Editorial: "How piracy changed my life" - <AUTHOR> http://www.neowin.net/news/editorial-how-piracy-changed-my-life <comment><USER4> I'm one of those people who would pirate just because I could. It was almost a game, trying to amass as much warez as I could, to the point that 90% of the stuff I got I either never used, or used only once.

That changed over time. As my time became more valuable, I couldn't spend all day fiddling with software anymore. I became more focused, downloading only stuff I used a lot. And then it hit me: It would be far easier to just buy the damn thing for $10, $20, $50, whatever and not have to hunt shit down, find a keygen, or in the worst case crack it myself.

So now I don't pirate anymore. It's not out of a feeling of moral obligation, but rather because I appreciate the convenience. And, realizing that pirates are people at various points on the price/effort spectrum, I don't even worry about my own software being pirated. Why should I, when I get income aplenty from it even with pirates in the equation?

<comment><USER5> It probably depends on the business, but I know several developers of music production software that can correlate huge drops in sales with the release of new cracks of their software _to the exact day_.

I think we are a little too quick to assume that a pirated copy is not a lost sale.

<comment><USER4> That would make sense, considering that music production software tends to be viciously expensive, and music producers tend to not have much money.

<comment><USER6> and there is resistance to using the free software alternatives, thus leading to a cycle where the free software alternatives don't get feedback/criticism.

Teenagers especially are really influenced by brands. I keep suggesting that 'industry standard' = 'same as all the others' and that being a bit different might be a good idea. No dice.

<comment><USER7> The free software alternatives are all absolutely terrible. Ardour is the leader amongst free DAWs, and is very nearly as good as Pro Tools was ten or fifteen years ago. There's no good free sequencer, no good sampler, no good reverb. Audio software is just too niche and too difficult; It requires a lot of skills that are rare in the free software community.

<comment><USER6> Well, some people seem to manage with these tools! And if more people were introduced to them, perhaps the feedback and number of interested coders would increase.

I admit I was thinking more of supercollider and puredata, so more 'sonic arts' I suppose.

<comment><USER8> Until there is a open-source program that replicates what Ableton Live offers (seamless and easy-to-use integration of audio recording and nonlinear editing with MIDI production), no one will consider using an open-source tool.

The biggest hurdle from my point of view is that low-latency audio on operating systems that are not Windows or OS X is a joke. Some organization needs to sink and huge chunk of developer time into either improving the user and developer experience of JACK or writing something new. Maybe once that is in place and starts shipping in vanilla Ubuntu (no special kernel requirement either!) the user software developers will be able to start catching up with the tools available on the Win/Mac platforms.

<comment><USER9> Easy to use? I've played with some of these tools, including Ableton Live and I've never found any that is actually easy to use.

They are all too stuck in the sliders/knobs metaphor. I'm not sure it's an adequate metaphor for people who has not produced in the physical world before.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's always been rumored that Adobe software, especially Photoshop, has been easy to pirate to encourage adoption with a user base that might otherwise seek alternatives. As those people hone their skills and eventually find jobs, Photoshop is the norm and what their employers purchase licensing for.

<comment><USER11> Same with Windows and Office. It's better to have them pirate your program than run somebody's else.

<comment><USER12> "Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, people don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though. And as long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."

\-- Bill Gates during speech at University of Washington

[http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/09/business/fi- micropir...](http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/09/business/fi-micropiracy9)

<comment><USER13> "Number two market share goes to Windows pirated, or unlicensed ... That's a competitor that's tough to beat, they've got a good price and a heck of a product, but we're working on it."

\-- Steve Ballmer, 2009 <http://www.osnews.com/story/21035>

<comment><USER14> Another quote by Ballmer, heard in person a couple of weeks ago: "In Russia, we have a great market share, but a bit of a problem collecting".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I remember when Bill Gates came to Romania to launch their Microsoft branch here, and in front of the public the country's president himself told him how helpful the _pirated_ version of his Windows has been for Romania. It was quite hilarious and a ballsy thing to say to Bill Gates.

But I think Microsoft and Bill Gates have learned to accept that, because imagine if China, India, and all the other poor countries out there were _forced_ to use the free Linux instead of the pirated version of Windows. Then Windows would've had 50% or less market share in PC's, and that would've meant they wouldn't have had a monopoly in browsers, nor in Office anymore. So having Windows everywhere, even pirated, has helped Microsoft a lot to get its monopoly position.

I think in the next decade, it will be Android which will be what Windows was for all these kids in poor countries. It will be much cheaper to even get the hardware for it than it was to get a PC 10 years ago, and this time the software will actually be free and open source. I truly believe Android will revolutionize the world in this sense.

It's unfortunate that Microsoft and Apple are trying to slow it down right now, and make the devices more expensive than they should be through bogus licenses and lawsuits, but they won't stop it.

</comment><comment><USER16> I'm glad things worked out for Vlad -- when I was younger, I pirated a fair amount of software and games, and, like him, I think it enabled me to get inspired to learn more about computers in general and, indeed, now I stare at them all day for work.

But.

I'm not sure what the bigger point is, here. Should we be okay with piracy as long as the pirate is using it for self-betterment? Do games count for that? What about pirating Game of Thrones episodes? (Or, to take a wild leap: Is it cool for a kid to steal a car if he learns how to be a mechanic from it?)

Today, I do feel there are some motions towards providing better access to software and hardware in poorer parts of the world. Which is great. And, to be frank, the quality of both cheap hardware and open source software is _insane_ relative to twenty years ago. So, again, I'm not sure what Vlad's bigger point is.

If the point is to justify piracy, I think he only does it in the very narrowest of ways: Considering the state of technology in the 1990s, piracy enabled people in poorer parts of the world (and kids in wealthier parts of the world) access to the growing information technology industry. I'm not sure that argument exactly holds in the same way today.

Finally, Microsoft can survive a fair amount of piracy. But not every software company can. What happens when this "it's cool because I'm using it to educate myself" stance kills software companies? Or game companies? Or media companies? Is that better for everyone?

\---

EDIT: I'm not equating the act of stealing a car with the act of pirating Windows. I am merely wondering about the general nature of morally justifying a crime based on it being done for self-improvement. If we say it's okay in a case of software piracy, are we okay with it in other contexts?

<comment><USER17> Since the car analogy isn't working: Let me try another one, equally with flaws no doubts. :-) Piracy as we known it is rampant of the coasts of Somalia (Yes, I am talking about real world pirates). One of the reasons why that is happening is the systematic breakdown of the livelihoods of fisherman in the region due to dumping of toxic wastes of those coasts and the free flow of arms. Now, it is arguable that those fisherman are using the monetary flow from piracy to lift themselves from poverty which is a good thing. However, I do wish to point out that that analogy is based on my philosophy that e-piracy is not a victimless crime, as long as you have at least one data point of a person who would have paid for the game/movie/software but didn't do so because he/she had easy access to a torrent.

To be honest, I don't care about people pirating stuff. It is the moral justifications that seem rather specious at best. What is wrong with accepting that you are doing something wrong and... keep doing it if you wish?

<comment><USER18> >> What is wrong with accepting that

>> you are doing something wrong and...

>> keep doing it if you wish?

Because we believe there's honestly nothing wrong with it.

Paraphrasing you: I don't understand what is wrong with accepting that pirates are doing something right and... abstain from doing it if you wish?

<comment><USER19> > Because we believe there's honestly nothing wrong with it.

Your belief is not required. Laws are laws.

<comment><USER18> Laws are not set in stone (and when they were, in Hammurapi's time, it didn't help much), and some laws are clearly stupid and vicious. For example, in imperial China, it was once illegal for an ordinary person to keep astronomical tools at home (if I remember corectly, there was a death penalty for this). I believe copyright laws are just like this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I think he's completely unaware of the GNU/Linux distributions and the gratis software that comes along with them and the freedoms that that software offers to the user.

" "Free software" means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them.

A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms:

\- The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

\- The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

\- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

\- The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission to do so. "

<https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>

<comment><USER21> I don't see how Free software has anything to do with his post. First, there is only good Free software for certain things. Especially when the author was younger, there were no good Free software alternatives for many popular commercial products.

Even today, GIMP is no Photoshop, Blender is no Maya, Openoffice is no Office, and the list goes on, and this has been after decades of trying to catch up. The truth is that for many domains, commercial software is the standard and has been shown to be adept at outpacing Free competitors. (This is not true in many domains as well.)

And besides this, a teenager who is a sponge for learning the coolest and most popular software could not care less about the tired philosophical debate about free vs Free, they just want to be able to play with Photoshop because that's The Thing.

<comment><USER22> You're right, there was not other option back in the early 90s: piracy or nothing (specially in countries where it was impossible to acquire some specific software legally). I remember going to a computer shop when I was 13 trying to buy a C compiler, and they gave me a floppy with Turbo C (IIRC) and "copy it and keep it secret".

Things have changed though. It's not a free vs Free philosophical debate, it is about doing something illegal when you have a choice.

This is not just about teenagers. I can tell you that a legal copy of Microsoft Office for home use in Spain is really rare. Same for Photoshop, and other "essential" software that every home computer has installed, but nobody paid for it. It is, in practice, free.

I believe piracy is one of the reasons free software is not more popular, but well... I may be wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I say the same thing about audiobooks / lectures. In high school, I spent most of my part-time job listening to lectures about economics, game theory, linguistics, all sorts of topics. This was enabled 100% by piracy. Some of these lectures are worth hundreds or even thousands of dollars, which I obviously could not have afforded as a high schooler. Still, the fact that I got all of that content and learning for basically free is in some sense, in my mind, a good outcome of piracy, even though I don't advocate for piracy (in fact, I think it's a large problem).

For the record, now that I have money, I purchase the lectures that I listen to. Maybe if I become wealthy, I will go back and buy the ones I listened to.

</comment><comment><USER24> The side effect of privatizing what could be a public good is that is means denying to billions what they could have for free so that a relative handful will have an incentive to pay for it.

<comment><USER25> This, exactly this.

Moreover, I think that piracy mostly happens because either it's the only way or because it's way too cheap.

The first case is similar to how I was as a kid: I pirated all my games and software and copied all my music, and then bought the best games and the best albums _that I could afford_. I owned the games and cds that I considered the best, and worth owning. I paid for them _so that I could own them_ : not because I would've wanted to make sure the authors could make a living. No amount of piracy laws and copyright enforcement would've added anything to the funds I had at my disposal. I already spent whatever I had.

The second case is why some people hoard files. They download full discographies and filmographies of nearly everything there is because copying is so cheap it's practically gratis, copying can be fun, and just to make sure that if the world comes to an end they'll still have years of entertainment in their hands. They probably watch and listen one percent of what they're downloaded, and they probably actually buy one percent of that one percent.

There's a third case of "piracy" which is just casual copying, to sample the products. People first download music and torrent movies and sample what they've got. If they find a good director or a good band, they buy a collection or a set of albums. I don't really consider these people a problem since they're consumers at heart and they use downloading mostly to find stuff to buy. If they couldn't download, they wouldn't find much music or games or movies, and they would subsequently buy less.

<comment><USER26> >There's a third case of "piracy" which is just casual copying, to sample the products. People first download music and torrent movies and sample what they've got. If they find a good director or a good band, they buy a collection or a set of albums. I don't really consider these people a problem since they're consumers at heart and they use downloading mostly to find stuff to buy. If they couldn't download, they wouldn't find much music or games or movies, and they would subsequently buy less.

I think this is (close to) the case of people who are actually a problem. The first two cases don't represent much lost oppurtunity. In this case, the people pirating might go out and buy the stuff. Because of this, the oppurtunity cost of them already having some of the stuff is far more significant than in the first two cases (where there was minimal oppurtunity lost)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'm not really surprised to read this. These cases, I'm sure, are a dime a dozen. I did the same thing in middle school; I pirated Photoshop and started to learn the ins and outs. Led me to getting an internship which led me to getting a job and settling on a decent career path. Now I own most of the thousands of dollars of software I used as a kid.

I can agree and sympathize with this until he said that most people pirate out of need, not greed. Not sure that's really accurate but I'm also not sure it's measurable.

</comment><comment><USER28> Point in case, I've been trying to buy Windows 8 in Bolivia for the past three weeks and STILL can't buy it legally anywhere.

Every option has been exhausted and I'm kind of annoyed. I wanted to ditch my pirated version of Windows 7 and finally go legit now that I can afford it, but Microsoft just won't take my money.

A torrent just works.

<comment><USER6> I'm calling this 'the oatmeal argument' and it has considerable force.

<http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones>

Is Windows 8 not available for download in Bolivia? If so is that some silly regional trade reason? Or are network speeds too low?

<comment><USER28> Windows 8 isn't available for sale, for some reason. I don't know why. I can download a Windows 7 pirated version easily in 7 hours, I doubt network speeds are the culprit here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> It's not just developing markets like Romania. I grew up in poverty in Australia, and pirating software was simply the only way to access it.

Without access to the software, I would never have been able to learn the skills required to earn the money to pay for the software now.

I'm not saying that piracy should be accepted for that reason; I'm saying (and I believe the OP was saying) that piracy is simply the only way to access the tools required to get out of poverty for many, many people.

This shouldn't be how it is, but some serious thought has to go into how to make things available fairly to those people who would otherwise just pirate it. Some money is better than no money, and software that is frequently pirated is obviously in demand with people who can't afford it.

</comment><comment><USER30> On the one hand this chap, "[downloaded] an infinite number of games and software - all illegally," while also refers to people who pirate out of greed as - and this is verbatim - "bumholes". Despite the obvious hyperbole, it seems very likely that this man himself was once a bumhole.

The story presented by the writer is one that is largely inapplicable today. Developers and other content creators have got a better grip on regional pricing, most markets see software being released particularly since online distribution, and the software market has seen more budget alternatives to big name brands become available.

This response may appear rather dishevelled, but that is because I'm not sure what the point is that the article is attempting to touch on. The quasi- Marxist monologue is tired when the quality of free, or cheap software today is very high and so some wishy-washy argument about self-betterment through piracy is left looking rather weak.

There are some fairly strong arguments in favour of piracy, some even quite convincing. This is not one of them.

<comment><USER31> And with this regional pricing crap, the same companies are petitioning Congress and SCOTUS to ban first-sale doctrine on "stuff" coming in from abroad.

"Sorry bub, you bought that X from the company who makes them, in another country. And because they sell stuff cheaper in THAT country, you have no rights to what you buy past yourself. Even if I did sell to you."

Regardless that companies use price arbitrage on everything under the sun, including the workers and the WHOLE company (to get away from higher tax regimes). We peons aren't allowed to use the same tools the big guys use.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I grew up in Silicon Valley in the 80s and I was not one of the fortunate--- anything more than $5 was crazy expensive. But having a way to access the technology definitely changed my life trajectory. I don't condone piracy but I understand it. And yes, now I work in high tech and I pay for everything--- even donate and occasionally volunteer because of all of this.

I think the article wasn't so much about the glory of piracy and how you can make a profit out of it. Rather, it is a perspective on desire and finding a way to feed it. I think that this is the one of the best things about living in our current state of the internet: if you can get the initial tool (the computer or the smartphone) you open up access to so much opportunity.

</comment><comment><USER33> In addition to gaining experience through the use of pirated software, I think there is also a lot to be said for knowledge and experience gained through the process of committing piracy and attempting to do so undetected.

As a matter of course, pirates often find themselves becoming quite knowledgeable about topics (audio and video encoding, protocols (FTP, NNTP, BitTorrent, etc.), tools such as BNCs and VPNs, encryption, storage methods, etc.), all of which have valid uses aside from committing piracy, that they would otherwise have little motivation to explore.

The desire to commit piracy undetected acts as a motivation for people to gain a deeper understanding of the systems they are interfacing with, and this is often a good thing.

</comment><comment><USER13> Even now that i can afford it, i'd still choose pirated software over DRM and phone-home license checks.

Pirates always get the better product (with the possible exception of AAA online multiplayer games).

<comment><USER34> You could always buy a copy and then use a pirated one.

<comment><USER35> I've actually ended up doing this in some cases. But I have to say: If the guy illegally copying your software and working on it via debugging and disassembly can give me a better user experience than you can, then you are doing something very, very wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Interesting point here. But it forgets that it is a well known reality from software vendors, who basically choose how well protected their software can be. As an example, an interesting move was Apple's one with Logic Pro. I remember previous versions being uncrackable, needing a USB dongle. And then, as a move to conquer market share, the only protection is now just a serial number (I'm not even sure if Logic calls home to check it... ). The more people can use your technology for free in a training / learning / amateur way, the more you will become a standard, the more you will sell licenses to your customer base : the professionals.

</comment><comment><USER37> Downloading a pirated version of Visual Studio 6 over a 56k modem definitely changed my life in high school, and allowed me to write code I wouldn't have otherwise been able to. (I still have those discs, mostly for nostalgia's sake.)

Of course what changed my life even more was subsequently downloading Slackware Linux (on that same 56k connection!) and realizing that I didn't need to pirate an expensive IDE to write code...

</comment><comment><USER38> "Of course cheap and accessible software would be a lot better, but there's so little of that going around."

GNU.

I have no problem with pirating (except for the word). But why illegally download an expensive OS when better, free versions abound on the net? Stay legal, and have a more powerful, hackable OS to go with your clean conscience.

</comment><comment><USER39> I responded to the people justifying piracy using this article here: <http://nightra.in/random/ethics-of-piracy/>

In short, I think Vlad is trying to explain that piracy was only a last resort for him. And it should only be a last resort.

<comment> qu4z-2 > There are many commentators online trying to split hairs and say that > pirating is not the same as stealing. As such, it isn't a crime.

Just to nitpick a little here (and I apologise if I misunderstood your post) but I don't think I've EVER heard anyone argue that piracy is not a crime just because it's not stealing. Copyright infringement ("piracy") is definitely a crime, and it's definitely not stealing. Whether it's morally defensible is a whole different debate and one I don't want to enter into right now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I would be interested to hear how piracy can justified, not for multi-million dollar corporations and defunct organisations, but for small businesses and individuals.

Adobe and Microsoft can sustain their products being pirated wholesale partly because it undermines their smaller competitors.

It's easy to justify downloading episodes of syndicated television shows, platinum albums, or computer games from 1992, but as a startup-centric site, it seems more relevant to question the impact of piracy on small independent businesses/artists/producers.

Maybe they should be "grateful for the publicity", or "flattered" that their product has been downloaded thousands of times on thepiratebay.org. Maybe the losses incurred are made up for by a wider audience and more sales once the user has reached maturity...

</comment><comment><USER41> I realize mine is a pretty unpopular opinion on Hacker News, but I probably would not hire anyone who thinks pirating software is morally acceptable. The way I see it, any argument for piracy is simply rationalization.

The point is that someone has invested a lot of time and money into creating something and they are offering the usage of that software for a price. If you use it without paying that price, then you are disrespecting the person that created it because you are ignoring their wishes for the thing that they have invested a lot of time into. It just feels very wrong to me.

<comment><USER42> With all due respect this is pretty ignorant.

If someone goes to the lengths required to pirate & use your creation you should be flattered.

The very nature of the action of them trying to get your creation - <USER2> though they don't have money - is testament to the value they think you have created.

If they keep pirating your stuff every time you release a new version - <USER3> really should re-consider your pricing options or your distribution strategy. It means you are likely leaving money on the table.

<comment><USER41> > With all due respect this is pretty ignorant.

Ignorant? Do you know what that word means? Let me quote dictionary.com for you: "Lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned". I don't appreciate you calling me ignorant, seeing as how I do not meet the definition in any way.

> If someone goes to the lengths required to pirate & use your creation you > should be flattered.

If someone goes to the lengths/peril required to rob your bank, you should be flattered. Sorry, this argument holds no water with me. How I "should" feel about something is not up to anyone else.

If they don't have the money to afford my creation, they should talk to me about it. If I think they have a good reason for needing it, I'll give it to them for free. If I don't think they do, then it really should not be their decision to just take it anyway.

<comment><USER42> Well...let me ask you something, which do you think is worse...making something no one cares about or making something so successful that you can't "monetize" every copy.

I guarantee you, if you make something that so many people want such that they go to great lengths to pirate it, you are in a good position and should feel flattered that they do it.

Ask Peldi from Balsamiq. He handles piracy in the best possible way.

Balsamiq is widely pirated, yet if you email him and tell him you want his software but can't afford it, he will likely send you a license free.

<comment><USER41> Let me put it this way. If I ever made something to be so popular that a lot of people wanted to pirate it, I wouldn't be too concerned about the piracy in a business sense.

But the problem is that every business has to tolerate some level of immoral activity whether they like it or not. Department stores have to tolerate some employees stealing merchandise. Restaurants have to tolerate employees giving meals away to their friends. Gas stations have to tolerate the occasional late night robbery. With regards to profit, there is an optimal amount of resources you should spend on fixing behavior like this. Spend too much and your company will lose money. Spend too little and everyone's going to see what they can get away with. Same with software.

However, just because this stuff _happens_ and people are expected to deal with it and build it into their business plan _does not mean it's okay_. Cities deal with murder and theft on a daily basis; they shouldn't be flattered that their city is so popular that is has a lot of crime.

I am unfamiliar with Balsamiq, but he has a certain model that works for him. Great. But why should everyone else be forced to adopt the same model he does? There's a gas station where I live that gave me free water once when I was on a run. Does that mean every gas station should be forced to give me free water? If they don't give me free water, should I just take it anyway? It's a negligible loss to them; they won't notice anyway. In fact, if I hadn't taken the water then I wouldn't know how great their water was to come back and buy some more or tell my friends.

Do you understand what I'm getting it? There's a difference when arguing piracy on an optimal business basis vs a personal moral basis. I am arguing on the personal basis. I think we both agree on what makes the most business sense (as should any intelligent businessman).

P.S. I'm still curious why you called me ignorant. What field do I lack training or knowledge in that pertains to this discussion?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Nice story, but I was hoping this was about actually becoming a pirate. Arrr.

</comment><comment><USER44> _I'm just saying that it's not all black and white._

It _is_ black and white. It's theft.

The issue of whether you shold steal in certain conditions is a separate issue, as discussed some in the article.

But it is black and white, it's theft.

<comment><USER45> Are you using black and white to mean a clear distinction, or to mean moral good and bad? It's not black and white to me.

It's obvious that copyright violation is not directly equivalent to theft on a black and white basis; there are clear differences, such as theft depriving someone else of a physical good, so under the "clear distinction" interpretation of your statement, it is plainly wrong.

And as to moral interpretation, it's not obvious that theft is always wrong either.

<comment><USER44> I use it to mean a clear distinction.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Information wants to be free. Nothing will stop it. Humanity has been copying "proprietary" information forever. People gossip about work and other secrets, copy other people's notes, etc. Computer software is just yet another example of it, the scenery of old Soviet block just puts a bit more contrast to it in comparison to Western experiences. Now, generating a trend, by for example making your information the dominant one (ie. Microsoft and MS Office) is a great tactic, that bears long-lasting fruits.

<comment><USER19> > Information wants to be free

You might be too young to have read this in Phrack, but I feel it's apt:

 _Let me tell you something. Information does not want to be free, my friends. Free neither from its restraints nor in terms of dollar value. Information is a commodity like anything else. More valuable than the rarest element, it BEGS to be hoarded and priced. Anyone who gives something away for nothing is a moron. (I am indeed stupid.) I can't fault anyone for charging as long as they don't try to rationalize their reasoning behind a facade of excuses, all the while shouting "Information Wants to be Free!"

Trade secrets don't want to be free, marketing projections don't want to be free, formulas don't want to be free, troop placements don't want to be free, CAD designs do not want to be free, corporate financial information doesn't want to be free, my credit report sure as hell doesn't want to be free!_

[http://servv89pn0aj.sn.sourcedns.com/~gbpprorg/2600/infofree...](http://servv89pn0aj.sn.sourcedns.com/~gbpprorg/2600/infofree.txt)

<comment> qu4z-2 I feel like you and your source misunderstand the phrase. It is worded confusingly, so it's not all that surprising.

Perhaps a better wording would be "Information tends to spread". It's really about the arrow of time. It's much easier to give someone information than to take information away from them. Taking public knowledge and making it secret is a lot harder than taking secret knowledge and making it public.

> Trade secrets don't want to be free, marketing projections don't want to be > free, formulas don't want to be free, troop placements don't want to be > free, CAD designs do not want to be free, corporate financial information > doesn't want to be free, my credit report sure as hell doesn't want to be > free!

Personification confuses the issue here, but assuming those examples were meant as "want to be secret" rather than the much weaker "don't want to be free ('cause they're information, and have no will of their own)" then I should point out that it's actually YOU that wants your credit report to stay secret, and the army that wants troop placements to remain secret. The information wants nothing, but will tend to spread.

There's nothing to stop you working against this natural tendency, but it requires you to put in a certain amount of effort and maintenance. Water tends to flow downhill, but we can make hollows and dams and the like to keep it in, and that's a very useful thing to do. But in a sense water could be said to "want to flow downhill".

Of course, if someone argued against dams because "water wants to flow downhill", that would be ridiculous. I'm sure that a lot of (most?) people who use that phrase mean it in exactly the way that you interpret it, which is unfortunate as it is then reduced to something more like "I feel we have a moral imperative to share information". And surely there's a better way of phrasing that.

So maybe I'm the one misunderstanding. But I like my interpretation better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Until Microsoft Dreamspark, this is how I was able to teach myself to program. This really happens. However, I think programs like Dreamspark are the answer to this. Microsoft will let you download Visual Studio if you go to school. Not word (but it's only $99 for a student, affordable). Article is a little misleading when it comes to paying for Adobe CS in general. If you are a student you can usually pick it up for $199. Still a little much for Adobe to be selling it to students in my opinion though.

<comment><USER21> Not certain but Dreamspark requires some type of "student verification" process, which may be prohibitive to many young people who could stand the most to gain from access to these products.

I certainly can't imagine my 13-year-old self, who was a big enough geek to be giddy warezing Turbo C++, getting access to Dreamspark.

<comment><USER48> Yeah, you need to have a .edu email address, which if I understand correctly is not something high schools or middle schools give out anymore, as the .edu domain has become exclusively for higher education (Universities, etc), still most of the tools you get from Dreamspark aren't all that important and the open sources alternatives are often better.

<comment><USER34> This might not be true if your goal is to develop games for windows.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Pirating is part of how I learned to make software. To me it was a game at the time but disambling programs/debugging them while they run was a great way to understand how they work.

</comment><comment><USER50> Copying for educational purposes is fair use. Are educational versions sold to make us think we cannot use software for free under fair use?

</comment><comment><USER31> How intelligent is it for companies to go after people who trade and know your program, that are not paying _now_? Seems a waste of resources attacking who might be your customer, in both money and good-will.

Example: I'm in school for drafting/design tech. Due to the school which I am taking classes, we learn Autocad and Solidworks. Both have student versions available, and both are with nasty "We'll send you the serials sometime next week".

So I went onto the local pirate archive and grabbed a copy of both programs. Half an hour later, they're installed and they work flawlessly. Fellow students are still waiting for the serials through email sometime next week.

I do think its different for a for-profit enterprise to go out and pirate everything under the sun. If you make money, you should pass the buck, so to speak.

Read my history to rehash the 1 day old long drawn out argument about DRM. No sense in repeating all of that.</comment>


The N+1 Theory - <AUTHOR> http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2010/08/the.html

<comment><USER2> There are only three important numbers:

0 - when there are zero of something it is not possible

1 - when there is one of something then it is possible

more than 1 - when there are more than one of something then there is choice, and the possibility of many, many more

What is interesting is the transitions between them: when zero becomes one the impossible suddenly becomes possible, when one becomes two then suddenly there are multiple possibilities and you have to wonder if there are more... The N+1 Theory, to link back to the original article.

Some interesting values, that will get really interesting if they change:

0 - number of confirmed alien civilisations

1 - number of planets known to harbour life

more than 1 - number of potential partners who could be "the one"

</comment><comment><USER3> I once heard an Olympic gold medalist say "You can't go from practicing five hours a day to ten, but can you go to five hours and ten minutes?"

Of course there are limits to everything. It's just not very often you are at your limit.

<comment><USER4> I once heard the great South African batsman Barry Richards explain a similar trick he used. When he first goes out to bat, he will tell himself "Look, I am good enough to make 10 runs against any bowling attack in the world" - and he would concentrate on getting those 10 runs only. Once he reaches 10, he'd tell himself the same thing again, and concentrate on the next 10 runs. He made 80 first class centuries in his career.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I couldn't figure out what to blog about, so I blogged about N+1...That's N+1!

<comment><USER6> nicely done.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I want what all men want, I just want more. -Achilles

<comment><USER8> The problem is, that pretty much all men want more.

<comment><USER7> Apply this technique for exercise/yoga :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "Pure optimism sprinkled with tenacity" - that's a pretty good definition of a start-up, when you think about it.

</comment><comment><USER10> In the Marines I was taught that there's always one more thing you can do to improve your situation.

That's what I do when I'm stuck on a programming project or unsure where to start: identify one thing that will improve the situation, and then do that thing. Repeat until done.

</comment><comment><USER8> This sounds a lot like the "Even Steven" schtick from Seinfeld.

</comment><comment><USER11> I found a beer in the fridge! N+1

<comment><USER12> in my fridge, N-1 rules

<comment><USER8> Somewhere in here is a song for long bus rides.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> N <= 38

</comment><comment><USER14> I read of a similar scheme.

Whenever you think you have N copies of data you should consider you have N-1.

Here's why : Your work is on your computer and thumbdrive, one dies. Now you have only 1 copy with no backup.</comment>


A Black Mississippi Judge's Speech to 3 White Murderers - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2015/02/12/385777366/a-black-mississippi-judges-breathtaking-speech-to-three-white-murderers

<comment><USER2> I hope justice was done. I also hope that someday we won't particularly care about the ethnicity of the judge, or of the victim, or of the perpetrators of the crime. In my view, that would be moving even further away from the way things used to be.

> A warning to readers: He uses the word "nigger" 11 times.

I'm not sure what to think about this. I grew up in the south, in a deeply racist community, but I think it's been over 25 years since I heard anyone use that word to demean a black person. But is there any adult who hasn't heard it used hundreds or thousands of times by black people themselves? This seems like a trigger warning, but I have no idea who it might be intended to warn. Who exactly would be offended?</comment>


Show HN: Bot to make anyone fall in love with you - <AUTHOR> http://m.me/36LoveQuestions <comment><AUTHOR> A psychological study claimed that 36 specific questions could make anyone two people fall in love. This bot can help you get the questions!

Once done answering them all make sure to stare at each other for 4 minutes!</comment>


How Startups Can Attract Top Female Talent - <AUTHOR> https://shecancode.io/blog/how-startups-can-attract-top-female-talent <comment><USER2> Set up anywhere in the U.S. other than the West Coast and you can do pretty good. (You definitely see the "brogrammers + den mothers" pattern in the flyover states, but in the flyover states, the "den mother" is almost certainly one of the principals)</comment>


NuBits – The World's First Stable Digital Currency - jj-abram https://nubits.com

<comment><AUTHOR> If I buy 10 Nubit for $10 now, do YOU promise that I will be able to sell them for $10 in December 2015? How much money has the exchange to buy back the Nubits from the users? What happens if the exchange gets hacked and some of the money stolen, will the price of the Nubits continue to be the same?

I live in Argentina and we had for a few years the "Convertibility" 1 Peso = 1 Dollar. Until it disappear. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_Currency_Board](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_Currency_Board)

</comment><comment><USER2> How is it stable if it is based on an inherently unstable currency? And what about people who don't live in the U.S., A.K.A 17/18ths of the world?

<comment> jj-abram NuBits is as stable as the USD. 1 NuBit = 1 USD, always, meaning NuBits are pegged to USD (Though there is discussion of pegging it to a different currency one day if needed).

People who don't live in the U.S can still us NuBits, just like people who don't live in Europe, can still use Euro. NuBits just acts as a way to digitally send money to someone using a currency that is pegged to the dollar.

If you have any more questions, you can ask them at the forums, which can be found at: [http://discuss.nubits.com](http://discuss.nubits.com)

</comment></comment><comment> jj-abram If you want to learn more, you can read the whitepaper here: [https://nubits.com/sites/default/files/assets/nu- whitepaper-...](https://nubits.com/sites/default/files/assets/nu- whitepaper-23_sept_2014-en.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER3> Cool to see this on HN. If anyone wants to learn more we have a really great community at discuss.nubits.com if you prefer the reddit look join us on /r/nubits</comment>


Reversing the WRT120N's Firmware Obfuscation - <AUTHOR> http://www.devttys0.com/2014/02/reversing-the-wrt120n-firmware-obfuscation/ <comment><USER2> Why do they bother with doing this? I could see signing firmware, but maybe I'm crazy, but I don't see anything in the WRT120N which is particularly innovative in hardware or software that they'd be trying to keep secret, or RF stuff which they'd need to keep locked down in a baseband to keep their FCC/CE certs.

Did they do this just for the lulz?

<comment><USER3> I could be wrong, but it looks like a decision come out from some management- only meeting.

<comment><USER4> I've been the technical guy in a meeting where this kind of nonsense was decided...

Me: The customer has asked for security measures to stop unauthorised employees from subverting the system and defrauding them. Your solution uses clear-text passwords, so anyone with a copy of Wireshark could crack it in seconds.

Management: Yeah, but they're only asking for the _appearance_ of security. They don't care about the details.

Me: What will they say if someone cracks our "security" and steals millions of dollars from them?

Management: <shrug>

Me: ???

<comment><USER5> Rest assured Mr. Management, hackers only target profitable business, and since you're the manager, we won't have much to worry about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Does someone have link to a manual where not just disassembly presented, but also process of patching, packing everything back and uploading back to hardware?

I had a printer Kodak Hero 4.2. It has ink level warnings which I can not get around without new cartridge and new ink chips.

I found a way to get firmware and how to upload firmware manually. I also disassembled it and found few spots where I could change ARM asm code to jump around ink level checks. But I could not figure out how to put it all back together so printer would use this firmware instead. My naive approach did not work well and I bricked it (not a big deal).

I would love to read more about process people used to, for example, build DD- WRT, which I believe is modification of stock firmware.

<comment><USER7> I haven't seen anyone actually hack printer firmware in that way, outside of some shops in China that claim they can do that. Any chance you could do a writeup on it?

There is probably a checksum (or even worse, digital signature) on the firmware image, or some other checks like that, but as for getting the firmware back on the device, I'd probably use a hardware flash programmer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Very nice.

I wish, I had a better question: What is the software used to produce the "flow charts"?

<comment><USER9> That's IDA, the interactive disassembler. The free version's not too bad, but if you're doing any work with 64bit, you'll need the pro version, which is a fairly hefty sum (at least for a student like me).

<comment><USER10> The free version is also x86 only.

I'd recommend using Hopper as a hobbiest.

<comment><USER11> Agreed, I have high hopes for Hopper.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Even if this is to show off the binwalk software, it's still a really nice post! :-)

I like the 3D visualization at [http://binwalk.org/wp- content/uploads/2013/12/avr32_3d.gif](http://binwalk.org/wp- content/uploads/2013/12/avr32_3d.gif)

What might perhaps also be interesting, is to create a plugin for binwalk that compares the firmware with other firmware binaries.

<comment><USER7> Fun visualisation, but I don't see that one as being particularly useful (what does it really represent?)

As someone who has looked through many different types of files in doing quite a bit of RE, I've become able to separate out different types of data just by the "feel" of how it looks in a text editor; Z80 and 6502 code, x86, MIPS, ARM, bitmap images, and compressed data all have different "textures" to them.

<comment><USER13> It represents randomness(entropy) in the firmware file. And "known" file types found in the firmware file.

It is very useful. As different file types and data structures. Often has a quite common entropy level to them.

Rather than doing it in your head as you do one can use a machine to help, which happens to be the hole point of machines.

<comment><USER7> I'm talking about the animated one in the parent - AFAIK entropy is a scalar, not three-dimensional.

<comment><USER13> Oh the animated one, yeah you are correct that is not entropy at all.

It is just bytes visually represented. 1byte = x axis, 2byte = y axis, 3byte = z axis. And then jump forward and repeat.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Just throw that piece of shit out of the window and get a decent router!</comment>


Ask HN: What's a minimal subset of HTML that works everywhere? - <AUTHOR>

Please post a set of tags that is guaranteed to work on +everything from the early days of the web, with some justification if it's a contentious case. Imagine no CSS, and no JavaScript. It's okay if it looks like a BBS (or prior), that's the point.
Your subset must likely work on differently-smart phones, and affordable smartphones popular in super-growth economic regions. You may also find it easier to post tags that can't be supported, rather than those that can, and assume that deprecated tags (like 'blink') are excluded by default. This is also ok. If something can be left out (its markup quality can be reproduced by another tag or combination) then it works to leave it out. This is the minimum viable subset of HTML that works everywhere. You might call it HTML 0, or HTMML (min) but maybe it's closer to HTML 1.618 -- an elegantly proportioned HTML with not an inch extra anywhere.
Finally, it's less important that it be "standards based" than that it works on the majority of devices. Remember when an Apple ][ rendered HN? That should be achievable with your subset. And remember "works" doesn't here mean pretty. It just means : displays information in a comprehensible way with the minimum amount of tags. All serious submissions appreciated -- it's not longer April 1 in my tz. :)
+feel free to specify your everything. It's probably okay as long as it's reasonably inclusive. <comment><USER2> Conveniently, the first webpage ever made has a manual: [http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/MarkUp/Tags.html](http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/MarkUp/Tags.html)

Full site here: [http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/TheProject.html](http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/TheProject.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for that link. Interesting. I love going back to the first days of the web. Which is a weird thing to have collective nostalgia about because it's still so young, even tho it's so big.

I was really surprised that dl, dt and dd were there from the start. I thought they came in much later! :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It's very hard or impossible to come up with such a tag set. The number of existing web renderers, all with their own quirks and bugs, are much to big. Some tag might work in Opera 2.0 but not if you nest it to deeply. img tags doesn't "work" in text browsers and unicode support has historically been spotty everywhere.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think what I'll end up doing is just creating a minimal set, with headers, lists, links, forms, inputs and tables for layout and maybe a few more, and that will have to do. I'll try to compose the HTML so that even if, say, table is unrecognized, then semantics and layout are not unreasonably less effective.</comment></comment>


Is the New iPad Screen Too Good for the Web?  - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/ipad-web-retina/?hp

<comment><USER2> Using the iPad 3 now and yes, it is too good for the web. It is also too good for many PDFs, images, and other content not using vector based rendering. But I noticed something else, text heavy content sites with more content and less image fluff (reddit, hacker news, etc.) look _much_ better, and quite frankly I wouldn't mind if the iPad pushes the web back towards a minimalist, text heavy interface it was once, just as it did away with Flash.

With the huge advances we've made with CSS and better understanding of page layouts, a text heavy web wouldn't be a bad thing, and I could do without all unnecessary images distracting the meat of the content. I'm now clicking the Readability/Safari Reader icon on nearly every page now as the signal to noise ratio is really starting to get absurd (even getting strange desires to make a plugin that makes reader the _default_ view). Bandwidth use from implementing high res images should not suffer much since you would be trading quantity for quality, and only placing images that are absolutely necessary to support the content (i.e. product images).

<comment><USER3> Excellent point! The best of all worlds would be if only websites that have something genuinely worth looking at would support the higher resolution, and all others would concentrate on typographic beauty. Why it won't happen: Those damn ads!</comment></comment>


Mark Pincus at a Startup @ Berkeley Mixer - <AUTHOR> http://www.krutal.com/mark-pincus-at-a-startup-berkeley-mixer/

<comment><USER2> I remember years ago when installing RealPlayer, the current streaming media standard at the time, the installer would sign you up for all kinds of mailing lists if you didn't scroll down on the "Offers List". All of the offers that were beyond the fold were selected.

Not to mention that back then, say 1999, every company would freely sell your email address to spammers.

I'm glad we stopped putting up with that.

</comment><comment><USER3> i'll be the third person to say it: editorializing in titles is frowned on here. "You can make up a new title if you want, but if you put gratuitous editorial spin on it, the editors may rewrite it."

<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the heads up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I was at the talk and I feel this title is misleading -- that didn't seem to be the main point he was emphasizing in his talk.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ya his main point was recruiting. You need to go through the junior leagues before you can become a professional athlete he says.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> While this is certainly a behavior that should be frowned upon I'm not sure it should be completely castigated in the way that it is. I've met quite a few entrepreneurs and many of them have told me that early on they either bent or broke many rules including doing things that are unethical.

I'm not sure if this is just from poor sample size, but it seems to be somewhat necessary to succeed as an entrepreneur. For what it's worth, many of the entrepreneurs I know became increasingly more legitimate as they got out of startup mode. I think to some degree it's just a part of the game, the odds are against you so you need to do everything in your power to increase your chances of success.

I would really like to hear what other founders think. Is this commonplace or are the people that I've talked to borderline criminals?

<comment><USER6> It's commonplace in my experience. I wouldn't call it borderline criminal, but many startups cross moral lines. I find it absolutely despicable, that people can rationalize their ethics away. "I know what I'm doing is wrong, but when we have revenue we can afford to do the right thing.", and other the-end- justifies-the-means rubbish.

It's easy (and perhaps even tempting) to cut corners but what good are ethics when you throw them out the moment they become inconvenient?

So yes, the behavior is to be castigated, and I have no respect for people who're willing to fuck their customers/users/suppliers in order to make it as an entrepreneur.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Wait, I clicked on this link and moved all the way to the right time to hear exactly what the title says? That could mean tons of things, but kudos for having nothing better to do then dig through old footage to find one sentence that could now mean something more sinister.

<comment><AUTHOR> Did you hear the part about the toolbar he couldn't remove?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> TechCrunch has excerpted the relevant section of the video here: [http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/06/zynga-scamville-mark- pi...](http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/06/zynga-scamville-mark-pinkus- faceboo/)

</comment><comment><USER9> Prostitutes do ANYTHING for revenue. Mark Pincus maybe did a few things he didn't want to.

<comment><USER6> At least prostitutes engage in a mutually beneficial and consensual arrangements. Pincus' tactics were (are?) neither mutually beneficial nor consensual.</comment></comment>


Mtgox.com is gone - <AUTHOR> http://tools.pingdom.com/fpt/#!/7TgkF/mtgox.com

<comment><AUTHOR> I was trying to get a copy of my transaction history at the time, after someone mentioned it might be handy in a class action suit

First the server started responding "this page does not exist" then just blank response

\---

[http://data.mtgox.com/api/2/BTCUSD/money/ticker](http://data.mtgox.com/api/2/BTCUSD/money/ticker)

is still online right now

\---

[http://www.reddit.com/user/SarahCoinBit](http://www.reddit.com/user/SarahCoinBit)

 _It was a pleasure serving this community..marion and myself just got laid off._

(very likely fake...)

\---

[http://siliconangle.com/blog/2014/02/24/coinbase- blockchain-...](http://siliconangle.com/blog/2014/02/24/coinbase- blockchain-..).

 _Sources close to the issue, in touch with SiliconAngle, have confirmed that more than 700,000 bitcoins are indeed missing from MtGox's coffers as has been rumored during the history running up to this shutdown._

\---

for anyone catching up, gox.com seems to be sold to mtgox.com in the last few days

[http://www.domaininvesting.com/andy-booth-sells-gox- com/](http://www.domaininvesting.com/andy-booth-sells-gox-com/)

\---

[http://www.scribd.com/doc/209050732/MtGox-Situation- Crisis-S...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/209050732/MtGox-Situation-Crisis- Strategy-Draft)

likely fake "MtGox Situation Crisis Strategy Draft" suggesting coins went missing over a long period

\---

[http://goxbalance.com/](http://goxbalance.com/)

not scientific but interesting

\---

[http://support.mtgox.com/](http://support.mtgox.com/)

has gone down - just a zendesk "no account" page

\---

[http://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/1yuuok/daily...](http://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/1yuuok/daily_discussion_tuesday_february_25_2014_early/cfnzt9i)

good reddit overview comment

\---

(11:27:31 PM EST )something changed in the output of [http://data.mtgox.com/api/2/BTCUSD/money/ticker;](http://data.mtgox.com/api/2/BTCUSD/money/ticker;) a unicode character

      "value":"96836.53176413","value_int":"9683653176413","display":"96,836.53\u00a0BTC","display_short":"96,836.53\u00a0BTC","currency":"BTC"},"last_local

\---

(11:30 PM EST) LTC/EUR showing up in [https://data.mtgox.com/api/2/LTCUSD/money/ticker](https://data.mtgox.com/api/2/LTCUSD/money/ticker)

      "value":"0.00000000","value_int":"0","display":"0.00\u00a0LTC","display_short":"0.00\u00a0LTC","currency":"LTC"},"last_local":  {"value":"0.00000","value_int":"0","display":"0.00\u00a0\u20ac","display_short":"0.00\u00a0\u20ac","currency":"EUR"},"last_orig"

\---

[http://recode.net/2014/02/24/the-mt-gox-bitcoin-exchange- has...](http://recode.net/2014/02/24/the-mt-gox-bitcoin-exchange-has- disappeared/)

 _"Mt. Gox has confirmed it will file bankruptcy in private discussions with other members of the bitcoin community."_

(Re/code has so far been unable to independently verify that claim)

\---

[http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1yuyx4/hey_charlie_...](http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1yuyx4/hey_charlie_shrem_was_this_the_good_news_on_the/cfo10cm)

takeover rumours from Charlie Shrem

</comment><comment><USER2> How much of a drop do you think we will see in the BTC to USD exchanges?

<comment><USER3> I imagine something like the Silk Road closure - immediate short term panic drops, with a rebound because really the remaining money Gox had was already for the most part lost, and has been lost for a month or longer. I'd argue the markets already endured that loss over this last retrace to $500 with all the nonsense coming from Gox in the first place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Just nothing. Their favicon seems to load, but nothing else. Eerie.

<comment> FLUX-YOU [https://support.mtgox.com/home](https://support.mtgox.com/home)

Quick guys, better get those support tickets in!

<comment><USER5> Was that returning something other than "No help desk at support.mtgox.com" when you posted?

<comment> FLUX-YOU Yep.

[http://i.imgur.com/QcmTMwD.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/QcmTMwD.jpg)

Alternate: [https://mtgox.zendesk.com/home](https://mtgox.zendesk.com/home)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> wow, that was fast

</comment><comment><USER7> bitcoin drops because many had their coins at some central location....</comment>


Polymer 2.4: Paving the way for 3.0 and TypeScript support - <AUTHOR> https://www.polymer-project.org/blog/2018-01-25-polymer-2-4.html <comment><USER2> Polymer is my favourite front end framework. I hope it doesn't start forcing developers to use TypeScript because then I'd have to stop using Polymer.

TypeScript is not suitable for building the vast majority of web UIs; it just makes things way more complicated (with the added build step, source-mapping issues, missing type definitions, outdated type definitions...) and adds no value beyond improved code completion and compiler warnings (and those two are conveniences at best).

Web applications are centred around APIs. APIs use JSON... JSON doesn't have types; so already there is an obvious impedance mismatch!

It makes no sense at all whatsoever that the front end logic should be more strict than the API!

As far as the front end is concerned, the API is the one source of truth; so unless you're willing to go back to the old days of SOAP and also start adding type annotations to your transport protocol then it makes no sense whatsoever to use TypeScript.

The main exception I can think of are web-based games; in this case it's possible that most of the complexity is actually on the front end itself (and not in the data integration aspect).

<comment><USER3> In my experience giving your JSON API type information is one of the most beneficial things you can do to your web codebase.

<comment><USER2> To some extent, but there is a difference between giving each object a type property (which is open to interpretation by the client app) vs forcing the client to adhere to rigid type definitions/constraints (which make it more difficult for the client to actually use the API). Developers who have used SOAP before will remember what that's like.

<comment><USER4> The client has to adhere to the shape of the JSON that the API is generating anyway. Defining those types just makes it easier to avoid mistakes. There's no reason that need to be any more rigid than the API would otherwise be.

<comment><USER2> But the schema can change over time with different API versions. So you need different schemas on the front end for different versions of the API? It just seems like a lot of hassle when ultimately all you need to do is get a string property from the API and put it in a textbox.

<comment><USER5> Microsoft addressed this and says Typescript is most beneficial to manage large code bases

<comment><USER2> I've worked with TypeScript on large code bases. I found that the compile step becomes really slow and it slows down the debug cycle.

On my last large project, I had to wait 10 to 15 seconds for the code to build every time I saved the file (and yes the compilation step was optimized to only include relevant code; a large number of dependencies don't help).

So every time I made a change to the code to check something, I had to wait... You can't use console.log() to quickly check stuff anymore; the compile overhead is so significant that you're forced to pull up the debugger and manually step through the relevant code every single time you want to check something (you want to get as much info as possible from each debug cycle because it's so slow).

When writing plain JavaScript, I only pull up the debugger when it's a particularly difficult bug (e.g. a race condition). For most bugs, I can get all the information I need with just a couple of calls to console.log() in my code. The debugger is just unwieldy.

<comment><USER5> I used to be a c++ dev so a 15 sec compile time doesn't seem that bad. But what if you're compiler told you what was wrong faster than your console.log() could help you find it. I think is a trade off a lot of people want to make.

<comment><USER2> I agree, that makes sense for C/C++ because working with pointers and dynamic memory is a lot more complicated - Types make sense for C/C++ because the focus is execution speed and flexibility (not development productivity).

The case you describe very rarely happens to me with JavaScript; having fewer primitives to work with greatly reduces these kinds of issues... Sure it opens up the possibility that you'll do something stupid like trying to add an object with a string; but that's a pretty silly thing to do. If you name your variables properly then that never happens.

With C/C++, there are many primitives so you might get errors when you try to assign an int64 to an int8 (for example)... With JS, however, because there are fewer primitives so the odds of that happening are much much smaller.

Because there are so few primitives in JS, it's easy to remember how they all interact with each other. The only exception is the boolean truth table for '==' (which is a mess); that's why it's usually recommended to use '===' instead.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wish they actually focused on 3.0 more. This "auto generated from 2.x" thing is pretty bad — paper elements that depended on neon-animation just don't work in 3.0:

[https://github.com/PolymerElements/paper- dialog/issues/156](https://github.com/PolymerElements/paper-dialog/issues/156)

<comment><AUTHOR> It will get fixed - modulizer is still being worked on, and some elements are not being converted correctly as far as I can tell.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Can anyone reccomend a good state management scheme for building large scale Polymer apps? My team has gone this route of building small custom elements for everything, but getting them to communicate has been a pain. AngularJS solved that really well I think with $broadcast and $emit, but we'd rather stay away from monolithic frameworks.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well you can do `polymer-redux`, `polymer-uniflow` or mixins ([https://www.captaincodeman.com/2017/07/06/managing-state- in-...](https://www.captaincodeman.com/2017/07/06/managing-state-in- polymer-20-beyond-parent-child-binding)).

I went with redux.

You could I guess technically you could implement $broadcast - but that would be slow same as with angular, as for $emit you can just emit standard events.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've already upgraded some of my extensions to the tagged template literal syntax. It's so much nicer than what I was working with before, and is tiding me over for IE11 support in lit-html. Pretty big wins all around. Next, I'm gonna have to take a deeper look at those TS decorators!

<comment> 52-6F-62 I don't really work in Polymer (usually React) but just the same you might appreciate my favourite and most-abused decorator:

[https://github.com/andreypopp/autobind- decorator](https://github.com/andreypopp/autobind-decorator)

<comment><USER8> That's a great one. It's a big part of my TC39 reading: [https://github.com/tc39/proposal- decorators#decorators](https://github.com/tc39/proposal-decorators#decorators)

Very exciting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I like the idea of writing Web Components with TypeScript. Are Web Components (or the frameworks pushing it forward) good enough for production use? Any issues worth considering before diving in?

<comment><USER8> I've used web components in production in two different companies and in a number of personal projects, so I'd say so. The move to official TS support is brand new, so you might catch some turbulence in that area. Polymer generally is about to make the move from 2.x to 3.x, so there could be some issues there. However, you can work with 3.x code now, and the official release should be in the next month or two, so getting started now might be just the right time.

<comment><USER9> Thanks for the advice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is great news for Polymer - I can't wait to try out 3.0 when it's ready :) Typescript is indeed a favorable target for their existing audience.</comment>


Pipes:tags::physics:syntax::plumbing:HTML (Anyone want to learn HTML?) - <AUTHOR> http://japherwocky.posterous.com/recruiting-students

<comment><USER2> I don't understand what the title of this post is supposed to mean. If this some tortured reference to the analogy portion of the SATs? If so, that's not the correct form. If not, please elaborate what that is supposed to mean.</comment>


Riak SmartMachines Now Available From Joyent - <AUTHOR> http://www.joyent.com/2010/09/joyent-riak-smartmachines-now-available/

<comment><USER2> Everytime I attempt to consider using a joint service, they try to drown me in marketing speak before i can even figure out which service is appropriate for my needs. Everything has a custom trademark able name, which is never defined in technical specifics, and all of their claims are vague buzzword laden spiels that i guess are targeted at big busineses.

Maybe you. An tell me what a "smart machine" is but vie tried to comprehend that company a dozen times in the lastly dozen years and always been stymied.

<comment><USER3> Hey lzw... hit me up next week and we can talk Joyent without the marketing speak. dcrawford @ joyent.com</comment></comment>


Haste 0.4.0: fast LSTM/GRU, layer normalized RNNs, and CPU support - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/lmnt-com/haste <comment><USER2> Very impressive speed up!</comment>


The Truth About Toilet Swirl – Smarter Every Day and Veritasium - <AUTHOR> http://www.smartereveryday.com/toiletswirl

<comment><USER3> It's good to be able to quantify the level at which it's visible - <USER2> people (as I have done) "it's real but usually too tiny to see" is far less persuasive than "it's real, and if you use a child's swimming pool and leave it alone for a day you can see it"</comment>


How to start with CP/M (2014) - <AUTHOR> http://www.retrotechnology.com/dri/howto_cpm.html <comment><USER3> Chapter 22 of " _Code: The Hidden Language of Computer Hardware and Software_ " uses CP/M to illustrate the inner workings of operating systems. I highly recommend this book overall: [https://www.amazon.com/Code-Language-Computer- Hardware-Softw...](https://www.amazon.com/Code-Language-Computer-Hardware- Software/dp/0735611319)

<comment><USER4> Given that I've just found a PDF copy of this book on the internet archive and it hasn't been taken down from there, I'm going to assume the following is okay. If there are any issues, I'm happy to delete this, or a mod can. Hopefully it's all good.

\- archive.org PDF (9.2MB): [https://ia801607.us.archive.org/7/items/CodeTheHiddenLanguag...](https://ia801607.us.archive.org/7/items/CodeTheHiddenLanguageOfComputerHardwareAndSoftware/CodeTheHiddenLanguageOfComputerHardwareAndSoftware.pdf)

\- The seemingly-legit-looking account of the uploader who put it on archive.org: [https://archive.org/details/@archiver849271](https://archive.org/details/@archiver849271)

\- The front page for the item on archive.org: [https://archive.org/details/CodeTheHiddenLanguageOfComputerH...](https://archive.org/details/CodeTheHiddenLanguageOfComputerHardwareAndSoftware)

\- The directory the item is in: [https://archive.org/download/CodeTheHiddenLanguageOfComputer...](https://archive.org/download/CodeTheHiddenLanguageOfComputerHardwareAndSoftware)

\--

I also found a 176MB scanned copy of the book as pure images: [http://learning.caitlinmorris.net/sfpc/CharlesPetzold_Code.p...](http://learning.caitlinmorris.net/sfpc/CharlesPetzold_Code.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> My first CPU was a Z80 running CP/M from two floppies. Monitor showed monochrome letters written in WordStar. Only survivor is moving the cursor usually word by word probably now hard coded in muscle memory. Writing this on a machine with no moving parts nor noise. Took 40 years to get from ASM to WASM, quite a ride.

<comment><USER6> I had one of those too. I remember Wordstar with fondness, which is why I now install the Joe editor on any new computer, and use Joe's jstar mode rather than nano.

Another thing I recall is spending $4K for a 40MB hard drive. Indeed, times have changed. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The source code of a few versions of CP/M was released a couple of years ago:

[http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/early-digital- research-...](http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/early-digital-research-cpm- source-code/)

The accompanying article does a good job of putting CP/M in its historical context describing what it actually was. But other than nostalgia (and those who have sacrificed their eternal souls to WordStar), there isn't much of a reason to actually _run_ CP/M itself. There's not a lot to see there - <USER2> you've ever used the MS Windows shell, imagine its Paleolithic ancestor.

<comment><USER8> CP/M source code (at least for 2.2 and earlier) was always pretty readily available because you often needed to make changes to it and the BIOS when adding new hardware. I remember when my Dad got a printer and serial card for his S100 bus system sometime around 1980. We spent hours making the necessary changes to CP/M and the BIOS so that it would work. We also had to wire up our own cable for the printer to make sure it matched the pin out for the serial card. It sure felt like an accomplishment when that darn printer actually worked.

<comment><USER9> I don't remember the source code being available. What was available was the BIOS (that you had to customize for your hardware), the boot loader to get stuff running, the CBIOS that did the disk reads and a cool program that let you patch your floppy drive parameters into your system.

I worked on a number of systems and getting the BIOS to work with new hardware was an amazing feeling. One of my last CP/M systems was the Zorba, it's claim to fame was the ability for it to emulate lots of different floppy formats. So you could move data from one format of a floppy to another. It was a huge win since the only other way to move data was via a serial connection.

The Zorba people would exchange formats as we figured out new ones.

The other cool thing "back in the day" was replacements for the Command Line Processor part of CP/M to allow some new commands to happen. Like Busybox but 40 years ago.

Now get off my lawn...

<comment><USER7> _One of my last CP /M systems was the Zorba_

That thing looks amazing as a machine, name and example of near-perfect market mistiming. I'd never heard of it.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zorba_(computer)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zorba_\(computer\))

most of the info seems to come from:

[http://www.zorba.z80.de](http://www.zorba.z80.de)

<comment><USER9> Yea, it was the last (and best) of the luggable systems. It came out as the first of the MSDos lap computers arrived. You can still get working ones on EBay for about $500.

<comment><USER7> Out of curiosity, how did you end up with this beast at the time? According to that German site, only a few thousand were made and sold.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's an intriguing subject for sure.

What's missing to me here is "Why start with CP/M"?

<comment><USER11> Old computers never die - their users do!

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Back in the day, a friend of mine had 3" disks for the ZX Spectrum +3 with CP/M.

So this is a possible way to try out CP/M on real hardware, after finding one in workable state.

<comment><USER13> You should still be able to find Amstrad PCW and CPC systems in working order, although the 3" drives will probably need replacement rubber bands by now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Can you virtualize it? Is there a virtualization solution available that supports the Z80 architecture?

<comment><USER15> There are several virtual machines capable of running various versions of CP/M and a couple emulators of CP/M itself. (For example, [https://github.com/jhallen/cpm](https://github.com/jhallen/cpm) )</comment></comment>


House Session on CISPA, ongoing now [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN/ <comment><USER2> After just reading through the bill for the first time, I agree with most of the criticism that the broadness of the bill creates significant opportunity for misuse.

Unfortunately, if you read the bill with an optimistic view of government, most of the items in the bill are written to seem like common sense and good ideas. If the bill is read with a skeptical eye, one can see how vast the breaches of privacy and abuses of CISPA could reach.

<comment><USER3> Those being?

<comment><USER2> As mentioned, I only just now read the bill, and you appear to be much more educated on it than I, and from reading your comments, you seem very even- keeled on your defense of the bill. I am generally supportive of the purpose and goals of the bill.

It's been hard for me to get clarification on what some of the vagueries and broad language of the bill could actually mean legally due to most articles I read having a strong bias one way or the other.

I'm supportive of information sharing in order to combat and better protect against cyber threats, but if that information sharing is covered by a liability shield (which it almost certainly has to be), it seems like even a benevolent company may err on the side of sharing more information than needed with the government.

As the bill details little about oversight of who gets access to the data and how it will be used, a skeptical and cynical look at this information being in the hands of the government could suggest that this information would be used for profiling or information gathering on US citizens.

I think the broader argument could be "what expectation of privacy do we have on the internet?". I'm not sure where I fall on that issue, but I do wish it was clearer, not necessarily for me, but moreso for folks like my parents that don't truly understand what it means to send information across the internet (encrypted or unencrypted).

<comment><USER3> Except for the bit where you were nice to me, this is a great comment. It actually captures a lot of what I think about CISPA, too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Here are the amendments being debated today:

[http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-113hrpt41/pdf/CRPT-113hrpt...](http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-113hrpt41/pdf/CRPT-113hrpt41.pdf)

The first of them has passed.

The second, limiting the use of CLASSIFIED information to cyber-security activities, has passed.

The third, allowing independent contractors to handle cyber-threat information sourced from the USG, has passed.

I am predicting the fourth, which is so unbelievably boring that I refuse to summarize it, is about to pass.

<comment><USER4> Full text of bill (only 33 double-spaced pages, not too long):

[http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr624rh/pdf/BILLS-113h...](http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr624rh/pdf/BILLS-113hr624rh.pdf)

<comment><USER3> You probably want to start here:

[http://intelligence.house.gov/bill/cyber-intelligence- sharin...](http://intelligence.house.gov/bill/cyber-intelligence-sharing-and- protection-act-2013)

This landing page includes links to the amendments.

<comment><USER5> I like how page 22 is rotated upside-down on the "HR 624 as Amended" PDF from the "Bill and Amendments" section.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I watched it, but to be honest, I zoned out towards the end. So little substance; just a collection of dinosaurs throwing around the 'cyber' rhetoric like computer security is a game of Risk. They don't know what the hell they're talking about. They just repeat all the buzzwords they get from the literature provided by all the pro-CISPA lobbyists.

I just called my Representative and hope for the best, but I fear these assholes are going to win this round. I will be throwing the EFF some more money next payday though.

</comment><comment><USER7> Final vote is tomorrow. Take 2 minutes and call your House Rep and tell them what you think about CISPA: <https://eff.org/r.5bPw>

<comment><USER8> This would seem to require figuring out what I think about CISPA, first. I don't feel very strongly about it either way -- slightly positive toward some aspects, slightly negative toward other aspects, but it feels pretty much like a legislative no-op.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Worth noting that 1) the ACLU and others still oppose the bill in modified form, and 2) there was a half-assed veto threat from the WH, and 3) lawmakers view the veto threat as a negotiating ploy.

So I believe this is a done deal -- unless something dramatically changes.

(Shameless plug: I've summarized some of this on the blog: <http://freedom-or- safety.com/blog/aclu-cispa-far-from-fixed/>)

</comment><comment><USER10> Could somebody give an argument (or link to an argument) for why CISPA shouldn't be passed?

<comment><USER4> One thing that does not seem to be often discussed is that CISPA data can be used to investigate and prosecute crimes. Specifically, crimes involving harm to minors or serious bodily harm.

No one likes to see adults or minors injured, but this inclusion is at odds with proponents' claim that it CISPA is only "for cybersecurity purposes". Even the House Committee on Intelligence's own FAQ seems to contradict the bill's text in its first entry:

[http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/f...](http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/images/041613cispamythfact.pdf)

"Serious bodily harm" isn't a term which just covers terrorist acts; it covers things like automobile accidents. One wonders if data collected under CISPA could be used to find and prosecute drunk drivers in a National Park -- hey, it prevents serious bodily harm and it's on Federal property, right?

Other claims that the bill's language is too broad and needs more work:

[http://www.legislationandpolicy.com/747/cispa-and-the- need-t...](http://www.legislationandpolicy.com/747/cispa-and-the-need-to- increase-cyber-security-without-infringing-on-personal-privacy/)

[http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislativ...](http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/113/saphr624r_20130416.pdf)

<comment><USER11> Talking about protecting minors is usually a good thing to thrown into a dirty bill that can't stand on it's own, as a weak appeal to emotion. Sadly, it works.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Now finished; see [http://intelligence.house.gov/bill/OMGWTF-intelligence- shari...](http://intelligence.house.gov/bill/OMGWTF-intelligence-sharing-and- protection-act-2013) for the full-text bill and ongoing schedule.

Noticed that there are only letters of support provided here, though. See <https://www.eff.org/cybersecurity-bill-faq> for EFF's take.

</comment><comment><USER12> I watched for a little while but when you're watching the political equivalent of paint drying its hard to remain interested after a while. I see quite a few things passed, lets hope the White House follows through with their veto threats. With the appropriate amends required to make this bill less broad, it wouldn't be nearly as bad. The scary about about this bill is for some reasons the amends weren't made which leads me to believe there are ulterior motives of those in support of this bill yet to be revealed until it's too late.

<comment><USER13> I thought the veto was because the bill was too lenient on companies.

"However, the Administration is concerned about the broad scope of liability limitations in H.R. 624. Specifically, even if there is no clear intent to do harm, the law should not immunize a failure to take reasonable measures, such as the sharing of information, to prevent harm when and if the entity knows that such inaction will cause damage or otherwise injure or endanger other entities or individuals." [[http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57579905-38/obama- threaten...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57579905-38/obama-threatens- veto-of-cispa-database-sharing-bill/)]

In other words, that corporations should be punished for not providing information.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Thanks for this! I'm tuning in</comment>


The Founder Shuffle - <AUTHOR> http://blog.kera.io/post/38244618289/the-founder-shuffle

<comment><USER2> Too often ego does get in the way so good on for experimenting with structure at this early stage.</comment>


Windows 10 Control Panel gets another nail in its coffin - <AUTHOR> https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/windows-10-control-panel-gets-another-nail-in-its-coffin/ <comment><USER2> This "modern" crap is beyond horrible. It looks graphically bland and featureless, like it would be absolutely trivial to render, yet somehow still manages to be much slower and less functional than what it replaced. It was astonishing the first time I opened the Settings app and saw a _loading screen_.

</comment><comment><USER3> My heart goes out to anyone on the teams to modernise the depths of windows, the eternal thankless task.

Damned if you do, people complain you have a new thing not exactly like the old thing. Can't kill the old thing or people freak out.

Damned if you don't, "look how janky and old windows is" etc.

I want Window to succeed, Apple wont make Macs in 15 years from now and don't ship high powered machines for under $5K today, as much as I wish Linux would be viable Adobe and other creative software companies will never ship Linux versions so all you're left with as an artist who needs computers is Windows.

<comment><USER4> >Can't kill the old thing or people freak out.

Kill the old thing by all means. I shed not one tear over Win 3.1->95->98->ME/NT.

But you'd damn well best make it so that what you replace it with is legitimately better, faster, more ergonomic, and efficient, and doesn't hobble me as the User.

Last Windows OS that even remotely fit that bill: Windows 7</comment></comment>


The new era of initiative and Cloud Computing - <AUTHOR> http://wattersjames.posterous.com/what-seth-godin-knows-about-cloud-computing A recent take on the ceding of economic control to more and more actors within the economy as enabled by cloud computing. <comment><USER2> locating cloud computing in a broader cultural/historical inflection point at which the cost of conservative stewardship negates the security that usually accompanies it.</comment>


Moka - Minimalist functional python library - <AUTHOR> http://www.phzbox.com/moka/

<comment><USER2> I like the idea, but there seems to be a bit of a performance hit.

>>> from timeit import Timer

>>> mokatimer = Timer("l = List(range(1000)).extend(range(1000, 2000)).keep(lambda x: (x % 3) == 1)", setup="from moka import List")

>>> regtimer = Timer("l = range(1000); l.extend(range(1000, 2000)); l = [n for n in l if (n % 3) == 1]")

>>> mokatimer.timeit(10000)

16.502125024795532

>>> regtimer.timeit(10000)

2.5419421195983887

I tried pre-generating the range to see if that was throwing it off the timer:

>>> regtimer = Timer("l = []; l.extend(range1000); l = [n for n in l if (n % 3) == 1]", setup="range1000 = range(1000)")

>>> mokatimer = Timer("l = List().extend(range1000).keep(lambda x: (x % 3) == 1)", setup="from moka import List; range1000=range(1000)")

>>> regtimer.timeit(10000)

1.0892798900604248

>>> mokatimer.timeit(10000)

7.714169979095459

I didn't look at the source, but it looks like moka needs to be optimized to use list comprehension for .keep. Other methods could probably use comprehension (or generators) too.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback. Yes, I totally agree about the performance hit. I'm still thinking about the interface and what methods Moka should provide. After that, I'll make a pass to optimize constructs as much as possible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Came here to post a link to this after seeing it on Reddit. I might have just fallen in love a little bit.</comment>


Web developer, welcome to Ethereum - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/wemark-stories/web-developer-welcome-to-ethereum-ff0355379025 <comment><USER2> I don't get it. Why should I be doing stuff with this?

<comment><USER3> First thought is academic proof of work. Or to protect readers of news by alerting if text was modified. Thats what i know about. Its active research. Mostly anti-forgery tech.

I ought to read into the ether world better myself though. So take my words with a grain of salt.

A musing would be defending against malicious code injection ?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What 'good' is being created on the internet these days? - <AUTHOR> After reading the 'Wikipedia has cancer' op-ed from earlier this month I was remembering back to the earlier days of the Internet when upstart Internet projects seemed to be trying to take on every major source of power. These projects were largely 'good' and altruistic, looking foremost to change the world and often didn't include a clear business model.
Examples: Craigslist (21 years old) Wikipedia (16 years old) FireFox (15 years old) OpenOffice (14 years old) OpenStreetMap (13 years old) DuckDuckGo (7 years old) etc
Obviously, there has been tremendous successes with things like Andriod (10 years old), Raspberry Pi (5 years old), and Bitcoin (6 years old). But what's new? What's your favorite new upstart project? Or are all the brilliant minds being lured away by the page views, app downloads, and venture capital cycle? <comment><USER2> > _But what 's new? What's your favorite new upstart project? _

A few:

\- [https://hypothes.is](https://hypothes.is)

\- [https://genius.com](https://genius.com)

\- [https://www.ethereum.org](https://www.ethereum.org)

\- [https://thegrid.io](https://thegrid.io)

\- [https://neocities.org](https://neocities.org)

\- [https://github.com/ipfs/ipfs](https://github.com/ipfs/ipfs)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for sharing. I really liked the idea behind [https://hypothes.is](https://hypothes.is) in particular, but I haven't found any site that really is enhanced by it. With the right user base though it could be awesome.

<comment><USER2> Yeah Hypothesis is a bit nerdy. This is why Genius exists, and if rap/hip-hop is not your thing, Hypothesis can be used for any niche annotation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm kind of excited about SOLID, while it may not be exactly what you are looking for I'm hoping it will pave the way for the next generation of decentralized social networks where users own their own data.

>Solid (derived from "social linked data") is a proposed set of conventions and tools for building decentralized Web applications based on Linked Data principles. Solid is modular and extensible. It relies as much as possible on existing W3C standards and protocols.

[https://github.com/solid/solid](https://github.com/solid/solid)

</comment><comment><USER4> Well, I blog to try to put out good info. It isn't exactly setting the world on fire though.

MAYBE SOMEDAY!

</comment><comment><USER5> How about Tor</comment>


Solar Powered De-Salination Is Being Explored by Several Countries - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601419/to-make-fresh-water-without-warming-the-planet-countries-eye-solar-power/ <comment><USER2> _" Desalination plants need to run 24 hours a day, requiring expensive battery packs to supplement solar power when the sun's not shining."_

Why? Electricity is hard to store cheaply. However, we've known how to store water for millennia. Is there something about reverse osmosis that makes it impossible to stop? Why not just turn off the pumps and let the pipes drain?

<comment><USER3> Desalination infrastructure is expensive. If you get 54 million gallons from a $1 billion plant, you need to spend twice as much if it only runs 12 hours a day.

Storage costs are not free, but if you can save 1 billion then that buys a _lot_ of battery's. It's ~15,000 kilowatt-hours of power for every million gallons of fresh water that's produced. If you assume 1/2 of your production is at night that's 405Mega Watt Hours of storage which is less than 1 billion, though at 2,000$ / kWh battery's not by all that much.

A better option is to just pump water up a hill to a lake, which could then provide whatever pressure desalination needs at the bottom of a hill. But, again that requires a tall hill. (~65 ATM * 33 feet = ~2,145 feet above sea level.) Saudi Arabia actually does have a lot of land at that altitude or above.

PS: This is also why you run them at night in the first place. We really don't need a lot of water at night, but storing water is cheap.

<comment><USER4> That seems to make a lot of sense, an we already know pumped hydro is one of the most efficient "batteries" for renewables. But then the tradeoff is how far do you have to pump the water from the ocean to get it up to a reservoir above 2000 feet? You might lose all benefits (if there were any) of the technique if you don't have a handy mountain nearby.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I assume this has been considered, but what is the reason for not using giant solar stills? All countries that desalinate water have a coastline and have hot climates so why isn't using solar energy directly in sea-based solar stills economical?

<comment><USER6> Hehe, i was writing my post when you submitted this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What I don't get is why they don't just run the desalinization process at "full speed" when the sun is shining, and store the freshwater. Then you don't need any batteries. Maybe the process is not amenable to scaling up and down with a variable power supply. You could possibly use giant capacitors to smooth the power supply, but maybe the economics still favor smaller facilities that run 24/7, even though they need batteries.

<comment><USER7> The water can be the capacitor, or the battery for that matter, if you can get gravity involved.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Interestingly enough, at the same time, several other countries are experimenting with osmotic power generation [1], which is pretty much exact opposite of electrically-powered desalination.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmotic_power](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmotic_power)

<comment><USER9> Well it's only a suitable solution for a very few countries that do not have water shortages. So not sure how interesting it is since those countries also usually have good renewable sources such we wind, hydro and geothermal.

<comment><USER4> Well I wonder if could be used near a river mouth? Since that water is going to be "thrown away" into the ocean anyway.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why not make a big solar still thus: go to Saudi Arabia, dig pit near the ocean, pile up the fill next to the pit, let solar evaporation carry freshwater up to the top of the pile, store it on top so you have pressure?

There must be a reason why not make lots of these on the coast. If someone knew how to run the numbers I would be very curious.

</comment><comment><USER10> It's not made clear why they don't just add solar to the general grid and power the plants from whatever the grid is providing. Presumably that would be solar during the day, maybe some CSP after sunset, maybe some wind at night, but if they really need to burn some oil during the night then it's not the end of the world. Better than giving up because they can't figure out how to run the machinary from one particular power source.

</comment><comment><USER11> Sometime ago, there was an article talking about symbiotic process of desalination. Water would be drawn from the ocean, go into a data center for data center cooling and go to a power plant for steam powered turbines and then go to a water desalination plant because it is easy for steam to be converted to water. Isn't that a better setup?

</comment><comment><USER12> Would a system where the liquid fresh water was stored at a significant altitude be feasible? Via evaporation + condensation you could create a battery during the day to use at night.

</comment><comment><USER13> Isn't it going to create local ultra salty water?

</comment><comment><USER14> Curious how many gallons can be removed from oceans before it causes significant impact.

I realize it would require a massive amount but given the insatiable need for clean water, over a century it could add up?

<comment><USER15> Currently the major concerns (as I understand them) are the death of marine life near the intakes, and the consequences of discharging extremely salty wastewater (again, into a relatively limited area).

If you could spread the wastewater across the entire ocean, probably not as big an impact. Possibly none, as the desalinated water eventually makes its way back to the ocean anyway.

<comment><USER16> evaporating the waste water gives the side benefit of being able to mine both salt and other minerals known to be in ocean water such as gold, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> What about reducing the demand for fresh water?</comment>