Perl 5.17.6 is now available - <AUTHOR> http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2012/11/msg195659.html

<comment><USER3> In case it's not clear, this is a development version along the road to the stable 5.18 release, expected in May 2013.

The Perl core team are getting very good at timeboxing their development and releasing on time.

</comment><comment><USER4> Here's the delta with the changes: [https://metacpan.org/module/RJBS/perl-5.17.6/pod/perldelta.p...](https://metacpan.org/module/RJBS/perl-5.17.6/pod/perldelta.pod)

<comment><USER5> 5.17.6: "The seed used by Perl's hash function is now random. This means that the order which keys/values will be returned from functions like keys(), values(), and each() will differ from run to run."

Wait, what?

5.8.1: "Mainly due to security reasons, the "random ordering" of hashes has been made even more random. Previously while the order of hash elements from keys(), values(), and each() was essentially random, it was still repeatable. Now, however, the order varies between different runs of Perl." - [http://search.cpan.org/~jhi/perl-5.8.1/pod/perldelta.pod#Has...](http://search.cpan.org/~jhi/perl-5.8.1/pod/perldelta.pod#Hash_Randomisation) , Sept 25 2003

When did that get undone?

Edit: Admittedly, I just tried to verify that this actually happened in 5.8.1 and none of 5.8.8, 5.10.0, or 5.14.2 appear to be actually randomizing key order, at least according to the keys function.

<comment><USER6> Relevant discussion on perl5-porters:

[http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2012/10/ms...](http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2012/10/msg194813.html)

<comment><USER7> Some more relevant links:

* _Hash order randomization is coming, are you ready?_ \- <http://perlmonks.org/?node_id=1005122>

* _Hash randomisation breaks CPAN_ \- <https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=115908>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'd be genuinely interested in reasons why I should learn Perl? I've been hacking away at some Perl interfaces lately but finding it difficult. It seems like a big language (I'm reading Perl Programming, which is certainly a big book).

So rather than just hacking away, is there a good reason I should learn the language properly and push through "Perl Programming" or say learning Ruby, Python or golang really well. Will Perl remain relevant in 15 years time? Or at least more relevant than other current languages with similar applications?

I should say that I come from a background of C and C++ programming, which may effect my mindset somewhat.

<comment><USER9> i'll wade in. note that i'm bigoted against perl, i'll say so clearly up front.

perl is better than shell scripting at automation, this much is true. perl has a strong use case there. had, i'll argue.

perl's idioms and structure promotes wonky, hard to read and hard to maintain code. it's true. get even the most die hard perl fan a beer or two and they'll wind up admitting it, sheepishly and quietly. but yeah, perl too easily promotes a mess. and when you have to maintain code, borrow code, etc .. readable code matters.

my biggest complaints about perl usually fall into the bucket that perl fans claim are its strengths. brevity, wit, etc. those wind up confusing almost all perl developers and users, in my experience, because you have to shift gears mentally to figure out wtf a piece of code is doing, what the developer intended it to do, and thus diagnosis is a pain. too many perl users just laugh and say, "yeah, i can't figure it out either." funny until you realize they're laughing about wasting your time. my second biggest complaint falls into the reusability of perl by its design. not so modular without some surgery (minor or major, depending). the C (or ruby or python) code that people trained on perl develop is, almost always, horridly inefficient.

CPAN is nice, i wish my language of choice (python) had as extensive a library so easy to use. and then you get into the mess of CPAN, which is littered with half completed, poorly documented modules. you wind up having two or three modules that do the same thing but are dependencies elsewhere or actually implement some promised functionality, etc. (cheeseshop, pip, etc yes ... but so much stuff isn't deployable like that is my point...)

the perl documentation library was a big selling point about 10 or 12 years ago, not so much now. everyone else caught up is my point. python, ruby, etc are now mainstream.

the "perl is everywhere" mantra used to be compelling, too. but python and ruby are just as widely available on systems and ... far more suited to long term development and maintenance than perl is. again, "better" languages for long term use and development are now mainstream. they weren't before.

i tend to sum all this up for someone with "perl sucks" or "don't use perl, it promotes brain rot". and no, i wont revisit my thinking. perl had its day, but i think the sun has set and rightfully so.

<comment><USER10>
      > "don't use perl, it promotes brain rot"

      > and no, i wont revisit my thinking.

"I don't think this is the tool for the job, THEREFORE IT ROTS YOUR BRAIN! If you try to talk to me about that, I will chant, "I'M NOT LISTENING" over and over with my hands on my ears."

Really?

<comment><USER9> "Really?" yes.

like another commenter said it's a discussion i've had before and haven't heard compelling arguments in favor of perl, so no i'm not interested in revisiting it.

that said it IS context dependent. i wont fire you for writing perl one-offs to maintain some systems or process some files. but i would argue against you for wanting to ship perl for the reasons i stated, with my main thesis being that your decision would jeopardize the project's future (assuming it had some future). i've heard the arguments before, like "you can write clean and maintainable perl" (which has analogues with "high performance java" and "long-term maintainable PHP"). the counterpoint is "sure, one can. but people rarely do. other tools promote those features more readily. pick one of them."

<comment><USER10> None of the reasons in your post would lead me to believe that Perl will 'rot your brain.' I didn't consider the majority of your post to be a flame/troll, just your honest opinion. It was the "Perl eats babies, and you can't convince me otherwise, nyah!" at the end that sort of irked me.

<comment><USER9> i very firmly believe the following:

first, that some languages promote decent coding practices, while some actively encourage bad ones, either through crappy idioms, bad docs and a lousy community, or a lack of immediate penalties.

second, that where you spend much of your time coding has a significant effect on how you think about problem solving, consequences, etc. the practice of programming builds behaviors, modes of thinking, and values.

finally, if it isn't clear, i consider perl's features to be substandard to long term coding. the values it places on hacked up gimmicks (under the guise of "more than one way to do things" and "see! it's a one liner!") is a large part of this.

therefore "brain rot" in this case isn't equivalent to years of meth use, but rather a failure to appreciate crap designs, a failure to perform sound engineering when you write code, and a failure to think about the future of your code. i've seen the products of people who write code professionally, with them having learned through years of coding perl, and it is not pretty. lots of them.

keep calling me closed minded on the topic, i wont disagree. but the end result is that when someone tells me that perl is their language of choice and i'm hiring for a person to write code, it's a deep hole they have to get out of right away or i won't hire them, nor will many of the people i work with.

<comment><USER10>
      > the values it places on hacked up gimmicks (under the
      > guise of "more than one way to do things" and "see!
      > it's a one liner!") is a large part of this.

I'm curious where there is official documentation of Perl as a language putting emphasis on "See! It's a one-liner!" Sure Perl has things like Perl Golf[1], but I could equally point you to The International Obfuscated C Code Contest[2]. That doesn't prove that C _as a language_ encourages you to intentionally obfuscate your code.

      > when someone tells me that perl is their language of choice
      > [...]  i won't hire them

Perl isn't my language of choice, but I'm not sure that I want to work for someone that has such a view of the world. You're attempting to use a small piece of data ("I like to program in Perl") to extrapolate a whole lot about a person.

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

[2]: <http://www.ioccc.org/>

<comment><USER11> I am wondering why it is as it is. I think it may be because of perls abundance of short cryptic symbols that people feel somehow "proud" to 1) know what "while(<>){print if($.==2 || $& && !$x++); $.=0 if (/^--+$/)}" does and 2) to make it even shorter. Because with )(!§&/$?(=)% with hell a lot of meanings you could write entire perl scripts based on special characters.

A good example is [http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.beginners/2009/01/msg106...](http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.beginners/2009/01/msg106031.html) that i just found googling for perl one liners. The OP want's to know what this line does, the first answer is "you can make it even shorter!". Somewhat explains what i try to say ;)

Surely there is a lot of clean perl code out there but from my experience at customers (i'm consultant) what happens in-house in some development departments looks very very very different. Then again i've seen a lot broken, half-tested and unmaintained CPAN modules as well.

<comment><USER7> One liners are an (extreme!) _optimisation_ and programmers feel quite _proud_ when they able to optimise code :)

And it's not restricted to Perl: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4906370>

_> Then again i've seen a lot broken, half-tested and unmaintained CPAN modules as well._

You also get this in PyPi, Gems, NPM, etc. Just more proof that _Sturgeon's Law_ exists.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Good to see so much active work on Unicode support. Really feels like Perl is coming in to its own as the language to use with Unicode text...

<comment><USER13> Unless you've been living under a rock Perl has been the goto language for Unicode support for half a decade now.

<comment><USER14> Indeed, the "Unicode support" in question is tracking changes to the Unicode standard itself. Perl 5 has long been one of the top-flight Unicode implementations (and not just _implementation_ , but a community-wide set of best practices, documentation for use, etc.).

<comment><USER11> I must say, when Perl is the "top flight" implementation for unicode i don't want to be a programmer anymore..

[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6162484/why-does- modern-p...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6162484/why-does-modern-perl- avoid-utf-8-by-default) Just scroll to the end of the first comment, boilerplate code.. jesus....

<comment><USER7> This is very thorough boilerplate code for dealing with all corner cases when using utf-8 data with Perl.

Instead of dismissing or dissing Tom Christiansen excellent post I would highly recommend reading into his _The Good, the Bad, & the (mostly) Ugly_ presentation from OSCON 2011 [1] where he compares Unicode handling across mainstream languages and then see how this code (and Perl) shapes up in comparison.

In the meantime pragmatic Perl programmers can cover most of that utf-8 boilerplate with just:

      use 5.016;
      use warnings;
      use utf8::all;

Or if you're like me and use _perl5i_ [2] then its just:

      use perl5i::2;

[1]: <http://training.perl.com/OSCON2011/index.html>

[2]: <https://metacpan.org/module/perl5i>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Oh, we've done a little Perl code challenge to win some free beer lately: <http://www.sipwise.com/news/jobs/hiring-by-curiosity-part-1/>

The free beer event is already over, but it's still fun to try if you can make it :)

</comment><comment><USER16> Thank you perl! You taught me ruby..... And you taught me, how to be dynamic ...

</comment><comment><USER17> Fifteen years ago, people would have found this interesting.

<comment><USER18> Despite being a pythonista at heart and a rubyist at work, Perl is still my go-to language for when I notice bash scripts getting messy and growing out of scope and destined to enrich my personal long-term unix toolset.

Yes, Perl is still very relevant today, for me and for countless others[0]

[0]: <https://github.com/languages>

<comment><USER19> Out of interest, why do you go to Perl instead of Ruby?

<comment><USER18> 1\. It's everywhere. By that I mean my code will work everywhere, without much thinking about it being installed, versions, or packages, or whatnot.

2\. Ruby is too 'core' and needs too much additionals gizmos to be efficient

3\. Ruby is concise and conventional, while implicitness and terseness are idiomatic of Perl

4\. I'm no Perl monk but things in my head translate to code structure more easily in Perl for this use case (unix tools, text/binary/file content stream manipulation)

5\. Perl strict mode

6\. Occasionally, Perl suid support

7\. Bonus: performance under Windows, or rather lack thereof for Ruby

Mind you, Ruby is extremely apt and I enjoy working with it (especially - <USER2> not only - with Rails), but this is more a matter of using the right tool for each problem.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Kill that funky enum, dev boy - <AUTHOR> http://devblog.eduhub.nl/kill-that-funky-enum-dev-boy

<comment><USER2> Using enum isn't just about limiting the value to predefined options, it also requires less storage space, however for most applications I would agree (and use the same concept myself) of having the value:text pairs in the app code on the model (or a helper class if it's a common type of column, ie several tables might have a "state" column.)</comment>


Fira Sans - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fira_Sans Based on his widely successful FF Meta (which is also used by the Mozilla Foundation), Fira Sans is a modern sans-serif typeface accompanied by a monospaced variant, Fira Mono.
The fonts are licensed under the SIL Open Font License.
See also: https://twitter.com/espiekermann/status/382189483031949312/photo/1 <comment><USER2> More helpful link: [http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/styleguide/products/firefox- os/...](http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/styleguide/products/firefox-os/typeface/)</comment>


Amazon has gone from 26,100 to 37,900 employees in just one year - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2011/04/26/amazon-earnings/

<comment><USER2> I love how this article is speculating on what crazy things Amazon _must_ be building by adding that many people. I'll tell you what they're building: fulfillment centers and call centers.

About 5 years ago when Amazon had around 15K employees worldwide and they only had 3K in Seattle and only a few small dev centers around the world. So even if every single person in Seattle was working on development that still only accounts for 20% of the workforce.

I can't find up to date numbers on the number of people in each location but considering there's now 40 FCs worldwide I don't think my math can be that far off. (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com#Locations>)

If I had to bet, I'd say 2000 of 11000 new employees are either developers, dev managers, or project managers.

It might also be worth asking when the headcount for Zappos got tacked onto Amazon.com.

<comment><USER3> 1,900 were hired in Seattle alone. I saw that recently on /r/Seattle. Considering their orders are reported to be 40% year over year, 15k - 3k IT staff = 12k x 1.4 ^ 5 is 65k. They only have half that staff total so their efficiency and scaling improvements in distribution means they have to higher less people year over year for warehouse staff.

This is all uninformed speculation. The only public number I've seen is 1,900 hired in Seattle over a 3 month period. That means a lot more than 2k were probably hired for development, which means that Amazon is definitely up to something.

<comment><USER2> 1,900 in Seattle in a 3-month span is a huge number. Knowing that, perhaps they are spending an insane amount of developer time just interviewing more developers.

There's also a forward fulfillment center in Bellevue which might count as Seattle headcount.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I started Amazon in January. It really is a great place to work. Fun projects, smart people to learn from, at least two talks on interesting subjects a week, and lots of time to write code. After working here, I wouldn't want to work anywhere else, I like it that much. The only problem is Seattle. Moving from Dallas to Seattle has resulted in a lower quality of life, but I can deal with it.

<comment><USER5> What don't you like about Seattle? I was thinking about applying and I am also in Dallas right now.

<comment><USER4> Housing: Homes are older, smaller, and much more expensive in Seattle compared to Dallas area.

Weather: It is rainy and cold most of the time making it very difficult to take kids out.

Shopping/Food: More choices in Dallas and cheaper.

The Seattle area feels small and slow moving, the exception is the heart of downtown Seattle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> And still hiring here in the Tokyo office :)

<comment><USER7> Do you work there? I checked the careers site a while ago (and now again that you mentioned it) but there were no technical positions open in Tokyo.

<comment><USER6> Yes, I'm a developer in the mobile web team and we're one of the groups currently hiring. I really like this team and the company's infrastructure is very impressive. You should check us out. Here's the position from our jobs site: <http://jp-amazon.icims.com/jobs/127264/job> and other positions in Tokyo: [http://www.amazon.co.jp/Search-Jobs- version2/b/ref=amb_link_...](http://www.amazon.co.jp/Search-Jobs- version2/b/ref=amb_link_53536406_3?ie=UTF8&node=52265051&pf_rd_m=AN1VRQENFRJN5&pf_rd_s=center-3&pf_rd_r=0GB6TRB705DWFYJSGKFA&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=51552449&pf_rd_i=236032011)

I'm not sure where we've advertised outside of our own site, but I'll ask. It may be that recruiters are posting for us, and recruiters typically don't mention the hiring company's name until you call them.

If you send me your resume, though, I can figure out where to route it.

<comment><USER7> Oh, I was searching over at amazon.com. It does return Tokyo positions but the results seem different. Thank you.

Please let me know how to contact you.

<comment><USER6> firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Please let them hire some decent people to handle communications to AWS users!

And we won't complain if they also get some engineers with world-class expertise in network attached storage.

<comment><USER9> I think you mean some _more_ engineers with world-class expertise in network storage: the fact that EBS/S3 have worked as well as they have at scale should indicate they have some already.

Sure, they have failures/slowdowns etc, but they are pioneering the space of providing massive infrastructure to heterogeneous clients at low cost, and still manage to keep it working enough that companies entrust their business to them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I believe it is due to AWS aka Cloud computing</comment>


Ask HN: Im great at making prototypes, what business should I be in? - <AUTHOR> I love making prototypes and ave been hired by big firms to rapid prototype new product ideas. Both hardware and digital product prototypes.<p>I want to stop freelancing, but want to continue building prototypes. Whats the best business I can start? <comment><USER2> Perhaps something related to research.</comment>


Scientific Self-Help: The State of Our Knowledge - <AUTHOR> http://lesswrong.com/lw/3nn/scientific_selfhelp_the_state_of_our_knowledge/ <comment><USER2> Cal Newport also does a great job in keeping up with a lot of the published literature in these fields. Check out his books and blog at <http://calnewport.com>. It's been incredibly helpful to me over the past few years.</comment>


Continuous Integration Servers: Should you self-host or rely on SaaS? - <AUTHOR> https://blog.rainforestqa.com/2014-08-08-hosted-vs-self-hosted-ci/?2

<comment><USER2> I'm the author of this post. Happy to answer any questions you might have :)

<comment><USER3> How many shills do you guys have on HN? :)</comment></comment>


Girls' comparative advantage in reading can largely explain the STEM gender gap - barry-cotter https://www.pnas.org/content/116/31/15435 <comment><AUTHOR> Am I correct in interpreting this as that among 15-year-olds, girls and boys are about equally skilled at doing math, but girls are even more skilled at doing reading than boys are, so it's relatively inefficient for girls to do math-oriented tasks instead of reading-oriented tasks.

With the relative inefficiency might come relative unprofitability, and if the girls perceive and/or anticipate that doing reading-oriented tasks would be more profitable for them, they choose to participate in the market for reading-oriented labor (self-select into that market).

<comment><USER2> I don't buy into the rational/market/economics style theory that people choose to do tasks based on what they think will be more profitable.

People choose to do things because they enjoy doing them, and people enjoy doing things more when they're good at the task. If girls have better language skills, they will naturally gravitate to those kinds of tasks because they like them better, which will reinforce their skills, in a cycle. The same can be said for boys who like to do things and naturally gravitate to/reinforce those skills. Eventually you have people who are good at doing different things, because the initial advantage/preference gave them a tendency to move in a particular direction.

<comment><USER3> Why aren't there more Female lawyers or politicians then... Not sure if this totally holds up

<comment><USER4> You can also ask why not more female top leaders and top investors. Females are so reputed to be competitive by nature..

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Unfortunately, I don't see anyone pushing to improve boys' reading skills.

<comment><USER6> Yep. We're all focused on lifting up girls, but ignore the suffering of the boys because ... some perverted ideology.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> > Girls' comparative advantage in reading can largely explain the STEM gender > gap

It can't explain why math-intensive fields like biochemistry are _not_ male dominated (with roughly equal distribution between genders for degrees), but the less-math-intensive, more-human-interaction centered people management positions in those fields are disproportionately (given the total population of the fields) male.

</comment><comment><USER8> How does this explain that the stem gender gap is different in different countries? [https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/03/gender-equality-in- st...](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/03/gender-equality-in-stem-is- possible/)

<comment><USER9> because in poor countries, women must choose what pays most.. stem. in rich countries, they can choose what they enjoy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> We suspected this at our primary school: across gender and ethnicity divisions, STEM and literacy scores were highly correlated.

</comment><comment><USER11> But definitely it's the girls' fault, am I right?</comment>


Nikola Tesla's Predictions for the 21st Century - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/paleofuture/2013/04/nikola-teslas-amazing-predictions-for-the-21st-century/ <comment><USER2> I'm very surprised they missed the most important prediction by Tesla:

>>>When wireless is perfectly applied the whole earth will be converted into a huge brain, which in fact it is, all things being particles of a real and rhythmic whole. We shall be able to communicate with one another instantly, irrespective of distance. Not only this, but through television and telephony we shall see and hear one another as perfectly as though we were face to face, despite intervening distances of thousands of miles; and the instruments through which we shall be able to do his will be amazingly simple compared with our present telephone. A man will be able to carry one in his vest pocket.

>>>We shall be able to witness and hear events — the inauguration of a President, the playing of a world series game, the havoc of an earthquake or the terror of a battle — just as though we were present.

From: When Woman Is Boss <http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1926-01-30.htm>

Looking at that again, there are other gems but the above stuck with me because, well, just look at it.

<comment><USER3> I wonder if what anything he has said would be considered prior art for current patents ...

<comment><USER4> He even imagined One Click buying through the world brain - amazing prescience ;-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > Today the most civilized countries of the world spend a maximum of their > income on war and a minimum on education. The twenty-first century will > reverse this order. It will be more glorious to fight against ignorance than > to die on the field of battle.

Alas.

<comment><USER6> Public defense spending is about on par with public educational spending (if you factor in private spending education on college education then education wins out). Additionally, the total of pension, health care, and welfare spending trumps defense spending by a factor of nearly 3.5x to 1. It's simply not correct to fantasize that our government is exclusively military focused to the exclusion of all else, defense spending is quite large but it's not enormous compared to the equal or greater public spending priorities of education, health, pensions, etc.

[http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2013USbn_1...](http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2013USbn_14bs1n_2010000102#usgs302)

<comment><USER7> Your own linked to site lists the following expenditures by the US federal government:

        Pensions = 24%
        Health Care = 24%
        Defense = 23%
        Welfare = 12%
        Interest = 6%
        Other Spending = 4%
        Transportation = 3%
        Education = 3%
        Protection = 2%
        General Government = 1%

<http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2013_US_fed>

Who's fantasizing here?

Of course, these figures don't include so-called "black budgets" for such things as CIA/DEA/etc "front companies" from which these agencies generate & draw funds without congressional oversight.

<comment><USER6> You're being intellectually dishonest, it's not cool. The vast majority of educational spending is at the local and state level, the vast majority of defense spending is at the federal level. If you look at the totals of spending across all levels (federal, state, local) you can see how close the spending levels for education and defense are. The numbers are even summed for you.

<comment><USER7> Who is being "intellectually dishonest?" When you refer to "our government," I automatically assume that you mean the federal government, as I'm unsure of whether you reside in the same state as I, or not. I was referring to the federal government, and the amounts spent are consistent with the claims made above.

Were the federal government to spend as much on education as is spent on defense our nation wouldn't be as "dumbed-down" as we presently are.

In my state the schools are dilapidated, and teachers are underpaid, which results in high school graduates who are barely literate.

However, our police are well paid, well equipped, and well funded, a good portion of which is from federal sources.

My state receives roughly 29% (44th in the nation) of its funding from the federal government, and spends 25% of the total state budget on education. Of the amount spent on education, 68% goes to salaries & pensions.

If the federal government spent more on education, the respective states would be able to increase their spending on education, which is what I believed this thread to be about.

<comment><USER8> In the US education is handled by the states while military is handled on the federal level. To look only at the federal level when talking about education doesn't even make sense. You are a dishonest and clumsy ideologue that bends the facts to his or her will, selling a distorted picture of reality.

Maybe you want education to be handled on the federal level. That's a valid position to take – but it still wouldn't make sense to then only look at federal spending on education to compare it with military spending.

<comment><USER7> Yet the federal government _does_ spend money on education. This is a fact, and in no way am I being dishonest when I say that if the federal government spent more money on education then we would have a more well educated electorate.

The respective states actually do fund defense, although to a lesser degree than the federal government.

Kindly illustrate how I'm bending facts to sell a _"distorted picture of reality?"_

<comment><USER9> _if the federal government spent more money on education then we would have a more well educated electorate_

I don't think this can be assumed. Funding alone is not a good predictor of educational outcomes [1], and the source of the funds (local, state, federal) also matters.

[1] [http://www.educationnews.org/education-policy-and- politics/s...](http://www.educationnews.org/education-policy-and- politics/study-finds-no-relationship-between-ed-spending-and-results/)

<comment><USER7> A two year study can hardly be considered to be definitive. I wonder what the results would be for a 20 year study?

Also, my state is one of those which spends the least on education, so my views are probably skewed as a result.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is no different from fortune telling (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect>). Make a bunch of predictions, some will be accurate, some will be a off, and some will be really bad. But people will remember the accurate ones and adapt enough the off ones that it looks like you were a visionary.

<comment><USER11> So long as you also invent alternating current.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think the author of the article is reaching on some of these predictions:

 _The Secretary of Hygiene or Physical Culture will be far more important in the cabinet of the President of the United States who holds office in the year 2035 than the Secretary of War._

I have no idea how he interpreted that to predict the EPA. This is something closer to Health&Human Services or the Secretary of the Gym ("Physical Culture" referred to exercise in those days).

<comment><USER13> In the very next sentences, Tesla elaborates on that he is referring to pollution on beaches and unsanitary drinking water. That's why this is most closely connected to the EPA.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> _The struggle for existence being lessened, there should be development along ideal rather than material lines._

Insight into why he pursued his extraordinary ideas so passionately.

</comment><comment><USER15> I wish you wouldn't have changed the title. I'd be very interested in Tesla Motors' predictions, not so much in "Nikola Tesla's Amazing" predictions.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> > I am convinced that within a century coffee, tea, and tobacco will be no > longer in vogue.

Tea is a great herbal drink. IMO, its here to stay.

<comment><USER16> Back then in the U.S. and Europe, black tea was pretty much the only thing they knew as "tea". Of the different types of tea, black is the least healthy and most caffeinated, which is why he would call it a "stimulant".

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Of course Tesla could not have predicted the military industrial complex and the gun lobby in the US.

<comment><USER18> JP Morgan bankrolled Tesla's tinkering...come on, son!

Governments live and die by their debt issuance capabilities. In 2008, Hank Paulson saved the world through his altruistic service as Secretary Treasurer and saving our benevolent banks. The MIC needs money to enforce all of our legal contracts. Tesla didn't have a prediction to make because it is the same today as it was then.

Read some history, yo!

"Tragedy and Hope" is one place to start--not to be confused with finish.

<comment><USER19> A quicker and equally valid starting tome would be "None Dare Call It Conspiracy".</comment></comment></comment>


The coming civil war over general purpose computing - <AUTHOR> http://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/civilwar.html <comment><USER2> When I read articles like this my fears always move straight to a future where it has become harder to program for play.

I appreciate that this concern is somewhat superficial compared with some of the issues raised in this article, but I feel profoundly grateful to be able to tinker with computers in my spare time.

I feel this more deeply than the fear that my music collection might not survive a computer upgrade or that the government might be watching my internet habits.

I think that we, as programmers, enjoy a luxury that is almost unreproducible in any other field. My wife is a structural biologist, and as much as she loves what she does you can't crystallize proteins in our living room.

I truly hope that however this unfolds that my son will be able to hack on something, freely and happily (if he so desires) in the future.

<comment><USER3> This is one of the reasons I'm such a fan of Apple, despite all the misguided gruff they get here.

Apple always ships free (or near free) development tools with their systems. In the Apple II days it was built in to the ROMS. Nowadays on the Mac AppStore you can download Xcode, for free. (though at one point I think it was $5 for some reason.)

You can develop any mac apps you want, and run them to your hearts content, and you can develop iOS Apps and run them in the simulator (to distribute these apps via apple's store, you only need a $99 membership, which is pretty affordable, compared to the past when it cost $500-$5,000 for such suites of software.)

Its never been easier to be a hacker! And that isn't going to change anytime soon, at least on Apple systems.

(All the apple bashing on HN is from the google distortion field, it isn't reality.)

Hell, you can even develop iOS apps without using _any_ apple tools and distribute them on the web to anyone, for free, and without any regulation by apple. You just have to use javascript and web technologies, but the full iOS UI is available, including things like touch tracking, gyroscope, GPS, etc.

People are so adamant that the iPhone is locked down that many people don't even know this, but it has been in iOS since day one-- in fact it was how Apple wanted everyone to develop apps originally (outside apple's control!) but people kept demanding native apps so apple created the appstore, and the curation of that is a consequence of not wanting malware. (Hard to write javascript malware.)

<comment><USER4> There's no such thing as "near free". Free is a boolean variable, either it is free or it is not free.

Apple does not distribute any free tools to develop and run software for their systems, period. If you want to be a free hacker, it's Linux or Windows, currently. And as another person responded to you, you cannot use the UI elements via javascript and all. Get some docs, seriously.

<comment><USER5> Windows hacker? Finding information about system internels is more often then not an easter egg hunt on google.

<comment> chao- Say what you will about Windows (and I will even join you), but Microsoft can put out some alarmingly competent docs. I say "can" and not "always do", because where they are lacking, I agree it can be frustrating. That said, in one such scenario the solution for me was to get in touch with a PM at MS and say:

"You designed [system #42]. I'm trying to accomplish [nifty goal] that is an obvious extension of what you suggest that [system #42] should be used for. You said some examples are included with the most recent Windows SDK. After downloading it, I found no such example and the problem seems a little intractable. What gives?"

The response contained an attachment of the overlooked/unincluded examples, and some clarifications about the system I was working with and even explained that some of what I was doing was explicitly NOT possible, for very good reasons (for the record, an earlier version of Windows Search).

I say this as a desktop Linux user, where at times my only recourse for "Why won't [application x] properly fullscreen?" is to go and do just what you suggest: an easter egg hunt on google. Furthermore, the end-all-be-all solution is the same as it is with our Windows example: get in touch with someone at the project and ask for clarification. The difference lies in that with one case, it's someone's job to provide clarification for the system they designed. In the other case, the possibilities are too varied to speculate on (e.g. unmaintained project, antisocial developer).

<comment><USER5> What you are talking about sounds more like windows developer than windows hacker. Still, almost all of my programming experience has been based on greping source trees in place of documentation. When I do get good documentation (it does happen) I don't know what to do with it and still look at the source.

What really sets open source apart for me in terms of hacking is that I can change the way any component operates, instead of having to jerryrig what would be a simple change using external APIs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I just watched the whole thing. I liked how Cory Doctorow acknowledged that some of these problems he didn't know the answers to but he seemed satisfied just to get the conversation started.

Near the beginning he flashed a picture of an iPad as an example of a device that records everything you do and there is nothing you can do about it. I had never thought of that; instead I had viewed the iPad as a nice little device that probably would never be hacked, but in a sense it is already hacked as far as my privacy goes.

I happen to like Apple products, running OS X on my Air and just Linux (Ubuntu) on my MBP. From a freedom and privacy perspective I would really like to a bit more fully control my devices by running Linux but I find I can get some types of work done just a little faster using OS X rather than Linux. DRM is not a problem for me on Linux because my Samsung Galaxy S III can play Netflix as can the Nexus table.

I went so far as signing up as an Apple developer early this year to get an early version of Mountain Lion and bought an iPad, but listening to Doctorow and other people who think more deeply about personal rights and freedoms than I do, I am more often thinking of paying the small Linux productivity tax.

BTW, if Apple continues to rule digital markets, it would be ironic if Microsoft saw a business opportunity to make Windows devices respect personal freedoms.

<comment><USER7> Microsoft seems to be doing exactly the opposite--they are making their devices _more_ locked down in what appears to be an attempt to emulate Apple.

The restrictions on WinRT make this entirely clear and unequivocal--Microsoft is asserting complete control over the device you purchased. You can't install a different OS and you can't install any software outside of the App Store.

If anything, they're threatening to be even worse than Apple by conflating the somewhat free Windows on x86 with the entirely locked-down Windows on ARM.

<comment><USER8> While I agree this sucks, and I'm personally not interested in Windows devices myself anyways, I'm not sure how you draw the conclusion that this is _worse_ than Apple with iOS... It's exactly the same no?

MS is the old tyrant (continuing it's tyrannical ways). Apple is the new tyrant. If either of them are better than the other, it's pretty much irrelevant since they are both so far beyond what I would describe as acceptable behaviour.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> After reading this, I'm reminded of a famous Ben Franklin quote, ___"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."_ __

DRM and walled gardens are often said to reduce malware and provide safer computing, but at what cost? As technologists, we can change this and have a say. I'm concerned though that it may already be too late.

<comment><USER10> As I understand it, Franklin was talking about policies of appeasement.

He was not, after all, a stone-cold anarchist- yet folks insist on interpreting that quote as if he was.

<comment><USER11> Appeasement is what we'd all be doing if we allow locking down the BIOS. It isn't to solve the malware problem; it isn't to make computing "safe"; its to put OUR computers in the ownership of a few large corporations.

These same corps have long used bureaucracy, paperwork, a maze of rules, large costs to shield their business model from real competition, and that's how they'll do this. Getting the privilege to have access to our own property will be obstructed by all these barriers. Barriers which are minor for a large corp, but insurmountable by private citizens or open-source programmers.

To be suspicious of those who have long shown a disregard for the greater good isn't promoting anarchy; its plain good sense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Rainbows End: "No User-Serviceable Parts Within". Technology is depicted as black boxes all the way down. Cars shut down when driven outside of sanctioned roads. LARP content unavailable unless you have the rights.

Reflections on Trusting Trust: "You can't trust code that you did not totally create yourself." The proposal is that Trusted Computing is supposed to defeat this truism. I have my doubts.

I hope that we will be able to do irreparable damage to Trusted Computing and make it untenable. This large jail will be broken out of like all the others.

We already live in a world where the rich can buy new legs and survive HIV better than the poor. The poor are already shamefully misused by social, legal, and economic systems stacked against them. Adding computers just adds a more explicit level of control.

The solutions to the new problems are the same as the solutions to the old problems: enfranchise the poor, make government responsive to them, give them the tools for mobility and independence. The hackers will continue opening the technological ways. As a kind of Gotterdammerung last resort, the printable gun, the darknet, PGP keys.

And that means that the problems are more scary because of future shock and culture shock than anything else. They're Hollywood nightmares about the future, but the future turns out to be, good and evil, the same old thing.

</comment><comment><USER13> Some day, Owning a computer that cannot be bricked by govt or "Intellectual Property Owners" at their whim will regulated like the brewing of alcohol. You will have to pay through your nose to run even lame apps. Maybe even your government can get a cut so that it can go chasing weapons of mass destruction using the money extorted from the gullible masses.

</comment><comment><USER14> The issue I have with arguments from folks such as Cory is that they presume too much in favour of openness. Many prefer to be regulated rather than have to make decisions on every little detail, that's arguably the whole Apple appeal in a nutshell vs. Linux, and why it's so productive. (Distros like Ubuntu arguably do this too at a much smaller scale.)

Cory is effectively advocating "technology survivalism", where no company will be your trusted for keeping your computers "safe" and "not lying to you". I think it's rather utopian. As far as I can tell, web-of-trust approaches only work in the software world, the hardware manufacturer ultimately has to be trusted to some level, either de facto by consumer belief or de jure by regulation.

Ultimately, his whole premise about "owner freedom" vs "user freedom" may be fatally flawed. It assumes a) Apple wants to control both owners and users to do what they want, and b) owners must be able to control what happens on devices, and this is a necessary precondition to user freedom. I would argue a) Apple just wants to help users with a better experience and b) it's unlikely owners will ever be technically savvy enough to control things, they will always want to delegate things to some degree -- even technical people do this, looking at the number of devs that use Apple laptops.

Cory also oversimplifies the ownership problem. No device owner actually "owns" the software they install, they license it - even with open source. Apple arguably has been the a great force for "user freedom", by constraining what "owners" (i.e. software developers) can and can't do on Apple devices, thus enabling freedoms to the users themselves -- freedom from malware, bad user experiences such as poor battery life, etc. They enable the end user to work around restrictions on content available on the native device by providing a completely open and high quality web browser to get at anything they want in a sandboxed environment. But they also allow the device owner to restrict user actions in the "open web" with (e.g.) parental controls.

Apple's restrictions have little to do with controlling device owners -- they're about improving the user experience.

Clearly the device owners trust Apple today, but Apple could fairly easily move to a TPM-based "certainty" approach where owners get to pick their App Store, if that's what consumers eventually want, and they lose sales over it. But, for now, the market doesn't seem to be arguing in favour of this kind of nuanced approach.

edit: typos

<comment><USER15> > _Apple's restrictions have little to do with controlling device owners_

I would think you were making a joke if not for the earnest tone of your post. But, come on, that is a ridiculous statement to make.

We had free as in freedom, free as in beer, and then Steve Jobs came up with free as in "freedom from porn". You appear to buy into that doublespeak redefinition of freedom without irony.

The Soviet Union made a similar to give people freedom -- from class distinction, religious persecution, etc., and it used the same logic. (And was just as true.)

Apple's restrictions are _all about_ controlling device owners to make Apple more money. (Otherwise they would be "suggestions".)

You may not install apps that don't pay Apple 30% of their revenues. You may not install apps that compete with Apple's favored apps. You may not even keep functionality you've already bought from Apple's store and been using, if Apple realizes after the fact that it conflicts with their lucrative hardware licensing deals (Airfoil Speakers).

I'm not saying there aren't user-experience benefits to be had from a locked- down experience; there are, and Apple obviously knows it.

I'm saying freedom doesn't what you think it means, and I don't think even Frank Luntz could make it mean that.

<comment><USER14> You seem to be under the impression that phones once were free & loose, and then Apple locked them down. Phones never were free - carriers controlled what went on them, and what features were used. Apple opened devices up to a level never before seen - no more carrier crap pre-loaded, and a serious push to improve data pipes and 3G availability throughout North America. Not to mention an app marketplace NOT controlled by the carriers, and an web browsing experience that doesn't require you to be snooped on by WAP gateways.

Do you not still see the (baseless) grief Apple gets from carriers about how their phones are "data hogs"? Or how the media breathlessly claims the retina display is going to clog up all of our bandwidth from higher resolution video and pictures?

Phones were always locked down heavily, Apple blew up that up to a large extent, but not completely, of course, as they are in business.... But today's variety of walled gardens are mostly untouchable by the carriers.

> Apple's restrictions are all about controlling device owners to make Apple > more money. (Otherwise they would be "suggestions".)

No, the restrictions are all about curating an experience. Suggestions require choice. Most people don't want to make choices on how their phones work, they want to be handed experience with most decisions made for them, and for popular variations to be tweakable. "Opinionated software".

> You may not install apps that don't pay Apple 30% of their revenues.

Well, yes, they are capitalists, shame on them.

> You may not install apps that compete with Apple's favored apps.

That sucked, I agree, but that's changing. Chrome is out for iOS. Alternative Email clients are out. Apple generally is known for good customer service according to most customer satisfaction surveys, and presuming these people are semi-rational beings, that usually implies Apple actually listens to them (eventually).

> I'm saying freedom doesn't what you think it means, and I don't think even > Frank Luntz could make it mean that.

You seem to be confusing political freedom with freedom to violate others' property.

Firstly, you do realize that you have political freedom -- people are completely free to jailbreak their phones, no police will come after you. If you violate your carrier's T&Cs they can fire you as a customer, but that's due to years of historically poor regulation of telecom in the USA.

Secondly, none of the software you use, that you haven't written, is owned by you. All owners of that software have a restriction on your behaviour with that software, including free or open source software. You have never been completely free when you use software. Thus, degree of openness is just a feature. Apple is trying to find a balance that people care about. Naturally developers & technical folks don't like losing the freedom to tinker, while most people couldn't care less. Apple needs to maintain a developer community that tinkers, though. So it's a balancing act.

<comment><USER16> > All owners of that software have a restriction on your behaviour with that > software, including free or open source software.

Quoting the GNU GPL (v2, since it's less legalese-esque):

> The act of running the Program is not restricted

<comment><USER14> But the act of copying, distributing, or modifying said software is restricted. Much more so than, say, the Apache license. Those are behaviours too.

The GPL controls you "in your own interests", or to quote them:

> To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to > deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These > restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute > copies of the software, or if you modify it.

The point is that you don't own the software you run, the owner has a claim on your freedom. In GPL's case it's for what they feel is the greater good (more free software, and limited free-loading).

<comment><USER16> Well, so does a law that prevents you from selling your labor as a slave, but I don't think you would see that as bad.

For the fact of 'owning' the software... well, as long as you don't redistribute it, who cares. And if you do restribute it, why should you take away from your users the same freedom that was given to you? (by making your software proprietary or by limiting the use they can make)

<comment><USER14> What does slavery have to do with this? There's ample discussions over the past 10 years over why many people disagree with the approach the GPL takes as being too restrictive and freedom-restricting, and not actually in the spirit of "open". I don't have to even argue that, it's been done before ad nauseum. Of course many support the GPL and it's approach. The point on GPL is that "freedom is a feature", it's all in the eye of the beholder of what's more important - free to use & redistribute, or free to use but only redistribute under certain circumstances. The choice has massive implications for people using that software - I've seen many a review of weeding all GPLv3 or AGPL dependencies out of a product for this very reason.

The original point is that Cory seems to think that protecting user's freedoms first requires securing device owner's freedoms, though the two come into conflict regularly, and he doesn't have clear answers of how to resolve that. I'm suggesting that he's not looking at ownership broadly enough.

<comment><USER16> Fair enough, as you say it's in the eye of the beholder.

What I'd like is a precise use of terms. Saying (as most do) that GPL is restrictive is imprecise. As you better put it, GPL is restrictive on redistribution.

As for ownership, I'd like you to expand on what you think about it. As you say Cory didn't look broadly enough, so I'd like to read further opinions about it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This misses the mark, as I've said before. Privacy is the #1 problem; just as computers and the internet make it trivially easy to copy other people's IP (agree with the existence of IP or not, it's a fact of the modern marketplace), it also makes it easy for other people to monitor you, whether those others are governments, corporate proxies for governments, corporate proxies for private interests, or private actors. Hyperbolic anxiety attacks over lockdown? GMAFB - the modern world is a hacker's nirvana compared to the functional rigidity that was the norm during the home computer revolution of the 1980s. Back then, electronic devices were much more expensive than today, so that while non-digital things like VCRs were far easier to explore with a soldering iron, they were also engineered to within an inch of their lives and were not easy to repurpose to other tasks.

The whole kerfuffle about 'general-purpose computing' is a foolish distraction. It's like citing the existence of ready-made wood furniture as evidence of a war on general-purpose carpentry. General-purpose computing is easier than ever because it's accessible at a wider range of scales than ever before, from geek-friendly microcontroller kits to distributed clustering architectures. The issue is privacy, and the fact is that the US doesn't have a well-defined legal standard for it, nor any authority dedicated to its preservation.

On the up side, while this is going to lead to a good deal of conflict I have hope that most of that is going to take place within markets and via legislatures.

<comment><USER5> I've always viewed privacy and user freedom as 2 sides of the same coin. The lack of privacy on the internet is not because of the nature of the internet, it is because when you go to a website, you send unnesasary information that you are not aware of, and the current model is that the website owns your data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> tl;dr

Once Apple loses and Android (or "open platforms", whatever that means) win the general purpose computing war, and every technology illiterate device owner is telling their phone, computer, tablet boot loaders what software sources they trust (Ubuntu, ACLU, EFF, and Wikileaks, natch), we still have a problem.

Computers are everywhere, from vending machines to subway turnstiles, to pacemakers, and that users are going to be easily oppressed by owners' restrictions. Thus we need user-overrides to be able to overcome this oppression. This is all about the effectiveness of decentralized decision making and thus was supported by both Hayek and Marx for opposite reasons. Thus libertarians shouldn't whine about property rights violations. In fact they should support it, because it's just a natural extension of why the "general purpose computing war" was won in favour of openness, it was all about regulation (by Apple, or the Government) vs. owner's property rights to run what they want on their computers. And property rights will win (we presume).

(Insert lots of debatable philosophical asides, historical allegories, and modern anecdotes to justify this thesis.)

In summary, defeating the forces of regulation (:hint: Apple :hint:) is what I call the "war" on general purpose computers, and this war is all about defending owner's rights to run what they want on their computers. And though I don't explicitly say it will be won by the forces of openness, it's completely obvious that the world will determine that regulating computers is the wrong way to solve problems and we'll all be happily using trusted bootloaders that only run owners' approved code (not what Apple, or the government, wants us to run).

The following war after THAT one is won, will be a "civil war" for users rights... and that I can't solve. "Agreeing to disagree on this one isn't good enough. We need to start thinking now about the principles we'll apply when the day comes. If we don't start now, it'll be too late."

[end synopsis]

I can't quite respond to this yet... words fail me.

edit: Rewording on tl;dr

</comment><comment><USER18> I read it this morning and have had a thought:

He talks about determining the

sole

user of a computer.

He also says that a Boeing 747 and a Car are both examples of computers.

So, the thought I had was, when you have 1000 passengers in a automated train, it would be impossible to determine the

sole

user of the train.

It may also not be wise to allow

any

user of the train to control the software.

?

Therefore, there will be no civil war and users will be doomed to not have control over devices they are using.

The "debate" is akin to asking "What happens when slave owners finally wrest control of their slaves from the government? When someone is being served by a slave, that slave, is really, acting for their owner's interest. The slave could be eavesdropping on conversations, poisoning food on behalf of the owner, not acting to the user's interests to the exclusion of everyone else's."

What about computers that are not controlled by any entity, period. ?

I'm not saying that computers _ARE_ slaves, just that the current debate resembles one _ABOUT_ slaves. I'm not talking about "Strong A.I." either, just software that can provide a service and earn enough money to pay for the CPU time they use.[1]

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_agent>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_agent>

[1] This is probably the wrong answer, but just a thought.

<comment><USER19> Problem is not depriving users of control, problem is transfer owner's control to third party.

So (in your example) it's not about giving train control to passengers, it's about train being controlled by transport company who bought it, not by manufacturer or some other third party.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> At around 51:30, there is an off-topic question from the audience, which leads to an great answer:

Q: What can you say about making a living writing things. Will you advise it?

A: If you want to make a living writing things I would advise you to stop trying, because that is a bit like saying "I want to make a living buying lottery tickets". Sounds like a If you don't have a plan B for earning a living, you have the wrong career. Writing is a very very high-risk entrepreneurial venture that almost everyone who tries it fails at. Some people have succeeded using CC and some fraction without using CC, but they are rounding errors against all the people who try to earn a living with writing.

Ouch! As a founder of a textbook startup it makes me wonder on this Monday morning. I guess he is talking specifically about writing fiction. Textbooks must be OK, Right?

</comment><comment><USER21> Likely an important talk, however I think it is googled-down too much compared to the original talk at the 28C3 [1]. ( Android as model of a free OS is just a tribute to the organizers methinks.) In the 28C3 talk Cory developed the argument against DRM ( and locked down computers) more carefully.

[1] <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg>

<comment><USER22> "Android as model of a free OS is just a tribute to the organizers methinks."

Yeah, I'm sure the fact that you can download the source code to it, make any changes you want, and redistribute that source code or that you can install any app you want on an Android handset whether it's in the blessed market or not has nothing to do with it being open. Nothing at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> He lost my interest halfway through when talking about TPM and failing to examine Remote Attestation. Yes, owners having control of the platform verification keys is quite important. But even in that world, if the TPM has a user-inaccessible _signing_ key, the battle is set to be lost. If the sheer majority of the consumer market trusts a handful of OSs, banks et al will start _requiring_ use of those "trusted" OSs to access online services. We're then right back in the same situation with no control over the computer in front of you.

I think in the sheer majority of situations (excepting eg ATMs), fail-dead tamper resistance is a terrible goal. Ultimately, you either have to trust the physical security of the hardware in front of you _or_ a third party service - there is no middle ground. Evil maid attacks are local, targeted, and user- mitigable through physical security and tamper-evidence. The requirements of trusted third parties are centrally developed, systematic, and mandatory.

</comment><comment><USER24> Sadly, I believe a lock down of computers is inevitable. Look at what happens when there is a security incident or some perceived violation of privacy. Lots of press and a visit by your company's C-level executives to Capital Hill so lawmakers can put on a circus. If you believe Android will continue to be more open than iOS, then I would just say a couple of more visits to DC will cure that.

I wonder how many fortune 500 address books kept in Outlook of their salespeople were uploaded by an Windows app? Put the machine in your pocket and the cries for safety and privacy win. These Post-PC devices are amazing tools except for the people who make them sing and dance.

I really would love a open hardware platform just for programmers.

</comment><comment><USER25> Have you ever thought about having to fight for your rights to install Linux? Not 'call your congressman' fight, but actual take to the streets, civil war, fight, for that right?

</comment><comment><USER26> In the future, if a developer wants to write and distribute software without having to ask permission from 10 different platform manufacturers, he will have to stick with web apps.

</comment><comment><USER27> TLDR please?

</comment><comment><USER28> That site design gave me an aneurysm.

<comment><USER29> I was put off at first but discovered that by using Page Down it was more slide show-ish (and I'll admit kind of cool) and less headache inducing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> tl;dr:

DRM doesn't work and is bad

regulation doesn't work and is bad

the gubmint's jackbooted thugs will force cochlear implants on you to make you patriotic

because the market won't demand free as in stallman computing I've decided to frame it as a human rights issue</comment>


George Lucas reveals his plan for Star Wars 7 through 9–and it was awful - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/06/george-lucas-reveals-his-plan-for-star-wars-7-through-9-and-it-was-awful/ <comment><USER2> I don't believe it for a second. George Lucas is just a grumpy old person with a grudge against the Star Wars fanbase since they didn't like his fiddling with the originals and his prequels. This is just telling to enrage a few more fans.

<comment><USER3> > Search your feelings: You know it's true, because of how stupid it is

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'd love to see it.

</comment><comment><USER5> Absolute power ... ?</comment>


Ask HN: Have you ever built something no one wanted? - <AUTHOR> I woke up this morning with this awful feeling, "I think I just spent the past 3 months building something no one wants." Has anybody else ever experienced this? I don't want to give up too early, but I also don't want to waste my time working on something no one wants. <comment><USER2> definitely - i built a online photo album web-app, thought it was pretty cool - you could upload photos, add captions, and then narrate a story to accompany it - much easier than typing of course - and well, if it was worth taking and posting - why not tell why it was so impactful - anyway - people were inherently too lazy - in this social media age people just barf a bunch of crap onto the internet and expect people to lavish over it...

</comment><comment><USER3> Yes.

We could help you if you told us more about your case.</comment>


Investigation: A Shockingly Large Amount of Amazon Reviews Are Scams - <AUTHOR> http://thehustle.co/a-surprisingly-large-number-of-amazon-reviews-are-scams-the-hustle-investigates <comment><USER2> Why is this shocking? This is more effective than advertising and costs less to the manufacturer.</comment>


Turn a snorkeling mask into a respiratory mask for assisted ventilation [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4Csqdxkrfw <comment><USER2> Can a snorkeling mask also be used as a PAPR?

Here's a DIY project by Shen Ye:

[https://twitter.com/shen/status/1240478370619629568](https://twitter.com/shen/status/1240478370619629568)

<comment><USER3> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmNIEDDCqSk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmNIEDDCqSk)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Are people really assuming that professional, medical ventilator equipment does nothing more than uncontrollably push air into your lungs? Spreading potentially dangerous medical "hacks" should be illegal, "well-meaning" hackers may cause people to harm or even kill themselves by accident. Please let these strategies take the proper route via medical professionals.

<comment><USER5> According to the story the designs & 3D printing guys were contacted by a doctor with the idea about how to re-purpose the mask

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Full article in English with the video embedded and where they say they have supposedly patented it even though it's a branded snorkeling mask from Decathlon: [https://www.isinnova.it/easy- covid19-eng/](https://www.isinnova.it/easy-covid19-eng/)

<comment><USER7> True but the patent is in good faith:

> We clarify that the patent will remain free to use, because it is in our > intention that all hospitals in need could use it if necessary.

> We clarify that our initiative is totally non-profit, we will not obtain any > royalties on the idea of the link, nor on the sales of Decathlon masks.

<comment><USER8> They can't just say "hey, we're publishing this, and this is now prior art" so no one can patent it in the future?

(Is this a difference between the US and EU patent systems?)

<comment><USER9> Not anymore. US used to be first to invent but switched to first to file a some years ago.

<comment><USER10> That doesn't make a difference in this case. It just affects which filer gets priority if more than one party files claiming the same invention.

The winning filer's claim still has to meet the other requirements for a patent, including novelty and non-obviuousness.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Has anyone looked into using CPAP machines for ventilation for covid-19 cases? They are lower pressure and only one pressure, but seems like would still be quite useful if one didn't have a full ventilator?

I don't know how many CPAP machines there are in the US but I know three people who each have one.

<comment><USER12> The trouble as I understand is that CPAP aerosolizes the virus and spreads it everywhere.

<comment><USER13> Still useful if you can put people in a balcony for instance, old school sanatorium style. And what is usually called "CPAP" is actually not constant airpressure anymore but adapts continuously with software.

<comment><USER14> That would technically be an "Auto-PAP". I have a CPAP and my doctor has specifically said that I should stick with this technology for as long as I can, because it will be better and more effective for me in the long run. He said that an Auto-PAP or a Bi-PAP would be the next step, if we get to needing pressure levels that a CPAP can't deliver.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> What's interesting about the 'mask' concept is that it changes the nature of intubation and invasive tubes.

Can a medical practitioner comment on the nature of the opportunity here?

Would a 'mask' be more practical for unconscious patients?

<comment><USER16> This essentially provides CPAP therapy. CPAP can be helpful but it is not a direct replacement for ventilation/intubation.

Initial info from the intensivists (ICU docs) from Kirkland Washington suggest that time should not be wasted with CPAP or BiPAP. These measures only postpone the inevitable in patients with COVID-19.

Also a good percent of medical personnel were becoming infected from the Italian data with SARS-CoV2 (10-15%). Measures like BiPAP or CPAP do can exposure others in the room, especially with the rapid progression of this disease and the likely need to intubate the patients and ventilate them.

That being said this is a great accomplishment and the variety of sizes these masks come in would be helpful especially in the pediatric population. I now have to fire up my 3D printer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> What filter would be needed to make this into an N95 replacement instead? Seems like the full face mask would make this even more effective as it also protects the eyes.

</comment><comment><USER18> ..now we just need sodastream refills with o2 and adapter?</comment>


"Web 2.0"-style cloud computing just a passing vapor - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080503-intel-web-2-0-style-cloud-computing-just-a-passing-vapor.html <comment><USER2> Laziest straw-man argument I've read in a long time. Web 2.0 and/or cloud computing is not about the old "thin client" idea, in fact, it's more like the opposite (with "fat" clients being part of the cloud).

The writer is just trying to re-hash a very old debate nobody is having anymore. Ars Technica's standards seem to be dropping rapidly these days.

<comment><USER3> The power density arguments are valid. I work in a large data center and the statements about empty floor space because of power limitations is accurate. The data center was designed in the late 90's, since then power density has increased to the point that we cannot fill it with equipment.

Also, the decentralized distribution of hardware described in the article reminded of a MMORPG described in the Charles Stross novel Halting State. There the MMORPG was distributed over the players hardware so that very little centralized hardware was required.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Removing the "Intel" from the title is the only thing that made this title interesting to click on -- maybe someone has an interesting argument? But no, the entire article is Intel preferring more people buy bigger processors in greater numbers. This is not news.</comment>


Introducing Appcelerator Arrow–and a New Day for the Appcelerator Platform - <AUTHOR> http://www.appcelerator.com/blog/2015/04/introducing-appcelerator-arrow/

<comment><USER2> Waiting to get my hands on this. Has anyone received access yet?</comment>


Arpanet, Part 2: The Packet - <AUTHOR> https://technicshistory.wordpress.com/2019/06/02/arpanet-part-2-the-packet/ <comment><USER2> Great content on this blog, I've read many of his articles and I believe we've corresponded via email. However, I got tired of the ads (gut doctors beg you to blah blah blah) that have made it through firefox focus on my phone so I stopped reading. I am happy to support content but ads like that are why ad blockers exist.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fair complaint. I've been too cheap to upgrade to the paid plan that lets me get rid of the ads.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> NPL deserves a write up all of its own. Amazing people.

Doesn't Louis Pouzin deserve some words?</comment>


How Google banned a 19 year old and took his $46,000 - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.in/This-19-Year-Old-Lost-46000-Because-Google-Says-He-Didnt-Follow-Their-Rules/articleshow/40397472.cms

<comment><USER2> With a nearly 11% CTR he was almost certainly enticing people to click on ads, explicitly or through trickery.</comment>


New Lithium Battery Design Eliminates Costly Cobalt and Nickel - <AUTHOR> https://www.machinedesign.com/materials/new-lithium-battery-design-eliminates-costly-cobalt-and-nickel <comment><USER2> > Iron fluorides have more than double lithium's capacity of traditional > cobalt- or nickel-based cathodes. In addition, iron is 1/300th the cost of > cobalt and 1/150th the cost of nickel.

I'm curious how much the cost of cobalt/nickel is relative to the whole battery's cost.

The lowered geopolitical risks and general availability could be significant regardless.

<comment><USER3> Lithium itself is ~79%, Both Nickel and Cobalt are less than 4/5% each.

<comment><USER4> What do you mean here? Lithium is a tiny portion of a li-ion cell, about 1g in an 3600mAh 18650 cell. There is significantly more of Nickel, Manganese, and Cobalt in an NMC cell for example.

<comment><USER5> Perhaps he means 79% of the cost, rather than 79% by mass or volume.

<comment> Tuna-Fish He'd still be very wrong. Cathode materials are less than 25% of the typical cell price.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There is an already cobalt free lithium battery chemistry there LiFePO4 — been in use for more than a decade, and is a preferred one by commercial and heavy duty EVs because of superior battery life at the cost of capacity.

The new chemistry mentioned has no commercial use cases unless it beats LiFePO4 in its niche or surpasses mainstream chemistries, which is a big stretch.

BYD intentionally went full in onto LiFePO4 because they very well foreseen cobalt shortages.

<comment><USER7> LiFePO₄ is also useful for replacing alkaline batteries in small devices, because the cell voltage (3.2V) is approximately 1.5V x 2.

<comment><USER6> Add to that, in real world conditions very few battery packs can reach 160-170Wh/kg (and hold it after years of use,) while 140Wh/kg LFP been a reality for the last 5 years.

They can be more fully charged and discharged, while other lithium cells have to overprovision massively to extend the battery life. This alone makes it so that energy density advantage of NCA cells is thrown out of the window if you count the _effective_ battery pack capacity with BMS sparing cell life.

And in comparison to NCA cells, LFPs are much, much cheaper, exactly because of the aforementioned cobalt and nickel use. Phosphates are, after all, spent by tonnes as a fertiliser.

Add to that that have a very, very rare trait among chemical batteries — they are stable at high temperatures.

This allows for making them work in very hot climates _without_ liquid cooling which would've added a lot to cost and weight.

It also allows them to take more regen current, and therefore they don't suffer from as big range reduction from "regen choke" in hot climates. From the above, we also get their higher charge current tolerance, meaning that they can be charged faster.

Another very useful trait is their resistance to swell, offgassing and high dimensional stability. This allows for bigger, higher volume fill ratio cells, reducing the battery pack size, and thus its housing mass. Near all "brick" cells are LFP for this exact reason.

They age more evenly, unlike other chemistries, and that too contributes to ease of making bigger cells, and lessen the need for battery balancing, reducing charging times.

EV makers are stuck with small 18650s because it is very hard to increase cell sizes without not worrying about swelling. And the lower volume to area ratio of 18650s also lead to noticeable mass disadvantage.

<comment><USER8> > Add to that, in real world conditions very few battery packs can reach > 160-170Wh/kg (and hold it after years of use,)

Here's a tesla battery pack that comes in at 212 Wh/kg if the specifications are accurate: [https://www.evwest.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=4&prod...](https://www.evwest.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=4&products_id=463)

> And in comparison to NCA cells, LFPs are much, much cheaper, exactly because > of the aforementioned cobalt and nickel use. Phosphates are, after all, > spent by tonnes as a fertiliser.

Is there a good source for LFP that actually is cheaper than plain lithium ion? I've been looking at doing an electric conversion, and it seems like they tend to run about $400-500 per kwh, whereas lithium ion tends to be more like $300-400. I can believe that LFP is cheaper to make, but if that were so, it seems like it ought to be reflected in retail prices unless vendors are selling them at a huge markup. (I've only looked into this recently, so I don't know if battery prices have spiked because of tariffs on China or something like that or this is just the normal retail price.)

<comment><USER6> > Here's a tesla battery pack that comes in at 212 Wh/kg if the specifications > are accurate:

The question is how much of that is overprovisioned for extra battery life

LFP cost more retail, mostly thanks to fewer makers selling on open market, but lower wholesale price on LFP is something quite certain.

<comment><USER8> I expect that's probably the true capacity; i.e. you wouldn't want to use more than 80% of that or so if you want the battery to last a long time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It is impressive that the article actually addressed the issue of the cathode expansion, as that was my first worry about using iron, but not one that most people would be aware of. I'd be interested to hear about the cycle life of these, the 300 cycles mentioned in the article doesn't exactly inspire confidence when something like NMC will reach 1000 cycles.

</comment><comment><USER9> I wonder how these breakthroughs (if they eventually turn out successful and make the previous process uneconomical) affect the "gigafactories" under construction worldwide? Is a change like this going to render a factory useless if it was built for the "previous" process? Or is this something that can be retrofitted quite easily into an existing manufacturing process such as in the Tesla/Panasonic Gigafactory?

<comment><USER10> See the second to last paragraph of the article.

Dr. Goodenough's glass based battery is incompatible with the gigafactory, however this would be compatible-ish with existing manufacturing techniques

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> dang, please change the link to this: [https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/09/201090911-gatech.ht...](https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/09/201090911-gatech.html)

Much more information and a link to the actual paper: [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41563-019-0472-7](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41563-019-0472-7)

</comment><comment><USER12> Is it possible to recycle Lithium batteries to recover the metals in them? That should be better for the environment and the metal source does not diminish.

<comment><USER13> Yes. This is done routinely for laptop and phone batteries.

I googled some numbers for you: [https://recyclinginternational.com/batteries/the-unknown- suc...](https://recyclinginternational.com/batteries/the-unknown-success-of- lithium-ion-battery-recycling/26899/)

Apparently close to 100K tonne of lithium batteries were recycled last year which amounts to about half of the volume of batteries that should have reached their end of life around that time.

Not very surprising as the metal is valuable and the recycling process is fairly straightforward. Apparently, recycled lithium has some nice properties that results in slightly better batteries even.

I'd expect that with car batteries, recycling will be very big business. Dumping hundreds of kilos of valuable materials in a land fill is not going to be a thing. They recycle pretty much all of the steel in cars as well.

<comment><USER14> > Apparently, recycled lithium has some nice properties that results in > slightly better batteries even.

What are those?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Without JS, this page is blank. With JS, it is a clusterfuck. Text is below.

New Lithium Battery Design Eliminates Costly Cobalt and Nickel

A new cathode and electrolyte are the key to doing away with these increasingly scarce metals in lithium batteries.

Stephen Mraz 1 | Sep 12, 2019

Lithium-ion batteries have gained in popularity over the last decade based on their higher power and small size. But their popularity is straining the world's supply of cobalt and nickel, two metals used in lithium batteries. As a result, prices for those metals have skyrocketed.

To develop alternative designs for lithium-based batteries with less reliance on those scarce metals, researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology have been looking into new cathode and electrolytes to replace the expensive metals and traditional liquid electrolyte with lower cost transition metal fluorides and a solid polymer electrolyte.

"Electrodes made from transition metal fluorides have long shown stability problems and rapid failure, leading to significant skepticism about their ability to be used in next generation batteries," says Gleb Yushin, a professor in Georgia Tech's School of Materials Science and Engineering. "But we've shown that when used with a solid polymer electrolyte, metal fluorides show remarkable stability, even at higher temperatures, which could lead to safer, lighter, and less-expensive lithium-ion batteries."

In typical lithium-ion batteries, energy is released during the transfer of lithium ions between an anode and a cathode, with the cathode typically made of lithium and transition metals such as cobalt, nickel, and manganese. Ions flow between the electrodes through a liquid electrolyte.

The Georgia Tech researchers fabricated a new type of cathode from iron fluoride and a solid polymer electrolyte nanocomposite. Iron fluorides have more than double lithium's capacity of traditional cobalt- or nickel-based cathodes. In addition, iron is 1/300th the cost of cobalt and 1/150th the cost of nickel.

To produce such a cathode, the researchers inserted a solid polymer electrolyte into a prefabricated iron fluoride electrode. They then hot pressed the entire structure to increase density and eliminate voids.

The polymer-based electrolyte is flexible so it can accommodate the swelling of the iron fluoride while cycling and forms a stable and flexible interphase with iron fluoride. Traditionally, the swelling and side reactions have been key problems when using iron fluoride in batteries.

"Cathodes made from iron fluoride have enormous potential because of their high capacity, low material costs, and the broad availability of iron," Yushin says. "But changes in volume during cycling, as well as parasitic side reactions with liquid electrolytes and other degradation issues, have limited their use previously. Using a solid electrolyte with elastic properties solves many of these problems."

The researchers then tested several variations of the new solid-state batteries to analyze their performance over more than 300 charging and discharging cycles at a temperature of 122⁰F. They found that the new batteries outperformed previous designs using metal fluoride even when these were kept cool at room temperatures.

The researchers determined that the key to the better battery performance was the solid polymer electrolyte. In previous attempts using metal fluorides, it was believed metallic ions moved to the cathode's surface to eventually dissolve into the liquid electrolyte, causing a capacity loss, particularly at elevated temperatures. In addition, metal fluorides catalyzed the rapid decomposition of liquid electrolytes when cells operated above 100⁰F. However, at the connection between the solid electrolyte and the cathode, the solid electrolyte remains stable, preventing the electrolyte from dissolving.

"The polymer electrolyte we used was common, but many other solid electrolytes and other battery or electrode architectures, such as core-shell particle morphologies, should be able to dramatically mitigate or even fully prevent parasitic side reactions and attain stable performance characteristics," says Kostiantyn Turcheniuk, a research scientist in Yushin's lab.

In the future, the researchers aim to develop new and improved solid electrolytes to enable fast charging and to combine solid and liquid electrolytes in new designs fully compatible with conventional cell manufacturing used in large battery factories.

<comment><USER16> Firefox' reader mode deals well with the page by the way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> So this is pretty cool, as a GT alum. Caveats are:

\- The article contrasts the price of iron and cobalt. It's true, but fluoride is more expensive than iron. Still cheaper than cobalt, though!

\- This is a very new chemistry, which means a lot of scale-up work will have to be done before it becomes commercial. Other technologies have stalled at this phase, like nanostructured Si anodes and S cathodes. In particular, polymer electrolytes can be easy to manufacture or not.

\- Li-ion batteries typically perform better at higher temperatures. The tests in this article were performed at 50 C, which may not translate to practical performance in an environment which is often below 0 C. Also, 300 isn't really that many cycles.

</comment><comment><USER18> When are we getting lithium graphite batteries which are supposed to be not dense and a lot safer than LiPo? I mean, to the point you can buy one for toys, drones, cell, etc

</comment><comment><USER19> Maybe one day they will eliminate the lithium needed as well

</comment><comment><USER20> Should I sell my Cobalt futures then? Or is it one of those "battery- breakthroughs" that we are not going to hear again ever?

</comment><comment><USER21> I'll believe it when it ships in my phone.

Otherwise the usual response to battery tech news applies: k keep me posted.

<comment><USER22> So you don't want to know about _anything_ until it's available inside phones that you can buy today? I personally like to know what may be on the horizon. It's interesting to read about it, and remember it one the day it arrives (or something else does)!

<comment><USER23> Not the OP, but... Strictly in phones I can buy today? Not really. Plausibly in phones (or something in a normal household) in the next 3-6 months, sure.

I'm just tired of hearing about battery advances in labs that never make it out to me. Just let me know when I should be prepared to change my purchasing decisions.

<comment><USER24> > Plausibly in phones (or something in a normal household) in the next 3-6 > months, sure.

I don't know, I remember reading 25 years ago about this awesome technology called OLED that instead of blocking light it actually lights up and you can even bend the display!</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Iran inches closer to unveiling state-backed cryptocurrency – News – Al Jazeera - <AUTHOR> https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/01/iran-inches-closer-unveiling-state-backed-cryptocurrency-190127060320571.html <comment><USER2> If they trade oil in that currency, count on action similar to what Venezuela is seeing right now.

Threats to the petrodollar...

<comment><USER3> The crisis is unrelated to the petro. Nobody in the word cares about the petro.

Their main export product was oil and they nationalized PDVSA in 2007 and since then the production drop to a third of the original production, and the price of oil also drop a lot.

And the other branch of the economy also had problems.

The petro was a last ditch effort to do something when the economy was already collapsing, the prize of the dollar in the black market was much higher than the official prize of the dollar, and the inflation was high and uncontrollable.

To understand the petro, you must ask the same question that is relevant in most of the ICOs: If they want to use a cryptocurrency, why they don't use BTC or ETH instead of creating a new one?</comment></comment>


Root access to MySQL.com sold for $3k - now serving malware - <AUTHOR> http://krebsonsecurity.com/2011/09/mysql-com-sold-for-3k-serves-malware/ <comment><USER2> From the article: "The ultimate irony of this attack is that the owner of mysql.com is Oracle Corp., which also owns Java, a software suite that I have often advised readers to avoid due to its numerous security and update problems."

Seriously, I'm not a fan of Java, but still, a software suite?

Anyway, it's quite hard taking that article seriously after that.

<comment><USER3> Java has security problems? That is surprising to me.

I have always considered it a relatively secure platform... am I so wrong?

<comment><USER4> Did you update all your Java installations – client and server – to at least Java 6 update 26 in June 2011?

There were a dozen "unauthorized Operating System takeover including arbitrary code execution" bugs fixed at that time, some exploitable via untrusted applets, others via tricking server installs to submit certain data to standard APIs:

[http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/javacpujun...](http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/javacpujune2011verbose-313350.html)

<comment><USER5> I've had the Java plugin disabled in firefox for a long time now. On the very rare occasions I need it, you can re-enable it without restarting the browser (unlike extensions.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It seems like they could have done a lot more damage than just serving browser malware. How many mysql installs could they have rooted?

<comment><USER7> I think the point was that most of the visitors to mysql.com are developers and system administrators, and compromises to their machines can probably be leveraged into compromises of other sites. I doubt we've heard the last of this.

<comment><USER8> The problem is, how do you both

(1) Avoid obvious detection in the compromised software?

(2) Put in something that you can actually use for exploits? You have access to many hosts, but how many different configurations are there?

The only thing I can think of is have profiles for several popular packages (e.g. wordpress), and package-specific behavior for them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The Armorize screencast embedded in the article is really wonderful. It's concise, full of information, and clear enough to duplicate the steps on your own. A nice 5-minute detective story.

</comment><comment><USER10> This whole mysql saga was an excellent reminder to turn Java off again. I'd enabled it a few weeks ago for a site that I simply had to use and then promptly forgot to disable it afterwards.

<comment><USER11> If you use Firefox, the NoScript add-on has the option to block Java applets from any sites that you haven't specifically marked as being trusted. It can also block unwanted JavaScript, Flash, Silverlight and other plugins. (<http://noscript.net>)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Without actually registering on the site to verify, it looks like that's the Exploit.IN forum.

</comment><comment><USER13> I've never seen a $$ number associated with these things, but really? Only $3K?

Apparently, I would have overbid if I were in the market for such things.

<comment><USER14> Well, it may be that the frightening reality is such that supply is so abundant that a single site with 12m dailies doesn't demand the prices one might expect.

edit: 12m monthlies, sorry.

<comment><USER10> Mysql.com has nowhere near 12m daily uniques.

<comment><USER14> Right you are, thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Why is it that Flash is so exploitable? The web is rampant with Flash exploits and Adobe seems to do nothing about it.

<comment><USER16> Because plugins run under their own process. Not subject to the sandboxing you'd find in Chrome/Safari for instance. Plugins are given pretty high trust.

<comment><USER17> I always browse with all plugins and java disabled. If a site uses Flash, I typically will just move on unless it's something absolutely essential to what I'm doing. Surprising how many sites that use Flash don't have any usable fallback for clients that don't support it or have it disabled.

I don't think I've come across a Java applet in the last 5 years. I see NO need to allow Java in the browser unless it's for a trusted, internal-use application.

<comment><USER16> Good move. I suppose the most vulnerable are those driving desks being forced to use IE7, Standard Operating Environment that runs these plugins or some internal business application requires them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I went to mysql.com this morning and Symantec popped up with a "malware detected" message. Do we know which browsers are vulnerable, and how to tell whether I'm infected?

<comment><USER19> This link lists the AV packages that can currently detect the installed malware:

[https://www.virustotal.com/file- scan/report.html?id=d761babc...](https://www.virustotal.com/file- scan/report.html?id=d761babcb55d21b467dd698169c921995bf58eac5e9912596693fee52c8690a1-1317072568)

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, currently the malware itself is not detected. OK, some anti-virus solutions detect the piece of malware as suspicious or as a packed executable (which is suspicious of course). But those detections are just based on the inner working of the executable or how it behaves. It's not being detected by anti-virus definitions, that will be a matter of time before anti-virus providers will add definitions for this piece of malware.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> <http://exploit.in/forum/>

</comment><comment><USER21> Great..! Now nobody will visit MySQL page and the downloads number will do down significantly. Yet another way to kill a community product!!

<comment><USER22> In reality - how many people actually downloaded it from the website, rather than running "{yum/apt-get} install mysql-server"? The documentation is a different issue - probably much more popular than downloads themselves.</comment></comment>


How can an ordinary person invest in startups? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> This question comes up a lot and frankly I think it's a _really_ bad idea.

I'm a big proponent of the JOBs act but for different reasons.

Let's assume you have 10-15k that you want to throw at a startup. Let's also assume that being an 'investor' you have maxed out your tax accounts (IRAs, HSAs, etc.) and you have a year's supply of rent/mortgage, food, electricity, etc.

So you have 10-15k that you can just blow immediately and not worry about ever seeing it again. What do you do? Buy 5% of a startup?

Unless you are actively involved with the startup your chances of ever seeing that cash again are practically none.

Also, through the sheer fact that a startup allowed you to invest in them being that you have nothing else to give them but money (I'm guessing here) shows you that they are not being serious about it and that money is going to go up in flames.

You'd be better off going anywhere but places like California and buying a house with 20% down.

Why? You get immediate returns by placing it under property management.

If not property buy shipping containers. If not those, go buy oil royalties from producing wells. If not those, throw it into something like betterment.com or lendingclub.com.

All of these investments will give you a yield that, while not guaranteed, is better than the craps roll you are placing into a 'startup'.

Now, I know you didn't want to read that so I'll give you the answer you are looking for.

Even without the JOBs act not being in place, you as an un-accredited investor (which I assume you are being 'ordinary') can invest in a startup as long as they are raising no more than 1M for the first year and you aren't going to be un-lucky #36 of the guys that bought shares with them.

If you really know these guys (and you should if you are wanting to throw your money in the paper shredder) they could organize a SCOR offering as well.

</comment><comment><USER3> Start one. Ordinary people do it all the time.

</comment><comment><USER4> People of ordinary means should not invest in startups because it is financially insane to do so without some sort of diversification. If you can afford to diversify, you are not "ordinary", economically speaking.

</comment><comment><USER5> you can when the jobs act passes, i saw there was a startup like kickstarter that will open soon starting with 3 companies to enable anyone to buy shares in to them but i dont remember the name. If you find it please reply.</comment>