Markdown to PDF Creator - <AUTHOR> http://updraft.io/

<comment><USER2> some of my tests, including even stuff such as gruber's own pages about markdown, didn't work. so you'll need to make this thing more robust.

but the example that did work looked very nice, so you are definitely on the right track here, and a web-app that does this could be very big, so i definitely suggest you keep working on it.

-bowerbird

p.s. even if markdown _is_ considered harmful! ;+) > [https://medium.com/the- future-of-publishing/495ccfe24a52](https://medium.com/the-future-of- publishing/495ccfe24a52)</comment>


Bad news used to spook the markets. Now it seems to lift them - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/17/business/stock-market.html <comment><USER2> An unfortunate editorial, mostly written in jest. It starts with a good point, but absolutely fails to address that point, except humorously.</comment>


Major label uses DMCA to take down Romney ad of Obama crooning - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/major-label-uses-dmca-to-take-down-romney-ad-of-obama-crooning/

<comment><USER2> Ars claims this is "as clear-cut a case of fair use as can be imagined", but courts have established that political use, while an important factor weighing in favor of fair use, is not the only factor, particularly when concerning the wholesale appropriation of the work.

[http://www.callawyer.com/cle/cle_story.cfm?eid=898723&ev...](http://www.callawyer.com/cle/cle_story.cfm?eid=898723&evid=1&qVersionID=274&qTypeID=7&qcatid=23)

See for instance Long v. Ballantine, where the court ruled against a political campaign for their unauthorized use of a photo in advertising.

Likewise, McCain settled with Browne over the former's use of his song in a campaign video, after the court rejected the McCain campaign's fair use argument.

[http://www.scottandscottllp.com/main/refuse_to_dismiss_music...](http://www.scottandscottllp.com/main/refuse_to_dismiss_music_copyright.aspx)

<comment><USER3> Did you read the same article I read?

"...seems like as clear-cut a case of fair use as can be imagined." They don't 'claim this is,' they say 'seems like.' And with that phrase, I am primed to read a sentence later in the paragraph on why that's not the case.

The article goes on to say "copyright law explicitly mentions commentary and criticism as justifications for fair use." I don't even see a mention of 'political use' to defend the "seems like" phrasing.

Unless they edited the article between views, I'd suggest you've incorrectly characterized the article.

<comment><USER2> To be perfectly honest, I was so pleased to remember about Long v. Ballantine that I stopped reading at that point and came here to post.

With that said, I don't see how Ars later characterizes the clip as anything but fair use. Looking specifically at

 _The Romney ad seems like as clear-cut a case of fair use as can be imagined. Obama's singing is a core part of the ad's message, and copyright law explicitly mentions commentary and criticism as justifications for fair use. And it's hard to imagine the ad harming the market for Al Green CDs or iTunes tracks._

Ars seems to be saying that the ad meets two of the criteria for fair use: that it is commentary or criticism, and that it has no effect on the work's market. How does this strike you as indicating that they are rejecting fair use?

<comment><USER4> This was my parsing of the article as well. The video could be viewed as being either a "commentary" or a "criticism" or both. The continuation "and copyright law explicitly..." is reinforcing that author's belief that this is the case.

<comment><USER5> I'm fairly sure the "commentary and criticism" exception pertains to fair use use of media that refers to the media itself (e.g. film reviews, cultural commentary, satire of a popular program etc.)

All this is very different from declaring "I'm producing a work of commentary or criticism and therefore I can do anything I want with whatever I find, even if the point I'm making relates to something else entirely."

That's just a rookie move. Rupert Murdoch really was right about Romney needing to "drop old friends from team and hire some real pros."

<https://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch/status/219393140245807104>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So if you 1) know that anything you put up on YouTube can be hit with a DMCA takedown and 2) you have music in your campaign video and 3) other candidates have been bitten by this in the past, _why would you post on a site you don't control_?

<comment><USER7> Which candidates have been hit by this? The "music" in the campaign video was Obama singing. If I were posting such a video I would not automatically expect it to be hit by a DMCA takedown.

<comment><USER3> Well, Someone Not Obama owns the rights to the lyrics. But that's the only grounds I could think that such a takedown request would be plausible. Compulsory licensing (which says once it's been recorded and published by someone, it can be recorded and published by anyone provided they pay the lyricist and composer the statutory fees) does not address fair use of any particular recording.

So now, IMHO, we're left with whether it's OK for Romney to use the recording in a critical manner. And I'd say yes. I think it's beyond 'would not automatically expect' into 'there's no way anyone could claim...'

<comment><USER8> You are spot on. The original headline is wrong as it is not a major label but a major music publisher who is responsible for the takedown. BMG Songs is (almost) exclusively representing songwriters and composers - who can be signed to completely different label (in the case of Al Green this should be currently an EMI sub-label).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> For those interested just in hearing Obama sing, you can watch the sample in question from an ABC News broadcast: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8Qu8nThJ5w&t=15](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8Qu8nThJ5w&t=15)

</comment><comment><USER10> Only thing missing is disclosure of BMG contributions to each of the campaigns.

<comment><USER11> It's owned by Sony Music. According to this site the breakdown for individual donations is 73% Democrat versus 27% Republican.

[http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/sony-music- enterta...](http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/sony-music- entertainment/0d5eec529346401e874a79d10655e3fb?cycle=-1)

<comment><USER8> Finally a subject on hn that I can shine on with random details: BMG Songs is not owned by Sony Music, but by Bertelsman and some private equity firms. It predecessor BMG Music Publishing was not part of the merger with Sony. In fact BMG Music Publishing was later sold to Universal Music Publishing. BMG Songs, the company initiating the take down, is a relatively new around the block, but largely run by ex-BMG Music Publishing guys. Their portfolio of music exists almost exclusively through buying up independent publishers (i.e. rights).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm seeing nothing that actually proves that the DMCA was used. We know already that major record labels use Youtube/Googles "ContentID" system - which in itself isn't a DMCA claim system (although it can lead to it). Given the speed of the takedown, it seems likely this system was used.

Until one side comes out and confirms that they used the DMCA rather than the ContentID, trying to point the blame at the DMCA seems to be rather hasty.

<comment><USER13> Speedy or not, content identification wouldn't have recognised the lyrics from Obama's singing. YouTube's system is sold to users as a way to keep its DMCA safe harbour (YouTube to McCain in 2008: [http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2008/10/youtube-to- mcca...](http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2008/10/youtube-to-mccain-no- special-treatement-for-dmca-takedowns/) ), and YouTube needs to own up if it goes beyond that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> You do realize these takedowns are automated? No one at a label sat there and clicked "report"

<comment><USER8> The problematic aspect seems to be, that a) Obama was singing the song and b) that there are lots of videos on YouTube of exactly this segment that were not taken down. And in political campaigns there are no automated take downs - just devious acts of sabotage by the opponent ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Odd, it seems the examples given of politicians being hit by take downs were Republican. It can't be that those in the Internet and Entertainment spaces are predominantly liberal and use that to silence their opponents can it? Nah...that'd be crazy to think freedom loving liberals would want to suppress someone else's speech.

<comment><USER16> I flagged you. Sorry, this just looks like flamebait/trolling to me. If you want to believe I'm a Liberal Elite silencing your "discourse" I guess I can't convince you otherwise.

<comment><USER17> Why trolling? If we criticize censorship of Kim Dotcom or Julian Assange, and express anger, is that trolling? If Westboro Baptist or Glenn Beck abused the DMCA to silence their critics, we'd rightly be waving pitchforks. No different to criticize what appears to be an attack on free speech using the DMCA. Regardless of your political stance, if there appears to be an agenda to silence someone on the one side, then it's fair to label those on the other side as crazy and evil.

<comment><USER18> Hacker News is not a place to discuss or engage in partisan politics. Criticizing attacks on free speech is great. Blaming people of a certain political persuasion for problems and (especially) furthering those arguments with juvenile sarcasm have no place here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I wonder if this is payment for the presidents support for SOPA?

Obviously not directly and previously negotiated, but maybe an I scratch you, you scratch me situation?

</comment><comment><USER20> So from now on, politicians could just sing all the reports they want to bury to the tune of popular songs, and the automated copyright filters would take care of the exposure problem.

And now for the budget, this year sung to the tune of "Happy Birthday to You".

</comment><comment><USER21> Now the big question: Would either a Republican or a Democrat dare to get rid of DMCA (or even the filthiest of its provisions) or would they continue to support it as they get more donations from the backers of DMCA?

There isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two faces of the one- party dictatorship of USA.

George Carlin on Freedom of Choice

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt49DsfKDMc>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC_wjQtfhZQ>

<comment><USER18> The DMCA safe harbor provisions are a net good. Without them, YouTube could not exist because they'd be held liable for content on their site that infringes copyrights. The takedown and challenge process could be better, but calling for politicians to "get rid of DMCA" is bad for the internet.

<comment><USER21> Safe harbor is definitely good but it doesn't have to be exactly the way it is currently. I read that current YT (or the host) must wait for at least 10 days before adding the flagged content back. That sounds like BS, why must a legitimate content be kept offline for 10 days?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I wouldn't accept Romney's ad was fair use, as he has something very big to gain from it. The same way he invested money in the making of the advertisement, he should also pay the royalties for the song composition.

I hate all these stupid copyright laws, but if we must have it, then we must ALL have to comply with it.

<comment><USER23> Fair use is a three part test. Your understanding of the law is... limited.</comment></comment>


I Joined Airbnb at 52 - <AUTHOR> https://hbr.org/2017/04/i-joined-airbnb-at-52-and-heres-what-i-learned-about-age-wisdom-and-the-tech-industry <comment> xkcd-sucks , as a senior manager.</comment>


Shun Seats? Grab Poles? Subway Riders Studied - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/nyregion/subway-riders-quirks-studied.html?hp

<comment><USER2> especially like those proposed layouts at the end of the paper: <http://docs.trb.org/prp/13-1693.pdf></comment>


Ask HN : Should I buy Facebook stock? - <AUTHOR>

Stock market newb here. I've mostly only owned my employer's stock. Would it be a wise decision to buy facebook stock as soon as they IPO? My brief research says otherwise; after a 6 month'plateau' period, employees will be able to sell their stock and early investors will cash in bringing the price down. <comment><USER2> I dabble in the UK markets (ftse 250+AIM)

I'd say no. There's massive hype and arguments going either way but for me two points stand out

1) FB total valuation compared to there income/profit is way way below what your getting at google. Google in my opinion is the closest comparable match.

2) 900M users to date. How many possible users do you think there are in the world? how much possible expansion and growth does that leave?

2.1) Are you willing to gamble china opening up 1-2 billion possible users to facebook?

Sorry its a scattered response, getting to the end of an 11 hour shift at work and im shot.

<comment><USER3> WRT 2.1, more importantly can the Facebook platform serve those 1 billion in the same way that it serves the rest of the world? China has a very different culture from the US or Europe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> $100 billion valuation on $4 billion/year revenue(not profit)? No thanks, I'll pass. For perspective, Apple's $570 billion value is with $100 billion/year revenue. I don't care how fast they are growing, it's going to be a long time before you see any return on your investment (other than trendy mood swings with the market)

</comment><comment><USER5> If you have lots of cash lying around you could always buy a small parcel of $1k worth of facebook stock. If Facebook bankrupts then the most you can lose is $1k. If Facebook performs anywhere near Google in the next 10 years then you will end up with $6k. For me, losing $1k doesn't feel _too_ bad and I wouldn't feel bad about not buying more if it did end up going up to 6k. [1]

As long as I acknowledge it purely as a gamble I don't see any problems with investing in Facebook. I wouldn't invest my life savings, however. It might be a cliche but "Don't put all your eggs into one basket" is thoroughly explained by mathematics. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversification_(finance)>

[1] I am not making ANY recommendation whatsoever.

</comment><comment><USER6> Since their service is free to users and they primarily generate revenue by ineffectively advertising to people who simply want to connect socially, I wouldn't say Facebook is a very sound investment. It is a battle between the users who want privacy and the companies who want user data, where the outcome could be that FB loses a ton of users or FB loses a ton of funding. FB also seems to have a lot of debt, which could hinder growth considerably since they don't have a ton of ways to make money or increase their customer base in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER7> 25\. times. sales.

Say that a few times slowly. It's a lot more fun to go to vegas.</comment>


Protecting E-Mail from Eavesdropping - <AUTHOR> https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/07/protecting_e-ma.html

<comment><USER2> This is probably quite obvious, but I do not yet see it stated here:

Another response I take from what Mr. Schneier didn't say is that the more of our normal data we encrypt, the sooner we again have the "drinking from the fire hose" situation he referred to.

If we can make more and more of our apps use encryption by default without any steps needed by the end-user, we can work towards overwhelming the "save all encrypted data streams" scenario described.

</comment><comment><USER3> > We've known how to send cryptographically secure e-mail since the early > 1990s.

Can we even trust encryption? How can we know that the NSA haven't found weaknesses in common encryption algorithms? They have some of this field's best people in the world on this.

<comment><USER4> You can't know that. You can even worry about the fact that James Bamford wrote in Wired in 2012 [1]:

"According to another top official also involved with the program, the NSA made an enormous breakthrough several years ago in its ability to cryptanalyze, or break, unfathomably complex encryption systems employed by not only governments around the world but also many average computer users in the US."

What do many average computer users use? TLS is my guess. So, perhaps they've found a way to get into RC4, or made an advance in factoring. And the history of cryptanalysis says that they are likely years and years ahead of what's known outside. So, what can you do?

Well, you can read the ECRYPT II report [2] and see for yourself what Europe's cryptographers think about the security of various algorithms and what key lengths they recommend.

For example, the report recommends that an asymmetric key of 3,248 bits should be secure to 2040 (they recommend a symmetric key of 128 bits for the same period). So, the subtext is that an 2,048 bit RSA key is going to be breakable soon by a powerful adversary.

The report says, for example of RSA OAEP: "If used, we recommend at least |N|>1024 for legacy systems and |N|>2432 for new systems."

My brief summary is that I'm happiest with RSA keys of 4,096 bits or above and with symmetric keys of 256 bits.

[1] [http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/](http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/)

[2] [http://www.ecrypt.eu.org/](http://www.ecrypt.eu.org/)

PS I'd be curious to know what key length Snowden used for the GPG key he apparently used when communicating with Greenwald.

<comment><USER5> Anonymous sources might be supplying real information but they could also be trying to manage beliefs.

Undoubtedly the NSA is ahead of everyone else in cryptanalysis but I think it is also advantageous for the NSA to have foreign governments think the NSA has a bigger lead than they actually do. This belief would cause foreign governments to use larger key sizes, and so drive up their costs, or switch to less well tested encryption methods that the NSA might be able to break.

<comment><USER6> > ... but I think it is also advantageous for the NSA to have foreign > governments think the NSA has a bigger lead than they actually do.

I would think it is more advantageous for the NSA to have others believe that it has _less_ capabilities than they actually do.

The NSA is well known for its disinformation campaigns. Why wouldn't they try to make others (governments, end users, etc.) believe that they _don 't_ have the ability to break various key sizes.

This could provide a false sense of security to others and cause them to believe that, for example, a 2048-bit PGP key is more than sufficient when, in fact, it isn't.

<comment><USER5> I'm not arguing that there aren't situations where then spreading the belief that their capabilities are less than actual would be a good thing. If the goal is to break a specific subset of all encrypted messages then this is exactly what they would want.

But there are also situations where they would want the opposite. For example, suppose the NSA has no advantage in breaking RSA over public knowledge, but can easily break NTRU and their goal is to read as many encrypted messages as possible. Then if they can get everyone to believe they can break RSA but not any cryptosystem based on lattices then some people will switch to NTRU. Now its much cheaper for the NSA to achieve their goal of breaking lots of encrypted messages since they have a very efficient algorithm for reading NTRU encryptions.

(This belief could be spread simply by having an "anonymous but very senior" official talk to Wired about how the US government has made a major step towards building the first scalable quantum computer)

In short, what they should want the world to believe depends on their capabilities and goals. Without knowing those anything is possible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is there anyway to make email metadata, such as headers, more secure against eavesdropping?

</comment><comment><USER8> If you also want to have your meta data encrypted (which you have not with Email):

Just use [http://retroshare.sourceforge.net/](http://retroshare.sourceforge.net/) for your entire communication needs (it's not only file sharing!).

EDIT: Ok, maybe I was too naive thinking NSA & Co do not have their people on HN...

<comment><USER9> You know, when you spam HN with an endless stream of advertisements for something and get downvoted, there are simpler explanations available than that HN is under the thumb of government goons who are out to get you.

<comment><USER8> Disinformation campaigns, for example.

<comment><USER6> Or we just get tired of the same spam on every article.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why TOR browser always selects France as first hop for circuit? - <AUTHOR> For last month, when I use TOR browser, it always sets France IP as first. I tried "New Circuit for this site" option several times but no luck. Has anyone know why? <comment><USER2> Tor sticks to the same "guard" node for a few weeks at a time by design. This is to reduce the odds of an attacker controling both your first and last tor nodes, which would allow the attacker to see both what tou are doing and where you are.

[https://blog.torproject.org/blog/improving-tors-anonymity- ch...](https://blog.torproject.org/blog/improving-tors-anonymity-changing- guard-parameters)</comment>


Cows painted with zebra-like striping can avoid biting fly attack - ga-vu https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/08/us/cows-painted-zebras-avoid-flies-scn-trnd/index.html <comment><AUTHOR> [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0223447):

 _"The treatments were black-and-white painted stripes, black painted stripes, and no stripes (all-black body surface)"_

Weird that they didn't have a fourth group with white painted stripes. Now, the group with black-and-white painted stripes is the only one that has white paint applied, so it could as well be that the white paint causes the difference.

<comment><USER2> Very interesting article.

I would love to drive by fields of zebra-painted cows, however it does make me wonder if there were other elements at play.

From the plos.org article above: "Biting flies are attracted to their host animals by odors, shape, movement, brightness, color, polarization and body temperature"

By painting on an animal, you are now changing not just the color (and perceived shape, which affects perception of movement), but also the odor (due to the paints) and perhaps interfering with how the flies will perceive the body temperature of the animal, too.

It would also be interesting to see how these specific data points compare between zebras and the cows used for these kinds of tests.

<comment><USER3> If that's the case, then the flies will evolve to ignore the changes and adapt to the new zebra cows.

This is a short term fix at best.

<comment><USER4> if that was the case, flies would have evolved to adapt to zebras by now.

<comment><USER3> It only repels 50% of the bites though. Thus, those that bite, will survive and make babies. Some of them will be able to bite, others not.

Eventually, only those that can bite will survive.

I don't see how it can go the other way. Where eventually since only half of them bite, that ratio declines to zero. Can that happen with evolution?

I suppose there is a tipping point where if enough of the population can't find each other then they all die alone. Like rats in Alberta.

<comment><USER5> 50% less bites does not imply only 1/2 of flies are biting. It's more likely that each fly bites only 1/2 as much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think the sample size is too low. I am willing to bet that once you start doing this, the flies will start adapting and learning - eventually completely ignoring the stripes after a few generations.

<comment><USER7> With enough time I 100% agree but considering the flys have not adapted for centuries to biting zebras with their stripes I'm skeptical this will happen any time soon.

<comment><USER6> I think you underestimate fly intelligence. There's been a lot of research done on e.g. fruit flies, and they are pretty intelligent compared to their neuron count, showing a simple thought process before acting.

<comment><USER8> But the point is, the theory with the most current support for why zebras have stripes is that they help the zebras avoid biting flies. As far as I understand it, it's not about intelligence, it's about confusing the flies' ability to detect movement. That's where this idea came from -- from research on zebra striping.

<comment><USER9> As a kid I was taught zebra stripes throw off the depth perception of lunging predators leading to increased survival rates. It is similar to the dazzle camouflage of old ships. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzle_camouflage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzle_camouflage)

<comment><USER10> Ditto but I remember reading that they were uncertain if it was even effective. Anyone know if this is proven in other circumstances? It seems to make sense intuitively.

<comment><USER4> there was a recent study where striped "jackets" were given to horses, and were found to be very effective.

[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/zebra-stripes- hor...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/zebra-stripes-horse-flies- disease-research-evolution-science-a8789701.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The problem I have with the paper is regarding the nature of the controls.

They painted black and while stripes on the cows. But they don't say what the controls were that I can see. Unpainted cows? Or cows painted a single colour.

I'd want to see all white and all black painted animals - perhaps the makeup of the paint put off the flies?

<comment><USER12> [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0223447)

>Six Japanese Black cows were assigned to treatments using a 3 × 3 Latin- square design. The treatments were black-and-white painted stripes, black painted stripes, and no stripes (all-black body surface).

So apparently flies don't like white paint.

<comment><USER13> Also is being painted healthy for the cows ?

<comment><USER14> Most probably not; Cows would eventually lick and ingest the painting. There are several types of white pigments, some are poisonous and permanent using several metallic salts, other non durable, calcium and chalk based, and would be washed with the first rain.

The idea of a blanket is better, but the problem is that the blanket would act as a tick sanctuary then.

Sometimes, it seems that everybody is trying to solve the wrong problems, in any case.

<comment><USER15> the article says is water-based paint, so it isn't toxic

<comment><USER16> The comment above is indicating issues with the pigment, rather than the solvent used to disperse it. You can have very toxic water-based paint, see watercolors with cadmium etc. That being said, it's completely plausible to mix eg chalk with something non-toxic that also doesn't wash off so quickly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I think the article doesn't mention that but this is inspired by previous research on zebras, done to explain why zebras have evolved this kind of pattern.

<comment><USER18> I've heard that the stripes make it difficult to track an individual zebra against the backdrop of the whole herd. I.e., a lion might start chasing zebra A, but become disoriented and move onto zebra B who hasn't been worn down from direct pursuit. Researchers have supposedly observed that individual zebras marked with red paint smears tend to get eaten sooner.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Somehow driving through South Dakota looking out over a vast field of seaweed eating, zebra striped cows was not the future I anticipated as a youth.

I'd like some more research given that cows come in black / white patterns, pure white, and pure black. Is stripes really a thing and how about the other patterns? Do we start breading for color now?

</comment><comment><USER20> 6 cows doesn't seem like a significant enough sample.

Anecdotally, I tend to attract mosquitoes a lot more than some other members of my family. I would imagine the same phenomenon is true among cows.

<comment><USER21> I know of that phenomena! I had a Scout, after 6 days on Isle Royale and we were joking about our mosquito bites and how we looked like we all had rickets, calmly said "Mosquitoes don't bite me."

We all looked at him, and he didn't have a bite/blemish on him. Nothing. Not one.

I told him, you put that in a bottle and you'll be an instant millionaire.

<comment><USER22> I know that the swelling and itching from a mosquito bite is actually an allergic reaction to the mosquito's saliva. It's possible he was getting bitten, but was one of the few that doesn't have that allergic reaction.

<comment><USER21> Always the skeptic! Most of us know instantly when we get bit by a mosquito.

<comment><USER23> I've been bitten by a lot of mosquitoes and never once been aware of it happening. I don't think anyone I know has ever claimed to know when it was happening either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I can't wait for "april fools" announcement after thousands of farmers will paint their cows.

</comment><comment><USER25> It would be interesting to see whether certain flies evolutionary traits may develop if we start painting cows. It is entirely possible that Zebra stripes serves as a 'radar jammer' to flies and that it could help decrease fly bites, further studies may be of interest in this area.

If evolutionary traits are likely to occurs, it is worth noting that the size of cow (1,400,000,000) [1] and zebra (800,000)[2] population may have an impact on how fast these traits evolve to cope with the new normal.

[1] [https://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/07/global- li...](https://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/07/global-livestock- counts) [2] [https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/where-do-zebras- live.htm...](https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/where-do-zebras-live.html)

</comment><comment><USER26> This knowledge has already resulted in products like this horse blanket: [https://www.boeren.nu/b_picture/6926/](https://www.boeren.nu/b_picture/6926/)

<comment><USER27> Do you think that the blanket itself might have some kind of influence on preventing biting insects? /sarcasm

<comment><USER26> Well, you can't comfortably cover their legs with a blanket so if flies are more attracted to regular blankets they still get bit more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> It would be awesome if you could do this is a cowshed. Add a stripe projecting light source in the resting area so cows can ruminate with less disturbance.

</comment><comment><USER29> It seems a different group did the same research last year: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19212086](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19212086)

And if I recall this was also in the news several years ago.

</comment><comment><USER30> This sounds like an episode of Looney Tunes.

I wonder how long before the flies evolve to bother zebras?

</comment><comment><USER31> Clearly the disruptive startup idea here is yoga pants for cows. Well, yoga body suits. /s

I love the result. Given the farm automation for feeding, perhaps an automatic paint job could be added to that system as well.

</comment><comment><USER32> So covering the cows half in white paint, halved the number of bites?

Seems like a large number of flaws in this study:

1\. This wasn't 100% so maybe flies avoided the painted cows and just went to bite the non painted cows in the study. Would this work if the whole herd was painted? I know from personal experience that the best mosquito repellant is to bring a "city slicker" as bait but you need DEET if one isn't available.

2\. Maybe it's the paint and if you cover the entire cow the flies stay away entirely?

3\. How long did this experiment run? Once they horseflies get hungry or ending their season, they get more aggressive (they are getting aggressive right now in Ontario)

<comment><USER33> Seems like a large number of flaws in this post. Usually it's helpful to read a study before pointing out flaws in it.

<comment><USER32> 1 flaw. Missed the part where the also had black painted cows. Still doesn't cover the other 2 issues.

<comment><USER33> Point 3 is also covered in the study.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Cowmouhflage?

<comment><USER35> Cow-moo-flage!

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I wonder if a poncho would with the same pattern would have the same effect...? brb registering ponchos4cows.com

<comment><USER37> If covering the cow helps, the pattern on the cover will not make much difference? I assume covering itself is problematic and therefore (too) expensive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Or, less bizarrely, presumably it also works if painted like a Friesian?

</comment><comment><USER39> Could this be applied to cut down on the drugs we need to give cattle?

</comment><comment><USER40> Will it work for humans?

</comment><comment><USER41> Camouflage for cows?

</comment><comment><USER14> Nature always in the middle of our way. Is so annoying that we can't turn Africa in a huge cow field... (roll eyes).

On the other way, milk fortified with Antimony white, or even better the sweet white lead paint, would do surprising things to children health...</comment>


How Business School Killed The Entrepreneur - <AUTHOR> http://www.readingforyoursuccess.com/how-business-school-killed-the-entrepreneur-and-some-worthy-alternatives

<comment><USER2> I think by the fact that MBAs are always looking for "code monkeys" speaks volumes about what's wrong with many folks going to a biz school. This isn't to say that there isn't value there, but it shouldn't be seen as some sort of magic wand or silver bullet.</comment>


SuperDuper v3.0 with APFS support - <AUTHOR> http://www.shirt-pocket.com/SuperDuper/SuperDuperDescription.html <comment><AUTHOR> Having purchased SuperDuper! in Mai 2008 for 30$ and still getting free updates for such a great tool has me slightly worrying... I really salute that, but wonder how sustainable such a business model is.</comment>


Mozilla Wants Hundreds Of Thousands Of Firefox OS Developers - <AUTHOR> http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/mozilla-firefox-os-developer-86176

<comment><USER2> I want mozilla to charge a reasonable price for app developers. Basically, not 30%, but 10%. I want them to be self sustaining and successful, but also apply pricing pressure on the other markets who are just charging waaayyyy too much. I can't believe even MS is getting into the game, making an app used to be free...

<comment><USER3> I was confused by this statement, which I think you're referring to:

"Firefox add-ons are free and those for Firefox OS will certainly be free also."

I'm not sure if that means there will be no paid apps for Firefox OS, or that Mozilla won't take a cut on paid apps, or just that Mozilla won't charge developers a fee to list an app.

I hope it's the last option. They should allow paid apps and take a small cut, as you said, so they have a funding source other than Google, increasingly their competitor.

But they have time to figure out the funding aspect. I just looked up the story about the latest Google/Mozilla deal in December (I'd forgotten the details), and it turns out it's almost $900 million over three years: [https://allthingsd.com/20111222/google-will-pay-mozilla- almo...](https://allthingsd.com/20111222/google-will-pay-mozilla- almost-300m-per-year-in-search-deal-besting-microsoft-and-yahoo/)

<comment><USER4> There will be paid apps and there will be free apps. Submitting an app will not cost anything and can currently be done at <https://marketplace.mozilla.org/en-US/developers/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _"In terms of architecture, it is an operating system based on Linux, just as Android is. But we rely on Gecko, the Firefox web browser layout engine, to run applications written entirely in HTML5. We dropped XUL (the XML User Interface Language) in favour of HTML5, a language known to all web developers."_

It's like WebOS all over again, but without its good looks.

<comment><USER3> I believe WebOS has its own development stack, whereas Firefox OS is pure HTML5 with some extension APIs: <https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI>

Furthermore, quoting the above link: "Once we have an API that we feel that we are satisfied with, we will submit the new API for standardization to the W3C. The goal is to standardize all APIs."

As for looks, these screenshots look pretty slick to me: <https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/b2g/>

<comment><USER5> My point was that HTML5 apps have proven not to be a suitable replacement for native apps. Not just for games and multimedia (can you imagine Infinity Blade or iMovie in HTML5?), but even simple tableview web apps are not as smooth as native apps.

 _"these screenshots look pretty slick to me"_

You're entitled to your opinion, but it looks incoherent and garish to me. Like something you can buy from 99designs. Not even in the same league as WebOS.

<comment><USER6> The reason HTML5 apps have proven not to be a full replacement for native apps is that no-one has actually tried it (on the OS side). Apple (weirdly) have come the closest, but there's still a hell of a long way to go. From my personal experience making webapps, the following is needed:

\- Some sort of app store like central place of discovery

\- Access to far more native APIs / intents. Control over elements like the keyboard.

\- Fixed positioning (finally arrived in iOS5, not sure about Android)

\- The ability to actually play an audio file correctly

\- More control over video playing

That's just a short list but it goes on and on. There's absolutely no reason why an HTML5-based app can't be as good as a native one. I think that Mozilla are ideally placed to be the ones to try. I'm still amazed/disappointed that Google haven't.

<comment><USER7> 1\. Exists in Firefox OS

2\. Getting there in Firefox OS, already impressive.

3\. Not sure what you mean here... "fixed positioning" without context makes me cringe. (edit: Oh... position: fixed has been available in Android browser and Chrome for Android for... a long time. I'm sure it's in Gecko [that, and the demo shows Twitter who uses position: fixed])

4\. Not sure what that means, but I'd like to think it's a priority.

5\. Popcorn.js, while I'm not a fan, is something Mozilla is pouring effort into. MediaSource API coming out of Google looks to add an appendBytes (ala Flash) style API to Javascript enabling adaptive streaming.

It's getting there. :)

<comment><USER6> _Not sure what you mean here... "fixed positioning" without context makes me cringe_

In the CSS sense. That is to say, the ability to have a toolbar that doesn't disappear when you scroll.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I hope Firefox OS will get frequent updates just like desktop browsers. If Mozilla manages to bring all the advantages of modern desktop browser technologies on to a mobile platform, I vision they will gain their market share.

<comment><USER9> but everyone hates firefox updates: [http://www.forbes.com/sites/adriankingsleyhughes/2012/07/10/...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/adriankingsleyhughes/2012/07/10/firefox- developer-everybody-hates-firefox-updates/) ;)

I agree though, anything to push desktop browser technologies to a mobile platform faster is a great thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> "75 percent of applications are already designed in HTML5, with an overlay to fit smartphones from Apple or Google."

I'd really like a source for this. He seems to be saying that 75% of apps on the App Store and Google Play are HTML with a thin wrapper – the PhoneGap model. This doesn't match the top apps on either store, they're overwhelmingly native code.

Is there some kind of a long tail of HTML5 apps out there? Does Mozilla count every app that uses some kind of a web view? Or did they just make the number up?

<comment><USER11> They probably mean that many applications also have an HTML5 version that's optimized for mobile phones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> It will be nice when this is available; to think we might actually be able to use a mobile device that doesn't try to siphon all our personal data through Google or Apple.

<comment><USER5> Apple wants your credit card on file for you to do impulse shopping. Apple would also like you to buy a new device every few years. It has little interest in your personal data, but it will hold on to it if you want a backup.

Google has a different business model, in which "getting to know the users" is essential.

I can't imagine Firefox OS won't have a cloud component. Already Firefox has a syncing service.

In the end, every consumer has to choose for themselves who to trust with their information. Mozilla's future business model isn't clear to me, right now it is way too dependent on Google. Just as I don't trust Google with my information, right now I don't trust Mozilla with it.

<comment><USER3> With their (partly) nonprofit status and history of open development, Mozilla is maybe the only player in tech that I _would_ trust with my information. That's why I find Firefox OS really exciting.

They have an interesting setup with a for-profit corporation (Mozilla Corp.), which is wholly owned by a nonprofit Mozilla Foundation. So as I understand it, they can make money, but are obligated to stick to the foundation's stated goals. Something like that... it sounds like a clever legal hack.

Pretty much all their development happens in the open, and you can read the details of everything they're working on on the wiki. <https://wiki.mozilla.org/> And they designed Firefox Sync with end-to-end encryption, so they couldn't possibly read your bookmarks. <https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mobile/sync/> You can't go farther to protect privacy than that.

As for the Google connection, apparently Microsoft (Bing) and Yahoo were competing for the contract to be the default search engine in Firefox, which is why Google ended up paying so much more recently (December 2011) than last time: [https://allthingsd.com/20111222/google-will-pay-mozilla- almo...](https://allthingsd.com/20111222/google-will-pay-mozilla- almost-300m-per-year-in-search-deal-besting-microsoft-and-yahoo/)

I bet this is a big reason why Google is fighting so hard to get people over to Chrome. If they erode Firefox's market share enough, that price will go down. But so far, it doesn't look like Mozilla has made any concessions to Google. Rather the reverse.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If Firefox (browser) is fully Open Source and doesn't require any patent fees (eg for H.264), will Firefox OS be the same? Will all hardware drivers be Open Source? Will Firefox OS never be able to play H.264 video? Or are Mozilla getting around this somehow?

<comment><USER14> At the very least I hope they require some sort of cross-compatibility from manufacturers, which Google never did, and just let manufacturers do whatever they wanted with it. Also no one should be able to modify it but Mozilla. I'm a big fan of Android, but I feel Google could've taken a different direction early on, and it would've still worked out for them, considering there was no real alternative to the iPhone in the first 3 years.

<comment><USER11> That's not how the market works. Every large phone manufacturer already had big investments in would-be iOS competitors, such as Symbian or Bada or Maemo/MeeGo or WinMo. These companies are also big enough to not see the impeding danger of their conservative investments until it is too late.

The iPhone wasn't considered a real threat (remember how Ballmer laughed at the iPhone?). If the requirements for Android would have been restrictive enough for manufacturers to realize that Android is a great deal, I don't think it would have caught on so well and Microsoft could have eaten their launch, since they are better at selling operating systems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm supportive of the effort here, but frankly expect this to go nowhere for a few reasons.

\- O/S alternatives such as WebOS and Android already exist, so the premise isn't really new.

\- Without hardware distribution, the experience is going to suck. Unless there are carriers and device makers signed up, this is a non-starter.

\- Mindshare from market share: ios/android/win currently represent the aggregate market in terms of apps. And that's where the app developers are.

\- As a consumer, what makes me want a phone with this OS on it?

As for the sales pitch, the combo of better-technical-solution + open-source- appeal doesn't really resonate with me as a difference maker.

</comment><comment><USER16> Firefox OS = Chrome OS for phones

ie a way to encourage webapps rather then attempt to capture os marketshare.

</comment><comment><USER17> What about the existence of other open source OS, such as Tizen, webOS, etc.

<comment><USER18> None of the other major mobile operating systems (open or closed) have the same cachet as Mozilla. In particular, Mozilla has gone to great lengths to zealously cultivate a consistent image of web-centric ideals above pretty much all else. Other mobile operating systems are tainted by corporate interests, even if only in [mis]perception alone when compared against Mozilla.

Mozilla has been trying to reinvent itself and adapt to the mobile onslaught. Increasingly, mobile is being seen as the gateway to billions of people coming online. Mozilla's mission is to "promote openness, innovation and opportunity on the web", and they have seen that desktops are being outsold by mobile units[1] and transitioned accordingly.

FirefoxOS is the foundation's big bet on mobile. Beyond just Mozilla's unique position(ing) in the mobile marketplace, IMO the biggest difference between FirefoxOS and other open source mobile operating systems is that they are betting most of the farm on this. Although the article references that "Firefox OS is a strategic project for Mozilla", I believe that Mozilla's long-term success and relevance will hinge on the success of their Firephones.

Frankly, I'm really happy and amazed that they've been able to get the number of carriers publicly announcing support in this manner that they did for distribution.

Carriers (not necessarily all of the ones listed) don't like how their brands are being potentially diluted and damaged by end-user Android upgrade hell. I don't know what upgrade vision Mozilla sold carriers on, but I sure hope they've got a more solid plan than "we'll copy Android!".

More than likely they said something along the likes of "similar to our near- automated desktop browser update process, less controlling than Apple but not as chaotic as Android." Too bad the carrier meeting minutes and agreements are not listed in the public wiki.

Carriers hate churn -- it's really expensive when they lose a customer. Contract penalties help mitigate economic losses somewhat, but brand loyalty and relevance are getting harder and harder for most operators to retain. Ironically, it's the same desperation to remain relevant that drives the Mozilla Foundation.

Without relevance, mind-share and brand/mission loyalty, it's hard to effect great change amongst billions of people. Money follows when you get the first three factors right.

[1] [http://communities- dominate.blogs.com/brands/2012/06/massive...](http://communities- dominate.blogs.com/brands/2012/06/massive-milestones-in-mobile-will-these- numbers-change-your-mobile-strategy.html)

EDIT: 'Desperation to remain relevant' could be misconstrued as Mozilla being coerced into this particular course of action. I'm _not_ saying that Mozilla is currently in dire straits, but mean that they are voluntarily and pre- emptively putting considerable weight, energy and focus into the mobile arena where they feel they can make a big difference and considerably grow their mindshare footprint, which in turn leads to higher conversion rates for people willing to embrace their mission ideals of web openness.

<comment><USER17> Fair enough. It's interesting how Tizen fizzled out despite being the combination of like three previous mobile OS's.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> also, they don't want to give them any google money.

good luck with that, bros.

<comment><USER20> In case you didn't read the article, Mozilla was talking about app developers, not system developers.</comment></comment>


Hackers Compromised the Trump Organization 4 Years Ago - <AUTHOR> http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/11/hackers-compromised-the-trump-organization-4-years-ago-and-the-company-never-noticed/ <comment><USER2> I suspect this is going to be woefully underplayed in the media. This is kind of a huge deal. I talked to a couple of the quoted researchers yesterday, and The Trump Organization had up to that point seemingly done nothing about it (at least, the domains were still resolving to IPs in Russia, even now some do); so, even after disclosure to them (and FBI) they still didn't seem capable of resolving the situation.

So...best case, Trump Organization has been unknowingly assisting in the distribution of malware for several years. Worst case, Russian hackers have had possibly unlimited access to the Trump Organization communications since 2013 (DNS is a great way to begin a MITM-based infiltration, among other things). And, we know that the Trump family within the administration has used Trump Organization email servers for government business.

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around a multi-billion dollar organization having such poor security and such low technical competence that a compromise of this magnitude could go unnoticed for so long.</comment>


Supreme Court Rules Extending Traffic Stop for Dog Sniff Unconstitutional [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf <comment><USER3> It's pretty demoralizing to me that there are 3 SCOTUS justices who think it's Constitutional to detain people without probable cause as long as it's not for very long.

As I think Justice Roberts once quipped, if you "briefly" hold someone without cause, you've "briefly" violated their Constitutional rights.

<comment><USER4> I disagree. That's not the problem. The issue here is not the detention, it's the dog sniff. Why didn't the cop just ask in the beginning if he minded if he did the dog sniff? Why can't a cop just call in the dog squad while he lingers going through the paperwork of a regular traffic stop? That's what is going to happen here. He's not detaining, he's just finishing up the traffic stop.

what's demoralizing here is the war on drugs is getting us nowhere except rampant crime, huge homicide rates, and over crowded prisons full of minorities.

<comment><USER5> If everyone who opposed the War on Drugs had instead of voting for it's Architect in the last two elections, or the other guy, had actually voted for either the Green Party or Libertarian Party candidates, things would be very different in this country.

Even if both the Greens and Libertarians still lost, the Democrats and Republicans would have been shocked out of complacency and rushing to end the war on drugs.

The problem is, everyone's voting for evil because they fear the other evil is greater.... yet there were two "Good" candidates running!

<comment><USER6> Vote for Rand Paul in the Republicican primary next year. Even though he's currently base-pandering to some extent (which is necessary to win the Republican nomination,) he's the only candidate with a chance of winning (i.e. Rep or Dem) that has called for an end to NSA domestic surveillance, drug decriminalization as well as the end of criminal sentencing that disproportionately affects the poor. Paul is the closest thing to a libertarian candidate that actually could win a U.S. Presidential election. A vote for Greens or Libertarians is a wasted vote. Nobody cares about 5% of the vote that's done in protest. Ross Perot was the closest thing to a third party win in modern history and he barely got 20% of the vote.

Look at Rand Paul's positions carefully; don't let the right (or left) media distort his fundamental positions and I would bet that many of you guys would be pleasantly surprised; especially when compared to Hilary Clinton's positions, both stated as well as demonstrated during her time in the U.S. senate and as Secstate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Before you tell your friends that Jay-Z has only 98 problems now: Rodriguez v. US _doesn 't_ say a dog sniff can't be part of a traffic stop.

Alito mentioned in a separate dissent that - as a result of this ruling - <USER2> expects officers to change the sequence the activities involved in a traffic stop so that the license check and citation are not completed until a dog sniff is done. This ruling may be a bit of a moot point, except in cases where officers don't follow the proscribed sequence of events.

<comment><USER8> Read the opinion carefully, it explicitly says that the order of events is not justification enough. You are right in saying that this doesn't prohibit dog sniffs in all traffic stops. Period. However, you are wrong that stating that a dog sniff can be justified by simple ordering, see page 8:

>>The critical question, then, is not whether the dog sniff occurs before or after the officer issues a ticket, as JUSTICE ALITO supposes, post, at 2–4, but whether conducting the sniff "prolongs"—i.e., adds time to—"the stop," supra, at 6.

and page 7:

>>a dog sniff, unlike the routine measures just mentioned, is not an ordinary incident of a traffic stop

SCOTUS _is_ in fact saying that a dog sniff must be supported by what they call "individualized suspicion".

<comment><USER9> Now they will simply add an extra officer. As long as he conducts the search while the other officer does traffic related things, I don't see how this would prevent a dog sniff search.

<comment><USER10> To do that, you'd have to know in advance which officers were going to be making traffic stops in which they would want an excuse to make an otherwise unconstitutional excuse so you could preposition K9 units to assist them, or you'd have to have every patrol car have two officers and a dog. Either of these is impractical.

<comment><USER11> We should cut to the subtext here and stipulate: trained dog handling officers can cue their dogs to alert.

So the problem is, if you're on a traffic patrol and already have a drug dog (many do), then the following sequence remains blessed:

1\. Make a reasonable traffic stop

2\. Approach vehicle with drug dog

3\. Cue dog to alert concurrent with traffic stop handling

4\. Conduct car search based on cued alert

No delay has been added in this procedure, and by the letter of the opinion today, it looks like that search will hold up.

<comment><USER12> What happens when a large percentage of the cued alerts result in nothing found via search?

<comment><USER13> [http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-01-06/news/ct-met- ca...](http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-01-06/news/ct-met-canine- officers-20110105_1_drug-sniffing-dogs-alex-rothacker-drug-dog)

Evidently a Supreme Court Ruling. Hopefully there will be a ruling that drug dogs aren't considered probable cause soon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Sometimes police will threaten to summon the K9 if you don't consent to a search. [1]

If extending a stop for dog sniffs is now unconstitutional, does that mean any officer using this tactic was making an illegal threat, and thus any search thereafter must be thrown out as coercive?

[1] At least, that's how the ACLU videos portray it; don't know how common this really is.

<comment><USER15> I suspect you'd need to call their bluff and then try to get whatever the K9 find thrown out (assuming they had to delay you to let them arrive)

<comment><USER14> That would work also, but the thing is, even if they never summoned the K9, they are _threatening_ to, and the law distinguishes between the police making legal vs. illegal threats.

That is, if the threaten to run your license plate, that's fine because it's legal (even if it would find something bad). But if they threaten to ram your car or take your kids, then any consent you gave would be (IIRC) inadmissible as being under duress.

This ruling would suggest that the K9 threat falls under the latter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This articulation that the tolerable extent of a stop (or any other investigation) 'is limited to the [personal] seizure's mission' is an excellent articulation of principle that might have a bearing on many other cases.

See for example this one - I have no idea whether this is appeallable procedurally (given the time that has elapsed since the conviction and so on) but the principle has troubled me ever since I read about it 5 years ago: [http://www.alternet.org/story/146064/loud_sex_enough_for_cop...](http://www.alternet.org/story/146064/loud_sex_enough_for_cops_to_search_your_home,_court_rules)

Here a police officer who reasonably suspected a rape or some similarly violent crime based on reports of loud screaming visited a home. Defendant explained that the screaming took place in the course of enthusiastic sexual activity and Defendant's girlfriend corroborated this explanation. The police officer nevertheless requested permission to search, which was granted. During the search, marijuana was discovered and defendant was arrested for that.

To my mind the admissibility of evidence found during a search should have been limited to the original purpose; while it would not be entirely unreasonable to confiscate contraband found during a search, but it's not reasonable to prosecute the guy on that basis.

Where it gets tricky is prioritizing the things you prosecute. To see why, turn it around - suppose the police officer knocked on the door to investigate an allegation of drug possession or trafficking, but in the course of the investigation discovered the perpetration of a rape or murder. We would not want the perpetrator of such a crime to get away with it just because the police officer was unaware of it during an initial legitimate investigation and stumbled across the evidence by accident.

<comment><USER17> There are some important differences between the case that you cite and this case.

Specifically, in this case the officer said that he had no reasonable suspicion that another crime occurred, and the dog sniffing was not part of the exception for "officer safety".

In the case you cited, the officers had an objective "reasonable suspicion" that a crime occurred (though obviously the accused in the case suggested it was not objectively reasonable, the court disagreed). Then during an investigation of the house, both for evidence of the crime in question, and to check the area for officer safety, the marijuana was found.

If evidence of a crime if found while investigating a different crime (where the reasonable suspicion is met) or where it falls under the exception for "officer safety", then it's fair game.

This decision doesn't change that standard, or even touch it since reasonable suspicion, and officer safety were not relevant to this case, and were relevant to the cited case.

So on the surface, they may appear similar, but hit different points of the law. On the flip side, had evidence of the meth been visible in this case, or the officer had any other reasonable suspicion of a crime, then this case would have likely been decided differently.

<comment><USER18> The question of whether the officer had reasonable suspicion here seems to be in dispute. The lower courts found there was no reasonable suspicion, and the majority assumed that in their response.

Alito and Thomas' dissents cite some fairly compelling evidence that the officer _did_ have reasonable suspicion: the vehicle occupants looked nervous, the officer smelled the overwhelming scent of air freshener (often used to mask drugs), and their story didn't make much sense.

The dissents are a really good read: I'm against the drug war full stop but had to admit that within our current legal framework, this decision doesn't make much sense.

<comment><USER19> >Alito and Thomas' dissents cite some fairly compelling evidence that the officer did have reasonable suspicion: the vehicle occupants looked nervous, the officer smelled the overwhelming scent of air freshener (often used to mask drugs), and their story didn't make much sense.

when i was stopped by police (2 times during 15 years in US - for non-attached sticker and for allegedly "not obeying traffic control device") i was so nervous that my speech was pretty slurred and hands were shaking even like 10 minutes after the encounter, my story at least in the second case hardly made any sense - was driving home after hiking for several hours in the hills during July heatwave weekend and wasn't sure what sign the police was talking about... I guess i was saved by not-using air-freshener in my car - i guess nobody uses the smell of extremely sweaty dusty 40 year old male for masking the drugs. Thanks, God!

<comment><USER20> Yeah, this happened to me around a decade ago - same reason for stop, actually, tag holder was busted, and ended up pulled over at 2AM. Nervous voice, endorphin shakes, couldn't even figure out which bit of paper was the registration at first. Nothing to actually hide, just fear.

Maybe having a crippling phobia of police stops is counterproductive, but it seems entirely warranted on the basis of what they're allowed and instructed to do. Spiders, snakes, public speaking, and flying are a hell of a lot safer than interacting with a police officer (one you're not related to) in any capacity at this stage of their militarization. And that's if your skin is the right color.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Good; now we need to extend this to TSA overreach. They are (ostensibly) there to prevent weapons from making it onto airplanes, not to investigate large sums of cash or bust people for narcotics possession: [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/rules- change...](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/rules-changed- after-paul-aide-detained-at-airport/?page=all)

</comment><comment><USER8> This is great news, because other than DUI check points or being stopped by an officer with a dog in their patrol-car (which is just bad luck), I don't see that the police have a way around this one. I don't have any data, but I read in _The New Jim Crow_ (good book, fyi) that this procedure accounts for an incredible amount of drug arrests. Good on ya, SCOTUS.

<comment><USER22> >> this procedure accounts for an incredible amount of drug arrests. Good on ya, SCOTUS

So are you saying you don't think people should be arrested for drugs? How is it good that it is now harder to arrest for possession?

<comment><USER10> > How is it good that it is now harder to arrest for possession?

It would be easier to arrest for possession if searches, seizures, and arrests didn't require probable cause, and police could just arrest anyone, anywhere for any reason or none at all -- and search anything anywhere without consent for any reason or none at all, and use any evidence so obtained in prosecution.

Much of the Bill of Rights -- and much of the concept of individual rights against government underlying and preceding it -- is based on the belief that making it easier for the government to arrest and prosecute people even for things that everyone agrees are bad is often less of a benefit than the powers granted to government in order to achieve that are a harm.

So that's at least one school of thought on how this could be good even though it makes it harder to arrest for possession, even if one things that arrests for possession (where actual possession occurs) are a good thing.

<comment><USER22> Phrased this way makes sense. The parent comment sounded more like "drugs should be legal" than it did about individual rights.

And maybe they should be legal, I'm not sure what would help society more so I don't particularly have a stance either way.

Unfortunately those who think they should be downvoted this question. I guess they'd rather not argue their opinion and just hide any comment that questions their opinion.

<comment><USER23> "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" (Blackstone's formulation)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> stephen-mw Turning down an optional search of your persons or belongings does not constitute reasonable suspicion. I wish the courts would have sent a stronger message to this point. Clearly Officer Struble interpreted mr. Rodriguez decline as a reason to be suspicious of him.

Always say no. Always decline. This needs to be come the default/norm. Read about how inaccurate field substance tests are here[0]. People go to jail for this stuff even though they are law-abiding citizens who actually _didn't_ have anything to hide.

[http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2009/mar/06/feature_citi...](http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2009/mar/06/feature_citing_startling_researc)

<comment><USER24> I'm worried that it will.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> The supreme court often times feels like the only institution protecting the rights of the citizens. If they ever flip, it's pretty much game over.

</comment><comment><USER26> I fail to see how this matters. As it stands it's perfectly legal to lie to you about the consequences of not consenting to a search, and even outright cold blooded murder on a police officer's part is extremely difficult to seek justice for.

It is a tiny step in the right direction though, hopefully followed by more.

</comment><comment><USER27> tl;dr

> The critical question is not whether the dog sniff occurs before or after > the officer issues a ticket, but whether conducting the sniff adds time to > the stop. [p. 3]

<comment><USER9> Yep. Expect two officers from now on, one to have the dog sniff while the other deals with the traffic citation.

<comment><USER10> > Expect two officers from now on, one to have the dog sniff while the other > deals with the traffic citation.

If police departments could afford to make every existing single-officer patrol unit a two-officer K-9 unit, they'd already do that.

<comment><USER28> While the K-9 may not be possible for most departments, I know a few departments in Virginia started requiring all units to have a minimum of two officers because gas prices were too high to send a second car every time they needed a second officer on the scene. Of course, the San Diego County Sheriff's Department can't seem to shut off the engine, park legally, or fit more than one officer in an SUV.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> All drugs should be legal.

<comment><USER30> The issue at hand isn't drug legality, it's delayed exercise of rights. There are other enumerated & implied rights which are equally trampled on by undue delays: right to assembly & free speech, delayed by requiring slowly-approved public assembly permits; right to keep & bear arms, delayed by long background checks & permit/license approvals (days or months when such information could be processed in seconds); right to speedy trial, often delayed for years; etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> The opposition did a terrible job of defending dog sniffs during the oral arguments. They could not articulate a reasonable rule for when they should be allowed (except that they were ok until the ticket was written).

The justices repeatedly presented hypotheticals, but the guy just didn't get it.

[1hr MP3 of oral arguments] [http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2014/2014_13_9972](http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2014/2014_13_9972)

</comment><comment><USER32> Isn't it strange that its normal and "constitutional" for a unrelated dog sniffing to occur "during" (before the ticket is given) a traffic stop but not after. What allows to to be legal during but not after? They cited safety reasons, but I don't understand how searching for unrelated contraband increases the safety of the officer in any way.

<comment><USER33> Allowing a dog sniff to be reasonable suspicion is what is strange. But unfortunately it is. If you are stopped, such that the police dog can sniff your car, then they can sniff your car. But the cops can't stop you just to let the dog sniff, without more suspicion. Since the car is stopped for a traffic stop, it gives a chance for the dog to go work. Put it another way, the cop is standing on the side of a road near a traffic light. If the car is stopped at the light, the dog can sniff away. But the cop can't stop you, or hold you longer than the light.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Finally, the Roberts court gets one right.

</comment><comment><USER35> This ruling just created a great business opportunity for those companies creating technology that can effectively emulate a dog's smell-sensing capability.

</comment><comment><USER36> IANAL, but this is probably still allowed in Virginia, since all traffic violations are arrestable offenses, they have cause to detain you.</comment>


H-1B reduced computer programmer employment by up to 11%, study finds - <AUTHOR> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/h-1b-reduced-computer-programmer-employment-by-up-to-11-study-finds-2017-02-13 <comment><USER2> The study goes from 1994 to 2001, so during the aftermath of the dot-com bust.

That's like studying housing data from 2004 to 2011 and drawing the conclusion that a reduction in the number of construction workers in 2004 would have reduced housing price losses in 2011. It might be correct, but it's ignoring some pretty important externalities.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't really understand.

 __" There would have been up to 11% more computer science jobs at wages up to 5% higher" __

How would the industry have created 11% _more_ jobs? Are foreigners so efficient that they can handle multiple job roles?

<comment><USER4> From the abstract of the paper itself: "In the absence of immigration, wages for US computer scientists would have been 2.6% to 5.1% higher and employment in computer science for US workers would have been 6.1% to 10.8% higher in 2001".

So focusing specifically on US workers, not immigrants.

<comment><USER3> So basically if there was no visa system employing X amount of foreigners, then X amount of US workers would have been employed. Seems obvious enough.

Anyone know what the unemployment rate for computer science workers is? Is there 6.1% to 10.8% available and waiting?

<comment><USER5> Comp Sci is the domain with the least unemployment out of any major sector of employment. Basically at full employment levels (not just the US, but worldwide).

Or at least, that was the case a couple years back.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This paper is a work in progress, with the following abstract:

      Over the 1990s, the share of foreigners entering the US high-skill workforce
      grew rapidly. This migration potentially had a significant effect on US workers,
      consumers and firms. To study these effects, we construct a general equilibrium
      model of the US economy and calibrate it using data from 1994 to 2001. Built into
      the model are positive effects high skilled immigrants have on innovation.
      Counterfactual simulations based on our model suggest that immigration increased the
      overall welfare of US natives, and had significant distributional consequences. In
      the absence of immigration, wages for US computer scientists would have been 2.6%
      to 5.1% higher and employment in computer science for US workers would have been
      6.1% to 10.8% higher in 2001. On the other hand, complements in production benefited
      substantially from immigration, and immigration also lowered prices and raised the
      output of IT goods by between 1.9% and 2.5%, thus benefiting consumers. Finally,
      firms in the IT sector also earned substantially higher profits due to immigration.

</comment><comment><USER7> that those H1bs didn't work outside the US, causing increased spending on food, and housing, and overall supporting American economy.

In a lot of cases H1bs could work in their home country, at a much lower wage and build that countries economy instead.

</comment><comment><USER8> H1-B increased my computer programmer employment by 100%.</comment>


DevOps Students Learn the Value of Uptime With 3 a.m. Calls - <AUTHOR> https://www.linux.com/news/devops-students-learn-value-uptime-3-am-calls <comment><USER2> I expect it'd be more helpful to force it on managers in a management course. That way when ops says "This thing you paid an outside consultant to develop is fragile as hell and can fall over at any time" they'll be inclined to listen.

And on developers, so they realize that reliability is as much a requirement as any of the functional requirements they were given.

<comment><USER3> Agreed.

While it's normal and expected that the 'Ops' or 'DevOps' or the artist previously known as 'Sys Admin' is expected to be available off-hours for stuff they didn't build (read: emergencies-that-are-not-within-their-purview- to-prevent)... on the flipside, the tendency of many companies to reduce the burden of responsibility of developers and product managers who are often directly responsible for instability in the environment, is prevalent in a way that makes my blood boil.

Going back to this article, it's almost a celebration that DevOps folks have to shoulder that burden.

While it's normal to be on-call, being woken up all the time is a sign of a badly run infrastructure OR release/change-management practices that are rushed and/or feeble.

Everywhere I've worked I've stood up against this tendency, analyzing each issue that causes a page and seeing how it could be prevented. A quarter of the time it's technical: creating redundancy, deep diving into an ongoing issue, doing load tests and capacity management, etc. The rest of the time it's political: oh, the new code caused the memory to be sucked dry from the system, this started precisely after the last release (proof, here's a graph from my Check_MK setup); oh, the devs ran a crap query again on the Hadoop cluster even though we warned them not to do X. etc.

I think if they want to prepare future DevOps students, rather than using PagerDuty as per the article, maybe they should give them shots of liquor and strong beer, their livers could use the preparation. It's an _incredibly_ political role.

<comment><USER4> I've had success granting myself comp time when I've been up late or worked on the weekend to fix ops issues. Eg if I'm up at 2 or 3, I come in at noon or 1pm, and if it takes more than 2 hours, I just take a full day. The one boss who complained shut up when I told him he had 3 options: (1) deal, (2) remove ops responsibilities, (3) I quit on the spot. It's incredibly necessary to push the costs of sloppy code to be really apparent to management.

<comment><USER2> Well said. I've done the same thing, and fought to make it standard department wide. I'm a dev, I -want- to do the right thing, but sometimes management insists on cutting corners. Fine, but the interest payments on that technical debt should be upon their head.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > DevOps is a set of practices, a philosophy aiming for agile operations, to > expand the collaboration between developers and operation folks to make them > work toward the same goal: contribute to the entire product life cycle, from > design, development and shipping, up to the production stage. This is a > radical shift from the industry norm of separate engineering and operations > departments which often operate in opposition to each other.

Lots of words for "You can save money be shoving ops bullshit onto devs instead".

Oh right, it's all about collaboration and ownership and it's way more efficient this way. Just like open offices.

I am willing to acknowledge there are some pros to this system, but it's still screwing over devs by shoving extra (inconvenient) work onto their plates with no extra remuneration.

<comment><USER6> We deal with dev bullshit in production all day, every day. Maybe we should all care for it instead...

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Bleh. As a DevOps guy who is a paramedic, I just cringed at the image of someone sprinting to the computer (I know it's exaggerated - or at least I hope so).

We don't run to cardiac arrests. Walk fast, with a purpose. I fail to see what production issue necessitates me running down the hall at 3am.

And DevOps students should be learning how to prevent (sorry, minimize) this, not conducting fire drills.

<comment><USER8> As a DevOps guy at a startup, I'm expected to respond to alerts within 1-3 minutes at my current employer, 24/7 when I'm on my rotation. We rotate devs in to allow them to try building something "devopsy", but they're never included in the on-call rotation.

Its unsettling.

<comment><USER9> 1-3 minutes is nuts. So what I'm reading is you have nothing in the way of redundancy or even a means to die gracefully. Just zero or garbage fire.

<comment><USER8> There is some autoremediation in place, but the expectation for responsiveness is top down. Efforts to bring sanity to the situation go ignored. Its been made clear (not directly, but through process) that there are a line of people who could take the job if that level of responsiveness isn't delivered.

<comment><USER9> There is always someone willing to take your job. Most won't have what it takes. But managers will use that to cow you into a shitty bargaining position.

Look I've been you. I took the crappy job because I figured that was the only one available. There are better companies out there. Just ask around. Get a few offers.

There is nothing normal about being on call with a 1-3 minute response time. I'm pretty sure it's illegal as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Devops started as a message that developers were responsible for the solution they were building, not just for throwing builds over to deployment. The phrase turned into HR code for firefighters who hack scripts on production.

When it's built right, operations doesn't exist. On this theme - we're hiring. Central London. We need a platform/infrastructure engineer: solid unix, automation-centric, someone who will drive evolution of the infrastructure and release platform. [https://clearmatics.workable.com/jobs/257440](https://clearmatics.workable.com/jobs/257440)

</comment><comment><USER11> Hey, DevOps has discovered hazing rituals.

And keeping students on-call 24/7 is abuse, nothing less.

</comment><comment><USER12> Wait, this seems to ignore the fact that with good change controls and sound code, products do not just fail at 3am. If they call everyone at 3am without a failure the student could have prevented, that does not teach anything other than how to answer a phone. Instead, teach them to properly engineer and document their solution such that they aren't called at 3am.

This seems like a waste of a good night's sleep to me.

<comment><USER13> > Wait, this seems to ignore the fact that with good change controls and sound > code, products do not just fail at 3am.

Because network outages never happen, disks never fail or fill up, memory is never an issue, programs always deal with only the data they were expected to, products never do more traffic than expected, and all infrastructure software ships completely bug-free.

If you aren't occasionally up at 3 AM fixing unexpected outages, then either you haven't deployed a project that requires uptime or you're paying someone else to do it for you.

<comment><USER5> > Because network outages never happen, disks never fail or fill up, memory is > never an issue, programs always deal with only the data they were expected > to, products never do more traffic than expected, and all infrastructure > software ships completely bug-free.

several of these things are exactly the type of things wehre the whole idea of devops just falls apart. If a disk fails what use is a dev vs a good ops person?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> After that, we keep seeing posts about how coders are earning too much money.

</comment><comment><USER15> people will burn out soon or later.

</comment><comment><USER16> Cost: 17% for 3 years isn't bad at all

<comment><USER5> Would have been easily more than my students loans for university

<comment><USER17> On the flip side, with income-based repayment you are paying 10% of your discretionary income for 20 years or so. Depending on what your salary ends up being this might not be so bad. For instance, 17% for three years would be way less than my student loans. I do work for a non-profit organization though.</comment></comment></comment>


FourSquare Checkin "Hack" now with pretty GUI - <AUTHOR> http://www.thebuzzmedia.com/foursquare-mayor-checkin-program-w-source-code/

<comment><AUTHOR> This is an extension of Mayank Lahiri's "9 line perl script" that allowed you to checkin on FourSquare at any location regardless of where you are: <http://compbio.cs.uic.edu/~mayank/4sq.html>

I reimplemented it in Java and threw an OK-looking GUI on top of it for anyone that wanted to mess around with the hack but didn't know Perl or how to get the original Perl script running (a few folks mentioned that to me).

The source code and original project are all available under the GPL. If anyone comes up with anything cooler or becomes the mayor of some place hilarious, let me know :)</comment>


Some of the UK's phone number infrastructure relies on Yahoo Groups - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/17/20919630/yahoo-groups-uk-ofcom-simwood-numbers <comment><USER2> embarrassing</comment>


Show HN: Real-time Chess - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/PetterS/realtimechess <comment><AUTHOR> I've had fun playing this with friends, so I cleaned up the code a bit and converted it to Python 3.5 + aiohttp.

Most fun to play in the same room, IMO.</comment>


FemtoEmacs: Tiny Emacs clone with configuration in FemtoLisp - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/FemtoEmacs/Femto-Emacs/ <comment><USER2> Aside: femtolisp is used in the Julia parser, and was created by one of (or the) main Julia contributors. A femtolisp REPL is included in the Julia executable:

       >> julia --lisp
      ;  _
      ; |_ _ _ |_ _ |  . _ _
      ; | (-||||_(_)|__|_)|_)
      ;</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-|</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----

      > (+ 1 2)
      3

      >

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> As an answer to sibling comments: if your Emacs clone doesn't support elisp, then it's not a replacement because the elisp code out there is the #1 selling point of Emacs. And much of that elisp code exists because the editor is a flexible core with stuff exposed to elisp and all kinds of crazy stuff built on top of it.

<comment><USER3> Some numbers: there are ~120kloc of Elisp in Emacs proper. I have nearly 500kloc of Elisp in my `.emacs.d`. Granted, some of it are reimplementations and wrappers around what is in the core, and some are plugins I downloaded, tried out and forgot to delete, but still, that's a huge amount of code. That's 136 man-years, according to sloccount:

        Total Physical Source Lines of Code (SLOC)                = 499,088
        Development Effort Estimate, Person-Years (Person-Months) = 136.18 (1,634.17)
         (Basic COCOMO model, Person-Months = 2.4 * (KSLOC**1.05))
        Schedule Estimate, Years (Months)                         = 3.47 (41.59)
         (Basic COCOMO model, Months = 2.5 * (person-months**0.38))
        Estimated Average Number of Developers (Effort/Schedule)  = 39.29
        Total Estimated Cost to Develop                           = $ 18,396,178
         (average salary = $56,286/year, overhead = 2.40).
        SLOCCount, Copyright (C) 2001-2004 David A. Wheeler

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> My favourite Emacs clone is mg [1] from OpenBSD, but packages exist for Linux as well. I've cross-compiled it to many ARM embedded systems. Earlier, I used to use Zile, but they moved to Lua which made cross-compiling harder (so gcc / binutils are no longer enough).

[1]: [http://homepage.boetes.org/software/mg/](http://homepage.boetes.org/software/mg/)

<comment><USER5> Lua has great support for cross-compiling. It is written in the subset of features available in both (ANSI and more recent) C and C++.

[https://www.lua.org/manual/5.2/manual.html](https://www.lua.org/manual/5.2/manual.html)

<comment><USER4> Not denying that. Lua by itself is easy. The thing is, to compile Zile, you need to first x-compile Lua, then x-compile luarocks, install the necessary Lua packages, then continue with x-compiling zile.

Comparatively, I've found that x-compiling vanilla emacs `--without-x` is often more easier and faster.

X-compiling Mg is more or less "gcc *.c" which is very straight-forward.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've been using JED [0] (programmed in S-Lang [1]) for over a decade. It's my go-to editor if I'm at a terminal on some remote machine. I build it (it's pretty portable) if I need it, and I get (either out of the box or because I configured it) all of the emacs keybindings that I can't live without.

I don't use many advanced emacs features; this only covers basic editing (moving around, cutting and yanking, and macros) but it's the smallest subset I need to be productive.

I should look into this. I wonder how it compares.

[0]: [http://www.jedsoft.org/jed/](http://www.jedsoft.org/jed/) [1]: [http://www.jedsoft.org/slang/](http://www.jedsoft.org/slang/)

<comment><USER7> > if I'm at a terminal on some remote machine

Why not run Emacs on local machine with plink-ssh to remote?

<comment><USER6> I really dislike editing files remotely. I'm usually dropping into the shell to run commands, change my directory, and I work much better if I can pop up a terminal where I am, quickly edit a few things, and exit. It's just my preferred workflow.

<comment><USER8> In my experience as a hardcore emacs user (10 years already of using it daily for almost everything) learning to use vim (evil in emacs for the past 3 years) has made me use the command line differently for small edits. Before it was nano, or remote emacs, now I can handle basic vim just fine to do the quick edits I may need on a remote machine

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Femtolisp looks interesting, although the weak documentation makes it hard to know. It it has no lexical scoping, no TCO, and no hygenic macros (I don't care if it's lowlevel or highlevel (er-macro-expander, or syntax-rules), or even if it's fexprs like Kernel, but it has to be hygenic), I tend to dismiss it out of hand, unless it has some really cool feature that means it can't, or is otherwise interesting (newlisp, picolisp). But femtolisp has most of that, so my only concerns are lack of hygene (which is a big concern in a lisp-1), and taking too much of the large and unweildly r6rs. But that would be hard, given the size.

<comment><USER10> According to the readme[0], femtolisp has both TCO and lexical scope.

[0]: [https://github.com/JeffBezanson/femtolisp](https://github.com/JeffBezanson/femtolisp)

<comment><USER9> Well, yes. That's why it was even in the running to begin with.

<comment><USER10> Ah. Your sentence should have read " _If_ it has..." and reads "It it has.." leading me down the wrong garden path[0].

[0]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_path_sentence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_path_sentence)

<comment><USER9> Yeah. I mostly do HN on my phone, which makes it hard to catch these sorts of errors, although I do my best.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> For an editor a dialect of Lisp with proper module-based multiple namespaces (a-la Python) is a much better choice.

It is also nice to have a CL package, which makes porting of relatively easy.

And FemtoLisp is a beautiful thing, of course.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Maybe this can be the basis for what guile-emacs has promised but not yet delivered. If this gets elisp support, it could turn into a viable replacement.

<comment><USER12> The biggest issue with guile-emacs seems to be that the community doesn't seem particularly interested in it.

As a daily almost-everything-in-emacs user, I definitely understand the shortcomings of elisp, but generally speaking it does the job. Yeah guile would be an improvement, but I'm not sure it is worth rocking the boat.

It doesn't seem that the idea that elisp needs replacing has that much currency.

<comment><AUTHOR> I meant replacing the VM, not the Lisp dialect. The value of Emacs is the elisp code available and the platforms it runs on. I don't think there are many users who like the underlying Lisp implementation's runtime behavior.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It would be nice if the releases were tagged in git. And if it could check /usr/share for the init stuff instead of $HOME.</comment>


Ask HN: Let's crowdsource startup ideas - <AUTHOR>

There should be an app or something where we list 1) problems, and 2) startup ideas. We also vote on them.
* There's value in discovering good startup ideas via the wisdom of the crowd.
* There's value in just seeing a list of ideas to help with brainstorming.
I think that this will lead to more startups being started, which is a good thing. It'll help people who don't start one because they don't have an idea. And it'll lead to some pretty good ones being started because the wisdom of the crowd will produce some good ideas.
Whether or not this succeeds depends on the community of users. HN has the perfect community for this. Thus, I propose that an "ideas section" be added to HN where you could add and vote on problems and startup ideas. <comment><USER2> > It'll help people who don't start one because they don't have an idea.

Good startups arise from ideas, great startups arise from problems.

</comment><comment><USER3> This : [http://betterific.com/](http://betterific.com/) ? I don't use it, but I have subscribed to their newsletter, and ideas/problems posted on Betterific are really nice, but sometimes dumb. ( Users post problems, people comment )

</comment><comment><USER4> >"Thus, I propose that an "ideas section" be added to HN where you could add and vote on problems and startup ideas."

It's taken them so long to add something like pending comments, do you honestly think they want to be adding any more features?

There are special places for this though.

A ton of problems and ideas abound as well, it's just about finding a large enough audience that has the same problem too.</comment>


The Minimum Effort you need to put in for SEO - <AUTHOR> http://coffeeandmarketing.tumblr.com/post/21734855768/laundry-list-for-onpage-seo-the-minimum-effort-you

<comment><AUTHOR> I would not recommend an all out only SEO only strategy...I'll try to explain.

Depends on the type of keywords and target audience you want to rank for and how crowded or competitive that space is.

In 2012, there's a lot of noise and niche is better when trying to rank for particular keywords.

You can optimize your site for all on-page SEO, making sure everything is properly labeled and crawlable for search engines...but that's not going to be enough to drive traffic. You can't set it and forget it like the crock pot. In order to get real traffic you'll want to be in the top search results to get anything decent traffic wise.

The other half of SEO is link-building and off page stuff, where other sites point links and references to you. You'll have to work on building links or getting creative in making people want to link to you.

So in short- SEO cannot be ignored for driving organic traffic but it is not the only tactic you'll need to utilize.

</comment><comment><USER2> Could you use SEO alone to drive respectable levels of traffic to your site?</comment>


Show HN: Weekly reports that list all key changes to competitors' web sites - <AUTHOR> https://deepdiveduck.com <comment><AUTHOR> We're using Google Headless Chrome and Puppeteer on AWS Fargate to make this happen. We had it on Lambda, but we gave up and moved it to ECS/Fargate after too many hiccups.

</comment><comment><USER2> This could be very helpful to staffing agencies. You can alert them when one of their customers puts a new job on their career site, when a member of staff leaves or just provide them with insight into the client so they have conversations points beyond remembering they have a dog.

I'll show it to a few of our customers and hopefully they get in touch with you.

All the best with your new venture.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you very much! We agree that it would be helpful for staffing agencies to monitor key staff defections or openings.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is pretty cool, does it compare pixel to pixel, by the raw HTML or something else?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!

It actually does 3 different comparisons... namely, we do a pixel-by-pixel comparison, a DOM comparison, and a "content" comparison (i.e., the words that the end-user sees).

We only trigger a new version that we alert the customer about, however, when actual content changes. We provide the pixel-by-pixel screenshot, too (but it's often not very useful unless the changes are very small and image based). (We also don't currently show the DOM comparison as we assume it won't be valuable for most of our target customers.)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Finding mentors? - <AUTHOR>

I'm in my mid-20s, and never had a mentor.  Is there a way to explore and find mentors? <comment><USER2> Have a look at this (related) previous discussion <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=670453> and especially this comment <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=670795>

</comment><comment><USER3> Are you working somewhere? I've found many of the bigger employers have mentor programs within the organization ...

<comment><AUTHOR> I jump from small firms to small firms from college, not tech companies, so I've been trying to find something external.</comment></comment>