Show HN: Improvmx.com – An alternative to Mailgun for free email forwarding - <AUTHOR> https://improvmx.com <comment><AUTHOR> Hi, I'm Cyril and I run ImprovMX.com - an email forwarding tool - with my co- founder Antoine.

We discovered the Mailgun's price change last week and noticed they dropped the "free email forwarding" options they had, now asking for $420/year for this feature.

We've seen a great increase in interest for email forwarding services and received a few questions via Twitter or as a comment in the Mailgun's thread on HN.

So I'm happy to answer all the questions you might have, here.

We do our best to be as transparent as we can. We are aware that emails are a sensitive topic and user privacy is something important, even more today. I think that having an open discussion here on HN might alleviate some bias that some of you might have - at least that's what I hope to accomplish here!

<comment><USER2> This is exactly what I was looking for! I wonder though: how can I trust you guys that you'll successfully manage to redirect all emails? Loosing emails is really bad.

Also I'm curious; how did you manage to land #1 on Google for the query "free email redirection service"?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you!

Indeed, losing emails is really bad. We do our best to avoid this and try to be very reactive when things go south, but it's not possible to guarantee you that we will never lose any emails (no one can).

We acquired the service back in 2017. At the time, it was ranking already well for "free email redirection" so we focused on that. The core service is still free, but we added a lot of features (and continue to do so) in the paid "premium" parts.

I hope I have answered your questions :)

<comment><USER2> Ok sounds good :-). I just registered with [https://forwardemail.net/](https://forwardemail.net/) instead though. Because they are older which makes me trust them more - that they won't close shop next week. Although the UX of improvmx seems much better. Thanks for the reply.

<comment><AUTHOR> I wonder how you found out that Forwardemail is older. You made me curious so I checked and from the whois details, Forwardemail was registered on 10/2017 whereas ImprovMX was registered on 08/2013.

We've acquired ImprovMX in 2017 and greatly improved the service (from a single DO droplet to multiple powerful servers to handle thousands of emails per hours).

<comment><USER2> It was guesstimate. It "looks" older and more indie whereas improvmx looks more startup-ish. It also increases trust that the code is open source.

Actually the forwarding doesn't seem to work so I may switch over to you guys :-).

<comment><AUTHOR> That's interesting that you thought it was older, it's worth taking notes of this.

I agree that the open-source part is the USP for ForwardEmail that we haven't. The thing on our end is that we have already thought about opensourcing a few parts of our service, but if we don't do all, it doesn't matter to do partially.

So instead, we plan to have an audit from an external service to guarantee that what we say and offer is aligned with the respect of our users and privacy. That's the next step :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Just signed up and been testing your service. Overall: it's excellent!

I prefer your server based approach over listing aliases in DNS TXT records. It's a slightly disconcerting feeling to list a private/personal email address somewhere anyone can see it.

I also like how the "from" field is correctly populated with the senders address, this hasn't been done neatly on previous services I tried.

Obviously I can't comment on deliverability, reliability and so on, but can't really fault the experience so far.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi and thank you for your warm words!

I agree that having your personal email in clear in a public DNS records is not great (and goes again the privacy statement), but I can also understand the appeal to the Open-source ideology :)

For information, we are discussing on our end about ways to improve our transparency and show our users that we are not storing any emails or selling them or anything like this. It's easy to say it on the landing page, but that's not proof. Right now, we are thinking about hiring an audit firm to do that work and certify that our words are true, we think it's the best thing to do.

I think it's even better than open-sourcing our code because we could publish our code, crying out loud that we are open source, but still run an alternative version of our code on our server. You can't verify that. But an audit will clearly prove what's going on under the hood.

We have three core rules we like to follow: 1\. An easy to use interface 2\. A fast and awesome support 3\. Respecting the users (or, the way I put it, be able to face myself in the mirror in the morning)

<comment><USER4> Never used this site before and can't figure out how to reply to your other comment. Nonetheless, I think having a tier betwen free and lite that allows 25mb attachments would be great for us casuals who have a few domains to manage and just want it all to forward to our main email. And don't need up to 100.</comment></comment></comment>


Windows 8 apps hackable and crackable, just like iOS and Android - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/12/windows-8-apps-hackable-and-crackable-just-like-ios-and-android/

<comment><USER3> In an update to the article, the author concedes that this attack was only made possible because they didn't go through the real licensing process, which cryptographically signs the resources and protects against things like XAML tampering. Wow, that's slimy.

If the premise of the article is debunked, then the article should be taken down. Keeping it up for pageviews raises profits for Ars but incurs big externalities on MS, as it spreads misinformation and FUD.

<comment><USER4> I've now removed that update, as further experimentation shows that it does work after all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Nothing is uncrackable. Considering Microsoft's DRM for Windows has constantly been hacked since Windows XP before the final consumer public release, it's no surprise Windows 8 apps can be hacked as well. Why do companies even bother in the end anything can be bypassed, save yourself the cash and just give it up Microsoft and every other software company.

<comment><USER6> So that developers can build apps. You didn't really think that through did you? You need some level of protection, even if it's breakable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Don't tell their marketing department that. I want to see them more stones cast from that glass house of theirs.

</comment><comment><USER7> Look, people that want to make copies of your software without paying are going to. If they want to modify the local game options to get infinite money, it's only their own enjoyment of the game that gets hurt. If they disable your ads, well that can be a problem if done in significant numbers. But if not, who cares?

People that are going to pay will pay. Otherwise, it's not lost revenue, it's revenue you were never going to have in the first place. It's been seen time and again where "piracy" often _helps_ increase earnings rather than decrease it. It's called word of mouth. If enough edge cases feel like cracking your game and then tell more people what a great game it is, that's FREE ADVERTISING. Just put out a free version!

In the case where you want to sell in-game upgrades or have some user profile, store that shit on the server.

I don't have an answer for free ad-based apps. They're annoying and I don't use any. Because I _pay_ for shit I like and copy when you make it too annoying or hard to take my freaking money.

<comment><USER8> > I don't have an answer for free ad-based apps.

I do. Your game would need to display the ads as part of the game's texture (say, if its a side scroller). its much harder to hack it out, and its less intrusive (it doesn't stop the game and force you to watch the ad).

But think about the business proposition of an ad based revuenue stream - <USER2> customers are no longer the gamer, but the advertiser! Which means that either you don't serve your customer well (by displaying ads that don't convert), or _do_ serve your customer well, but fuck over the actual gamer. Neither is a good way to go in my opinion. Its better to get the game paid for by the gamer, and if your game is worth it, it will be bought.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Oh my god, this is shocking news! Shocking I tell you!</comment>


Ask HN: TED talk about full stack, what would you talk about? - <AUTHOR> Let's say you would give a TED talk about how the modern web and modern web applications work. The talk has the title "Full Stack For Beginners". What would be your (say 5) main topics? <comment><USER2> To me, diving into full stack development with a beginner audience is kind of pointless. They have no context as to what full stack means. So that's one approach, you could talk about the different mechanics of a website and the

If it were me, I would talk about the history of Web Development to explain with how we arrived at the current state, and maybe offer a couple of futuristic teasers of where it could go. People are much more likely to respond to a story, than a 'hey here's how it works' but that largely depends on the audience.

Something that would look like: \- Netscape Browser and the Rise of HTML \- Introduction of CSS and JavaScript (explain how separation of Content/Function/CSS is a great thing) \- Talk about the rise of Ruby/Rails/Jquery CMS systems and how specialized tools developed for different areas of the stack. \- Talk about the rise of SPA architecture and how many things are being abstracted away. \- Talk about future technologies and possible future trends in Web Development

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I would cover basics of Linux server (Apache/Nginx, 10 most important commands for the terminal) and what they do, why we need databases and how SQL based ones work. I would add email technology (why it is so easy to use and hard to manage - think sending newsletters, handling bounces, DKIM, SPF etc.). And lastly: basics of HTML/CSS plus PHP.

</comment><comment><USER3> I would talk fundamentals for a while (basic computer architecture, system resources, how a web browser works) then offer some advice on conducting goal- oriented research (how to research any topic sufficiently in a given time frame).

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting take: Yes, it pays off showing how to use StackExchange, how to find and read good documentation and how to find what you want and need to know now is a very basic competence that you need to learn early on.</comment></comment>


Could a Real Men's Movement Be a Good Thing? - <AUTHOR> https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/could-a-real-mens-movement-be-a-good-thing <comment><USER2> Why not, and the first part of our identity we should focus on is not losing our kids in custody court. Not just for our children but for society itself.

</comment><comment><USER3> Ah, I see the title turning gray already... just a few more minutes until [flagged]...

</comment><comment><USER4> >my boys would still need some model of what it is to lead a good life as a man

I'm bothered by how this article insists that boys need some kind of model to imitate. Are people incapable of thinking for themselves? I grew up without a father figure or any kind of role model and I'm significantly more successful than the average person my age.

<comment><USER5> It's also said in such a way that the Mother/Daughter and Father/Daughter combination scenarios aren't even considered important.

There is ample evidence that single-parent children don't suddenly turn into werewolves or whatever terrible thing it is that is supposed to happen to them accordingly.

The idea that a girl can't become a woman without Mom around, and boys can't become men without Dad around doesn't play out so well in the real world. Either gender has been shown to be equally good and responsible at parenting. And their kids, irrespective of gender, tend to turn out alright.

Most of the behavioural identity comes from friends, and not so much from imitating mommy or daddy, anyway.

People are so quick to join an us-or-them clique that they just can't get the concept of "equality" right.

Divisions never break down when you build stronger and stronger barriers between the two "sides."</comment></comment>


Bill Gates: The Rolling Stone Interview - <AUTHOR> http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/bill-gates-the-rolling-stone-interview-20140313?print=true

<comment><USER2> My favorite take away was Gates presuming that Microsoft would have been interested in buying WhatsApp.

What do you want to bet that Ballmer first heard of the company when the deal was announced?</comment>


Beyond face detection – smart cropping in the cloud using Imagga and Cloudinary - <AUTHOR> http://cloudinary.com/blog/beyond_face_detection_smart_cropping_in_the_cloud_using_imagga_and_cloudinary

<comment><AUTHOR> User uploaded images need to be cropped and resized into various dimensions to match the graphic design of web and mobile applications. This blog post describes how you can use the cloud-based Imagga add-on of Cloudinary to smartly crop photos based on the most appealing part of a photo, no matter what kind of photo it is. Sample delivery URLs and code included for PHP, Ruby on Rails, Python, Node.js, Java, .Net and jQuery.</comment>


A cheap, long-lasting, sustainable battery for grid energy storage - <AUTHOR> http://www.kurzweilai.net/a-cheap-long-lasting-sustainable-battery-for-grid-energy-storage <comment><USER2> Now it will remain to be see when and if it will ever come to market. This is great news but these articles pop up all the time, only for the tech never to make it to market. It's hard, I know, but maybe one day we will see success.

<comment><USER3> Yup. Between irreproducibility and these hype pieces leaving out any downsides that might keep the discovery/invention from succeeding practically, the punchline of the title is "...would be nice."

It's a quixotic idea, but I'd like a project that tracked papers cited as big advances and looked for whether anything ever came of them five and ten years later.

<comment><USER4> While I agree that holding people accountable for predictions has value, I think the problem is that columnists and academics do not understand the difficulties of mass production. Perhaps asking the columnist or academic to place a cash bet on their technology (against all comers at odds specified by the predictor) would be a check.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'll keep posting this until I see someone else on HN posting it too[1]: Flow batteries[2] are here now, cheap, and work well. They don't have the power density of the Tesla batteries, but for residential and light industrial use they work well.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12376322](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12376322)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery)

<comment><USER6> Is it cheaper than a Tesla Powerwall? Pricing here seems to suggest it is more expensive: [https://faq.zcell.com/content/2/10/en-us/what-will-it- cost-a...](https://faq.zcell.com/content/2/10/en-us/what-will-it-cost-and- what-is-included-in-that-cost.html)

<comment><USER5> I believe about the same. That price is in Australian dollars.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What is interesting here are the trade offs. This battery has tech has a larger size, making it infeasible for consumer electronics. But it promises better safety, less cost and more cycles.

It has a long way to go from lab to the marketplace. But if it gets there, it could be a game-changer for home solar and wind applications.

<comment><USER8> I am still not sold on the idea of individual home storage and barely sold on individual solar. With many new subdivisions having set aside space for run off and green space its not hard to imagine the panel space and storage. besides easier maintenance and better costs it makes is simpler to design homes to fit the needs of those buying them. Plus most homes are not situated ideally for roof solar.

In many cases you could simply extend the area used for pools, tennis courts, and such. For the most part I think it is just ideally targeted marketing more than good energy sense to load up each home with panels.

<comment><USER9> There's hundreds of thousands of homes that are already built.

Around here, 90% of homes are built with the largest piece of roof facing South (city is a grid with lots being longer on the East-West dimension).

In most areas it doesn't make a lot of sense to retrofit at current prices, but it's getting pretty close.

I also think there will be a huge tipping point if/when the cost of solar gets low enough that installing it to run air conditioning pays off in a modest number of years.

<comment> mark-r In my neighborhood, finished in 2000, houses with identical floorplans were required to have external differences that would keep them from looking cookie-cutter. One of those differences was in the rooflines. My own roof is narrowed at the top, reducing the amount of space available for panels.

A neighbor just installed roof panels a month ago, the first I've seen in this Minnesota city. Their roof is much more rectangular than mine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> mark-r There are already alternate rechargeable battery technologies available, notably lead-acid and nickle-metal-hydride. I wish the article had also mentioned what advantages this new tech might have over them, rather than considering Li-ion the only competition.

</comment><comment><USER10> If you want long lasting, storage, and lifetime where cost and size doesn't matter then look at AGM batteries. They're great since if they (probably) wont freeze and shouldn't mind falling over.

I've seen some of these batteries in person. They are huge, heavy, and expensive buy I've seen many of these last for years and years and years. Many hams use them to power their car radios.

One distributor of these AGM batteries is this site I found with a bit of google magic: [https://www.batterystuff.com/batteries/rv- marine/agm/](https://www.batterystuff.com/batteries/rv-marine/agm/)

<comment><USER11> Aren't AGM batteries essentially lead-acid (car batteries)?

<comment><USER10> Yes, they are deep cycle car batteries. It's perfect for an outdoor solar install since they don't leak everywhere if they break while also being good at constant charge and discharging.

If this is incorrect please correct me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Lithium iron phosphate already costs less than lithium-ion and has 3x real- life cycle life than claimed theoretical for this battery. (LiFePO4 typically has 3000 cycles to 80%)</comment>


Why Legal Experts Say It's Okay To Kill A Civilian Hacker In Cyber Warfare  - <AUTHOR> http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-03/when-it-legal-kill-hacker

<comment><USER2> Because they work for their fucking country's government, and they will justify any shit the government wants to do.</comment>


How Akbar came to love books despite never learning to read (2019) - <AUTHOR> https://dailytimes.com.pk/377146/how-akbar-came-to-love-books-despite-never-learning-to-read/ <comment><USER2> Akbar was one of the more interesting monarchs in human history. He was quite tolerant for the time, so much so that he created his own syncretic religion that aimed to soothe tensions among his subjects.[1]

He also had an official biography written, the _Akbarnama_ , [2] which is a pretty fascinating look behind the throne of Mughal India. It includes chapters on the imperial kitchen, coins used in the empire, army encampments, and more. [3]

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Din- i_Ilahi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Din-i_Ilahi)

2\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbarnama](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbarnama)

3\. [http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00litlinks/abul...](http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00litlinks/abulfazl/ain_zzcontents.html)

<comment><USER3> Despite the hype, Akbar was not tolerant at all. Like most Muslim kings in India, he was heavy-handed towards Hindus but was also towards Shia Muslim [1]. He ordered numerous massacre of Hindus (e.g. massacre in Garha in 1560 AD[2], order to weight Janeu - a cotton thread worn by hindus - of killed Hindus which weighed 200kg [3], rewarded Abd al-Qadir Badauni with gold coins who soak his Islamic beard in Hindu infidel blood [4]), had many Hindu temples razed/looted and destroyed, among many other things. Despite many facts, AFAICT, India is only country which portrays its invaders and looters as heroes.

[1] 'Akbar and His India' by Irfan Habib [2] The SAGE Encyclopedia of War: Social Science Perspectives edited by Paul Joseph [3] Emperors of the Peacock Throne: The Saga of the Great Mughals By Abraham Eraly [4] Source: The Legacy of Jihad:Islamic Holy War & the Fate of Non-Muslims edited by Andrew G. Bostom

<comment><USER4> Nations are usually built on lies. Most countries would likely fall apart if they were completely truthful about their histories.

In India's case, the whitewashing of Mughal rule was a necessity because there are still a substantial number of Muslims living in India, and painting their ancestors - the Mughals - as barbaric invaders would likely lead to violence (especially when seen in the context of the Partition violence).

At this point, India has to confront a hard question: does it continue believing the old lies, or does it accept the harsher reality? If we go with the latter, can you be confident that the country will survive in its present form?

I'm not sure of the answer. The mature position would be to understand that the violence and religious persecution happened, but since that's in the past, we can't really change anything about it. Punishing the present does not undo the sins of the ancestors.

But I'm not convinced that most people will take the mature position.

<comment><USER5> Your point is very well taken.

Empire making and keeping is inherently violent, but the current trend seems to be trying to make the case that Hindu emperors achieved what they achieved with peace, rainbows and divine fairness (and some old Hindu science of flying machines, plastic surgery between humans and elephant heads. All lost because of outside invasion). Pushing this point of view has been the national agenda in the current political situation.

<comment><USER4> If nothing else, it's a gross oversimplification of history - a basic "us vs them" narration. When in reality, alliances were driven more by political necessity than by religion. There were Hindu generals in Mughal armies, just as there were Muslim commanders in the Maratha armies.

If you trace the Mughal family tree, you'll also find that someone like Shah Jahan was 75% Indian by blood (Hindu Rajput grandmom, Hindu Rajput mom). Make of that what you will.

<comment><USER5> Agreed. Even the notion that the British took India from the Mughals is quite a laughable notion. Mughals were a shadow of themselves at that time. India was taken from the Marathas, not the Mughals.

An aside, are you aware of significant artifacts (more than hill top forts) institutions that the Marathas left behind. I would be quite interested in knowing about them. With the subject matter so politically charged it is hard to have levelheaded conversations on it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I suspect Akbar's "illiteracy" like the similar case of Charlemange, was probably performative. Both were representing dynasties whose people were recently considered barbarians. While being a sponsor of learning brings great prestige, being too literate can make you look soft and corrupted by decadent civilization (Chinese history has a repeated pattern of coups like this against conquering inner Asians who became too Chinese). Not a serious historical theory mind you, just some irresponsible speculation

<comment><USER7> There might be some merit to this idea, though I'm not sure it really applies to Akbar, or even the early Mughals. His youth was also fairly tumultuous, and in the early years the continuation of the Timurids in India was not a sure thing. Besides, while the early Mughals may have been only the latest new kids on the block in Delhi, they were part of the same Persianate culture that had dominated North India for close to half a millennia by that point. I doubt there would be much value in performative illiteracy in this context.

For what it's worth, while Persian was the court language, the Mughals retained their Turkic dialect as a household language, and Akbar was conversant in the major Hindi dialects. There is evidence that subsequent Mughals and the vast number of Mirza princelings in the Imperial household grew up speaking Hindi as their primary language with their Rajput mothers, before formal instruction in Turkic, Persian, and Arabic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Ironically, even though he loved books and the pursuit of knowledge, when the British envoy first presented him a printed Bible, he was not impressed by it and is said to have commented that his calligraphers could create much better looking books than such ugly ones! The Mughals cared too much about art and military to realise how much the printed books would revolutionise the world.

</comment><comment><USER9> I feel for the rather confused and well meaning non-subcontinent related people who have waded into a culture war.

In South Asia - especially India — the moghuls are a loaded topic at the moment. There is an extreme right wing government that is focused on a Hindu resurgence (fine) at the expense of non Hindus (not fine), and the central justification is look how badly we were treated in the past. All the moghuls have gone through a lot of revisionism and reassessment (also fine) but it's all politically motivated to interpret current events (sad).

<comment><USER5> Indeed. This thread is going to be a playground for the shills trying to push the narrative that Hindu's were a pristine white snowflake who did no one any wrong but were subject to the worst miseries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Wasn't the guy probably dyslexic?

<comment><USER11> Where do you come to this conclusion from?

There is one line in the entire article about that:

"Ellen Smart in her 1981 essay makes the case that Akbar may have been dyslexic, though there is little evidence or corroborating facts in support of this."

Do you have any sources?

<comment><USER12> That's what I suspect too, a guy so smart, how couldn't learn to read even after being in contact with a lot of books?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Where is @dang when you need him? Look at this thread and all the newer comments.

<comment><USER14> If you want to let us know about something, the only reliable way to do it is to email email@example.com.</comment></comment>


Show HN: The Lily Programmming Language - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/jesserayadkins/lily <comment><USER2> This is an impressive project, particularly interesting is the Apache module. I did notice it was missing some things I might like, headers in for example.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you! I've spent a great deal of time on it. As for that module, I admit that it's pretty bare-bones (so is postgres). Both were made as a proof-of- concept, to be fleshed out at some later point in time.

Header support was, at the time, something I didn't know quite how I wanted done, and was thus left out. I will, at some future time, add in header support.

I would also like header support. Perhaps during the next release (which should start some time in July), I can get around to putting that in. One of my original goals was to get Lily usable on Apache, and I've gotten far distracted from that.

<comment><USER2> That's understandable. I was mulling over your use of reference counting, and cycle detection with your mark and sweep scheme. Vala has a weak keyword to indicate a non ref counted ownership letting user manage cycles in effect. Otherwise I wonder how useful reference counting is in this case, your vm has the call stack ie the list live root references, as you know. Why not just do mark and sweep? May simplify the code a bit.</comment></comment></comment>


Royal pardon for Alan Turing - <AUTHOR> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/alan-turing-gets-his-royal-pardon-for-gross-indecency--61-years-after-he-poisoned-himself-9023116.html

<comment><USER2> As Rui Barbosa said: "Justice that comes too late isn't justice."

</comment><comment><USER3> Sorry for hijacking this, but I wonder if this is the best that Snowden can hope for -- a pardon well after his death and the passing of all active parties, and well after real reform, in a more enlightened time of civil rights decades in the future?</comment>


Ask HN: Sci-Fi things that you would like to become reality - <AUTHOR> What interesting elements of Sci-Fi would you like to see to become reality and what do you think about time horizon for them? <comment><USER2> Tech: Time viewing. See: The Light of Other Days [Arthur C. Clarke, Stephen Baxter]

Horizon: Never. Why? Wormholes don't do that.

Tech: Near infinite storage for nearly free. I'm pretty sure that in my lifetime most everyday people will no longer delete files or care how big something is.

Horizon: 10 years tops. Why? Moores law for data storage.

Tech: FTL

Horizon: 50-100 years. Why? I have a sneaking suspicion that there's some radical new theories about space and time just around the corner.

Tech: Androids

Horizon: 20 years. Why? Almost all the pieces are already here.

Tech: Artificial human wombs

Horizon: 15-50 years. Why? Kinda already here, just needs moral/political support

</comment><comment><USER3> Mind uploading. This opens up a load of other possibilities, like functional teleportation, living in dangerous environments, etc.

</comment><comment><USER4> From Star Trek (Roddenberry era): Prevalence of the idealistic mindset. I do not, however, have any hope that this will happen.

<comment><USER5> Love it :), i think a lot about this as i talk to so many people who construct negative narratives by choice...

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Anti-ageing therapy i.e. lifespan extension (also related to medical science as a longer lifespan also requires dealing with other health issues like cancer). The technology for the first iteration of this is probably quite close, within a few decades or by the end of the century at the latest.

It's a thorny issue though. People are afraid of death but paradoxically this sometimes manifests in resistance to any efforts to address it. I think people have difficulty dealing with the idea of life extension in an equanimous manner, as the concept of death is loaded with fear.

So there will be arguments against it from many perspectives: psychological, philosophical, economic, religious and so on. These arguments can have merit and warrant due consideration but I think that fear and pessimism should be balanced with hope and optimism.

</comment><comment><USER7> Free or very cheap sustainable energy. This would be a catalyst for a whole range of new inventions. Combine this with a more scientific driven earth under 1 government in a society that rewards reaching ones potential to get towards the Star Trek type society.

<comment><USER8> A 1-government world is dystopic in my view. Where to hide if/when it becomes tyrannical?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Medical science that can completely heal any injury or illness in minutes or at most days.

</comment><comment><USER10> Pollution processors (from Master of Orion). I think the closest thing we have to them are carbon capture plants, which are pretty cool too.

</comment><comment><USER11> Replicator tech. Post scarcity (within a reasonable pocket of the universe where there exists a energy inequilibrium).

</comment><comment><USER12> Various senses-enhacing implants. Well, simply implants. Would be cool to go shopping and buy new upgrades for your body.

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm still looking forward to affordable electric cars. Hopefully in the next 5 years?

<comment><USER5> What level is affordable?

<comment><USER13> Where I can buy it off a middle income salary. I live in Asia and they're not around yet.

<comment><USER5> So maybe 22k usd or less? Curious what that amount is

<comment><USER13> I was thinking more $50k-$100k, but cars here are expensive in general, easily taking a third of someone's income for 9 years.

<comment><USER5> Gotcha, guessing you are in Singapore then :)

In the USA a model 3 costs around $42k to 58k plus taxes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Outer space exploration

<comment><USER2> we already have that to some extent, can you be more specific?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> SHAI HULUD</comment>


Google PageSpeed is dead - <AUTHOR> https://thirtybees.com/blog/pagespeed-is-dead/ <comment><USER2> I ran the PageSpeed test on Google's product page. It got 67/100 for mobile and 81/100 for desktop. If Google can't get 100/100 what chance does anyone else have?

[https://developers.google.com/products/](https://developers.google.com/products/)</comment>


"Gun" "Control" - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/16/gun-control/ <comment><USER3> As found in the NY Times today regarding this subject:

"In Australia in 1996, a mass killing of 35 people galvanized the nation's conservative prime minister to ban certain rapid-fire long guns. The "national firearms agreement," as it was known, led to the buyback of 650,000 guns and to tighter rules for licensing and safe storage of those remaining in public hands.

The law did not end gun ownership in Australia. It reduced the number of firearms in private hands by one-fifth, and they were the kinds most likely to be used in mass shootings.

In the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings — but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect. The murder rate with firearms has dropped by more than 40 percent".

It was legislation, intelligent legislation, that worked. It did not advocate the complete abolishment of firearms, which many pro-gun advocates seem to be making the mental leap towards when any discussion of gun "rights" is brought up. Thinking this problem isn't partially-solvable is ignorant.

<comment><USER4> People can use any weapons they want in mass attacks.

Cho (the VA Tech shooter) used two handguns, no long guns at all, and that attack was more lethal. [1]

The Monash University shooting (7 people hit) doesn't count as an Austrialian mass shooting? It took place in 2002, after the new Australian law. [2]

Finally, I'm sorry to say this and I know it gets old, but the U.S. constitution identifies a right to keep and bear arms. Even if the arguments in favor of banning guns were convincing, you can't maintain respect for the constitution or the rule of law while enacting laws that violate the constitution.

The proximal reason for this event was the killer's mother, who it seems drove him insane with her paranoid end-of-the-world mentality.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho#Weapons>

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting>

<comment><USER5> This is actually an effective argument for _comprehensive_ gun control. An assault weapons ban would not prevent those two mass killings you cite. But, however, having a comprehensive system where, for example, mental health records are tied to gun purchase background checks would have prevented Seung- Hui Cho from purchasing handguns.

Gun control is not just one policy. It's a broad policy with many possible facets: an assault weapons ban, federal standards for background checks, cracking down on sales at gun shows, eliminating loopholes, tying mental health records to background checks, the list goes on.

EDITS (reply to below, additional things constantly added):

I'm not naive enough to say that comprehensive gun control is going to eliminate all gun violence. I'm saying that it's a step forwards towards reducing gun violence.

>We arguably have comprehensive drug control. How well does that work?

This is a non sequitur. Just because the drug war has failed and the phrase "comprehensive drug control" shares two words with the phrase "comprehensive gun control" is not enough to logically lead to the conclusion that gun control is/will be a failure. The comparison needs to be elaborated. Let me elaborate on a few differences: people don't get addicted to guns like they do with drugs, someone using a drug can not directly physically injure someone else, drugs are much smaller and easier to hide (EDIT: for smuggling on an individual basis, not for a cartel), guns are hard to mass produce without people noticing. Drunk driving is not really relevant unless there is a large trend of accidents caused by cocaine/heroin/marijuana (rather than just alcohol). Guns are much less profitable for cartels than drugs are (for reasons of addiction).

I think nitpicking over the specifics of an assault weapons ban does not really counter my point. I meant semi-automatic weapons with magazines/cartridges (and automatic weapons). Even if my definition misses something, I'd be willing to just concede that and expand my definition. Yes, it's obvious that a ban implemented today would not stop Adam Lanza, because the guns are already bought. It might reduce the number of deaths of an Adam Lanza 5 years from now (I'm acknowledging of course that he also had two handguns with him).

To be clear, I don't propose that we should have a blanket handgun ban. It's simply not a realistic goal (politically and in terms of all the guns already out there). There are ways to improve gun control without banning all handguns.

I also think that the mental health system in America is broken and needs fixing. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

<comment><USER6> How would you deal with the stockpiles built up by career criminals and people who actually believe in the Constitution? (Of course, _comprehensive_ gun control would legislatively unify these two categories.)

We arguably have _comprehensive_ drug control. How well does that work?

<comment><USER7> I don't understand why you think that criminal record checks, mental health checks, etc. would make people who own guns into "career criminals".

As brianchu pointed out, the Virginia tech shooter was involuntarily detained because of mental illness about 15 months before he bought his guns. He then killed 32 people with them. Would prohibiting a law prohibiting people like Seung-Hui Cho from buying guns for a few years really be a step along the road to tyranny?

<comment><USER4> More to the point, how is it that 15 months after being involuntarily committed Cho was _worse_ than he started? That sounds a lot more like a failure of the mental health system than a lack of proper gun control.

The anti-gun myth implicitly assumes that if you have someone who, given access to guns, would shoot a bunch of people, but you take those guns away, that person suddenly becomes harmless. I don't want anyone like that walking around free in society; I don't want them buying guns, and I don't want them driving cars or buying anything at hardware stores or pool supply stores. They're a clear danger to themselves and to others. However, I'm not going to support gun control measures just because the mental health system isn't perfect.

Adding regulations that restrict what free people can do or buy based on their past history doesn't tend to be very effective. Ex-cons who are disqualified from owning guns, and who cannot buy them legally, have no trouble acquiring firearms through other means.

<comment><USER8> >More to the point, how is it that 15 months after being involuntarily committed Cho was worse than he started? That sounds a lot more like a failure of the mental health system than a lack of proper gun control.

Treatment for mental problems isn't an exact science. It may be that he would have been worse had he not been committed. Personally I don't want more restrictions on guns, but I find the argument that the mental health system is the point of failure in these kinds of crimes to be pretty unpersuasive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The failed drug war has taught us you can regulate and draft laws until it's illegal to even think about making a gun let alone get a hold of one without the appropriate credentials, but it won't change a thing at the end of the day. While it can be argued that we might see people printing their own guns in the future when 3D printing becomes affordable, what's stopping people from printing knives and other sharp pointy objects that could be used to kill or maim someone else? If someone wants to get hold of a gun, they will and no amount of laws or enforcement will ever change that. If someone doesn't get hold of a printed weapon, they'll get their hands on a legitimately made metal one (or whatever material it is they build guns out of these days).

The benefit of 3D printing is that at least you have a better chance tracing a home printed weapon than you would an illegally purchased street firearm with no serial number.

<comment><USER10> _The failed drug war..._

I find it particularly amusing that many of the people I hear calling for the legalization of all drugs on the grounds that banning them doesn't work, are the same people calling for the outlawing of all guns.

<comment><USER11> Except that gun control laws can actually be extremely effective, and the same cannot be said for drug prohibition.

And, honestly, there is nontrivial difference the ability to consume certain substances and owning instruments made explicitly to kill.

<comment><USER12> Additionally, there is a very good argument for being free to take substances which release/alter your voluntary control of self. What are the arguments to own any gun? Imaginary civil war, fantasy home defense, pride of ownership, and practicing marksmanship? For this, we have to suffer the fact that any crazy can buy push-button killing machines, or that any sane owner thereof can subsequently lose his shit and kill the rest of us?

There doesn't seem to be much of an upside for the rest of us.

<comment><USER10> Some folks hunt as a way to put protein on the table.

<comment><USER12> Yep. A long-barreled rifle, of small-ish calibre (.223 maybe) and with a fixed 5-shot magazine should be good enough for them. A determined person can hold up a mini-mart with that, but he'll be much less effective if he tries to go on a spree. Any features you add to such a weapon are, essentially, for the purposes of increasing its lethality to humans.

<comment><USER10> You've jumped from "What are the arguments to own _any_ gun" implying 'No guns' to 'Some guns are ok but not others'. Which is actually your belief?

<comment><USER12> It's a good point. I actually would advocate no guns, but I could find it acceptable to compromise with hunting rifles only. But still, apart from hunting rifles then, what are the arguments to own _any_ gun?

<comment><USER10> Hunting, recreation, self defense, home defense. Those are the main arguments I know. This generally corresponds to rifles/shotguns, plinking/antique guns, handguns, and shotguns/handguns respectively.

It's also sort of in the roots of the country, so you could say it's sort of patriotic to own a gun and train yourself in its use, but that is of course not a cold, practical argument.

Note: "Self defense" may have raised eyebrows; in particular, I am referring to people like judges and police officers who handle violent criminals. Typically these people are allowed to carry just about anywhere even off-duty.

Note2: In case you aren't actually aware, shotguns are commonly used for hunting, typically for small game and birds.

Note3: Skeet shooting is an Olympic sport. :)

<comment><USER12> I would like to see some numbers for the home defense case -- it seems that the reasoning is mostly based on common sensical intuitions. IIRC guns in the home are multiple times more likely to be used against the family, than against an intruder. Permitted law-enforcement use is also acceptable to me.

Everything else you mentioned can, I think, be narrowly compromised on -- for shotguns, we can have single or double-barreled breechloaders only, 20 gauge only. That is plenty lethal, and the freedom to own pump-loading and larger gauges are, I think, acceptable casualties.

I think there really is not a fact-based case for the civilian ownership of the majority of weapons designed and sold in the market. Why does anyone need a Bushmaster or knockoff AK?

<comment><USER10> I'm not a big proponent of guns as home defense, I was just listing the arguments as you asked for them.

As for shotguns, while I'm partial to breech loaders, I imagine pump-loaders would be nice when bird hunting- you have literally seconds to take your shots. 12 gauge is popular for hunting, particularly when using a shotgun as a poor man's deer rifle (buckshot or slugs). Anyway, don't worry about shotguns so much. They aren't used much in crime, and I gather they are pretty survivable at all but very close range.

If you want to save lives, forget shotguns, forget rifles, forget even assault rifles- while mass shootings are big news, from a pure numbers point of view handguns are the biggest nail to pound down. More people in rural California in 2010 were killed with handguns than the count for the Connecticut shooting:

[http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/publications/Firearms...](http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Report_10.pdf)

It's actually quite an interesting document if we're comparing types of firearms.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This just amplifies the fact that the conversation shouldn't be about gun control and should be about mental health.

<comment><USER9> The article is about the impending 3D printing revolution and being able to print your own guns, not gun control in itself. I don't see how mental health relates to printing 3D guns at home.

<comment><USER6> It relates indirectly.

Two things were necessary for the latest school tragedy to occur: The shooter had to be mentally ill, and he had to have access to the gun(s) he used.

Let's suppose a significant fraction of gun-related crimes contain these two elements, and it would be worthwhile to make a political push for the prevention of this specific subset. (Not to imply that any other subset of gun-related crimes is unworthy of attention.)

The obvious way to attack this class of crimes would be to remove either mental illness or access to weapons from the equation.

The article seems to be saying that denying people access to guns will become much more difficult in the next few years as new technology will make it much easier to people to manufacture them privately and inexpensively.

This implies that policy efforts in that direction will likely end up wasted, and we should instead focus on removing mental illness from the equation (presumably by increasing research to create new treatments, improving access to mental health services to do a better job of bringing existing treatments to people who need them, and reducing bureaucracy and waste).

<comment><USER14> But the article did not talk about the latest school tragedy. It talked about gun control in general, including using gun to commit crime like, for example, robbing a bank.

<comment><USER6> We've moved on from discussing the content of the article's content to how the article provides an essential link in a particular chain of reasoning about the best way to address a specific subset of gun violence.

This process is called "discussion." To me, comments that merely restate the article's content without any additional information or commentary are noise; if I want to know what the article said, I can read it directly, and I probably already did if I'm reading (much less writing) comments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Printing guns is curious, but irrelevant for the stated purpose - "gun" "control". Various resistance movements mass-produced guns under Nazi regime. If the regime as brutal as Nazis was unable to prevent it in 1940s, how much chance any modern democracy has to prevent it in 2010s and beyond?

Obviously the point is not to completely eliminate guns, that is too stupid even for public politics. The point is to scare the average citizen so much and to distance them so much from the guns that if he wants to commit a crime, he would be too scared of the guns to find one, and others around him would be too scared of the guns too much to provide it for him. We can see that works well because the same works quite well with drugs, which are not available to ordinary citizens and only available to hardened criminals via their underground criminal networks. Oh wait, that's wrong - anybody who cares knows where to get some pot, and anybody who cares enough knows where to get stronger stuff - or knows somebody who does. However, for some reason people think with guns it would work differently. Even though making a primitive gun takes only basic knowledge in material working and basic metalworking tools sold in any hardware shop and all over the internet. Of course, you may go the way of the drugs and severely restrict even basic chemicals and tools under the pretense they could be (and are) used to manufacture drugs. And you'd end up exactly the same place as with drugs - nowhere. With only exception that drugs are consumable and guns can be bought once and remains with you - <USER2> you'd need much less production capacity to reach the same level of saturation.

</comment><comment><USER16> CAN SOMONE PLEASE KILL-OFF THIS THREAD BEFORE HN BECOMES ANOTHER HOME FOR LOONIES? JUST MAKE IT GO AWAY.

I am an American. I don't own any guns. I have lived in other parts of the world, sometimes under military regimes. I have never --EVER-- felt the need to own firearms in order to feel secure, protect my family or defend myself from a rogue government.

I do enjoy an occasional trip to the shooting range where we rent the weapons and have a good time shooting at metal targets or clay pigeons. Then I go home and that crap stays behind. I don't need it. I know with 100% certainty that none of my kids will ever have an accident in my home with a firearm 'cause there isn't one to be found.

I don't have any particular issue with the idea of people owning guns. Artillery and mass-killing weapons are a different story. There have to be sensible limits and strict rules. I don't know what these limits and rules might be. There are experts who have studied this far and deep. I'll defer to them.

To be sure, there's a mental health issue that must be dealt with as well. Don't know the answers.

Still, I think this thread needs to be shut-down before the nut-cases who think they are going to have to defend their homes from hordes of their own neighbors after each power outage take over.

<comment><USER17> > I have never felt the need to own firearms in order to feel secure

robomartin: I enjoy many of your posts and understand where you're coming from. Regarding this point, however, if you saw videos of Koreatown during the LA Riots, or in New Orleans after Katrina, or of Vancouver or London recently, you saw video of real times - in industrialized society - where the police were absent and law & order broke down.

The Koreans with guns defended their stores against rioting looters. That happened in America. It happened to the parents of people I know.

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

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmQW6xLECUU>

I hope you'd agree then that you don't have to be a "nut case" to imagine you need to defend your family, property, and loved ones from fellow Americans in the event of riots. It's happened, multiple times, as the clips above show.

<comment><USER16> I'll grant you that there might be circumstances under which one has to be able to defend self and loved ones. And it isn't my intent to suggest that guns ought to be taken away from people. The vast majority of gun owners wouldn't hurt a fly.

With regards to riots and stores being looted. On the side of the store owner, he or she should have insurance for that. I would not want to shoot someone for stealing from my store. I am not sure the law justifies that. I am not sure that I can morally justify it regardless of the law.

The deeper problem is societal. Was there any looting in Japan after the tsunami. Nope. Why? Different culture. Different behavioral patterns. What is it about our society and what we teach kids and people that would lead them to equate a natural disaster or a little civil unrest with the idea of taking and destroying other's property? Don't know.

The issue that is touching a nerve today with this horrific tragedy is that guns are simply too available or they are being sold to people who should not have them. I am speaking as someone who has zero problems with the concept of gun ownership. That said, as a father, I'll be damned if I'll choose gun ownership over my kids right to be safe at school or at the mall. That's not a tough decision to make at all.

I'm a numbers guy and I know full-well that the statistics found at reputable sources such as the CDC or FBI show that deaths due to guns almost pale in comparison to other causes of death, particularly when combined. The same Hollywood actors who pull at the heart-strings and stand for gun control after a disaster such as Newtown go and get drunk at parties and don't express outrage for the fact that drunk drivers kill ten times as many kids per year as guns do. It's unfortunate but true. And, I do get it. Considering that there are about 350 million guns in the US it is easy to conclude that the vast majority of them are absolutely harmless.

When you look at what happened in Newtown you have to wonder how and why these guns got into this household. By all reports this kid had very serious issues. I don't know how one would do this, but these guns shouldn't have been available to him and perhaps even his mother. It is horrific and there is no pro-gun argument that can stand a chance against the brutal death of a child in this manner.

When I go to the shooting range I am sometimes in awe of the weapons I see there. Some guys show up with stuff that looks just amazing. As an engineer I appreciate the tech. But sometimes I think that these guys could go from harmless-hobbyist to mass murderer in a second if a single bit flipped in their brains. I have fired AR-type weapons rented at the range. They are a blast. But they are also nasty-deadly. These are tools built for rapid killing and almost nothing else. Same with semi-auto handguns that can squeeze-off rounds as fast as you can pull the trigger. Do we really need to own these things to defend our homes? Are we going to be invaded by hordes of armed thugs?

Shotguns are a different story. Particularly breach-loaded shotguns. Here you have a particularly intimidating self-defense (and hunting) weapon that is a lot harder to use for mass murder. One or two shots and a good pause to reload. I can't see someone justifying needing an AR for self-defense vs. a shotgun. If you take any of these mass shootings and substitute whatever weapons they used with breech-loaded shotguns I guarantee you that the outcomes would have been very, very different. People at least have a chance to overtake the shooter.

This is a complicated issue for sure. It becomes far less complicated when you have parents in fear of their kids being mowed-down with semi-automatic weapons. Today, that is a potential reality anywhere in the US where you combine these kinds of weapons with a lunatic. The NRA and gun lobbies need to tread lightly here because, today, there isn't a single parent who would not support a vote for serious gun control --even if irrational-- at some level.

And, yes, the nut-jobs need to keep their mouth's shut. Your right to own a gun doesn't stand a chance against my kids' right to not get shot in school, at the mall or in the movie theater.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I see two problems with the article:

1\. For the foreseeable future there will be no 3D printer which can print explosives. Therefore it seems hard to actually print ammunition.

2\. Guns have rather many parts which are under high mechanical stress. Therefore 3D printable gun designs will be rather crappy for quite some time.

Both of these points render the problem of 3D printable weapons rather smaller than the control of carbines.

<comment><USER19> The hard part of all of this is primers. Virtually everything else is straightforward (propellant is hard, but not as hard as primers. Reloading from infinite primers and powder is essentially something a one-armed blind person can do with a reloading press.

Most of the parts of guns are not under much mechanical stress, and the parts which are, tend to not be the regulated items. A convicted felon could buy commercially made barrels all day long (they're not firearms or in any way controlled), which are probably the firearm part with the greatest difficulty of manufacture, along with springs.

<comment><USER18> Of course, one can manufacture a gun from a 3D printer plus some additional stuff. But there is a qualitative difference between 'click print' and you get everything you need and a project to get everything you need to build a gun, which utilizes a 3D printer ( and some chemistry and some additional metalwork). After all, it is today possible to manufacture a (completely unregistered) gun yourself utilizing a CNC cutter and some craftsmanship.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Fact checking of some assumption of existence.

* «MPEG 3»: Yeah, sure.

* «We can print working guns right now»: No, you cannot, neither you will be able in the foreseeable. Please prove otherwise.

<comment><USER21> He did. Six shots is merely an unreliable gun, not, fundamentally, a non- functional gun (see also the point about 6-vs-100 shots and 0-vs-1 shot), and frankly, an AR-15 seems unnecessarily ambitious for a proof-of-concept. They probably would have gotten better results with something better suited for printing; I bet AK's print better. AFAICT, it's just a matter of sufficient precision with sufficiently strong materials.

<comment><USER22> Well, in case anyone's curious:

<http://www.lasc.us/SAAMIMaxPressure.htm>

[http://www.matbase.com/material/polymers/commodity/abs- gener...](http://www.matbase.com/material/polymers/commodity/abs-general- purpose/properties)

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

That's a start, anyways.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> related hn discussion here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3019163>

</comment><comment><USER22> Let me point out some interesting issues that are related to this, just so that we can have something beyond the normal gun/anti-gun rhetoric:

1\. If we legislate 3D printing to prevent weapon manufacture, we run directly counter to the idea of "Print anything you need at home!". How do we reconcile these two ideas?

2\. If we want to fingerprint, say, a lower receiver and identify which machine made it, how would we do so? (My hunch would be looking for misalignments in the fill pattern, but that's just a first guess).

3\. What sort of technology would be required to automatically detect the production of a weapon? Could we identify a pressure container, for example, for use in holding a shotgun shell for firing? Could we distinguish that from something else?

4\. Taking (3) a step further--this technology could obviously also have applications in preventing patent infringement. Is it desirable to require that 3D printers can recognize infringing mechanisms? Why or why not?

<comment><USER24> wrt to your first point: in the article, they say:

"Will 3D printers refuse to print parts, the way 2D ones are supposed to refuse to print bills? "

That's an interesting analogy, although the outcomes are not the same (and I doubt any 2D printer would be capable of duplicating a banknote anyway).

(That being said, I can't find any references to ink printers being unable to print bills- if anyone has additional info, that'd be very much appreciated!)

<comment><USER25> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> guns are not the key here, it is ammunition. chris rock made a great argument about it, no clue if he re-hashed an old saying or came up with it himself:

make ammo really expensive. make ammo really regulated.

ammo contains explosives. it can be used to build bombs. bombs equal terrorism. so, get the whole wrath of homeland security upon buying, selling, handling live ammo upon it. make it so unbelievably complex that people simply give up.

oh, you want to buy 9mm? sure, please apply for a 9mm cartridge license, that's forms 12, 3274234, 423-1836, t5 and 0815. process takes a year, is valid for 5mins and usually ends with you on a no fly list. you don't wanna know what you need for 5.56. and _selling_? oh boy.

no need to ban anything. bureaucracy was invented for exactly this. crowd control. just look at how it was applied in the austro-hungarian monarchy, kafka's process is exactly that.

guns don't kill little kids. bullets do.

<comment><USER27> I once watched that monologue. He argued that bullets should cost 5k$ to make killing unaffordable, IIRC.

This raises another point, with regard to the original article: will printing bullets be easy with 3d printing technology? I may not be as easy (you probably need to insert manually the powder at some point), but I think it will eventually happen.

<comment><USER26> this is my point - printing the whole thing does not do anything without adding gunpowder. creating _that_ out of a 3d printer is a bit longer off, re- arranging molecules is a tad hard.

the US already regulates handling of explosives. simply expand that regulation to any amount of gunpowder. no need to ban guns, no interference of the constitution. having a right does not mean that it needs to be easy or cheap.

<comment><USER28> What do you think happens when bullets cost $5000? You've just created a new revenue stream for drug cartels. Manufacturing ammunition isn't any more difficult than running a meth lab.

<comment><USER26> do you think the black market for ammo would be more like the drug market rather than the current black market for guns&explosives?

remember, it needs to be hard for mentally unstable kids like the recent one to get ammo. no one will ever stop someone like Breivik or the Unabomber, who spent years planning their attacks.

<comment><USER28> I think you underestimate how ingrained guns are in our culture.

If you priced ammunition out of the reach of an ordinary citizen, you've effectively banned guns for the ordinary citizen.

The first problem you have to deal with is the number of lives that will be lost in the armed insurrection you've caused. There are thousands of people just waiting for the government to take their guns and I can guarantee you any kind of gun ban (even if it's only an effective ban) will cause enough deaths to offset any drop in murders for the next 50 years or so.

After that's over there is still going to be a large criminal element who isn't going to stop fighting each other over drugs and will need ammunition to do it.

> it needs to be hard for mentally unstable kids like the recent one to get > ammo

How many people die each year to mentally unstable kids as opposed to crimes committed by hardened criminals usually involving drugs?

If you haven't looked at the statistics, it's _overwhelmingly_ the latter.

<comment><USER26> to lay this out more precisely, and I live in Austria, so I have a front row seat on how to use bureaucracy to steer behavior:

you do not simply raise prices to 5000$. no, you gradually boil the water through addition of red tape. selling ammo should not be banned, the drug war shows what happens then. no, it needs to be legal, just amazingly, mind- numbingly complicated. the cost of the process would then be the markup on the sale.

make the IRS, TSA, EPA whichever other three-letter agency you can find go all in and creative on ammo manufacture, sales, distribution. oh boy, the CO2 emissions alone should be fun. and quality standards, only the purest gunpowder should be approved, FDA-style. to protect the shooters of course, misfires are bad in your fight against the government - even the NRA can't deny that.

Call it all the "Make Gun-Owners Safe" act, drop it in front of the republicans, tie some tax decreases to it. Try voting against that one.

<comment><USER28> >Call it all the "Make Gun-Owners Safe" act, drop it in front of the republicans, tie some tax decreases to it. Try voting against that one.

Won't happen. There's too much organized resistance against gun regulation.

Besides, something like you're proposing was already tried. The EPA floated the idea of banning lead bullets, and within hours the mailing lists were circulating and the attempt was utterly and completely destroyed.

The pendulum has been swinging in the direction of less restrictive gun laws for the past 20 years or so, even many of my otherwise extremely left wing friends now own guns, and support gun rights.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to stepdown from the co-founder - <AUTHOR>

I have this question in mind? I want to know what is the best way to quit myself as the co-founder and start a new startup. <comment><USER2> That's a bit of a broad question to ask: It would depend on what your personal relationship is with the other co-founder -- and that can mean anything from a spouse/childhood best friend to someone you never knew before last week. On the business side it would depend on what your agreement was with your other partner, and what you've put into it. I guess my best bit of meta advice would be to not burn your bridges behind you, and since you're the one abandoning ship that you make it as easy as you can on the other partner.

</comment><comment><USER3> The best way is the method that involves the least baggage with your new startup. Even if you have no lingering legal headaches at the new one (patent rights, copyright, trade secrets), you personally need to be free of lingering distractions (miss your old co-founder, owe lots of money to former company's creditors, can't raise enough capital to keep yourself afloat all of a sudden) to the point that it's a step up and not just a lateral.

Figure out how to do that, then do it as quickly as possible, like ripping off a band-aid.</comment>


Hundreds of Companies have moved from India to Silicon Valley in last 6 months - <AUTHOR> http://asifali.me/post/42740559902/hundreds-of-companies-have-moved-from-india-to-silicon

<comment><USER2> Yes, it seems.</comment>


RubyQuestions,a community for ruby-specific questions. - <AUTHOR> http://rubyquestions.net/

<comment><USER2> Why shouldn't I just go to StackOverflow and use the tag feature to filter for the Ruby questions?

<comment><AUTHOR> Just having a tag for ruby questions doesn't make sense. Ruby users tend to do many different things, using many different libraries.

Basically the intent is to focus on ruby. No Java, no python, just ruby programmers answering ruby questions.</comment></comment>


High-quality coffee in a hotel room: gear and guide - <AUTHOR> https://roadwarrior.blog/hotel-room-coffee/ <comment><USER2> The irony of this article to me is that the Aeropress paper filters restore the brightness the author found missing when using the mesh filters.</comment>


IPhoto for iOS Not Using Google Maps? - <AUTHOR> http://512pixels.net/iphoto-for-ios-not-using-google-maps/ <comment><USER2> The article claims that it doesn't appear that they're using OSM data, but if you look at the label of the green area on Apple's map and OSM, they're both labeled Great Salterns Golf Corse[sic]. So, it seems likely that they're using at least some data from OSM.

<comment><USER3> Well spotted! It appears that the author does not know the difference between map data and rendering it.

I have looked at other places in OpenStreetMap and Apple Maps tiles and there is no doubt that they use OSM data, just their own renderer.

<comment><USER2> Good stuff, thanks for the confirmation! I wonder if Apple will be a powerful new contributor to OSM (I really, really hope so)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Slippy map with the Apple Tiles:

<http://www.refnum.com/tmp/apple.html>

<comment><USER5> Visually interesting, but functionally leaves a lot of be desired. Seems more style over substance.

e.g., Zoomed over the entirety of the US - San Jose appears over San Francisco. Entirety of Midwest is empty even though there's plenty of room for some city names. Boston and New York make the cut, but evidently Baltimore is more important than DC :P Jacksonville FL makes the map before Miami or Orlando?

Hell, when zoomed into North Dakota _not a single name is drawn_.

This is pretty sloppy for Apple standards.

<comment><USER6> Actually it's a bug in the web app. If you actually look in iPhoto, there are detailed tiles for the region you mention.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Apple has been using prettier tile sets in iMovie on OS X – but (just like in this case) only for presentation, never for browsing or when you actually want to use maps.

I don't think this indicates anything.

(Also: Those tiles are fine for presentation purposes but not even close to what Google offers otherwise. The tiles for Germany are horrible. Some cities don't show up at all, some show up twice. There is no consistency, no rhyme, no reason. And that's only the fundamentals, not even whether I can comfortably search for Italian restaurants.)

</comment><comment><USER4> Here is a great resource to compare Apple tiles and OpenStreetMap tiles at the same time:

<http://ivan.sanchezortega.es/leaflet-apple.html>

</comment><comment><USER8> Using iPhoto on my iPhone 4s right now — the maps are ... weird. Italic serif fonts, oddly bad anti-aliasing, and off-center-by-2-pixels highway numbers. Feels like it's been upscaled from half resolution as well. It's clearly not Google's maps, but it's also clearly below Apple's normal visual standards.

</comment><comment><USER9> If it is OSM data then it is a stale cut that is several years out-of-date, more likely it's data pulled from the same origin's as OSM, but with none of OSM's improvements. Map styling is pretty ugly IMHO too. If Apple is going to get serious about the mapping space it needs to start buying data.

<comment><USER10> I agree. In my area, the Apple maps show some roads which have no existed in decades. I'm pretty sure OSM was preloaded with USGS base maps (which are generally decades old) because when OSM was young, it too suffered from the "obsolete road" problem. Some of the errors I remember from the early OSM maps have been corrected in the Apple maps, but others remain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> John Gruber of Daring Fireball just confirmed that it is in fact using data from Google Maps: <http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/03/07/iphoto-maps>

<comment><USER12> It very well could be, but according to other it's polling Apple servers. [http://gsp2.apple.com/tile?api=1&style=slideshow&lay...](http://gsp2.apple.com/tile?api=1&style=slideshow&layers=default&lang=de_DE&z=13&x=4253&y=2743&v=9)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> However, iPhoto (for OS X, also updated today) definitely still is. I wonder how soon Apple plans on completely severing ties with Google Maps.

<comment><USER14> iPhoto for OS X uses the pretty tile set when in slide show mode. I think it has done for the past few versions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Interesting indeed. Get the users to slowly get familiarized with their own maps solution before ditching Google Maps.

</comment><comment><USER16> John Gruber confirmed from Apple that it IS Google Maps data

<comment><USER17> He's edited it again,

UPDATE 2: OK, what I'm hearing now is that Places still uses Google Maps, but the maps in Journals and slideshows are not using Google Maps, and are Apple's own stuff

<http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/03/07/iphoto-maps>

<comment><USER4> Right so the license says this:

If your application displays Places API data on a map, that map must be provided by Google. Places API responses may include Listings provider attributions in HTML format that must be displayed to the user as provided. Any links included in the HTML must be preserved. We recommend placing this information below any search results or Place Details information.

[http://code.google.com/apis/maps/documentation/places/#Limit...](http://code.google.com/apis/maps/documentation/places/#Limits)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Look at them. They are the most beautiful tiles I've ever used.

</comment><comment><USER19> It's not a surprise. Everyone seems to be ditching Google Maps, whether it's because of the new pricing rules or because companies just want to rely less on Google for core functionality. Interesting predicament Google is having.

I think startups with a heavy reliance on Facebook are going to come to the same conclusion in the near future...</comment>


Things Americans need to learn from the rest of the world's health care systems - <AUTHOR> https://www.vox.com/health-care/2020/1/29/21075388/medicare-for-all-what-countries-have-universal-health-care <comment><USER2> Oh yeah, learning the Yanks about reasonable health care policies. That should be a gratifying and productive experience.</comment>


Revenue Canada worker fired over video game creation - <AUTHOR> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/01/30/game-developer-draws-ire.html

<comment><USER2> If I walked around my office saying I hate my job they'd probably fire me too, and people would say I was an idiot for doing that. This is the same thing. Free speech means you can say what you want, but people can also act on it as they want.</comment>


The CIA Says It's Time to Up Its Cyber Game - <AUTHOR> http://recode.net/2015/03/07/the-cia-says-its-time-to-up-its-cyber-game/ <comment><USER2> How about we talk about the CIA's next projects _after_ we finish the prosecution of those in the chain of command that are responsible for _torture_.

Or are attention spans so short and/or the agency so completely removed from the rule of law that we're going to let them get away with their crimes? If we're not even going to bother with the _trial_ \- acknowledging that we won't even _bother_ trying to maintain the rule of law - then I guess that's sufficient proof that we have lost our republic, as we let it be replaced with feudalism.

<comment><USER3> meanwhile Obama gives pretty speeches about fighting extremism and tries to drum up more support for killing people an ocean away. American Democracy is a farce.

<comment><USER4> It is too bad it does not seem like Europe will ever get its act together enough to be a balance against the US.

<comment><USER5> EU == USA lackey

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > In the wake of last year's attack by North Korea against Sony Pictures > Entertainment and numerous other breaches, the urge to hack back, or at > least build up the means to do so when and if needed, has increased.

So this is just casually accepted as fact now?

<comment><USER7> It's sad that Mutually Assured Destruction is the first place they go.

They could get a better understanding of security and enforce, research, and advise standards of protection on consumer data, making everyone in the country better off, or they can "hack back".

I don't really see how knowing what the average Joe in North Korea is Googling is supposed to help when my data is leaking like a sieve, but whatever.

<comment><USER8> They could, and then they'd be fighting an endless losing war over security. They'd rather like to have their own information attack capabilities.

<comment><USER7> Security will always be cat and mouse, but in the case of information security a good offense does not at all make for a good defense. Those holes in our information security system will still be there, to be exploited by whomever finds them. The only reasonable course of action is to devote resources to penetration testing ourselves and implementing strong security standards, along with developing good disaster recovery and damage minimizing plans.

<comment><USER8> Whether or not offense makes for defense depends somewhat on the actor. For some, deterrence does work.

For the rest, we have the basic problem that defense is much harder than offense. Also, the US seems to be far more vulnerable than most.

Those aside, offensive capabilities are needed. It's just a question of balancing them against defensive capabilities. I know firsthand that significant effort is going into defense, it just doesn't get the press that offensive capabilities do.

<comment><USER7> Their desire for a government accessible backdoor in everything consumers own says something different.

<comment><USER8> Yes, some of the top-level political efforts are pretty damn ugly... and likely to backfire.

Those shouldn't be mistaken for the whole of ongoing defensive efforts, though. Many of the others are much more practical.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Step 1: Stop saying "cyber"

<comment><USER10> What's wrong with "cyber"? - does it not relate to computers?

<comment><USER11> I thought cyber meant systems, like cybernetics.

<comment><USER12> Cyber means to steer and cybernetics is self-steering systems based on feedback and goes back to Norbert Wiener in the the 1940s.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If the NSA hadn't been systematically weakening encryption and security processes, maybe we wouldn't be quite so vulnerable!

</comment><comment><USER14> So with all the attention (advertisement/panic) the NSA has generated, the CIA wants a cut of the cake for themselves?

That whole agency disco in the US is so confusing that I have the feeling this has to be the plan all the way or it's some kind of old cold war virus spawning divisions and agencies. Don't they all overlap? Is there enough reality for all of them to spy on?

<comment><USER15> The NSA is primarily charged with Signals Intelligence, Where as the CIA is Human Intelligence. So it's actually a pretty clear line. They also have their own security clearance process (though they tend to recognize each others in join work).

The Department of Homeland security is a bit different, they're charged with domestic operations and support (TSA).

The FBI is a Domestic Detective agency for lack of a better description. They're charged with being the Federal investigative force vs relying on varying state and city groups.

So yes, theres plenty for all of them to spy on / work on. Each have their own laws and limitations. That's why they're incestuous and work together on many projects.

<comment><USER16> Add to this list the Secret Service for financial fraud related things (as well as protecting government officials), including credit card fraud, phone fraud (at least in the 80s), and the odd whatever-the-hell-we-feel-like-doing fear-based thing (e.g., Steve Jackson Games).

Rule of thumb: If something contains the word 'Cyber' in it, it's gonna be clueless, bureaucratic and political, and utterly incompetently done.

<comment><USER17> >Rule of thumb: If something contains the word 'Cyber' in it, it's gonna be clueless, bureaucratic and political, and utterly incompetently done.

Yet somehow Chinese and Russian cyberwar programs are pretty effective. Sounds like the US needs to catch up.

<comment><USER18> _Yet somehow Chinese and Russian cyberwar programs are pretty effective._

1\. That vaunted "effectiveness" may be Just Another Missile Gap, i.e. a realistically non-existent threat used to drum up fear in the USA, to get greater funding from a terrorized public.

2\. Lots of analysts say that both China and Russia tolerate unofficial hacking/cyberwar groups, as long as the targets are outside of China and Russia respectively. With some small amount of guidance done surreptitiously, the governments take advantage of a huge number of semi-criminals to serve "national security" needs without attribution.

3\. Because of (2), ISO-9001, CMM level N don't apply. Faster coding. Similarly, Script Kiddies, Honkers and Nationalist Hackers don't do clearances, much less compartmentalized projects ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_clearance#Compartmente...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_clearance#Compartmented)) - this means that more people are available, from very diverse backgrounds, and they can collaborate and communicate as necessary.

Unless the USA is willing to quit being bureaucratic to the point of paralysis, it will never catch up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> "They will not, he said, work on behalf its corporate interests"

Unless it's the RIAA, MPAA, MAFIAA or American Oil Interests... in which case, it's business as usual.

<comment><USER20> At least in the RIAA and MPAA cases, aren't the feds just enforcing piracy laws that are on the books?

I mean we can argue that RIAA/MPAA were the ones who got them into the books in the first place, but it's not like corporations can approach the CIA to perform economic espionage, despite what some may think.

<comment><USER7> The way they handled the MEGA thing it sure seemed like they were acting as mere hired guns.

<comment><USER19> I imagine it was less like them acting as hired guns and more like _" someone"_ convincing them that if they didn't act they'd look like idiots who have no power to uphold "the law."... the end game is the same, but the politics that got it there were a lot muddier I'm sure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Sounds like they're jealous that the NSA gets all the cool toys and they want to play too.</comment>


Ask HN: Do you feel a need for reviewmyidea.com? - <AUTHOR>

There are lot's of ideas flying in the air, do you need a feel of a service that will help you to get a feedback on your idea before diving in? <comment><USER2> Sounds like a good idea in principle, but what would prevent it from becoming "stealmyidea.com"?

<comment><USER3> Ideas are rarely unique anymore. The real question is can you turn a profit? If yes, what hurtles are in place that stopped other people from already doing it? If this site helps gauge the business impact of an idea, great. Sharing the solutions to implement the idea, well that would be silly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> CambrianHouse did this for a while and had a very vibrant community. They shut down and became VenCorps because they felt like nothing was actually getting accomplished.</comment>


Show HN: Flask-Dance - Easy OAuth with Flask - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/singingwolfboy/flask-dance

<comment><USER2> This is nice. Also see [1], which implements Oauth provider.

I have yet to find a solution that makes it easy to implement a "two-legged oauth" provider with Flask, e.g. one where the user does not need to authorize a token, like in the case of using oauth in your company's own apps.

[1] [https://github.com/lepture/flask- oauthlib](https://github.com/lepture/flask-oauthlib)</comment>