California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/07/kill-switch-bill/?hpw&rref=technology <comment><USER2> Imagine a pawn shop that loans money on cell phones. Now imagine someone comes in and pawns their phone. It still has service and all, but he thinks he will come back next week and redeem it. A few months pass and he never comes back. Now the phone is legally (the pawn contract says one must completely own the collateral, so carrier subsidies etc. shouldn't be a problem) the pawn shop's property. Mr. Defaulter calls the phone company and has the IMEI blocked. Now the pawn shop is out the money and owns a useless piece of metal and plastic.

I've seen this problem with phones, tablets, and even tasers. The company will not activate them if they've been reported lost or stolen. But "finders- keepers" is legal and people can lie about theft. Of course the company also has a second interest not to help create a used market. Just like encrypted firmware schemes, this erodes personal control over our property. The legal owner with physical control should be able to use the device. Period.

There are also concerns over government or corporate disablement. Aside from obvious government malice during e.g. protests, does anyone really think either the government or the phone company can run a blacklist without false positives? Obviously not. Nobody can when your population size is >300 million. And the customer service grunt is just following the rules when your device is disabled and he cannot re-enable it.

The argument for this law is that it will reduce thefts by making the phones worthless. I understand this. I just don't think that is worth losing control over our property and devices.

<comment><USER3> That will sort it out in short order, and phones will no longer be accepted by pawn shops.

The interesting side effect will be that people will won't consider stealing a phone and pawning it as a viable way of getting some quick cash.

<comment><USER4> that and those who try this stunt will find themselves behind bars in short order, most likely for theft.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Sounds like always-on DRM. The rich and the technologically adept will be unaffected, but another hammer will be available for our ambivalent rulers to manipulate normal people.

This shitty DRM better be opt-in.

Fined $2,500 for every device sold lacking this DRM? Only if there is a $2,500 refund for every device _accidentally_ bricked.

I can see media companies loving this. Watching an unlicensed movie? Your phone is now bricked. Mission creep will be inevitable.

<comment><USER6> Hmm. What happens to this with jailbroken phones? I can see it going two ways:

\- killswitch is in the OS, and can be removed by jailbreak. Good for user, but means you just have to jailbreak a stolen phone to recover it / prevent it being killed.

\- killswitch is in the baseband, and cannot be removed. Uhoh.

<comment><USER7> 3rd way: Kill-switch is OS-based. e.g. you tell Apple that your iPhone has been stolen. You give them the serial/IMEI, (or they can match up the device based upon your itunes account). If someone wipes the phone through an exploit or jailbreak, the device is still practically useless as whenever it needs to communicate with an apple service, apple sends back a 'you are stolen' message and the phone locks up again.

End result: either the phone stays blocked or you end up with a crippled, limited-usage device that can't use many of the services that you'd expect it to (app store, etc). Re-sale value would plummet.

It would work with Android too. Stolen phones (that are reported to Google) could refuse to use the play store or accept a gmail account.

<comment><USER8> You can load your own OS on Android, so this would be pretty easy to bypass. The baseband firmware isn't immutable either, just harder to modify.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There's already an easy way to do this (that I remember reading somewhere is already being done in Australia).

When a phone is reported stolen the carriers just need to blacklist the IMEI so it doesn't work - removes the incentive to steal devices. I don't remember where I originally read this (probably here), but the US carriers were not interested in doing this because they don't see stolen phones as a problem that hurts them (arguably it gives them more business).

<comment><USER10> IMEI blocking hasn't stopped phone thefts in Europe.

Possible reasons:

1\. IMEI numbers can be changed.

2\. Thief can still use phone for many hours until block.

3\. Stolen phones can be shipped to countries that don't implement block.

4\. A blocked phone can still be used to run apps, play games, make VOIP calls on wifi etc.

The Apple system seems much more sensible. You can't use an iPhone without the pincode, and even if you get that the owner can remotely lock the phone as soon as you connect it to any network. The way to avoid that used to be to wipe the phone and reinstall the OS, but now you can't do that without the Apple ID and password of the owner. I don't know if this has reduced iPhone thefts, but unless the thief has an exploit in Apple's security I don't see why anyone would steal an iPhone nowadays. I wish Android would implement something similar.

<comment><USER6> Apple theft exploit:

\- steal phone \- break phone \- return to Apple store for warranty replacement (minor social engineering may be required here)

Theif gets a working phone with a different IMEI. The worst part is, the friend of mine who this happened to found out about it because it invalidated her theft insurance.

<comment><USER11> While that exploit may work - it doesn't scale too well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I have an idea, how about the government stay the hell away from my smartphone and let the free market decide what smartphones are theft-safe and which are not?

This is why computer science should be a required subject going forward, only individuals good at programming will be able to resist the tendrils, malware, viruses and government backdoor trojans trying to get inside us and instruct us what actions to perform today to fill other mens pockets with wealth whom we don't even know or care about.

</comment><comment><USER13> Serious question, not rhetorical: Is there any precedent for forcing manufacturers to modify their product simply to prevent the product from getting stolen?

Cars and houses can have alarms, and customers decide whether they need them or not. We do not require that all cars and houses come equipped with them. Wallets can be attached to a chain or placed in the front pocket. We don't require that you can only purchase a wallet with a chain.

Unlike childrens' toys that require battery covers to be screwed shut, or cars that must have seatbelts, the theft of a device does not seem to be a public safety issue. Your decision to own an expensive phone and take it out of your pocket at the train station seems no more necessary of regulation than your decision to wear an expensive necklace.

<comment><USER14> I'm not necessarily defending the mandate, but maybe I can clarify the concept behind it.

It's not a case of legislators saying "it would be better to have less phone theft so let's try to reduce it this way" \- instead it's more like, users want this, but don't have the bargaining power to compel the phone makers to build it in or the telcos to support it.

Without the mandate, the makers and telcos profit from theft: the stolen phone user (not necessarily the thief) pays phone charges, the victim has to buy a new phone, and thieves have a continuing incentive to steal them. With the mandate, the phones are less valuable to thieves (and to robbers - a personal- safety gain), and the telcos can't profit from the forced transfers.

Again, not saying it's a good or bad policy (can someone remote-kill my phone when I still have it?), but these are the considerations - a kind of market- failure correction.

<comment><USER2> > It's not a case of legislators saying "it would be better to have less phone > theft so let's try to reduce it this way" \- instead it's more like, users > want this, but don't have the bargaining power to compel the phone makers to > build it in or the telcos to support it.

I am sick of reasoning like this. The purpose of government is to preserve your freedom to do something. If some users want something and cannot arrange it themselves, then they may just not be able to get it. It is not the government's place to mandate that everyone gets what some people want. That goes against personal freedom. It is certainly the government's place to punish thiefs---a person who deprives another of their freedom to control their property. The government should not mandate certain ways of arranging private (between a person and the phone company) affairs.

<comment><USER15> Indeed, there are ways to magnify your bargaining power outside of the government. Most people generally aren't willing to pay for it, though. A stolen phone fund or phone theft insurance could accomplish the same goals without involving the legislative and executive branches. However, the cost would be obvious, in the form of an upfront or recurring charge. It's much easier to assign the task to a government, and then wonder years later why taxes are going up, or the government is constantly in debt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It seems like every day I'm reading some new news article on how over bearing and strong handed California laws are. I used to hear people joke about moving out of California to a "free state" and never paid much attention to it but now I get it.

</comment><comment><USER17> It must be nice to have no valuable skills to offer society yet still find employment as an authoritarian jackass dreaming up product features without doing the actual work or assuming any of the risk. If Leno wants to add features to cell phones, he should go work for those companies instead of using the Ring of Sauron to forcibly add a "kill switch" because he thought it was a good idea. And is reducing theft the real reason or just the ostensible one? Will this become an easy hook for govs to shut off phones?

</comment><comment><USER18> Nice, a kill switch in every phone. When there's a big demonstration/revolution we're just gonna kill all the phones out there with a simple data packet.

<comment><USER19> It would be a dumb idea to take your device to a revolution in the first place.

<comment><USER20> As a Ukrainian, who has seen that smartphones, especially used by citizen streamers, are extremely important for a revolution, I can assure that you are wrong.

<comment><USER21> Bump this n times.

I love it when activists get blamed for doing it wrong, where 'it' basically boils out to 'trying'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> From what I understand, the mechanisms for this law are already in place and aren't much of a problem; any Apple customer already has this with the "Activation Lock" feature, and any carrier can already deny service based on a blacklisted ESN. The proposed law, at least in spirit, would require carriers and phone makers to honor your request to make your device unusable when you report it as stolen. It isn't so much that the government is going to be making technology and forcing everyone else to use it -- it'll let the private tech industry do whatever it needs to do to comply with the proposed "please brick my stolen phone" law.

I can understand how handset vendors other than Apple would have a problem with this. For example, where is the "activation lock" setting stored and who controls it? The handset vendor (Samsung, LG, etc)? Google (since it's an Android phone)? The carrier? Who deals with the customer when the device is stolen? That level of coordination would be a mess to deal with if you don't already control most of the stack and user experience like Apple does.

As a side note, Apple already does this with Mac hardware too: [https://discussions.apple.com/message/19010713](https://discussions.apple.com/message/19010713) .

<comment><USER23> There's a huge ethical problem with a vendor imposing limits on the relationship between a human being and their tools. Apple customers are self- selected for being okay with this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> > _On Friday, State Senator Mark Leno of California, a Democrat, is expected > to introduce legislation requiring all smartphones and tablets sold in the > state to include this kind of feature._

This should be a required option, even if it's opt out. The consumer should be able to turn off this kind of remote authorisation over their device, even if it reduces the "herd immunity".

Killing core functionality goes a step beyond IMEI blacklisting, which can be circumvented by selling the phone outside the blacklisted jurisdictions. An IMEI-blacklisted phone is a phone with a reduced market. An effectively "killed" phone is worth its recycling rebate.

<comment><USER25> Why should it be required, exactly? If people want phones with anti-theft technology, they can buy phones with anti-theft technology. What this smells like to me is a government wanting to have the power to sever your communications at will.

Having the ability to remote-brick _my_ phone is great if I want it, but someone else having the ability to remote-brick my phone is a frickin' huge liability.

<comment><USER26> Exactly! California can go F itself. They should not be legislating this crap.

<comment><USER27> And people who willfully confuse a couple dopey activist legislators from the state's goofiest city with the entire state can...what you said. Also, none of that hate for NYC, or did you not bother to read that this BS is coming from both states, or more precisely, from a few dumb legislators based in the most full-of-themselves cities in the country, backed by politicians in law enforcement uniforms who can't stop crime, so they advocate putting the burden elsewhere?

<comment><USER28> > And people who willfully confuse a couple dopey activist legislators from > the state's goofiest city with the entire state can

We're talking about a state legislature and governor which did in fact just ban lead bullets, a state legislature and governor elected by the entire state.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> If carriers and oems can't prevent rooting or custom roms, why would they be able to prevent unauthorized locking of phones?

There are bad ideas, and then there ideas that only a legislator would advocate.

</comment><comment><USER30> Reminds me of FEMA requiring carriers to install a chip for emergency messages (PLAN = Personal Localized Alerting Network). [1]

Governments seem increasingly interested in accessing and controlling our phones.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Localized_Alerting_Net...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Localized_Alerting_Network)

</comment><comment><USER31> And in tonight's segment of "Shit we didn't need or could do ourselves, but the state insists it be mandatory..."

</comment><comment><USER32> Don't forget batteries. They're very valuable to thieves too. Maybe the killswitch can make them explode.

</comment><comment><USER13> If you live in the state of CA and think this bill is a bad idea, you can look up your representative senator and send them an email asking that they vote against the bill. [http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/](http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/)

</comment><comment><USER33> This is _really_ needed. In New York, there is a problem of punk kids snatching iPhones and running. It is hard for the police to do anything about it, and these kids are fencing the phones for about $150, and they are likely shipped to out of the country where carrier blocks don't work.

For whatever reason, I have heard of a bunch of people that get their iPhones snatched, but never android phones.

The market for bad ESN phones is way too strong. A simple ebay search shows that bad a ESN iPhone 5 still fetches $250. Apple needs to drive down the value of bad ESN phones to near zero for the safety of their own customers.

<comment><USER34> How quickly do these 'punk kids' sell the phones on, though? And could a system to trigger the killswitch be responsive enough to trigger it before the phone's been sold? And if it were, could it ever hope to be sure of the facts in time to catch bad requests?

<comment><USER33> I am sure they power off the phones almost immediately. I actually don't think a legislative solution is the right process. I think Apple should address the problem for the benefit of their own customers. Maybe they need to investigate this and work with Interpol.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Every time I read "anti-theft technology" I get chills..

You should immediately call your representatives to stop this.

</comment><comment><USER36> Doesn't the IMEI on GSM and the MEID on newer CDMA phones already solve the problem of stolen phones, and we just don't use this functionality?

</comment><comment><USER37> Cross-posting from the other discussion on this topic ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7197416](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7197416)):

Actual draft of the bill is here: [http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?...](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB962)

Relevant portions:

(1) Any advanced mobile communications device that is sold in California on or after January 1, 2015, shall include a technological solution that can render the essential features of the device inoperable when the device is not in the possession of the rightful owner. A technological solution may consist of software, hardware, or a combination of both software and hardware, but shall be able to withstand a hard reset. No advanced mobile communications device may be sold in California without the technological solution enabled.

(2) The rightful owner of an advanced mobile communications device may affirmatively elect to disable the technological solution after sale. However, the physical acts necessary to disable the technological solution may only be performed by the end-use consumer or a person specifically selected by the end-use consumer to disable the technological solution and shall not be physically performed by any retail seller of the advanced mobile communications device.

Hard reset is defined as "the restoration of an advanced mobile communications device to the state it was in when it left the factory, and refers to any act of returning a device to that state, including processes commonly termed a factory reset or master reset."

Some thoughts:

* There doesn't appear to be any requirement that the phone can be remotely disabled. One interpretation of this is that the only change from the status quo where practically every phone has a PIN is that the PIN withstand a hard reset.

* The hard reset definition is sort of dumb. When a device leaves the factory, it obviously doesn't have any knowledge of whom its proper owner is. A hard reset, by definition, has to nullify any owner-verification system and no technological solution can withstand it.

* The fact that the kill switch can be disabled is encouraging.

* A lot would also depend on how determination of the "rightful owner" goes. That is, is it sufficient for someone who knows the PIN to be considered a "rightful owner"? This is fine 99% of the time, but there are obviously scenarios where that isn't true. If we wanted to take this to the other extreme, we might say this would require every seller and re-seller of mobile phones to check the ID of anyone buying a phone and to record this in some sort of master ownership index. Note that this would effectively outlaw burner phones.

<comment><USER38> >* The hard reset definition is sort of dumb. When a device leaves the factory, it obviously doesn't have any knowledge of whom its proper owner is. A hard reset, by definition, has to nullify any owner-verification system and no technological solution can withstand it.

The way that I'm reading this, a limit to what a "hard reset" can be is being set by (1). It's saying: Any process that you have in order to return a phone to factory condition _must not_ remove the ability for it to be remotely bricked by the State of California.

It's labeling whatever that process is as a "hard reset" but they only care about the we can still brick the phone part.

That is the diametric opposite of (2), though. _Unless_ the "disabling of the technological solution" is expected to be through _software._

In order to enforce (1) and (2), California is going to have to:

a) Start certifying operating systems, and approving of their solutions for the remote bricking disabler.

and

b) Implement the remote bricker in hardware.

This is actually a really scary bill.

edit: The "rightful owner" requirement could be interpreted as really hard to satisfy, especially combined with an inability for the "retail seller" to do it. That may mean that you have to get a code, connect to the manufacturer's server, etc. to get the app to disable the bricking chip unlocked or downloaded, and the additional security theater that would entail - and the bitrot that would happen for older model phones when you had to download it (after a "hard reset") and the manufacturer is either defunct or doesn't care anymore.

This bill has too many goodies for too many entrenched interests not to pass.

edit2: "Rightful owner" is _really_ creeping me out. That might be seen as insuring that the State must be the one with the killswitch. Who can determine a rightful owner? It could be that you are the one who knows the PIN, _or_ it could be that you file a police report, and they kill the phone from the station.

<comment><USER39> Rightful owner is the person with title, a concept well established in law in other contexts. I think this is a terrible bill, but the notion that the kill switch is going to be operated by the state seems like a complete misreading of the bill's text to me.

<comment><USER40> First, create the kill switch. Second, create the ability to use it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> This seems like a bad idea.

* Why won't someone will figure out how to trigger the phone kill switch and start wandering round SF killing people's phones at will?

* Why won't the state/NSA/whoever kill the phones of its enemies (diplomats, foreign business people, "subversives")?

* and so on.

<comment><USER42> If this such a risk, Why hasn't this happened yet? Corporate phones all have remote kill switches, and are high value targets of harassment.

<comment><USER21> 2007: If sub-prime loans were really a problem, why hasn't the market crashed yet?

2008: Oh.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I actually think this is a good idea and requires government intervention due to the positive externalities involved.

I just wrote a blog post about it: ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7198054](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7198054))

</comment><comment><USER43> Perhaps they can also consider a cap on the price of cell phones sold in California. If no one's carrying around a phone that cost over $50, that would also reduce the incentive to steal them.

This bill would be a great accompaniment to the next minimum wage increase.

</comment><comment><USER44> I'm all for careful legislation to force companies to improve security and protect consumers but I unfortunately most legislators dont have the technology knowledge to know what is wise and what is not. The devil is in the details here - if we mandated that the disable capability could only be enacted by the consumer that owned the device - say with a kill code password that no one else is allowed to store - then its not so bad, but I doubt such protections against misuse are in place. I surely dont want a kill switch that could be invoked by the manufacturer or cell provider.. Given that the market already provides this on tons of devices it seems unnecessary to legislate.

</comment><comment><USER45> This law is intended to mitigate the escalation in armed robberies for smartphones that is hitting urban areas in California.

Armed robbers are aware that many (most?) people of even modest means are carrying around devices that, once stolen by force, can be sold (probably to a fencing operation) for a few hundred bucks.

The ability to render smartphones worthless if stolen would go a long way toward reducing the incentive to commit these particular robberies, which constitute a large part of the recent increase in California's armed robbery (and by implication violent crime) rate.

Recently in the Bay Area, where I live, an armed robber held up several people at once, and took all the phones ... except a feature phone.

EDIT: wording.

</comment><comment><USER46> A bill that requires manufacturers to offer phones that have this feature and phones that don't have this feature I could see as being okay, but to require all phones to have it and leave the user no choice (fwiw, being able to disable it after purchase is a false choice) is ridiculous.

Kill switches are never the right choice to solve this. Once this technology exists and is widespread (as the article points out, manufacturers are unlikely to maintain two models, with and without this unless legally required), what stops oppressive countries from using this feature from disabling the phones of people legitimately protesting like those in the Ukraine right now?

</comment><comment><USER47> Or better yet, every time you need to make a phone call, your ownership of the phone will be verified on-site by a blue-gloved agent of the state...

...who will then administer a full-body pat-down. You know, for good measure.

</comment><comment><USER47> "We're from the government, and we're here to help."

</comment><comment><USER48> Once there's a device kill switch in place, it will be available for anyone with a court order. Think RIAA, MPAA... organizations that support DRM must love this idea.

</comment><comment><USER49> Prey project is semi open-source, freemium and works on ios, android and most desktop OSes too.

[https://preyproject.com/](https://preyproject.com/)

</comment><comment><USER50> Last phone I bought from Walmart, T-Mobile refused to activate because they claimed it was stolen.

I was really taken aback to have purchased a device in a sealed box when someone had already cloned the IMEI. (Or maybe T-Mobile's setup is just really buggy...)

I was fortunately able to return it and get a new phone, worked fine.

But if I could fix that problem, maybe stolen phones will just get laundered through returns that way. (ie, buy a new phone, return the stolen one as defective).

</comment><comment><USER51> This is not to stop theft. I can wipe my phone remotely right now if my phone is stolen. The goal is to secure the phone so that all the info on it is not accessible if the owner is not there. Especially considering that more and more the phone is the key to everything due to two step authentication (for email accounts, banks, etc. ) If things need to get more secure online then the phone needs to get even more secure.

</comment><comment><USER52> Have there been any reports on how iOS7 affects thefts?

</comment><comment><USER53> We all know how this is going to end: Someone is going to hack the method used to disable the phones and massively disable millions of people's phones. As always, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I'd much rather see technology that temporarily disables access to my phone's private contents while turning a permanent GPS [on] switch so my stolen phone can be located.

</comment><comment><USER54> It's a shame the device manufacturers apparently dragged their feet on this and couldn't avoid legislation.

</comment><comment><USER55> This is a cellphone carriers' lobbyist work at its finest! This law is not about the customers; its about those rare examples where customers are screwing the carriers when the phone is being stolen and the police report is good enough to get out of a lengthy & expensive contracts.

</comment><comment><USER34> It's all very well to say that smartphone thefts are "reaching an all-time high", but what is smartphone ownership doing? I doubt it's reached saturation yet, and one would imagine that thefts would increase in line with units owned...

</comment><comment><USER56> This is another example of how government tries to simplify its job by creating problems for others. If the anti-theft technology of any use, more companies would introduce them and users would buy such phones.

</comment><comment><USER57> They are doing this all wrong.

Thieves can use different parts of the phone that would not be effected by a kill switch, batteries, screen, ...

What they really need is to turn on the GPS find where the phone is and start arresting folk.

<comment><USER11> "What they really need is to turn on the GPS find where the phone is and start arresting folk."

You really want to give the government permission to remotely enable GPS?

<comment><USER14> Government already can do that by co-opting the phone companies.

@wehadfun, I like the general concept of identifying and taking action against the bad actors, but there are two flaws in your plan.

(a) Most of the users of stolen phones are not the thieves, they're secondary buyers. And amongst them, how do you propose to distinguish knowing buyers of stolen goods from innocent purchasers? Maybe in some cases the circumstances are suspicious, but what if you buy from someone on craigslist with a reasonable story and pay a market price?

(b) While in theory it's possible to trace back to the thief, in practice police don't have the resources to do the necessary investigation when the value is only a few hundred dollars. In many jurisdictions they won't even send an officer unless someone is bleeding.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> I thought this was already being done via IMEI blocking.

</comment><comment><USER59> How about you just be a bit more careful with your iphone? No law in world can stop people from being stupid.

<comment><USER45> It's not about not being careful with your devices. In many places in California, people are routinely having guns pointed at them and their electronics are being taken by force, even when the devices are not being visibly used.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> Ah, the velvet glove. It rises to view again. Shall I buy? Shall I not? 'tis but an upvote away ..

</comment><comment><USER61> How can California do this? Interstate commerce clause and all that.

<comment><USER62> CA can require that every phone sold in their state must have it. Since it's easier not to have multiple models, until another state makes it illegal to have it, the models sold in other state will have it by default.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> No. Too many opportunities for abuse.</comment>


China's curious cult of the mango - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35461265 <comment><USER2> This is a rip off of an old collectors weekly article.

[http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/the-mao-mango- cult-...](http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/the-mao-mango-cult- of-1968/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I know someone who lived through the Cultural Revolution. She loves mangoes. I wonder if that had anything to do with it.

<comment><USER4> Doesn't everyone love mangoes?

<comment><USER5> I don't. I find them of little interest and debatable taste. Alongside pomelo it's one of the fruits I like least (of those I've eaten, I won't pretend an encyclopedic knowledge of fruits and there are many fruits I haven't tried yet, durian being pretty high on that list)

<comment><USER6> Durian is quite nice, as far as I remember, but the smell is something else.

<comment><USER4> The better durians have more bearable smell.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Brilliant nation

</comment><comment><USER8> Yup... China is still producing cult items to this day:

[http://www.nbcnews.com/id/40059786/ns/business- retail/t/must...](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/40059786/ns/business- retail/t/must-have-toy-hits-christmases-past/)

I don't know about that list though, I think I rather have a mango candle...</comment>


Namecheap now supports Authy 2FA - <AUTHOR> https://blog.namecheap.com/announcing-onetouch-2fa/ <comment><USER2> How much does Authy pay for these exclusives? The comments on the blog post are already mentioning their refusal to support standards-based TOTP apps. Companies which place business relationships above user security should be shamed, security options is not the place businesses should be monetizing.

Cloudflare finally let up on their Authy-exclusivity this year: [https://blog.cloudflare.com/you-can-now-use-google- authentic...](https://blog.cloudflare.com/you-can-now-use-google- authenticator/)</comment>


CrunchPad Prototype - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/03/crunchpad-the-launch-prototype/ <comment><USER2> Its hard to believe it will sell for <$200 / without being locked to some sort of contract or homepage with ads etc ... If so - this is truly an amazing achievement, not to mention its amazing that its techcrunch.

<comment><USER3> Nothing wrong with having a home page with ads if it brings the cost down.

<comment><USER4> It's a technique used by Dell and other PC makers for years. It's a nuisance, but if cost is a factor, it can be worth the 20 minutes it takes to clean the crap off.

<comment><USER5> I don't think that makes sense.

Dell are bought by "The general public", who often don't know how to clean the crap off. So some of it sticks, and they make money.

The crunchpad however, is going to be bought by techie geeks. If it comes loaded with adverts, everyone will just remove them, and they won't make any money.

This is a _technically_ amazing achievement, but IMHO the market does not exist. They'll sell a few, but nothing major.

<comment><USER4> _Dell are bought by "The general public", who often don't know how to clean the crap off. So some of it sticks, and they make money._

This assumes Dell isn't paid just for the privilege of being on their desktop. I kinda think they are.

<comment><USER5> That's a measurable though. If Crunchpad was paid to have something on it, then they measured that no one actually left it on there, they would probably stop paying pretty quickly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'd certainly choose this over, say, a Kindle. If they can actually deliver, and at the price they've bandied about, I'd love to have one.

<comment><USER6> One big bonus for the kindle is the battery life (2 weeks? vs a few hours). Obviously, the crunchpad has lots of other things going for it. I guess my point is that they're really meant for two different purposes.

<comment><USER7> If the thing is meant to live on your coffee table and couch, then a couple of hours is good enough. Just design an attractive charging station/stand so it can charge while it goes into "picture frame mode."

Another stand so that it can be used as some kind of secondary display would be cool. (Maybe not a real display, but one driven by something like VNC?)

<comment><USER8> If it runs Linux, Mac OS X, or Windows, just use synergy. It lets you share keyboard and mouse between several systems. It's awesome. The kind of OSS software I'd love to pay for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> What about consumption and/or heat dissipation? I'd hate to burn my hands while playing youtube videos...

</comment><comment><USER10> What a gorgeous digital photo frame this would make! I look forward to pointing this at a Flickr (or other) slideshow. In fact someone in another corner of the country or the world could keep this pointed at your Flickr photo stream and will be able to see your latest photos without doing a thing. Similar to what Picwing was offering.

</comment><comment><USER11> The software demo from April is pretty interesting.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP-0Nce5oTQ>

Everything goes through the browser. It remains to be seen whether that is the brilliant constraint that makes a category, or a crippling limitation.

</comment><comment><USER12> I see the USB port is still there :)

Wonder how they will handle storage - suppose I see an image I want to save or stuff I wish to copy/paste and send via gmail. I get that there is no local storage but I hope it will allow inter-process operability.

<comment><USER13> Clearly it should support copy/paste, but on a Web 2.0 tablet I think saving could be replaced with bookmarking/sharing.

<comment><USER12> Oh yeah. I meant save-to-picasa or such, not locally. Sorry.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> 18mm thick — about 3/4 of an inch. Hopefully it'll be light too.

I'm impressed. Maybe this TechCrunch tablet has potential after all.

</comment><comment><USER15> I noticed that price wasn't mentioned this time. I'm guessing that means it'll cost a lot more than $200.

</comment><comment><USER16> I wonder if it bears any relationship with the view sonic thingey that is unavailable on amazon: [http://www.amazon.com/ViewSonic-airpanel-V150-Smart- Display/...](http://www.amazon.com/ViewSonic-airpanel-V150-Smart- Display/dp/B00007A5K0)

</comment><comment><USER17> Maybe it's me, but I don't understand the appeal of this type of computer at all. Granted, I also don't understand the appeal netbooks, so maybe I'm way out in left field.

This thing seems like it's a big iphone. I already have an iphone and it meets most of my general quick-fix internet needs. I have a laptop when the iphone isn't sufficient. I just don't see the need for another device in the mix. Unless the pad is easily converted to a moderately powered computer by adding a quick keyboard and mouse, I wouldn't even entertain the idea of buying one.

<comment><USER18> Okay, so you won't buy one. But I would, just to websurf sitting on the couch. I want a form factor like a magazine or book, not a 5 pound laptop.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Nice picture there. Has it got velcro on the back or something? Because I can see it slipping down her leg and falling on the floor pretty quickly.

</comment><comment><USER19> Stylus support and therefore support to take notes while on the road would be the feature that makes me lay down even $400 for this thing.

</comment><comment><USER20> It looks pretty good, but I still maintain my position from last summer, which was that this will never cost $200. Of course, that's fine, as I would not expect a device like this to cost that much to begin with. About $400 seems like the 'right' price for something like this.

</comment><comment><USER21> Will the screen really look that nice from those viewing angles? If so, it will be a Kindle killer.

<comment><USER5> Quit with the hyperbole. It's not even in the same market as the Kindle. The battery life? Good screen for prolonged reading?

<comment><USER21> I was trying to say "shopped" without actually using that word.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Hm, did you see in the promotion video of the Software how much the video was bucking especially at full screen?

I think that the CrunchPad will be quite interesting for Websites but not so for multimedia applications in the beginning.

Hope I am wrong though.

</comment><comment><USER23> 3com Audrey take 2?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3Com_Audrey>

The internet has changed greatly since then. I guess that is why the netbooks are taking off.

</comment><comment><USER24> conceptual designs to first working prototype is often a time fraught with problems. I seriously doubt this will be a few weeks and even more doubt the price. It could sell for much more, so why make it so low?

<comment><USER25> I'm not sure it could. That is, it would sell some at many ranges because it's unique. But I do think price sensitivity will be huge here. In other words, I am guessing every dollar they knock off the price tag will mean a big difference in the number of sales.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I will buy one if and only if I can install my own software on it.

</comment><comment><USER27> I like the prototype C better (the one in the videos)</comment>


Mozilla (Firefox) is against innovation - <AUTHOR>

I just need to write down my anger against Mozilla.
Beside loosing against Chrome and Speed, i just wrote an Add-On and they currently need 2 month (it's already outdated btw) to review it in their Add-On Collection.
Nobody ever killed my commitment and free time to develop cool browser extension like Mozilla :( Sad to see you drowning. <comment><USER2> So stop pouting and work around it: update your code, set up a web page, give that page a descriptive title so search engines will pick it up, and post a link to it here. Problem solved! (Google "text/plain" to see an example of how Gilles Durys did it.)

(Oh, and it's spelled "losing," not "loosing," comrade.)

</comment><comment><USER3> Flagged for link-bait headline, hyperbole, and drawing a conclusion with no proof.

I'm genuinely sorry this has happened (for many reasons) but posts like yours are certainly not helpful.

</comment><comment><USER4> Why do you think they needed 2 month ? Certainly not because they are against innovation.</comment>


How Engineers Are Building a New Railroad Under New York City - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/05/fa_tunnel/ <comment><USER2> I worked in a tunnel crew in the summer holidays during my degree. It was interesting to see the cultural similarities and differences when I moved into programming. It is probably one of the few industries (at least in the UK) where the majority of the power is in the hands of the workers and not the managers. They were paid significantly more than the managers and broadly speaking the job went ahead on their schedule. Unlike in programming a mistake could cost one of your coworkers their life, which seemed to have something to do with the strong camaraderie, but did also lead to a deep suspicion of unproven outsiders (like myself for the first few weeks I worked there). I prefer to be able to experiment with things and I was a bit too much of a delicate flower to be happy in that environment. I wonder how much the culture in different industries arises from people with certain personalities self selecting into or out of them, and how much is the actual nature of the work changing you.

</comment><comment><USER3> Ok, NYC transit has something I need to point out that freaking owns:

Express trains.

All across the US, municipalities keep building annoying light-rail systems and basic commuter lines. They have one class of train: stop everywhere and waste your time.

What NYC has that I love is express trains on almost every line. Want to go from Penn Station straight to JFK airport? Easy. Want to go from uptown right down to Wall St.? There's a train for that.

Most cities - and nations - could learn a lot from NYC being able to handle such a diverse set of schedules.

Now if they could only do something about the rats...

<comment><USER4> What's amazing is that someone had the foresight to build the express lines a century ago. Honestly, every time I walk through GCT I'm proud to be a human and an engineer.

<comment> T-hawk The foresight came from the invisible hand of capitalism. Remember the NYC subway started as two competing private companies. They each strived to offer the best service to compete with each other, which included building tracks for express service.

By contrast, modern-day government civil works projects serve political purposes first and foremost, with quality of service coming in somewhere lower on the list of considerations. Everybody's going to vote for a politician who brings transit to their neighborhood or business; nobody's going to flip that vote because the trains are slow.

<comment><USER4> No, the foresight came from the Board of Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners, organized pursuant to statute, which specified the route and the design of the IRT Subway (what is now the 1/2/3 and 4/5/6) and bid out the contracts for its construction and operation. The construction was paid for by the city, which issued bonds to finance the construction. The Manhattan BRT lines were also built under such contracts. The lines were leased out to the IRT and the BRT (both of which were in large part formed for the purpose of executing these contracts) for operation at a contractually fixed fare.

So not quite the invisible hand. Today we'd call it a public private partnership, if we were feeling charitable, or maybe government-sponsored duopoly if we weren't. The closest modern analogy is probably the U.S. defense sector. The BRT and IRT were "competing" in the same way that Lockheed and Boeing "compete." The government figures out what to build, while private companies figure out how to build it, and the government foots the bill. I personally think it's an incredibly effective structure, but then again I think there is a place for oligopolies that are quasi-extensions of the government.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> We have a similar subway project going here in Amsterdam called the North- South line. It's more than 8 years late, went over its budget multiple times, and is still not finished. City is completing it anyway and hopes it will start making money in ~3013.

Also the line's route is questionably useful to the locals. Somewhere someone is filling his pockets with an evil grin.

<comment><USER6> We have a similar subway project (remember, the project referenced in the OP is a light rail project). It's more than 70 years late, went over its budget multiple times, and is still not finished.

Unfortunately, the line's route is definitely useful to the locals.

It's called the 2nd avenue line :/

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> "To keep the soft ground from collapsing, engineers snaked coils of coolant through the soil to form a protective arch of frozen earth. That let crews work safely while traffic rumbled overhead. Cost: $1 million per foot."

<comment><USER8> I wonder if this is the cost of actually applying this technique, or also includes the cost of researching and testing the safety of this method prior to using it on this project.

<comment><AUTHOR> It likely includes all of the preliminary engineering geotech, and environmental work that came before implementation. You can't just freeze the ground like that, there are a lot of potential adverse effects (ground) shifts being the biggest) that have to be accounted for and mitigated.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I have mixed feelings... does the US know that many big cities in developping countries have better subways (automated, brand new, clean, without pee smell, ?). Officials should at least be motivated to fix the minimum: like digital display in wagons displaying the right stations... ;)

<comment><USER10> The dual use elevator/toilets are a highlight of the New York subway.

The trash strewn tracks are worth a look, while the total lack of electronic signage as to when the next train is like stepping back in time 40 years.

<comment><USER11> > ...total lack of electronic signage as to when the next train is...

NYC has this in most stations now.

<comment><USER6> Some stations. It depends on the line. Lines that haven't been updated to newer switch technology (like the A/C/E) still don't have it, and probably won't for quite a while.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> More details here: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Side_Access>

</comment><comment><USER13> My father-in-law is working on this project. I've been having conversations about this for a long time...great to see it in the press...

</comment><comment><USER14> Seems a bit excessive just to shorten commute times for only 160000 people. Are there other benefits?

<comment><USER15> Given that most of us spend... 1/3 of their waking time at work, I think it's safe to say that a commuter's time is worth ~1/3 of their average wage.

20 minutes saved in a round-trip, times 250 days a year, times 160,000 people is 800,000,000 man-minutes, or ~13,000,000 man-hours a year. With an average NYC income of $20/hour, and time being worth a third of hourly income... that's $87,000,000 of life saved, per year. At 8.4 billion dollars for the construction, that does look bleak.

If you bump up the commuter's average wage to ~$50/hour, though, we'd be looking at ~220,000,000 of life saved, per year.

However, that's the lower bound on the public benefit of the project. Some of the costs will be paid through user fees. Others through economic development among the areas served by the line. As far as ditch-digging projects go, this one's probably on par for public ROI.

If we did nothing but count coppers, America would never have built the Interstates.

<comment><USER16> I think you mistyped $260,000,000. That brings that benefits estimate close to 3% of the costs.

You also can put in gains that those not taking the subway will get from this. 160,000 fewer people on buses and in cars means faster traffic above ground.

Finally, they will simply pay for it from taxation. I know it sounds stupid to some, but IMO, that is the right thing to do. It is just extra costs that have to be made to make new high rise buildings commercially viable.

<comment><USER15> I've mentioned how I figure that my time's worth ~1/3 of what I make at work. I did, however, miscount - the correct value ought to have been ~$87,000,000

<comment><USER16> Sorry, missed that. I don't think that argument holds, though, as it indicates that, disregarding time loss due to travel to and from work, you would be willing to work for a third of what you get now.

A more realistic estimate would be 80% or so (you lose 10 hours (8 hours at work + 2 hours travel) of your live in exchange for the money you get)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> $8.24 billion for 7 miles of tunnel

<comment><USER17> What's the point of this? That you can do it cheaper? Under New York? With the necessary precautions and the same specs?

<comment><USER7> amazement. sorry for the ambiguity.</comment></comment></comment>


Local TV stations pushed the same Amazon-scripted segment - <AUTHOR> https://couriernewsroom.com/2020/05/26/11-local-tv-stations-that-pushed-amazon-scripted-segment/ <comment><USER2> Yeah... my eyebrows raised the first time I heard about this type of thing. Someone I know was in a news segment shot and produced by some company I had never heard of before (I don't recall the name). They said it would be on the news. The segment was produced, and when I asked where it was going to air, they said "50-60 local news stations around the country" and I was baffled... don't local news stations just produce their own news? No, not all of it.

There are companies like Sinclair and Scripps that produce and purchase news segments, and then run them in their own markets, and sometimes these companies will literally BUY news from companies that the news is about! And those companies, sometimes marketing or PR companies, are telling their own stories. It's "white label news". I guess the equivalent is what we call "advertorials" online?

<comment><USER2> And some links for anyone who wants to see more about these topics...

Sinclair Broadcasting owns local stations, most likely at least one near you: [http://sbgi.net/tv-stations/](http://sbgi.net/tv-stations/)

Scripps I believe is a bit smaller, but also owns a lot of local stations: [https://scripps.com/our-brands/local-media/](https://scripps.com/our- brands/local-media/)

So if Sinclair and Scripps both run the same newswire story, for instance, that is a country full of people getting it through their local -- often "most trusted" \-- news station. A lot of stations get the "final say" on what does and doesn't run, but sometimes they do not.

Wikipedia entry for "Video news release": [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_news_release](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_news_release)

Wikipedia entry for "Satellite media tour": [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_media_tour](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_media_tour)

And finally: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_literacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_literacy)

<comment><USER3> Yup; don't ever believe any news outlets is independent, they are often owned by a single entity. In the UK for example, most media is owned by News Corp., aka Rupert Murdoch. They have the power to change the narrative and public opinion, and with that, sway elections in their favor.

I feel like politics nowadays is not so much a fight between politicians, but between corporations with conflicting interests and the handful of people at the top behind them, and the parties paying them (including foreign powers).

<comment><USER4> > most media is owned by News Corp

This I'm afraid isn't true, though it may feel like it.

None of the free-to-air TV channels are owned by News Corp, which remains the purview of BBC and ITV in the main. It has minimal investment in radio stations. It has The Sun, The Times and Sunday Times. It used to have the News of the World.

It doesn't have the Mail, Express, Independent, Guardian, Mirror etc.

<comment> nca-peripherals In terms of revenue globally, the top five are: AT&T, Comcast, Disney, ViacomCBS, and Fox. The are mainstream media oligopolies in most countries these days, but the beauty of the internet is that independent journalists and voices who have been shut-out and banned from the corporate-establishment fold like Ralph Nader and Chris Hedges can still find tiny soap-boxes to speak truth to power since almost no one else is doing it. Then there's people like Jimmy Dore who will never get taken seriously by the establishment because he doesn't have the wealth, pedigree, or entitled rich-dbag attitude to be let into their club.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownersh...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership#Top_Five)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So it turns out local news isn't actually public service, but really just the cheapest crap they can produce to run between ads for local car dealers. Go figure.

<comment><USER6> Didn't used to be this way, the FCC used to be much more serious about treating public airways as the public resource that they are.

<comment><USER7> It used to be "broadcast" was really broadcast over limited public airwaves. Now it's all IPTV and streams and there is no practical limit on the amount of content that can be distributed, which was always the justification for regulating it.

The real problem now is nobody wants to pay for anything when the competition is free. "You're not the customer, you're the product" doesn't only apply to Google.

<comment><USER8> 100% percent of the stations listed in the article have broadcast over the air stations (their FCC callsigns are given). I couldn't speculate how many people consume these station's content via broadcast versus some other medium, though. I wouldn't be too surprised if it was more than a few years ago, but definitely significantly less than 20+ years ago.

As as aside, as someone who works in the regulated radio industry, I actually wish there was more enforcement of FCC rules. As is, they are mainly a regulatory body, not an enforcement one - its extremely unlikely you will receive the FCC's attention for operating without a license or breaking other rules. But, please dont do these things, its easy and inexpensive to get amateur/personal/business licenses and you risk interfering with public safety or other critical users of the radio spectrum. Here's a list of enforcement actions for rule violations and unlicensed operation: [https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/](https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/)

<comment><USER7> > 100% percent of the stations listed in the article have broadcast over the > air stations (their FCC callsigns are given). I couldn't speculate how many > people consume these station's content via broadcast versus some other > medium, though.

Even the percentage doesn't really matter because the scarcity isn't there anymore. You don't have to get on broadcast TV in order to reach an audience anymore. PewDiePie has more subscribers than Fox and NBC have viewers combined.

When broadcast TV was the only way to deliver video to millions of people, you had to care what was using that capacity because it came at the expense of carrying something else. Now it's just one more way to deliver bits.

If anything it's now YouTube in that position, because they're just about the only way for ordinary people to reach a large audience. But in that case the constraint still isn't that they're carrying something bad instead of something good, since everything is carried in addition to rather than instead of everything else, but rather that they might refuse to carry something good which then has no other reasonable alternative for distribution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is literally all they do

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWLjYJ4BzvI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWLjYJ4BzvI)

<comment><USER10> This was the first video that popped into my head after watching the video from TFA. I've seen similar ones in the past for talking points against political candidates and such. One that sticks out was "gravitas", a word parroted by media everywhere during an election cycle some years ago. This is a big part of why I avoid "news" anymore.

<comment><USER11> "optics" entered the news vernacular very recently, now everyone uses it.

<comment><USER12> This one drives me nuts when the Sunday morning bobble heads toss the wrong word around when they want to use "perception".

<comment><USER13> >when they want to use "perception".

Or "PR". I'd hear "doing that would make for bad optics" where I'd previously "... for bad PR". It irritates me for some reason.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Whether it's companies or governments, press briefings are already an entirely accepted thing. If you think about it, it's a scary concept - someone with a clear motivation to control the story picks journalists they like, invites them to a place of their choosing and feeds them a carefully constructed narrative.

Flat out doing the segment for them seems like the natural next step.

<comment><USER15> But there's a big difference: a press release is very up-front about being a curated message from the company. The scary thing here is that it's masquerading as independent coverage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> >"I was not aware the package was provided by Amazon." Armstead said, "We'll make sure it doesn't happen again."

Where did it come from exactly?

Did a segment just show up on his desk on a USB drive and he thought "oh look a video... we should run this"?

<comment><USER17> Businesswire: [https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200521005268/en/Ama...](https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200521005268/en/Amazon- Transforms-Operations-Response-COVID-19.-Company-Protecting)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> >UPDATE: Amazon responded by stating the video and script were published to Business Wire as are many other companies' in-house produced content for media organizations.

Local news doesn't have budgets to do in-depth reporting 24/7 so they use the newswires to get stories to fill time.

You can see the wire post here.

[https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200521005268/en/Ama...](https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200521005268/en/Amazon- Transforms-Operations-Response-COVID-19.-Company-Protecting)

Title is very misleading.

<comment><USER19> Title isn't misleading at all.

"It happens all the time" doesn't make it misleading, or invalid. In fact that makes it far worse.

It needs to be declared. It doesn't matter if they're reading from Amazon's packet or the Pentagons, a declaration is appropriate and even vital to help maintain a healthy democracy.

What's odd is that if a YouTuber did this the FCC's regulations[0] require they disclose it, but not local TV stations evidently?

[0] [https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business- center/guidance/ftc...](https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business- center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking)

<comment><USER20> I think you don't understand the difference between a press release and an advertisement.

This is a press release, the FTC link is about endorsements (which are advertising).

YouTubers would not be required to disclose this.

<comment><USER19> It is an advertisement distributed in the form of a press release (or more accurately a media packet with included script and video content).

Using the term "press release" like it is some kind of legal shield is non sequitur. It doesn't matter if the ad is a billboard, graphic, sidewalk spinner, or press release it is still an advert designed to promote Amazon, and an undisclosed one at that.

If a YouTuber wasn't required to declare it, that would be wrong too.

<comment><USER21> Can a company issue a press release talking about their products or business without it being an ad by your standard?

Like what would a hypothetical press release for the release of the Xbox 360 that isn't an ad look like?

<comment><USER19> > Can a company issue a press release talking about their products or business > without it being an ad by your standard?

I think you've lost sight of what we're discussing.

We're not discussing the morality of press releases, what we're discussing is a THIRD PARTY media organization reading from a script and re-showing video footage sent to them from a company without declaring that they're doing so. It is the repetition without source-context that is the sin, not the original company's media publications.

So are Microsoft's press releases about the XBox 360 ads? Yes. Is that wrong? Absolutely not. The "wrong" is a different media company taking that content and repeating it verbatim without declaration or contextualization (e.g. quotation marks).

If money (or other benefits) changed hands between the company benefiting and the media company reporting, that only compounds the immorality of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> > In response to a request for comment on why the station ran the package, Wes > Armstead, news director of the Bluefield NBC affiliate WVVA, told COURIER, > "I was not aware the package was provided by Amazon." Armstead said, "We'll > make sure it doesn't happen again."

Mr. Armstead is either blatantly lying or astoundingly incompetent if he's seriously going to claim that he has no knowledge of his station's news sources.

<comment><USER23> When in doubt, the package is from Amazon

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This has been going on forever. Magazine content in particular was often written by PR departments of various companies. Even when it wasn't, the "journalist" writing it knew that if he didn't write what the company wanted, he wouldn't get invited to junkets, press parties, etc.

Just yesterday, the NY Times ran a prominent Opinion piece that read to me like a promotion for the author's book. Pretty great marketing.

</comment><comment><USER24> I'm both concerned and relieved people are noticing this. For over a decade media has repeated government press releases as fact, often word for word. For a long time they've "covered" corporate crap the same way ("thanks for filling the spaces between our adds, we don't care what you say"). People seem to have a real issue with Amazon (for good reason) so now they're starting this BS, maybe it will be questioned?

</comment><comment><USER25> Paul Graham talked about this in this essay [http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html](http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html)

<comment><USER26> Herman and Chomsky wrote "Manufacturing Consent" in 1988. It's a comprehensive description of the media propaganda system, of which this Amazon thing is a single example.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> This is a little old, but is probably fairly relevant...

[https://www.crikey.com.au/2010/03/15/over-half-your-news- is-...](https://www.crikey.com.au/2010/03/15/over-half-your-news-is-spin/)

<comment><USER28> I can't speak highly enough of Crikey, totally worth the subscription. Journalism as it was meant to be.

TL;DR of the above:

"2203 stories. 10 newspapers. A five day snapshot. Six months' worth of research"

"Crikey reveals the results of a six-month investigation into the role PR plays in the Australian media, finding that 55% of newspaper stories analysed were driven by PR."

<comment><USER27> I have a feeling that the story may be past its "sell-by" date:

[https://www.crikey.com.au/spinning-the- media/](https://www.crikey.com.au/spinning-the-media/)

I would not get a subscription to view that story (it is probably the only one that is relevant to me, in the US), as I'll bet I would get the sub, and the story would still be dead.

Which makes me very sad. I believe in supporting these types of orgs, but they need to deliver (Crikey is not cheap - [https://www.crikey.com.au/subscribe/](https://www.crikey.com.au/subscribe/) ).

<comment><USER28> Crikey is a small news company based in, and only really concerned with, Australia. Yeah, it definitely wouldn't be a worthwhile subscription for anyone not specifically interested in Australian news, I probably should have disclaimered that.

I logged in with my account and, yes, that story is dead, there's no content. That's disappointing.

I'll send them a notification and see if they'll put it up without a paywall since it's relatively old content (but still pertinent).

Edit: notification sent.

<comment><USER27> Cool. It would be great to see the original (I never read the whole thing).

Most newspapers and magazines in the US have some kind of "fee-per-article" archival service. Some will allow unfettered access to their archives with a regular subscription, but others may ask a fee, even for subscribers.

NYT has its "TimesMachine": [https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/browser/](https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/browser/) I'm not sure if it's available to non-subscribers. I am a subscriber, but I need to purchase page reprints.

<comment><USER28> Crikey support got back to me and offered me this link:

[https://www.crikey.com.au/topic/spinning-the- media/](https://www.crikey.com.au/topic/spinning-the-media/)

There are a lot of articles listed, but if you scroll down there will be a clump that are actually entitled "spinning the media" all of which are dated in March 2010, which are all the parts to their 'special investigation'.

This article is almost directly relatable to the topic of this thread: [https://www.crikey.com.au/2010/03/25/spinning-the-media- pre-...](https://www.crikey.com.au/2010/03/25/spinning-the-media-pre-packaged- journalism-just-download/)

(and it's from 2010 - we've had a decade of normalization between that article and the one that initiated this thread!)

P.S. No paywall!

<comment><USER27> Awesome! Thanks!

That is quite a collection!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I've heard before that this is common practice, both for written articles and segments. It does seem like an unhealthy relationship to have journalists in a position where they have to either run with what they're given or risk being excluded by private organizations in future press interactions. But that is a bigger societal problem we are exposed to, beyond just Amazon.

<comment><USER28> I would think that it bodes well for society for journalists to be excluded by private organisations in future press interactions. It only bodes poorly for the individual journalist that would be receiving special treatment from said private organisations.

Enforced exclusion from press interactions by a private organization is its own story worthy of publishing, and likely bad PR.

<comment><USER30> It's cooperate or die. The easy sources are mostly gone... mid level political people and normal workers can be hunted down pretty easily with modern tech, and subject to criminal sanction in some cases.

A close relative was a well known local public official in the 80s and 90s. In those days, the investigative reporters made more than he did and were relentless. In one case, he caught a guy climbing into the plenum over a ceiling tile to try to hear portions of a meeting in executive session.

Now, good reporters aspire to work in PR shops.

<comment><USER31> We'll its also cooperate and die. As increased cooperation undermines any trust in the news organization which contributes to diminished viewer/readership.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> South Park satirized it best: [https://youtu.be/z696bTiP8Ro](https://youtu.be/z696bTiP8Ro)

</comment><comment><USER33> The concept is nothing new, PR firms have been providing packed content for news consumption for years, and news organisations with ever decreasing budgets and time simply use them verbatim.

I'm sure there are criticisms about specific points, there always are, but I was aghast reading Flat Earth News a decade ago. I encourage everyone to pick up a copy for £3 on kindle

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Davies#Critical_reaction_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Davies#Critical_reaction_to_Flat_Earth_News)

<comment><USER34> This is correct. Had a friend in PR who did this sort of thing. They have money and time, and local news stations do not.

It's probably not so bad when the piece is on the wonders of asparagus and why you should eat more.

<comment><USER35> It is that bad (imo), unless it's clearly stated that it's a paid advertisement (that's what PR is), then you cannot trust your news source.

<comment><USER21> But it's not a paid advertisement. It's a corporate blog post published to an RSS feed for journalists to do with as they please.

It's worse than a paid advertisement because news orgs are running it for free and doing absolutely nothing novel or critical with it.

<comment><USER35> Their not paying for it? That doesn't seem right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> HN discovers the concept of "Press Packet"?

<comment><USER21> And businesswire, newswires in general, press releases, and lazy reporting! All at once!

But really though. It's one thing to buy air time or use your controlling interest in news stations to run misinformation campaigns. Publishing an article to what is essentially an RSS feed for journalists and them running the story verbatim is on the news station, not the company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> According to Amazon, it was just a press release, which they pushed via the same channels they push any other press release. (See the update at the end of the article.)

<comment><USER38> I wasn't aware press releases could include a script for a presenter. Is this really common? What is the industry name for these packages?

<comment><USER39> They're called "video news releases" (VNRs): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_news_release](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_news_release).

<comment><USER38> Thanks for this. I'm absolutely in shock this process is so industrialized, and that it has apparently managed to survive so long, and even through fake news being a huge topic in US politics

<comment><USER21> I would guess because there's no real coercion in it. A company has every interest to make it as easy as possible to news outlets to run the story and to so they write the whole thing and leave it to the journalists if they want to do anything else with it. Some - many - are lazy and just publish it verbatim.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I LOVE myself some dystopian 80s sci-fi.. On my TV! not in my reality!

</comment><comment><USER41> As others have said, this is apparently a common practice, but what does it mean for the credibility of The Washington Post? If a Bezos-run has no problems pushing a press release as news, what's to stop a Bezos-owned newspaper from doing the same?

</comment><comment><USER42> I'm so glad that this is illegal in the UK</comment>


AWS Road Trip - <AUTHOR> http://awsroadtrip.com

<comment><USER2> No Chicago?

EDIT: If you're near Chicago, please stop by. I offer both a venue for a meetup, and a place to stay.

We <3 AWS.

</comment><comment><USER3> Sounds like an interesting marketing effort but from a cost perspective this doesn't seem like the most practical thing to do. Between gas, rental expense, extra hotel nights, and most importantly time this will cost far more than 3 round trip flights (northeast, southwest, TX) and a few days with a rental in each area.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think it will work out well, but I am keeping track of the costs and will do my best to measure my return.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Dear Amazon,

We do exist.

Sincerely, Minneapolis & Chicago

<comment><AUTHOR> I had some schedule constraints on both ends.

My grandson's first birthday before the trip, and my UW graduation after, in close proximity to my daughter's high school and college graduation (she did her last two years of high school in a "Running Start" program, so she gets her HS diploma and her AA degree more or less simultaneously).

I also need to leave some time to write up a nice report since this trip is also an independent study for my Master's degree!

<comment><USER5> Would love to see you in Canada. We really dont get much attention in Toronto, but i'm sure Toronto would love to see you.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll get there at some point...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Sounds like a very cool idea - I look forward to reading about the trip along the way!

<comment><AUTHOR> I will do my best to keep the blog up to date with text, maps, video, and pictures so stay tuned!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> no atlanta?

</comment><comment><USER8> no NYC?</comment>


Incognito mode but with a password-protected permanent session - <AUTHOR> Incognito mode was a huge leap forward in browsing concepts because, lets face it, we all have secrets. But I've noticed that I have tended to never get involved in communities that I personally believe in but don't want in my browsing history. It all boils down to the inconvenience of logging in manually each time I want to use the site in incognito mode.
Are there any browsers or browser addons that support something like incognito browsing but instead of the sessions being trashed after the window is closed, the session is maintained permanently but is encrypted and invisible to anyone without the password? That way, I'd just have to login once upon opening the incognito window but all of my cookies, history, and local storage would be available just like a normal browser.
With permanent cookies there might be more opportunities for your browsing habit data "leaking" via 3rd party cookies and such. But really, I always saw incognito mode as basically a way to prevent other non-experts from accidentally stumbling on your browsing later. Even with incognito mode, for serious privacy you'd need to VPN anyways.
If I were making such a feature, I'd call it "Alter ego browsing". It might be possible with a chrome extension that has the permissions to execute in incognito, to read/inject cookies, and to read/write to the filesystem. <comment><USER2> Having multiple sessions/profiles in your browser comes pretty close, although I don't think any support password-protecting the session by default. If you are technical, you maybe could setup shortcuts to encrypt/decrypt the session folders while not using them? (I haven't looked into how current browsers implement sessions, but I had something related back in the original-Opera days)</comment>


Apple's hold on metal chassis supply chain hinders competition - <AUTHOR> http://www.tuaw.com/2011/08/04/apples-hold-on-metal-chassis-supply-chain-hinders-competition/ <comment><USER2> First of all, the proper term for the tool in question is a CNC mill, or "CNC machining center" as it's sometimes termed by the manufacturers of such machines. A solid block of material enters, and the finished product emerges.

Inside the CNC mill, a variety of rapidly spinning milling cutters (think of an intelligent Dremel tool) cut out the part. The work piece is stationary (for the most part) and the tool head moves. A typical CNC machining center will have an automatic tool changer so that it can cut with a variety of different milling cutters (bits) as it performs various cutting operations.

In contrast, a lathe (manual or CNC) rotates the work piece (typically a cylindrical piece of metal, or bar stock, such as square or hex stock) and a non-rotating cutting tool trims excess material.

Now with that out of the way, the story is a bit suspect. What's to prevent the competition from buying their own factory with 10,000 CNC machining centers? Or bankrolling their preferred vendor to do so?

<comment><USER3> You're right. Apple have a video of the CNC process here: <http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/design.html>

They also use a laser cutter to do the speaker holes and the incredibly fine holes on the front that you only see when the light is on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I remembered this from "The Man Who Makes Your iPhone":

 _When Apple's iPhone4 was nearing production, Foxconn and Apple discovered that the metal frame was so specialized that it could be made only by an expensive, low-volume machine usually reserved for prototypes. Apple's designers wouldn't budge on their specs, so Gou ordered more than 1,000 of the $20,000 machines from Tokyo-based Fanuc. Most companies have just one._

[http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_38/b41950584...](http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_38/b4195058423479.htm)

Could very well be that the machines are exactly these, designed only for prototyping and not exactly something you can easily get ahold of in a large quantity for mass manufacturing.

<comment><USER5> Thank you for digging up that quote. I was thinking after reading all the preceding comments that I'd have to go dig it up myself. Apple is on record as pouring billions of dollars into pre-paying for their suppliers to purchase incredibly expensive machines to produce apple products, so obviously apple ends up with priority access to the output: they made it possible!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wonder how many of those metal lathes were originally bankrolled by Apple's billions, as a part of their organization plan to help suppliers build capacity.

<comment><USER7> Well, I am suspicious about an article that talks about lathes with regard to making Macbook parts. A Lathe is a machine on which parts are spun at great speed. It is good for making things like the legs of tables, etc.

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

Apple's unibody technology uses CNC machines which are more appropriately called mills. They are not that uncommon, and are widely available to everybody... and have been for years. Maybe Apple uses machines from a particular segment of the market that has dried up supply, but it is rare that a company has too much demand for a product and isn't interested in building more.

EG: There's no evidence Apple has cornered the market on CNC machines, which can come from a wide variety of companies.

However, companies like Foxconn, do invest billions in buying large quantities of such tools and then dedicate them to manufacturing apple products, because Apple's specifications require them to do so. (This from an article I read interviewing Foxcon's founder.) The Band on the iPhone 4 required 1,000 custom metal machines, for instance. No doubt many of those billions invested in those machines come from Apple.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Unless I'm misreading something, this has prompted the competition to work with a different material (some kind of fiberglass). So even though the competition can't use the same material they have an alternative that is cheaper and readily available. I don't see the problem.

<comment><USER7> As a mental exercise, consider the thought process behind the perspective that this is "anti-competitive".

1\. Apple has taken a technology- metal milling- that has existed for at least half a century, and used it to make a nicer laptop case.

2\. Apple uses the modern manufacturing method to do this, requiring expensive CNC machines.

3\. Apple introduced popular products that, when you open them, look like they were hand crafted by master metalworkers in the 1940s (I'm serious!) while their competition is still shipping cheap plastic cases.

4\. Even though there are dozens of suppliers of CNC Mills of all type, Apple's requirements contain the market for a particular type (this is speculation on my, and the articles part.)

5\. Therefore, this is "anti-competitive" because Apple's competition can't just copy the unibody case idea and order machines and make their own unibody cases?

6\. So, what could possibly be the remedy? To fine Apple for being successful with an innovative new case design? To institute some government board of allocation to allocate the (currently, and only temporarily) limited supply of CNC machines?

If Apple hadn't been competitive-- that is, if Apple hadn't innovated and come up with a new case design-- there would be no demand for these machines from non-Apple people. So, this is a result of competition on Apple's part.

Sometimes I imagine that people think that if Apple is successful by doing something better, that this is "unfair" and that Apple should be punished.

Hell, I wish I could make a crapy video editor and then force Apple to give me some of their final cut profits, because, really, it is so unfair that apple makes such a good video editor, I'm just one guy and I can't hope to compete with that, right? (Just kidding, forcing Apple to do that is aggression, and is immoral. I'm just being illustrative. While I've thought about making a video editing app, I've not done that, actually.)

<comment><USER9> I don't think the article is suggesting that this activity is anticompetitive... I think, rather, it's being held up as an example of the genius of Tim Cook and Apple's lesser-appreciated operational excellence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> That should be CNC _mills_ , not lathes.

A mill makes mostly flat 3D parts like laptop chassis. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milling_machine>

A lathe makes turned (round) parts. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lathe>

<comment><USER11> The name for lathe in the Scandinavian languages translates literally into English as turning-bench. It's hard to forget its purpose and meaning with a name like that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't know if this particular instance qualifies, but I was reminded of an interesting article [1] about how Apple is a monopsony (the only buyer) in some markets. Thus, they provide lots of upfront capital to pay for the machines and factories, and receive either exclusive access or discounted pricing over competitors.

[1] [http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/05/how-apple-became-a- mo...](http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/05/how-apple-became-a-monopsonist/)

</comment><comment><USER13> As others have pointed out, it should be a milling machine, not a lathe... _unless_ , iPen is coming out next month. I can see the writing on the wall. :)

</comment><comment><USER14> It would be one thing if _they were not using the capacity_. But they are.

</comment><comment><USER15> sounds like jealousy. innovate!</comment>


RBarnes & Noble reveals Microsoft's patent strategy against Android  - <AUTHOR> http://www.androidcentral.com/barnes-noble-reveals-microsofts-patent-strategy-against-its-android-powered-devices?utm_source=ac&utm_medium=twitter&style_mobile=0

<comment><USER2> [IANAL]

It appears to me that:

1\. B&N is arguing that Microsoft's patents are invalid based on prior art rather than that Android does not use the methods covered by the patents. This makes Microsoft's assertion of their interest legitimate even if their patents should be overturned based on prior art (or if software patents themselves ought to be abolished, altogether). This form of competing claims is exactly the sort of matter appropriate for patent litigation.

2\. Given their financial situation and the choice of the Nook's operating system being non-central to B&N's overall profitablity, it seems to me that B&N's decision to litigate (somewhat on Google's behalf) seems to be an attempt to swing for the fences and hope for a big settlement rather than focus on business fundamentals.

3\. The DOJ appeal seems particularly week given the market share of iOS devices.

<comment><USER3> Placing the licensing fee for these patents at the same cost as licensing WP7 seems: 1) extremely anti-competitive and 2) unreasonable.

This seems like Microsoft is still trying to stay relevant via patent litigation rather than actual innovation. If WP7 tanks, then they are still getting the same amount of licensing fees for every Android handset sold, so who cares (from their perspective) that WP7 tanked...

<comment><USER2> > _"Placing the licensing fee for these patents at the same cost as licensing > WP7 seems: 1) extremely anti-competitive and 2) unreasonable."_

[IANAL]

To me, equivalent pricing seems to be plausibly consistent with the fair market price of a mobile operating system which incorporates Microsoft technology... [edit] at least from the perspective of a lawyer representing Microsoft.[/edit]

It is hard to argue that Microsoft is placing Android at a disadvantage relative to WP7 when the price is equal since this allows Android to compete upon its technical merits and any perceived market advantage the brand provides.

<comment><USER3> How is it the the license for a handful of patents is equivalent to the license for _an entire operating system_ that incorporates a _lot_ more than just those patents?

It comes out looking something like this:

      license for WP7     (1000 MS patents) = $40/device
      license for Android (6 MS patents)    = $40/device

(obviously the numbers are made-up, but you can get the gist)

"a mobile operating system which incorporates Microsoft technology" is a gross simplification.

<comment><USER2> > _"How is it the the license for a handful of patents is equivalent to the > license for an entire operating system that incorporates a lot more than > just those patents?"_

Because your question requires an understanding of the ways markets equilibrate, perhaps the Market Economics Fairy can provide an appropriate answer regarding the way in which the market establishes the exchange value of mobile operating systems based on supply and demand.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Link to the submission with the original Groklaw story: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3233029>

</comment><comment><USER5> It's irrational but this makes me lean towards their product instead of the Kindle Fire. Go B&N!

<comment><USER6> Not irrational at all. I vote with my wallet - I bought my second Nook a couple months back and intend to buy a third one.

<comment><USER7> The Nook Touch is awesome.

The only reason I am not buying a couple more is that they are only supposed to be used in the US, unlike the Kindles.

<comment><USER6> You must use an IP address in the US for book and software purchases, but, from that point, the items get downloaded to your device regardless of where it is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I really don't have a problem with people disliking Microsoft over its business practices but I really dislike articles where people write things like "Redmond Devil". I pretty much stop reading at that point.

<comment><USER9> At least they didn't refer to it as "M$".

<comment><USER10> Ah... you have instantly transported me to mid-'90s Slashdot comments.

<comment><USER3> ... and the Bill Gates borg icon. ;-)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Building A Factory vs. Discovering A Goldmine - <AUTHOR> http://www.sebastianmarshall.com/building-a-factory-vs-discovering-a-goldmine <comment><USER3> I prefer to discover goldmines while building factories. That is, I believe that taking an idea and executing on it will generate many more ideas. Take the good ideas and pivot them into your project, if it works. Use some of that gold in your factory.

Maybe the original idea was terrible - doesn't matter - you can just pivot out of it if it's going nowhere, and it found you other ideas that may go somewhere.

</comment><comment><USER4> Though I like the analogy used here, I think this whole "ideas" versus "execution" debate is rather silly.

Though obviously worthless unless executed, a truly great idea is worth a lot. The point is that there are not that many truly great ideas around.

A valuable patent is an example of something that is a great idea. The most valuable patent, for the anti-cholesterol drug Lipitor, generated $105 billion in revenues.

[http://www.pellegrinoandassociates.com/most-valuable- patent-...](http://www.pellegrinoandassociates.com/most-valuable-patent-in- history-expires/)

<comment><USER5> Lipitor wasn't an idea, it was the result of research followed by intensive development. Synthesis of an organic salt tends to be non-trivial. FDA approval is left as an exercise for the reader.

 _Atorvastatin was first synthesized in 1985 by Bruce Roth of Parke-Davis Warner-Lambert Company (now Pfizer). The best selling drug in pharmaceutical history, sales of Lipitor since it was approved in 1996_

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

<comment><USER6> Even after you've developed the method of synthesis, you still have to actually do it at scale, market it, and as you mentioned, get FDA approval. That all counts as execution.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Well there is a difference between discovering a goldmine and actually mining it. If you discover some gold dust in a stream panning for gold, that's a nice discovery, but if you actually can manage to dig and mine the gold out, that will make you money, but even goldmines aren't free to build. You need equipment, people, permits, land rights, etc.

Also, don't forget that many of the people who make money in a gold rush are the ones selling pickaxes, shovels, and other supplies. Think Parse vs devs building apps, who is getting rich?

</comment><comment><USER8> The goldmine analogy is palpable, BUT in the case of the mine/property, mineral-rights and land-rights are assigned to only one party. Having the legal and exclusive right to exploit physical properties (esp. when that property has value in the marketplace like gold would) is of course very, very valuable. No one can encroach on your territory for fear of legal repercussion. Aside from defensible patents, I'm not sure an "idea" can ever be treated as a goldmine. No one can be assigned the exclusive right to exploit an "idea". Perhaps film producers may have this right, but even in their case, they've essentially gambled on the bankability of someone's creative mind, and placed a bet, so they might be better thought of as the investor, and not the "idea-holder". I think a better goldmine analogy would be to think of a person's past performance (rather than a single idea), hunger, execution, determination, network, and get'er done attitude as the goldmine - one that will deliver gold more often than not with respect to the rest of the population at large.

</comment><comment> PhoeniX-P The public markets also encourage the 'discovery' of gigantic assets. I know a number of companies in commodity-rich countries (Australia, Canada) that, after discovering a mine, immediately go public because of this unique asset on their balance sheet. From there, they get the $ to exploit it, create jobs, etc. It is certainly a booming market and the demand will never stop. I don't think it's the same game factory-building versus discovery. The question is more environmental, economical and personal ambitions from my point of view.

</comment><comment><USER9> A lot of commentary on idea vs execution misses an important point - <USER2> some ideas have inherent value, people won't believe it until you prove it anyway!

There are so many "fools gold" mines being proposed and pitched, until you setup some equipment and bring out real, sparkling gold... statistically no one will try and compete and certainly no one rational will invest.

</comment><comment><USER10> It takes great execution to come up with a good idea.</comment>


Chrome has removed the "Simplify Page" print option - <AUTHOR> I'm just frustrated with Google Chrome having removed the Simply Page option on print less than a year after they added it. I waited a month before posting here hoping to see someone else mention it. It really is better than all the extensions available. The send to kindle is a good alternative but I've personally downloaded the portable apps version of Chrome with the feature still enabled.
I just wish there were some real way to contact the team and tell them how I enjoyed the feature. Could they open source it, make it an extension.
I always imagine Google as being a bunch of developers like I see online. Talking and sharing. But it really is just another company. No response is the best response.
Thanks, this was a rare venting for me.
https://productforums.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/chrome/mDTcnLVXj7c <comment><USER2> It's not your product, it's theirs.

<comment><USER3> Companies make products for their users or customers.

<comment><USER4> Companies make products to make money. As the saying goes, if you're not paying them, you're the product.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. But still companies should strive to make products that either people will use, or that people will buy. The "it's not your product, it's theirs" comment was not a very useful thing to say.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What Is the Difference Between NativeBase and React Native Elements? - <AUTHOR> The two look the same, with RNE overtaking NativeBase in number of stars in Github.<p>Translated automatically. <comment><USER2> Disclaimer: I work for NativeBase.

Both RNE and NativeBase are good and while the number of Github stars on RNE is greater, the number of downloads is greater for NativeBase.

Here's the stat for NativeBase, [https://npm- stat.com/charts.html?package=native-base&from=20...](https://npm- stat.com/charts.html?package=native-base&from=2016-07-17&to=2017-07-17) and here's for RNE, [https://npm-stat.com/charts.html?package=react-native- elemen...](https://npm-stat.com/charts.html?package=react-native- elements&from=2016-07-17&to=2017-07-17)

To add, there's a feature of theming in NativeBase via which you can add a uniform theme throughout your app.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!</comment></comment>


Last 48 hours of #TwitchInstalls compressed into 10 minutes - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2YJY4C8fDE <comment><USER2> They actually managed to get TempleOS running! If only briefly. I'm impressed.

</comment><comment><USER3> What was all the Windows Server 2012 stuff about, did they get out of the VM ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Could have been towards one of the "Bonus Points" challenges from the project site ( [https://www.twitchintheshell.com/](https://www.twitchintheshell.com/) )

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I find it interesting that the biggest threat to installing Arch Linux on a VM... is all of the other things they installed on to the VM.

Playing games, installing old and new versions of windows, all sorts of things. Even detours in to immortalizing the process of posting 'proof of life' to various places.

</comment><comment><USER5> This is from the stream that was the target of a botnet right? It'd be interesting if access to the IRC chat is available to compare the ratio of successful hits for this vs Twitch plays Pokemon vs a randomized control to see if there were moments with or without tampering from outside forces.

<comment><AUTHOR> Video is not from botnet stream. For anyone not fully up to date, the stream is broken into two phases. As the project being botnet targeted (called it!) and unsustainable by original creators, it was then handed over to a stronger group for support.

Even with the issues, it has been an amazing experiment to observe!

<comment><USER5> Oh so it's another run. Thank you for the clarification.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wow, can't believe they managed to install TempleOS during the stream.

</comment><comment><USER7> Hey OP, what's the music of this video?

<comment><AUTHOR> No idea... but it makes me want to hack the gibson!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Hey, what's the music of the video? I like it!</comment>


Rate My Startup: bTreated - <AUTHOR>

Launching this week, bTreated is an invite-only website offering members exclusive deals on last minute luxury services in their city. If you're willing to wait to book up to 48 hours in advance, you can score deals up to 80% off on services such as massages, facials, haircuts, and more. Last minute appointment inventory is the equivalent of last summer's footwear line and that's what spas and salons can discount.
Let us know what you think!
www.bTreated.com
Exclusive Invite for hk members only! firstname.lastname@example.com
Thanks a lot! <comment><USER2> Stepping away from the product driven deal-a-day sites... great idea. The interface seems user friendly, and the management seems to understand their market.

I think that this has the potential to be a huge success. Excited to see if these "deals" are as great as they sound upon launch.

</comment><comment><USER3> Nice design. I'd suggest showing what the deals are without having to sign up. Maybe you do this and I just missed it?

If I see a site that says "We have really cool deals for you, just sign up and we'll show you," I'm closing that window.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback and we certainly understand what your saying. Basically, the partners that we've signed on board don't want their deals exposed to Google and we're trying to protect their brand. However, I agree with you that we can do a better job of teasing the deals. Thanks again!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think the site looks nice. Can't wait to try out a deal. Seems like an interesting concept... really the first "different" type of site I've seen of these deal sites.</comment>