Mt. Gox: Announcement of Commencement of Bankruptcy Proceedings [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.mtgox.com/img/pdf/20140521_announce.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> The takeaway, if you had any bitcoin in Mt. Gox when it fell:

You won't receive any repayment until Feb 2015 at the earliest.

Important note: you must fill out a form claiming your debt in order to be considered for repayment in Feb 2015, i.e. as an Mt. Gox debtee, you are required to manually inform them (via their form) of how much money you're owed, otherwise you'll receive nothing. The form can't be filled out yet, because they haven't released it, but presumably they'll post it on mtgox.com sometime in the upcoming months, so make a mental note to keep your eyes open for it and fill it out whenever it's posted. If you haven't sent in the form by Nov 2014 then it sounds like you're guaranteed to get nothing.

It also seems fairly likely that you won't recover much of your money. That's just speculation on my part (and I would love to be wrong about it) but it seems like it's time to make peace with the idea that you probably won't be seeing >75% of your money ever again.

That said, Mt. Gox recently found 200,000 BTC that they had somehow lost track of: [http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/21/us-bitcoin- mtgox-w...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/21/us-bitcoin-mtgox-wallet- idUSBREA2K05N20140321)

... so those 200,000 BTC may be distributed among creditors. Since Mt. Gox's total bitcoin debt has been quoted at around 750,000 BTC, that would mean in an ideal world you'll eventually receive 26.6% of however many bitcoins you had at the time of Mt. Gox's shutdown.

But the world isn't ideal. It's unclear how such a repayment scheme would work in practice. For example, how will Mt. Gox repay debtees who are owed USD/EUR/AUD/etc, not bitcoin? E.g. let's say someone's Mt. Gox account balance was 3.25 BTC and $3,132. How would Mt. Gox's 200,000 BTC be fairly distributed in that situation? Would that $3,132 debt be converted into BTC debt? Or will Mt. Gox sell some of that 200k BTC in order to get US dollars, which are then repaid to that $3,132 debtee? And if all US/EUR/AUD/etc debts will be converted into BTC debts for purposes of repayment, what prices will they use for the actual conversion? (That is, how many BTC per how many dollars of debt?) Will they use current bitcoin market value for the conversion (which is currently $494/BTC) so that $3,132 would be equivalent to 6.34 BTC? Or will they use the value of bitcoin when Mt. Gox shut down operations?

What if they decide the best way to proceed is by selling off all 200k BTC for US/EUR/AUD/etc, which is then distributed among debtees? It's their decision; it seems like that scenario isn't impossible. You can imagine how a firesale of 200k bitcoins would completely annihilate BTC's market value. Of course, it's unlikely that whoever is in charge of Mt. Gox's assets would be that shortsighted, but given that bitcoin is completely new to most legal systems, who knows?

The point here is that your money's fate is up to someone else. Your money stopped being your money the moment you deposited it into Mt. Gox, or Coinbase, or any other third party. And now that Mt. Gox has collapsed and taken your money with it, it's probably best to accept that all of your money is 100% gone and never coming back, because that way when Feb 2015 rolls around you might be pleasantly surprised if Mt. Gox happens to repay you some small percentage of your holdings. (A pleasant surprise is much nicer than a sore disappointment, which is why I recommend pretending all your money is gone. Worst case: all your money is gone. Best case: some of it comes back to you via carrier pigeon. Actually, that would be the Awesome case.)

So let this be a lesson about the dangers of trusting a third party with your money, unless that third party is insured by a government in the event of disaster.

<comment><USER2> I remember seeing a comment somewhere on their site that payouts will be in USD rather than BTC. Can't find it now, so I could be wrong.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting. I wonder what will happen to Mt. Gox's 200k BTC? If it's true that repayments will be in USD, then it logically follows that the 200k BTC will be liquidated into USD, which will then be distributed evenly among debtees.

Liquidating 200k BTC would be quite a sight to behold. For example, there are only 18k BTC of orders on Bitstamp right now: [http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/bitstampUSD_depth.html](http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/bitstampUSD_depth.html)

... meaning, selling 200k BTC would blow through the entire order book eleven times over. I have no idea how the market would react to that. I'm sure bitcoin would survive it, just like it's survived every other disaster, but it will be quite the rollercoaster.

The reason I say the 200k BTC would be sold off if the repayments are all in USD is because, if I remember correctly, Mt. Gox had almost no cash when it shut down. Most of its cash had been seized by the US government long ago. So if Mt. Gox are going to repay anything of significance, then it seems like those 200k BTC will be sold off. What's the alternative? Those 200k BTC have to wind up _somewhere_. I know nothing of Japan's legal system, but the alternatives seem to be "either the government ends up keeping the coins, or the coins are redistributed to Mt. Gox debtees, or the coins are all sold off and the proceeds are distributed to Mt. Gox debtees."

Anyone have any theories about what will happen to the coins?

<comment><USER3> I don't follow your logic. A forced sale of bitcoins to assuage creditors is different to speculators losing confidence in the currency and trying to exit their positions. The latter causes market volatility and price crashes. Temporarily increased liquidity is not inherently disastrous.

<comment><AUTHOR> Very true, and that's a solid theory. Unfortunately I've learned from experience that the market rarely follows anyone's theory. The simplest example: many moons ago, when people were trying to explain bitcoin's meteoric rise in price, the general consensus was that the price was linked to (or at least influenced by) Silk Road, because Silk Road was the only practical use for bitcoin. Then Silk Road collapsed, but bitcoin's price hardly moved. Theorycrafting is fraught with dangers like that.

I noticed from some brief experience with bitcoin trading that if people suspect a huge downward plunge is happening presently, then people with a lot of bitcoin will step in and start putting up "floors", i.e. a large buy order about $50 to $100 lower than the current price. So they might offer to buy 1,000 coins for $75 less than the current price, because they expect it to plunge.

However, when it actually does plunge, what happens is that the plunge eats into their buy order to the tune of about 50 BTC, and then they cancel that buy order and move it even lower. This makes sense because if there's downward pressure, you stand to earn even more if you adjust your "floor" as far down as possible in order to buy the cheapest coins.

So, if 200k coins are sold off all at once, it seems like most of the big players in the market will set a "floor" of about $50/BTC, then sit back and watch what happens. And since everyone else will be completely panicking at that point, a significant number of people will probably hit "sell at current market rate" in order to get out of their BTC position as quickly as possible. (I've seen it happen; sometimes huge orders of 1,000+ BTC are sold at current market rate, which plunges the price way down, and then the price ticks back up as the market adjusts. But 200k BTC is two orders of magnitude higher; it seems like that will smash the price all the way down to sub-$10.)

Hopefully whoever is in charge of Mt. Gox's assets will take a more nuanced approach to selling off 200k BTC than "put them on Bitstamp and sell at current market price."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> For a recap of the Mt Gox rise and fall check my timeline: [http://newslines.org/mt-gox/](http://newslines.org/mt-gox/)

<comment><USER4> Summary: The Bankruptcy Trustee sets April 24 as the date for the start of bankruptcy proceedings, at Mt Gox offices in Shibuya, Tokyo. A creditors' meeting for reporting on the status of the assets will be held on July 23 at the Tokyo District Court. Creditors do not have to attend the meeting; the proceedings will be posted to the Mt Gox website. Bankruptcy claims must be submitted to the trustee before Nov 28, using a form provided by the trustee. Claims will be assessed on Feb 25, 2015.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Pages 4-6 are the English.</comment>


Ask HN: How can your SaaS startup accept (US) checks? - <AUTHOR>

We have a customer who insists to pay per check instead of credit card or Paypal. We aren't US based so I'm wondering if there is any payment provider or service that would allow us to get the money. The dollar value (yearly subscription) is large enough to go the extra mile for that customer. It's even fine if the money ends up in escrow for a couple of months (check clearing takes a while, doesn't it?). <comment><USER2> Your bank can probably cash those checks for you. It takes about a month to clear checks from Amazon USA here in Costa Rica.

</comment><comment><USER3> Google ACH transfer.</comment>


JamBlaster – Play music in real time with others from home - <AUTHOR> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1091884999/jamblaster-play-music-in-real-time-with-others-fro

<comment><AUTHOR> I work at JamKazam--

This is running the Linux real time kernel to help us achieve extremely low latency and I/O jitter. We've had to do a ton of fine tuning to get the latency as low as it is.

Our website is built on Ruby-on-Rails backed by Postgresql. We are using Resque for asynchronous jobs, and a Websocket/RabbitMQ solution to help with events in the browser and events else where in the backend.

Our JavaScript is a homegrown mess (jQuery and, ahem, 'business logic'). Having kept up with the latest web tech mostly through HN, I'd take the React/Flux plunge if starting from scratch; I'm still looking for an excuse to start using them anyway, even if just for part of the site!

Anyway, we are very excited to be starting the KickStarter for the JamBlaster, because it's your best way to get the latency low enough to have a really good jam session.

/me fingers crossed

</comment><comment><USER2> Link to previous discussion on HN, looks like they've come a long way! [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8324567](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8324567)</comment>


Facebook disabled my ad account for offering a $25 gift card for feedback - <AUTHOR> In a search for product-market fit, I decided it would be cool to offer product managers a gift card to give feedback on our product, Simpo.
I posted on LinkedIn and my personal Facebook, and then decided to create an ad to get more eyeballs on it.
The ad copy, targeting product managers, read something like "$25 Amazon gift card for your feedback on Simpo (if you work in Product Management)" and linked to a Google form -- still live, here: https://forms.gle/EDfGFssskQpivb6dA
I woke up this morning to find out that Facebook, instead of approving / rejecting the ad, completely disabled my account. Their explanation:
"This ad can't run because it promotes products, services, schemes or offers using deceptive or misleading practices, including those meant to scam people..."
Feels like a slap in the face, because we're being genuine. Have you guys run into this before? <comment><USER2> So you were ... offering compensation for reviews. I can see them having a problem with that.

</comment><comment><USER3> Facebook suck.. you are better off..</comment>


Rails in the Cloud: AWS, Heroku, and Morph - <AUTHOR> http://www.digitalhobbit.com/2008/11/13/rails-in-the-cloud-aws-heroku-and-morph/

<comment><USER2> FYI this article is from November 2008</comment>


Attacking the Washington, D.C. Internet Voting System [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://jhalderm.com/pub/papers/dcvoting-fc12.pdf <comment><USER2> This attack is really accurate and well-crafted.. and scary at the same time. Unfortunately, seems like we are not ready for Internet Voting Systems yet!</comment>


Accumulation of blog comments solves substantial mathematical problem - <AUTHOR> http://www.thebigquestions.com/2010/04/08/blogging-tic-tac-toe-and-the-future-of-math/

<comment><USER2> Ha.. And we do not count how many software engineering problems have been solved this way. But it is incorrect to attribute this to Blogging only. The phenomena of collaborative research through electronic media started in early 80-s, with rise of Usenet. Then IRC, webforums took part. So it is gradual, not revolutionary.</comment>


Five reasons Apple shouldn't get into gaming - <AUTHOR> http://technologizer.com/2009/05/06/5-reasons-apple-should-not-get-into-gaming/

<comment><USER2> "1. The Best Ideas Are Already Taken"

I don't understand how anybody could think this. It just simply isn't true. There doesn't need to be a "void" in order for something new to be successful. It just has to be better in some way than the existing technology.

I don't think anybody on HN thinks that the best ideas are already taken. It's the people /not/ starting companies which believe this.

<comment><USER3> Completely agree. That's the anti-competitive spirit that prevents good ideas from happening :)

I agree with the author's other 4 points, however. I'd hate to see a fourth console out there buying up exclusives, seeing another contender in the endless console wars... ugh.

... and if you thought people complained when the PS3 cost $600? :) I kid, I kid.

<comment><USER4> What's to kid about? Apple doesn't usually get into markets to be the low-cost supplier. They are the Ferrari of computers.

OTOH, they might well produce something so good that it captures the top end of the market. It's risky, but if they thought they could do it...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The problem is thinking that they want to make a console. I doubt they do. They may be thinking about pushing the iphone/ipod touch more heavily as game machines. The portable gaming market has a lot of room yet.

"1. The Best Ideas Are Already Taken"

Digital distribution: Other companies have started to do it, but the only distribution on portable devices are either java games for phones or dinky little games off Nintendo's DSi service. The PSP has something, but it seems ad hoc and fiddly.

Apple have distro down pat. It's about as easy as it gets.

Pricing: Make it cheap basically. Go for volume. Valve is a company that understands this. They commonly discount products to a huge degree in order to stimulate sales and it's not hurting them, the opposite in fact.

If you want to look at games as mass-media, you can see there is still a way to go. Compare them to movies. Films in general cost substantially more — or can at least — yet will be priced much lower than games when offered at retail. Games in comparison are still being treated like premium products with premium pricing. There are a bunch of other issues affecting how well a game can succeed — accessibility and subject-matter for example — but there is no practical reason why games can't be made that will sell more cheaply, to more people.

I'm still dubious about a big push into games, but Apple is a surprising company, so I wouldn't discount it entirely.</comment>


Business of Software videos are online - cool-RR http://businessofsoftware.org/

<comment> cool-RR I'll be happy to get recommendations on which of these videos stand out!</comment>


Coding bootcamps are replacing computer science degrees - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2015/11/08/coding-bootcamps-are-replacing-computer-science-degrees/ <comment><USER2> This article actually debunks its own headline toward the bottom:

"Since the first coding boot camps were founded in 2011 and 2012, there's no clear impact [on the number of CS graduates], but note that computer science degrees had already seen a sharp decline since their peak in 2003."

</comment><comment><USER3> Is this a promo for coding boot camps? Someone recently featured a medium article which slammed the coding boot camps by claiming they produce under qualified job candidates.

</comment><comment><USER4> Computer science is far more than than just coding.

In other news, 3 hour DYI sessions are replacing plumbers and electricians. NOT.</comment>


The growth of spoken-word festivals - <AUTHOR> https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/words-made-flesh-why-author-events-are-the-new-hot-tickets-1.3917073 <comment><USER2> > But the new divide emerging will increasingly be between those who have no > choice but to rely on digital services for health, education or even > companionship and those who are wealthy or privileged enough to choose human > interaction instead.

Reminds me of the switch from when being fat meant you were wealthy to when being fat meant you were poor or didn't have the leisure time to exercise. The fashion always depends on what you have the ability to choose to do, rather than an objective scientific standard. I think it also shows up in the backlash when people realize that something that has become prevalent is harmful, but only the few have a choice to do something different. I see this in my own life; sometimes it takes major effort to go and do something away from the screen and to be mindful of little daily things.

<comment><USER3> In _The Stars My Destination_ , main character Gully Foyle, in character as the aristocrat Geoffrey Fourmyle, makes a grand entrance by using various land and air vehicles -- in a fictional universe where instantaneous mental teleportation, called jaunting, is normal and commonplace for humans.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The "Oscar Wilde's talk [...]" piece is not bad either: [https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/oscar-wilde-s- talk-...](https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/oscar-wilde-s-talk- inspired-his-rise-and-led-to-his-downfall-1.3917086)</comment>


Are apps even that relevant anymore? - <AUTHOR> https://tinyprojects.dev/posts/are_apps_even_that_relevant_anymore <comment><USER2> > Even now with my own projects, a well optimised mobile website beats an app > most times.

I seriously doubt that, if my 8 core macbookpro has issues with half of the web (event my own react projects of sizable complexity start to have issues), doubt mobile devices don't. And I honestly can't speak for Android, but being both and iOS and React developer, iOS performance in pretty much anything compared to React is amazing.

Also, the second part, I have been doing research lately, and while the dev.to or HN crowd says they visit the mobile websites, market research shows that people spend around 90% of their time in apps versus 10% in mobile web, so seem users find them relevant.

I know developers don't like 'closed' systems and love the web, but I (and most people I know) personally prefer a app over a mobile experience 99% of the time.

<comment><USER3> > people spend around 90% of their time in apps versus 10% in mobile web, so > seem users find them relevant.

Which apps? 50% of the time is spent in their most popular app, and 97% of the time is spent in their 10 most popular apps. Considering that the top spots are taken by fb/instagram/whatever, what's left for discovery? I'd argue that the 10% spent on the browser is 99% of the discovery that users do, probably via links from their favourite apps.

It seems the app space is way more overcrowded than the web.

<comment><USER4> There are a lot of things you just can't do well on the web. I'm writing an iPad drawing app that renders using Metal. It barely sips any power, while doing a great deal more work than Electron apps like Slack do.

It was much easier for me to write without the limitations of the browser and the web APIs getting in my way. Apple's APIs have a few warts, too, of course, but they are easier to work around.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This was what Jobs initially claimed to want, and Apple several times acted to enforce. For a while they were really negative on apps that were simply wrappers around websites.

But the market spoke, and now Apple seems to be very much on the other side of things along with nearly every company out there.

Some possible reasons: Bookmarks to websites get buried in long ever-growing lists of bookmarks, while installed apps take up precious visual screen space. Users are generally more tolerant of an app taking a couple of seconds to load than a website, and less tolerant of subsequent navigation taking time, and apps tend to match those expectations more closely than web pages. And maybe apps still deliver functionality that websites can't, or can't as easily. Oh, and an app, once downloaded, usually keeps working consistently, while websites often are updated or completely disappear.

For whatever reason, people seem to prefer apps to websites, and I'm not sure I see that changing much.

<comment><USER6> Almost all of those have been solved by Android's PWA implementation. I can go to an enabled site and add it to my apps list. After that, it looks and acts like any other app on the device [except that it doesn't take up any space on my phone :)]

<comment><USER7> It might take if distributed as TWA, given that then it gets FFI access to Android APIs. :)

However PWAs still fail short of stuff like 3D capabilities, given how limited they are versus the actual APIs, e.g. WebGL 2.0 vs OpenGL ES 3.2.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think that there are still certain classes of app that benefit strongly from being native rather than just a web app.

To give an example, Christian Selig's Apollo iOS client for Reddit is lightyears ahead of both the Reddit mobile website and the official Reddit iOS app. By using the native iOS APIs and matching what people expect from gestures on an iOS app, he's able to create an amazing experience for users.

<comment><USER9> That doesn't seem like the best example, since you just said his native app is better than a native app. Perhaps he's just a better designer.

<comment><USER8> Fair point. What I was mostly trying to get across is that native mobile apps can leverage UX/UI features not available to mobile web apps (hence the comparison to the Reddit mobile web client).

Being/having a good designer definitely helps, but it seems to me that there are serious benefits to not being constrained by whatever web browser the platform you're working on provides.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I have almost no apps on my iPhone, and rarely use it other than calls, text, News, photos and maps. When I use it for web surfing, which is how I access News, I use Firefox, not Safari.

As for myself, I decided from the start not to develop "apps" for iOS or Android and instead keep building "web apps" instead. My apps are all business tools so I really don't need any special access or permissions to make them usable.

I will say LocalStorage sucks and I wasted too much time trying to make it not suck. In the end I gave up so Apple's and others decisions to stomp on it won't really affect me or my apps' users.

But Local-First assets and data management are something that developers will have to demand and there seems to be little thrust for that right now. Still, the shine is most certainly wearing off the hype developers were attracted by for these platforms so we might start seeing some movement that direction soon now.

I've been working on a local-first, offline-first, web app for desktop PCs that uses CouchDB installed on the user's PC instead of a CouchDB in the Cloud. Used this way with a web app CouchDB is somewhat akin to a sandboxed runtime engine for web apps on the client side. And the increase in performance of the app is quite noticeable. I think it's fair to say it runs at near native speed.

Configured with service workers to run offline first the web app only checks the server to see if any updates have been issued and if not it never sends any data over the internet.

It's very easy to provide the user an option to sync their local CouchDB with one in the Cloud, and they can turn that option on and off. When it's on they can access their data with any device and "Live Sync" the data between the Cloud CouchDB and their Desktop CouchDB.

Now, it's beyond my skills to develop it but it seems to me that a sandboxed runtime engine for web apps on mobile devices would be a good thing for us all. Of course, I don't think Apple and Google think so, but they do most definitely depend on indie developers to entice people to use their devices.

<comment><USER11> Have you used say gmail on web vs app, or youtube web vs app. You may not have much of a need for a apps in your life or you are opting for an inferior experience and making your life harder.

<comment><USER12> The YouTube iOS app is worse than using their app. Their app doesn't do picture in picture and you click on an embedded video it takes you out of the browser if you have it installed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Please stop making terrible web apps - all these "revolutionary" re-invent- the-wheel frameworks are not making things any better, they are still a major pain to use and highly inefficient. Native apps will always have a better experience for anything other than general web browsing/reading/searching.

</comment><comment><USER14> The argument was, the web and its tech is too slow for phones, we need apps.

This is no longer true and apps are a pain in the rear when it comes to all the integrations you have for mobile aware sites.

How can app content be crawled, don't ask it's a major pain. How do you track usage like site clicks, ouch! How about integrations like commenting or site support chat, good luck, there might be one for your app.

Not to mention the 30% vig to Apple and Google, or the lock-in.

Many thought apps would bring money back into what sites were giving away and ok, it did -- for Apple and Google.

Can we please stop making "apps" now?

<comment><USER15> None of these points make any sense, so lets go through them one by one.

1\. First of I don't even understand what you mean here. Crawling the content of your own application? Or you mean that all content should be crawlable by others and if so, why should that be a given?

2\. Mobile analytical software has come a long way since the early days (I know, I was there and am here now). There are suites available now that do automatic click capturing out of the box, or you could simply roll your own small viewhierarchy interaction listener and feed events from there. It is honestly real easy to do when you know what you are doing.

3\. Like point 2, there is a ton of suites that cater to this aspect with mobile first SDKs ready for use. There is also nothing wrong with rolling your own (it is only real time messaging between two parties after all) or simply send the user to your external web page's support chat when needed (not every feature under the sun needs to be in the mobile app).

4\. Not all mobile apps run on subscriptions or fees that would be paid through the Apple App Store. As an example I point to the whole field of financial applications. And on Android you are free to do payments through other means than the Google Play services, and thus not pay 30%. Yes it is a inconvenience to the user, but it is possible (just like payments on a website will usually take the user through a flow previously not used by him before, instead of all webpage payments going through PayPal)

To conclude, I think there is plenty of room and velocity in the mobile application space. And I think the same can be said about the web space. The two can coexist, as each has aspects to it that superceed the others.

We just need to stop making slow, ad clogged, non mobile friendly web pages as well as lowest bar, slow and insecure mobile applications.

[edit: minor spelling edits]

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Native apps are still more pleasant and performant enough that they make users happier than mobile web apps and PWAs. Web apps have become better, so native apps are not mandatory to achieve acceptable levels of performance, but at the same time, the cost of developing and releasing a good native app has fallen, so the utility of native relative to incrementally improving a mobile web app is still quite good.

Developers may not like that this is the case, but I expect users will like being provided a better experience for some time, and that we're likely to see companies develop natively for new platforms faster than native apps for mature devices will be folded.

</comment><comment><USER17> As long as iOS Safari still hasn't implemented push notifications, apps are needed to fill that gap. Everything from a messaging to news, even a weather app benefits from push notifications.

<comment><USER18> If you're willing to give up some control over presentation, you can offer an rss feed and users can subscribe to it with their app of choice. It's pull rather than push, but it also saved you the trouble of maintaining an app.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> There are many reasons:

1\. They want the distribution effect of the app store. You can go from zero to king overnight if the app store features your product.

2\. Unless you're building a dumb wrapper around a CRUD backend app, most apps need access to the state of the art API. Especially if you're aiming high, chances are, you won't be able to find a new app idea without using the new APIs because the old APIs have been experimented on by millions of developers already.

3\. Apple has declared recently that they're going to cripple the browser localstorage and cookies so everything gets reset if you don't use them for 2 weeks. I think they will do this more and more (it's also good for user privacy so they do have a moral high ground)

<comment><USER20> #2 is just wrong. lots of powerful apps do most of their work on the back end, and lots more could just as easily be built with web apis.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I try avoid installing apps unless it's something I really want and the app is far better than the web site. Apps these days are loaded with spyware. I assume that any mobile app will track me as much as it can possibly get away with. It's almost like voluntarily installing malware.

Web sites track too of course, but their capacity to do so is more limited. I fully revoke location, camera, and microphone from the browser, so all it can do is track me on the web and get a very rough idea of location via GeoIP. Desktop apps can also track, but mobile offers a lot more intimate information (especially location) and is constantly connected.

<comment><USER22> Yeah, native apps are basically a black box in terms of what data gets "sent home." At least with blockers such as uBlock Origin, scripts/requests directly from known tracking domains are denied.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> The distribution alone in the App Store make it worth it. Websites traffic dies down when you dont do anything but the App Store will consistently get passive users viewing

</comment><comment><USER24> Such an oversimplified view of things... I guarantee at least 50% of apps cannot be built with Web APIs alone (especially on iOS where Apple is intentionally limiting Web API adoption to drive up their App Store revenues).

</comment><comment><USER25> As a consumer, apps are a privacy concern. Firefox lets me tightly control what websites do, but apps can silently track me. They also often use notifications to increase engagement. Apps often benefit the makers more than the users.

As a maker, apps are a pain in the butt. I can get a website online in a few minutes, and it stays there forever. Every app I've made is now gone because I got tired of keeping up with app store requirements. I never made an iOS app because I won't pay 100€ for the privilege.

</comment><comment><USER26> There are challenges retaining users and bringing them back to a webapp instead of a native app. That being said I also am hugely in favour of web apps because the likelihood of people visiting my site is higher than them downloading my app. So user acquisition is easier but retention is hard. I do like the idea of email notifications as a replacement for push notifications - I think others such as Twitter/FB notifications could also work.

<comment><USER11> Apple's app clips and Googles instant apps are meant to fix that

<comment><USER27> Instant Apps was out since 2017. In the 3 years since, I don't think I've once seen a prompt to install an instant app out in the wild, ever.

<comment><USER7> It is mostly used by games as modern version of demos.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Privacy oriented apps like, "Signal" are more relevant than ever.

</comment><comment><USER29> I guess If I were to develop an app (free but with ads) for the browser then I would be worried about ads blockers, that doesn't work if my app is a native app.

<comment><USER30> _that doesn 't work if my app is a native app_

It works if one's ad blocker is pi-hole. To me it is one of the main features of pi-hole: it blocks everything, not just web ads.

But your point is taken.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Most apps are just copy cats, the gold race is long gone.

</comment><comment><USER31> Applications have never been more relevant. In my opinion, we should return to native-only programs and have only semantic HTML in our browsers.

</comment><comment><USER32> No and apple needs to be broken up to permit innovation 3.0</comment>


Ransomware Infects 100K PCs in China, Demands WeChat Payment - <AUTHOR> https://movaxbx.ru/2018/12/05/ransomware-infects-100k-pcs-in-china-demands-wechat-payment/ <comment><USER2> Lol. THis is the programmer equivalent of dumb crooks

1\. Sends money to a centralized service that can track his account, must share info with Chinese government

2\. Forgot to register domain privately

3\. Instead of using DES or RSA, he just XOR'd the file with a key he hard coded in the file

4\. He apparently left his name a and phone number in the code?

5\. When they looked at what servers it was pinging, they were able to gain access because it had not been properly secured

Am I missing anything else?

<comment><USER3> Hmm... What if it was intentional, to frame someone else?

<comment><USER4> So, person is either just dumb or playing 8 dimensional chess. I know what I think.

I normally come to the same conclusion when I'm thinking about politics.

<comment><USER5> This isn't 8-dimensions.

For someone who works in this space this would be a simple framing attempt. I give that like one dimension, maybe one and a half. In reality it's probably just a dumb crook or someone doing it for the lulz.

<comment><USER6> Someone has a bot that scrapes Github for Discord bot tokens and deletes all content in servers it has permissions in and replaces it with info saying X person did it and to "come to his house."

Stuff like that is pretty common I feel for people to use against their enemies. Especially if it was designed to be small and got out of hand.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Since WeChat is a central authority, it would be foolish to ask for payment to the ransomware author's actual WeChat ID. It's very likely whatever ID they're asking for payments to is automatically generated/pulled/guess/etc so that the ransomeware's only purpose is to cause havoc and/or waste the government's time. If the ransomware was created to earn money it would ask for cryptocurrency like all the others, but then it wouldn't have made as many headlines.

<comment><USER8> Alternative possibility: given the simple, traceable, almost begging-to-be- caught nature of the malware, and that it so easily led researchers to a name and address of a potential author, perhaps its goal is actually to frame someone... to take out a rival hacker, revenge, lulz, ...?

Not saying it's what's actually happening here, but it's something that has crossed my mind before about malware - that it would be comparatively easy to lead one or more false trails to shift blame for whatever reason, and I wonder how many pieces of malware have actually managed to pull this off, and pinned the blame on an obvious target, e.g. Chinese government, "russian hackers", etc.

<comment><USER9> That, or the creator is just stupid

Reads to me like someone writing viruses that doesn't know a thing about writing viruses

<comment><USER10> > "Reads to me like someone writing viruses that doesn't know a thing about > writing viruses"

someone who infected 100,000 machines knows at least 'a thing' about writing viruses

<comment><USER9> I mean yes, it is a remarkable technical achievement.

To use the analogy of an art thief, this is as if he had simply smashed some glass and made a run for it, without dealing with security systems and whatnot. He might make it out the door, but now the museum has him on video, they have his fingerprints, and they're probably going to get the stolen art back.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "WeChat Payment"

Although it's a little tricky here, but once you acquired necessary Chinese IDs with debit cards (more than easy), it's not too hard, old people in villages are more than willing to sell theirs for sevral hundred RMB.

As for authorities, oh they are more busy maintaining social stability, if your case(assuming they allow you to register your case since it's obviously a dead end that effects their stats vital for promotion) are lucky enough to be included in an operation couple months later then maybe they can find out which countries these hustlers are at and cases closed.

<comment><USER12> >> _As for authorities, oh they are more busy maintaining social stability_

Never embarrass the powers that be though, 100K PCs and growing daily it's not a small incident.

<comment><USER13> Yeah. I'm thinking the real issue with using a single set of probably bought/stolen ID and infecting a few hundred thousand PCs is that you attract just enough attention for the authorities to be motivated to track you down. And unlike cybercriminals attacking mostly Western targets, I doubt they're safely overseas.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> How is it done if every WeChat account has to be tied to a real life ID and vouched for by several established users?

<comment><USER15> I've heard this before but I created a WeChat account last week and didn't have to provide anything other than a phone number for a SMS verification code.

<comment><USER16> In China, when you get a phone number, you have to give them your national ID/身份证. So anything you authenticate with a phone number could be traced back to you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> for anyone saying this is outright dumb, remember they are criminals.

They are probably receiving the money in different, probably years old, honest accounts. Which the real owner is compromised (e.g. hacked. or being coerced to send the payment out as soon as it is received under threats, etc)

Not seeing this is why developers should not assume they can wear the threat modeler hat.

Also, when you are a B2C like ransonware folks are, it is very hard to make the victim get bitcoins even if their life depends on the data you are holding hostage. Using weechat in china gets them zero attrition.

</comment><comment><USER18> Someone's familys going to get a bill for a 9mm pill.

</comment><comment><USER19> what's the point of this when the money is obviously going frozen/siezed by the authorities?

</comment><comment><USER20> Ironically, because of government reach and close technology company collaboration, including significant minority stakes in such companies, it would seem that malware groups operating in China have to be a lot better than their counterparts operating in other countries to remain at large for very long.

<comment><USER12> Russia is probably the best bet, not China. No extradition and pay FSB their share, and you may have the _best_ chance on earth to get away with these things.</comment></comment>


How much would you have sold Yelp.com for? - <AUTHOR> http://web.archive.org/web/20011202070444/http://www.yelp.com/

<comment><USER2> Probably whatever the guy who originally sold it for. It's like the millions of other domain names that get bought or traded everyday. To know, perhaps 10 years in advance, that the next buyer is going to turn it into a $500M+ valued business is ridiculous. This exercise of looking back and asking that question of what you would have sold it for is really pointless.</comment>


Foxes Like Beacons – Open positioning system/the politics of infrastructures - <AUTHOR> http://www.creativeapplications.net/arduino-2/foxes-like-beacons-open-positioning-system-and-the-politics-of-infrastructures/ <comment><USER2> The main page for this project is at [http://stupidmessy.net/](http://stupidmessy.net/)</comment>


California Becomes First State to Mandate Female Board Directors - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-becomes-first-state-to-mandate-female-board-directors-1538341932 <comment><USER2> Comments moved to [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18109162](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18109162), which was posted earlier (and isn't paywalled).

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry! I genuinely didn't see that one.

<comment><USER2> No worries. It happens all the time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> [https://outline.com/42XAWB](https://outline.com/42XAWB)</comment>


Can Your Programming Language Do This? - <AUTHOR> https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/08/01/can-your-programming-language-do-this/ <comment><USER2> Interesting ideas but very dated. Would love to see Spolsky do an updated version.

Premise is first-class functions are the best thing to happen to programming and without them Google never would have become Google, and that Java's ugly second-class-function syntax means Java sucks

> Java required you to create a whole object with a single method

With Java 8's lambda functions (around for > 2 years now) this is no longer the case. But also MapReduce was implemented in Java before Java 8. The ideas of functional programming are important, but "syntax is just syntax."

<comment><USER3> >> Java required you to create a whole object with a single method

> With Java 8's lambda functions (around for > 2 years now) this is no longer > the case.

Yes, but only because Java compiler does that for you. It's still fugly anonymous instance of an anonymous class implementing the necessary interface.</comment></comment>


Tor and the BEAST SSL attack - <AUTHOR> https://blog.torproject.org/blog/tor-and-beast-ssl-attack

<comment><USER2> Slightly OT, but this is a perfect reason to regard javascript crypto as dangerous. If one of the most heavily scrutinized cryptographic protocols can have what is in retrospect, a fairly obvious flaw (WEP fell to a very similar predictable IV attack), the average developer does not stand a chance of getting it right implementing it from scratch in an environment they do not have strong control over.

<comment><USER3> I generally oppose doing crypto in Javascript, but I'm not so sure that this bug is a good argument for that position. You realize you're taking two extremely unsettled debates and combining them, don't you? :-)

* We will probably never get to a point where everyone agrees on the exact severity of the BEAST exploit, simply because all of the parties are defining "severity" from their own perspective. The best we can hope for is that enough fixes get put in place that nobody (else) gets pwned by it in the real world.

* Yes, "average developer does not stand a chance of getting it right". Professional crypto engineers don't always get everything right (often only understood after many years).

* But I personally object to the "hands off ye mortals crypto is only for the Gods" argument. People should be able to hack on whatever they want without being ridiculed. What we need to be vigilant about is the security claims being made on the result! The only thing worse than amateur crypto in amateur packaging is broken (or backdoored) crypto in professional packaging.

* Ptacek gives good reasons Javascript crypto is a bad idea: <http://www.matasano.com/articles/javascript-cryptography/> My own summary is simply:

A. The server provides a vastly more stable and secure environment for performing sensitive crypto operations. Yes, really. There are attacks with CVE numbers and careful code patches in OpenSSL that have to be completely ignored by Javascript crypto advocates simply because they have no mitigation there.

B. Almost all reasons people give for wanting to do crypto on the client side in Javascript don't hold up under scrutiny. It usually turns out that the person advocating it is being optimistic because he doesn't really understand his attacker's capabilities very well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Nothing to worry about:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3015995> _I happen to know the details of this attack since I work on Chrome's SSL/TLS stack._ _Fundamentally there's nothing that people should worry about here. Certainly it's not the case that anything is 'broken'._

<comment><USER5> You might want to read <http://www.imperialviolet.org/2011/09/23/chromeandbeast.html>, which sums up Chrome's reaction to the attack.</comment></comment>


Chinese umbrella-sharing startup loses most of its 300,000 umbrellas in 3 months - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2017/7/10/15947590/chinese-umbrella-sharing-startup-lost-300000 <comment><USER2> >E Umbrella doesn't appear to charge users an unreturned umbrella fee so most users just end up keeping their rentals.

That's hilarious. They basically invented an umbrella shop. A loss making one by the looks of it.

<comment> tuna-piano 1\. You don't understand the economies of scale.

2\. Umbrellas are just the first step. First it was umbrellas, but next they'll do water bottles, etc.

3\. Amazon didn't make a profit for the first 10 years, they're just focusing on growth.

4\. It's recurring revenue, so it's actually worth more than one-time sales.

5\. They're not an umbrella company, they're a tech company.

<comment><USER3> Was that meant to be parody? That's an honest question; I'm not sure whether you're serious or not.

<comment> tuna-piano I'm honestly not too sure myself.

Like I mean they all seem like stupid reasons that are used to justify loss- making companies that have no chance at success. At the same time, for the right company, they are pretty logical reasons. That said, loss-making umbrella shop really seems like a better explanation than a "a growth focused tech company with massive economies of scale, recurring revenue, and huge potential in a wide variety of other markets."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Those umbrellas look cheap, and definitely don't worth 19 yuan if bought from taobao.com, or even less if it's a bulk order [1].

It's possible that they're making a profit even by selling the umbrellas at 19 yuan, not to mention users' personal information they've collected, which worths at least 5 yuan/entry.

[1] Lowest price of Umbrellas on alibaba.com (wholesale version of taobao.com) is $1/pc (6.8 yuan/pc): [http://www.alibaba.com/trade/search?fsb=y&IndexArea=product_...](http://www.alibaba.com/trade/search?fsb=y&IndexArea=product_en&CatId=&SearchText=umbrella)

<comment><USER5> The article clearly states how much an umbrella costs them. They are losing money.

<comment><USER6> Although, suppose they manage to average 3 rentals before someone decides they're not parting with it. That would mean they break even. Add in potential for advertising as another post mentioned, and maybe there's actually some viability to this crazy half-disposable-item for super expensive rent scheme!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > The founder discloses that an umbrella costs the company 60 yuan ($8.82 USD) > each to replace

Last time I bought an umbrella (in the US), it retailed for $5. It sounds like the rental aspect is just making the umbrellas unnecessarily expensive to produce; the true form of this business would get rid of the whole rental aspect and make vending machines.

</comment><comment><USER8> "charged customers 19 yuan ($2.90 USD) per umbrella deposit and an additional half yuan ($0.07 USD) per 30 minutes"

"an umbrella costs the company 60 yuan ($8.82 USD) each to replace"

They have just sold 300,000 umbrellas. This is a brilliant sales/marketing/distribution disguised as sharing. The cost of the umbrella is for sure lower than 19 yuan. They save money on not having stores and sales personnel. Distribute the product via sharing and collect the money via the app. That's why once they have "lost" all the umbrellas, they will do it again with another batch.

<comment><USER9> When it rains, 7-11 always gets out the cheap ass umbrellas that it charges 40-60 kuai for (> $5!), they were definitely into gouging. Compare this to Japan where you can always get an umbrella for 100 yen.

<comment><USER10> Konbini umbrellas in Japan are 300-500 yen. You need to find a 100 yen shop to get them for that price, although Japan's ruthless demographic, economic and deflationary spiral is solving this problem through the recent trend of 100 yen konbinis.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Japan has the original umbrella sharing economy. All umbrellas look the same (black handle, white or transparent top), are very cheap (a few hundred yen = a few dollars at any convenience store) - as a result, people aren't attached to theirs. Leave yours at the door when you enter a store or some such, take one when you leave - it might be yours or not. If it's not raining anymore when you leave, just leave it there.

It's wonderful - I've had many nights leaving a bar late when it was pouring and hadn't brought an umbrella with me, and the empty bar had a half dozen available by the door.

Turns out that it's very rare that you arrive with one, need one when you leave, and can't find one.

<comment><USER12> So one of the acceptable scenarios is also that you arrive at the bar and it begins to rain... then you take an umbrella even though you didn't deposit one? Is that right?

<comment><USER13> Precisely. A proper sharing economy means doing away with the pointless accounting that dominates an economy based on property rights. What we call the 'sharing economy' in the US isn't, it's a rental/service economy. The people who call it a sharing economy are essentially trying to redefine the word to mean something else. A five-year old could tell the difference, but many adults seem to have lost the ability.

OK, you're vulnerable to umbrella-horders in this example, but how many people are going to hoard umbrellas for no good reason? Probably a small number of people with mental illness issues.

<comment><USER14> A six-year old could tell the five-year old they're being naive, and that adults using buzzwords like "sharing economy" aren't worried about accuracy.

<comment><USER13> That's the problem, isn't it? Deep down, people dislike bullshit* and tolerating it as a normal mode of discourse is toxic to the health of a society.

* [http://www.csudh.edu/ccauthen/576f12/frankfurt__harry_-_on_b...](http://www.csudh.edu/ccauthen/576f12/frankfurt__harry_-_on_bullshit.pdf)

<comment><USER14> I think that ship has sailed. Society as we know it is built on bullshit.

Evaluating its health by comparing against an imagined non-bullshit-based society seems unproductive. Why presuppose that this alternative society is feasible/possible let alone better on the whole?

<comment><USER13> The whole body of contract law stands in contradiction of your assertion. We also privilege facts and verifiable events in history and science, notwithstanding the existence of bullshit. I don't share your fatalistic view, not least because any undertaking whatsoever could theoretically be dismissed with the more-or-less similar argument of 'well we're all going to die, so what's the point?'

I agree with you that much of society is based on based on bullshit, but not that it's pointless to do anything about it. I used to smoke cigarettes but gave them up because they were making me feel bad. While I have most likely shorten my life by the time I _did_ spend smoking and won't be able to recover that lost time, I still cared enough about the quality of life that was available to not want to shorten it further. Likewise, insofar as bullshit deems to be destructive of trust and social relations, I'm arguing that we would be better off with less of it.

<comment><USER14> I don't believe society is based on bullshit alone; there's just a lot of bullshit in the mix.

I suspect a society without bullshit is not as simple as it sounds. Seems we would have to somehow get by without a lot of things ranging from white lies to political and religious beliefs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This headline reads like an Onion article about startups...

<comment><USER16> This morning, a FB friend shared an article about some startup raising a $17mm round for an app that's supposed to make buying lotto tickets more appealing to or easy for millennials, or something.

I'm not sure which is Onion-ier, frankly.

<comment><USER17> It's not legal in many US states to buy lotto tickets with a credit card...has to be a debit or gift card.

Hmm.

<comment><USER18> Not to dissimilar to credit card companies not supporting Online Gambling.

<comment><USER16> I have a pretty strong hunch that has more to do with fraud prevention than it does consumer protection.

EDIT: Not to imply either is solely one or the other. Just, on a spectrum with those motives as the poles, "can't buy lotto tickets" is probably closer to the "consumer protection" end, and "no online gambling" to the other, purely as a function of the volumes of money that can be moved that way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> alternate Headline:

"Chinese start up finds innovative way to sell 300K umbrellas in just 3 Months - But in Silicon Valley style - does not understand unit economics."

</comment><comment><USER20> I've noticed that a lot of new companies start business with the idea that people are fundamentally good and will do the right thing. Unfortunately, there's a subset of people that will always take advantage if there are no consequences. Here's one more proof. Booie for human nature.

<comment><USER21> I used to think that, but AirBnb's success seems to be a huge counterexample.

There are occasional problems caused by that subset of people taking advantage, but that hasn't stopped AirBnb's growth.

<comment><USER22> I'm curious what you would have expected self-serving airbnb users to do that they apparently are not?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> "charged customers 19 yuan ($2.90 USD) per umbrella deposit and an additional half yuan ($0.07 USD) per 30 minutes"

So customers holding on to their umbrellas are bring charged 3.36$/day? I've paid that much to buy umbrellas in london on rainy days. How is that not an incentive to return it? Or are the umbrellas just being stollen from the rails?

<comment><USER24> I think that's exactly the case. From the picture there seems to be a mechanical password lock on the umbrellas. I guess how it works is: You can the QR code -> pay thru app -> received password, input the password on umbrella -> unlock umbrella. But since it's mechanical lock, I assume the password doesn't change every time. Then whoever returns the umbrella knows the password and can just take it away directly. The company can't prove they steal it.

<comment><USER25> This is exactly what happened to a lot of ofo bikes. They then scratch off the serial number and qr code so that no one else can use it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Umbrella cooperation: The early years. Founders develop a hatred on humanity.

</comment><comment><USER27> "charged customers 19 yuan ($2.90 USD) per umbrella deposit and an additional half yuan ($0.07 USD) per 30 minutes"

That is a lot of money for a working class Chinese person. For some its more than a day's wages. They might have thought they were buying the umbrella. Or if not, they might have felt entitled to keep it because of the price. It could sound like 19 yuan to keep it and 1 yuan an hour to rent. Since they already spent the 19 yuan it made sense to just keep it for many.

<comment><USER28> If you're not known enough about China, you should not claim "That is a lot of money for a working class Chinese person." Actually, 19 yuan is ignorable for working class Chinese person. You can only buy about 1 hamburger in McDonalds, or buy 0.5 kilogram pork, or buy a bowl of noodle by using 19 yuan (delicious noodle costs at least double). China has changed a lot. If you have time, you can visit Shanghai, Beijing, and many other cities. You'll find they're all modern and safe cities, and you'll find your claim is totally wrong.

<comment><USER18> You both likely have different definitions of "working class."

<comment><USER29> I'm friends with a "working class" translator (4 year Business English degree) in Shanghai who lives in a 6000 RMB/month apartment and drives a 1-year-old VW. That's one working class. 15 years ago, though, as a child of subsistence farmers in rural China, though, she was happy to sweep the town streets with a bamboo-shoot broom for the princely sum of 10 RMB/hour.

There's a huge level of income disparity between rural and urban Chinese - even more than SF vs flyover USA.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> > "Bikes can be parked anywhere, but with an umbrella you need railings or a > fence to hang it on."

When did bikes stop needing racks?

<comment><USER31> The share bikes in China have stands and the lock is self contained (goes through the back wheel).

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Do they charge people an additional price if the umbrellas aren't returned within a specified period of time? Seems like that would solve this problem, and that's what most (all?) bike-sharing services do.

</comment><comment> erik-g You'd need, like, electronic locks to randomize the unlock code or something. Seems like a reasonable way to keep people from stealing. As-is they just gave everyone an umbrella that only they could unlock!

</comment><comment><USER33> Walk into any hotel downtown and tell them you lost your black umbrella.

</comment><comment><USER5> My god how could we live before shareable umbrellas? Really guys? That is just an awfully bad idea. Someone should have stopped them instead of investing >1 Million in it.

</comment><comment><USER34> There is a well-known psychological effect that something in one's possession is valued more highly.[1]

As such, if users can easily keep these umbrellas and do not have moral qualms about doing so, it could feel like a particularly great loss to return them.

Possible solution:

The umbrellas could have stopped working by having an electronic component that locks them after, say, 2 days.[2]

Then the user is left with a worthless umbrella but they can return it to receive the refund of their deposit. So they would do so _as long as the refund is worth their trip_. (I can only assume that the endowment effect is not high enough to make them hold onto a locked umbrella they cannot use.)

However someone said that the deposit is just the cost of a hamburger or a cheap (not good) bowl of noodles, so this might not cover the cost in time and inconvenience of returning the umbrellas, even if broken: they might instead throw them out into their household trash if they don't care and have no moral qualms.

So the two issues are:

\- Endowment effect; the user gets a full umbrella if they steal it and forfeit their deposit, and they could value the full umbrella more. Resolution: reduce the value of the umbrellas by breaking them after 2 days in user's possession.

\- Direct cost of returning them. The deposit can be a sunk cost and in this case the user might not value their trip to return the umbrella enough to get the deposit back. Resolution: increase the price of the deposit enough to cover _most_ people's time.

Note that under this resolution rich people (whose time is worth more) will still fail to return the umbrellas (instead possibly even throwing them into household trash): so if 10% of users are rich, then it is important to make enough money off of all users to subsidize this.

This requires understanding the statistics of consumers.

So there are specific microeconomic reasons this might have occurred, that may be resolved in a future iteration, but they require sophisticated resolutions by the company.

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

[2] possible mechanism: it is not really realistic to keep umbrellas fully open all the time, so the locking mechanism just has to keep it from opening after being closed. (For example via a tab that comes up along the central pole/tube, near the top, so that you cannot open it again after closing it.)

<comment><USER35> the cost of a locking electronic component aside, having to modify these generic umbrellas at all is already expensive

<comment><USER34> If these are $8 to manufacture umbrellas, they're not "generic". That is a huge manufacturing cost in China.

Plus they already had some sort of locking mechanism, don't they? (See second picture in the article, which seems to show a combination padlock on the stem - part you hold - of the umbrella.)

so these are already custom umbrellas. adding electronics may not be as expensive as you think, especially in China.

<comment><USER35> Thanks for noting that, you're right. I'm not familiar with how much an electronic locking part would cost, I assumed it would be nontrivial. But certainly the labor costs aren't going to be very high if these are already custom.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Perhaps they should have started in Japan.

</comment><comment><USER37> Is the founder of this company a relative to the owner of an umbrella manufacturer?

</comment><comment><USER38> Hope it doesn't rain soon...</comment>


Google Pacman Code - <AUTHOR> http://macek.github.com/google_pacman/ <comment><USER2> If you're smart enough to use Github, you're smart enough to understand that "source code I can easily copy" does _not_ mean "source code I am allowed to use if it is cool enough".

<comment><USER3> Probably I'm not smart enough, but I cannot find the license this was released under. So what I am NOT supposed to do with the code?

<comment><USER4> If there is no license attached, then standard US copyright applies to it. In short: all rights are reserved to the original author (Google Inc.) and you're not allowed to reproduce the text anywhere.

Of course, then you get into Fair Use and private use, and a million other legal conundrums. But, yeah, not open source.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Namco has used the Pacman franchise for a lot, even the original version. It's not even close to the ethical grey-area of abandonware (but not legal-grey, abandonware is still considered copyright violation, it's just not expected to be enforced). The Wikipedia article linked seems to indicate that the original Google version was an authorized clone, but that doesn't make any copies and extensions that you make off of it authorized. There are so many minefields on this, and such games are so easy to make, that you might as well just leave this well enough alone.

</comment><comment><USER6> And for those of you who just want to play and not bother with the source, Google still hosts the game "legally" at :

<http://www.google.com/pacman/>

</comment><comment><USER7> Could this be the start of Google getting into casual online gaming? Take on facebook?

<comment><USER8> No.

<comment><USER7> I wouldn't be so confident.

What's the logical extension to Google TV?

Yes, Google Games Console.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> ah! They put the blind side in. Neat.

<comment><USER10> The blind side?

<comment><USER11> Last paragraph of this section: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pac-Man#Split- screen>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Check out a Google Pacman Level Editor. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jj3-NGO7xo>

</comment><comment><USER13> Is it no longer fashionable to put comments in source code, or is that like asking Jackson Pollock to explain each blob of paint?

<comment><USER14> Wild guess (I've never programmed Javascript (pathetic, I know)): They've used something like <http://code.google.com/closure/> on it to make it more efficient, and any comments have been "optimized" away together with the intentions behind the web as a text based, open, readable format.

That way they can make sure HTML5 really IS the next Flash, i.e. so unreadable that it might as well be a proprietary format. Your source code will be safe from prying, learning (i.e. stealing) eyes.

<comment><USER15> Well, that link (<http://code.google.com/closure/>) invites one to "Try the Closure Compiler", leading here: <http://closure-compiler.appspot.com/home>

So I pasted in the source ([http://macek.github.com/google_pacman/src/js/pacman10-hp.3.j...](http://macek.github.com/google_pacman/src/js/pacman10-hp.3.js)), and tried a couple of the optimization levels. The first squeezes whitespace, the third mangles everything ("Saved 41.37% off the original size (17.94% off the gzipped size)").

But the original is pretty clean, readable source code. It even uses spaces for indentation. Clearly not the output of an optimizer. Code lines such as "g.currentDotEatingSpeed = g.levels.dotEatingFrightSpeed * 0.8;" are better than possibly-out-of-sync comments.

<comment><USER14> According to the README, it seems like the nicely formatted version has been cleaned up before it was posted on github. ("Thanks to: SteD for providing a nicely formatted version of pacman10-hp.2.js)

/I'll stop talking about things I know nothing about now...

<comment><USER15> I also dislike binary blobs, or obfuscated 'source', and hadn't tried the optimizer before (thanks for the link, btw), so I gave it a shot.

But this one is the 'real' source. The mangled version is being served over at the now permanent URL (<http://www.google.com/pacman> , <http://www.google.com/pacman/pacman.2.js>), doing its job of saving bytes/watts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This might be good for giving kids a first taste of programming - a working game and a quick edit cycle.

</comment><comment><USER17> I think Google wouldn't have written all this in native JavaScript. GWT (Google Web Toolkit) might have been used.

</comment><comment><USER18> > google.browser.engine.IE = false

Tsk, tsk. Browser detection instead of feature detection. ;\</comment>


Making Billions with One Belief: The Markets Can't Be Beat - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/articles/making-billions-with-one-belief-the-markets-cant-be-beat-1476989975?mod=e2fb <comment><USER2> So, we're not supposed to complain about walled content because of the "web" link. Can we complain about walled content that the "web" link doesn't help with?</comment>


Ask HN: To try starting up again or? - <AUTHOR>

I've been pursuing my web startup dreams since i graduated but for the past one and a half years, i've attempted twice and both times i ended up shutting down the websites.
I still want to try starting up again one more time but i'm facing financial difficulties for i haven't been earning much for the past year and half.
Should i just go all out to try once again? Get a regular job? Freelance and work on my startup at the same time?
I don't know. Any suggestions? <comment><USER2> Why have you failed? Have you ever been part of a successful business in action? Have you ever had to sell stuff? Have you ever had to deliver something on time for someone else?

Have you ever dealt with "ordinary people" and their requirements on a web site? Did you do extensive A/B testing?

Why did you shut down the other sites - were they a time sink? Why not keep them ticking over? Did you get any money at all? Did you have any customers at all?

These are questions you need to ask yourself. You've not given us enough information to even advise you.

<comment><AUTHOR> This might sound insane but my first startup was actually the first time i ever built something for people to use. I made mistakes like overloading the site with tons of features, thinking they will attract users, adopted a build- it-and-they-will-come mentality and holed up in my room coding day in day out, doing nothing to reach out to users at all. And i knew nothing about a/b testing at that point.

At that point, i shut it down due to gut feel, that i wasn't going to make it with this.

The only money that i made was through advertisers for the site.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I would recommend you do whatever you have to do to deal with your financial difficulties -- get a job or freelance or whatever pays the bills, and take a little time to think about the start-up thing and maybe plan it/set it up a little better the third time around. It seems to me just putting your house in order would likely be a valuable learning experience that may well make you a better entrepreneur the next time around.

Good luck with this.</comment>


Ask HN: Is it reasonable to cover your webCam? - <AUTHOR>

I am not a programer, but my impression from various journalists and so forth is that webCams are relatively vulnerable to hijacking. My impression is that once an adversary has access to a webcam, they probably has access to basically everything else. Is this true?
The reason I ask is because I 3D printed a pretty good cover which I am attempting to sell , but I can't convince anyone that its worth using. Maybe they're right. Let me know.
www.hidemyeye.com <comment><USER2> Your problem isn't that covering your WebCam isn't a good idea (it is). It's that there's little market for a solution -- electrical, scotch, gaffer, duct, or other tape works just fine. A small scrap of paper or Post-It will keep adhesive from marring the lens. That's a $0.01 solution I doubt you could ever hope to compete with (though I hear suckers are born on an aggressive schedule).

That said, from a design perspective, I'd very much prefer that devices (laptops, desktops, tablets, phones, monitors, etc.) offered:

1\. Hardware indicators of activation of media inputs: camera, microphones, etc.

2\. Physical covers or switches to activate/deactivate these. My Thinkpad has a physical switch to activate the WiFi transmitter, but there's no shutter for the camera (I've seen slider doors on some devices), nor can the mic circuits be toggled by a physical control (though I can set my mixer settings via software).

 _Edit:_ But see comments elsewhere: stickers which explicitly convey a message about security/privacy and cover lenses could be an interesting angle. Much lower cost, fad/awareness appeal. Possibly even a tie-in with privacy groups (e.g., EFF, etc.). Good schwag.

<comment> model-m Funny, I was thinking exactly the same thing this afternoon. The absence of physical switches for wifi/microphone/camera is probably due to a mix of lowering manufacturing cost and cutting on "my computer no work" maintenance calls, but I really would feel somewhat safer if I had them.

Fun fact: when I bought a hard drive for my computer (one of those old MFM 20 MB drives, it was the late eighties), I found it very noisy. The hard drive was internal, so I engineered a physical on-off switch by routing its power input through the otherwise unused turbo switch (remember those?) that was on my computer case. When I wanted to write in peace, I would turn the drive off, before turning the computer on, and boot from a floppy disk. I just had to be careful not to turn the drive off when it was already spinning, and I never did.

<comment><USER3> The Turbo switch! I had forgotten all about those. Did those actually ever have any function?

<comment><USER4> Yes! Years ago, processor speeds evolved slowly enough that it was practical for game developers to write all animation delays in their games something like this:

        for (i=0; i<400; i++) ;

They would test their delay value and then increase their loop count as necessary. This was a lot easier than doing clock-based delays. I'm not sure how it was on Windows/DOS at the time, but around the same era on MacOS, you couldn't even get millisecond accuracy without a lot of effort. The standard time unit on a Mac then was the tick, or 1/60th of a second, and some things didn't look too nice at tick granularity.

So this kind of time delay in games and other software was common practice. When processors did start getting significantly faster, some games became unplayable or bugged out altogether.

Along came the turbo button: it didn't actually make your computer faster, it made it _slower_. Because of the confusing name, the turbo button was usually rigged so that you would leave it on by default -- using your processor's manufactured clock speed -- but if you wanted to play an older game that relied on processor speed for delay timing, you would deactivate the turbo, slowing your system clock speed down to something that matched older hardware.

<comment><USER2> I suspect an example of these is the old xlander game. That's where you simulate landing a spacecraft on the moon using keyboard controls for thrusters.

Back in the 1990s I could run that on my Pentium 180 Mhz system.

Trying again ~10 years later I found that lunar gravity had increased markedly since ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A lot of webcams have a hardware LED (ie when the camera the powered the LED goes on because on the current path).

Some have it software controlled (either firmware or driver).

The first ones are pretty safe since you know when they're in use and the notification is mostly unbypassable.

The other thing is that one rarely get interesting data through the webcam thus access to the webcam is generally no something people are looking for when running large scale attacks (for targetted attacks this is different).

Also... a piece of tape is nicer, lighter, more convenient and infinitely cheaper than a 3d printed shape :/

<comment><USER6> The LED doesn't help with snapshots though. The light would come one and go off pretty quickly and you'd have to be looking at it to notice.

<comment><USER2> Blinking lights tend to attract attention faster than static ones. It's a bit of a wash.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think it sounds like it has potential. As you can see from some of the comments here, some folks (the HN crowd) say "why do I need your thing when I have a piece of tape that works fine?". Well, these same people have cool stickers on their Macbook Pro, I'll bet. No functional value, but the stickers make a statement - it's fashion. So, if you can make your cam cover something that looks cool or interesting, or maybe something that makes a "statement", then maybe that's how you market it. Make it a conversation piece.

Remember those stickers from the 90s, "Big Brother Inside" with the intel look-alike logo? Think along those lines.

<comment><USER2> Stickers serve the role of readily identifying your laptop.

This means if it starts walking, you _know_ it's yours. And the potential walker is likely to realize you'll be able to ID the device quickly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> If I was in the market for a product, I'd buy mine from the EFF. Simple sticker covers the camera, and supports a good group.

[https://supporters.eff.org/shop/laptop-camera-cover- set](https://supporters.eff.org/shop/laptop-camera-cover-set)

So there's some competition in the space.

<comment><USER9> > If I was in the market for a product, I'd buy mine from the EFF. Simple > sticker covers the camera, and supports a good group.

So the market's valid, which is good. ;) Perhaps there's a place for something less disposable?

Once OP's product becomes popular it would help EFF more in the long run, too—raising public awareness about potential privacy issues with personal tech.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'd be more worried about my microphone than about my camera.

<comment><USER11> Seriously. One solution would be removing a laptops internal microphone, and plugging in a USB mic as needed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't really have an opinion on your question, but I'd point out that the relevant question to your business isn't whether it's reasonable for people to cover their camera, but whether you can convince people it's worth purchasing something to use to do so.

I could see that being an uphill battle since a Post-It would work, is free, and is less likely to make most feel like they might be judged as a paranoiac ... or conspicuously like they have something sufficiently unusual to hide that they need to purchase something that most people don't. (Not saying that makes logical sense, just that it makes "marketing sense".)

</comment><comment><USER13> Why would i buy a cover when I have all this electrical tape just sitting around?

<comment><USER14> The cover, depending on what it's made of, might be less messy (no sticky residue) and more reusable than a strip of electrical tape.

<comment><USER2> A small bit of paper (I use a Post-It dot) under the tape will protect the lens just fine.

<comment><USER15> I have a desktop, so the webcam clips onto the monitor. I just face it out the window at my bird feeder when not in use. Anyone hacking it can watch cute finches.

<comment><USER2> Mind that depending on whom it is that's controlling the camera, that's still information. Daylight, sunrise/sunset, whether or not you've artificial light on (and hence: may or may not be home), etc.

I'd prefer a more robust mode of disabling the camera myself. For an external cam, powering it off would be my first preference.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> My first two thoughts:

1) Every laptop has a microphone built in that doesn't have an indicator light that you'd have to bypass to surreptitiously record audio. I think that, as far as invasion of privacy/corporate espionage goes, this is scarier than the webcam (which in my case, if someone were to hack it, would be hours of me simply staring into the screen, as my laptop is usually closed when I'm not using it).

2) You should try charging more than $3. To me that's so cheap as to inspire some questions about its quality. At least $5, perhaps $10 would make it seem more legitimate.

<comment><USER6> I use Shush on my mac to toggle the microphone. It may be possible to bypass it, but I doubt it would be. It's on the Mac App Store, by the same people who made Divvy.

<comment><USER17> It's unfortunate people are down-voting you without explaining the problem with you comment. Basically, if the CIA/FBI/ABC has sufficient control of your computer that they can enable your mic/webcam remotely, they have more than enough control to do anything you yourself can do on your system (with software). That includes the ability to stop shush or simply toggle it.

This is why people are talking about physically covering their web cams. What software can disable, software can enable, so this problem can't be solved by software. No about of FBI software can give your camera the ability to see through solid objects however.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Yes. But your product might be less convenient than a post-it note/strip of black electrical tape.

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa- webcam...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam- images-internet-yahoo)

[http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1z33wx/uk_spy_age...](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1z33wx/uk_spy_agency_intercepted_webcam_images_of/)

</comment><comment><USER19> Maybe they're fine using a sticker, a sticky note (or Post-its), or even just with unplugging it if they're using an external webcam.

<comment><USER20> Using a sticker sounds like a great idea - it would be vastly thinner than any 3d-printed clip, and cheaper too. You might even be able to muffle the mic with one (but I haven't tested that).

You could probably even market stickers like that specifically for the purpose of covering cameras. Designed to not leave adhesive behind when removed (like the adhesive on post-its), and perhaps even given a shiny black finish that matches common laptop screen frames.

Personally, I've never seen a need for covering my webcam through some combination of just not caring if some remote entity is watching me type, and assuming that the risk of my webcam being activated without the little light going on is pretty low.

But, if I was offered a cheap well-designed sticker made for the purpose of covering my webcam I'd probably buy a pack.

<comment><USER2> This is actually something I might consider.

Better: labeling to state that the device is explicitly equipped against unwarranted surveillance. The _message_ of avoiding surveillance might be more useful than the _act_ of frustrating it.

<comment><USER20> Oh, nice! I was thinking of something that would blend into the frame of the laptop, making itself unnoticable (unlike a post-it note - which would look rather ugly). But having that message would probably appeal even more because at that point it becomes a form of protest rather than just a quiet security measure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> If someone has unrestricted access to your PC webcam, they probably have unrestricted access to all of your PC. You already will be keylogged, and risk losing usernames and passwords.

This is already probably a lot worse than a few photos of yourself staring at a screen being leaked.

<comment><USER22> You could get access to a webcam without that access though, with malicious software. I've seen links to sites where you can access unknowing people's webcams and obviously law enforcement have this ability too.

I guess it's apples and oranges really - it'd be much worse to have someone with unrestricted PC access, but if someone were physically where your webcam is you might be less likely to compromise yourself.

<comment><USER23> I'm pretty sure the sites you're thinking of are open IP cameras, not behind firewalls rather than rooted machines. I know Flash has always required confirmation for webcam/microphone, whereas a local app doesn't need these permissions (excluding the possibility of a flash exploit).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I had the same idea a while back. I bought the domain webcamcovers.com. After researching the market for a bit, I came to the realization that people didn't really see the need. Those that understand the potential risk (the HN crowd) choose to use a post-it or tape. Everyone else doesn't give a shit.

I did find there was a potential market. For the domain name. I sold it for a few hundred dollars. So, I've got that going for me ;)

</comment><comment><USER25> The idea and product are sound – your device seems to have a clear advantage over duck tape and stickers.

However, your site looks like a blog post. Use less copy (like 90% less). The Gif is good. Make it larger and front and center. Make your value proposition in one short sentence in a bold header.

Also, I wonder if my laptop would still close if this were on it. You might want to address that somewhere...

</comment><comment> model-m I tend to worry more about microphones, for which there is seldom an indicator light, and which cannot be shut down by a piece of tape, than cameras. Cameras are visible and you need to be in front of them. Microphones are sneakier and one microphone can record a lot of people at once.

Many security cameras (e.g. in public transport) now have the capability to record sound as well as video.

<comment><USER26> Are laptops with microphone hardware switches available?

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> You might find a market with those who use it daily and don't want to be always cutting off new bits of tape and making a growing glue mess. For example foreign students from Asia calling their parents (they all do this and they do it every day), long distance relationships, etc.

People who almost never use their webcam would probably prefer a sticker.

</comment><comment><USER28> I fold a namecard in half and sit it on top.

My former corp physically removed all webcams from laptops.

I know a lot paranoid about them. Mic too.

</comment><comment><USER29> Yes, if an hijacker got as far as the webcam, it's safe to assume they have access to everything else in your computer. But most webcams have a light to tell you if its being used, other dangers are keyloggers, and how they can be used to steal credit card information/bank loggin info.

<comment><USER30> The FBI (and most likely other actors) have the ability to activate a PC or Mac webcam without activating the light.

[http://blog.erratasec.com/2013/12/how-to-disable-webcam- ligh...](http://blog.erratasec.com/2013/12/how-to-disable-webcam-light-on- windows.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Anecdotal evidence: I came across an article that showed Martin Muench (Founder of Finfisher) with his laptop camera covered.

Source: [http://www.ringit.com.au/blog/taping-over-prying-eyes-of- web...](http://www.ringit.com.au/blog/taping-over-prying-eyes-of-web-spies/)

</comment><comment><USER32> I have a webcam on top of my monitor, but since it blends into the bezel and is mostly outside my field of view, I never think about it and don't care.

If I sit in front of a laptop with a black camera against a grey/metal bezel, though, I think about it constantly.

Humans. Weird.

</comment><comment><USER33> The EFF gives out stickers for this purpose to its donors. You might want to contact them and offer your thing (though I agree with other comments that you're making a solution to a problem that's solved more easily and cheaply in other ways).

</comment><comment><USER34> I stuck some Velcro on my laptop to create a removable, reusable cover. Your product looks much nicer.

Most people don't seem to care about this. Your job is not to convince everyone that they should, but to get your product in front of the people who already do.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I think that is wise. It is a very difficult target to isolate in adwords and facebook, but I live and learn.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Newegg offers USB hubs with individual on/off switches for $6. If someone wanted to 3D print an artistic enclosure for that, to the point where it felt like a nice addition to the desk, that might have a market amongst the security conscious.

</comment><comment><USER35> Those smart enough to realize that integrated webcams pose a security risk are pragmatic enough to just use a sticker. That said, I think your design is a good one - and doesn't detract too much from the aesthetics of the device.

</comment><comment><USER36> I'd be much more concerned about the microphone than the webcam.

</comment><comment><USER23> > Even if your device is turned off, even if your device is offline, it is > possible for hackers to take your images.

Really? Fear-mongering at it's finest.

I don't bother with it personally, although I've seen many people that do put a sticker/bit of tape over it.

One more thing, your landing page isn't really the best. I like the animation of the product in action, but the Instagram-esque filter doesn't look professional at all. Your first paragraph is a full anchor link, and your other paragraphs are broken at random lines which really kills the reading experience. The photo, which I presume is a webcam shot with the product blocker on, isn't actually described at all.

<comment><USER2> Really.

Remember that a hibernating system is actually in a _low power_ state, but there's still some draw. This means that specific processes might be running.

Baseboard / preboot / bootloader and other execution environments, including even running within the firmware of specific peripherals, is a concern I've been aware of since ~2005, from people who are taken exceptionally seriously in the security community. Context was a presentation following an RSA conference and Intel's plans at the time for extensive baseboard/preboot environments (which have largely failed to take hold on consumer hardware, though many/most server systems now have same).

Do I think the risk is high? No. But it's nonzero.

<comment><USER23> > Remember that a hibernating system is actually in a low power state

Not the original quote. The quote was "even if your device is turned off", which I take to mean 'shutdown -h now'. Nowhere is hibernation mentioned.

If your EFI/preboot environment is rooted by a three letter agency you have more problems than someone getting your picture.

<comment><USER2> Assessing whether or not an "off" device is truly "off" isn't trivial. That's a big part of my point.

I _do_ suspect that running a camera would generate sufficient power draw that you'd tend to notice, though hibernating and taking periodic snapshots might be much harder to detect.

For the casual user, distinguishing a down-disabled device from one that's got a slight charge trickling through it, especially if it happens to be connected to a charger, is going to be easy to get wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Very cool, is there options to scale sizing? My webcam is external and I doubt this would suit it. However if it was scaled 2x or even 3x the size, it'd fit perfectly on it.

</comment><comment><USER38> I toggle executable permissions for the iSight-related drivers

</comment><comment><USER39> I never seriously considered it until I saw the IT guy covering his at my last job. I still don't, though, which may be irrational or just lazy.

</comment><comment><USER40> IMO If 'they' are covertly using your webcam you have bigger problems than them catching a glimpse of your naked arse.

</comment><comment><USER41> Who in his right mind would actually _buy_ a webcam cover? Just find a piece of paper and fold it over. Good Christ.

</comment><comment><USER42> I cover mine with a post-it note, as do my coworkers. Sorry, but a 3d-printed cover is cmopletely unnecessary.

</comment><comment><USER43> I saw a product like this once on Shark Tank.

</comment><comment><USER44> no

</comment><comment><USER45> I am currently developing a software solution for this called Webcam Blocker Pro. It's ideal for parents who wish to prevent their children from using the webcam and microphone without their supervision. Once the program is locked, it essentially prevents anyone from using any webcam or microphone attached to the computer, including malware or hackers, unless they have the password.

<comment><USER11> The idea sounds great, but in practice, how will a software implementation compete with the malware, assuming it too gets root access? If you wanted to make a hardware based kill switch, that would be interesting.

<comment><USER45> It's called fighting malware with malware logic. I will make the program available to the HN community for free once it's released and put it to the test.</comment></comment></comment>