The World Is Running Out of Sand - <AUTHOR> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/world-facing-global-sand-crisis-180964815/?no-ist <comment><USER2> I've had a weird front row seat to sand in Minnesota. We have a popular local renaissance festival southwest of the Twin Cities. Its location is typical for such things - a plot of otherwise unused land near a riverbed, too sandy for typical Minnesota farming, thanks to the meanderings of the nearby Minnesota River.

The sandy soil, it turns out, is like a hundred feet deep, and _perfect_ for fracking operations in the kinda-nearby North Dakota gas fields. A few years back, the owners started aggressively strip-mining it, leaving gaping holes where the festival parking lots once were. Eventually, they ended the lease with the festival, in order to strip-mine the land it sits on.

Imagine that... mere "sand", so valuable that it's worth giving up a substantial commercial lease that has run for decades and should have been able to run for decades into the future (and provides hundreds of local jobs), just for the one-time use.

<comment><USER3> It makes sense if you think about it... let's say that sand sells for $10 per cubic yard. If there's a substantial area with sand down to 100ft you're talking millions upon millions of dollars worth of sand!

<comment><USER2> Yeah, I assume the value of the sand is on par with at least a decade or two of the lease value, for the land owners. It still strikes me as a poor decision for the city, though. The renaissance festival employs hundreds of locals every summer, has for decades, would for decades. It also supports a caste of roaming professional performers who live there for a few months every year, spending money in town. That's a lot of economic activity! Instead, it'll be exchanged for money to go to a probably out-of-town mining operation, and the land will be permanently worthless after that - just a big hole in the ground, filling up with water.

<comment><USER4> People also have to work at the sand mine too. Unlike festival jobs these aren't seasonal and the pay is actually livable and something you can raise a family on.

I understand losing your festival isn't fun, in fact I remember you writing this on hn previously when there were articles about sand mining but you have to understand that this happens in all cities. Some old theatre gets torn down to make way for a new high rise condo, or a tech company decides to move in and tears down a factory to make way for a shiny new office building.

Additionally, if the festival promotors really cared for the festival and the long tradition of it, wouldn't they just ya know move to a different field to host it?

<comment><USER2> Moving a large festival with hundreds of workers and thousands of attendees to a new, stable location isn't as easy as it sounds. And yes, they are doing that, but it took a couple of years of looking for a viable new location.

As for sand mining as a "not seasonal" job - that mine will be played out in a year or two. The fest jobs are more long-term viable, by far. There are a number of local small businesses that make much of their annual income in the couple of months that the festival is open every summer/fall.

<comment><USER5> It sounds like those local businesses should be pooling together to find the festival permanent home. I realize that it may not be easy to find a spot- all the more reason to try to find something the festival can own... maybe the businesses could pool their money and buy some land, put it in a trust to be used for the festival grounds. The grounds could be used for other events when the festival isn't happening.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I learned about the importance of sand (and other media) this year when setting up a saltwater tank for my s.o.; I really had no idea beforehand.

Sand provides a huge amount of surface area for colonies of bacteria responsible for converting ammonia into nitrites and nitrites into nitrates, which can then be taken up by plants or algae and converted into other chemicals that are less harmful to aquatic species.

Dredging sand from rivers and beaches is likely going to be seen as a massive ecological disaster in the next couple of decades.

<comment><USER2> One of my favorite factoids is that in many deserts, the most common plant life by weight is algae. It grows in tiny drops of dew on the underside of grains of sand.

<comment><USER7> Wait, so the most common plant life by weight _isn 't_ algae, then? What is it actually?

<comment><USER8> Factoid has two almost opposite meanings

1\. an insignificant or trivial fact.

2\. something fictitious or unsubstantiated that is presented as fact, devised especially to gain publicity and accepted because of constant repetition.

<comment><USER9> Interesting. Are there any other words in the English language with two contradicting definitions?

<comment><USER10> There are literally millions of them.

Some people object when a word means its opposite, but I could care less.

<comment><USER11> I can't sanction your response.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> One of my favorite bits of trivia is that Australia sells sand (and camels!) to Saudi Arabia [1]. In fact, the Arab countries import most of the sand used for construction because their own sand is not well suited to that purpose.

[1] [https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Saudi-Arabia- imports-s...](https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Saudi-Arabia-imports- sands-from-Australia-If-so-why)

<comment><USER13> And US sells chop sticks to China :)

<comment><USER14> I was surprised to find that the US also grows most of the world's cotton for clothing. I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't produce a lot of wood products, too.

<comment><USER15> Yes, but not as much as I originally thought, in relative terms: [https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/money-does-grow-trees-us- fores...](https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/money-does-grow-trees-us-forest- product-exports-set-record)

      As the world's fourth-largest exporter of forest products
      (behind the European Union, China, and Canada), the United
      States maintains a steady share of the growing global market
      at just over 10 percent.

<comment><USER16> Probably because we use so much of it ourselves for housing and stuff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Only somewhat related, I recently was in Malibu and needing to relieve myself my wife and I stopped into an open house for a beachfront home. Nice house, private beach access. Anyway, the agent tells me that just down the road the residents there lost their private beach. Work was done to a harbor a couple miles north and it changed the tidal dynamics and in just a couple of days all the sand was washed away.

I had never heard of that before. Hard to feel too bad about people losing their private beach but interesting nevertheless.

The house had nice facilities, 10/10 would use again.

<comment><USER18> Side note about Malibu: those beaches aren't private, but homeowners illegally block access. (with cooperation from the sherriff's dept, who know where their bread is buttered)

<comment><USER17> The agent was clear that the beach wasn't private, but the beach _access_ is on private property. Somebody can walk to it during low tide but the only land-route off the beach during high tide is thru a locked gate on private property.

Is that correct or an over-simplification?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> According to Google autocomplete, the world is also running out of antivenom, bees, cocoa, doctors, energy, fish, gravity, helium, ip addresses, jobs, lithium, magnets, nutella, oil, phosphorus, rice, scotch, topsoil, vanilla and water.

<comment><USER20> I'm definitely most concerned about the scotch.

<comment><USER21> I was blown away at gravity shortage

<comment><USER22> I suppose that's exhibit A for the gravity shortage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The developed world is not running out of sand. It's making sand by crushing rock. Here's a typical sand-making plant in China, with old, beat-up equipment making sand in high quantity.[1] There are lots of sand-making machine videos on Youtube, some from China, some from India, and some from the US. They all work about the same; first there's a rock-crusher, then some screening, then a cone crusher which crushes gravel against gravel until it's sand, then a washing and screening stage. All the plants look similar - lots of conveyors and trucks, few people. It's not even that energy intensive. Look at the motor sizes on the equipment. The trucks are probably using more energy than the crushers.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07WTDgO- K-k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07WTDgO-K-k)

<comment><USER24> I thought it was crushed _coral_, not rock?

<comment><USER25> Checking wikipedia, it looks like silica-based sands are the most common type. Most rocks are composed heavily from silicate compounds -- I'm guessing this is why sand manufacturing is possible. Calcium carbonate, which is crushed coral and shellfish, is the second most common type of sand.

I'm curious about the differences between these two types of sand and how it affects their use cases. I also wonder if manufactured silica-based sands are any different from the naturally occurring variety.

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

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_(geology)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_\(geology\))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This is a big problem in India too. Many of the rivers in Kerala state have been impacted by illegal sand mining. We had rarely used property next to the river which we sold to a relative who had a house next to ours. They fell on hard times and sold it to someone else who discovered the sand and started mining the land ($$$$). That land, the house, the large jackfruit and coffee trees are no more; in its place is a huge indentation in the landscape where the river would fill if there was enough water. The rest of the river has very little sand in it as a result of mining. Natural flooding is now very rare. It has been reduced to a sliver of its former self.

</comment><comment><USER27> This article on the same topic is worth reading: How the demand for sand is killing rivers [http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-41123284](http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-41123284)

</comment><comment><USER28> Interesting comment on article: Isn't this better stated as "some areas of the world are running out of sand"? The Sahara is 9.2E12 meters squared and one estimate puts the average depth of sand at 150m, giving 1.38E15 m^3 of sand. The earth's land area is 5.1E14 m^2, meaning the sand in the Sahara alone is enough to cover earth's land area in 2.7m (9ft) of sand

<comment><USER29> Sand =! Industrial usable Sand. Not all kind of "Sand" is suited for the industry(today). Most desert/dune sand is to fine grained and has a smooth surface, so that it is unusable to create strong material. There are some projects/studies already that use "desert sand + X" to create "strong" material.

[http://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/global-material- flows-a...](http://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/global-material-flows-and- resource-productivity)

[https://na.unep.net/geas/archive/pdfs/GEAS_Mar2014_Sand_Mini...](https://na.unep.net/geas/archive/pdfs/GEAS_Mar2014_Sand_Mining.pdf)

[https://www.hindawi.com/journals/amse/2016/2158706/](https://www.hindawi.com/journals/amse/2016/2158706/)

[http://maxwellsci.com/print/rjees/v4-1071-1078.pdf](http://maxwellsci.com/print/rjees/v4-1071-1078.pdf)

<comment><USER30> > _Sand =! Industrial usable Sand. Not all kind of "Sand" is suited for the > industry(today). Most desert/dune sand is to fine grained and has a smooth > surface_

That's why you mine it to the East, closer to where it erodes, rather than to the West, where it is fine enough to be considered dust.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> We're just an oxygen atom away from turning the CO2 from coal, natural gas, and oil power plants into CO3.

[http://www.sfgate.com/green/article/Green-cement-may-set- CO2...](http://www.sfgate.com/green/article/Green-cement-may-set-CO2-fate-in- concrete-3196916.php)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4Unt7MRsV4&t=267s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4Unt7MRsV4&t=267s)

<comment><USER32> I can't help but wonder if an Oxygen shortage is our next major challenge.

<comment><USER33> Along with a silicon shortage then?;-)

For anyone wondering: a lot of "rock" and "sand" is silica AKA silicon dioxide.

When it comes to oxygen we also have water which contains oxygen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> What's stopping us from making new sand with a giant solar powered grinder?

We should have plenty of rocks...

<comment><USER35> "Running out of" should, as always, come with the qualifier "at a reasonable price". Rock-crushing is quite energy intensive compared to just dredging.

Generally in the West you'll find substitutes like crushed concrete or pulverised fly ash being added to the mix (although PFA itself will be in short supply as it's a coal-fired power station by product)

<comment><USER36> IIRC, in structural concretes flyash is used as an admixture to reduce portland cement usage, and enhance some properties like permeability, but not as a replacement for sand.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I'm not sure why they didn't get the Yangtze juxtaposition to line up, but you can put this in the Chrome debugger to get a lined-up juxtaposition:

        $('.jx-left > img').style = 'margin-left: 5px'

</comment><comment><USER38> Homilies that didn't age well :

"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand." \- Milton Friedman

</comment><comment><USER39> The world is running out of cheap sand. Time to breed swarms of parrotfish?

<comment><USER40> You need a healthy coral reef to do that and us humans have done a pretty good job at running out of those too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Reminds me of:

[http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20160502-even-desert- city-d...](http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20160502-even-desert-city-dubai- imports-its-sand-this-is-why)

</comment><comment><USER42> I worry about this sometimes with all sorts of raw materials and waste products. We seem to take for granted that we can make as many cars, computers, buildings, etc. as the market demands. But there must be some kind of eventual limit to how much steel, rubber, plastic, glass, etc. we can manufacture before we've used it all up. It fills me with vague anxiety that I don't have any sense for how many of these raw materials are left. And I also wonder whose job it is to think about such things, and if they are thinking ahead or just building for the now.

<comment><USER43> As materials become scarce their prices are raised, acting as a natural brake on their use. Environmental concerns may still be an issue however.

<comment><USER44> At some point the price is high enough that we can no longer afford to just throw away the material. It becomes profitable to recycle. Copper is a good example.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> There's an interesting documentary about this 'Sand Wars' here's the trailer: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAPfwwb59uY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAPfwwb59uY)

</comment><comment><USER46> This exactly same titled youtube video documentary seems to precede the article: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMLYLcniXIc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMLYLcniXIc)

</comment><comment><USER47> I wonder if we should start dumping crushed glass into the oceans again.

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

</comment><comment><USER48> Why aren't the companies required to replace the sand with Sahara desert sand, say? They are capable of transporting sand so it would seem straightforward.

<comment><USER49> if they start taking the sahara sand it'll turn into a lake.

<comment><USER50> And?

\- Extract lots of sand

\- Fill it with water

Maybe it will compensate for the increased ocean levels if the hole is big enough

<comment><USER51> It's more complicated, and someone thought about a similar project with a different objective: "Qattara Depression Project "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qattara_Depression_Project](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qattara_Depression_Project)

Edit: Also see "Flood Death Valley" [https://what- if.xkcd.com/152/](https://what-if.xkcd.com/152/)

<comment><USER52> That much evaporation is going to increase rainfall downwind. If the Sahara keeps spreading we might have to do that project for several reasons.

Edit: aaand it's full of cheetahs and gazelles. Damnit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Related: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14400760](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14400760)

</comment><comment><USER54> Pretty good article:

        http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-canadian-gravel-20171104-htmlstory.html

</comment><comment><USER55> In the US, the federal government spends obscene amounts of money ($1 billion over 30 years in NJ alone, apparently[0]) replenishing sand on beaches so that rich people can keep their nice homes there. And even if they do lose the houses, they can write off taxes to the value of their investments[1]

[0][http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/10/jersey_shore_beach_...](http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/10/jersey_shore_beach_replenishment_cost_pegged_at_1b_over_past_30_years.html)

[1][http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/06/hurricane- san...](http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/06/hurricane-sandy- beaches-government-spending/)

<comment><USER56> I was under the impression that there were legitimate, erosion-based reasons for doing this. Basically, by building a gradual, sloped shore it causes waves to break smaller and over a longer distance, reducing shoreline erosion. Sure they dump the sand in front of the nice houses first because people want it there, but they would still dredge the beaches even if they were abandoned. Or that's the theory at least.

But I only remember reading it somewhere, not where I read it; so I don't know if it's BS pseudoscience. Does anyone who actually knows something about the science behind shoreline erosion have an opinion?

<comment><USER57> It really depends on the kind of shore, in some places the dredged sand would just be dragged all the way to the seafloor.

IANAMG (I Am Not A Marine Geologist)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> If it's as bad as it sounds, Saudi prayers for an economy after oil have just been answered.

<comment><USER59> Not really, Desert sand is very smooth and fine to use in construction. From what I read, Dubai actually imports sand for use in construction

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> This is also ruining beaches (sand should go to the sea)

Grinding limestone ??

</comment><comment><USER61> Thank your local fracker!

</comment><comment><USER62> In these articles I keep on seeing the phrase "illegal mining", and yet I see no reason why legality would effect the environment. Is it somehow better for the environment if the government gets paid for the resource extraction? I don't think so.

I know that illegal miners may violate mining regulations which are intended to protect the environment, but as far as I can tell, legal third world mining is not regulated in any ecological way making that point moot.

<comment> rm_-rf_slash Here's something to think about: how much CO2 has been released into the atmosphere just from crypto currency mining alone? One of the main reasons I've avoided getting into bitcoin mining is because my town is powered by a coal plant and I simply cannot justify burning coal to acquire make-believe money.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it isn't harmful.

<comment><USER63> Do you consider gold and silver similarly perverse? Literal mining is messy.

<comment><USER64> How is that not just whataboutism?

It's not as if we are all forced to choose between either bitcoin or gold...

<comment> rm_-rf_slash Besides, those metals are real and have industrial uses, whereas cryptos are just a series of bits that the market collectively agrees holds a value.

<comment><USER65> Most economies use representative currency. In many places, notes and coins are largely worthless.

Cryptocurrencies differ mainly by being virtual. Given that notes are usually used to represent the larger sums of money, the virtual aspect becomes mostly semantic. Given that most people store their money in banks, who don't have all that money on hand at any point in time (hence why they collapse), then the virtual factor begins to matter even less.

I don't use bitcoin (or equivalent) for pragmatic reasons. Your point however seems to be about its collective abstraction. If you were being consistent, you would have to be against most mainstream currencies as well. This is not a pragmatic or scalable method of commerce. It very quickly become tedious to trade with items that are of only concrete, immediate value to both parties. Try to imagine how online purchases, or warehouses, would function. There's a good reason why virtually every civilisation swapped to representative currency after reaching a certain size.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> The bigger, obvious issue is destruction of soils near either thriving biomes or human settlements. Destroying rivers, beaches, forests and areas around where people live is just dumb.

There's always two reasonable alternatives. One, use the essentially lifeless interior, vast deserts of parts of Australia, Africa and South America. Or two, ban concrete as a top CO2 emitter and switch to a renewable carbon sequestration material.</comment>


Open Letter to Matt Cutts: On Penalties & the New Link Disavow Tool - <AUTHOR> http://www.hungrypiranha.org/blog/matt-cutts-link-disavow-tool/

<comment><AUTHOR> I am lucky that my business is in a fairly low-competition niche where having a great site really is enough to get in the game. I've not noticed much in the way of link buying amongst the sites in my niche, and link buying is not a world that I've ever felt the need to delve into myself.

But I have friends running ecommerce sites in more competitive niches. They compete with the likes of Amazon, Walmart, and other mass-market retailers that sell everything (albeit rarely covering the niche products as well as the specialists do). For years they have been insistent that, despite what Google's guidelines say, they wouldn't stand a chance of being found in the organic search results if they didn't buy links.

Since Penguin things have gone topsy turvy for them. Many of the competing businesses with good sites and happy customers have disappeared from the rankings after receiving penalties. Some are going bust as the margins are too thin to make adwords work. The spammers with junk sites suffer (good), but also the smaller businesses with good sites offering something extra that can't be found from the big box stores. As a result, the consumers suffer too (as all they see is a small selection of products on Amazon and a smattering of link-buying businesses that have been lucky enough to evade the penalties).

I'm not familiar enough with this situation to offer a strong personal opinion. But I wonder if this might be an issue that Google sweeps under the carpet somewhat... That actually "build it and they will come" doesn't usually work when you're up against companies with thousands of links (many of which are paid links, whether they look like it or not).</comment>


Why do you do open source? - <AUTHOR>

We are currently doing our bachelor's thesis on the motivations behind participating in open source projects and we would love it if you could help us by answering our one, single question: "Why do you participate in open source?" Write as little or as much as you want, anything is helpful! https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1MtXwd4kVF6kSuC4q_4rDaUksBRckLaCfgJGP6_JKSnY/viewform <comment><USER2> Because I can fix bugs.

Years ago, I found a replicatable bug in Adobe Photoshop (CS2?) that required me to delete my config everytime and set PS up how I liked it. Adobe's acknowledgement took two weeks, then a month of triage, followed by a "Yes, we'll have it fixed in the new version when it ships. You can pre-order an upgrade for only $lots" and new version shipped 6 months later.

Yesterday I found a bug in a framework I use. Within 2 hours I'd found the line of source code responsible, fixed it and was on my way again.

<comment><USER3> Amazing,

I have same feeling with Webmatrix.

I have reported many bugs on uservoice webmatrix site. When they come with v2 prev 1 I write 175 bugs in a text file and send them through MSDN contact page.

Later through their site their is hard to tell them every single bugs. When I tried to tell them more bugs the answer is write every bugs per thread.

I have write more then 500 bugs and the result is The application crash even today.

The same way When I report my bugs to Firefox or Chrome discussion people solve it better & FAST.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This was posted two weeks ago: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5503256>

I'm hoping this is a breakdown in comms between team members rather than deliberate spamming of the same question.

</comment><comment><USER5> Because I use open source i feels its only fair to give something back.</comment>


MacBook Pro 13-inch and 15-inch "harder than ever to repair" - <AUTHOR> http://www.tomshardware.com/news/macbook-pro-teardown-steps-photos,24862.html

<comment><USER2> well, they are pretty blatant about needing to ask an apple genius for help ;)</comment>


The Machine That Builds the Machine - <AUTHOR> https://blog.inovia.vc/the-machine-that-builds-the-machine-reflecting-on-inovias-2016-cto-summit-f0b665b213ac#.jeyyh6wpu <comment><USER2> Enabling peer learning has proven to be a high leverage strategy for VCs willing to roll up their sleeves, great perspective from the participants role here, Jimoh. Shawn.</comment>


Ask HN: Developers who tweet a lot, what do you tweet? - <AUTHOR> I would like to use Twitter more. Most online guides about Twitter talk about curating content and basically aggregating articles.
I have done that for a while, but it gets tiresome quick to constantly look for articles that I want to share and it doesn't feel "genuine".
I was wondering what other developers Tweet? Opinions about Frameworks? Rants? Tips? <comment><USER2> Share some great discussion on HackerNews or post about new frameworks/tools from ProductHunt.

Follow influencers in your area of interest and make sure to retweet them.

<comment><AUTHOR> Tweeting about new tools or discussions is an interesting option. Thanks for the suggestion :)</comment></comment>


The First Website Ever Made - <AUTHOR> http://www.w3.org/History/19921103-hypertext/hypertext/WWW/TheProject.html <comment><USER2> The URL for this would much better be [http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/TheProject.html](http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/TheProject.html) \- as this site is CERN's, not W3's

</comment><comment><USER3> Responsive, fonts load quickly, tab ordering is sane - A+ Tim!

</comment><comment><USER4> How is this the first website? the subjects page has links to so many other websites....

<comment><USER5> It has been updated, of course. The "W3 servers" page notes that the content hasn't changed since 1992.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> In the to-do list ([http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/Bugs.html](http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/Bugs.html)): "Search engines : Now the web of data and indexes exists, some really smart intelligent algorithms ("knowbots?") could run on it. Recursive index and link tracing, Just think... "

</comment><comment><USER7> Hey look, even then there was a <header> tag.

<comment><USER8> But no <HTML> tag and no DOCTYPE. Things were definitely a bit woolly pre-1995, when the first proper HTML spec (version 2.0...) was published.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Other milestones:

Post on alt.hypertext on 6/8/1991

[https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.hypertext/eCTkkOoW...](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.hypertext/eCTkkOoWTAY/urNMgHnS2gYJ)

NCSA X Mosaic 0.5 released, 23/1/1993

[http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www- talk.1993q1/0099.ht...](http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www- talk.1993q1/0099.html)

</comment><comment><USER10> The HTML style of the _First Website Ever Made_ is interesting to read: short lines, careful line breaks, upper-case tags (and a few no-longer-seen) but no indentation.

Spacing, as always, is tricky in hand-written HTML.

<comment><USER11> Is there such thing as not-hand-written HTML?

<comment><USER12> Program-generated HTML?

WYSIWYG-editor-generated HTML?

<comment><USER11> I know there are other ways to generate it. I'm just wondering what self- respecting dev wouldn't write their own.

<comment><USER12> How about a self-respecting dev using a md-to-html blog implementation?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wonder why a line break was used after the A in the opening A tags.

</comment><comment><USER14> Clear love for definition lists. <dl>...<dt>...<dd>

<comment><USER15> And love that the first site was trully responsive. :)

How I wish there were sites styled like that (no irony, and I know it doesn't has any style). Get in, grab your info, maybe see an image and get out.

Good times.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Extra /A at the end :)

What is/was NEXTID?

<comment><USER17> > What is/was NEXTID?

Used by the NeXT WorldWideWeb editor to know what the next free anchor name was</comment></comment>


NY Times serving up malware today - <AUTHOR> http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090913/home-delivery-the-new-york-times-serves-up-some-malware/

<comment><AUTHOR> I guess folks who depend on advertising, and ad networks, need to be a bit more careful about who they sell ads to.

<comment><USER2> Crockford sums it up as (paraphrasing): We take time to perform all actions diligently and with the utmost regard towards security and privacy -- unless you pay us.

And, with all good standards, you get multiple choices for a solution. Crockford prefers his adsafe over Google's caja.

<http://www.adsafe.org/> <http://code.google.com/p/google-caja/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Good thing they put up everything behind a registration wall.

</comment><comment><USER4> This happened to me yesterday. When I went to an NYT story, I was redirected to this "virus scan" page.

<comment><USER5> Same, but it happened on my iphone. I won't tell you how strange it was to see a "virus scan" in a Windows XP window on my iphone.

<comment><AUTHOR> Did it look something like this?

<http://imgur.com/1Lycn.png>

<comment><AUTHOR> A follow up: I found this article that described what was going on. <http://troy.yort.com/anatomy-of-a-malware-ad-on-nytimes-com>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is this another sign that newspapers are getting even more desperate for advertising revenue?

</comment><comment> brown9-2 At least it was accidental, and not intentional... If that counts.

</comment><comment><USER7> Yeah, I noticed. I thought my gf had been on my computer again, so I checked with my work laptop. Nope, it was the NYT.</comment>


Ditch Your Passwords? US Gov To Issue Secure Online IDs - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomgroenfeldt/2013/08/21/ditch-your-passwords-us-gov-to-issue-secure-online-ids/ <comment><USER2> In Sweden, we have a similar system. The major Swedish banks issue BankID, which is typically a Java applet you run on your computer which is provisioned with a certificate you use to sign things.

You need this to use the online benefits and tax systems and so on.

And it works _horribly_.

The hassles I've seen people have running Java and so on is horrifying. And the security - or lack of it - is staggering. It basically only works under Windows and on increasing insecure legacy browser configurations and so on.

They also use some PDFs with scripts in sometimes for forms that you have to 'sign'. I don't understand why they do this, but they do.

All in all, No No NO!

<comment><USER3> So is it horrible strictly because it's Java? Or because it's a bad idea altogether?

<comment><USER4> That's not even remotely what he said. He was making two separate points:

1) _the problems of having to teach users how to enable Java applets._ Having done time on a customer support desk in a past life, I know full well that talking someone technologically inept through something like that would be hell on Earth.

2) and a point about how this idea works out less secure in practice as you're allowing 3rd party code to run natively on your machine, desensitising users to running 3rd party Java applets (or even encouraging people have the enabled to run by default). And scripts running inside PDFs are a known vector for attack as well.

I also disagree with the practice of pushing proprietary solutions which are only able to work on a single platform - which it sounds like their solutions are in-spite of Java and PDF being open and cross platform standards (I'm having to take the OPs word on that point - as I'm not a resident of the same country)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Is this the same US Gov who had a bit of kerfuffle in the news recently about some privacy issue?

<comment><USER6> Exactly what I was thinking, I can't believe the populace is not choking on this concept!

<comment><USER7> I can't wait! More ways to keep us safe! /s

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is a wonderful idea!

Think of all the money the US taxpayers will save by not needing all that NSA gadgetry anymore! They'll just log in as you when they want to know what you're up to

</comment><comment><USER9> This stuff is based on plain old identity federation. SAML protocol using SAML assertions.

The problem is that they're outsourcing identity provision - ref. " _...such as banks, governments, healthcare organizations, and others..._ " in the linked article.

The article also (correctly) states that " _The credential exchange will be designed to transmit credential information securely without knowing users' actual identities._ "

This is neat, for sure, but isn't always required (how would a health care provider be useful if they didn't know who you are), and is only half of what they should be doing.

So the relying party shouldn't _always_ need know who the user actually is, but (much more importantly) the identity provider should _never_ need to know where the user is conducting his or her affairs.

As an example:

You're laid off at work, and need to claim benefits. You have a mortgage, and because you feel you can get a new job before you run out of savings that service the mortgage, you don't want your bank to know that you're been laid off. But guess what, your bank is your identity provider, and will know that you've logged into the jobless benefits site. So the bank flies your mortgage into the side of the mountain. No survivors, call off the search.

Providing this kind of asynchronous privacy (where, at the user's discretion, the relying party cannot determine who the user is, and the identity provider cannot determine who the relying party is) is not difficult. U-Prove is tech from Microsoft (acquired from Credentica) that does it, and is open-source.

<comment><USER10> What do you mean "there goes your mortgage"? Banks don't swoop in and foreclose on your home just because you don't have a job. If you're still making the monthly payments then your mortgage is still in good standing. They don't care if the money is coming from a salary or your savings.

<comment><USER9> It's a dramatized example intended only to illustrate the point.

<comment><USER10> Except it doesn't illustrate the point because it's completely inaccurate and doesn't make any sense. If you're still making payments, what does the bank have to gain by "flying your mortgage into the side of a mountain"? What do you even mean by that?

I get that there are ways that the bank could screw if they're your identity provider. What you stated is not one of them.

<comment><USER9> Ok, you win.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Hm, every new bit of news relating to the US government and the Internet makes me question what exactly the Internet is doing for me and if I could live without it.

Lately I've began to realize that within the next 5 years my Internet usage will be extremely minimal(if at all) unless there is some kind of huge change.

I'd rather just cancel all of my accounts on major websites than be forced use this creepy ID system.

</comment><comment><USER12> > SecureKey, based in Toronto, today announced it has been awarded a contract > by the USPS to provide a cloud-based authentication infrastructure.

I love that USPS, a government entity so far in the red, has the ability to award any money at all...

<comment><USER13> You would be in the red too if you were forced to keep providing an unprofitable service, and prevented from raising your prices.

<comment><USER12> Another excellent example of why the government should leave these things to the private industry or contract it out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> How long until Gov ID is required to log into Facebook and Google ? Then the government doesn't need to even ask these annoying companies to access your data.

<comment><USER15> I give them a year.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Getting your credit card info stolen is a huge pain. Imagine the pain from having your government identity stolen.

<comment><USER17> Should be no different from getting your physical legitimation stolen.

<comment><USER16> The difference is the credit card company is motivated to keep you happy as a customer. The government is more like: "Assuming this really happened -- what's he going to do - move to Liberia?"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Here is the thing, people use insecure password storage because secure password storage retrieval is seen as either "too slow" or it is seen as "not required". For example, how many people are still using md5 hashing for password storage?

It seems like all the govt issuing a secure online id will do is add another unused standard to the pile without changing the behavior that makes things less secure in the first place.

[http://xkcd.com/927/](http://xkcd.com/927/) sums this problem up nicely.

<comment><USER19> Except that the government can _require_ this standard's use to file taxes, access certain important government accounts, etc. They have the ability to create a standard and make it stick.

<comment><USER20> > They have the ability to create a standard and make it stick.

This is rarely, if ever, the case. I can't actually think of any technical standards whose dominance originates from a successful government mandate.

<comment> grey-area What has government ever done for us, part from GPS, metric, GMT, telephony, electrical standards, safety standards, the Internet etc?

<comment><USER20> When military technology enters the mainstream, and becomes the basis of technology in widespread use by the public, it goes without saying that the original military specifications are the initial "standards" present for that technology.

This isn't the same as the government attempting to mandate standards for public use, especially with the intent to alter the way people are already using technology.

In your list, only GPS represents a technology originally used by the military, whose initial military specification still mostly describes its current function. Everything else, and especially the Internet - which grew out of a DARPA project, but certainly isn't one any longer - is either a vague category (electrical/safety standards), areas in which standards have not originated from government mandates (telephony, the Internet, time zones), or areas in which government attempts to shift standards have been demonstrable failures (metric usage in the US).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> ... that they will key escrow.

Doesn't mean you couldn't implement your own secondary key though. Sign it with your ID and use that key for key exchange and you've defeated the escrow.

<comment><USER22> The impression I got was that it was nothing more serious than an identity authentication scheme, not an encryption mechanism... they don't need to "escrow the key" (nor would it matter), they'd already be able to reset your account whenever they feel like it anyways.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Reliably verifying real-world identities online is a hard problem. I personally don't enjoy faxing my driver's license several times to get it to come through legibly, handing out my SSN like candy, scanning bank statements, answering questions about previous residences, and waiting for a 48-hour manual review process just to do any sort of business that's tied to a real identity.

The existing system is archaic, fundamentally insecure, and horrendously broken from a UX standpoint. As far as privacy, the federal government is already an identity provider required by many services (in the form of social security numbers). I have no objection to it performing that role more securely and efficiently.

</comment><comment><USER24> Trying to navigate the spin, but this company appears to tie things like your existing, bank issued, two-factor hardware dongle to your government identify.

Best line of the article: "The cloud-based service follows federal guidelines to protect privacy, said SecureKey, although exactly what that means after the Snowden revelations is not clear."

Seems unlikely to fly; surely some big megacorp - or cartel of them - wants an exclusivity deal to make government approved ids.

BTW does anyone find it ironic that libertarian leaning programmers are so high in demand, and well paid, by the surveillance state.

</comment><comment><USER25> Anyone else thinks this is a start of slippery slope? Once enough people are using it any other form of login could be made illegal and "citizen sheep" can be tracked much easier by big brother NSA

</comment><comment><USER26> I'd love to read this, but I'm feeling a need to start boycotting Forbes articles. Is this available anywhere else?

<comment><USER27> [http://archive.is/cT7WX](http://archive.is/cT7WX)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Why would the US government be better about protecting my account information than companies who business is literally identity protection?

</comment><comment><USER29> What next? Will they offer secure email services?

<comment><USER30> You joke, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De- Mail](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Mail)

The drugs that were consumed when they came up with this must be government issue only. Stuff's too hard for the streets..

Also, the crypto is as secure as a wet paper bag..

<comment><USER23> You realize that the alternatives are fax, postal mail, and attachments on cleartext emails, right?

<comment><USER31> If you are having fake security like de-mail I'd rather sent my official stuff for the authorities with traditional postal mail than this.

<comment><USER23> Why is it fake security?

<comment><USER31> use google translate: [http://www.ccc.de/de/updates/2013/de-mail- unqualifizierte-ma...](http://www.ccc.de/de/updates/2013/de-mail- unqualifizierte-makulatur)

It's a big joke.

<comment><USER23> Ah ok. So just building a separate email system and calling it "secure" without actually doing any crypto. Nice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> In the light of everything that has happened over the last month, this _has_ to be a joke, right?

<comment><USER33> Well, has anything really changed? With the exception of a few small companies shutting down to "stick it to the man", what honestly has changed? No one has been removed from office and no revolution has started. We all sit here and watch as it happens.

<comment><USER34> _We all sit here and watch as it happens._

Are you calling us all armchair dissidents?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Let's bring back the clipper chip while we are at it.

</comment><comment><USER36> "secure"

</comment><comment><USER37> Cool, can I use this as a foreigner too?

</comment><comment> o0-0o This idea is dead on arrival.</comment>


Medical Science Has a Data Problem - <AUTHOR> http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/21/medical-science-has-data-problem-284066.html <comment><USER2> I don't think that anyone outside the field can understand just how bad and pervasive this problem is, it is _everywhere_ and harming patients every day. One more example - my wife is a surgeon working in a specialized field and in this field there are panels of 'experts' that get together and set the guidelines for how to treat the disease:

\- The panel is stacked with visiting researchers _working_ for the most senior researcher on the panel.

\- The most senior experts on this panel recommend treating with a particular drug. It turns out that these experts also happen to receive money from these drug companies.

\- These researchers then use the results of this panel when applying for NIH grants as proof that this is where the treatment is heading AND THEN, next time the panel happens, also use this research as proof that this is where the treatment is heading. Talk about self interest and circular logic.

What is incredibly sad about this is that the results of consensus panels are then quoted by doctors every day and used to lead their treatment of patients.

</comment><comment><USER3> It appears that the FDA also has a data problem, as it refuses to respond to FOIA requests for data that is obviously in the public interest to be disclosed, and taxpayers end up paying $1.3 billion to stockpile a medicine that is probably not as effective as advertised.

How does this practice keep us safer?

<comment><USER4> They also actually put a gag order on at least one pharma company preventing from disclosing the fact that antidepressants were not effective in children and increased the risk of suicide.

The thing about medical studies though is that only the ones the pharma companies want to get published make it into journals, and there is no requirement that what they are saying in the journal articles matches the clinical trial data at all. And the FDA doesn't publish any of the raw clinical trial data, so you'll never know.

This is especially problematic since pharma companies only need two studies showing a drug plausibly works to get approval, regardless of how many trials fail to show any benefit. So usually what you see is one or two journal articles showing a drug works, which may or may not correspond to the findings of one or two clinical trials, and the rest of the trial data is buried forever. And then other authors publish metareviews based on this completely inaccurate data.

Essentially journal articles should only be ever be viewed as advertisements for the pharma industry, and should no way ever be taken as science. The one exception is the largescale trials funded by the NIH.

<comment><USER5> There have been some changes [1] in recent years attempting to address this. Since 2007, all drug, biologic, and device trials in the US must be registered with ClinicalTrials.gov after phase 1 (which, at least in principle, addresses safety only - not efficacy), and "results" must be reported. There could certainly be some loopholes or limitations on the data release that I am unaware of.

However, it is true that most of the controversial, blockbuster drugs that are discussed in the original article were approved long before these requirements came into effect.

[1] [http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/manage- recs/fdaaa](http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/manage-recs/fdaaa)

<comment><USER4> > Since 2007, all drug, biologic, and device trials in the US must be > registered with ClinicalTrials.gov after phase 1 (which, at least in > principle, addresses safety only - not efficacy), and "results" must be > reported.

\- A substantial percentage of trials haven't reported their results within the required timeframe.

\- The number of fines the FDA has levied for non-compliance is zero.

\- The data isn't actually published on clinicaltrials.gov, only a brief summary of the results which doesn't really tell you anything.

\- As you say, the requirements aren't retroactive.

\- There are several large loopholes, e.g. phase IV studies aren't required to be registered.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Medical science does indeed have a data (or, rather, rigorous statistics problem), but it has a much more serious, intrinsic, problem: dimensionality. The number of variables is so high that proving something (clinically, when the biological process is unclear, which is most of the time) to a high degree of certainty is almost impossible.

<comment><USER7> Why doesn't randomization defeat dimensionality?

<comment><USER8> Randomization lets you _ignore_ dimensions that you're not interested in. It doesn't do much in the way of letting you _attribute_ an effect to one or more dimensions from a large set of them.

There's a fundamental lower bound to the number of data-points you need to make in order to achieve statistical significance. This lower bound grows exponentially in the number of dimensions, particularly if you cannot make the simplifying assumption that the dimensions are statistically independent (and biological systems are often coupled in strange ways). Randomization is a good way of achieving that lower bound, but it cannot defeat it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I recently listened to an advanced statistics lecture. As an illustration the Professor said, medical science (still) uses 2 sigma statistics, jet engine builders use 6 sigma. That's why jet engines never (sic) fail.

Yes, and then there is the influence of the drug makers too.

<comment><USER10> The biggest difference is that jet engine builders can conduct an unlimited number proper controlled scientific experiments, while the fields that study humans (psychology, medicine, sociology, economy) can usually only conduct a limited number of field trials (which, even though they are "controlled" and possibly "double blind" are nowhere as rigorous as in proper sciences).

<comment><USER11> Yes. There was the other article sitting around recently asking why the rate of blockbuster drugs have slowed down. Getting even the level of confidence required now is hugely expensive. Requiring higher confidence is an expensive choice that must be weighed closely.

I think it's becoming clearer each day that many drug side effects, and general drug efficacy is effected by the genetics of the drug taker. Without being able to tease out these genetic effects, blindly aiming for broad population safety or efficacy levels is always going to be troublesome.

This is separate from the data publication issue that the article focuses on.

<comment><USER12> What is a "blockbuster" drug? One that makes a lot of money for the various stakeholders or one that has a large impact on human health? I'm not sure I care too much about the former and it's not at all obvious how "level of confidence" would affect the latter. Yes, as a result of past medical progress it is more difficult to improve upon the current state of the art.

But new therapies have to compete with existing therapies in the market anyway. If a new therapy can't outperform existing ones, what actual value does it have? Perhaps drug companies should think about solving problems that aren't already solved rather than bemoaning their inability to reap massive profits while reinventing the wheel or pushing minor formulation tweaks to renew their patents.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Silly question, why do so many drugs have rare side effects? Why does it work on 999 people and then the 1,000th person takes it and becomes suicidal?

If there is something different biologically different about the 1,000th person, could it be tested for?

<comment><USER14> That's not really a silly question :)

Drugs act on proteins which are little machines in the body, the instructions of which are encoded in our genome. The slight variations in our genetic code leads to some proteins having slight variations in their structure (and their function). Most of the time this is harmful, but sometimes it causes them to react differently when they interact with a drug or with each other. The manifestation of this can sometimes be harmful. Understanding "pharmacogenomic" effects will help us mitigate these side-effects going forward.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Ben Goldacre has a book on the subject [http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer- listing/0007350740/](http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0007350740/) in addition to that TED talk.

</comment><comment><USER16> Clinical trials data is one piece of the puzzle and definitely a important one. One thing which in my opinion would dramatically change patient outcomes if care provider starts _listening_ to the patient. In an anecdotal experience, my wife was wrongly diagnosed for almost a year impacting every day of her life to be filled with pain. Issue as it turned out was a simple infection and was fixed by an exceptional surgeon with tweezers in few minutes.

</comment><comment><USER17> I read the article last evening before I turned in in this time zone, and have just read all the comments posted till now overnight. Readers of the writings of Dr. John P.A. Ioannidis[1] will already be familiar with many of these issues, which dog most research on human health and medical treatments. Several of the previous comments here are very helpful in pointing out that human physiology is based on much more complicated system interactions than most man-made machines, and subtle individual variations in genome or personal environment that are now poorly understood can make a different in how drugs work for different patients.

That said, an important point that hasn't been made here yet is that "alternative" treatments to the treatments developed by medical science often have a much worse data problem, because no one is gathering data about the alternative treatments for safety or for effectiveness in the first place. In the United States, "natural supplements" are regulated in a way that exempts billions of dollars of annual revenue from any review about whether the supplements do any good at all.[2] Chiropractic manipulation can kill, but chiropractors don't look into that issue carefully.[3] What you as a person who desires to stay healthy for many years have to do is turn in the first instance to medicine that works[4] and to continually ask your doctors for explanations of what they are doing and what the rationale is for what they are doing. Patients thinking more will encourage physicians to think more. Voters telling governments to regulate treatments more rationally will also help, as will voters supporting more funding of basic medical research.

[1] [https://med.stanford.edu/profiles/john- ioannidis?tab=publica...](https://med.stanford.edu/profiles/john- ioannidis?tab=publications)

[2] "Dietary supplement industry says "no" to more information for consumers (again)" [http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/big-supp-resists- giving-...](http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/big-supp-resists-giving- consumers-safety-and-effectiveness-information/)

[3] "Stroke Death from Chiropractic Neck Manipulation" [http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/stroke-death-from- chirop...](http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/stroke-death-from-chiropractic- neck-manipulation/)

[4] "There is no such thing as alternative medicine. There is only medicine that works and medicine that doesn't." [http://books.google.com/books?id=zOh0t3QFXdoC&dq=There+is+no...](http://books.google.com/books?id=zOh0t3QFXdoC&dq=There+is+no+such+thing+as+alternative+medicine.+There+is+only+medicine+that+works+and+medicine+that+doesn%27t)</comment>


"Complete Acquiesence": How the Pontiac Aztek Happened - <AUTHOR> http://blog.caranddriver.com/complete-acquiesence-bob-lutz-reveals-how-the-pontiac-aztek-happened/ <comment><USER2> It should be noted that folks who owned Aztek's loved them. This article makes it seems like the vehicle was despised across the board and that wasn't the case. Despite their looks they were solid cars with a ton of features. If anything this is a testament to the necessity elegant design on a solid product feature set.

Including a good review from Car and Driver...

[http://www.edmunds.com/pontiac/aztek/2001/consumer- reviews.h...](http://www.edmunds.com/pontiac/aztek/2001/consumer-reviews.html)

[http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/pontiac-aztek-gt-road- te...](http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/pontiac-aztek-gt-road-test)

<comment><USER3> My coworker (Optics Ph.d.) is still driving a 2000 Aztek that he purchased while in graduate school. Its electrical system and chassis components might not survive its 15th northern winter. He has not been able to identify a comparable replacement with his favorite feature: the cargo capacity with the rear seat removed. I've been trying to help him figure out which current model can adequately replace what he has always called "the ugly car".

<comment><USER4> Chrysler T&C minivan. As a bonus, it's almost as ugly as an Aztek.

<comment><USER5> Nobody drives a T&C for the looks.

(I own one and it's hella useful, but that's the only good thing I can say about it).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This story reminded me of the chapter in Business Adventures by John Brooks about the Ford Edsel.

The Edsel was one of the last large cars before economy cars became popular. The timing of the Aztek seemed similarly unfortunate. It was the first SUV crossover several years before crossovers became popular and it got flak for not fitting in with established vehicle types.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsel](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsel)

<comment><USER7> There were crossovers and small sport utilities for many years before the Aztek, so it certainly wasn't a timing problem. Look at the Toyota RAV4 (came out in '94), Honda CR-V ('95), Isuzu VehiCROSS ('97), and even original Jeep Cherokee ('84!). The Aztek was just a terrible looking vehicle for the mid-2000's, had a completely lackluster engine and drivetrain, and ended up being built on a mini-van platform instead of an SUV platform to reduce costs. There is truly nothing redeeming about the car.

<comment> at-fates-hands >>>> There is truly nothing redeeming about the car.

While I agree with everything you said, most consumers would never know this unless they test drove one, or were somewhat engaged in the industry.

I would argue on the timing issue though. By the mid 2000's most companies were knee deep in trying to build out their hybrid lines and grab what was left of the market Toyota had already been dominating for years with the Prius.

The Aztec looked stuck between a company trying to make a full sized SUV and a economy sized crossover for the masses. These people were looking for a gas efficient hybrid or something getting a decent MPG rating. The engine and drive train killed that idea right out of the gate which left it nowhere to really fit in.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't really recall anything about the Aztek back when it was in production, but for the life of me I can't understand all of this hyperbole about it. To me, it looks EXACTLY like half of the vehicles that I see on the road every time I drive to work. It's not all that different from a modern Suburu Outback, Honda CR-V, Kia Sorento, Hyundai Tuscon, etc. It's pretty much your standard-issue "crossover" vehicle (i.e. 21st-century station wagon).

Granted, I think there's nothing particular attractive about "crossover" vehicles today, either. But they're popular and ubiquitous now. So is there some special aesthetic flaw in the Aztek that I'm not refined enough to appreciate, or is the issue simply that it was a decade ahead of its time?

<comment><USER9> I think that the Aztek is uniquely ugly as pictured, but you should find one without a color matched bottom. The ones I saw on the road has this taupe- colored plastic on the bottom half of the vehicle and it looks really terrible. I found a version of it with the grey bottom and the optional tent attachment. I think this is basically the ugliest configuration of any car that was commercially available in any era: [http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2006/10/in-praise-of-the- po...](http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2006/10/in-praise-of-the-pontiac- aztek/)

<comment><USER5> I always thought this was an echo of the "sport" look of consumer electronics in the late 80s / early 90s. For example, the Sports Walkman:

[https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2590/3820969452_8b0da67f1f.jpg](https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2590/3820969452_8b0da67f1f.jpg)

That extra dark plastic around the unit suggested an outdoorsy/rugged mode of use, even if the unit wasn't built to handle that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Yet I will always remember the Aztek as the car that Walter White once drove.

<comment><USER11> And it was the perfect choice, precisely for what it said about his character at the beginning of the show. Walter White, the put-upon high school chemistry teacher living in quiet desperation, driving around in a car generally perceived to be a big, swinging two-ton white flag to the world.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I love reading these kinds of stories. Although, I'd like to hear exactly how they made it so ugly. Just like I'd pay to read about Windows 8 -- how did they ignore all the feedback? Did no one use it internally and realize it's terrible for desktop use (open a PDF attachment in Outlook, and get transported to a full screen app!). I'd also love to see transcripts of meetings where MS decided not to leverage MSN into a social network, for instance. Or exactly how Google decided the "see if phone is active" permission should also give access to the serial and called/calling numbers.

It's neat to see these stories and just see, from the inside, how things end up broken or out of control.

</comment><comment><USER13> That's Bob Lutz writing. I was just re-reading his book, "Car Guys vs. Bean Counters". It's fascinating to read how he thinks about cars. He writes that there is no part of the car market where an existing product can't do the job. So it's all about going for customer desirability, and looking for the "buy trigger".

Cell phones and tablets are just about to that point, at least until somebody has a new big idea. They're all little slabs with a touchscreen and some cameras.

<comment><USER4> But as the article points out. Industry experts don't always know what they're talking about.

>He writes that there is no part of the car market where an existing product can't do the job.

Sure, for Bob Lutz's understanding of the definition of "job". And remember Lutz and Waggoner oversaw GM's demise from... whatever it once was.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the tent-and-inflatable-mattress-and- removable-cooler-in-the-rear-center-console package. As I recall, these quirky features were simultaneously the advertised selling points and what made it unappealing, more so than its appearance. Like buying a car out of a SkyMall catalogue.

From Wikipedia[1]:

"The Aztek was able to carry within its interior a standard 4 feet (1.2 m) by 8 feet (2.4 m) sheet of plywood and was available with two rear cargo area options: a pull-out cargo tray that held up to 400 pounds (180 kg) that rolled on built-in wheels when removed from the vehicle, or a versatile cargo net system that held up to 200 pounds (91 kg) and could be configured (a claimed) 22 different ways. Options included a center console that doubled as a removable cooler and a tent/inflatable mattress package that, along with a built-in air compressor, allowed the Aztek to double as a camper. Extending this image was a seat-back mounted backpack, and a number of specialty racks for bicycles, canoes, snowboards, and other such items. An optional 10 speaker Pioneer stereo system provided a set of controls located at the rear of the vehicle for tail-gate parties as well as an unusual 2-piece tailgate with built-in cup-holders and contoured seating area for added comfort."

Most of these features are more fun than useful. Yes, I use backpacks. No, I don't need my car to have a backpack. It's like they started with a concept for a 'lifestyle' commercial with young, beautiful people having parties and campfires and looking at the stars, and then worked backwards towards a vehicle from there. Like they literally glued on symbols of vitality to a vehicle.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac_Aztek#Technology_and_no...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac_Aztek#Technology_and_notable_features)

</comment><comment><USER15> I think the aztek is a good case study in what it takes to make a concept car viable from an economic, government, and safety point of view. It also shows that all three of these factors are there to make a car suck more.

Accountants want the car to cost x dollars to make, so it means less body colored molding and more generic grey plastic panels that can be used on every color. It must be able to take a crash so the sleek hoodline needs to be fattened up some. Who knows what all conspired to foil the Azteks appearance.

<comment><USER16> The core aesthetic problems in the Aztek all came from the same place: to save money, they started with a minivan body and drivetrain, the GM U-platform. After the decision to base the Aztek around a minivan was made, everything was determined by the limitations of the platform:

* The hood line was determined by the pre-existing hardpoints in the U-platform body.

* The awful body cladding was determined by the pre-existing sheet metal.

* The second rate AWD options were determined by the pre-existing drivetrain

and so on, and so on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Honest question: aside from the outside looks, what's so bad about this vehicle? (I started driving in the year 2006 so Aztek has been off market for sometime.)

<comment><USER18> It's my recollection that it was very well designed in almost every way _aside from appearance_. As in, the creature comforts were good, considerations for rear loading, ease of access, reasonable performance, etc. Unfortunately, when it comes down to it, people really make their vehicle buying decision based upon appearance. They may use a few requirements to pare down the field (e.g. AWD, four doors), but after that it's mostly looks.

<comment><USER19> Is the appearance really all that bad either? I don't love it, but I've seen plenty of slightly awkward-looking cars and I'm not sure what's supposed to make this one so particularly bad. Maybe the photo in the article is from an unusually flattering angle?

<comment><USER20> It was ugly, but not ugly enough to be cute. See: Volkswagen Thing[0]

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_181](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_181)

<comment><USER19> Interesting: it looks like a more successful rival to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_Moke](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_Moke) Mini Moke.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I found the car an over-faceted monstrosity but since that time several uglier cars have been introduced - e.g. Nissan Cube - that didn't seem to suffer the same level of rejection. So timing is probably everything.

<comment><USER22> Nissan seems to be pretty consistent in their terrible designs. Every time I see a Juke on the road I wonder what sort of combination of poor taste and good fortune allowed someone with no design sense to make enough money to buy such a bug-eyed monstrosity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I remember it was on the cover of Autoweek. The caption said: "Pontiac Aztek wins Best in Show award at Pebble Beach...Yeah, right."</comment>


How much does it cost to found a Microsoft-based startup? - <AUTHOR> http://marcelo.sampasite.com/brave-tech-world/How-much-does-it-cost-to-found-a.htm <comment><USER3> The biggest problem with Microsoft software is imo not the price, but the complicated licensing structure of their software. When reading pages on microsoft.com about licensing you will get a headache if you're not an accountant. With Linux you can simply deploy another server if you need one, without thinking about all those licensing programs and restrictions.

A related question that i have is: would a startup be less attractive for potential buyers like Google and Yahoo if it uses Microsoft technologies?

<comment><USER4> orkut.

<comment><USER5> Why are you moderated up? Google never brought Orkut, Orkut was an internal project.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The authors numbers are a little rich. If you have that much money to blow maybe you just go to Amazon and buy everything. Here are some numbers that are more realistic.

> 1 Server running Windows Small Business Server 2003 for Email, SharePoint, > Domain Controller, etc.

Use a workgroup instead of a domain. Host your email on GoDaddy for $5 or $10 a month instead of running your own mail server.

> 1 Server running W2K3 Server as the front-end for the web-based app.

$149 on Amazon [http://www.amazon.com/MICROSOFT-WINDOWS- SERVER-2003-USER/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/MICROSOFT-WINDOWS- SERVER-2003-USER/dp/B00009ETLG/ref=pd_bbs_sr_10?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1197580799&sr=8-10)

> 1 Server running W2K3 + SQL 2005 as the backend

$795 Get rid of the extras on the cd you just need Windows and SQL Server

[http://cgi.ebay.com/Windows-Small-Business- Server-2003-Premi...](http://cgi.ebay.com/Windows-Small-Business- Server-2003-Premium- SQL-2000_W0QQitemZ300181250399QQihZ020QQcategoryZ80360QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)

> 2 Desktop machines for Development, with VS 2005 Pro, Office 2007, Windows > XP

Buy $400 computers and use Open Office. Dell sent me an email today for a $400 computer with LCD Monitor, I deleted it but it might have come with office not sure use Open Office instead.

Visual Studio 2 x 137.95 [http://cgi.ebay.com/Microsoft-Visual- Studio-2005-Professiona...](http://cgi.ebay.com/Microsoft-Visual- Studio-2005-Professional-Retail- NEW_W0QQitemZ260192976626QQihZ016QQcategoryZ80300QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)

> 1 Laptop for the business guy, with Office 2007 + XP

$598. Use Open Office or look for a laptop that is a little more expensive that comes with office <http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=7757623>

\</comment><comment></comment><comment> Totals

$400 Developer Computer

$400 Developer Computer

$598 Laptop

$795 Windows + SQL Server

$149 Windows 2003 Server

$275 VS Studio x 2 (137.95 each)

\</comment><comment></comment><comment>--

$2,614.00 excluding shipping

Personally I use Windows Server 2000, SQL Server 2000, and a free tag editor so I have not paid even close to this in software. But if you want to be legitimate then I would estimate less then $3,000 for everything you need.

<comment><USER7> >But if you want to be legitimate

I presume a post-launch startup would have to be crazy to not license their Microsoft servers. Or does Microsoft never enforce its licenses against startups?

<comment><USER8> Till recently I was working for a startup, that used evaluation copies of various Microsoft operating systems, especially Windows 2003 Server - <USER2> evaluation period is 60 days for w2k03 server, iirc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Its cheaper to become a microsoft partner which is free and then get the software action pack for about 400 dollars. This will give a small startup team all the ms software they will need to get the product made. They also send you a disc 4 times a year with the latest software and updates. It even includes office, vs, all the new silverlight tools etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> True, but I don't think you can use the action pack software in a production environment. It's more like MSDN software; for internal use in development/testing scenarios. Even still, it's a great deal and is highly recommended if you run any MS software in your shop.

<comment><USER9> yep your right, you can't use it for hosting your app but you can use it to develop it. The example they use is you can use it to run your own interanet but not a clients. Cheaper than an MSDN sup as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> With the Service Provider License Agreement, which most web startups fall under, you pay per month for what you use. Machines kept as backups cost you nothing.

The monthly fees are quite reasonable and make the software cost inconsequential relative to hardware and people. You also always get to use the latest version of everything.

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to divulge exact pricing details, but the whole bundle of software mentioned in article would only cost $330 per month assuming reasonable hardware.

Learn more at: [http://www.microsoft.com/serviceproviders/licensing/default....](http://www.microsoft.com/serviceproviders/licensing/default.mspx)

</comment><comment><USER11> Everyone seems to be counting the initial cost in monetary terms.

What's the overall cost of pinning your company's technology to a single supplier?

With a FOSS-based solution (like LAMP/Ruby/etc..) you know you'll always have access to the tools required. The same really can't be said for an MS-stack (especially with products constantly being added and removed, and support expiring for old ones).

<comment><USER9> You are never going to lose the tools to develop stuff. MS still supports asp classic on the lastest build of iis etc

The thing with the MS stack is it improves every single release and gets stronger at a better pace.

I am a developer that makes my living using MS tech to build sites and they make my life easier with each update to their platform.

You are never tied to a platform in these days, if you decide that you want to change platform then you hire the talent and change.

<comment><USER11> "You are never tied to a platform in these days, if you decide that you want to change platform then you hire the talent and change."

Surely that's a cost though? Not necessarily a minor for one for a startup.

<comment><USER9> yeah very true, but I would hope that this would not be at startup stage but serveral years down the line when you can afford it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Imagine if every one of your VPSes or servers used Windows... you'd have to pay MS for every virtual machine that you add to your setup and if you used SQL Server, you'd have to pay for replication servers as well.

To run a site that gets 100K uniques a month, you'd need $4K+ worth of software just to keep growing.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think that MySpace proves that going the MS route can be viable. PlentyOfFish.com seems to be doing pretty well also. I agree with 'idea' that the price isn't the issue, the complicated licensing structure is the administrative nightmare.

I used to do all MS at the company I did IT for, but now that I'm on my own I concentrate on LAMP. Both have advantages and disadvantages.

<comment><USER12> First of all, MySpace is not a startup and they have plenty of money to burn. They chose MS for many reasons, including the fact that they can hire a ton of people who know the platform. MS also did a lot of custom engineering on SQL Server to help them scale. If you read that giant article from CIO mag you'll see that this was one of the biggest plusses. If you're rich & have plenty of cash on hand, you don't have to worry about the cost. But if you're a startup, cashflow is everything.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> $7,775 according to Amazon.com's price.

Wow. One month's salary and benefits. It's not inconceivable that Microsoft's products would save that much or more labor. I use linux because I'm cheap.

</comment><comment><USER5> Add clustering - the so called 'server' platform still requires the entire OS to be restarted for non-kernel updates, so staying both secure and and available requires a second server.

</comment><comment><USER14> > _I envy the LAMP guys, not because of the technology which I think is > slightly behind Microsft's_ [sic] _(VS + C# + .NET)_

Ruby and Python and Lisp and all their frameworks and PostGres just aren't the same as those cutting-edge Microsoft products.

<comment><USER15> I wish I could mod up more than once.</comment></comment>


MacPaint and QuickDraw Source Code - <AUTHOR> http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/macpaint-and-quickdraw-source-code/

<comment><USER2> "How do you measure programmer productivity? When the Lisa team was pushing to finalize their software in 1982, project managers started requiring programmers to submit weekly forms reporting on the number of lines of code they had written. Bill Atkinson thought that was silly. For the week in which he had rewritten QuickDraw's region calculation routines to be six times faster and 2000 lines shorter, he put "-2000″ on the form. After a few more weeks the managers stopped asking him to fill out the form, and he gladly complied."

And yet, this mentality still exists today.

Would you measure an MBA by the amount of email they've sent? Or an EE by the number of resisters they've used?

<comment><USER3> There was a clip on the documentary "triumph of the nerds" where Steve Balmer was complaining about working with IBM that they wanted KLOC (1000 Lines Of Codes). If we can make it faster and shorter we're penalized he rightly said.

When I started at Raytheon we had LOC (Lines of Code) reports, but it wasn't used much and disapeared. At one code review, someone pointed out a way to shorten and tighten up so code, and someone else chimed in, then it would be fewer lines...

I haven't seen that metric since.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Still proprietary, though, that's a shame.

Would it really kill Apple if by some extremely remote infinitesimal chance someone would find a commercial application for this?</comment>


One Drug to Shrink All Tumors - <AUTHOR> http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/03/one-drug-to-shrink-all-tumors.html?ref=hp <comment><USER2> Some heart-wrenching comments from the page:

"Husband and father of 3, age 31, high grade spindle cell sarcoma, stage 4 with mets- help! email@example.com or find me (spouse) on fb, Heather Cimino in Fort Myers, Fl, willing to travel anywhere, just save my husband!"

"my wife has tumor that are killing her will you hurry up and get this sorted - is there anyway one can volunteer for a trial email@example.com"

There has got to be a way to address this need.

<comment><USER3> _There has got to be a way to address this need._

Yes, there is. Fight for the right of each individual to follow his best judgement in regard to all matters pertaining to his own life. (If someone doesn't know enough to make the call, he knows enough to choose a physician who can.)

Right now, _timely_ experimental treatments are basically outlawed. What good is it to say that there's an FDA procedure to get around the controls if you're treated too late? What right does anyone have to deprive anyone else of what might be their only shot at life?

<comment><USER4> The problem is that lay people have essentially no ability to distinguish between potential 'last shots'. And exemptions will invite snake-oil salesmen.

It can be frustrating, but the rules weren't created in some blind bureaucratic power-grab. They're responses to actual problems that existed in their absence. They aren't without their downsides, but they remain better than the alternative on balance.

<comment><USER5> Yet somehow countries that regulate drugs merely by safety tend to produce better health outcomes than countries that regulate for safety and efficacy like the US FDA does. You're just asserting that the upsides outweigh the downsides, but every study I've seen that tries to measure things quantitatively comes to the opposite conclusion.

The gullible are already getting snake-oil in the form of herbal remedies and homeopathy.

<comment><USER6> The point here is that this drug hasn't been tested for its safety, much less its efficacy. It is still at an early testing stage. The researchers seem to have a reasonable theory for why they believe it will be effective. But molecular biology is complicated and the risk for harmful effects in humans is not trivial.

Ben Goldacre's book Bad Pharma details the serious personal and social costs that come with poor drug trials. Everyone urging the abandonment of caution here seems to assume this new drug already works or, at the very least, the effects of its usage could not be worse than the grim prognosis patients already confront. But that's what proper trials are meant to establish. Snake oil can come in pill form, too. And even with the current precautions, we've ended up with a number of ineffective, expensive, and sometimes deadly drugs on the market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It bothers me to continuously see articles with headlines like this. Just look at the comments—it gives false hope to patients and their families. As the author mentioned later in the article, there is a big difference between seeing cancer cells die in a petri dish or reduction in size of a transplanted tumor in mice and it being safe and effective in humans. I hope this succeeds, but it is a long way from a Phase 2/3 clinical trial.

Cancer research is too important to use misleading, link bait headlines to attract attention.

</comment><comment><USER8> My best friend was just put into hospice for metastasized melanoma. He's 35. Where is this stuff?

Nothing more useful to add to this comment. Sorry

<comment><USER9> Sorry for your friend.

This is the original article: <http://www.pnas.org/content/109/17/6662>

You can actually get the antibody yourself, FTA: "The anti-hCD47 (B6H12) hybridoma was obtained from the ATCC" [<http://www.lgcstandards- atcc.org/Products/All/HB-9771.aspx>]

Purifying it is easy, if you have a lab.

However... you can't use that antibody directly in humans, since it is a mouse antibody, which the human immune system will recognize as foreign. So, even if this treatment were to work, it is necessary is to first "humanize" the antibody so it won't be rejected, and then you can see what effect you get in a clinical trial. I imagine this is what the $20mil funding is for.

You can find clinical trials for new drugs here:

<http://clinicaltrials.gov/>

<comment><USER2> Can you use this one directly in humans? Both humans and mice are mentioned, and I do not know how to interpret the nomenclature: [http://www.biolegend.com/biotin-anti-human- cd47-antibody-370...](http://www.biolegend.com/biotin-anti-human- cd47-antibody-3706.html)

<comment><USER9> That is a mouse antibody (viz, Isotype: Mouse IgG1, κ) targeted to the human CD47 protein, the same problem exists as for the one mentioned in the above article.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Here is a longer, more recent, (more obscure), article: <http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2012summer/article7.html>

<comment><USER2> Thanks for this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The article is from 26 March 2012, over a year ago. Would be great to hear on developments that happened over last year.

May this be another 'lost' case, appeared once and never again?

</comment><comment><USER2> "Although macrophages also attacked blood cells expressing CD47 when mice were given the antibody, the researchers found that the decrease in blood cells was short-lived; the animals turned up production of new blood cells to replace those they lost from the treatment"

That's great -- does anyone know if any other cells in the body express CD47? Especially ones that can't be replaced so easily?

<comment><USER12> No specific answer from me, but I guess digging through some top entries from pubmed can answer that. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=%28cd47[gene]%29%20AND...](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=%28cd47\[gene\]%29%20AND%20%28Homo%20sapiens\[orgn\]%29%20AND%20alive\[prop\]%20NOT%20newentry\[gene\]&sort=weight) may be a good start.

</comment></comment><comment> guard-of-terra Cancer evolve. In this sense it is like a new species (and it can occasionally become one).

That's why fighting it is so difficult. I highly doubt there ever can be one chemical substance that reliably fights all sorts of cancer.

And you can't really cure cancer anyway.

Our only hope at this point is genetic engineering.

</comment><comment><USER13> I would expect that human tissue put in mice would normally be rejected by the mouse's immune system, so this treatment would just allow that to happen in the special case of cancer tissue (which has mechanisms to prevent that). I'm worried that the human immune system wouldn't be as interested in attacking its own cells that became cancerous, even with this treatment.

</comment><comment><USER14> This was linked to by The New York Post yesterday, but the article itself is a year old.

</comment><comment><USER15> ... and in the darkness bind them? Let's hope so.

</comment><comment><USER16> White blood cell transplant is proven to shrink (cure) cancer. However you won't see it in the USA for the next XX years. Some doctors in China is already doing it though, so if you can travel, that is an option.

See [http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2010/jul2010_Life- Extension-F...](http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2010/jul2010_Life-Extension- Funds-Study-of-Therapy-That-Cured-Cancer-in-Mice_01.htm)

Also, I believe there is an organization that helps cancer victims by arranging travels outside of USA for innovative treatments, LEF can refer you to them.</comment>


Xavier Niel (French Steve Jobs?) & 42K Followers Shakes Up French Mobile Market - <AUTHOR> http://www.rudebaguette.com/2012/01/12/xavier-niel-free-mobile/ <comment><USER2> Now, how do we convince this guy to buy T-Mobil?</comment>


Will Steve Ballmer show up at the WWDC keynote? - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2010/05/26/apple-will-steve-ballmer-show-up-at-the-wwdc-keynote/

<comment><USER2> Hmm, I'm dubious. I can see XCode on Windows, as it increases the developer market share and primes people for a move to Mac. I don't know how they'd do it technically, though - most of the good bits of XCode are based on kernel level dtrace support.

I just can't see them wanting Visual Studio support. It is, pretty much, just better than XCode. Overnight, the superior development platform for an Apple device would be a Windows machine. Unless they're really planning on EOLing OS X and their non iP* businesses, why would they want the best developer environment to be hosted on a rival platform? Killing or abandoning OS X seems insane - desk/laptops still account for 50% of their income, and currently most OS X developers are also targeting iP* devices in parallel with their desktop work. Moreover, the iPhone halo effect is getting them more Mac sales and Mac developers. Whilst they're not hurting for iPhone apps, why give developers the incentive to stop buying Macs, buy Windows, kill off their OS X development, and throw out a hugely profitable segment of Apple's business to gamble on Android not eating their iPhone lunch?

I suspect this is just an analysts "blue sky" nonsense, or a confusion over e.g. development environments for Office 2011 Mac. For reference, this same guy claimed there would be no Mac updates in 2009, and that they'd release a small OLED laptop by the end of 2009. 0 for 2 so far, and I'm guessing 0 for 3.

<comment><USER3> > Visual Studio [...] is, pretty much, just better than XCode.

How so? (Genuinely curious, I have too little experience with either platform to judge.)

<comment><USER2> Mostly, it's that the intellisense and interactive debugger systems are streets ahead. Intelisense is basically useless on XCode, and the debugger support is a thin UI layer around GDB (which, very often, just doesn't work. The number of times it'll tell me that a variable is out of scope when it's quite clearly right in front of its nose is insane).

<comment><USER4> Call me insane, but I kind of like GDB + Xcode's wrapper. Yes, once or twice it has said dumb things about variables, but no more so than Visual Studio.

Likewise, I can't remember a time when I've seen Xcode's Intellisense-like feature fail, though I can recall several times when Visual Studio's has. (Xcode's method to advance to the next parameter--Ctrl-slash or something--is pretty non-obvious, though.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> No doubt followed by 6 minutes of rms promoting the ipad.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd pay to see that.

(Seriously; VS2010. If you assume it's about new-developer mindshare then at the moment Android has one huge advantage - you don't need to buy a Mac.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> It seems entirely plausible to me. Much like iPod/iTunes support for Windows in the past. It's inevitable. Apple's world does not revolve exclusively around the Mac. Even if 50% of mobile developers used a Mac, which is certainly an overstatement, that's too many Windows developers to ignore. Apple is already giving away XCode so no conflict of interest there. I'm not sure what Microsoft's motivation would be except trying to lure some potential Android developers to the iPhone in the short term because they envision WM7 and Android competing directly with each other.

<comment><AUTHOR> Microsoft are really strong in office software and in developer tools. Those are businesses which are actually reasonably weakly coupled to the OS business and barely coupled at all to their devices business units.

I'm suspicious of the idea that any company of Microsoft's size and maturity has a coherent strategic direction. Apple's an exception, but it's not a business: it's a totalitarian command economy with shareholders.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I laugh because so many C# developer I know have suffered learning ObjC to be with the cool kids... And it's such a pain.

<comment><USER8> It would be quite a slap to Adobe's face to say that ActionScript is not a valid source language, and then embrace C# as one. I don't know if Adobe's face can withstand any more slappin'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> If Ballmer were to show up at a WWDC Keynote, (which I very much doubt) I can think of a better reason than a technically impractical dev tool announcement: integration of Bing services into iPhoneOS. Given the current friction between Google, this would be a huge finger in Google's eye.

</comment><comment><USER10> So 6 months before they release their new phone OS, Microsoft is going to announce that they are Supporting the iPhone with their superior (personal opinion here) development environment, thus giving up one of the (very?) few areas that WP7 has an advantage...

I'm going to go out on a limb as say, probably not.

</comment><comment><USER11> Does this guy not know that Visual Studio 2010 has already been released?

<comment><USER12> If you enter the Konami code during startup, you get the iPhone dev tools.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> If this were to happen, the only reason it would is to bring Bing to the iPhone. Bing Search, Bing Maps, and perhaps Bing Travel if Apple announces their travel app plans (longshot).

</comment><comment><USER14> while this would be AWESOME, I doubt it's true.

<comment><USER15> I'm with you on this. It would be totally AWESOME and would bring major hype to both companies, and possibly shift the discussion away from I/O + Android.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

</comment><comment><USER17> No.

</comment><comment><USER18> No. This is insanity.

There's the growing theme that Apple and Microsoft are pals in their fight against Google. This is positively insane. Apple is absolutely devastating Microsoft's core foundation in a way that some shitty online spreadsheet hasn't.

Not to mention that this is the antithesis of pretty much everything that Jobs recently said about Adobe.

Apple doesn't need to woo developers, or expand their development platform. They have a lot of top notch apps, an overflowing app store, and everyone is rushing the door to get their chance at having their app denied. Maybe in a few years, if Android or WM7 really takes off, this will be a concern, but not now.</comment>