How I do my computing - <AUTHOR> https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html <comment><USER4> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." \- George Bernard Shaw

We should all be thankful to rms for his unreasonableness. It has literally been the underpinning of so much of what we take for granted vis-a-vis free software.

<comment><USER5> I often worry about what the world will look like after he dies. There doesn't seem to be a RMSjr in the wings anywhere.

<comment><USER6> I would be really surprised if he followed his advices 100% of the time, but they sure are a good start for getting you to think.

<comment><USER7> You're seriously asking yourself if a man who doesn't own a mobile phone or credit card is sneaking some CS:GO on the sly?

I doubt it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> _I want stallman.org to remain simple: not a "user experience" but rather a place where I present certain information, views and action opportunities to you._

...and as a result, I think it gives a very good "user experience" \- I wish more webpages were like this, plain and informative without distractions.

<comment><USER9> I wish more sites were like this.

1\. It loads lightning fast on my 512 kbps connection.

2\. The font is preinstalled on my system, no separate request needs to be made.

3\. It's easy to tell what is a link and what isn't.

4\. Scrolling works like I'd expect it to, and doesn't involve any clever "transition" effects. More generally, there are next to no distracting animations or effects on the entire page.

<comment> pi-squared [http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/](http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/)

<comment><USER10> I don't understand why these need to use swear words and aggressive tone? Wouldn't it work just as well without them?

<comment><USER11> I agree. It's offensive to the very people who these sites _(apparently)_ want to change, thus they're less likely to change.

<comment><USER12> Very much disagree. It's written for developers, and I've never met any developer who finds profanity offensive.

And, more importantly, it makes the whole thing much more eye-catching. It's a fun way to a deliver a message - as a vitriolic, spit-flying rant. It would be ineffective if it was friendly and delicate.

<comment><USER10> I'm a developer and I dislike work environment where swear words are uttered every 10 seconds. Dunno about US, but here in Slovakia swear words are used mostly by teenagers and uneducated people with lousy jobs.

<comment><USER12> Well, you wouldn't see a rant like this in an actual work environment in the US; that would be wildly inappropriate. But I think most developers are completely okay with this in reading material, once in a while. They certainly wouldn't be _offended_ by it, in the sense of it having a strong emotional effect.

Depending on the company, swearing might not be tolerated at all. At my company it's fairly common, but I only do it when in meetings with people I'm fairly comfortable around (my team, my manager, people I commonly work with).

<comment><USER13> Clearly you have never worked in the trading industry ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> We are - all of us - the slowly boiling frogs of the story.

Google, Netflix, Amazon, Uber & AirBnb - What you search for & e-mail about, What you watch, What you buy, Where you travel to & from & Where you stay - perfect tracking of everything. Add NSA & others on top & 1984 seems like a poor cousin of the world we live in.

We need some one like Richard to show us what the COLD water looks like. Not the slightly boiled one, not the warm one, the COLD water. Zero tracking of anything as much as possible.

He has lived his life trying to be as true to his philosophy as he can - <USER2> great personal cost & a LOT of sacrifice. I have personally seen some of the medical issues & his assets as such if any are shockingly meager for someone so well thought of (not something he will admit). Not like most of us (me included) - who will give up any data if it means a little bit of convenience.

Please consider donating: [https://my.fsf.org/donate/](https://my.fsf.org/donate/)

</comment><comment><USER15> I always enjoy Richard's writing. I would like to take more of his advice but some practicalities interfere, mostly about social media. I tend to not post much personal stuff on social media but posting links to my recent blog articles, new books I have written, and when I release open source software is very valuable to me because it increases the number of people I get connected with. He is absolutely correct about the dangers of losing privacy on social media.

I have considered the all free laptop route and technically this would not hurt my writing and work efforts, but I like to experiment with new stuff, and I really enjoy having a Windows 8.1 and a Mac laptop to experiment with, in addition to my Linux laptop. I have the bizarre work habit of rotating between Linux, Windows, and OS X every four or five hours. My work flow is the same, and I enjoy the variety so much that the slight change-over effort is worthwhile. This is a stupid habit that I should probably change.

Stallman is really important for our tech community and I personally like his political stands. +1000 for Richard Stallman.

</comment><comment><USER16> There is an extremely interesting post describing what a few days living with RMS look like. It describes a trip of RMS to Spain, to give a talk in Majorca University.

It get to great length to describe how uncompromising and coherent with his views RMS is, to the point of showing how tough it is for him and everyone around.

Unfortunately, the post is only available in Spanish:

[https://gallir.wordpress.com/2011/10/29/un-viaje-con- richard...](https://gallir.wordpress.com/2011/10/29/un-viaje-con-richard- stallman-esa-persona/)

Google translate version is relatively good: [https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=y&prev...](https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgallir.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F10%2F29%2Fun- viaje-con-richard-stallman-esa-persona%2F&edit-text=&act=url)

I think is fascinating insight...

</comment><comment><USER17> I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing that I give so little thought to many of these things.

I have a Spotify subscription, I'm watching the Football on Sky Go which uses Silverlight, I'm using a browser rather than emailing myself web pages.

A lot of this is just bizarre and I just don't see non-free software as inherently evil.

<comment><USER18> Its a bad thing. While you may not agree with Stallman's analysis of the morality of software, should everyone think about the tools they use - <USER3> just their apparent functionality, but also the broader ramifications of characteristics of said tools.

The world would be a better place if fewer people just went on autopilot and short-term gratification.

<comment><USER19> There is also an option that you can think long and hard about the tools you use and come to conclusion, that Stallman is wrong. And there is nothing wrong with that.

<comment><USER20> Yes, this is a good option. I view Stallman's writings the way I view most polemics. While they're useful in understanding the roots of an idea and challenging the way things are, they often aren't practical. If everybody had to use a computer the way Stallman does, they probably wouldn't use computers.

The benefit accessibility, which unfortunately often relies on non-free software, provides is of great value to many people.

Stallman has the privilege of an education from MIT where he learned the ins- and-outs of computing and is able to function efficiently with this knowledge. I have friends who have to work for subsistence wages who simply wouldn't have the time nor the energy to learn everything about how to use fully free software, and they get huge benefits from using the Internet.

My mute brother often uses proprietary voice assistance software to speak that locks him into Apple's platform. He doesn't care. The benefits of him being able to communicate efficiently _far_ outweigh the cost in terms of both the cost of the software and the "dangers" of using proprietary software. Admittedly, I'd like it if I could modify the source code, but it's better than starting from scratch.

Even his stance on cell phones ignores the concerns of many people. I don't know where Stallman lives, but I'm betting it's a pretty safe area for him. He can live without a cell phone because the likelihood that he will need to call 911 when he's out and about is low. Constant tracking is bad, but being assaulted is worse.

All that being said, I wish more software was free. It'd lead to more eyes on the software everyone is using which would probably improve it a lot in terms of functionality, security, and performance. It's hard for one person or a small group of people to have expertise in every area that a good piece of modern software requires.

<comment><USER21> I think this is an uncharitable reading of the page. rms' stance doesn't ignore the concerns of people, because it isn't a proclamation telling how people should live; it's just a description of how _he_ lives.

The only parts that proscribe are the sections about DRM, and even those are not "you should sacrifice yourself to oppose DRM" but "only buy DRMed content if you can break it", which is more a personal advice than a moral commandment.

In general, rms doesn't tell software users they are bad people for using proprietary software or for allowing tracking; he's just alerting people about the dangers of doing so. His criticisms are usually solely directed at software _producers_ and at the organizations that track people.

<comment><USER22> There are plenty of places rms suggests other people follow his ways,

"let's reject any social networking site which insists on connecting an account to a person's real identity"

Or just search the page for the word "should" or "you"

I agree with him but let's not pretend he isn't proselytizing

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> What is meant by: "I did write some code in Java once, but the code was in C and Lisp (I simply happened to be in Java at the time)"?

<comment><USER24> I think it's supposed to be a joke, referencing Java (the island) in Indonesia.

<comment><USER25> I assumed he meant he wrote Java that looked like (i.e. was idiomatically similar to) C or Lisp.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> _I think it is important for free software to provide free graphical user interface software, which is why the GNU Project arranged to launch three projects to develop that. The third, GNOME, was successful, so we never needed a fourth one._

Does anybody know what the first two GNU windowing systems were? Is he talking about GNUstep?

 _A friend once asked me to watch a video with her that she was going to display on her computer using Netflix. I declined, saying that Netflix was such an affront to freedom that I could not be party to its use under any circumstances whatsoever. These streaming dis-services are malicious technology designed to make people antisocial._

Right, Richard, it's the _Netflix_ users who are antisocial, not the people who get irate when their "friend" tries to load a website.

<comment><USER27> This really irked me too. Sounds like he would be great fun to be friends with. I guess if I made it my full time job to avoid every modern product or service possible I wouldn't have much time to be social or have fun either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> This may not be a direct comment rms's computing habits, but it's related and as good a place as any bring it up. I've been trying to reconcile two views on free software. I like to think about it in terms of car ownership because its more tangible to me:

As a car owner, I should have the freedom to open my car, inspect its inner workings, change/fix things as desired, and share my knowledge others. The ability to openly inspect the inner workings also allows me to assure that the car is only performing operations I purchased it to perform.

However, as a car developer, I cannot possibly hope to make money by giving the car away for free. There have been significant hours invested into the design of the car. Sure, there's money to made in maintenance, but realistically most people don't care about routine maintenance. They'd rather buy the car and ride it 'til the wheels fall off - maybe an oil change here and there.

Are these two views fundamentally incompatible? Does anyone pay an upfront cost for free software in recognition of the time spent building/designing the product as they might with proprietary?

<comment><USER29> One of the arguments of the movement is that by participating in it, by giving away your labor to all mankind, others can benefit and this works vis-a-versa, others give away their labor so you can benefit as well.

The problem of course is that this also says that labor is worthless and nobody gets to eat and find shelter unless they have some significant patronage. So sure I can build my _Sprocket-Cog Software_ more easily because many of the software components that go into it are available to me for free (beer) so long as I free the entire thing at the end (freedom).

The follow-on argument is that you can always try to build a services model around _Sprocket-Cog Software_ and live from that. But there's a subtle implication there that building turnkey software is not an option if you want to live, but making broken, user-hostile, hard-to-use software is the only morally "good" option.

(there's another argument that can be dismissed that you aren't prohibited from selling your software commercially under the right license, but that's a stupid argument, nobody will buy software from you if you just make it available for free (beer) anyways, so your only valid option (and the only one that has so far sorta "worked" in the marketplace is to provide services)

RMS of course dismisses all of this with a bunch of handwaivyness, like he does issues with hardware, food, etc. because he simply doesn't have to worry about them (because he has money) or because he can't find a path he can personally follow. It's hard to take claims about morality seriously when they only apply to software and not anything else that's far more embedded in life.

<comment><USER30> It is not because he has money that he can find a personal path to follow, he really doesn't. His speaking fee is modest, his position at MIT is unpaid. He lives like a student, if you've ever read that long document he asks others to read if they book him for a speaking gig, can't find a link to it at the moment, it's mostly about avoiding unnecessary expense and distraction.

<comment><USER29> You do realize that he is actually in possession of a reasonably large amount of money and can live independently (if frugally) without payment for the rest of his life.

<comment><USER31> But he wasn't in possession of it when he initially developed his views, was he?

<comment><USER30> And it's not like his lifestyle changed after he won those prizes, either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I don't know, I appreciate his convictions and what he does, but I don't believe software in general would be where it is today if it weren't for commercial and closed source software. Google and Apple have done a lot to shape the world we live in today despite being "unethical" in terms of openness.

<comment><USER33> Software would not be "where it is today"; it would be a fundamentally different place. Many of us see that place as being far better than what we have.

It's strange to me that you mention Google and Apple, because in both cases they built their empires largely on using open-source software that was available to them, and keeping some software closed isn't obviously relevant to their business model or success.

<comment><USER34> Out of curiosity, what would make that place better?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> People should be really thankful that RMS is out there making all of these issues visible. People might not even know that these issues could effect them in the future if it weren't for a vanguard standing up and taking notice now.

<comment><USER36> I would bet that the _vast_ majority of people who use computers and the internet have never heard of Richard Stallman and never think about these issues at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> So he thinks emails can't be spied on. He doesn't mention which computer runs the email wget-like program, but if it's traceable to him, then it's trackable, or if the email isn't encrypted at any step. He doesn't mention using PGP for that, and without that it's likely that the emails are in plain- text.

About DRM: he seems to say that if you can break it, it's ok to use it, even if it's unfree. Also, is Netflix breakable? I don't use it myself, but I was once told you can rip the movies with some programs.

<comment><USER38> > So he thinks emails can't be spied on

Quite the contrary. Since the Snowden revelations, all of his emails have the following header:

        [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
        [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
        [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

<comment><USER37> >One consequence of this method is that most of the survellance [sic] methods used on the Internet can't see me.

That's what I based my comment on.

Although he's changed, apparently, according to [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9559834](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9559834)

<comment><USER39> Compare the _number_ of government-level full-take Internet surveillance programs to the number of surveillance programs run by small "analytics" and "customer engagement" companies.

By this measure, browsing the web through an email proxy renders most surveillance methods blind to your activities.

<comment><USER37> It would still depend on where the email proxy is running, though.

Anyway, a regular free vpn (from his description, I'm sure he'd never exceed the limits) would achieve the same goals (and he could still use lynx et al and browse offline). Hell, browsing with javascript and cookies turned off shoud already defeat most surveillance, plus maybe change your IP every so often.

<comment><USER39> I agree with your comments in the second sentence of your second paragraph.

However, you're moving the goalposts. You said: "So [RMS] thinks emails can't be spied on [because he said 'One consequence of <my internet browsing> method is that most of the survellance methods used on the Internet can't see me.'". My comment illuminated the reasoning behind RMS's use of the word "most" and addressed your misunderstanding of the same.

<comment><USER37> That's fair. My reasoning was something like "this seems specifically designed to obscure IP, the only attackers likely to be able to do something about IP can also read email, therefore RMS doesn't know what he's talking about with regard to a threat model here". This was mostly implicit, which lead to my claim above that he thinks email is secure; it seemed like the only way to justify his claims for any threat model.

<comment><USER39> I hope that you now understand that your initial claim was mistaken. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Previously on HN (282 comments):

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3809836](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3809836)

An idea: if somebody makes the diff between the page then and now we can talk about what he changed since the previous discussion and also refer to the previous discussion for the unchanged aspects.

<comment><AUTHOR> Why is hn not redirecting me to me to the old submission? Should be trivial to implement...

<comment><USER41> It would have done this had it been posted recently. Instead, you are allowed to repost articles every few months.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> You know, my feeling for rms is quite bipolar. On one hand, I respect the severity of his commitment. On the other hand, as time passes, he sounds more and more like those extremist whackjobs. Seriously.

For example, what is wrong with paying for digital services on the web? I mean, serious, what is wrong with it? Or, I found his opinion on Netflix quite funny. Netflix never intends to sell its users anything. The whole premise is to watch without buying. Like library (but you pay for the service). You can't exactly complain that you can't, says, tear apart a library book, can you? So, why DRM on Netfix a problem? The users don't own those video! Well o well.

<comment><USER43> I don't think he finds paying for digital services unethical, but he chooses not to since that payment is always personally identifiable (since you have to have an account, use a credit card, etc). He has 2 major stances outlined here -- an ethical opinion on free software, and a personal choice on privacy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> > However, I can suggest that it may be wise to use an email service that is > not connected with your search engine. That way you can be almost sure that > your email contents don't influence your search results. You shouldn't > identify yourself to your search engine in any case.

I don't understand this, if it makes your searches more relevant to you, what's wrong?

I used duckduckgo for a while, but the results were very poor compared to Google, since Google knows what i usually search (i.e. programing-related stuff, not cooking or w/e) and what interests me.

If you fear about being prosecuted, then sure don't use the service, or you could also fight to improve regulations.

<comment><USER43> The search bubble may benefit you on occasion (such as your programming example), but it will affect you on every search, showing you mostly results with similar politics, etc, to the sources you already read.

[http://dontbubble.us/](http://dontbubble.us/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> First time I am reading about "Libreboot X200" (computer with pre-installed Trisquel and, by their own words, 100% free software)

[http://shop.gluglug.org.uk/product/libreboot-x200/](http://shop.gluglug.org.uk/product/libreboot-x200/)

I thought RMS is still using his old Leemote. Evidently not.

<comment><USER45> Haha. From the requirements for the "free software certification"

[http://www.fsf.org/news/endorsement- criteria](http://www.fsf.org/news/endorsement-criteria)

Specifically, the seller must use the term "GNU/Linux" for any reference to an entire operating system which includes GNU and Linux, not "Linux" or "Linux- based system" or "a system with the Linux kernel" or any other term that mentions "Linux" without "GNU". Likewise, the seller must talk about "free software" more prominently than "open source."

....am I the only one, or does it seem petty to anyone else?

<comment><USER46> The first part is rather pertinent. Android is precisely bad because it contains very little of GNU, which allows Google to develop the OS on an Apache license, and is the root of our closed-source Android problem. See [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users- freedom.htm...](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.html)

The second part is also problematic, first because it's inaccurate (MIT- and BSD-licensed software is also open source but not free software i.e copyleft, which is bad), and second because it misses the point of free software: allowing others to use your work without contributing back is is very comparable to the right to enslave. So free software says that software being free is more important than people being free to do what they want with it. Much like we generally think that people being free is more important than others being free to do what they want to their neighbors.

So it's only petty if you're not accustomed to these ideas, which you are supposed to be anyway if you go through the effort of reading these rules. That's why this label exists after all: so you don't have to give it as much thought as these people did.

<comment><USER47> MIT/BSD are free software though; Open Source adds licenses that allow viewing the source, but have various restrictions on redistribution. They're just not copyleft. Regarding Android, Google provides the source, and there was nothing precluding them from using something like DirectFB instead to build android on. With such a system, you'd end up with something that looks a lot like gtk/gnome, which "...is licensed using the LGPL license, so you can develop open software, free software, or even commercial non-free software using GTK" [1].

Additionally, it makes for awkward copy. Made with GNU/Linux can be mentally parsed a few different ways; it could mean they're joined, or could mean an either or. Furthermore, the FSF shows their pettiness in other ways, such as how they cram GNU/ into the names of Linux distributions that don't use it [2]. Their actions on this front just end up feeling petty and petulant.

[1] [https://developer.gnome.org/gtk- tutorial/stable/c24.html](https://developer.gnome.org/gtk- tutorial/stable/c24.html)

[2] [http://www.gnu.org/distros/common- distros.html](http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> "After a few years I found out that this was due to the hard keys of my keyboard." Several years? Because doctors are not free? (joke)

</comment><comment><USER49> "I read a book about Java, and found it an elegant further development from C. But I have never used it. I did write some code in Java once, but the code was in C and Lisp (I simply happened to be in Java at the time)."

\- could someone explain this passage?

Edit: does he mean the island Java?

<comment><USER50> I think so--seems to be a bit of a joke.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Relatively speaking, Netflix is like a chorus of angels when all you've known is Comcast.

Can anyone outline the argument against Netflix, Spotify, etc.? I don't follow. Is he suggesting the content should be free?

<comment><USER52> No, both the FSF and rms have repeatedly said that charging for software (or content) is perfectly fine. His issue is with the licensing and DRM.

Here is one of the FSF's sites about DRM: [https://www.defectivebydesign.org/](https://www.defectivebydesign.org/)

Personally I do use Netflix and I don't think that the company or its users are unethical, but ultimately if there were a reasonably priced service that offered DRM-free content and didn't rely on closed-source plugins and apps, I would switch in a heartbeat.

<comment><USER53> My guess is that Netflix couldn't negotiate agreements for a lot of the content that makes the service attractive without relenting on DRM. We'll know when Netflix turns evil, because it will force you to sit through commercials and previews before showing you the content you want and paid to see.

<comment><USER52> I think you are absolutely right. It's not content providers that are pushing for DRM, it's content producers. There's absolutely no way a rightsholder would let Netflix show their content if, god forbid, there was any remote possibility that a user could download and use their content outside of a controlled environment.

In some ways it parallels internet piracy. ISPs for the most part are sick of policing their users and sending out C&D letters for copyright infringement, but they more or less have to due to pressure from major studios.

<comment><USER54> Then check to see if DRM is needed to see Netflix "original" content.

<comment><USER52> It would be asinine of them to use different players/plugins for different content.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> "The most powerful programming language is Lisp. If you don't know Lisp (or its variant, Scheme), you don't know what it means for a programming language to be powerful and elegant."

You would have thought that rms would have made more of an effort to build a great Lisp on which to build better free software. Developers would be much more productive in _Lisp_ than C or Java, for example.

<comment><USER56> Lisp looks to me to be slower, use more memory, and be wordier than C:

[http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u32/compare.php?lang...](http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u32/compare.php?lang=sbcl&lang2=gcc)

<comment><USER57> As with many benchmarks, you're comparing apples and oranges. A better comparison would be with another language that uses automatic memory management (e.g., C#/mono - [http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?te...](http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=sbcl&lang2=csharp&data=u32)). I'm assuming the optimization/safety settings are the defaults, too, which means SBCL ends up doing a lot of additional type checking at runtime.

<comment><USER58> >>A better comparison would be with another language that uses automatic memory management…<<

The default comparison is to Java: [http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/lisp.html](http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/lisp.html)

>>I'm assuming the optimization/safety settings are…<<

They are shown: [http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/program.php?tes...](http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/program.php?test=nbody&lang=sbcl&id=2#log)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> aka very slowly. The web browsing part in particular sounds downright glacial.

<comment><USER60> The web browsing part is obsolete. In the last LibrePlanet he said he now uses the GNU IceCat browser (free software distribution of Firefox + several privacy protection add-ons, [http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/](http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/)) with Tor.

<comment><USER61> Also, keep in mind that one of the reason he wasn't using a web browser was that he often only had time to read articles and other material from the web when he did not have access to the internet (airplanes, trains, cars, taking a rest while hiking in a mountain, etc...), so he used this technique to treat the internet like offline emails.

<comment><USER62> It also, intentionally or not, allows him to remain uninformed through an email thread. Stallman makes a claim (perhaps about some projects licensing policy), someone refutes the claim with a link to the policy, stallman dodges with "I can't browse the web, but based on what I was told..."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> I would like to understand why he's got an account on Twitter. Yes, he uses to proxy his credentials to other sites, but I see the other reasons for not having an account on other sites also applying in the case of Twitter.

</comment><comment><USER64> His ideas are mostly hugely idealistic and categorical, ignoring real world scenarios and downplaying the downsides of free softwares. People who believe in complete anarchy can perfectly choose to live in their enclosed community, but if the world were to follow their way of living it would be a total disaster. Though of course debating their ideas would contribute to the development of practical, real world ideas in some ways. Better to have such a voice around than not, of course, but most people, after thinking it through, would just rightly reject taking his ideas verbatim.

</comment><comment><USER65> "The Google+ account using my name is also not mine."

and then

"Google+ offers to hide the user's real name, but demands people prove an "established identity" or provide ID."

Sounds contradictive.

<comment><USER66> That's not a contradiction. He says "someone signed up an account in my name, it's not me" and "I happen to now that G+ has certain rules, and I don't like them" and incidentally the rules prohibit someone from impersonating him on G+, but that doesn't mean the rules have perfect enforcement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> I am not sure why anyone cares how RMS does his computing? Would you complain about Michelangelo using his chisel in a certain way and not in your preferred way? Or Gaudi drawing just with ordinary pencils on a thin paper instead of using all the technology available in his age for initial drawings of his architectural wonders? Get over it.

<comment><USER68> Everyone knows the technique you use influences the final work. If I draft a novel by talking into a tape machine, it's gonna come out different if I wrote it on paper.

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> A truly remarkable tech veteran, Richard Matthew Stallman is. My utmost respect for you, sir.

This webpage and its content made me thinking about the purpose of internet as both communication media and e-commerce. Can someone picture the alternative internet following contents of that page as guideline?

</comment><comment><USER70> I wonder if this guy also does not have bank accounts, credit cards, phones (land or cell) to their name, and all live in a cabin in the woods without paying taxes.

It's also a bit odd that for a guy who intentionally buys a 10+ year old or so hardware to run free/libreboot on it (at least partially to trust the boot layers), didn't mind buying a Chinese laptop which was not only made in China, but also designed from parts natively developed in China including the CPU by a government institute.

His browsing habits are also a bit well laughable tbh, both because at the end even if he hogs the free WiFI at Starbucks he is traceable, and delivering internet pages of email ins't intrinsically more secure or surveillance resilient than browsing them directly.

This guy always interested me in some ways, it's quite amazing how one can be so talented and so coo coo for cocoa puffs at the same time, and in contrast to the usual extreme left social anarchists or marxists also very accomplished.

<comment> vezzy-fnord _in contrast to the usual extreme left social anarchists or marxists also very accomplished_

I can't find any evidence for him being either of these things. He has described himself as a Liberal [1], and praised Dennis Kucinich, whose political positions are quite progressive, but hardly "extreme left anarchist/Marxist" by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, these kinds of views are pretty mainstream in Western Europe and other places.

[1] [https://stallman.org/archives/2009-sep- dec.html#10%20Decembe...](https://stallman.org/archives/2009-sep- dec.html#10%20December%202009%20%28Obama%20is%20no%20Liberal%29)

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

<comment><USER70> I suggest your read his essays, I've never said he's a Marxist, but his creed to stick to his principles is very similar to some extreme left organizations. And no sorry, but his views are not mainstream in Western Europe, I live in London, I've lived in Frankfurt and in Amsterdam, and I spend most of my summers in Iceland per the orders from my "female unit", while some of his views might be shared with more or less with main stream views in modern democracies including the US btw, the reasoning behind his views, and the vigilance and the veracity in which he practices them even if it hurts certain organizations (take a look at his protests against OLPC when they decided to look into Windows which actually resulted in them losing some funding), heck he and his marry band went to Peru to protest OLPC's being delivered with Windows in hoping to build up enough counter pressure to actually revert that decision.

Now being a vanguard for free software is one thing, but using your reputation to go and protest children in developing nations getting PC's because they've switched from GNU to Windows? That's some hard core vegan shit there like dying because you refuse to eat a burger.. So yep I do hold his views and actions as extremes, not all of them ofc, some i might even agree on in practice if not in justification.

<comment><USER71> you've made an analogy saying a protest for your beliefs is like dying for your beliefs?

and you are calling somebody an extremist?

talk about hyperbole.

<comment><USER70> The guy protests charity's that get money from Bill Gates, he actively attempted to prevent children from getting computers under the OLPC's program because they could run Windows with a 7$ extension card.

When Steve Jobs died he made this post on his site:

Steve Jobs, the pioneer of the computer as a jail made cool, designed to sever fools from their freedom, has died.

As Chicago Mayor Harold Washington said of the corrupt former Mayor Daley, "I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad he's gone." 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.

Sorry but i don't need a hyperbole to relate my position that this guy has quite a few extreme views, and takes quite a few extreme actions.

P.S. Wanting to cancel a program that was aimed at bringing computing to children in underdeveloped nations is actually worse than dying out of stubbornness for your beliefs, it's actively denying people who have very little just because you think that running Windows is a Sin, this is the equivalent of Christians evangelists holding out donations to African countries that do not institute anti-gay and anti-sodomy laws.

<comment><USER71> i think you've levelled some very hyperbolic accusations re his OLPC protests.

can you provide me with the source materials for these protests? i'm not really accepting them at face value, due to your previous hyperbole.

in many cases you can protest against behaviour whilst allowing that behaviour to continue. peaceful protest versus using violence for example.

thanks for the apology re the previous hyperbole.

here's links to the steve jobs statements that you find so extreme, in case anyone is particularly interested in them(rather than reading the shortened version you have presented)

[https://stallman.org/archives/2011-jul- oct.html#06_October_2...](https://stallman.org/archives/2011-jul- oct.html#06_October_2011_\(Steve_Jobs\))

[https://stallman.org/archives/2011-jul- oct.html#27_October_2...](https://stallman.org/archives/2011-jul- oct.html#27_October_2011_%28Steve_Jobs%29)

i'm sure most people have said similar about those who have passed who do not have their enduring admiration.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> Maybe if he tried to learn some of these other tools which he currently 'has no time for' \- He would realize quickly that they pay for themselves in time saved. I guess it's probably more of a sentimental thing for him though.

</comment><comment><USER73> While I admire RMS's passion on freedom and privacy and the abhorrence of using non-free (free-as-in-freedom) software, I just wonder what he'll do or feel when non-free software has to be used to save his life one day.

<comment><USER74> Could you please qualify your statement with an example.

In his essay, He has already mentioned that he considers Microwaves, TV's, ATM's as utilities and has no qualms,

>"if updating software is not a normal part of use of the device, then it is not a computer.",

So, it derives that he is OK with flying on planes (which has proprietary software but is not prone to updates like your PC software is) or maybe an MRI machine or an Xray machine of the sorts for your life threatening scenario you mentioned. These are utilities.

<comment><USER75> That seems like a really flimsy distinction. I would've assumed the software on planes and MRI machines gets updated.

<comment><USER62> For that matter, I don't really consider updating my iPhone "normal use" though I'm pretty sure it doesn't get an exception given his remarks about "iThings".

<comment><USER39> Do you consider updating the apps installed on your iPhone to be a part of "normal use"?

<comment><USER62> That happens automatically, so don't think much about it. Back when you had to do it manually, I almost never did.

Now, I don't consider updates to be _abnormal_ , but neither is it something I'd ever list in response to "how do you normally use your phone?"

Or my kindle. I update the software on that far less frequently.

<comment><USER39> So, software upgrades are _such_ a normal part of the day-to-day operation of an iPhone that they happen automatically.

Thus, the iPhone is _very much_ a computer.

Contrast this with -say- most computer monitors. There _is_ software running in them, but -in (almost?) every case- upgrading that software requires either gaining access to programming ports inside the monitor and performing an arcane ritual that might involve specialized hardware or physically swapping out chips.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> RMS is a genius programmer but debating his opinions about what makes for a better website is like Debating Don Knuth's opinions about what makes for a better email client. We canonize these people and yet they are luddites.

</comment><comment><USER77> Stallman is a leech. He lives off the productivity of others. His lifestyle and brand is a luxury afforded to him by being employed by academic institutions. His free software is only possible because other people sell software and hardware. He is arrogant and naive, not revolutionary.

<comment><USER78> We need the left to balance the right.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> how dare he snipe at UX like that. who does he think he is?</comment>


Show HN: Clean My Forks – A free, helpful tool to clean your old GitHub forks - <AUTHOR> https://cleanmyforks.com <comment><USER2> Wow what a lovely tool!

I used it successfully to delete many old Forks.

Just one request if you could give list with select/unselect for all the forks queued for deletion so we may can unselect any few of those repos just in case.

<comment><USER3> I second this request. It's a nice tool, but it can be really easy to accidentally nuke something useful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is cool!

For those who just want to clean old branches from their forks and insist on doing this process locally, you can also check out git-sweep[1]

[1] [https://github.com/arc90/git-sweep](https://github.com/arc90/git-sweep)

<comment><AUTHOR> Looks super handy! I usually every few months clean out a repo's branches that are outdated or no longer used by hand. It's good to see there's an alternative tool for that :)</comment></comment>


Rendering fast reflections with OpenGL - <AUTHOR> http://www.opengl.org/resources/code/samples/mjktips/Reflect.html

<comment><USER2> This is from 1997. A lot has changed in real-time graphics over the last 13 years.</comment>


Ask HN: Has Y Combinator sent emails already? - <AUTHOR> The website says 10pm, but has anyone received any email already? I am either lost in time or YC is a little bit late. Could be just me since I feel really anxious =) <comment><USER2> The status of my application on [https://apply.ycombinator.com/](https://apply.ycombinator.com/) changed and I haven't received an email. You should check that out.

I wasn't selected for an interview, but I honestly am not too bothered with this. Just woke up from an amazing 8h sleep and even though I have worked every single day for the last 130+, I feel great! I used to be very emotional about rejection (just YC has turned me down 2 times before), but then I was considering every attempt as potentially THE one opportunity I have. Once I realized this is what I am going to do for the rest of my life (building startups) - the anxiety is almost gone.

No matter if my current product fails or not - I'm already a good builder, I'll get better at picking ideas, I'll get even better at telling my story and I'll apply for S19, W20, S20, W21, S21... and however many times I need to until I become a part of this amazing network of people (or until I manage to get a similar level of quality of connections on my own) and so should you, if you are serious about being an entrepreneur.

Good luck to everyone. Now back to work!

<comment><USER3> Why continue to apply without simply building a company instead? Looks like you have the #1 requirement down: tenacity, now you could channel it towards something immediately productive instead of continuing to play the lottery until you win. Note that with your actual company you could still apply to YC.

<comment><USER2> What made you think that I am not building a company/product? :)

As I said, I am moving forward and will continue applying for every batch of YC, no matter what I am working on (whether it's the same product or something new).

Sounds like you consider YC to be valuable only for idea-stage projects, but that's not true. There are companies that have raised money and still go through YC.

P.S. Viewing your application at YC as "lottery" would likely not get you even an interview. It's not a lottery. My application wasn't strong-enough and that is why it didn't get picked.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've logged in into [https://apply.ycombinator.com/](https://apply.ycombinator.com/) than I'm checking [https://apply.ycombinator.com/interviews](https://apply.ycombinator.com/interviews) and get a popup message at the top saying "sorry"

Guys on [https://www.hackerschat.net/](https://www.hackerschat.net/) said that means rejected.

</comment><comment><USER5> [https://apply.ycombinator.com/interviews](https://apply.ycombinator.com/interviews) If you see anything but "Sorry", you are probably selected.

</comment><comment><USER6> I got my email this morning (9am UK time), needless to say I wasn't selected for an interview either.

But thats OK, my application was a long shot. Just applying, and prepping for the potential interview has been a major wake-up call and I think my startup will definitely be the better for having been a part of the process.

After having read Rand Fishkin's book, I'm not sure I want VC funding anyway. I am confident I can bootstrap my way forward.

</comment><comment><USER7> For what it's worth I'm also wondering - haven't got anything (usually rejections go out last though). Could also be overloaded with startup school folks.

<comment><USER8> nobody in startupschool forum has received an email yet

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Thanks for posting, I thought we had already been rejected by not receiving an email...

I'll keep waiting then.

</comment><comment><USER10> Nothing yet :(

</comment><comment><USER11> Still waiting

<comment><AUTHOR> Good luck! I can't go to sleep before seeing it!)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> waiting...</comment>


Ares – Finally, a drone everyone can fly - <AUTHOR>

If you are interested in automated flight with HD/4K camera quality, checkout out
http://www.aresdrones.com<p>Please support the Ares Drones Kickstarter at https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/aresdrones/ares-finally-a-drone-everyone-can-fly <comment><USER2> I fly these things on (almost) daily basis, and I'm not too crazy about this. As long as they keep flying, it's all right. But sometimes you have to intervene as a pilot, and 'gettin rid of difficult controls' is the last thing you need.

DJI did a great thing with the Phantom, in terms of making the hobby accessible. They also did a great job selling multirotors to complete tools who fly these things irresposibly, possibly ruining the hobby for everyone in the future. I'm afraid that when you don't even need the most elementary skills to fly a UAV, this will become a problem even faster.

Besides that, i'm not touching anything UAV-related that can be controlled over wifi.

</comment><comment><USER3> link: [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/aresdrones/ares- finally...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/aresdrones/ares-finally-a- drone-everyone-can-fly)</comment>


Introverts are excluded unfairly in an extraverts' world - <AUTHOR> https://psyche.co/ideas/introverts-are-excluded-unfairly-in-an-extraverts-world <comment><USER2> Please. Not another category of victimhood.</comment>


Are You Fu***** Coding Me? - A blog about Go language... - <AUTHOR> http://areyoufuckingcoding.me/ Hello, some time ago I've started writing a blog about Go programming language and my transition from Ruby/Python programmer into full time Go developer. I think people interested in learning Go or looking for stuff related with distributed computing will find a lot of useful things there.<p>Cheers, nu7 <comment><USER2> The memes are a turnoff for me.

</comment><comment><USER3> The censorship doesn't really work when it's in the URL.</comment>


Firebug is a memory hog? Prove it (Please) - <AUTHOR>

So Firebug 1.9 is coming out soon, and bugfixing is top priority.
Firebug does some interesting things in order to follow requests, keep a handle on DOM nodes, etc., but most of these things use APIs that were not designed for us, aren't well know, maybe even undocumented. Let's just say that the chances of an bug like a stray reference or event listener are quite possible, resulting in memory being held and never released by the garbage collector.
So we are looking for volunteers to do the real work: start with a clean profile, no other extensions, and show us a STR (steps to reproduce). You and millions of others will reap the benefits. A nice stocking stuffer for sure!
http://getfirebug.com/wiki/index.php/I_found_a_Firebug_Bug! <comment><USER2> Great idea, might I ask what the stocking stuffer is?

<comment><USER3> The way it's worded, I believe the stocking stuffer is the "reap the benefits" that "You and Millions" will get.

<comment><USER2> Well that's a warm, fuzzy feeling for the holidays</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Selenium is gone, How do you do SPA UI testing? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> What makes you think Selenium is gone?

<comment><USER3> Selenium IDE was deprecated last year - maybe that?

\- [https://seleniumhq.wordpress.com/2017/08/09/firefox-55-and-s...](https://seleniumhq.wordpress.com/2017/08/09/firefox-55-and- selenium-ide/)

"The bad news: from Firefox 55 onwards, Selenium IDE will no longer work."

Alternatives:

\- [https://www.katalon.com/resources-center/blog/selenium- ide-a...](https://www.katalon.com/resources-center/blog/selenium-ide- alternative-firefox-chrome/)

My own metrics, comparing attention on Stack Overflow:

\- Katalon Studio immediately started getting attention on Stack Overflow after Selenium IDE was discontinued.

\- In Q2 2017 Robot Framework already had more pageviews on Stack Overflow than Selenium IDE. The gap has continued to grow since the deprecation notice.

\- In any case, Protractor is the one with the most attention on Stack Overflow between these alternatives.

\- [https://imgur.com/a/Jpe9KGl](https://imgur.com/a/Jpe9KGl)

<comment><USER2> Selenium WebDriver (aka Selenium 2.0) and Selenium IDE are different projects.

Protractor is a test runner for Angular JS that uses Selenium WebDriver to talk to browsers. It's very much alive, as are all the other test runner options (Nightwatch, Cypress, etc).</comment></comment></comment>


Hacking is Important - <AUTHOR> http://www.randsinrepose.com/archives/2012/03/13/hacking_is_important.html <comment><USER2> Here's what's funny: Rands begins with a story about Borland, and how it was this amazing software company run by hacker barbarians who by 1992 were converting their products with "complete object-oriented rewrites." What he doesn't say is that Borland's hacker ethos is what greatly diminished the company.

The company indulged a well-known programmer tendency to bulldoze and rewrite code. The company tried to rewrite Arago into dBase for Windows and in the meantime was surpassed by Microsoft Access. It tried to rewrite Quattro Pro for Windows, ended up with few new features to show for years of work, and was surpassed by Microsoft Excel. Joel Spolsky wrote about both cases in one of his best known essays <http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html>

Rands is making the point that companies need hacking, or, as he puts it, "well-maintained Barbaric chaos inside the company." In this he is right. Facebook is trouncing Google with a more hackerish ethos, and is not making the same "rewrite everything" mistake as Borland.

But Facebook /is/ making some fresh mistakes. If you were to ask yourself, "Is Facebook maybe taking an excessively hackerish view on anything like Borland did?" it would not be hard to find affirmative examples, including a series of features that use private data in a way that tends to offend non hackers, and a series of privacy defaults that do likewise.

By more fully acknowledging the ways in which the hacker ethos burned Borland (beyond the understatement that Borland's products were "running late"), and by acknowledging the problems hacker culture contributed to at Facebook, Rands would have an even better essay, one that both asserted the importance of the hacker way and that acknowledged the potential downsides of hacker thinking. I'd be interested to hear his thoughts on how to embrace hacking while also instituting some checks on the less useful impulses of programmers.

<comment><USER3> Aren't you simply reinforcing his point, though? There's a deep and fundamentally unsolvable conflict between the need to nurture the existing good versus throwing it away for what may turn out to be a failure. That companies fail attempting risky projects is not an indictment of risk-taking: Taking risk is the only way to succeed in the long term. At the same time, risk is, well, risky.

Also, you cannot look at a single company in isolation. The barbarians at Borland may have been bearded and fearsome, but that didn't mean that there weren't any other barbarians around, hacking away at other companies at the same time. There's just no fool-proof path to success. There's plenty of fool- proof ways of failing, though, and to stop taking risks and attempting to innovate has to be one.

I don't think it's really all that useful to try to learn lessons from individual mistakes made by companies in the past. They made their mistakes because they attempted things they hadn't tried in the past. With hindsight, they probably shouldn't have. Hindsight is the one thing I can guarantee you'll never have access to before you set out on a project.

<comment><USER2> Hindsight won't fix old mistakes, but looking at the past helps avoid new ones. If there are lessons in the _success_ of Borland and Facebook, surely there are lessons in their _failures_ , too. Or maybe we disagree on that.

<comment><USER3> Well, I don't agree with you entirely at least. It is not at all evident to me that looking at the past helps avoid _new mistakes_. It might help avoiding the exact mistakes that were made before, but it is highly probable that the mistakes that, again, in hindsight, should have been avoided are not the same mistakes as those that others made before.

In fact, I think there are plenty of examples throughout history of how it is the desire to avoid certain previous mistakes that directly lead to new mistakes being made.

I do agree that the lessons to be learned can be found equally among previous failures as in successes. In the same way that I think it is problematic to focus on individual previous mistakes, I also think it is problematic to focus overly much on individual previous successes. Simply copying the strategies that worked for someone else won't lead to similar success, as hundreds of failed attempts at replicating the Apple iPad can attest to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The creative destruction alluded to in this post is well covered by John Boyd's life work, although Boyd presented things through a military perspective. For a teaser, know that Boyd's philosophies underpinned the U.S. plan of attack in Operation Desert Storm.

If you want a dense white paper try Boyd's mangum opus: [http://goalsys.com/books/documents/DESTRUCTION_AND_CREATION....](http://goalsys.com/books/documents/DESTRUCTION_AND_CREATION.pdf)

and here's his excellent (and quite accessible) biography: [http://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-Pilot-Who- Changed/dp/0316...](http://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-Pilot-Who- Changed/dp/0316881465)

<comment><USER5> I'm genuinely curious: why have people downvoted dpritchett's comment?

<comment><USER6> Surprises me too as I had read Boyd and immediately knew that dpritchett was making a salient point.

I'd love to understand why the downvotes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I hope it's OK that I go of track and rant a bit about Rands in general, instead of specifically this post. Because Rands reminds me so much of both Joel and Yegge, in a very specific way. All of their posts make sense, I agree with them and I like them. Most new insight is often just provoking enough that I find myself arguing with it for a few moments before buying it wholesale. Nothing that pushes me far away from my existing core of values and ideas. At the same time it's very well written and hard to dislike. The rands test, for example, I circulated to my managers the second I read it, much like the Joel test.

The last few days I've rewatched a bunch of my favorite West Wing episodes. In a sense, reading Rands reminds me of that. It's well written, I agree with it and I enjoy it and recommend it, even though it might not teach me anything new.

<comment><USER8> I watched Rands speak at CUSEC in 2011 in Montreal. The way he speaks is similar to the way he writes. His thoughts are though-provoking and insightful, generally teaching you at least one new thing you hadn't known before.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Holding up Facebook and Apple as examples of hacking is kinda... weird. I guess skunkworks isn't a byword anymore?

<comment><USER10> Facebook's idea of hacking: "find thing that works, break it, reimplement it, release early, fix bugs later" . That's how their platform has (not) evolved over the years.

Apple's idea of hacking? I have no clue, i guess it's "brushed aluminum"

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I am not sure if I am the only one, but having read some of Rands longer pieces I have found that I have identified certain traits in myself that I hadn't realised before. I couldn't list them off if I wanted to right now, and generally it was some sort of epiphany that I had after thinking about a certain essay of his for a little while, but it has made me a better person.

Using some of the ideas and knowledge in his essays has helped me understand people better, and as I said before myself a better person. Through understanding myself better I know what to ask of others around me to accomplish greatness. It allowed me to be more confident and self-assured.

His "Nerd Handbook"[1] is probably one of my favourite essays, if you haven't read it; I suggest it.

[1]: [http://www.randsinrepose.com/archives/2007/11/11/the_nerd_ha...](http://www.randsinrepose.com/archives/2007/11/11/the_nerd_handbook.html)

</comment><comment><USER12> "These people, called managers, don't create product, they create process." Please allow me to say "bulls@#t". Those people (engineering managers, product managers, managers in general) are in the same team as the hackers and they're usually not dumb automatons with the single desire to maintain status quo. I think they all know the benfits of distruption and hacking and are willing to support it. So use them rather than blame them.

I think the bigger problem in major companies is that the engineers are so overburden with work and deadlines that they lose interest to hack or come up with brilliant new ideas.

</comment><comment><USER13> Maybe I'm getting old but reading this preaching for the choir is getting me frustrated. Like all groups of engineers you put in a room will make a disruptive technology. Maybe it just burns corporate money without reaching anything.

What disruptive technology came from google's 20%? Companies make a shift from some hackers to a big corporation where you have to report to shareholders: Hey shareholders we are going to burn a lot of money and we hope to invent the next ipod, facebook, … Or maybe not. But's not our money so let's do it.

<comment><USER14> >What disruptive technology came from google's 20%?

gmail, it disrupted the entire email market (both free and for pay email hosting).

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> yay rands!

</comment><comment><USER16> I have a hard time gleaning much of value from his posts. They are well- written, though.

<comment><USER17> That's because we're not his intended audience; our bosses are.</comment></comment>


GitHub Issues Viewer - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/jaredly/github-issues-viewer <comment><USER2> Is the purpose here to demonstrate React or to attempt a better UI for Github Issues?</comment>


The TikZducks package: using ducks in TikZ - <AUTHOR> https://ctan.org/pkg/tikzducks <comment><USER2> I got _really_ into TikZ near the end of college. I've always been amazed by what people have been able to do with it. Stuff like this:

[http://www.texample.net/tikz/examples/focused-ion-beam- syste...](http://www.texample.net/tikz/examples/focused-ion-beam-system/)

and

[http://www.texample.net/tikz/examples/textronics- oscilloscop...](http://www.texample.net/tikz/examples/textronics- oscilloscope/)

Can't say I'm surprised that someone has implemented some great ducks!

</comment><comment><USER3> alt: LaTeX TikZ for Cryptographers

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17756302](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17756302)

[https://www.iacr.org/authors/tikz/](https://www.iacr.org/authors/tikz/)</comment>


"No Cost" License Plate Readers Are Turning Texas Police into Debt Collectors - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/no-cost-license-plate-readers-are-turning-texas-police-mobile-debt-collectors-and <comment><USER2> > As police cars patrol the city, they ping on license plates associated with > the fees. The officer then pulls the driver over and offers them a devil's > bargain: go to jail, or pay the original fine with an extra 25% processing > fee tacked on, all of which goes to Vigilant.

So, they're planning to turn the Texas prison system into de facto debtors' prisons, and the Texas police system into de facto highwaymen. One more factor to add to the giant pile of reasons for ill-will that the US state and Federal governments have been collecting. That pile can't get much taller without toppling, and while I do greatly hope the blowback happens through the democratic process, that process is pretty severely damaged and this looks less and less likely every year.

<comment><USER3> > they're planning to turn the Texas prison system into de facto debtors' > prisons

Whoa there, hold on a second. That's not what's going on at all. The plates are being run to detect if the car's owner has _outstanding court fines_ , which are not akin to a simple debt. These are (probably) justified, punitive fees imposed on an individual for some kind of offense against the law (and by extension, the public). It's not the case that the police are extorting people that are behind on their rent/credit card payments or something.

That said, this behavior is still troubling insofar as it is likely to disproportionately result in the targeting and punishment of the poor, which is in itself a rather problematic issue. And it's certainly troubling that the additional fee being imposed to process payment for the fines collected is far above what seems to be (at a glance, anyway) a reasonable margin for operating costs.

<comment><USER4> First, I don't think you can make the distinction between whatever you are calling "simple debt" (care to at least define things that you make up?) and the various fees associated with the United States and particularly the Texas legal system.

Second, even if you grant there is a difference between the debt types, how can he be wrong about it being de facto "debtors prison"? Who cares what the debt type is, it would still be a debtors prison, and there are a myriad of very good reasons we got rid of such things!

Third, the legal system is extremely unfavourable to the middle-class and poor, to the extent that I would also argue with your claim that the fees are "(probably) justified"... Another thing to remember is that fees have become revenue generators, and to look at them as punitive damages to be payed to the public for offenses is a naive take on the ways fees have developed in the legal and justice systems.

For example, I (in Texas btw) who almost never gets tickets, got one last year. Normally I have a paralegal friend do the deferred adjudication, I take a class, and move on. Well this last ticket they missed the deadline, I forgot about it, and the original $160 fee ballooned eventually to $700! Not only that, but technically, until I payed it, there was a warrant out for my arrest!

Do you think that kind of percentage increase is warranted or the warrant for arrest for not paying a fee is justified, because I certainly don't. I managed to pay it off, but for someone earning less would have had a very hard time paying that big of a fee, much less the financial impact of being fucking arrested...

" It's not the case that the police are extorting people that are behind on their rent/credit card payments or something."

Please explain how this is correct now, because it seems obviously false. (aka, they _are_ extorting people because they are behind on payments (just because you made the false distinction of credit cards/rent and court fines does not make that fact magically go away...), and the police are even doing it for a third party!)

That's not even getting into the privacy and other issues the eff raises. For example, my paralegal friend has access to the TLO system and can look up plates and their geo/time data. While she wouldn't abuse it, the barriers to entry for paralegals can be pretty low in some firms...

<comment><USER5> "Third, the legal system is extremely unfavourable to the middle-class and poor, to the extent that I would also argue with your claim that the fees are "(probably) justified"... Another thing to remember is that fees have become revenue generators, and to look at them as punitive damages to be payed to the public for offenses is a naive take on the ways fees have developed in the legal and justice systems." I couldn't agree more.

The penalty for civil infractions is a fine and/or jail time. We've become so use to just payig fines we think it's a debtors prison if the law breaker doesn't pay the fine so we opt to penalize then with jail time. Perhaps we should just great everyone fairly and use jail time penalties only. That could lead to some reforms read quickly. The bigger offense and issue I have is when the state then charges the inmates for room and board. That's wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I can't say I'm surprised that this is happening. As technology progresses, it only makes sense that government becomes more efficient at doing things that we like and don't like. As soon as red-light cameras became OK, or any license plate reading systems, this eventuality was on the table.

I'm only saddened by the fact that they've been essentially duped by some private sector company into selling private citizens' data (and allowing them to retain it even after expiration of the contract) instead of trying to develop this technology themselves, and actually innovating. This move reduces citizen privacy, and costs citizens privacy all at the same time.

The next thing I look to see happen is automated speeding tickets. There's no reason radars shouldn't be set up in conjuction with license plate readers, or actually just pulling speed data from cars with in-car transmission ability and tickets being auto-generated to constituents.

Imagine trying to argue against why your car shouldn't be monitored for speeding infringements -- surely you're either a speeder trying to kill kids and families, or you're a getaway driver trying to commit crimes. Then the law goes into place (of course, save the kids), then people realize some car companies transmit location info by accident/on purpose, and people can now pretty much watch you drive places.

<comment><USER7> > The next thing I look to see happen is automated speeding tickets. There's > no reason radars shouldn't be set up in conjuction with license plate > readers, or actually just pulling speed data from cars with in-car > transmission ability and tickets being auto-generated to constituents.

This seems like a Catch-22, though. Any state that actually enforced speeding laws systematically would wind up ticketing (almost) all drivers, (almost) all the time, and the selective nature of current enforcement of speeding limits would become so glaringly apparent that (one hopes) the problems with it couldn't be ignored.

Especially in a state like Texas, where "no regulation" is a religious mantra, it's hard to imagine that the result would be anything but raising the speed limits on the road to reflect actual driving conditions—which, I'd argue, is a good thing. (I don't know anything about the reason, but I do know that, on a stretch of I-35 that I have driven regularly for a few years, the speed limit has increased; and the trend statewide seems to be towards higher limits, with much of I-10 having a speed limit of 80 mph—beyond which I, as a Prius driver, wouldn't go significantly even if I were legally allowed to do so.)

<comment><USER8> I've heard the argument before, not sure if it was backed with any real data, that perfect enforcement leads to wiping out tickets as a source of revenue, because people start actually obeying the law.

In some cases it actually makes things more dangerous, like red-light cameras appear to cause accidents, because people afraid of tickets start slamming on their brakes when the light turns yellow, and get rear ended.

[http://abcnews.go.com/US/red-light-camera-backlash- cameras-c...](http://abcnews.go.com/US/red-light-camera-backlash-cameras- causing-accidents/story?id=13925887)

<comment><USER9> > perfect enforcement leads to wiping out tickets as a source of revenue, > because people start actually obeying the law.

Exactly.

And this is why most red-light cameras got dismantled. They were about revenue. Once everybody knew that the cameras were there, revenue went to zero.

I have _NO_ problem with red-light cameras at actually dangerous intersections. The goal is to get people to obey the law, after all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "We're unlikely to get answers from the government agencies who signed these contracts. To access Vigilant's powerful online data systems, agencies agree not to disparage the company or even to talk to the press without the company's permission"

How is it possibly legal for a government, which is supposed to be transparent, to contract with a private company and accept a term saying they cannot talk about the private company without company approval?

</comment><comment><USER11> To me the most disturbing part is that Vigilant can keep the data for as long as they want:

> According the company's usage and privacy policy, Vigilant "retains LPR data > as long as it has commercial value." Vigilant can sell or license that > information to other law enforcement bodies, and potentially private > companies such as insurance firms and repossession agencies.

</comment><comment><USER12> Just when you think it can't get worse. It gets worse.

I guess in a crazy kind of way it makes sense. Government has been mooching off commercial data collection for some time. It's about time the commercial sector got to use government agents as sort of a contracted private intelligence agency.

<sarcastically>And hell, you could bump this up a notch. Just start paying for body cams on all federal agents. If the agent needs the data in court you save it, otherwise it can magically disappear (without any kind of judicial overview). Better yet, lying to a federal agent is a felony! So just text the guy and give him some sample questions he might want to ask. It'd be like a magic button to privately deposition anybody you'd like.</sarcastically>

I apologize for the hair-on-fire reaction. Good grief, it's blatantly obvious that the players here, both commercial and governmental, are going to push this thing as hard as they possibly can until somebody stops them. I'm still trying to figure out who somebody is going to be.

ADD: A plug: I rant about this often on my FB page. God knows I try to keep it off HN but it's a long-lasting news story that's intricately related to the things we do. (FB page is [https://www.facebook.com/Freedom-or- Safety-405551942874575](https://www.facebook.com/Freedom-or- Safety-405551942874575))

<comment><USER13> Well, the historical response to being robbed by armed thugs is to get bigger weapons and your own thugs. And in Texas, it's easier to get guns that it is to get water (as far as I can tell, observing from Canada). The only thing I don't understand is why an open shooting war between the police and the citizens hasn't broken out already.

<comment><USER14> AFAICT, the citizenry that votes loves law enforcement and "tough" regulations; the people most comfortable with guns are also in love with this government. Further, voter turnout in the last major election was ~28% (or 34%, depending on whom you ask) so the ability to work the democracy angle is quite limited.

The government keeps the populace happy by making noises related to "lowered taxes", which is accompanied by the reality shown by this extortion gambit, skyrocketing fines in general, and generally regressive taxation policies. It is a sad state of affairs, no pun intended.

[http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/texas-had-the-worst- voter...](http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/texas-had-the-worst-voter- turnout-in-the-country-and-the-rain-in-dallas-didnt-help-7117659)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I had a friend in NYC just hit by a case of mistaken identify with ALPRs being used by roving repo men looking to reclaim vehicles. It certainly isn't restricted to the realm of law enforcement...

<comment><USER16> They should be charged with grand larceny if they mistakenly removed his car.

<comment><USER17> Am Canadian, so my legal understanding may not match American law. My understanding of Canadian law is that that situation would not have had mens rea (a guilty mind); the repo man was repossessing a car which he believed was one that he was entitled to repossess. However, the repo man would like be guilty of civil negligence and the owner court would ensure that the owner was made whole (no towing fees, rental fees covered, maybe a bit of extra cash to cover the hassle/lost work/whatever).

<comment><USER15> Basically the repo guy was negligent. They got a reader hit for a car they were looking for and he just drove to that block and looked for a white make X model Y and went up to the first one he found (my friend's) and tried to tell him he was going to take the car without ever looking at the VIN #. The cops were called and the guy admitted he never checked the VIN, which was obviously not a match for what he was looking for.

<comment><USER17> For sure... But was it civil negligence or criminal negligence? Civil negligence is exactly what I'm talking about, with the courts coming up with an adequate remedy to make the car owner whole.

In Canada, criminal negligence is defined as: "219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons."

It'd be a pretty hard sell here for him to meet that definition, but the common law/civil definition would certainly fit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Forgive me my ignorance... What am I supposed to do with this information other than get angry? (Double that for non-Texas residents.) What is the point of this if there's no call to action?

 _I 'm a rage-aholic! I'm addicted to rage-ahol!!!"_ \-- Homer Simpson

<comment><USER19> The EFF isn't a problem solver, they're a watch-dog.

Do what you will with the information they give you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I live in Europe, we have similar problems but not at this level. I will just add one quote from Greece:

> _New bill lowered fine from 400 euros to 50 euros, as long as offender > presents vehicle at KTEO for inspection within 10 days of violation. Traffic > wardens were hesitant to issue fines with debt crisis._

[http://livingingreece.gr/2007/04/20/fines-parking-tickets- mo...](http://livingingreece.gr/2007/04/20/fines-parking-tickets-moving- violations-greece/)

</comment><comment><USER21> Between this and cops simply stealing money, also known euphemistically as asset forfeiture, it's a huge risk to drive anywhere these days. How can ordinary, law-abiding citizens have respect for the law when the law is written to specifically hurt them? I suppose on our way to fascism, privacy is only a small bump in the road, barely even worth this comment.

<comment><USER22> > How can ordinary, law-abiding citizens have respect for the law when the law > is written to specifically hurt them

You do realize for the scenario to play out as-in the article, one must have already broken the law and is therefore not a "law-abiding citizen".

<comment><USER23> I live in an area with all kinds of automated toll cameras.

I get unexpected bills in the mail all the time for simply going over a bridge or unknowingly driving in the 'premium' fee lane.

Lose a little mail, wait a little time, and _bam_ you're a violator.

It's so common as to be a normal thing that people pick up traffic fines.

<comment><USER22> > It's so common as to be a normal thing that people pick up traffic fines.

And so we should just not try to collect on legally owed fines imposed for breaking the law?

> Lose a little mail, wait a little time, and bam you're a violator

If you had a due date to pay a fine... and you didn't pay that fine by the due date... then yes, you're a violator. Not sure how that's not clear.

<comment><USER24> You're missing the point. Of course he has to pay. The punishment of spending a night (or weekend, if you get unlucky) in jail so you can see a judge in the morning is disproportionate to either losing or neglecting to pay a small fine.

It should not be the choice between go to jail for the night, or pay a third party private company an extra 25%.

Basically why does this exist? Those that can afford to generally pay these fines eventually when they go to renew tabs/get pulled over/whatever. Those that can't afford them won't pay them either way, and this just makes their already shitty lives shittier by likely putting them out of work.

There were times I got to work and back barely making ends meet when I had outstanding warrants for unpaid tickets. I did what I had to do to feed my family, got back on my feet, and paid them off. Automated scanners at every turn would have put me out of work, and minimum out of the bottom rungs of the career I currently enjoy.

At some point you need to stop kicking people while their down, and use a little common sense. Extorting them another 25% or ruining their lives is ridiculous.

I agree you need a way to go after scofflaws, but the they are a very small minority in a very wide sea of folks kind of caught up in a system they are unlikely to get out of. If you think Payday loan stores are bad, just get in debt to the government.

<comment><USER25> _It should not be the choice between go to jail for the night, or pay a third party private company an extra 25%._

Considering how it works in literally every other state, where you're arrested with no ifs ans or buts if you have outstanding violations on your record (and have let them lapse that far)...

Okay, you want to _remove_ the ability for people to pay the fines on the spot? Because that is literally the only difference here. An option where one did not previously exist.

Now let me try to get in front of this thread. The answer to people being between a rock and a hard place with regard to traffic fines is, quite simply, to not get them in the first place, something which many people are able to do remarkably well.

This is not a popular statement of fact, the response to which is usually a list of edge cases about how someone didn't see they were in the HOV lane, or rolled through the stop sign or did something else because "everyone else does it", or whatever.

Okay, what's your answer to that? Don't give poor people tickets for breaking the law / fine them less?

Bzzt. Unconstitutional on its face because equal protection, regardless of how you view the 99%/1% class warfare issue.

So it sounds like we're attacking this from the wrong side. The problem is not that perfectly legitimate fines are legally assessed and Bad Things happen to you when you don't pay them. That is the system working as it's supposed to.

 _I agree you need a way to go after scofflaws, but the they are a very small minority_

The cavalier attitude with which people treat basic rules of the road would appear to indicate otherwise. You (again, random example) roll through a stop sign because you don't think a cop is going to see it and the extra couple of seconds are that important, you've rolled the dice with full knowledge and consent.

Same thing if you're not paying attention and miss something you're obligated to not miss. Well, it sucks, but you're in control of a multi-ton hunk of high speed metal and paying attention to your surroundings is _kind of a big deal_.

Sometimes the dice don't go your way. I'm not sure it's possible to concoct a law that is both constitutional in the sense of "the same laws/penalties for everyone" and also adaptable to meet the needs of the violators.

Look at it this way - self driving cars are coming sooner rather than later, and most of these things won't be a problem anymore.

<comment><USER4> A bunch of strawman and other logical fallacies I hope people don't fall for.

"Okay, what's your answer to that? Don't give poor people tickets for breaking the law / fine them less?

Bzzt. Unconstitutional on its face because equal protection, regardless of how you view the 99%/1% class warfare issue."

How about just not charging such ridicilous fines, and stop creating warrants for peoples arrests because they haven't payed a fucking fine? How about that there Mr. I _kowtow to the totalitarian master_?

<comment><USER25> _stop creating warrants for peoples arrests because they haven 't payed a fucking fine_

Our entire legal system (and indeed the legal system of most countries) is based on incremental punishments for further noncompliance. You break the law, you get fined. You don't pay the fine, you lose the associated privilege. You ignore that loss, you go to jail.

This is _necessary_ to ensure compliance. Without this, the law may as well not exist because people can violate it with absolute impunity.

 _How about just not charging such ridicilous fines_

"Ridiculous" in the case of someone below the poverty line could be as small as a $20-$50 speeding/parking ticket.

The snark is not necessary or welcome, thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This should also highlight Jobs' non-plated vehicle loophole that he used.

Eveyone should be using that loophole... oh wait you have to be the $1% in order to afford such an exploit.

I recall getting a C&D order for making a comment on HN here a while back warning of a particular company who was installing LPR devices at their HQ.

LPR is an insidious technology.

</comment><comment><USER27> Holy crap this is alarming! I'm so glad that there are institutions like the eff that can catch these kinds of practices and predict how they can be mismanaged to serve rather ulterior motives.

As a side note, I have a sick feeling that this technology will be used to exclusively target the most vulnerable of society. In fact, it provides an incentive for police to patrol those neighborhoods, since they are (AFAIK) more likely to have outstanding debts or unlikely to have the means to pay them promptly.

</comment><comment><USER28> 25% tacked on ??? That's government enforced shakedowns.

</comment><comment><USER29> Are your movements in public really private information? "John Smith as seen on the corner of 14th and Main Sts at 12pm today" doesn't really smack of private info that needs to be protected.

Yes, someone could analyze all the data and learn about your habits, but to what end? If you've got someone that dedicated to watching where you go, you probably have a larger problem than just the information existing in a database (i.e. a stalker, abusive ex, etc.) and that problem needs to be dealt with.

Your location in public has always been publicly available to anyone near you, it just wasn't recorded and stored.

<comment><USER30> The information becomes more private the more aggregated it gets. If you have a stalker following you around everywhere, you can get a restraining order against them. If detailed information of your locations were to be available online, you couldn't stop anyone from looking at it.

<comment><USER29> Looking at it and then what? If they _act_ on it by actually stalking you, then yes, arrest them. We already have laws against that.

What harm comes to you by someone looking at a record of where you've been?

<comment><USER31> He can know when you leave and get home. Perfect time for a robbery.

<comment><USER29> This is backwards from how robberies work. Burglars go to a neighborhood and look for a house where nobody's home. They don't pick out a house before hand and wait until it's empty.

Even if they did, why would they try to crack into a government database instead of just sitting outside until you leave?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> What is the accuracy rate on the ALPRs?

As anyone that has dealt with data on a large scale attest, data purity is hard to maintain at scale and over time.

Vigilant has already had to issue apologies for incorrect warrants being served. The consequences of "oops, my bad" are asymmetrical and not tilted in favor of error. One might argue collateral damage but I do not believe this is acceptable at all.

</comment><comment><USER33> >Anyone who is not an anarchist agrees with having a policeman at the corner of the street; but the danger at present is that of finding the policeman half-way down the chimney or even under the bed.

G. K. Chesterton, _What I Saw In America_ , 1922

</comment><comment><USER34> I have a mixed feeling about this.

On one hand, having law enforcements make money for private organizations sound really terrible; on the other hand, letting people get away with breaking rules will create a terrible culture that I experienced first hand.

A bit on the later, if the rules are too strict, or punishment(fines) too high, then rules should be challenged/modified. Whereas if you create very strict rules, but only enforce it selectively, either due to officer's personal judgement or lack of policing resources, it creates incentive for police officers to become corrupt, less deterrent for people breaking rules and making bad rules more tolerable (because most people do not get personally affected).

</comment><comment><USER35> You could argue the "privacy" factor and I get it, but I don't really see a problem with this. You're already registered with the state, and the license plate identifies you. You chose to break, evade the law, and not pay your fines. Everyone else obeys the law. So you get pulled over, pay the fine, and be done with it.

I'd consider taking it a step further in the efficiency department. If someone doesn't follow up with a ticket after ninety days or whatever, auto debit their account. Thoughts?

<comment><USER36> That "efficiency department" wants 25% over the debt amount AND unlimited usage of the collected data until it's "commercially viable". The latter part is especially outrageous.

<comment><USER35> Any idea how much simple tickets cost after compounding for months/years? They'll end up costing multiples of the original. This sounds like a win for both sides.

<comment><USER36> Tickets should not be used for profit generation. It's a form of punishment and determent.

Plus, for how long +25%? For the time it paid off the system or perpetually? Is there a price on other "commercial" usage of collected data?

<comment><USER37> Nobody said it's a 'lease to own' situation with the system. Never mind that it includes computing time and server-side calculations and database access so chances are it is a system that is simply being 'leased' to the police at the cost of 25% added value to all transactions made possible through it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> This is odd when juxtaposed with Texas's debt collection laws which are extremely liberal.

</comment><comment><USER39> Although such behaviour has gone on in one way or another for as long as there have been police/soldiers, this is not part of the Orwell 'Big Brother' script. In most Dystopian futures the apparatus of Police state is paid for with some type of other taxation, not the police officers doing highway robbery.

</comment><comment><USER23> Why is it the EFF reporting on this and not the ACLU?

</comment><comment><USER40> How feasible would it be to build a personal ALPR?

</comment><comment><USER41> Broke? Go to jail, that will sure help.

The system is so broken.

If they want to pull people over, great, let's set them up for success instead of threatening to take away their liberties.</comment>


Why don't we buy sysadmin books anymore?  - <AUTHOR> http://www.standalone-sysadmin.com/blog/2010/06/why-dont-we-buy-books-anymore/

<comment><USER2> * Because server software configuration sucks much less now (compare sendmail.cf to Postfix or qmail)

* Because modern server software is more sophisticated and delegates less to insanely complicated configurations; more unicorns and fairy dust, more "batteries included"

* Because things that involve complex configurations are more likely to sprout "aftermarket" utilities (like monit or god)

* Because a 5-minute "get it up and running" first user experience is now the barrier to entry for new server programs

* Because so much server software starts out pure open source and requires good documentation just to get people to use it in the first place

* Because high-end sysadmins are far more likely to be Python, Perl, or Ruby programmers now than they were in 1996

<comment><USER3> Because after the author has spent a year putting words to the page, getting it printed, putting it on the shelves, getting positive reviews, and getting word of mouth out there, the software I'm using has gone from 2.x to 3.x, the config file format has changed, and it's compatible with the thing I couldn't figure out already.

I could understand buying RHEL books, since RHEL (by virtue of 'tested and supported' software), is typically a few years behind the times anyway, or 'starter' books for people who aren't familiar with the topic, but there are so many good howtos, config examples, setup scripts, utilities, IRC channels, etc. that spending $80 on a book that will likely only come in handy two or three times before it's completely out of date just makes no sense at all.

Software these days moves too fast for dead trees to keep up. Give me a Safari Bookshelf app on my iPad and maybe we can talk.

<comment><USER4> Just in case you didn't know, the Safari Bookshelf mobile website is quite good. Most of the books I use are deemed "mobile friendly" and the experience is good enough that at times I will choose to read on my iPhone rather than on my desktop.

<comment><USER3> I didn't know, but I'll consider taking a look. I find it's far too expensive to be worthwhile though, at least at the advertised prices.

<comment><USER5> Become an ACM member. Membership includes access to a subset of Safari Books and Books 24x7.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Funny, looking by my recycle bin, there are three large stacks of outdated unix/linux/sysadmin books. The best resource for recipes is the internet once you have the base.

Seems technology moves faster than books can be written, published, and shipped. The digestion cycle is just too long for this media. Personally, I see a big future in people publishing their own ebooks. Cuts many of these old fashioned publishers out of the game and returns profits to the people.

</comment><comment><USER7> Because we have the internet, and most books with "Sysadmin" anywhere in the title are garbage beyond entry-level.

There are a few gems out there about system engineering and longer-term good practices, but anything else is a waste of time.

</comment><comment><USER8> It also depends on your definition of sysadmin books. I recently purchased Windows Powershell 2.0 TFM. Could I have found most of this information on the web? Most definitely, but buying the book allows me to have it all in one place. In addition to that I get it in a limited amount of voices.

I'm not even an admin. Powershell is just too much frakkin fun. If you haven't checked it out yet you should. Maybe you will find it is not for you, but maybe you will enjoy it as much as I do.

</comment><comment><USER9> i bet the rise of cloud hosting providers and SaaS has decreased the demand for sysadmins and self-hosting. Also the state of free online tech info is much better than say in the 90's, plus there's all the pirated and copylefted ebooks and PDF's available through mechanisms like BitTorrent.</comment>


Google's New Service Translates Languages Almost as Well as Humans Can - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602480/googles-new-service-translates-languages-almost-as-well-as-humans-can/ <comment><USER2> Almost as good as human translators at getting the basic meaning right and putting words in the right order, for similar language pairs, translating wikipedia articles. The skill of human translators isn't based on getting the information right, that's a given. The difference between a good and a bad translator is how well they capture the thoughts and intent of the speaker, whether they can make their audience feel the same way as the original did. I say it every time one of these articles comes up, a machine capable of universal translation will be none other than a true AI.

</comment><comment> xkcd-sucks Is there an intermediate representation or is it a big matrix of pairwise language translations? If it's the former we could just start speaking that

<comment><USER3> No intermediate representation, which is puzzling to me. There's so much shared structure between languages, especially things like closely related European languages. You get none of that with this approach.

Either way the intermediate representation would probably be a vector, so not very practical for human use.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > Google researcher Quoc Le says Google's big translation upgrade could also > lead to improved relations between people and machines.

Why does he think this?</comment>


Roger Ailes and the rise of Fox News - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/10/roger-ailes-fox-news-murdoch

<comment><USER2> If Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are out of ideas for what to do with their billions, I suggest buying Fox News and then shutting it down would be one of the single greatest humanitarian acts that they could do.</comment>