'YOUTUBE is EVIL': Somebody had a tape running, Google - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/29/oops_google_somebody_left_a_tape_running/

<comment><USER2> Google seems determined to make exactly the same mistakes with YouTube Music that it made trying to pushing Google+ down people's throats.

I.e., abuse a dominant position in one area to force users onto its other services whilst completely ignoring both the collateral damage caused and the actual stated preferences of their users. This is exactly the kind of thing that people used to (rightfully) castigate Microsoft for & it's predictable but depressing to see Google treading the same path. (I know "don't be evil" was just a slogan, but there was a time when Google stood for the principle of winning simply by being better than everyone else & it's saddening to see them resort to these kind of underhanded tactics to force their products into the marketplace.)

These kind of tactics do work in the short term of course, but ultimately they have a corrosive effect on your long term success because users cease to trust that you'll treat them fairly. Meanwhile the execs involved run off into the sunset with their bonuses extracted by burning the company's goodwill in order to drive short term metrics the way they need them to hit whatever internal targets they've set themselves.

<comment><USER3> Really it's bizarre because the service they're offering on its own is quite valuable, so they'll get user adoption eventually I imagine - maybe not 100% but that's greedy or unreasonable at minimum. Far more damage is done with an aggressive/controlling stance, future long-term revenues and negative mindshare.

<comment><USER4> Google's definitely lost their way. Got too big, too fast and didn't preserve the culture.

The biggest an organization can get and hope to have a reasonable chance of not going evil is probably some multiple of Dunbar's number. I think realistically the uppermost limit on it is going to be Dunbar's squared and assuming everyone has really high social skills and no life outside work then it's 250*250 = 62k people. But that only counts if everyone's job is doing nothing more than keeping up with the company's culture; no actual work gets done.

If you assume that you want your people to work while they're at the office then Dunbar's probably goes down quite a bit. Let's use the more reasonable 150 number that's closer to average and let's assume that you only want people to spend about 20% of their time on keeping in tune with everyone around them. That puts your group size at 30 instead of 150 or 250.

Now let's suppose that we organize hierarchically and that the senior execs really do live/eat/sleep/breathe the company. They're professional, high functioning managers, so let's give them the full 250. And then let's suppose that there are group managers who split their time between talking with their group and with senior management.

That gives you 250 groups of 30 people each or 7500 total employees. And in order to keep up with all these groups you've got to have 3-15 execs who are all on the same page and running themselves ragged trying to keep up. If you start adding more levels of management hierarchy you run the risk that as information gets passed down the chain it gets modified slightly or tremendously to serve the interests of any one individual in said chain. And there are too many bosses you have to "go over" to get a reasonable chance of talking to a real decision maker if you think something isn't right, but your direct boss is telling you to do anyhow.

This chart shows that Google cracked 7500 employees before 2007. [http://www.statista.com/statistics/273744/number-of-full- tim...](http://www.statista.com/statistics/273744/number-of-full-time-google- employees/)

I'd guess that they did between 2002 and 2004. The Google+/youtube integration debacle started in what, 2013? That means it took them a good decade before they really started to do outwardly very unattractive things. That's pretty impressive (or my theory is totally wrong).

Either way, past a certain point more employees are more of a liability than a badge of honor. It just increases the risk you do something stupid because everyone believes they're doing the right thing and there are no lines of communication to correct the misunderstanding, intentional or not.

<comment><USER2> Everything I've read suggests that the G+ / GMail / YouTube integration was forced onto the various parts of Google by executive fiat: The rank & file Google employees were against it, but a company is not a democracy so it was forced on them & by extension us.

Executive culture tends to laud the "visionary leader" who pushes their vision on everyone else. When that vision is wrong-headed you end up with situations like the G+ débâcle: it was a failure of the Google executive, not the employees.

My guess is that we have the same effect in play with the YouTube Music debacle: an "up and coming" exec who wants to make their mark by creating a new business line for Google that brings in big profits. They don't care if they sully the Google brand in the process because their incentives aren't aligned with Google's, any negative effects on Google's userbase (be they musicians, music consumers or just ordinary users of Google services) are just collateral damage in their internal political game.

This is warring business units in action.

<comment><USER3> There would have been many ways that integration could have occurred, so that executive direction isn't inherently the problem - it's more if there was no one to direct the nuances of doing then there's a problem.

That kind of nuanced understanding is the difference usually between successfully companies and their unsuccessful companies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I really don't understand the scandal here. This just confirms that Google is offering musicians the choice that's been suspected ever since YouTube Music Key just a rumor:

(a) Go all in on monetization (ads, Content Id, Music Key, etc.)

(b) Go all out on monetization (upload videos for free, no other commercial relationship).

They aren't offering this choice because it helps them kill puppies or whatever, but for what should be a blindlingly obvious reason: People who pay money for a service that gets rid of ads on music videos are going to be pretty ticked off if they still see ads on music videos.

You can call this evil, but you should be crystal-clear on what you're saying: Google trying to offer a service that lets people pay to get rid of YouTube ads (something lots of people say they want) is evil.

Personally, I think this isn't good or evil, but an example of the inevitable problems and complications that arise when you try to add subscriptions to a hugely popular ad-supported service with many different stakeholders. I suspect that this sort of thing is an underappreciated reason why Google is hesitant to offer paid subscriptions as an alternative to ads in other contexts.

<comment><USER6> Your (b) there means that people can upload all the licensed songs they want and no money goes to the artist and the artist has no choice in this except to agree to (a). (A) is a binding 5 year contract that forces her to release music on youtube as soon as it is done and cannot sign any other exclusive release deals on any music. Both choices remove all "choice" from the artist in regards to their own work. Imagine if github did the same to you with any code on their site, every programmer would leave for a new site the same day.

<comment><USER5> Um, last I heard, unless you pay them, Github requires you to make any code you upload open-source and publicly available. In many ways that's even more far-reaching than what YouTube is asking, but that hasn't stopped programmers from flocking to them in droves.

That does, however, suggest to me an option (c) that Google isn't offering: Musicians pay Google to run Content Id on their behalf to simplify the takedown process. While I'm sure there are some win-wins they're missing by not offering that (possibly including Zoë Keating), I really can't fault them for that. I expect the PR and legal complications would dwarf the storm that's already here.

<comment><USER7> _Um, last I heard, unless you pay them, Github requires you to make any code you upload open-source and publicly available._

Publicly available yes, open source no. You're free to choose whatever license you want:

 _You 're under no obligation to choose a license. It's your right not to include one with your code or project, but please be aware of the implications. Generally speaking, the absence of a license means that the default copyright laws apply. This means that you retain all rights to your source code and that nobody else may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work._

<comment><USER8> The requirement used to be _open-source and publicly available_

It is now only _publicly available_

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> [Update: Sat. morning: After discovering that Keating was taking detailed notes of her conversation with a YouTube representative, YouTube appears to be re-grouping to clarify their policies and figure out exactly what artists are being told. They have also not clearly explained why they are demanding a retraction from Digital Music News. More as it develops.]

[http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2015/01/23/breakin...](http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2015/01/23/breaking- youtube-says-zoe-keatings-claims-patently-false)

This is getting interesting.

<comment><USER9> Addendum - what is key here is that Zoe's original post was balanced and rational and even-handed. Even if YouTube disputed the factual aspects of it then this was a really poor way to go about it and has merely confirmed the feeling that they are throwing their weight around with small artists.

They could have turned things around by engaging in dialog and still got their point across.

Someone at YouTube needs to go back to PR school after this.

<comment><USER10> > _Someone at YouTube needs to go back to PR school after this._

I'd say that someone just needs to be repeatedly hit in the head with a copy of Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People".

Seriously, every single PR flop I've seen discussed here (or anywhere else) was a result of failing to adhere to a single basic rule: don't be a douchebag. It's really _that simple_. Do we really need PR schools to teach people how to be decent human beings?

<comment><USER11> _Do we really need PR schools to teach people how to be decent human beings?_

Probably not, but it's bad for business to be decent human beings. PR/x-relations/etc is about faking decency while unapologetically pushing a business agenda, that does take training.

<comment><USER10> That's how I feel, too. When I look at the whole area around sales, marketing and PR I can't help but wonder how come we, as a society, managed to legitimize being liars and cheats as an occupation. Lies are so common, so ordinary, that no one notices anymore.

<comment><USER12> Hardly a new phenomenon, though. The deodorant industry, for example, got its start in a successful advertising campaign convincing people they smelled bad. [http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-advertisers- convin...](http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-advertisers-convinced- americans-they-smelled-bad-12552404/?no-ist)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> k-mcgrady Here's a link to the transcript that's referenced in this article [0]

[0] [http://zoekeating.tumblr.com/post/109312851929/clarity](http://zoekeating.tumblr.com/post/109312851929/clarity)

</comment><comment><USER13> _> Google spends billions on marketing, paying lobbyists and buying influence. It funds over 150 organisations and overtook Goldman Sachs last year as the biggest corporate political donor in the USA._

Google and Microsoft wanted nothing to do with this culture, until they grew too big and those threatened started drafting legislation to curtail them. Once faced with a government action, both companies started having presences in the Capitol. It needs to buy influence to protect itself from its competitors, who already have entrenched lobbying efforts. The author's attempt to paint Google as evil from lobbying efforts fails to note the reason for this, government ability to critically damage a company.

1\. Microsoft lawsuit over bundling Internet Explorer

2\. Google had an FTC investigation regarding its search engine share

<comment><USER14> 3\. Google refused to stop advertising illegal pharmaceuticals after repeated warnings from the FDA and then eventually received one of the heaviest fines ever handed down by the US government (half a billion USD)[1].

[1] [http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/google-forfeits-500-million- ge...](http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/google-forfeits-500-million-generated- online-ads-prescription-drug-sales-canadian-online)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> As a Massachusetts resident, this brings the question of "two-party consent" to the forefront for me. There are many times I would like to record conversations, but cannot legally do so.

Who does two-party consent benefit more, the large corporations or the individual's right to privacy? Or is it not black and white?

<comment><USER16> I hate that law. It makes me think that some politician got caught talking about something immoral or illegal and sought to make phone conversations "safer." It certainly doesn't help, for example, a victim of domestic violence who receives threatening phone calls. He/she has to go to the authorities and receive permission.

On the other hand, in a conversation with like this with a corporation she could simply announce that she is recording it. Corporations do it all the time, in part at least to help train their customer service. And if the corp decides they don't want to have the conversation on the record, then they don't get to have the conversation at all. In other words, you say, "I am recording this conversation" rather than asking, "Is it ok if I record this conversation?"

<comment><USER17> > In other words, you say, "I am recording this conversation" rather than > asking, "Is it ok if I record this conversation?"

I'm not sure that is legal. I've had a few job interviews that were recorded, and in all of them I was told I needed to consent to being recorded _on tape_. So basically the interviewer would say, "are you okay with me recording this conversation?" and then I would say, "yes, that's fine."

<comment><USER18> > I'm not sure that is legal.

I'm pretty sure it is, considering the number of companies who have a "This call may be recorded" warning as part of the phone tree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The article reads like a pro-copyright/pro-SOPA hit piece, I would take it with a grain of salt.

I don't see anything too evil here, just reasonable business decision forced to them by the ridiculous copyright framework.

Google came with a simple solution: their way or the highway. Sounds harsh but anything else would require massive man-hours of development and lawyer- vetting. They rather pull your stuff rather than risking the money with very little chance of recouping the investment.

Zoe Keating, on the other side, disagrees and wants google to actually expend tons of money developing her "special case" into the system...

Edit: removed redundant sentence

<comment><USER7> _anything else would require massive man-hours of development and lawyer- vetting._

Why would keeping the current system - which is essentially just allowing people to use ContentID without being forced into accepting new legal terms - require massive man-hours of development and laywer-vetting? What's so difficult about it?

By the way, I fully agree vis-a-vis the SOPA comments. But it just goes to show the adversary of my adversary is not always my ally.

<comment><USER5> Keeping the current system and _not_ doing YouTube Music Key isn't very difficult - but there are more than a few reasons to think it is worth doing (all the people who block YouTube ads and/or use unauthorized downloaders, for example).

Doing YouTube Music Key and writing in special cases for independent artists while simultaneously making sure not to open any loopholes that would let, for example, Sony hold the service hostage later... that strikes me as very difficult, at best.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Could someone tell me what this whole thing is about? From what i gather it is the following:

1\. Users currently can monetize using contentID - any videos uploaded anywhere using their shit and they get a cut of the ads (if there are any).

2\. Google is making paid streaming version, artists now have two options:

2a) Agree to have everything on paid and free side and get money. Also, everything you release everything must also release to Youtube (I assume this is the main sticking point??).

2b) Don't agree and only have shit be on free side and not get money. You can upload whatever you want when you want.

<comment><USER21> Basically, yes. She points it out pretty clearly in [http://zoekeating.tumblr.com/post/108898194009/what- should-i...](http://zoekeating.tumblr.com/post/108898194009/what-should-i-do- about-youtube)

There are some additions:

2a) … The release on Youtube must happen at the same time and in a specified quality.

2b) … Everything that has been uploaded by her before will be deleted.

The obligation to release on Youtube is of course completely unacceptable. I like to think it would be quite illegal in many countries outside the US as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> The most realistic solution to the problem => [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8937287](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8937287)

</comment><comment><USER23> The Register article goes on for a while about the "weakening" of copyright law that allowed this to happen, but never actually says what legal change occurred that makes this possible. Anyone know?

<comment><USER7> If I had to guess, I'd say they mean the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions; which allows a user-content site like Youtube to exist at all - previously, you could be liable if you were distributing any kind of unlicensed content, so I believe that legally, you had to vet each upload.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Can anyone make sense of what the Google representative is saying in the last paragraph of the transcript, the part that goes "your channel will be separated from the deal and you can enter into a regular youtube partner commercial terms which allows you to monetize the content"? What music would be monetizable under that scheme?

<comment><USER7> From what I understand about the Youtube Partner thing, it essentially allows you to make money from the videos _uploaded to your channel_ , but not from videos uploaded by other users, even if you hold the copyright to those.

Essentially, they pay you for the "service" of uploading the videos and drawing users.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Dear journalists who are covering this story. (1) get the actual contract. Does it back up what this artist is claiming? (2) Find out the name of the Google employee who was telling the artist these things, corroborate the testimony of the artist and determine whether the employee was a high-level executive or lawyer within Google, or if they were just a customer service representative who had no authority to be giving legal advice to a customer on behalf of the company.

With all due respect this article does not go into any specific detail of what real evidence exists to back up this story.

</comment><comment><USER26> I think it's time for a serious YouTube competitor with more favorable terms for the content creators. Jason Calacanis seems very prescient now [0].

[0] [http://blog.launch.co/blog/i-aint-gonna-work-on-youtubes- far...](http://blog.launch.co/blog/i-aint-gonna-work-on-youtubes-farm-no- more.html)

<comment><USER27> The huge problem is Youtube is the go-to place when teenagers and young adults want to listen to a piece[0] and they know it.

[0] the alternative being torrents, and they're very much non-instant.

<comment><USER28> > go-to place when teenagers and young adults...

Doesn't that make it easier to disrupt? Younger people are less habit forming and more likely to try new services. I would think the licencing with record labels & infrastructure requirements would be the tough part for a new entrant.

<comment><USER29> > Younger people are less habit forming and more likely to try new services.

Younger people are not less prone to forming habits. There are, of course, always _new_ young people who may not have the same habits as the last round of young people, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Can someone elaborate on this bit?

"As Silicon Valley has been very successful in persuading the public to throw away their strong legal protections, Google may well get away with it."

What "strong legal protections" have been removed?

</comment><comment><USER31> The SOPA jabs at the end were completely unnecessary.

</comment><comment><USER32> Would it be possible for her to have 2 accounts? One for paid stuff and one for free? Or would that mess with the content id stuff?

</comment><comment><USER33> If it's from a tape, why not post the tape?

<comment><USER34> One reason would be that it compromises the identity of the representative and makes it about him/her - when they were just following the script.

<comment><USER35> Excellent point. I only thought of wanting to avoid the legal ramifications of surreptitiously recording a conversation in some jurisdictions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> It's hard to believe that articles in this newspaper are _not_ generated by a markov chain or some other machinery.

Just look at the titles of articles published by this author: [http://www.theregister.co.uk/Author/2578](http://www.theregister.co.uk/Author/2578)

What the hell does this means?

        "MI5 boss: We NEED to break securo-tech, get 'assistance' from data-slurp firms"

<comment><USER9> The Register originally aimed to parody the style of headline writing in British tabloids.

And the irony has slipped into being just a house style now - one which is rather uneven in quality and appropriateness.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Google-Google, what are you doing? Another embarrassing episode on how users are being treated.

</comment><comment><USER38> Googs being terrible? Who would've guessed.

<comment><USER39> At the risk of being modded down along with you (hi Google fans!), I'll say that even though I have a much lower opinion of Google lately, I was still surprised by their actions in this case. I know that Google has never, ever cared about the individual, but this is surely an abuse of copyright far worse than what the record labels could ever dream of.

Still, I have to wonder if this is just the Youtube division of Google acting this way, and perhaps once the big heads at Google HQ get wind of what's going on (or more accurately, the PR department), they will intervene on Ms. Keating's behalf.

Then again, that would open the door for who knows how many other independent artists under Youtube's Draconian contract to go after them for the same deal.

And of course, I'm happy to see that Ms. Keating is getting some free publicity out of all of it. Even if she ultimately can't pursue Youtube for lost ad revenue, she still has the power to publish her works in other media.

<comment><USER40> Your parent was modded down for bringing nothing to the conversation. It might as well have read "lol google."

Unfortunately other similar media aren't as lucrative. Even if they pay as well, not being on YouTube creates an exposure problem. I hope there's some way to work this out, but to be honest, Google still seems to me like the least sleazy company to help you monetize your music, and that's not a compliment to Google.

<comment><USER39> > Google still seems to me like the least sleazy company to help you monetize > your music

I don't know...even if you sign with the worst of the traditional record labels, once your contract is up the rights to monetize your own works revert back to you. With Youtube (so far) it seems that if you refuse to sign with them, they still claim the right to monetize your works even if you don't upload them yourself. They take away the artist's control over their own works without even a contract in place. That's extremely sleazy if you ask me.

<comment><USER40> Yeah, although Google and others were always willing to monetize your work without your knowledge or consent. To some degree that's how the internet works and it's not _entirely_ a bad thing, and a lot of it is not intentional (photograph a painting, share it on forum with banner ads.) But with Google, their change is now they're unwilling to give back without a contract.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Buy This Satellite - <AUTHOR> http://buythissatellite.org/

<comment><USER2> The organization fails to say what's in it for anyone who would donate. It sounds like it's a purely philanthropic project. Philanthropy is a noble cause, but if that's their intent, perhaps they should be more clear about their road map.

For example, what happens if they raise the seed financing of $150,000 to get started, but another bidder buys the satellite while they're ramping up? What happens to the money raised?

How will donors be able to track the success of the project in the short term and long term? Will donors have a voice in the decision-making process when it comes time to put the satellite into use?

The t-shirts are cool and all that, but they need to establish some credibility and publish a detailed plan.

</comment><comment><USER3> I was sort of interested, but...

Of the many activities in life for which prior experience are essential for success: buying assets out of bankruptcy; re-tasking a communications satellite...

So, I perused the bios, and I'm just really not convinced that they could pull it off. Looks like a bunch of smart and really well meaning (young) people. Needs more billionaire greybeard.

<comment><USER4> Mark Shuttleworth would be a good choice in my mind. Rich, with connections to more money. Experience in space so he understands the issues and has connections to the right kind of people to manage the technical side. Plus he's an African with an interest in philanthropy. Then again, for huge amount of money there are other ways to get lots of people connected. But being able to casually mention your communications satellite in conversation also has an allure..

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> While the concept is a noble one several questions come to mind...

They're going to build a network around a single satellite with no backup or (it appears) budget to build / launch a new one?

How do they intend to move this satellite? I know they talked to the owners and they say it's possible but I'd be curious to know the cost of the project. I am not an orbital mechanics engineer but it from my limited knowledge satellites only have enough fuel for minor course adjustments over their lifetime. Even if you could use much of it to completely reposition that would foreshorten the useful life of the satellite? And as of a few months from now the only current orbital recapture system (the shuttle) is being mothballed.

Just my initial quick thoughts. Sometimes great things come from seemingly grandiose plans though.

<comment><USER6> It is possible to move a satellite in geosynchronous orbit, and done in practice.

They will move the satellite by firing the East/West stationkeeping thrusters. Geosynchronous satellites, like the terrestar 1, need to periodically adjust their orbit to stay in their assigned slot. Aside from electronics failures, the operational life of a satellite is determined by how much fuel they carry, and how often stationkeeping is needed.

These kinds of moves are done currently. For example, the GOES constellation operated by NOAA has a backup satellite on-orbit ready to be moved to replace a failed satellite. It costs extra fuel from the limited onboard tank. In the case of GOES they plan for this fuel use. For Terrestar, it would shorten the 15 year lifespan some.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This project seems to be filled with fail.

Aside from the satellite itself, it seems this project is dependent on a "low cost open source modem", design and details TBD.

They reference a $12 Indian laptop, which has already been mostly proven to be an unrealistic pipe-dream. The $12 cost is the cost to the end-user after a government subsidy. Not realistic or scalable in terms of building a business dependent on this device.

No mention of the ISP on the other end of this satellite that is providing the free access (vague mention of reselling high-speed access through other ISP's).

I'm not familiar with how much bandwidth a single satellite can handle, but it can't be more than a couple of Gb/s, especially for an older unit. They are talking about a footprint of 6-249M people. Even on the low-end, this doesn't seem like it's going to provide a super-usable connection.

This is a noble project, and I wish them luck, but remain highly skeptical that the idea was formed in conjunction with beers, bongs, or both.

</comment><comment><USER8> Maybe I am a little bit ignorant but I suspect that the problem is that most of the people in Africa don't have computers (or other devices to use the Internet). Even more, I believe that solving hunger or HIV issues is a little bit more important for people living in poor countries.

<comment><USER9> No, you are not in the slightest bit ignorant.

I guess it's like the OLPC thingy .. while I agree everyone should have access to a computer and the world of information .. clean water, basic drugs and a society that allows free expression is way more important. Anything else just distracts from those basic rights (as I see it anyhow).

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> A satellite alone is just a dumb amplifier. If you want to share bandwidth and access, you'll need a lot of ground equipments to operate the access-layer (e.g. relying on DVB-RCS).

The project is not talking about the Telemetry Tracking and Control (TT&C) of the satellite. TerreStar-1 is a GEO satellite and you'll need to make regular manoeuvrings to keep the footprint stable too. Operating a satellite is costly and require a 24/7 staff... I don't really think that the project is realistic with such level of funding.

</comment><comment><USER11> How much Wifi setup could you do with even $150K , which is the cost of just getting started (1st stage) with this satellite setup?

Figure a very tall tower for $50K, then smaller 75 foot guyed towers at $5k each. Decent Wifi-band outdoor equipment is less than $1k per end including all wiring. Add a small generator and battery backup (even solar panels) at each location - you are talking far less than 300W (0.3kW) needed to run each tower.

So if you found a number of towns/cities you could serve, you could place the tall tower in the center with the small towers at each town. Now all you need is some form of Internet at the big tower to feed everyone else.

</comment><comment><USER12> I must be reading the text wrong in that video, because it seems to say that Google answers 88 million search queries in a month.

<comment><USER13> Yeah, apparently it's closer to billion.

<http://website101.com/press/google-76-billion-searches/>

<comment><USER14> Actually, your source is farther away from a billion than his was. :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Man, Black Friday is getting out of hand...

</comment><comment><USER16> Yeah, this seems like something Google should do. They're probably already looking at it. It's their job.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The blog post on "A Human Right" might answer some of the questions posted here: <http://www.blog.ahumanright.org/2010/10/buy-that-satellite/></comment>


Has all this magical technology actually made our life experience better? - <AUTHOR>

I work mostly in lispy and functional languages and am enamored by all the theoretical beauty to which these environments aspire. I dabble in Prolog and think a lot about genetic algorithms, neural networks, and other mysteries I may never need for work but that captivate my imagination. I still marvel at the ability to Facetime in realtime with my nieces on the other side of the world who I rarely see, talk for free over VOIP with my 87-year old grandmother thousands of miles away, and instantly learn from fascinating people all over the world who I will never meet in "real life." These are genuinely magical phenomena for anyone who grew up before most people even had "answering machines" or "vcrs", and at a time when even a "car phone" seemed like a far-off reality. And I'm not even that old.
But I remember when you could visit a theatre or have dinner and the event of being with others was the point, people sharing the same space and time together, invested in that moment, and the only stimulation from another human was the one in front of you. Each encounter was a shared experience only between those involved. Uninterrupted from the outside, a special depth emerged from these moments.
Modern life has mostly removed this. You cannot watch a movie with an audience that is fully involved in it. At a party, many are equally invested in their conversations with those not present as they are with those who are. The energy and attention of our minds is not infinite, and when some of it enters the electronic portal, much less trickles toward those a few feet from you. Even a short check of email has a lingering effect on your mind that lasts longer than the actual disruption.
What is the net balance of these new tools? New generations will never understand the equally magical impact of being present in the moment with one or a hundred others, the true "social" experience, free of the distractions of an entire planet that is accessible from our purse or pocket. <comment><USER2> This is a topic already covered at some length: [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-m...](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist- manifesto/ch01.htm)

I'm not joking, the predictions and discussion of technical progress are very much relevant. It should be required reading. The nearest I can tell, anti- intellectualism and the red scare have robbed multiple generations of a valuable source of vocabulary and context for understanding our current stage of human development.

As for how, exactly, we get past alienation - I don't know.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for bringing this up. I remember reading the communist manifesto back in the day. Despite how insightful it is, our society makes it seem like a subversive action.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's often true with paradigms and ideologies. The way a particular group of people or a society at large interpret and use/abuse a philosophy is rarely reflected in the ideology itself. For example, look at all the atrocities, both physical and social, that have occurred throughout history due to the way Christianity was interpreted. The Bible has been used to justify all types of prejudice, even though the New Testament's message is actually quite the contrary.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think the answer to that question depends on your perspective, when you ask, who you ask, and the specific context upon which you are asking. If you asked a horny bisexual caveman 7000 years ago, he might prefer spending time with you in person and in the moment to being on Facetime with you. If you ask someone now, they'd probably prefer Facetiming a horny bisexual caveman rather than spending time with him in person. I think its mostly relative, but personally I think the taste of the magic we consume makes us require more magic to attain general satisfaction, and in that sense it is addictive and reduces joy in things like being present in the moment, since we have the means to solve our problems with more magic in any given moment.

</comment><comment><USER5> Humanity and culture are fluid and dynamic. It will always be changing. I'm sure there were many who panicked about how social interactions were ruined by the introduction of the light bulb to the living room, and then the radio, then tv, etc.

</comment><comment><USER6> Ugh, "modern panic" is so tiresome. "New generations will never understand the...impact of being present in the moment with...others, the true 'social experience"? Why not? Are new generations going to be physically unable to gather, and is smartphone neck going to be an evolutionary advantage? It's just the same old KIDS TODAY and THINGS AREN'T WHAT THEY WERE rubbish that Neolithic Man was sick of hearing from his grandparents. Get over yourself.

<comment><USER7> I don't see it as "modern panic", but simply as a fact of life. Just like the OP, I love the ability modern technology gives us for communication, information, creativity, etc. But pretending that there are no drawbacks would be dumb and blinding oneself.

<comment><USER8> His point was that the "it was better in my time" argument is as old as mankind it feels like. What you call drawbacks is what you experience in your childhood and what you think today's child are missing.

<comment><USER7> > His point was that the "it was better in my time" argument is as old as > mankind it feels like.

Oh, I absolutely agree with that. (Don't quote me, but wasn't it Aristotle who is on record for complaining about "the youths of today"?).

But I don't think that that is what the OP was really trying to say - his post wasn't so much about "everything used to be better" than rather "some things are really cool today, other things were perhaps cooler back in the days". That's a much more balanced approach, which IMO is worth thinking about. Like I said, one needs to think about up- and downsides of new developments. Ignoring either or both is not realistic.

> What you call drawbacks is what you experience in your childhood and what > you think today's child are missing.

Hm, first of all, I'm not even 20 yet (not quite). Secondly, I spent my formative years in Africa (with few electronic devices) and Europe (with electronics everywhere). So I dare say I am actually in a position to compare the two.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Bretton Woods transcripts available - <AUTHOR> http://www.centerforfinancialstability.org/brettonwoods.php

<comment><USER2> Available, but only if you're from the US.

</comment><comment> simba-hiiipower wow a pretty significant release.

for those unfamiliar with the bretton woods summit (officially the _united nations monetary and financial conference_ ), it essentially laid-out the foundation of our modern (open) global financial system. it took place just after the second world war (1944) and the monetary system it created was in- place through 1971.

the key objective was to facilitate a more open global economy and one in which the leading (read: western/industrialized/democratic) economies would cooperate in governing and maintaining the system. given the timing, it had a particular focus on (and was quite effective in) helping rebuild post-war economies (namely germany and japan), through policies which helped lower barriers to trade and capital movements during those periods of rapid redevelopment.

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----

some high-level details and history; adapted from wikipedia [1]:

 _The plan involved nations agreeing to a system of fixed but adjustable exchange rates where all currencies were pegged against the US Dollar, with the dollar itself convertible into gold (in effect a gold-dollar exchange standard).

Two significant international financial institutions, the International Monetary Fund and The Bank for International Settlements (precursor/current component of the World Bank) were created; a key part of their functions were to replace private finances with more reliable source of lending for investment projects in developing postwar states.

The new exchange rate system allowed countries facing economic hardship to devalue their currencies by up to 10% against the dollar (more if approved by the IMF), thus preventing them from deflating their currencies to stay on the gold standard. A system of capital controls was introduced to protect countries from the damaging effects of capital flight and to allow countries to pursue independent macroeconomic policies while still welcoming flows intended for productive investment.

The system remained in place from 1945 to 1971 when the central role of the US Dollar became a problem as the international demand for dollars eventually forced the US to run a persistent trade deficit, which undermined confidence in the dollar. This, together with the emergence of a parallel market for gold where the price soared above the official US mandated price, led to speculators running down the US gold reserves. Even when convertibility was restricted to nations only, some (notably France) continued building up hoards of gold at the expense of the US. Eventually these pressures caused President Nixon to end all convertibility into gold on 15 August 1971. This event marked the effective end of the Bretton Woods systems; attempts were made to find other mechanisms to preserve the fixed exchange rates over the next few years, but they were not successful, resulting in a system of floating exchange rates which we (generally) have today._

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_monetary_systems#...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_monetary_systems#The_Bretton_Woods_Era:_1945.E2.80.931971)</comment>


⌘Q is too damn close to ⌘W - <AUTHOR> http://squishtech.posterous.com/q-is-too-damn-close-to-w <comment><USER4> The reason it's not normally a problem is that if you're working on a document and you hit ⌘Q (or ⌘W for that matter) you will be prompted to save your changes.

However, this does become a problem in web browsers and file browsers where there are no changes to save.

Apparently in the early days of OS X the NEXTSTEP guys wanted to add a ⌘Q shortcut to Finder, which would log you out of OS X. As the story goes, some people at Apple really hated that idea, so after some lively debate they settled on ⌘⇧Q instead. (As a bonus, it's now a global shortcut, so you don't have to be in Finder to use it.)

Similar problem with web browsers. You can give it a different shortcut, or you can enable a prompt to warn when closing multiple tabs. Most people opt for the latter.

<comment><USER5> In earlier versions of OS X (<= 10.3 (?)), ⌘Q when in the Finder quits it, just like any other application, which was a little disconcerting the first time you did it (by mistake).

<comment><USER6> This wasn't the case at all, at least not on stock OS X (who knows what you could enable with haxies). You could certainly force quit the Finder, but it just relaunched immediately.

<comment><USER5> Well, that's funny, because I'm using vanilla OS X 10.3.4 right now, and I just quit the Finder in the way that I said.

Screenshots:

<http://www.alexmaslin.org/quit-finder.jpg>

<http://www.alexmaslin.org/no-finder.jpg>

It doesn't relaunch automatically. You either have to click on the Finder icon in the Dock, or otherwise it relaunches itself if you quit all other open applications.

<comment><USER6> That's extremely funny, but I'm almost completely certain that's not as "vanilla" as you think it is. Perhaps it was enabled on the command line? It looks like

      defaults write com.apple.finder QuitMenuItem -bool YES

will do the trick. So perhaps you're operating from a custom com.apple.finder preferences file.

<comment><USER5> Yes you are right. I have absolutely no recollection of tweaking this, but it seems it has been done. (I just checked a different, definitely unadulterated 10.3.x install, and it doesn't have the Finder quit menu item.) Thanks for correcting me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Most browsers warn you if you are about to close multiple tabs.... I guess chrome doesn't? Weird.

That would be an implementation problem for chrome - every other OSX application tends to properly warn you if you are about to close multiple context windows with cmd-q.

EDIT: Just researching a bit- this seems to be a conflict between the Chromium design goals and the OSX UI guidelines... the Chrome team absolutely refuses to add a warning dialog if you try to close multiple tabs, but it would be the expected behaviour on OSX.

I tend to fall on the side of OSX - part of what makes it great is UI consistency - and this is one case where Chromium is making things worse, not better.

<comment><USER8> The latest developer version of Chrome (9.x) has an experimental warning dialog in "about:flags".

<comment><USER9> Where? I have 9.0.570.1 on Windows 7 (32-bit) and I don't see such an option in the about:flags.

The only flag relating to tabs I can see is the first one to put the tabs down the side.

<comment><USER8> The flag is "Confirm to Quite". It might be Mac (v 9.0.572.1) only right now as I don't see it in Linux (v 9.0.570.1).

<comment><USER10> I'm 99% certain that this is a Mac-only option for now. It might make it's way into the other OS builds, but I don't think it is currently set up for them.

<comment><USER9> Might be a v9.0.572.1 only option, and that version seems to have only made its way to Macs as yet. Windows and Linux seem to be at v9.0.570.1 still.

<comment><USER11> I've got v9.0.577.0 running on Linux and I don't have it either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Do people really not know that Chrome has an option to reopen itself with the tabs you had open last? Preferences > Basics > On Startup > Reopen the pages that were open last.

<comment><USER13> Well yes, but if you have 20+ tabs open in a couple of windows, it's disruptive and time consuming to close and reopen all of them.

<comment><USER14> And I'm sometimes a little annoyed at all the things to which I've been saying for the last week "I'll get back to that" suddenly showing up in my company's proxy logs all at once.

<comment><USER12> If that's a serious concern you might want to rethink your company ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Latest chrome (9.x dev) has an option in "about:flags" to show you a kind of confirmation box before quitting.

<comment><USER16> This has been the best tip I've ever gotten. Thank you kind sir for having changed my life so drastically in just a second!

+1

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I've had this happen to me in Chrome a few times recently (I switched to Chrome full time a few weeks ago), but I've never had it happen in Safari since Safari prompts you if you have multiple tabs/windows open.

<comment><USER14> Safari didn't prompt for the first major version or two — and didn't have 'reopen all windows from last session', either. Suuuuck.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> What's really needed here is not more distance between hotkeys, but instead universal lightweight undo for user interactions.

The most precious resource is the user's time. There should be no interaction that irreversibly discards the user's work. We have fairly universal undo for editing operations; there should be just as much undo support for closing windows, tabs, or apps -- carefully constructed artifacts of the user's workflow.

<comment><USER19> Tabs: ⇧⌘T

Apps: double tap

Windows: Good idea! If only there was an OS that treated those as vital UI components...

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> "The Opposite of Fitts' Law - The Ejector Seat Analogy"

[http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2010/03/the-opposite-of- fit...](http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2010/03/the-opposite-of-fitts- law.html)

</comment><comment><USER21> no keymap is without its annoyances. in DVORAK, ⌘w is right next to ⌘v (paste). i close windows all the time :(

<comment><USER22> On the other hand, in Dvorak, Q is directly above the left ⌘ key (where X usually is), and W is directly above the right ⌘ key (where , usually is). I'm always reminded of this serendipitous symmetry whenever people complain about ⌘Q and ⌘W being adjacent on QWERTY.

<comment><USER21> absolutely. this is a wonderful thing...i may close a lot of windows, but i don't usually quit the entire program unless i mean to.

<comment><USER23> unless somebody steps up to my computer and tries to cut some text

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> In vi, I use control+w to shift between the sections of a split window. You can imagine the hilarity that used to ensue. But, it's not an issue anymore. I haven't made that mistake in well over a year.

<comment><USER25> Similarly, in emacs I use ctrl+n to go down. On FF, this will open 5-20 windows, depending on how long I wait. (I have a very fast repeat.) Pentadacty with emacs bindings has helped with, but occasionally I will hit the key to pass all keys to FF, and once again end up with ~20 windows to close.

<comment><USER26> Me too, ugh. I also can't tell you how many times I've hit M-d thinking I'd delete a word and then keep typing, and end up writing all over the address bar instead.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> German hackers represent: On a German keyboard on Windows or Linux, you have to enter a few characters with the right Alt key (the "AltGr" key). This includes the "@" sign, which is located on the "Q" key. A lot of first-time switchers thus cause their browser to close every time they try to enter an email address.

Incidentally, the "@" sign, as many other characters, is on a different key on the German Mac layout. Never understood why e.g. the US layout stays the same on every system, but the German one doesn't. Good time that I switched to the US one long ago. Now I only have to fight with different ways to access umlauts…

</comment><comment><USER28> With a bit of practice, you can train your hand to do ⌘-W as a 3-finger "chord" by touching your middle finger to the 'Q' key before allowing your index finger to depress the 'W'.

</comment><comment><USER29> I'm using Firefox and Vimperator [1] with a TypeMatrix EZ-Reach 2030 [2] mapped to US-Dvorak under FreeBSD 8.1 with xmonad [3] + xmobar [4].

This means that:

\- When my fingers are resting on the home row, they are on keys _a, o, e, u_ and _h, t, n, s_.

\- When I want to close a tab in Firefox, I press _d_ , which is left of _h_.

\- When I want to quit Firefox completely, I press _:q_.

I can't remember the last time I closed a tab I didn't want to close or exited Firefox without meaning to do so. The only problem I had for a while, was that I started "record macro" with _q_ when I meant to scroll with _j_ \- that hasn't happened for quite some time now.

I mostly only use Chromium if I am logged in on various sites in Firefox and I need to use my server as proxy to access a web service bound to 127.0.0.1 on the server (meaning that it is not publicly accessible), while also using the sites I am logged in on in Firefox. I always quit Chromium by closing all tabs, and as mentioned by others, _Ctrl+w_ is far away from _Ctrl+q_.

[1]: <http://vimperator.org/vimperator>

[2]: <http://typematrix.com/ezr2030/>

[3]: <http://xmonad.org/>

[4]: <http://hackage.haskell.org/package/xmobar>

</comment><comment><USER30> I use this to map it to ⌘⇧Q

defaults write com.google.Chrome NSUserKeyEquivalents '{"Quit Google Chrome"="@$Q";}'

</comment><comment><USER31> On German Windows keyboards, @ is on right-Alt-Q. Recently, I had a (Windows- trained) guest who wanted to write an email on my Mac, but Firefox kept "crashing".

</comment><comment><USER32> Huh. I guess that's true, for some reason I've never noticed it before.

I usually keep my left hand on my "home keys" when browsing (Firefox user here), in order from pinky to thumb, q-w-e-f-⌘, of which I use w, f, and ⌘ on a regular basis, and I guess that usually keeps me from mis-hitting q when I mean w, I'd actually have to push the wrong finger, which is pretty rare.

Right thumb goes on the trackpad for mouse interactions (much easier now that the MBP trackpad presses in rather than having a button), other four fingers on that hand go on j-k-l-; (⌘+j/k/l I use all the time for downloads/search/address bar, ; is wasted, of course). Scrolling is the only thing that sucks, but you can get pretty far with space/shift+space (hit space with left thumb, shift with right pinky).

If I had a problem with this, I'd probably go with the WoW shortcut for quitting, alt+command+Q, which is pretty hard to do accidentally (Double-thumb keypress? Expert move...) and doesn't tend to be bound to anything else. Command+1 seems like a bad idea because some of us are very used to Command+(number) to switch to tabs.

</comment><comment><USER33> Huh? I never had that problem and do actually like it that way. Train yourself to use the middle finger for "W" and the ring finger for pressing "Q" and the problem vanishes. It will still happen to you perhaps once per month, but I can live with that.

<comment><USER10> This is how I do it and exactly as you say, I rarely end up doing the unintended action.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> C-x C-c is too close to C-x C-b.

<comment><USER35> Quitting emacs should be a fairly rare task; just remap C-x C-c to something harder to hit by accident in your .emacs file.

(I would do this myself, but I keep putting it off.)

<comment><USER34> Oh, I do. Same with C-z as mentioned below. When I'm in a terminal-based session, I keep C-x C-c and C-z around. When I'm in my main X-based session, C-z is zap-to-char and C-x C-c is bury-buffer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> This has bitten me several times and it really sucks. The "Restore Tab" function doesn't restore the state of Flash applications and it doesn't restore content in some input boxes (like those on Facebook, because they are hidden by JS initially).

If you're in Private Browsing mode and this happens, you lose the whole session forever, and that just happened to me the other day. It was really frustrating. :(

</comment><comment><USER37> In Chrome, I just use Ctrl+Shift+T when this happens.

<comment><AUTHOR> Maybe it's a version thing, but Ctrl+Shift+T doesn't work for me. Cmd+Shift+T does. But will it restore all the tabs you had open when you accidentally quit?

<comment><USER37> Oops, yeah it's Ctrl on non-Mac and Cmd on Mac. It does restore the tabs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I've never had this happen to me if I recall. Do the people who have a problem with this not keep their hand in "typing position"? It seems really difficult to me, with my left hand in position (which can be assured with the F dot) to hit W with my pinky or Q with my ring finger.

</comment><comment><USER39> In theory maybe but in practice I've never typed cmd+q instead of cmd+w. (A little bit like I've never typed ctrl+a (which select all) instead of ctrl+s (which save)).

However, I've pressed f1 instead of escape a couple of time so I make sure to bind f1 to escape in vim

</comment><comment><USER40> That's why for applications that I do not want to quit easily I set "Application (keyboard) Shortcuts" [ OS X ] to require something less commonly used (like cntl-opt-cmd-Q) for quitting. [ OS X System Preferences -> Keyboard ]

</comment><comment><USER41> This doesn't seem to work for me using Firefox on Snow Leopard. The menu changes to the crazy keyboard shortcut I give to Quit (and sure enough the crazy combo works as well), however Cmd-Q _still_ quits Firefox as well.

<comment><USER42> That's because Mac Firefox is a dirty, filthy no-good hack.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> FWIW... This is a useful resource when trying to remap shortcuts in Safari. I used it to remap Cmd-L to "Google Search..." to better mimic Chrome.

file:///Applications/Safari.app/Contents/Resources/Shortcuts.html

</comment><comment><USER44> My real problem is that M-w is too close to ⌘-w, especially when I have meta mapped to ⌘ on my external keyboard.

I would really love to have a consistent set of shortcuts across emacs and everything else I use.

</comment><comment><USER45> I think the worst design decision was putting the print button next to the save button. I've definitely sent code files in excess of 50k lines to some unknown printer before by accident.

<comment><USER46> That's poetic justice for having code files in excess of 50k lines.

<comment><USER45> Haha tell me about it. I've seen functions in excess of 30k lines.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Chrome for Linux addresses this by using Ctrl+Shift+Q.

</comment><comment><USER48> This is like complaining that he keeps getting a spoonful of Cheerios up his nose every morning because his nostrils are too close to his mouth.

<comment><USER49> ...and then posting a nice hack to relocate the nostrils to the top of the head during Cheerios-eating time and sidestep the spoon-nostril problem entirely. So it's not so bad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I'm willing to bet the author is either A) not a touch typist or B) Comes from Windows/Linux. It's not the author's fault, of course, but it has been around since 1984 and it's unlikely to change. The 'native' way to type commands on a Mac is using your thumb to press Command and your pinky to press Q, or your ring finger to press W.

It feels awfully weird pressing Q with your ring finger.

Window/Linux users use the pinky to press ctrl, taking your hand out of the usual touch typing position, and thus making it more prone to mistakes.

<comment><USER7> I agree with your premise but not your conclusion. I'm a touch-typist - <USER2> many touch typists in the computer age end up not always using classical touch typing methods - after all,the traditional typewriter keyboard didn't have an alt or cmd or ctrl key, right?

I use the thumb on left-cmd and a ring finger on either q or w (never thought about it... maybe I use the pinky sometimes) - and I don't recall ever making a mistake, although I suspect that may partially be because I primarily use safari, and it warns me if I try to close multiple tabs or a single tab/window with form data filled out.

And everyone should hopefully be mapping capslock to ctrl.... that just saves all kinds of hassle down the road.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I could have sworn somebody made a SIMBL plugin years ago to provide confirmation for Cmd-Q in all apps...or am I just going crazy?

</comment><comment><USER51> well, this is not really a solution to his problem, but instead intended as an informational bit. i am actually using a dvorak(-programmers) layout. then the Q and W keys are quite far apart, with the Q key right above the left ⌘ key, and W right above the right ⌘ key, a really handy addition to an (already) awesome layout.

</comment><comment><USER52> I just did this to a blog entry after reading your post. I should have written in out in vim like I normally do.

</comment><comment><USER53> you just changed one of the consistent features of all os x applications, how to close applications and close windows/tabs of applications.

for some reason i always use the finger motion/press of thumb on left ⌘-key + index finger on q key to quit things and i've never experienced the ⌘q ⌘w issue.

<comment><USER54> I think squishtech's first clue that they changed one of the consistent features of all OSX applications was when they went to the control panel and changed the feature.

I think it'll be OK.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> It is indeed to close, but it's not worth it modify it since it's a system wide standard.

</comment><comment><USER56> Can you close tab with Ctrl-W in Mac (like in Ubuntu and Win)? If so - <USER3> use it. Ctrl-Q do not quit browser =)

</comment><comment><USER57> Good thing we're fixing this!

</comment><comment><USER58> Yes, yes and yes.

</comment><comment><USER59> A F#$#@$* men

</comment><comment><USER60> o is too close to 0.

</comment><comment><USER61> very true.

</comment><comment><USER62> I will give plenty of karma to anyone who can tell me an easy way of doing something even remotely similar in Linux. I'd love it.

<comment><USER63> On Ubuntu the first thing I do with a new install is rebind quit to Command W. (System -> preferences -> keyboard shortcuts.)

If you're using Firefox you just make sure browser.warnOnQuit is set to True (out of the box, it's set to true.)

As far as Chromium goes, near as I can tell ctrl-Q does not work at all, which is something Firefox would do well to imitate.

<comment><USER64> Chromium uses Shift+Ctrl+Q to exit.</comment></comment></comment>