Time to fork the FSF - <AUTHOR> http://larrythefreesoftwareguy.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/time-to-fork-the-fsf/ <comment><USER3> I don't get it, personally. Yes, Stallman's a loon - although as an aside I think that every good movement needs its loons. Who's going to say "you know what? I believe in Free Software so much that I will use nothing else, and publicly and harshly declare that anyone doing otherwise is a moron and a traitor to the future of humanity"? Anyone who is willing to sacrifice the usefulness of the last 30 years of proprietary tech to make a point has to be a bit barmy. But who else will make that point? All progress depends on unreasonable men.

And I agree that it would be helpful to have a moderate voice in Free Software. I use a Mac - sorry, it's really nice to use and I code a lot. I like my Kindle - sorry, it's better than the others and I read a lot. I live and work with proprietary software, but I believe in Free Software too. WebKit is popular because of Apple and Google. OS X is the most popular BSD, and the most popular consumer Unix. Non-free and free can and have worked together to mutual benefit. Is there anyone out there who can help me walk that line? If Larry is proposing to make that organisation, I would welcome it with open arms.

But what of this Jobs nonsense? Are we so timid and flammable that we can't handle a complex opinion that we don't agree with? Can you not accept that Jobs was a great leader who didn't deserve to die, but that he left a scary, proprietary footprint all over the mobile and tablet space? "I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad he's gone." is an opinion I don't agree with, but I don't think it's ludicrous, tactless and heartless.

Not everyone has to respect the things I respect, and feelings don't suddenly trump debate because of death. Jobs is one of the hacker community's sacred cows, and we wouldn't accept this level of sanctification on any other topic. I'm sure when Bill Gates or the Dalai Lama dies, there will be posts saying "let's not forget that Windows Vista was awful and religion is the other opiate of Tibet" Will they cause the same outcry?

<comment><USER4> The issue is not at all with his opinion. It is that he expressed it in a horrendously, gratuitously crass and offensive way. Here is a transliteration into humane language of what he said:

"My heart goes out to Steve Jobs' family in their time of grief. And my heart also goes to the millions of people who looked up to him as an icon and inspiration. But we need to not get so carried away honoring the dead that we forget the damage that Jobs' work had on the Free Software movement.

His pioneered the software walled garden, which destroys freedom and choice. And he targeted it at people who would not understand what they were sacrificing by giving up their freedoms.

We can only hope that his successors make Apple a more free company, or failing that, are not as effective at spreading it as he was."

Wasn't that better? And it communicated substantively the same thing, but without all the name calling and the seeming glee over the death of another human.

Disclaimer: I typed this on my Macbook Air.

Edit: One more thing to add. Saying "I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad he's gone" is tripe. Being gone is a euphemism for being dead. The reason we mourn when a loved one dies is _precisely because_ that means they are gone.

Maybe RMS sees a subtle distinction between death and gone-ness in his head. But I promise you that people in grief see absolutely no distinction between the death _and the loss_ of the person they mourn.

<comment><USER5> >horrendously, gratuitously crass and offensive way.

And?

It's rms. He's the biggest nerd in the world. Nerds are expected to be horrendously, gratuitously crass, offensive and insensitive of people's emotions.

This is like being mad that the sky is blue. Pointless outrage.

<comment><USER6> It's not outrage at Stallman's comments, but asking whether someone who is horrendously, gratuitously crass, offensive and insensitive of people's emotions should be "cheerleading" free software.

See also RMS's disappointment at the developer busy with a new child - <USER2> here (<http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/36137>)

His inability to understand people is distracting from the aims of FSF.

<comment><USER7> Indeed:

>It doesn't take special talents to reproduce--even plants can do it. On the other hand, contributing to a program like Emacs takes real skill.

<comment><USER6> That wasn't the first time RMS had said something like that, but to say it to a fellow dev, when you're asking that person to fix someone else's bug, seems particularly unaware.

For sure, Asperger's or Autism explains it, but doesn't make it much easier to deal with.

<comment><USER8> It's black humour.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I tweeted earlier that I see RMS as the Fred Phelps (Westboro Baptist Church) of Free Software. He may not have started out this way; but these days he's completely single issue. If you're not doing free software 100% his way; you not only disagree with him but you are actually evil. Not just free software; but free software as RMS defines it(see GNU/Linux) or you're wrong. He's so blinded by his own zealotry that I'd argue that beyond the inner, hard-core "free software circle, he's seen as much of an embarrassment to the notion of free software as Phelps and Westboro are likely seen by other Christians.

I've felt this way a long time about RMS; his comment about Steve Jobs's death was uncalled for--but it really was well-within character. Just like Phelps and Westboro are expected to show up at soldier's funerals to protest, we've come to expect this type of shit from RMS--and I agree with the OP that it's time to stop just accepting it.

[Edit] I want to state that RMS, like everyone, is fully entitled to his opinion and that opinion carries no more or less weight than my own. Moreover, you're completely entitled to agree with him. What I do have a problem with is what the OP described: he doesn't belong at the head of a major organization, nor does he belong at the apex of the free software movement. Beyond my earlier described "inner circle," in the past several years, he's done more to tarnish the image of the free software community than to help it.

<comment><USER10> While I don't always agree with RMS, I think he truly believes everything he says.

I don't think the same of Fred Phelps. I long ago reached the conclusion that he tries to say the most inflammatory thing possible wether he really believes it or not. I have no idea why, but I believe he has some other agenda than just the condemnation of homosexuality.

I've even almost seriously entertained the idea that he is a closet extreme atheist out to discredit theists.

<comment><USER11> Some think he's just a novel con-artist:

1\. [http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence- files/gro...](http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence- files/groups/westboro-baptist-church)

2\. <http://kanewj.com/wbc/>

Looks like it equates to fairly decent take-home pay given that he probably works far less than the 2080 full time hours a year for it.

And remember, it's a church, so it's all tax free.

<comment><USER12> I would say that a very significant contingent of Protestant church men are in it for the money. We shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that they're all sincere -- cons often come with a generous helping of scriptural glaze.

<comment><USER13> Unless you're working a seriously crazy angle like Phelps, there's generally more money to be made outside the church than within it. I think most people who have devoted their lives to a church are either sincere, or they started out sincere and started working an angle after becoming disillusioned.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> OS X would not be possible without RMS.

You have to remember that Stallman was around before Jobs' day -- he was performing real work at MIT when Apple was initially conceptualized. Stallman therefore is apparently less vulnerable to the reality distortion field and does not unduly offer oblations to a guy who was obsessed with shininess at the expense of hacker culture. Jobs went to lengths on many products to prevent tinkering in an age when computing was still very open and very academic, because Jobs didn't want any little peons messing up his perfect devices. Hence Stallman's quip that Jobs made computers as a jail cool.

If you think about this statement from Stallman's perspective it really makes a lot of sense, and I think it is ridiculous that the Steve Jobs hero worship pervades so deeply as to not recognize that Jobs _was_ a control freak even after Apple products were sold and in the possession of customers, and that some people, particular contemporaries of Stallman's stripe, may not have been fond of that. I doubt that the release of the iPhone really did much to persuade that set of people.

<comment><USER14> This isn't about OS X. This is about Stallman being effective as the leader of the FSF, which apparently he feels entitles him to say any damn thing he wants, regardless of how tasteless it is. That's not the mark of a leader.

That's the mark of a self-inflated ass.

<comment><USER12> I didn't find it tasteless. Is it really such a criminal thing to say that you are glad Jobs's influence is gone? Can't reasonable people disagree on that point?

People totally go overboard wrt Steve Jobs, as they do his company, Apple. RMS comes from a time when computers were generally open for tinkering, and Apple strove to make its products impenetrable lest Jobs' pain-stakingly "perfected" designs be gaudied up by consumers. From the original Mac which didn't have expansion slots to today's iDevices that don't allow the consumer to do so much as change the battery, Apple has a long history of tight lock down.

Do you not see how an old-school hacker could be disgruntled by that philosophy? The beliefs and experience of that group runs deep enough that they are not hoodwinked into deifying Steve Jobs because the iMac is the sleekest desktop computer around.

<comment><USER15> I don't think it was anywhere near offensive, but once people start loudly complaining about how offended they are, the conversation inevitably focuses on their feelings instead of our freedoms.

In the end, they _will_ win. Either RMS will tone down to focus on the "real" stuff, or he won't, and his influence will wane in favor of more widely- acceptable voices. In this as in many other parts of life, watered-down moderates will be the only ones able to maintain relevance, and uncompromising advocates will be marginalized.

It's just how humans are.

<comment><USER16> So Steve Jobs was a watered-down moderate?

<comment><USER15> No - my point is that RMS isn't.

<comment><USER16> I should have been clearer. If it's inevitable that the influence of someone like RMS will wane because he's an uncompromising advocate, doesn't that suggest that Steve Jobs' influence would have waned as well?

My point is that someone's relevance depends on much more than if a majority of people find their views acceptable. Steve Jobs oversaw products that people loved by uncompromisingly advocating improvements on the status quo in design, while RMS uncompromisingly advocates something that, for many people in the world's present state, is impractical.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Go ahead... fork it. Then what happens?

Will you travel the world tirelessly promoting free software, speaking at universities and other events for very little money?

Will you maintain a job board, mailing list, hardware database, software directory, year after year?

Will you find lawyers to donate hundreds of hours to write and revise licenses?

Will you hire lobbyists to fight software patents?

Will you tirelessly fight the RIAA, day after day?

When you've done all these things, sign me up.

<comment><USER18> And never mind code. This basher is a complete nobody who seems to profit from open source more than contribute. It's not like the heads of several major FSF projects are banding a revolt.

The sinister anti-Stallman/GNU sentiment on HN is reaching incredibly high levels. Luckily it's mostly nobodies like this big mouth bozo.

<comment><USER19> While you do have a point, I disagree strongly with the way you've expressed it. There is no need for name-calling and personal attacks on this board.

Calling someone a "nobody" and a "big mouth bozo" is uncalled for.

<comment><USER18> He is extremely agressive and out of place, calling for a split on a major organization he didn't help in any meaningful way and feeding the hate [sentiments of a particular faction of _users_ ] against it. Also,

      > I'm really tired of having to make excuses for Stallman
      > when he goes off half-cocked like this, which is why I'm
      > no longer a FSF member.

<comment><USER20> > He is extremely agressive and out of place, calling for a split on a major > organization he didn't help in any meaningful way

He was a member, and while his member number (5030) isn't low enough to argue that he helped found the movement, he did explain that he has advocated on behalf of the FSF for quite some time. I too think his post was a step too far in the wrong direction, but saying that regular supporters of the FSF, long time contributors and everyday members don't "help in any meaningful way" to the FSF is a tad bit disingenuous.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> RMS has the FSF and Defective By Design sites as soapboxes if he wished to gain more attention from Jobs's death. This was a post on his political notes page. He did nothing to publicize it.

He didn't post to aggregators or tweet to ask for upvotes (technically it was posted on his Identi.ca account which is linked to his political notes feed, but it got no special treatment).

If some major sites hadn't picked up on it and provided the publicity, most readers would never know. So RMS wrote a politically incorrect opinion on his personal page. Can we move on now?

<comment><USER22> Hey, you seem to be as clueless about communication as he is.

<comment><USER23> What an excellent way to make your point: with an ad hominem attack!

<comment><USER22> I think I'm justified in saying that someone is clueless about communication if that person honestly believes that a statement by a very public spokesperson in any public place – no matter how obscure – will or should remain obscure.

That's not how communication works. Sorry.

I thought that was sort of implied by my comment, no need to explicitly say it, because it's so damn obvious. But I'm sorry if you though that my comment was nothing but an attack.

<comment><USER23> I understood what you meant, I just found it ironic in the extreme that you chose to complain about poor communication by genuinely using poor communication, especially given the context of the thread.

You've been commenting that Stallman should have deported himself better, and yet you break out with a comment like that yourself.

<comment><USER22> My argument doesn't require me to lead by example. I'm some random commenter.

And since you understood me perfectly well there doesn't seem to be a problem in this specific case.

<comment><USER23> Understanding you perfectly well isn't the issue at point, it's the manner of how you present yourself - witness all the crap in this thread about RMS from those people who now accept that he didn't wish Jobs dead, but still say he should have been more polite about it. You don't have much of a credible leg to stand on if you don't engage in that which you request of others.

Edit: changed 'moral' to 'credible' to avoid semantic bickering about the loaded word.

<comment><USER22> Morals? I think I have been talking squarely about effective communication, not morals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Crass and insensitive but in line with everything I've ever heard him profess to believe. He's never strayed from his goal in making great software available to millions of people around the world, and he's never given a shit why it shouldn't or couldn't be done his way...damn, that sounds familiar.

<comment><USER25> Yes, but RMS is simply wrong, here. Jobs has put great software into more hands than RMS ever did. Jobs might well have (indirectly) had an even more positive influence on FOSS by spreading BSD.

(I'm not saying that there isn't a ton of FOSS out there in lots of hands -- but RMS isn't responsible for its being there in the same way Jobs is responsible. Jobs is responsible for the iPhone. RMS _isn't_ responsible for Android.)

<comment><USER26> _Jobs has put great software into more hands than RMS ever did._

You do realize that Apple has been dependent on GCC to build its products for most of Jobs' second tenure, don't you? Some of that is code that RMS personally wrote.

The GPL license that, again, RMS personally wrote covers the kernel of the Android system. "Great software" that's in "more hands" than Jobs' devices.

Jobs was a slick businessman like Gates. RMS wrote fucking GCC.

Guess who's contribution I value more.

<comment><USER25> That RMS wrote the GPL, or extended LLNL's Pastel compiler into GCC, does not endow him with responsibility for the success of all free software. Do you _really_ think, given the influence of academia, that there would be no FOSS- equivalent compiler available but for RMS's efforts?

Jobs _is_ responsible for Apple's success. For repeatedly creating devices that have disrupted industries. RMS deserves credit for his contributions, but it is not all-thanks-to-him that we have FOSS.

Yes Apple's software has been closed. But has this been at the expense of FOSS, as RMS claims?

Has Apple actively tried to subvert the GPL by lobbying governments to avoid FOSS? Has Jobs publicly whined about the GPL? Has he engaged in OOXML-esque bad-faith efforts to keep data formats proprietary?

<comment><USER18> Keep moving the point of the conversation to fit your anti-Stallman flaming.

<comment><USER25> The point was that RMS is wrong when he asserts[1] that Apple and Jobs have hurt the development of free software.

[1] RMS: " _we all deserve the end of Jobs' malign influence on people's computing_ "

<comment><USER26> My understanding is that Apple restricts the applications that it "allows" to run on users' iOS devices to the point that programming language interpreters were effectively banned until about a year ago, now they're merely severely restricted. Users of iOS devices are effectively prevented from running GPL apps because of the restrictions Apple is putting on other peoples' code on users' devices.

It's not just against the development of Stallman's brand of Free Software.

It's an attack on _all_ software developers.

<comment><USER27>
      > It's an attack on all software developers.

I am a software developer and I don't think I am under any attack. Heck they gave me one more platform to develop for. And there is lots of open source code written for it already.

<comment><USER28> Stockholm syndrome.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> so... it's perfectly ok to publish tons of linkbaits about 'how steve jobs changed my life' even if they are vague and repetitive boring opinions, but nobody can state his negative views on this occasion. gimme a break. death is sad, but it's good that there are people who had decided to stay out of this bubble.

<comment><USER30> Here, I'll let someone with much more eloquence than me explain to you why Stallman's diatribe is poorly wrought.

 _If Stallman had to make a statement emphasizing his dislike of Jobs' influence, he could still have done so respectfully. Consider this; "I didn't share Steve Jobs' vision of computing, and I wish he'd chosen to embrace free software. I'm very sorry that he's gone and we've lost the opportunity to have that conversation. My sympathies are with his family at this time." There's no need to pretend that Stallman liked Jobs, but his post is contemptible._

[http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2011/10/why-fsf- found...](http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2011/10/why-fsf-founder- richard-stallm.php)

<comment><USER31> It _was_ posted on his personal "politics" mini-blog, which consists of basically _nothing but_ 2-3-line annoyed and not very nuanced statements on various topics. People who read it expect what they get there, and most people don't read it. Here's an example the quality of political cartoons you can also expect...: <http://stallman.org/images/cartoon-6.jpg>

As can be seen from the Update to that linked article, I think a big part of the problem is that these Web 2.0 "journalists" don't read, so in a game of telephone it's been turned into "FSF head Richard Stallman issues press release saying Jobs sux". If we're going to do that, you could manufacture about 300 scandals from his blog; "FSF head Richard Stallman equates U.S. President to Saddam Hussein!", etc.

Maybe it's still contemptible as it stands, but I think people are either missing or deliberately ignoring the context when evaluating it. I take his "politics" ticker as closer to an IRC chat than a place for carefully thought out statements (that's what his Essays are for). I _like_ that in geek culture we don't have this weird demand for people to be 24/7 ensconced in a professional PR-oriented persona, like a CEO or politician, but allow people like RMS, ESR, and Theo de Raadt to have crazy personal opinions. (Heck, Jobs had some pretty offensive and harmful opinions about science and alternative medicine, and we allowed that.)

Honestly I'm more offended by this level of shameless profiteering with Steve- Jobs-death linkbait. Huffington Post, for example, shat out _188 separate_ Steve-Jobs-death posts within 24 hours: [http://exploreto.tumblr.com/post/11114571981/huffingtonpost-...](http://exploreto.tumblr.com/post/11114571981/huffingtonpost- com-188-articles-on-steve-jobs-death)

<comment><USER32> Stallman has made himself a public figure, and is a spokesman. Even on a "personal" blog, he has a responsibility to be tactful and not to make angry, hurtful, and unnecessary comments.

<comment><USER31> I guess that's an idea I fundamentally disagree with, and even find a bit offensive. As I said above:

 _I like that in geek culture we don't have this weird demand for people to be 24/7 ensconced in a professional PR-oriented persona, like a CEO or politician..._

If people are pulling things out of a personal blog and broadcasting it across the web in sensational terms, I blame the yellow journalists more than him. I might still disagree with him, but I don't blame him out of context of his blog, as some kind of always-on spokesperson.

Plus, it's not like he hasn't telegraphed, _for almost 30 years_ , that he doesn't plan to be that kind of PR-oriented spokesperson, so one can hardly be shocked about it in 2011.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> loup-vaillant This is a common pattern: (i) someone famous dies, (ii) someone else says something bad about that celebrity, (iii) everyone else is scandalized. Thou shalt not bash the dead.

Now, I don't think Stallman's lines were _gratuitously_ offensive. He was merely clear and concise. He spent no word on niceness, but he spent no word on rudeness either. And by the way, he is factually correct: Jobs _was_ "the pioneer of the computer as a jail made cool, designed [among other things] to sever fools from their freedom" (or, if not _the_ pioneer, at least the most effective apologist).

Now should he have just shut up? Probably not. Every one now is praising Jobs, and that may trigger even more sales for the iPhone and the iPad. Praise Jobs, and soon you will praise Apple's most locked down products. At least a word of caution is needed.

Now I do understand that Stallman knows next to nothing about how not to trigger bad feelings. I do understand that he should work on that. But please, don't be offended by something that most probably wasn't intended to be offensive.

</comment><comment><USER33> Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The trouble-makers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently.

They're not fond of rules, and they have no respect for the status-quo.

You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify, or vilify them.

About the only thing you can't do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward.

And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world - are the ones who do!

<comment><USER32> Note that this does not begin, "Here's the the assholes, the heartless, the tactless, the people who think they are above the rest of humankind, who always know better than everyone else, who must teach us how to think."

RMS has done some admirable things, but he's in dire need of some mental help. Seriously.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> What Stallman said is just, analytically speaking:

1) I don't like when people die.

2) But this happened to Steve Jobs, unfortunately.

3) However from my point of view he was doing so much damage to the world of software that this is a good thing. Not the fact he died but the fact that we no longer have his influence.

Note: I don't agree. But I don't think it should be a problem to say the above.

It is like if you are the leader of a movement against the practice of killing whales, and there is one guy that kills 100,000 whales every year. If he dies you can legitimately say: "I'm sorry he died, but this is a good thing for whales".

He used the wrong words, the wrong time, and so forth, but the concept is nothing of extraordinary from his point of view. It is important to have the freedom of saying what we want.

<comment><USER35> Nobody wants to take this freedom away, but it hurts the cause he is supposed to advance, and that's what the posting is saying.

I can't see how mentioning human life and software licensing in the same sentence is ever a good idea if there is a chance that interested non-nerds are reading up on your ideals.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Wait, isn't there a whole stack of organisations that support FLOSS or the same sort of values as openness that the FSF support other than the FSF already?

Off the top of my head: Apache Software Foundation, OSI, GNOME Foundation, Linux Foundation, Mozilla Foundation, Python Software Foundation, Open Knowledge Foundation, Software Freedom Law Center, Software in the Public Interest, Wikimedia Foundation.

If you feel like you want to throw money, power or sexual favours to the open source community, there are plenty of ways to do it that don't involve RMS or the FSF. Or you could just find some free/open source script or app or library you use and like and chuck the creator $20 and a nice email saying "I really like your code, go buy yourself a pizza and a beer on me".

</comment><comment><USER37> I fully understand this Larry, and think FSF would have been doing much better if there was someone else at its cockpit.

RMS is a fanatic about free software, like ultra religious people are to their religion.

For instance, for me, being free, means, at first and above all, being free to choose. Being able to install _proprietary nVidia driver_ which does not crash my linux box every half a day, and have this driver built and available for me in my linux distro repository.

Years ago, RMS was a guest of honor in IBM Tel Aviv. These were the days, Linux was something left-field, obscure, that no one wanted to know or hear about it. There were hundreds of developers in the hall who came to hear about the "Gnu/Linux thing" from the Freedom Guru.

All of a sudden, in the middle of his lecture, out of any imaginable context, RMS took of his left shoe, and then the sack, and start rubbing his toes with his fingers while preaching about free software.

Yes, imagine that, a man is playing with his barefoot on a stage, would you remember anything he said? Would you listen to anything he has to say? Or would your brain being busy understanding and categorizing the extraordinary show you are in?

(Those were not the days of youtube and smartphone, I bet if that would have been happening these days, this was the most viewed video on youtube amongst hackers.)

It is sad, but successful open source project does not seemed to get along with RMS at all, see Ubuntu/Canonical as a good example.

</comment><comment><USER38> I agree with this comment by "tom robinson" in the blog post:

 _To those saying you agree with what RMS wrote: that's fine, but irrelevant. As a spokesman for FSF he shouldn't be pandering to his already devout followers, he should be trying to convince others that the ideals of the FSF are worth pursuing, and he's been doing an absolutely TERRIBLE job of that lately.

Silly campaigns of immature puns, lashing out at people who don't say "GNU/Linux", insulting a recently deceased man who much of the world admires, and making otherwise inappropriate remarks on a regular basis is an excellent way to alienate the people you're trying to win over.

How have these tactics been working out for FSF? I don't have stats, but anecdotally most new open source projects I come across have rejected the GPL licenses for BSD, MIT, Apache, etc.

Now imagine what FSF could accomplish if they had a spokesman with the skills of Steve Jobs_

</comment><comment><USER39> I'm sorry, but - what a nutcase. Silently accepts Stallman's years of nasty comments, cynical attitudes, world-wide conspiracy theories and downright condescension all through. Then Stallman says something unfriendly about god^H^H^H Jobs, and he resigns. Oh, come on.

</comment><comment><USER40> I think RMS's statement is completely misinterpreted. Don't forget the first part of the sentence: "I'm not glad he's dead", which literally means RMS is _not_ glad that Jobs died!

"I'm glad he's gone" is only a complaint towards Jobs' influence on personal computing. You may disagree with RMS (I certainly do), and it is certainly an inappropriate comment to make at this time, but this is nothing to make a drama of RMS' comment... Geez people!

</comment><comment><USER41> All you really need to do is consider what Steve Jobs would have said about RMS if he were still here when RMS is no longer. At worst, he'd say nothing, at best, he'd say something that would have touched you and made you think deeply about what the two men had in common despite their deep differences.

<comment><USER12> I upvoted this, but meant to downvote it.

<comment><USER42> I upvoted you to encourage you to tell us why you downvoted it.

<comment><USER12> I downvoted it because it's incredibly presumptive. OP posits that "at worst, [Jobs] would have said nothing..." apparently on nothing but his assumption that Steve Jobs would never do a controversial thing, or a thing that the OP thought was tasteless.

Unless OP is a close friend of Steve Jobs and knew him well on a personal level, this is completely baseless speculation based on OP's general good feelings for Apple and the assumption that because Apple products make him feel good, Steve Jobs would never say something rude after a colleague died.

None of these people know Jobs and yet they assume he's some super great dude. Making such assumptions about the CEO's personal character based on your affinity for the products of that CEO's company is very juvenile, yet it's irritatingly common.

<comment><USER41> Its not hard to imagine that Jobs would react much the way most of his own rivals have reacted, the way normal decent human beings do, with class and respect. My post was less about guessing something about Steve Jobs's character and more about letting readers reflect upon just how abnormal and deranged RMS's comments are compared to any others.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> As I said already, today's hacker culture is crippled. So called "hackers" here have lost their principles, forgotten the value of freedom, worship the wrong idols. How come an entrepreneur be a hero much more important than any of the researchers who pioneered the modern computer technology? How can the man who worked against the values and principles of the hacker ethic be an idol for so many hackers? There is no real hacker community here on HN, only a flock of spineless ship.

<comment><USER28> The title "Hacker News" is a lure designed to draw more people in. It would be best if this place went back to it's old and far more honest name "Startup News".

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> After reading this, all I can say is that some people are too sensitive.

<comment><USER45> Or are opportunistic assholes who capitalize on any occasion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I'm aware of Stallman's advocacy on free software issues, but (completely honest question), what else does the Free Software Foundation _do_ ?

Software is at a point where its basically impossible to make anything useful _without_ opensource software. Proprietary code is a minority in my stack both as a developer and as a user. Proprietary software is often good before opensource software is good, but consistently opensource implementations eventually outpace their proprietary counterparts. We saw this trend first with UNIX -> Linux. Today, just reading this webpage I'm using Chrome (Chromium + WebKit) which communicates via POSIX to the BSD network stack in my kernel (Darwin). The browser has been compiled with either GCC or LLVM. Hackernews is probably hosted on nginx / apache behind varnish or something, running on linux.

In short, I feel like the opensource movement has already won. Aside from RMS's crusade against software patents, how is the FSF still relevant?

<comment><USER47> They've won that battle, but not the war. Servers, databases, frameworks, languages, etc are often open source, but the majority of applications are not.

<comment><USER48> That's the problem, you're the problem if you refuse to accept that the best solution is going to be the freedom for people to sell commercial closed software as well as use open software. The idea that this is a war is exactly why RMS is wrong. The idea that we must win it and we must make everyone use the new hot open license is wrong.

The idea should be to encourage people to use open licenses, and to promote the good of open licenses, not declare war on everything and become some bitter asshole neckbeard when you see guys like Jobs doing well with a slightly different approach.

The FSF doesn't do much. They're little more than negative campaigners "Windows 7 Sins" etc. I'm not sure what its purpose or real world effect is other than to scare middle management from FOSS as much as possible. Stick vs Carrot. FSF is all stick and people have noticed.

<comment><USER49> > the best solution is going to be the freedom for people to sell commercial > closed software as well as use open software.

The "freedom" you're describing involves government-granted monopolies enforced by pervasive surveillance, unannounced office raids to audit licenses, serial numbers to ensure trackability of all CD-R media, and prosecution of people for disabling malicious software running on their own computers. Certainly it's a kind of freedom; but can't we do better?

Stallman had a slightly different viewpoint about that "freedom":

The "freedom to choose a license" which denies others essential freedoms is not really a freedom. It is a form of power, of domination over others. Your description makes it sound like a matter of individual freedom by obscuring the presence of the others in the situation.

The GPL is designed to protect the essential freedoms for everyone, by denying anyone the power to take them away.

(He wrote that in 1999, but I imagine he still feels the same way.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Although Stallman didn't use a great deal of tact in his statement I agree with his concern overall. Software should serve the user in accordance with the ideal of individual empowerment with technology and not become a sort of jail controlled by a central authority that you have to struggle to break out of. The problem of impersonal computing is by no means isolated to Apple though.

<comment><USER51> _Although Stallman didn't use a great deal of tact in his statement I agree with his concern overall_.

That seems oddly similar to my tl;dr from the article: "Although I agree with his concern overall, Stallman didn't use a great deal of tact in his statement".

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Emacs Virgin thing: [http://opensourcetogo.blogspot.com/2009/07/emailing- richard-...](http://opensourcetogo.blogspot.com/2009/07/emailing-richard- stallman.html)

<comment><USER53> This is the first I've heard of this incident, and I find the comments on that post shocking. That so many people can take RMS's side on that issue is appalling.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Stallman didn't say he's glad Steve Jobs died. I understand he's glad that Steve's influence on computing stop, as that influence is driving computing in a closed ecosystem.

You can take it in a non-emotional way. A is, in your opinion, a bad thing. If A stops, you're glad. If A stops because of a sad B event, you can be both glad for A to end, and sad for B to occur.

</comment><comment><USER55> This is kind of like wanting a "toned down" PETA. People don't devote their lives to marginalized causes without either having or picking up a twinge of zealotry. If you want those people to stand up for causes you mutually believe in, you have to take the bad with the good.

RMS might not be the best possible Free Software advocate, but I'm glad someone's doing it, and nobody else seems to be volunteering for the job.

<comment><USER56> > This is kind of like wanting a "toned down" PETA.

Is that so horrible a thing? It seems to me groups like the Humane Society have done a lot more for animal welfare than PETA.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> If you want an advocacy organization with a better ear for public sensibilities and business, that's what the Open Source Initiative was designed for, wasn't it? Why not join them instead of starting yet another organization?

<comment><USER57> No. OSI was Eric's attempt to hijack the work of RMS. Eric is no better than, and in many ways, much worse than, RMS.

<comment><USER49> That's more or less how Stallman saw it, but the other dozen or so free- software luminaries that Raymond brought onboard from the beginning didn't see it that way. Stallman was literally the only one on the original Cc: list that opposed the new "open source" movement.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> I won't say I am supporting RMS or not. Actually I think Jobs was a man with great talent, but I don't like him. I think most of you overreacted on "I'm not glad he's dead, I'm glad he's gone". RMS expressed clearly that he don't agree with the achievements that Jobs reached in his short life. This is a personal opinion. You can't force everyone to agree with what Jobs has done. After all RMS said "I'm not glad he's gone." That's enough. I think there is nothing to argue for.

</comment><comment><USER59> While most of the commenters here discuss what Stallman said and what he actualy meant, whether it was distasteful or not, and whether Jobs was a modern day messiah who single-handedly changed the world we live in or just a smart business man with a very good sense of choosing the right people to create the products that he envisioned, I'd like to take a minute to think about what is actually proposed in this article - the forking of FSF. It's quite obvious from the article that the reason the author suggests something like that is not because his views on software freedom somehow differ than those of Stallman, but because he has issues with Stallman himself, or more precisely, with his publicly expressed opinions. He feels that they hurt FSF and free software in general. Isn't then the solution to the problem to, through some electoral process, replace Stallman and put a new figure at the head of FSF? Somebody more tactful, more careful about how they say what they mean (if that's truly the kind of a person memebers of FSF would like to see in charge)? Starting a new foundation with exactly the same goals as FSF, just because you don't like Stallman's public statements, seems pointless to me.

</comment><comment><USER60> RMS and Jobs seem very similar to me. Both were monomaniacal perfectionists. Both were undiplomatic and unwilling to compromise or cater to unbelievers.

</comment><comment><USER61> I have never heard of Larry, so my guess would be: chance that Larry will found and lead the FFSF (Forked Free Software Foundation) = 0%

</comment><comment><USER62> Much worse will be written about RMS when he dies and many will applaud what is written, never mind their contributions to technology had the same scale of impact on society... It's all in the perspective.

</comment><comment><USER63> Oh, give it a rest already. rms was actually pretty tactful. Did people actually read what he wrote?

> Nobody deserves to have to die - not Jobs, not Mr. Bill, not even people > guilty of bigger evils than theirs. But we all deserve the end of Jobs' > malign influence on people's computing.

</comment><comment><USER64> I support open source on a pragmatic level as a way for people to share code so that they no longer have to "re-invent the wheel". Because of this I feel like it's petty and counter-productive for the FSF to refuse to share their "free" software with people because of the way that those people want to use the software. Truly free software should be released to the public without limitations on how and where it should be used.

To clarify: I know that my preferred model ignores the scummy/greedy tendencies of people to leech off work that others have done. However, I'd like for people to think of open source software as a gift given with no strings attached.

</comment><comment><USER65> In the marketplace of ideas Stallman has a simple remedy for his woes with Apple. Make better software than them.

Go on Richard, I dare you to.

<comment><USER66> He already does. The only difference in the perceived quality is the learning curve. Learn the *nix way and you will be enlightened. Learn the Apple way and you will remain ignorant (but have lots of time for shopping, cos math is so boring, right?).

<comment><USER27> Apple way? You mean the one where OS _is_ unix? The one which comes with perl, php, python, ruby, etc? The one which comes with fee Grapher app?

<comment><USER66> That's like saying that Android preaches the nix way because it runs a Linux kernel. This is obviously false since the interface presented to the user pushes a completely different way of working and thinking. Using any of the listed software requires knowing what you're doing. It's the same situation on Linux and Windows, you can install PHP or Python all the same and need the equivalent amount of knowledge to do so. If you seriously can't see the 'Apple way' then take another look at their whole business model, which is making things simple enough for people with little training to use. The nix way consists of understanding how the system works, which is in direct opposition to the Apple way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> So it's time to fork the FSF because this guy does not agree with one comment RMS did?

How is this not overreacting in the first place...

<comment><USER23> To be fair, the author does state it's a 'straw that broke the camel's back' scenario; the punctuation at the end of a long line of disliked behaviour, not just one comment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> Fuck you RMS. I have been and still am a staunch believer in open source, but when I read comments like this from the person who's motto once was that everybody writing software should contribute the source back to the community, not because it delivers better software (due to the more eyeballs resulting in fewer bugs), but because it results in moving software forward quickly by virtue of helping each other out, I agree with the OP, it's time for a change.

Let me tell you something, free software or not, it was Steve Jobs, who told us what forward direction for software actually means, first by making GUI mainstream, then by making capacitive touch mainstream, and lastly by defining what a tablet form factor should and should not be.

If you think Steve's products hamper your freedom, I can argue the exact opposite, it was Steve who taught us ways to make technology more accessible by making groundbreaking innovations in user interfaces, which enables the non geeks of the world to use computers in the first place, I am pretty sure those users will feel more trapped in the command line interface that you envisioned for them, than they feel by not having access to the source of the painting app they have fun playing with on their ipad.

So if you cannot come out the frog hole that you have created for yourself, and give credit where it's due, then maybe you should shut the fuck up.

<comment><USER6> >If you think Steve's products hamper your freedom

Try and explain how to boot a MacBookPro from USB stick to someone, and compare that to booting almost any other computer.

Or explain how to dual boot a Mac with OSX and Linux, vs anything else with Windows and Linux.

<comment><USER68> Try and explain how to restore a MacBook from back-ups over the phone to a frantic parent who's just lost their hard drive.

I did that. It took two minutes. It worked flawlessly.

Sometimes to gain more command over your technology you have to give up some theoretical freedom, but that's freedom you'd never have been able to exercise.

An F-16 pilot would find the controls in a typical car so disappointing. Where's the lever to adjust the fuel/air mixture? The GPS waypoints? The brake bias dial? The air pressure indicator? The temperature of the tires? All of these things are theoretically important to driving, but they're not of any concern to someone simply trying to get from point A to point B.

That's all most people using computers are trying to do.

<comment><USER6> Sure, there are a lot of important benefits to having firm design choices made by someone, rather than just not ever making the decision and cramming a million options into a multi-tab options dialog (or a config file). I own (and use every day) a mac. I've recommend mac to everyone I know, fo rthe reasons you mention.

But you can't have it both ways - not having those options available means you're not as free to use your machine as you are with other OSs. Trivial eg: OS X windowing behaves a certain way. You want to maximise a window? You can't, unless you know some secret trick. You want to tile windows? You can't, unless you install some 3rd party software. These aren't power-user functions.

<comment><USER68> Maximizing windows _a certain way_ and tiling windows is something only very few people need. You're presuming they're problems because you have expectations that the software behaves in ways that it does not.

People without any expectations do not have the same problems.

So many technical people see the "App Store" as something that limits choice. Consumers see it as freedom, since they are free to install anything they find without fear that it will wreck their system or actually be a trojan.

Just as you'd see using a wheel-chair as something that's severely limiting, the same thing for someone with no legs it's freedom to get around independently.

What Apple's products tend to do is trade one kind of freedom for another. They don't eliminate or reduce freedom, they transform the essential nature of it.

Some people might be justified in complaining about how it limits the freedom they need, but they're probably trying to use a product for a purpose it was not intended for.

<comment><USER69> > trying to use a product for a purpose it was not intended for

Good for them. Using things in novel unanticipated ways is toolmaking, quite literally what makes us human. I suspect people who surround themselves with appliances which resist tinkering are harming themselves through learned helplessness.

<comment><USER68> I respect hackers, yet I don't want to have to endure someone whinging about how their washing machine doesn't also do dishes like the 1920 model did.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> Many of the comments following that story are deranged, and I mean that in the strongest sense of the word. "Software extremists" like that really exist? There are people who honestly think Steve Jobs was evil? And most disturbingly, there are people who will flat out bash on the reputation of someone who so recently died? Wow. Just wow.

</comment><comment><USER71> RMS deserves praise for starting the Free Software movement, but he has been a liability to it for quite some time now. Leaders that start movements are not always fit to lead them when movements grow.

And before you protest — have you met the man in person? If you haven't, you won't understand.

</comment><comment><USER72> Relevant pg essay?

<http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html>

</comment><comment><USER73> Stallman & Jobs are both giant figures in the tech world to anyone who knows their history. I would also imagine that anyone who has followed Richard Stallman over the years would be surprised if he hadn't made a statement like this.

He is an outspoken & tireless champion of an incredibly worthy cause he believes is greater than himself (and c'mon, the guys hacking skills are legendary).

Steve Jobs was a uniquely amazing entrepreneur & visionary leader. His impact on the way people everywhere use technology is both profound & undeniable.

Both men are worthy of the deepest respect IMHO, even if their goals were in conflict.

</comment><comment><USER74> I agree with forking the FSF, but not just having someone whose nice is necessary. It needs to be led by someone who gives a damn about user experience. This is an issue with not all open source applications, but many. It is getting better, but I still prefer Windows or OS X to using Gnome, KDE. I've never needed to use any of the bundled software with Ubuntu (except the settings apps, gedit, and Firefox). It can't just be about open-source alternatives, because most people don't care if something is open or closed source, they care if it gets the job done well.

</comment><comment><USER75> Jobs loved what he did and believed in it. RMS certainly is same.

I respect Jobs for `the inspiration` while I respect RMS for what `he offered to the world`.

</comment><comment><USER49> Other related thread: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3085417>

</comment><comment><USER76> RMS is clearly on the autistic spectrum, probably far enough on it to be regarded as having a 'learning difficulty' in the rather twee PC UK-ism.

There is IMHO, an interesting litmus test where people who share his monomaniacal obsession, or think it 'reasonable', probably have the same issue.

<comment><USER6> UK (at least, England, I have no idea what Wales or Scotland do) "Learning disability" is related to IQ. Autism and Asperger's syndrome do sometimes lead to a "Special Educational Need" (SEN). This isn't just language; there's some access to medical services stuff involved.

<comment><USER76> Thanks for that correction.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> I've attended one of Stallman's talks and it was more of a comedy than anything else. I don't actually take him seriously, he did some great work in the past but the world has moved on.

</comment><comment><USER78> I'm so tired of political correctness and "sexism" posts. At times half of this site seems to consist of posts made by people offended by something.

</comment><comment><USER79> Didn't this fork happen quite some time ago? <http://www.opensource.org/> And for pretty much the exact same reasons being given now?

Although some of the people behind that are almost as embarrassing to be associated with as RMS.

</comment><comment><USER80> If it were RMS who had died, I wonder what Steve Jobs would have said.

</comment><comment><USER81> Stallman is a degenerate.

</comment><comment><USER82> At the risk of getting repetitive: I think rms was speaking strictly from a utilitarian perspective-- that is, Jobs' absence is overall a good thing for the FOSS movement (even though that might not actually be true, unless Cook is more committed to FOSS than Jobs). I can see how some find his statement tactless, but I'm not offended by it because Jobs was not an important person in my life. That doesn't mean that his life had no value, but his life wasn't more valuable to me than the life of any of the thousands of people who die every day from preventable causes. I honestly don't understand why so many people claim to be sad because Jobs is gone. Why did they feel so connected to a CEO? Steve Jobs was not your uncle. You have no rational reason to be upset over his death, and especially over what a coot like rms says about him. If you're upset enough to "fork the FSF" you're probably suffering from some illusory feeling of connectedness towards Jobs. I don't agree with a lot of what the FSF says, but one single comment made by one single guy is not going to make me turn my back on the whole organization. I will no longer be reading Larry's blog if he thinks this kind of flighty and ostentatious display of disapproval is warranted.

<comment><USER83> Strictly from an utilitarian perspective RMS should keep his big fat mouth shut when someone -especially somebody as popular as Jobs - dies.

<comment><USER82> I don't really think popularity is a reason to suppress rms' constitutional rights (he is a US citizen as far as I know), no matter how crazy or alienating his opinions are.

<comment><USER84> Come on, no one is saying he shouldn't have the right to express his opinion, just that he could have worded them in a way that didn't make people cringe.

<comment><USER82> Could you give an example of what he could have said to express the same idea at this time _without_ offending people?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> Best way to deal with extreme fundamentalists is to ignore them.

He's a joke.

</comment><comment><USER86> I have to flag this for being utterly asinine. If you're really a "free software guy", RMS's statement should not even partially raise an eyebrow.

</comment><comment><USER87> And today is the day /usr/bin/gcc changes from "deprecated" to "deleted". I'm glad something finally pushed me over that hump.

<http://clang.llvm.org/>

</comment><comment><USER88> In other news: Autistic Reporter: Train Thankfully Unharmed In Crash That Killed One Man

[http://www.theonion.com/video/autistic-reporter-train- thankf...](http://www.theonion.com/video/autistic-reporter-train-thankfully- unharmed-in-cra,20098/)

</comment><comment><USER89> I think RMS is doing perfect trolling to get more attention to his GNU/FSF/commie stuff.

The net effect is the people talking about RMS, about FSF and GNU. More people get to know about this stuff, more people get involved.

Just a little trolling replaces zillions of bucks spent on advertising, PR etc. Commies don't have money to pay, so they must troll.

\---

Just don't spread this hype and don't feed the troll.

<comment><USER90> > _GNU/FSF/commie stuff._

Bingo, you've just made some tasteless, insulting passing remark. Some sort of reverse-Godwin point. So much for not feeding the trolls.</comment></comment>


We know the real reason for the IBM takeover. For Red Hat to axe KDE - <AUTHOR> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/11/02/rhel_deprecates_kde/ <comment><USER2> "We _may_ know", submission title doesn't match article title, which is a much weaker statement than implied.</comment>


Ask HN: how do you tell the difference between tiredness and burnout? - <AUTHOR>

I can't tell the difference between feeling physically tired, i.e. too much exercise and thinking and not enough sleep over the past few days, vs. burnout. I don't think I'm burned out (super motivated these days), but I am getting tired more often from doing more, and I don't want to over-push it accidentally.<p>Thoughts? <comment><USER2> Try going to bed at 9 pm every night for a week. If it is tiredness the problem will be solved. If it is burnout I will bet that you will feel physically and mentally stronger and the burnout feeling may recede.

It is 9:20 pm. Good night. :-)

</comment><comment><USER3> Previous discussion on HN: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3260751>

</comment><comment><USER4> My only thought is that burnout is worthwhile avoiding at all costs.

</comment><comment><USER5> When you begin to wonder whether it's tiredness or burnout, it's burnout.

And it's already too late.

<comment><AUTHOR> Justification?</comment></comment>


Google Jamboard - <AUTHOR> https://jamboard.google.com/ <comment><USER2> "Your browser may not be fully supported."

Sigh.</comment>


Hackers Hack Handcuffs - <AUTHOR> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/08/19/2043206/hackers-hack-handcuffs-at-hope-video?utm_source=slashdot&utm_medium=facebook

<comment><USER2> I've seen this being done by county jail inmates for many years. All one needs is an industrial size staple.</comment>


Show HN: Goof: Go object finder (runtime binary introspection) - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/zeebo/goof <comment><USER2> Now I just need to come up with something horrendously risky to use this for...</comment>


5-Year-Old Designs an iPhone App (video) - <AUTHOR> http://jeff.io/posts/5-year-old-designs-an-iphone-app

<comment><USER2> You have an adorable (and bright) son. Any plans to develop his game with him?

My favorite lines: "I get all the money cause it was my idea" and "It has an apple on the back and that makes me hungry"

<comment><AUTHOR> Well the game he's got in mind is a Harry Potter game so I wouldn't be able to create it without getting copyright. But he is talking about maybe somebody who made the other iPhone Harry Potter game will see his video and make his game :)

<comment><USER3> If that doesn't happen (seems fairly unlikely), could maybe find a non- copyright idea that would interest him as much and work towards making an actual game?

<comment><USER2> He could certainly make a generic 'wizard' game, provided there is enough separation to keep the Harry Potter people from getting upset.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> What a brilliant kid. I'm only 21 right now, but I look forward to the day I can bring new life (and accordingly hope/intelligence) into this world.

Inspiring.

</comment><comment><USER3> You have an awesome kid.

To anyone on HN who developes iPhone apps... please work with him (and his father) to make this, would be amazing.

<comment><USER5> His game would work wonderfully.

Choose from three spells. Call them Expelliarmus, Immobulus, Stupefy (or whatever). But really it's rock, paper, scissors.

Swipe left to right on your phone to add a jolt of whatever spell is selected. This moves the "center" 10 pixels towards your enemy if you're using the same spell, 5 pixels if you're using the weaker spell, 15 pixels if you're using the stronger spell. Of course, your opponent is moving the "center" the opposite direction at the same time, following the same rules.

You can switch between the spells at any time, but time spent switching is time not spent swiping.

The idea is to push the "center" of the beam all the way to your opponent, where he takes damage and the center is reset. Take damage three times and you lose.

It definitely would work much better with Harry Potter characters and spells, possibly a marketing tie-in to Deathly Hallows part 2.

Add sparks and glows and all manner of cool sound effects and special effects. Include sound bytes from the characters battling.

Make one kid ridiculously happy.

<comment><AUTHOR> I just read this outloud to Anim and he says he wants to be able to "pick all the spells in Harry Potter". I think the rock-paper-scissors gameplay would be pretty smart. I'll see if I can convince him :) Oh, he just said that you could have the game for free because of your good ideas.

Thanks for your really detailed reply — and everybody else's too! Now I'm thinking I'll have to build this for him. My wife's going to shake her head if I tell her that I just added another sideproject to my list of sideprojects.

<comment><USER3> If you do take this further, would be very grateful if you could email me next time you post an update in case I miss it :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> You have a very bright kid, cute too.

I was especially impressed that he represented the characters as dots instead of trying to draw them, because it was obvious what they do. The "squares," he drew out more completely because he didn't know what to call them and drawing it was the best way to explain it (dad understood).

</comment><comment><USER7> My UI sketching workflow have been srsly lacking in sound effects.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Update: Some people have asked if I've done any apps with Anim yet and yes we have! I should have linked it in the original post but anyways, the app is called "DJ Baby", we created it last year. It's an iPhone app (<http://bit.ly/djbabyitunes>) but we also have a free flash version here: <http://www.cometcoast.com/djbaby>.

</comment><comment><USER8> Wrap it up

</comment><comment><USER9> "Win or not-win" is a great attitude towards multi-player gaming. 'Not- winning' not only _sounds_ better than 'losing', it goes to the core of what imho matters most in gameplay: social interaction, not competition.

</comment><comment><USER10> Kids these days have so many awesome tools at their disposal. Thanks for sharing!

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm really impressed with the way he imagined the UI, and his way of using dots and the life gauges. You must be a really proud dad, as you definitely seem to be.

</comment><comment><USER3> Completely off-topic: where does the name 'Anim' come from?

<comment><AUTHOR> Anim comes from an Ojibway (Native American) word meaning thunderbird. We pronounce it "ah-neem".</comment></comment>


Hack your Oxygen [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/kamal_meattle_on_how_to_grow_your_own_fresh_air.html <comment><AUTHOR> In short, you could live in a bottle with these 3 plants and still have enough oxygen to live :

-Areca Palm (the living room) 4 per person

-Mother-in-law's tongue (the bedroom plant) 6-8 per person

-Money plant (the specialist plant) dont mention the numbers</comment>


Physical Web Experiments Without a BLE Beacon - <AUTHOR> A good read. Trying to learn what's coming for Physical Web.
A question based on what you shared; is it possible to simply leverage proximity and "free Wi-Fi/Open Wi-Fi" without a (for example) retailer's permission? From a proximity point, say a shopping mall filled with retailers who likely already have Wi-Fi for production use.., to see their SSID in a way that it clearly identifies them?
With that info, then approach them to sell a Physical Web platform service with 'no need for beacons'.., "We will get you on Physical Web without beacons by leveraging your Wi-Fi, offering contextual content creation, analytics, etc."?
Everyone says FCC 47-15 means anyone can see and leverage Open Wi-Fi but in this potential application of it, I can't see it.  New at this so don't hit me too hard.  Thanks. <comment><USER2> The architecture of the Physical Web is about not requiring a central server for things to work. We want it to be distributed and federated, like the web. Nothing we do requires a single central server. As you currently describe it, your approach would likely involve such a server.

We _are_ experimenting with wifi through mDNS and wifi-direct (it's available in early form in our Physical Web app for Android) With these, we embed the URL into the wifi router itself, using it much like a bluetooth beacon. I think this is getting to the spirit of what you'd like to do. The only issue we're wrestling with is that this type of approach enables offline or unreachable beacons which raises some security concerns. We're looking into using a signed package format to fix that problem.

</comment><comment><USER3> The link is missing because, the Hacker News |submit| page allows a user to submit either:

      A link to a story
        or
      The contents of the text box

but not both and the |submit| link defaults to the text box when both elements are present.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER4> Actual link to the article [https://unop.uk/physical-web-experiments-without- a-ble-beaco...](https://unop.uk/physical-web-experiments-without-a-ble-beacon)</comment>


New image search engine - <AUTHOR> http://www.spezify.com/#/hacker%20news

<comment><USER2> Interesting idea but it seem much less of a search tool than a toy. The spasmodic loading of images is incredibly distracting and the lazy layout doesn't appear to have any structure.

</comment><comment><USER3> With Flash block for Safari, all I saw was a blank screen. Isn't HTML "good enough" for headers and footers.

<comment><USER4> Also, when you right click it in FF3.5 the whole page goes white.

The unspoken flash rule: its good for video players, games, luxury product sites (cars/fashion) and banner ads. Besides that, it's a usability nightmare.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> They've disabled every method of scrolling except the scroll bar on the right. Several of my extensions, such as Mouse Gestures, don't work on this site.

I usually don't mind Flash, but this is why you shouldn't use Flash for your entire site.

</comment><comment><USER6> Why do you need the all-directional layout? It seems that you could just do the Bing thing, which has the infinite scrolling without the flash.

</comment><comment><USER7> It almost broke my browser (Camino)!</comment>


If you want your developers to be productive, learn to draw. - <AUTHOR> http://p27.us/2014/05/if-you-want-your-developers-to-be-productive-learn-to-draw/

<comment><USER2> I agree with the idea. One thing that is helpful, especially if you can't draw, is using wireframe/mockup tools. My personal favorite is Balsamiq [1] because they make it look like a drawing. This is important because often colors, font, etc get in the way. In my experience, many people will fixate on those things if they don't like them which is a distraction at the mockup stage. You are just trying to figure out the layout and what you should be present, not the specifics of how it will look.

[1] [http://balsamiq.com/](http://balsamiq.com/)</comment>


Smart meter crypto flaw worse than thought - <AUTHOR> http://rdist.root.org/2010/01/11/smart-meter-crypto-flaw-worse-than-thought/ <comment><USER2> I wish they mentioned any specific smart-meter vendors using those chipsets! Maybe this will get picked up by some greentech bloggers & develop into a real story.

<comment><USER3> We've worked extensively in this field, primarily to help vendors ship these products more safely --- so we're enjoined against publishing specifics. But it's a real problem, and I'd refer you to IOActive (a competitor of ours) for details.

Two things to remember about embedded RF devices and security:

* The boards themselves are a hostile environment for developing crypto, because they're solid state (low entropy), severely power constrained, and have very little headroom for code storage; the difference between supporting SHA1 vs. MD5 could come down to blowing the instruction store budget.

* RF is a hostile place to deploy crypto, because it's group based, severely rate limited, slow, and every individual bit of message encoding is precious.

Very smart developers never get crypto right even in environments where a shift from an MD5 MAC to a digital signature is just a line of code, without regard to message sizes, and where the only constraint against adding protocol steps is breaking compatibility with software that can be upgraded in minutes. Draw your own conclusions about how hard this problem is.

(As Nate pointed out a year or two ago, the exact same problem exists with tolling systems).

<comment><USER4> _they're solid state (low entropy)_

That doesn't necessarily follow. It's easy to put a real RNG into silicon; the problem is simply that very few people bother.

<comment><USER3> It's not as simple as you make it out to be, but you have me at a disadvantage as I've actually worked on products like these and can't rebut with specifics.

In the meantime, I'd dispute the idea that embedded developers even understand the relationship between secure random number generation and cryptography, outside of the abstract.

It's also the case that amongst security practioners in _general purpose code_ there is still precious little best-practice understanding of how to groom and maintain secure RNGs; a Black Hat talk from just a few years ago busted up a bunch of RNGs on security products, both with algorithmic attacks and things like cold-start entropy.

<comment><USER4> _I'd dispute the idea that embedded developers even understand the relationship between secure random number generation and cryptography, outside of the abstract._

Sure, of course. My point was that, compare to issues such as power constraints, code size, bandwidth, et cetera, the problem of getting entropy was more of a "people are doing things wrong" issue and less of a "laws of physics get in the way" issue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Goodspeed is not just an awesome hardware hacker, he and I are the world's finest belt buckle engineers. We created a printed circuit board in the shape of our home state Tennessee , unquestionably the best shaped state for a belt buckle. The perimeter of the PCB is encrusted with LEDs, and when a button labeled "PARTY MODE" is pressed a MSP430 will blink the lights. ([http://www.flickr.com/photos/travisgoodspeed/3471776770/in/p...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/travisgoodspeed/3471776770/in/photostream/))

It turns out that chicks also dig it, see <http://tnbelt.com> for more.</comment>


Estimating Google's number of servers using the WWII tank method - <AUTHOR> http://www.daltonlp.com/view/507 <comment><USER2> The German tank method relies on a unique probability density function created specifically for the task of estimating tank production.

It takes into account factors unique to tanks, so you'd have to define your own distribution for Goolge's gadget servers to make a correct estimation.

<comment><USER3> Factors unique to tanks? I thought it assumed only that tanks would be assigned unique sequential ID numbers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Someone else pointed out the most likely accuracy issue - Google may (probably does) use a dynamic balancing system to add and remove servers/nodes according to load.

The checks I ran were done over just 4 days. The resulting numbers may have no relevancy at all over other time periods with different load amounts.

</comment><comment><USER4> I don't know much about the German tank method but it seems interesting that given 62 unique addresses with a maximum of 103 it would give a total number of 104. This doesn't seem to make sense to me. Can someone explain why this works this way?

<comment><USER5> You need to read the explanation for the German Tank method (<http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1824525,00.html>) to see the formula used to get 104.

</comment></comment><comment> patrickg-zill well there are 42U in a rack, does that help?</comment>


ITunes update screws text. Official solution: remove all your third-party fonts - <AUTHOR> http://support.apple.com/kb/TS3042

<comment><USER2> Maybe whomever created that page meant "temporary work around." this is definitely better than nothing, but is definitely laughable at best if it's not followed up with a patch.

<comment><USER3> (whoever*; 'whomever' would be used if it was on the receiving end of the action, e.g., 'I will vote for whomever they endorse')

<comment><USER4> Honestly, nobody cares about 'whom'. It's dead, along with 'thou' and a bunch of other archaic nonsense.

In the real world it's just 'who'.

<comment><USER5> This is crap. 'Thou' is part of a whole class of pronouns (2nd person informal) that are completely absent from all modern speech and writing. 'Whom' is the objective form of 'who'. I/me, he/him, she/her, we/us, they/them, who/whom. It's not used very often in speech, but it's used every day in formal writing and thus very much alive. There is no disagreement among educated speakers of the language as to which usage is correct and which is incorrect, only disagreement as to which is acceptable in context. Celebrating it's death is celebrating ignorance.

<comment><USER6> English, like every other language on earth, is defined by its users. It evolves over time.

<comment><USER7> Very true. In my life time I hope to see "they/their" as both singular and plural. It would save me a lot of time because I dislike having to write "he or her," "his or hers," or think of a creative way to write around the idea completely.

I also hope to see the alienation of the comma-quotation rules (always inside). -Maybe I ask for too much

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Unofficial Solution: Remove iTunes.

<comment><USER7> There is plenty of good music playing software; furthermore, one may end up saving money by not paying the itunes store =]

I like this unofficial solution.

<comment><USER9> Um, you have to use the iTunes store? Why does everyone always assume that as soon as one uses iTunes, music is also bought that way? I used iTunes for a long time without ever buying anything there.

<comment><USER7> You're right, I shouldn't assume that; however, I bet that the majority of the users of itunes use the store _because_ the itunes store has the most buyers of any music store (that fact was true when I read it, but it may have changed, but if it did change, itunes would still be one of the leaders)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I got halfway through reading all the comments on this thread and forgot what the original story was about (hint: it's not about the proper use and history of the English language). Hopefully this comment will find its way to appear halfway down the comment thread (strategic up/downvoting please), so that it can perform its public service of reminding you, "You are currently reading the 'iTunes font removal solution' comment thread."

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm not sure I understand how this could happen - it certainly can't be a bug since, I dunno, installing and running the software would show this behavior, and Apple must have some kind of rudimentary QA in place for one of their flagship products.

Maybe I'm not understanding Apple's attention to detail and design concept (as usual) in this case.

<comment><USER12> In order to take into account various computer configurations, e.g. the use of 3rd party fonts, they should conduct external beta tests before releasing it to the general public.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I actually tried this, because I have the problem, and it does not solve the problem on Windows 7. The text is still garbled.

</comment><comment><USER14> And, the winner of the "most unintentionally ironic" disclaimer on a webpage is:

 _Important: Mention of third-party websites and products is for informational purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation. Apple assumes no responsibility with regard to the selection, performance or use of information or products found at third-party websites. Apple provides this only as a convenience to our users. Apple has not tested the information found on these sites and makes no representations regarding its accuracy or reliability. There are risks inherent in the use of any information or products found on the Internet, and Apple assumes no responsibility in this regard. Please understand that a third-party site is independent from Apple and that Apple has no control over the content on that website. Please contact the vendor for additional information._

</comment><comment><USER15> Cure seems to be worse than the disease.

</comment><comment><USER16> Well that is terrible, why would that be an official solution rather than reverting back to old font rendering system or removing a specific font that is causing issue.

This is like setting a banking website to use a non readable font using css and asking the user to remove that font or disable css to use online banking. (Though Itunes should be less important than banking it is the only example I could think of.. maybe email would be better).

</comment><comment><USER17> It's not a bug, it's a _feature_.</comment>


Major Study Finds 'Some Evidence' of Link Between Cellphone Radiation and Cancer - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/01/health/cellphone-radiation-cancer.html <comment><USER2> The actual study findings: [https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.htm...](https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.html)

From the fact sheet:

"Rats and mice were exposed to RFR in special chambers for up to two years, or most of their natural lives. NTP scientists looked for a range of cancers and noncancer health effects.

Exposure to RFR began in the womb for rats and at 5-6 weeks old for mice. The RFR exposure was intermittent, 10 minutes on and 10 minutes off, totaling about 9 hours each day. The RFR levels ranged from 1.5 to 6 watts per kilogram of body weight in rats, and 2.5 to 10 watts per kilogram in mice.

The chambers were shielded rooms with a transmitting antenna that radiated RFR fields, plus rotating stirrers that generated a uniform field.4,5 Pilot studies established field strengths that did not raise animal body temperatures excessively.6

The rats and mice were exposed to whole body RFR at frequencies of 900 and 1900 megahertz, respectively, from two technologies – Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) and Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM).

NTP and RFR experts from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the IT'IS Foundation designed and built the chambers specifically for these studies. "

Also:

"Were there any surprise findings? NTP found longer lifespans among the exposed male rats. This may be explained by an observed decrease in chronic kidney problems that are often the cause of death in older rats"

<comment><USER3> I particularly like " _...strengths that did not raise animal body temperatures excessively._ " No sense microwaving the rats to death. For a 70kg person, that exposure (using the rat scale, 105 - 420 watts) for your entire life. Vs a cell phone which has an effective radiated power ERP of about 1 watt[1]. So somewhere between 1% and .25% of the power.

Cell phone signals fall off with the square of the distance so the bulk of the power of a cellphones RF energy that you are exposed to comes from the handset.

[1] "Meanwhile, the total power emitted from the cell phone itself ranges from 0.75 to 1 watt. According to the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), this is an acceptably safe amount of power for a cell phone since their cut-off or specific absorption rate is only 1.6 watts per kilogram (W/kg). As a result, the power radiated from a cell phone is considered as non-ionizing as opposed to ionizing." \-- [https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/EbruBek.shtml](https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/EbruBek.shtml)

<comment><USER4> What if you're around 105-420 people with cellphones radiating 1 watt each?

<comment><USER5> Again, the energy falls off with the square of the distance, so unless those hundreds of people have _very_ long arms and decide to press their phone against you...

<comment><USER6> Not trying to be a troll -- Tokyo subways come to mind.

<comment><USER7> 1 watt corresponds to an in-use phone. Heavy data use. Even a call has much lower power. Unless the phone is actively doing something, the cell pings are very brief and use very little power.

<comment><USER8> You're discounting the fact that cell phones are more used for data than for talking and data is always being transmitted, especially with apps that run in the background.

<comment><USER9> But how many people use their phones for data while holding them against their heads? (Not to mention in a shielded cubicle?)

<comment><USER10> And how many can even get service in a crowded subway?

<comment><USER11> most. offline people doing podcasts and games probably don't emmit much less.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Whether the effect was large or small, there is a fundamental scientific question: how does non-ionizing radiation cause cancer? The fact that it can requires better models of how EM waves and biological matter interact.

<comment><USER13> Yes. It has been known for decades that biological matter resonates at microwave frequencies but we've been told over and over that non-ionizing radiations cannot cause cancer [0]. DNA is an electricly charged dipole that will heat up when exposed to microwaves and that would damage it [1].

[0]: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000634950...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006349502754738)

[1]: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2304485](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2304485)

<comment><USER14> There's a lot of water in the way between DNA and any microwave source. Microwaves do not penetrate water very well - part of the reason rain tends to cause problems with microwave links. Also the reason microwave ovens work: by heating the food.

So what is the proposed mechanism by which microwave energy is supposed to heat DNA enough to damage it?

<comment><USER11> Microwave ovens are able to heat several pounds of meat all the way through to the center. So it can penetrate at least a few wet inches of tissue.

<comment><USER15> Most of the microwave power does not deeply penetrate something like a whole ham. The microwaves are mostly absorbed by the outer layers and then the heat conducts through the inner portions.

The journal article below contains lots of detail. It claims that microwaves penetrate about 3.8 mm in cooked ham and 9.9 mm in cooked beef.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4657497/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4657497/)

<comment><USER16> > The microwaves are mostly absorbed by the > outer layers and then the heat > conducts > through the inner portions.

Then why does the plate have to be slowly rotated within the oven? I used to believe that it was for the waves peaks (distant from one another by a pair of centimeters) to be able to reach every point of the inside.

But if the inside is heated by conduction, which propagates evenly in all directions, then why care rotating the plate?

<comment><USER17> Microwave ovens do indeed have hot spots[0]. Conduction doesn't propagate evenly in very many foodstuffs, and you still want to avoid overheating any one spot.

      [0] https://www.evilmadscientist.com/2011/microwave-oven-diagnostics-with-indian-snack-food/

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> > "But the results apply only to male rats and involve radio frequencies long > out of routine use."

"For decades, health experts have struggled to determine whether or not cellphones can cause cancer. On Thursday, a federal agency released the final results of what experts call the world's largest and most costly experiment to look into the question. The study originated in the Clinton administration, cost $30 million and involved some 3,000 rodents"

World's largest? Most costly? And more or less not applicable to current reality?

It is exactly things such as this that trigger the general public to mistrust government and mistrust science. What's most unnerving is the gov and the science expected the public to not respond as expected.

</comment><comment><USER19> > _The rodents in the studies were exposed to radiation nine hours a day for > two years — far longer even than heavy users of cellphones._

What about one hour per day over 18 years?

<comment><USER20> Or how about reasonable levels of power? Ten watts per kilo is an absolutely nutso-bismol bonkers level of radiation compared to what real people and animals are exposed to. I don't spend twelve hours a day inside a magnetron.

I'd like to see the results of an experiment where they have a highly controlled pair of populations that are identical in every way except one group of rats is in a Faraday cage. It would be ideal if they were still exposed to natural radio frequencies--after all, radio is not an exclusively man-made phenomenon. But of course GSM doesn't get through the atmosphere easily. A long-term study like that might actually be useful.

These studies where they bathe the rats in a few thousand times the average ambient power of our cell network are utterly blatant examples of confirmation bias in science publishing. They cranked up the amplitude until it had to have an effect on biology--stopping just shy of "significant heating" of tissues. Basically it's a microwave on defrost, complete with a scattering reflector and turntable to make sure the rats cook evenly. Doesn't seem like good faith to me. And of course dumbed-down science journalism will immediately clickbait it into the headline "Cellphones Will Literally Kill You," as is tradition.

<comment><USER9> I'm sure you could get some grad students to volunteer to sit around in the lab and play on their phones, if you wanted to up the exposure in a way that mimics realistic patterns...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The World Health Organization back in 2011:

WHO: Cell phone use can increase possible cancer risk [http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/05/31/who.cell.phones/index.h...](http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/05/31/who.cell.phones/index.html)

> _Radiation from cell phones can possibly cause cancer, according to the > World Health Organization. The agency now lists mobile phone use in the same > "carcinogenic hazard" category as lead, engine exhaust and chloroform._

<comment><USER22> Classified in IARC 2B, which also includes things like pickled vegetables, magnets, coffee, sassafras, styrene, and ginkgo extract. Also aflatoxin M1 (LD50 ~300 ug/kg), vanadium(V) oxide (LD50 ~10 mg/kg inhaled), HIV, and nitrogen mustards (chemotherapy drugs that also happen to be classified _and stockpiled_ as chemical weapons). Even the items that CNN picked out, the cancer risk from those is the _least_ of your worries. I won't call the 2B category "useless", since it actually _is_ a list of compounds that might theoretically (but have not been shown to) cause cancer, but, well...

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> At this point in time it's not really relevant to say cellphone vs no- cellphone. It's death by cellphone vs saved by cellphone ie, you need to compare how many people have been able to call for help in an emergency, get a taxi rather than drink driving etc because they had access to a phone in their pocket.

It's like comparing new drugs to the best off-patent generic, not a placebo sugar pill.

</comment><comment><USER24> _"the rat study examined the effects of a radio frequency associated with an early generation of cellphone technology, one that fell out of routine use years ago."_

In some parts of the world (UK, Europe, Asia, South Africa, Nigeria, Peru), the 900Mhz GSM band is now being reused as LTE band 8.

</comment><comment><USER25> It's not great news, this study. It could be wrong, it could be inapplicable to reality, it could be a lot of things that mitigate the results in one way or another.

But I think we can all agree that it would have been nicer to hear that there was "No Evidence" of a link.

</comment><comment><USER26> If you're concerned at all and interested in some safety tips (from the California Department of Public Health, page last updated December 2017):

[https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DEODC/EHIB/CDPH%20Do...](https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DEODC/EHIB/CDPH%20Document%20Library/Cell- Phone-Guidance.pdf)

[https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/OPA/pages/nr17-086.aspx](https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/OPA/pages/nr17-086.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER27> How many studies were run that /didn't/ find any evidence? If that fact isn't included in the conclusion then this could be accidental p-value hacking.

</comment><comment><USER28> Check this out for some meta stuff on the possible link between mobile phones and acoustic neuroma [https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation- exposu...](https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation- exposure/cellular-phones.html) Anecdotally - doctors believe it may be a cause, scientists don't

</comment><comment><USER29> > _Current cellphones represent a fourth generation, known as 4G, and 5G > phones are expected to debut around 2020. They employ much higher > frequencies, and these radio waves are far less successful at penetrating > the bodies of humans and rats, scientists say._

I'm confused by this statement. 4G uses even lower frequencies than 900 MHz, and this range up to 1900MHz will continue to be used for decades more, 5G or not.

As for 5G itself, as I mentioned in another comment, there's also the issue of carriers needing to install many more towers, which I believe are cancer- causing for anyone living in the immediate area due to the power they radiate.

I also imagine the 5G towers will use much more power than say 3G or 4G powers because if 5G wireless tech can't pass easily through objects, then you bet the carriers are going to "maximize" the distance. How? Through more power. So I doubt 5G will be much safer overall. In fact, I'm willing to bet it will be significantly less safe than previous wireless technologies.

So to ensure companies like Qualcomm and U.S. carriers don't get away with causing millions to die "because we found out too late", like this NYT article seems to be implying about the previous tech, we should already start enforcing laws or starting lawsuits against them and make them pay out billions, if evidence is indeed found (whether through more studies, or through discovery of what the company employees knew about these issues) that their tech was harmful to humans.

<comment><USER30> > which I believe are cancer-causing for anyone living in the immediate area > due to the power they radiate.

I downvoted you because there is no evidence of this. You also state they wiull "use more power" but power output is regulated by the FCC.

<comment><USER31> I for one much appreciate downvoters sharing their reasons

<comment><USER30> I usually reply with my reason, especially if it may not be obvious to the OP.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Man can you imagine if 1 billion people end up with brain tumors. How would that even get handled? I have no idea how hard tumor surgery is but I am guessing hospitals will have to be turned into large Foxconn type factories or something.

<comment><USER33> Have you ever been to a "Foxconn type factory"? I'm not sure it's exactly the picture you're trying to paint.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Big market for faraday cage pocket liners now! Obviously they will have to leave the open air side on shielded to get reception.

</comment><comment><USER35> I'm not sure if I'm being practical or silly, but is there a cell phone cover that would minimize such radiation?

<comment><USER30> This isn't something to worry about unless you're using your phone for 9h a day and have boosted the power output beyond the legal limit. Even then there isn't an explanation as to how it would cause cancer.

<comment><USER20> Unpopular but entirely correct. The study used power up to ten watts per kilogram. Your phone uses around a watt or less compared to your whole body mass. Let's say the average of 62 kilos. Your exposure is less than a fiftieth of what was produced in the experiment, probably less because you aren't irradiated 24 hours a day--you take it off your person to charge at some point. And the radio produces far less wattage when it's idle, which is going to be the vast majority of your day. Compared to the amount the rats were getting constantly, this would be a truly minuscule fraction of exposure over time.

Even with such extraordinary amplitude, the correlation was very slight. Trust me, everyone has much bigger health risks to worry about than radio. If you've ever had a drink in your life you've done worse.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> So what sort of exposure does one get from standing near a mobile phone base station mast?

</comment><comment><USER37> Did they account for the gender of the researchers in this study?

<comment><USER38> Yes.

Some key quotes about this:

> The female rats did not show evidence of a link between the radiation and > such tumors.

> Experts say it is not unusual for cancer patterns to vary between sexes in > both people and animals, including the study's mice and rats.

<comment><USER39> Operative word being "researchers", here. Apparently the gender of researchers conducting experiments on rats has shown to change outcomes : [https://www.nature.com/news/male-researchers-stress-out- rode...](https://www.nature.com/news/male-researchers-stress-out- rodents-1.15106)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> meh i'm safe... my phone is always in my hands and I use bluetooth 18 hours a day every day.

Thats safe right?

</comment><comment><USER41> The government should outlaw the link between them.

</comment><comment><USER31> 2-3% vs 0 in control for brain tumors, 5-7% vs 0 in control for heart tumors. That does not sound ambiguous.

> The highest level was four times higher than the permitted maximum.

That's still not much of a safety factor.

<comment><USER42> This is the first time I hear about heart cancer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Nothing to worry about: Congress will simply pass a law that makes it illegal to get brain cancer from cell phones. Problem solved!

</comment><comment><USER44> Have you ever spent some time on your cell phone and then felt this "deep warmth" in your head? I've felt the same warmth after having gone through a "full body scanner".

I've mentioned this to a coworker before and he laughed at me. Then I heard him be on the phone for like 30 minutes and during lunch he mentioned that his head was feeling this weird warmth. I repeated my theory and asked him what are the odds of his phone usage and the warmth being unrelated. I've never seen him not use headphones when being on the phone since then.

<comment><USER45> This is a nocebo effect. The two things you just described aren't even in the same ballpark of RF frequency. The brain doesn't have any way of measuring pain; let alone temperature. Brain surgery can be done with the patient awake in desirable situations as a direct result of this.

<comment><USER46> > The brain doesn't have any way of measuring pain

Wait, what about headaches?

<comment><USER47> Nerves around the brain, rather than the brain itself.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headache#Pathophysiology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headache#Pathophysiology)</comment></comment></comment></comment>