the glass bottle makes it look more premium I think)

Commodity:

* M&M #3 (It looks OEM or bulk quantity)

* Jelly Belly #3, #4 (Same bulk feel as M&Ms)

* Nesquik

* Pringles</comment>


Death can bring your career back to life - <AUTHOR> https://www.ft.com/content/42251d68-fa71-11e6-bd4e-68d53499ed71 <comment><AUTHOR> This URL should work if you don't subscribe to FT: [https://www.google.com.sg/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/42251d68-...](https://www.google.com.sg/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/42251d68-fa71-11e6-bd4e-68d53499ed71)</comment>


Harvard withdraws 10 acceptances for 'offensive' memes in private group chat - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/05/harvard-withdraws-10-acceptances-for-offensive-memes-in-private-chat/ <comment><USER2> I'm so conflicted right now.

On the one hand, yeah, that shit is offensive and I'm not too keen on elevating a person who makes jokes about sexual assault or violence against minorities.

On the other hand I'm terrified at the creeping surveillance society that has institutions examining all of our utterances for "wrong speech", which is much too close for comfort to "wrong think", which is much too close for comfort to "wrong person".

<comment><USER3> Dystopian fiction has given so much terrorizing weight to the concept of "thoughtcrime" and "wrong think" that I think people forget how much _positive_ effect a culture can have on widespread mindsets and stopping ignorance.

There are some ignorant thoughts that have almost entirely fallen out of the collective consciousness (in terms of serious belief, not abstract discussion of the past). (As a random example, there are vanishingly few ignorant people left who genuinely believe that disease is a punishment of the wicked that should not be interfered with, "ostracize the lepers", etc.) There are many more that need to.

If you think that some people are inherently "lesser" than others and can be treated as such, that's _wrong_. If you think that it's OK to assault people, that's _wrong_. Whether that turns into violent action or not, it still pervades other actions and societal structure, and it's the source of more subtle discrimination; that it has gone as far as being written and conveyed in ways that influence others makes it more than just _thoughts_. It's a good thing to influence society in ways that make people who think and write and talk and influence others in that way less successful, favoring people who don't, and over time find that fewer people think that way.

Because the same power that makes it possible for institutions to do that also gives us a check on those institutions. It seems entirely fine for an institution to look at the kind of person they're accepting and be selective in this way. If we start seeing institutions be selective for things we _don 't_ want to see selection on, we can push back on those institutions. There's no slippery slope here.

We're not talking about violent suppression of free speech. We're talking about non-violent exercise of the right to free association, to shun racists and sexists.

<comment><USER4> _Dystopian fiction has given so much terrorizing weight to the concept of "thoughtcrime" and "wrong think" that I think people forget how much positive effect a culture can have on widespread mindsets and stopping ignorance._

Authorities, especially institutions of higher learning, shouldn't be in the business of policing their student's speech. That's not "culture." That's oppression. Using bad actions in the service of good is still a bad idea.

 _If you think that some people are inherently "lesser" than others and can be treated as such, that's wrong._

I sure think it's wrong. But policing that _thought_ by policing speech that results from it is also wrong.

 _If you think that it 's OK to assault people, that's wrong._

Is Harvard going after the "punch a Nazi" memers and advocates with as much vigor? As a liberal, I find that much more distrubing because in that case people are dressing up bad actions and teaching young people to think of them as somehow good and socially redeeming. Is that what we want? Jingoistic ideologues who can commit guiltless violence, supposedly in the name of your values and love? (Ironically, the most used word to describe an emotion at the Nuremberg rally filmed by Leni Reifensthal: Love.)

 _that it has gone as far as being written and conveyed in ways that influence others makes it more than just thoughts._

Yup. That's called _speech_. So what you want is authoritarian control of _speech_. In institutions of higher learning. Like Berkeley, maybe?

<comment><USER3> > So what you want is authoritarian control of speech.

Nope. Say anything you like. Learn to live with the consequences, which can and should include rejection by widespread parts of civilized society, and bask in the solitude. The crickets will surely enjoy your free speech.

You shouldn't go to jail for it, but you can't demand that other people _like_ it.

<comment><USER5> There's a bit of a difference between "I don't like this" and "I'm going to respond to this by attempting to destroy your social and professional life". It's disingenuous to pretend that your argument encompasses only the former, when identical contentions are so often deployed in support of the latter.

<comment><USER3> I think "rejection by widespread parts of civilized society" is a clear statement that I support both. Let me be explicit: racists and sexists should find it impossible to maintain a social and professional life, until they stop being racist and sexist. (And in the process, that also improves social and professional settings through their absence.) That's not a violent action, that's a highly effective non-violent action. And if it draws so much fire from the kinds of people it affects, perhaps that's because it _works_.

<comment><USER5> Well, yes, certainly social and professional exclusion of one's political opponents has some historical evidence for its efficacy as a tactic, at least in the short term.

Those of us who have qualms around consequentialism find this efficacy not reason enough to regard such behavior as exemplary of virtue. Those who do not have such qualms might be well advised to consider, from a utilitarian perspective, the ultimate outcomes which recent history has shown profligate use of this tactic to produce. And those who try to disclaim the grasp their political and cultural tendency has on power would do well to remember that this is, always and only, a tactic of hegemony, without which it cannot work at all.

In any case, as I said before, I like the honesty.

<comment><USER3> > political opponents

Framing bigots as "political opponents" has some efficacy as a tactic too, given people's allergy to politics. It's sad that this has, especially recently, become equated to politics. "How should we organize government", or "are certain functions better handled by government" are reasonable questions of politics. "Should we treat some people as less than other people" is not a question of politics, it's a question of humanity, that _should_ be orthogonal to politics. It's possible to be toxic anywhere on the political spectrum, and it's possible to be decent anywhere on the political spectrum.

<comment><USER5> > Framing bigots as "political opponents" has some efficacy as a tactic too

How about framing political opponents as "bigots"?

<comment><USER3> Go re-read the article and tell me again how they're "political opponents"? We're getting sufficiently abstract here that it's worth going back and re- reading what we're actually talking about. Their politics were never at question here, nor was this a political stage. This is a private university choosing who to admit, based on the culture they wish to encourage. Let's not elevate what they were doing to "politics".

If the article was "withdraws acceptances for people who advocated X political belief" (e.g. "less funding for universities", "less power to teachers' unions", "private healthcare", take your pick of things that the average university faculty is likely to disagree with), I'd be right there arguing against that; all of those are reasonably debatable topics in the right forums. Which is exactly why there's no slippery slope there: when it's something worth defending, there's no shortage of defenders. So why does there inevitably spring up an army of defenders to support bigots? There's no "first they came for" argument here; first they came for the bigots, and then they stopped and threw a party.

(On a technical forum, in particular, there ought to be an appreciation for historical pattern matching; today "bigotry against outgroups" looks a lot like yesterday's "bigotry against outgroups", and it really shouldn't be a battle that has to get re-fought for every outgroup. One of these days I have hope that people could simply complete the pattern and skip the next dozen instances of it. It's the same battle every time, all the arguments look the same, and the right and wrong answers are always the same.)

At this point, I don't feel like there are any new arguments to make here. I think both of us are well aware of the arguments, I don't think either of us is particularly inclined to change their stance, and I see little value in going through the motions. All the arguments either one of us might reasonably make are posted elsewhere. So, in the interests of the honesty you've expressed an appreciation for: let's stop wasting each others' time.

<comment><USER5> I don't think we're wasting each other's time. Certainly I don't feel as though you are wasting mine, and I hope I may prevail upon your apparently strained patience to the extent of responding to this comment of yours, because I think there's some value to be had in my so doing. Should you wish me to desist thereafter, I will comply without further demur.

> today "bigotry against outgroups" looks a lot like yesterday's "bigotry > against outgroups"

In every case, bigotry against an outgroup relies upon defining members of whatever outgroup is targeted by their membership in that outgroup, and nothing else. People being basically decent as we are, the only way to support the argument that X outgroup has got to go, is by first establishing in the mind of one's interlocutor the certainty that membership in X outgroup is _so_ bad, so utterly and uniquely exclusive by nature of every possible countervailing virtue, that in this specific case it is reasonable - indeed, that it's righteous - to mete out to members of X outgroup treatment whose infliction upon anyone else would be iniquitous in the extreme.

Such a concept is not easy to establish, people being basically decent as we are. Recent history recommends one method as especially efficacious toward that end - that of inventing or selecting a name generally used in reference to a given outgroup, and then investing not the members of that outgroup directly, but rather that name in itself, with all the opprobrium that can be laden upon it. The nature of the name isn't so important; be it a demonym, an ethnonym, a name of choice, or a slur, what matters is that it be generally understood outside the targeted outgroup that the group is the object of the name. Then, by making people despise the name, you can make people despise the group, as well.

There is a subtlety here - it's very hard, people being basically decent as we are, to convince one human being to look upon another not as a fellow deserving of at least some basic modicum of decency, but rather as a disease upon the body politic, meriting excision therefrom by methods otherwise too brutal or mean to be seriously contemplated. But language is the tool we use to understand the world around us, and it should be hardly controversial in the modern age that, by modifying the way we understand language, one may modify the way we understand our world. By investing a name with contempt, therefore, we can heap contempt upon those whom that name describes, much more easily than we could achieve the same end without the same semiotic indirection.

Don't you think it's interesting that you've spent your entire participation in this thread inveighing against "racists" and "sexists" and "bigots", and making very clear that those whom you so describe, you have no problem seeing excluded from social and professional life by means which you'd consider totally unacceptable if applied to those whom you do not place in the categories those names describe? I think it's interesting.

But, as you've rightly pointed out, we are getting awfully abstract, and should bear in mind the situation we're actually talking about here. In that connection, I also think it's interesting how broadly you define these categories you're using. We are, after all, talking about some eighteen-year- old jackasses, which is to say some eighteen-year-old men, who have posted some deeply tasteless and shameful meme pictures on Facebook, mostly in a private group.

That such behavior should be firmly discouraged, we agree; I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread that I would regard disciplinary probation - that is, preemptive advancement to strike two of the notional three, with one more incident of misconduct resulting in summary expulsion - as a proportionate response. Where we part company is in that you find such a response arrantly insufficient. Nothing will do by you but that these young idiots be, not given the opportunity to learn from the gravity of their error, but instead totally and permanently ostracized, from society and from the professions - which is to say, they should be permitted no friends, and they should be permitted no opportunity to pursue whatever careers they might have gone to Harvard to begin. Because they posted some deeply tasteless and shameful meme pictures on Facebook, mostly in a private group.

You're right that we shouldn't forget what we're talking about here. But I think that's precisely what your words show you to have done. You're not talking about some eighteen-year-old jackasses who have perpetuated and played into some truly shitty stereotypes in front of God and everybody, and should be firmly swatted for so doing - but should _also_ be given the opportunity to demonstrate that they have derived a salutary lesson therefrom. You're talking about "racists" and "sexists" and "bigots" as though the subjects of the discussion were, not some young damn fools who, like most young men, enjoy shit-stirring and seeing what they can get away with before someone reins them in, but rather a klavern of hardcore Klansmen long since beyond susceptibility to reason. You speak here as though there were no distinction to be made between the former and the latter, and that simply is not true.

You seem a sensible and thoughtful enough person, and I can't imagine that you are simply not at home to nuance in general - rather, I think the names you're using, and the opprobrium which attaches to them, have blinded you to the nuance which obtains here. Do you think that's very likely to be the only nuance to which you've made yourself blind?

But, of course, that's your problem, to which you'll attend or not as you so choose. It's not the sort of thing with which I'd be comfortable, or one which I could easily compose with a desire to understand, as best I'm able, the world as it actually is, the better that my actions therein be more virtuous than the converse. Should I so err, I'd like to think someone would bring it to my attention. But perhaps you feel otherwise, and in any case I've probably abused your patience just about long enough. "Just about" \- one last point and a link, and then I'm done.

You may at this time be inclined to argue that, while I'm not wrong in general about the fashion in which outgroups are demonized by means of those names which apply to them, I _am_ wrong to be concerned with your having done so in this specific case, because, in this specific case, the group you so attack _actually deserves it_.

And I'm sure you believe that's true! So, after all, has everyone else who has ever deployed this method against anyone. But perhaps this happens simply to be the first time in human history that that claim has had merit.

Finally, the link - I'm hardly the first person to speak on this subject, to say nothing of well respected. If you won't hear it from me, then, perhaps you'll be interested in this not totally dissimilar formulation, which predates mine and originates with someone who I gather is generally held in good regard: [http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate- anything...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything- except-the-outgroup/)

<comment><USER4> Could you tone down the flowery language? I mean, I'm castigated for the flowery language on HN, but man... Say as much with fewer words, and your point will be all the more powerful! (Pot, meet kettle! -- I know!)

<comment><USER5> Clearly I have abused more than one person's patience today! I hope you'll accept my apologies for so doing; concision isn't my first skill, and I tend to lose my grasp of it when I'm working on making a point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> People worried about free speech rights should realize that Harvard is a _private_ university.

If I held a party at my house and didn't want to invite you because you called my dog a 'mutt', you'd get laughed out of court if you tried to sue me over it.

People should be allowed to organize under whatever principles they want to organize under. Disallowing Harvard to use whatever criteria they want to use to admit students, unless of course they breach civil rights laws, is ultimately decreasing the amount of intellectual diversity in the world.

People that don't like Harvard can apply to any other college. There's no shortage of them to choose from. But if you tell Harvard what they can and can't do, you run the risk of destroying the individuality of Harvard.

Also, there's some mumbling about the fact that it was private speech that was supposedly surveilled on. Obviously it wasn't that private if school administrators caught wind of it. If you really want a private group, keep it truly private and _don 't tell anyone about it_.

The lesson kids should be taking away from this is, don't let your friends drag you into dangerous situations. Harvard is a nationally recognized school, any screw-ups earn _national_ attention. It's very much a "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen" sort of situation.

<comment><USER7> "People worried about womens' rights in the early 20th century should have realized that Harvard was a _private_ university. If I held a party at my house and didn't want to invite you because you were a woman, you'd get laughed out of court if you tried to sue me over it. People should be allowed to organize under whatever principles they want to organize under. Disallowing Harvard to use whatever criteria they want to use to admit students, unless of course they breach free speech rights, is ultimately decreasing the amount of intellectual diversity in the world. Women that don't like Harvard can apply to any other college. There's no shortage of them to choose from. But if you tell Harvard what they can and can't do, you run the risk of destroying the individuality of Harvard."

"People worried about reproductive rights should realize that Hobby Lobby is a _private_ corporation."

"People worried about gay rights should realize that Chick-fil-A is a _private_ corporation."

The choices of private organizations and individuals have huge effects, and it's reasonable to criticize them if we disagree with their actions. But on the other hand, I agree that it's important to give private organizations freedom. This is a difficult trade-off; we need to consider both sides of it, and whatever principle we decide on, we should apply consistently. So unless you'd also defend historical gender segregation at private universities, or defend Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-A, you should find a different defense of Harvard's actions.

<comment><USER8> On the other hand ,how do u stop hate speech?

<comment><USER9> You defeat bad arguments with good arguments. By the way this is the ONLY way.

Silencing those you disagree with will only enrage and mobilize those people, and those people vote. Hence, Trump.

<comment><USER6> I would argue that Trump is a manifestation of the exact opposite, that no matter how good the argument is, it won't beat a bad one.

<comment><USER10> >> that no matter how good the argument is, it won't beat a bad one.

What kind of absurd, nihilist nonsense is this? Sounds like yet another example of Trump's opponents being unable to think critically and assuming their attempt at forcing terrible policy down the throats of common people is a "good argument" against the threat of facism.

Trump is winning precisely because there's no "good alternative", 99% of all "alternatives" are just less shitty, and even then only less shitty for certain segments of the population. People never resort to facism with good alternatives, yet strangely it's the default whenever they're stuck with a shit sandwich.

But I mean only all of history repeats this lesson, not like we'd expect anyone to understand that or anything.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think an article such as this one is a clear example of the generational differences between older and younger people. I'm fairly close to these kids' age and I've browsed memes from /r/dankmemes and enjoyed them.

The thing is, is that these memes are supposed to be self-aware of how offensive they are. That's the joke. They're meant to be so offensive and ridiculous that reactions can be drawn from outside spectators so they can get offended and you can laugh at them for being a "normie".

I have no issue with these jokes unless they've been made in a sincere attempt at racism or sexism, and knowing my experience with the internet, I don't believe this is the case.

<comment><USER12> It's not a new thing. Dead baby jokes have been around forever, and popular comedians often use similar black humor. The article mentions the card game cards against humanity. Which is pretty popular and based on the same premise.

I used to really like black humor. I frequently told dead baby jokes and similar stuff. Thank god that wasn't recorded.

I'm alarmed to see many of the comments here outraged over the stuff the students said. I guarantee most of them have probably told a similarly offensive joke at some point in time, or at the very least have friends who have. Especially when they were younger.

<comment><USER13> > The article mentions the card game cards against humanity. Which is pretty > popular and based on the same premise.

Except that the premise of Cards Against Humanity is that you are all opting in to the situation where you expect that, and usually an a somewhat private setting.

The equivalent to the CAH suggestion would be where some private group of people indicated that to become members, you had to go to a public cafe and play CAH loudly in public. Were that Cafe to get mad at you and ban you from their premises, getting upset at that outcome is rather silly. You either knew that was a possibly outcome, or you _should have known_. In any case, that Cafe is well within their rights to decide they want nothing to do with you anymore.

<comment><USER11> I wouldn't consider that equivalent at all. This was an invite-only private chat between students. So in other words, it would be like they were playing CAH in a dorm room and somebody in the group decided to tell on them to administration.

<comment><USER13> It's actually somewhat unclear exactly what happened. From the article:

 _Some of the group's members decided to form an offshoot group in which students could share obscene, "R-rated" memes, a student told the Crimson. The founders of the messaging group demanded that students post provocative memes in the main group chat to gain admittance to the smaller group._

But from wording later, the examples given seem to be from the private group? I'm also unclear if the private group some some offshoot of the main group within Facebook (that is, whether it's some Facebook sub-group feature, obviously they are members of the main group).

In any case, Harvard says they reserve the right to reject admission based on "honesty, maturity, or moral character" so if this information is brought to their attention, then it falls under what they consider valid acceptance criteria. It's no different than if they Google searched the applicant initially and found verifiable information that put the student in the same light.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> My fraternity got suspended because someone trash talked some administration person on our private chat page. Turns out one of our members really disliked the trash talker and the insult in general and reported the incident. The private group chat in Harvard probably either has a [for lack of better word] tattle tail, or even a shadow member who is associated with advisors to take into consideration what the new members are saying.

Long story short, these young people are getting their first dose of 'what happens in Vegas, is likely to cause long-term relationship issues'

</comment><comment><USER15> Considering how competitive the acceptance criteria are for Harvard (2,056 out of 39,506 applications), this is just another decision point. Now 10 other people are able to get in, and the entire body of current and prospective students have learned a valuable lesson about privacy and free speech.

<comment><USER16> unfortunately for these 10 ex-applicants of Harvard they might not get into any University period for 2017/2018... This isn't a small implication to them for stupid posts online. I'm not 100% sure if I feel that's fair. them not getting into Harvard is one thing but losing education at this point in time is even worse.

<comment><USER17> Some of things they said went beyond just 'stupid posts'.

<comment><USER18> Presumably they were all jests in bad taste though?

<comment><USER19> Why presume that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> We'll have to create a public and a second, private, personality just like in the old days of the police state.

Society is more open than it probably was ever before but at the same time, if close minded leaders of fascist political or religious color came into power they'd have their tools handed to them to create an oppressive apparatus never seen before.

<comment><USER21> > The students in the spinoff group exchanged memes and images "mocking sexual > assault, the Holocaust and the deaths of children," sometimes directing > jokes at specific ethnic or racial groups, the Crimson reported. One message > "called the hypothetical hanging of a Mexican child 'piñata time'" while > other messages quipped that "abusing children was sexually arousing," > according to images of the chat described by the Crimson.

You know, if that's your personality, I'm OK with you feeling ashamed enough that you feel the need to keep it private.

<comment><USER20> I don't care what they said. If it's against the law, let the law deal with it. If it's covered under freedom of speech, let them speak.

<comment><USER22> They _were_ allowed to speak. They _did_ speak. "Freedom of speech" applies only and strictly to governments, not to a private institution. And that's because the only way "freedom of speech" matters is if others are free to react to you as they please; Harvard might not like you and might tell you to get the hell out of their (and my, as it happens) neighborhood.

If you don't like that, then you have options. One, don't be cretinous. Two, hide it better. Three, accept that being cretinous will cost you opportunities and own it.

Actions have consequences. You don't get to hide behind "my free speech". Own what you do.

<comment><USER20> Cutting down to the point.

* What these students did or didn't do does not matter in this case.

* Harvard can withdraw the acceptance for anyone at any time for any reason.

We don't need to argue about privacy or free speech here. All we can argue about as a first point is if Harvard should have the ability to withdraw their acceptance or not.

<comment><USER18> Racists are not a protected class. I see no reason why Harvard should not be allowed to act the way they did.

It is unfortunate that they chose to share those memes on a Facebook group chat though, I think the debate is about how not "private" a lot of our "private" chats have become and how sometimes people are just not thinking about where there communications are stored enough. If they had printed pamphlets with the material and shared them with classmates I think the same consequences would have happened, but they would have had more time to stop themselves and think about what could go wrong. Now sending offensive jokes is easy and "private" channels are deceptively public.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I think a lot of people are missing this:

> "As a reminder, Harvard College reserves the right to withdraw an offer of > admission under various conditions including if an admitted student engages > in behavior that brings into question his or her honesty, maturity, or moral > character," the group description states.

Whether you think that this was ok for Harvard to do or not, doing this kind of stuff in the official Harvard student Facebook group (managed by Harvard employees) given that description is just downright stupid.

</comment><comment><USER24> What you do and say on social media can and will be used against you.

<comment><USER20> Extend this to any place connected to the internet or other means of collecting information and linking it to you. Social media is just the easy way in.

<comment><USER24> I'm going to make my children say it like the pledge of allegiance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> For such apparently intelligent people, such dimwitted use of a centrally managed communications.

Not to mention bad taste, it seems.

<comment><USER20> People go to the toilet to get the crap out. Same for many online forums.

<comment><USER26> Most online forums involve the cunning use of pseudonyms so when I say "FYAD bitch" it doesn't come up on my college applications...

<comment><USER20> Not yet. The data is there to link it to you.

<comment><USER27> And by what legal means would a private university access that data to connect it?

<comment><USER28> If you're not posting under your confirmed real name, in a facebook group under the control of the private university, there's probably nothing they can do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Someone at a state school would have the same thing happen to them if they pulled stuff like this. No reason why they should be treated with kid gloves because they got into Harvard.

<comment><USER30> I think the concern here is that it was private.

<comment><USER31> Why? People are totally within their rights to share these things in public or in private. Private institutions, including Harvard, are totally within their rights to rescind admissions offers because of it.

<comment><USER32> And private individuals are well within their rights to point out that Harvard's actions are inconsistent with their purported values of free speech.

<comment><USER31> Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. And from a legal perspective free speech just means the _government_ can't punish you for protected speech. Individuals and entities are free to discriminate based on your protected speech all they want.

<comment><USER32> Free speech means exactly freedom from consequences. You're confusing the value of free speech with the specific contractual guarantee provided by the government. In other words, a university that commits itself to free speech contradicts that commitment by unaccepting students based on their speech.

<comment><USER33> It is somewhat hypocritical.

Curiously their school paper (or w.e.) recently posted a treatise [1] on free speech, including this bit:

> We also believe that the essential definition of free speech has itself been > twisted and clouded. Free speech only entails the right of every individual > to "speak freely." It does not give one the right to speak free of criticism > or protest. It does not give one the right to say something which could > reasonably be construed as inciting chaos or violence. It does not give one > the right to any forum that one desires... Certain speakers do not deserve > the platform Harvard University offers, especially when their rhetoric runs > antithetical to the values we should all hold dear.

Also many news outlets have mentioned this bit from their admissions policy:

> the university reserves the right to withdraw an offer of admission if the > admitted student "engages or has engaged in behavior that brings into > question their honesty, maturity or moral character,"

One might claim their "speech" displays a lack of maturity and moral character and avoid a paradox.

[1] [http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/5/25/commencement-201...](http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/5/25/commencement-2017-free- speech-ed/)

<comment><USER32> I assumed all along that the reason for their unacceptance was the "speech which displays a lack of maturity", but this is also inconsistent with the value of free speech. Even though their official view on free speech might be deliberately vague, this doesn't seem to be the attitude displayed by the Harvard community who (in my observation) have taken a more traditional and Berkeleyan philosophy. Even if Harvard's action isn't hypocritical, it's still permissible and reasonable to criticize them for behaving in a manner incongruent with the value of free speech, even though they believe restricted speech is free speech.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Harvard: We can revoke your admission if we see that you are an asshole. Students: Let's be assholes over here in the corner, because stuff is totally private on Facebook. Harvard: You're assholes, and also stupid.

</comment><comment><USER35> USSR style censorship when you can't even crack a joke in private. As for Harvard admitting people of high moral character, being of high moral character meant completely opposite things 50 years ago and now.

</comment><comment><USER36> Duplicate :) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14485529](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14485529)

</comment><comment><USER37> I also believe that Riot Games would fire employees for excessive offensive in-game chat.

<comment><USER38> Noteworthy difference being that, I believe, Riot employees are identified as such and their communication is public (in the eyes of Riot) not private.

In this case I think it might very well be a case of "The Aristocrats" humor like they mentioned in the article (CAH). I disagree with withdrawing the invitation based upon private communication here, but if it was publically visible and said "hey we're Harvard Students" I can understand Harvard's position and cautiously agree with them.

<comment><USER28> It wasn't just a private group.

> The founders of the messaging group demanded that students post provocative > memes in the main group chat to gain admittance to the smaller group.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> another example why shenanigans shouldn't be done on Facebook. if you wanna $#!K around do it on a platform that isn't personal how is this so hard to understand ? (mind you this does seem excessive from what they are reporting)

<comment><USER20> What platform isn't personal? Sure, you don't use your real-name here or there, but it can and will be linked to you in the future. Any online and offline activity has a real chance of being linked to you at some point in the future.

<comment><USER16> true enough, but as long as law enforcement don't need to get involved (obv don't do stupid stuff) a username is easier to throw away then a Facebook account... But even then I suppose it wouldn't be possible - Big Brother here we come.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I think these memes illustrate a serious superiority complex of harvard (and other "prestigious" schools) students/alumni. I think this represents just the visible tip of the iceberg...I'm sure many more Harvard students still exhibit similar superiority complexes and thoughts even though they are too wise to not share such memes in a private chat.

</comment><comment><USER40> The creepiest part is that Harvard goes all stalker on its admits in the first place. It's creepy AF.

</comment><comment><USER41> Maybe I missed it from the article:

1\. Were the students given a warning before having their admissions withdrawn?

2\. I'm curious why Harvard chose the nuclear option, rather than to use this as an opportunity to teach why the memes were considered offensive, and more appropriate ways to express themselves.

<comment><USER42> >I'm curious why Harvard chose the nuclear option, than to use this as an opportunity to teach why the memes were considered offensive, and more appropriate ways to express themselves.

Presumably they don't want nasty, highly offensive people in their institution. Which is perfectly reasonable. I wouldn't want anything to do with people like that either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Here are some examples of the offensive memes: [https://thetab.com/us/2017/06/05/harvard-memes- rescinded-694...](https://thetab.com/us/2017/06/05/harvard-memes- rescinded-69413)

<comment><USER44> Interesting...I'd rate these no more offensive than Sarah Silverman stand up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> One issue is the prevailing idea that all/most online interactions should be shared publicly. It would still have been ill-advised to make these jokes even in private, but I'd go so far as to say there's a big concrete difference betweeen expressing yourself privately versus publicly. Your friends have a lot of context with which to judge you and your words, but the public doesn't. You might say something sarcastically or in jest, but someone else might conclude that you believe it earnestly[1]. And if you ARE earnestly expressing yourself and feel like your ideas deserve public platform, then you need to have thought ahead about what kinds of responses you might get.

[1] See also Poe's Law.

</comment><comment><USER46> i watched 5 people fail to matriculate at my alma mater in 2002 for similarly adolescent idiocy. they happened to do it on campus during orientation, but little else seems different.

</comment><comment><USER47> This isn't even _really_ about speech - this is about a few people who exhibited shockingly poor judgement, and were rejected from Harvard as a result.

</comment><comment><USER44> Interesting fact: Richard M Stallman dabbles in 9/11 conspiracy theories while being 'employed' at MIT.

[http://www.stallman.org/articles/911-new- investigation.html](http://www.stallman.org/articles/911-new- investigation.html)

</comment><comment><USER48> On a similar note, it's safe to assume college admissions officers are checking social media profiles, so prospective students should make sure to scrub all high-risk (read: republican) political affiliations and statements from their profile, and maybe pile on some PC-friendly ones.

</comment><comment><USER49> I don't want to take from the gravity of the main topic, but it seemed notable that the online group -- and this is the larger one, not the subset that got in trouble -- identify as "bourgeois". Unless Harvard has really changed, then... nope!

</comment><comment><USER50> It sends a message that boundary-free affluenza and bro culture aren't welcome at Harvard. You don't want to enable or embolden 4chan-like behavior from the next supposed batch of leaders.

</comment><comment><USER51> This is why I like 4chan. I can shit post to my hearts content without getting screwed by the morality police.

<comment><USER52> The critical advantage of 4chan is there's no trademark dilution.

There's just /b/ or whatever, there is no /Harvard/ board to insult the image of a multibillion dollar organization.

Regardless what the kids were posting, I'm not sure what they were thinking, using a name like that can't possibly end well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> We are expecting children to grow up too fast.

</comment><comment><USER54> creepy treehouse

<comment><USER54> [http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/the-creepy- treehou...](http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/the-creepy-treehouse- problem/23027)

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> why a facebook group when they have 4chan</comment>


SanDisk to buy Fusion-io to boost flash storage business - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/16/us-sandisk-deals-idUSKBN0ER1A620140616 <comment><USER2> Here's the key take-away:

> "Fusion-io ... has reported a loss for five quarters in a row."

This is why the stock was down so low, and why they were willing to take the offer. You run a business at a loss long enough and your board starts thinking about other 'strategic options' including selling to competitors with big pockets.

</comment><comment><USER3> Fun fact: When Fusion-io first released their hardware, the NSA purchased every production run for six months. Regular customers could get evaluation cards, but they had to wait a long time for production purchases due to the complete high speed data storage buy up.

<comment><USER4> My understanding is that it was Facebook who had dibs on their production, not NSA.

<comment><USER5> isn't that pretty much the same "company" as far as data sharing is concerned? :)

<comment><USER6> :D :D

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Congrats Woz! Hope you made out like a bandit, old chap. ;)

</comment><comment><USER8> That price is shockingly low.

<comment><USER9> Naive Query : The article mentions that it's a 21 percent premium to their present stock price. Can you throw some more light on why do you consider so ?

<comment><USER10> That was my reaction too. I guess the stock valuation seems low too then.

Hardware is expensive, especially high performance hardware. R&D is a minimum 3 years and 10 million dollars per product. 1.1B is roughly a 10x on a dozen products and that doesn't include all the other operating costs.

I'm oversimplifying things, but this was the thought process that concluded with 1.1B seeming low.

<comment><USER11> I'm with you, and possibly for reasons beyond just the financials. If you look at the packaging, marketing and other variables (such as the likely customer of $22k/3TB of Flash) one gets the feeling that this is a very "premium" product and as such the company itself would also sell at such a premium.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> To think everyone was phased when YouTube was bought for 1.65 billion...</comment>


How to reduce the size of your VMs - <AUTHOR> http://marianposaceanu.com/articles/how-to-reduce-the-size-of-your-vms

<comment><USER2> Debian/Ubuntu systems can accumulate a lot of cruft. Fortunately, it is quite easy to clean up your installed packages. Most people would probably be okay with this:

        aptitude markauto '~i!~M!~nbuild-essential(~E|~prequired|~sdevel|~sinterpreters|~slibdevel|~slibs|~soldlibs|~sperl|~spython)'

You can then see which non-essential packages are installed with

        aptitude search '~i!~M!?essential'

</comment><comment><USER3> [http://www.electrictoolbox.com/vmware-shrink-vmware- disk/](http://www.electrictoolbox.com/vmware-shrink-vmware-disk/)</comment>


Detection of Intrusions and Malware, and Vulnerability Assessment - <AUTHOR> https://books.google.com/books/about/Detection_of_Intrusions_and_Malware_and.html?id=2_R6DAAAQBAJ <comment><AUTHOR> My belief is that the Operating System designers of tomorrow should read books and academic papers like this and take these subjects very seriously...</comment>