Do ads work? - <AUTHOR> http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/01/do-ads-work.html <comment><USER2> Seth's point is good, but there's an answer to, "Why not have an unlimited budget for positive-ROI advertising?" In fact, there's three answers:

1\. Cashflow 2\. Budgeting 3\. Things change

First, you don't get your lifetime value of a customer right away. If you have a huge pile of money, then yes, go for it. But if you bid $100 to get a $20 sale, knowing that you'll get an average of $20/month for two years, that's a really solid buy. Awesome. But if you've got $1000 in the bank right now, you can't go unlimited on that very good buy.

Second, budgeting. In a small business, there's probably lots of things that you really can, would, should, and would like to have. A new hire. New tools. More money into advertising is great, but you've got to put money into some stuff that'll never show a positive ROI to fend off barbarians. A bit into legal, a bit into accounting, more than a bit into customer service, upgrading fulfillment/turnaround/uptime, etc. Those are things you can put off forever in name of profit, but it's not such a good idea.

Third, one day the world's going to change, and if you have an unlimited advertising budget the month that your super positive ROI stuff produces zero return for whatever reason (might not be the advertising's fault!) then... you go out of business.

So you have budgets. Smart businesses immediately pour most of the cashflow from good resources back into them towards the limit, but slowing down and building the foundation so you don't get crippled later is a good play. It's not sexy, but cleaning up and locking down means you don't die when things get ugly.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you transfer money internationally? - <AUTHOR> I'm an independent developer living living Canada with some clients in the US. I am paid monthly by cheque in $US and I am looking for the most cost effective way of converting that money to $CAD.<p>I'm interested in hearing about banks, brokers or even using something like bit coin as a means of currency exchange. <comment><USER3> If you are converting large amounts and you are comfortable with purchasing and selling stocks online then a viable option is to use Norbert's gambit. This involves buying stock in companies traded on both Canadian and US exchanges, such as TD. You buy on one exchange (in your case on a US exchange), journal over to the other exchange, and then sell on other exchange. With the right online broker, journaling is automatic, and the entire process takes a few minutes to complete.

The final costs for the exchange are the trading fees (typically $10 per transaction for an online broker), the bid-ask spread, and any fluctuation in price between the buy and sell price (this can be in either direction---gains are taxable). Fluctuations over periods of a few minutes should be small for a highly liquid and stable stock. Always use limit orders to protect against any unusual events such as a flash crash.

There are lots of links found through a web search that describe the process and which Canadian online brokers make this easy to do. Also see [http://www.northernraven.ca/financial/NGcalculator.php](http://www.northernraven.ca/financial/NGcalculator.php) for a calculator that helps you select which stock to use. You want to select a stock with high liquidity (typically translates in a low bid-ask spread) and also a high unit price (to minimize the relative bid-ask spread cost).

The calculator at the link above shows that using today's prices to convert $10k can save about $80 versus a 1% currency conversion cost by using one of a number of stocks.

<comment><USER4> Why not just use a forex broker instead? Better rates, lower spreads, and higher liquidity. I would personally recommend Interactive Brokers.

<comment><USER3> For large transactions, I don't think it's true that rates are lower using a forex broker. In the limit of large transactions, Norbert's Gambit fees approach the bid-ask spread cost, which should be lower than any forex fee.

For example, according to the calculator, converting $100k saves about $350 versus a 0.3% conversion fee. Even converting $10k is cheaper than 0.3%. What are Interactive Brokers fees?

Another reason is that you don't have to transfer your money out of your accounts to a third party. Everything happens within your brokerage accounts.

<comment><USER4> Interactive Brokers is your own brokerage account, they are a regulated broker that offers Forex in addition to the other stuff (stocks, options, etc.).

I'm not 100% sure on the fees but they are not even close to 0.3% for forex. It's pretty much around $2 for most trades (their example covers: USD 50,000 daily volume for EUR = USD 2.00). Here are the details of the fees: [https://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php?f=commission...](https://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php?f=commission&p=fx1)

I think the reason IB charges are so low is because they deal with very large customers (banks, trading houses, etc.).

<comment><USER3> I looked into Interactive Brokers in more detail and you are correct that their fees are extremely low. They do not seem to charge a hidden "spread" fee, which is they usual method that forex traders hide their fees.

Based on some googling, there are secondary fees to consider such as minimum monthly fees and wire transfer fees, which might make it more or less attractive than alternatives depending on conversion amounts and regularity of transactions.

You mentioned that you use Interactive Brokers. Are you a Canadian citizen living in Canada that transfers money into and out of an Interactive Brokers account, exchanging USD and CAD?

<comment><USER4> No, I'm not Canadian living in Canada but I'm sure they have deposit options (local banks) in Canada. I have used it to convert small amounts of money before.

My email address is in my profile if you want to get in touch with more questions :)

<comment><USER3> I asked if you are a Canadian living in Canada because the devil is in the details when dealing with cross border transactions as a Canadian.

After some further research, it does seem like Interactive Brokers is a good option for the OP. For posterity, here are two blog posts by a Canadian describing how he uses Interactive Brokers: [http://blog.plsoucy.com/2012/11/best-way-to-convert-usd- to-c...](http://blog.plsoucy.com/2012/11/best-way-to-convert-usd-to-cad-save- on-fees/) and [http://blog.plsoucy.com/2013/03/converting-usd-cad- interacti...](http://blog.plsoucy.com/2013/03/converting-usd-cad-interactive- brokers-howto/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm honestly happy with Transferwise.com. You can get a free transfer with an invitation link, here's mine: [https://transferwise.com/u/5d78](https://transferwise.com/u/5d78)

<comment><USER6> I'm living in the UK and am paid in USD in the US. My wife and I investigated a bunch of options on how to bring the money to the UK as cheaply as possible and this was the best one we've found so far.

<comment><USER7> Hmmm, this person<[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8137337>](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8137337>) seems to have trouble doing exactly what you're doing. I wonder what the difference is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have the same exact problem - living in Canada, with the same conditions. The reality is that it depends on the client, but here's what I do.

1\. RBC has a USD account for $9/month. It's the cheapest in the country. For clients who insist on paying by ACH or cheque, that allows me to take USD inbound and hold them as needed.

2\. I use a money changer (persepolis work, as do several on King Street) simply because the DIFFERENCE on the exchange can be as high as 1.5%, which is a little nuts. It's not automated (sadly), but companies like Freedman will pick up cheques from you - if you're not already downtown.

3\. BTC + Coinbase. Some people are more than happy enough to pay in BTC. That in turn makes it easy to get other currencies without the pain.

#3 is by far the most cost effective - especially if you deal with the occasional non-US currency, as I do. The reality is that items #1+#2 combined helped me shave hundreds of dollars in exchange fees.

<comment><USER9> Is that for a linked account? I'm currently paying $0.50 per month for my CIBC USD account.

<comment><USER10> $9 is for a USD business account - your $0.50 is likely for a personal account.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> How are you currently depositing the US cheques? Both TD[1] and RBC[2] offer cross-border banking accounts, meaning that you can open a TD/RBC account in Canada and a TD/RBC account in the US and link them together, which should allow you to transfer funds between them at an optimum rate. You should be able to deposit US cheques with their smartphone apps. The issue with this approach is that you will have to maintain two bank accounts that you may have to pay monthly fees separately or maintain a minimum balance.

There should also be some banks in Canada (including TD and RBC) that offer US Dollar accounts, such as this one from Scotia[3] that seems to offer direct deposit, so maybe look those up as well.

Otherwise, foreign exchange sites like XE or Xoom may be an option as others have mentioned here, but I'm not too familiar with them.

[1][http://www.tdbank.com/personal/cross-border- banking.html](http://www.tdbank.com/personal/cross-border-banking.html) [2][http://www.rbcroyalbank.com/cross-border- banking/index.html](http://www.rbcroyalbank.com/cross-border- banking/index.html) [3][http://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/0,,59,00.html](http://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/0,,59,00.html)

<comment><USER12> I use RBC US (RBC Georgia) + XE Trade. Results in 1-2% more money. As long as you can wait 3 weeks to receive it, it's a good option. Transfers are free.

<comment><USER13> I recommend XE as well. You can transfer using EFT, which saves you money in wire transfer fees a bank would normally charge you. You'll also get the best exchange rates from them.

<comment><USER14> We've also had tremendous success with XE.

Cheaper (lower fees + better exchange rate) than the bank, I can do it all online.

I've blogged about our experience here: [http://blog.preinheimer.com/index.php?/archives/418-Paying-a...](http://blog.preinheimer.com/index.php?/archives/418-Paying- across-borders.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I use three ways for Germany <\--> US transfer:

1\. Charles Schwab

I didn't know that before signing up, but my US Charles Schwab account has Banks all over the world that I can just wire money to, use my US account number as the "subject" of the transaction and it will magically appear in my US account. No fees, good exchange rate. That way I can get the Money from Germany to the US

2\. Currencyfair(.com)

They have great exchange rates. You basically send money from Country A to one of their bank accounts in the country A area (e.g. SEPA) and then buy the foreign currency on their site (quick or marketplace) and transfer it out. Very minimal fees, great rates.

3\. Debit Cards

My German credit card and my US debit cards (among them: Schwab) allow me to deduct money from ATMs for free. Both of them don't charge any fees (no cash advance for the German ones) and allow me to do so internationally.

I'd say just get a US Bank account from Charles Schwab the next time you're over there. I got mine 4 years ago without having a SSN or a work visa, just using my passport. I guess this is just possible if you do it "in branch" though.

</comment><comment><USER16> I've used TransferWise ([https://transferwise.com](https://transferwise.com)) several times to move money from SEK to USD, but it seems they don't support CAD yet.

Super easy to get started, and very low fees.

<comment><USER17> I just tried this yesterday, but ran into a wall: To transfer USD to GBP, you need to get your bank to initiate an international wire transfer.

If I could remotely trigger a large international wire transfer from my bank, I wouldn't need a 3rd party service.

Living abroad, requests to transfer money are usually met with "just step into a branch and we'll take care of that". But my nearest branch is 2,000 miles away and I'm not planning to step anywhere near there in the next year or so.

The best I've gotten is "then just overnight us a notarized letter", which works, except for the part where Notaries are mostly a US invention so the few existing overseas ones will happily charge you $150 to put their stamp on the document. ... which the bank will then find some tiny flaw with (when the FedEx package trickles through their mailroom a week later) that can be corrected by simply overnighting a new notarized letter.

It's infuriating.

<comment><USER18> With all due respect, are you sure you're doing it right? The entire raison d'etre of Transferwise is cutting their bank-run international wire transfers out of the loop.

<comment><USER17> That's how they work everywhere except the US. For us, we have to do a BIC/IBAN transfer to an account in Estonia. (Just re-checked the instructions they mailed me yesterday to verify that's the case.)

If they had a US account you could do with ACH, life would be easy. But they don't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I am surprised nobody here use XOOM ([https://www.xoom.com](https://www.xoom.com))

<comment><USER20> I've been using Xoom to send American dollars to France every two weeks for three years now, it works great, reliably, the interface simple, polished and offers a lot of useful features, the pricing is cheap and there's no surprise fees. Highly recommended!

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> OT, but may be useful if someone is looking for cheap ways to transfer money within the EU. [https://transfergo.com](https://transfergo.com) \- offers transfers to bank accounts for a fixed fee of 2,5 GBP.

It works by issuing local payments, which are much cheaper. You make a local payment to TransferGo account in your country. In turn they use their foreign bank account to make local payment to your recipient.

</comment><comment><USER22> I've heard co-workers using interactivebrokers to do so. I found a blog post about it here [http://blog.plsoucy.com/2012/11/best-way-to-convert-usd- to-c...](http://blog.plsoucy.com/2012/11/best-way-to-convert-usd-to-cad-save- on-fees/)

The fees are essentially max($2.50, 0.01%) but there's some restrictions (min $10k deposit, $10 monthly fee)

</comment><comment><USER23> I've been happy with XE Trade ([http://www.xe.com/xetrade/](http://www.xe.com/xetrade/)) for USD/CAD transactions.

</comment><comment><USER24> Back when it was beginning to get difficult to buy Bitcoin in the UK (when MtGox and Intersango stopped accepting bank transfers) I used TransferWise, a p2p currency exchange, to send money to European bank accounts as an alternative. For example, BitStamp was based in Slovenia, so I'd send money directly to their European account. Without a service like TransferWise I would have to spend £25 with every Bitcoin purchase (that's how much my bank charges for an EU transfer), versus £1 with TW.

Unfortunately now you can't even deposit into European bank accounts that are related to Bitcoin... but anyway it's a really cheap way of sending money, not all currencies are available yet though (no CAD) but keep an eye out.

[https://transferwise.com/](https://transferwise.com/)

</comment><comment><USER25> I use a company called "XE Trade." It is an absolute nightmare to set up (due to all their anti-fraud stuff). However once you do it is pretty straight forward to utilise and they're paid via a "spread" (i.e. imperfect exchange rates) rather than a fee.

It appears cheaper than both PayPal and my bank, however it is up to you if the savings is worth the hassle of setting it up. Once it is set up you transfer money to their local bank account (within your origin country), and then at the destination country they deliver it via bank transfer from an account there, so you need a normal bank account in both source and destination (i.e. no Western Union style use).

I believe HSBC also offer free intercountry account transfers as long as you own both accounts.

</comment><comment><USER26> The best strategy I (German) use with Chinese friends is giving money to one person in Germany and letting a family member of them transfer the corresponding amount inside China. This way you can save on most of the fees and your ability to transfer money basically gets down to how much Guanxi (relationship value) you have.

<comment><USER27> The good old hawala ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawala](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawala)) :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I used to use CurrencyFair, and loved the easy, fast, transparent process (with a view of how much money is available to buy/sell at each price point). But they closed to US residents.

Now I have to use XE Trade, and never really know how long a transfer will take or what exchange rate it will settle on.

</comment><comment><USER29> I'm very happy with Kantox for B2B transfers. It has a matching option that side-steps banks and brokers:

[http://kantox.com/en/how-it-works-kantox](http://kantox.com/en/how-it-works- kantox)

</comment><comment><USER30> 1) You could opt for a plain old wire transfer between accounts, I think the banks charge $15 for that, but its almost immediate. 2) Or you could deposit the check in your Canadian bank account. Although, in this case you'll have to wait for the banks to clear your check. 3) Or if you have a bank account in the US, you could use an online service like Xoom. [https://www.xoom.com/canada/send-money](https://www.xoom.com/canada/send- money)

</comment><comment><USER31> I use Interactive Brokers. I have an account with HSBC Canada and a UK account. It was the cheapest way I could find to transfer ~ $500k but might be overkill for smaller amounts.

</comment><comment><USER32> I use Xoom.com every month to transfer money back "home" (US -> NL) and it's way cheaper than an international wire transfer ($5 vs $40) and more convenient too.

</comment><comment><USER33> Transferwise would be great for you. I've used it for a couple of years now transfering money from pounds to euros. It's super quick, cheap and easy to use. This service uses the exchange rate which is quoted on reuters and asks a tiny 0.5% fee.

With the below link you will get your first transfer for FREE:

[http://transferwise.evyy.net/c/88623/126664/985](http://transferwise.evyy.net/c/88623/126664/985)

</comment><comment><USER34> BMO has American dollar accounts[1]. That way, you can convert only what you need. Or, when you feel is the best time due to rate fluctuations and so on.

Additionally, if you ever travel and spend money in the US, you can spend in US currency, again avoiding exchange rates.

[1]: [http://www.bmo.com/home/personal/banking/bank-accounts/us- do...](http://www.bmo.com/home/personal/banking/bank-accounts/us-dollar)

</comment><comment><USER35> We're in this exact situation. Canadian Company with mostly US clients. We have a USD and CDN account through TD which allows us to deposit checks and receive wires in US funds if needed. From there we use TDFX to transfer funds between the two accounts as needed. TDFX gives pretty good rates on the exchange and there is no transfer fee. For example the spot rate I just got was 1.0916 USD --> CDN

</comment><comment><USER36> If you can have both US and Canadian accounts, I'd deposit the USD in your US account and use TransferWise to get CAD which should save you on fees.

</comment><comment><USER37> I use CustomHouse ( [http://onlinefx.westernunion.com/](http://onlinefx.westernunion.com/) ) to transfer money to my Canadian account when necessary. That said, I live in the US so I don't have to transfer a huge percentage of my income, just enough to pay my Canadian student loans and credit card.

I would look at the RBC USD accounts if I were you.

</comment><comment><USER38> Bitcoins. I live in Argentina (yep, right) and work for an UK based company. I recently set on buying bitcoins in Europe (using localbitcoins.com) and them selling them to Argentinian buyers on the same site.

There's a huge gap between the regulated dollar rate and the street price, so the loss is negligible (I used to just extract the money from an ATM)

</comment><comment><USER39> The simplest solution would be to find a Canadian bank that will accept check deposits denominated in USD. Second easiest would be to have banks in both countries, deposit into the US bank, transfer, and withdraw from the Canadian bank. In both cases, ideally you could set up direct deposit.

</comment><comment><USER40> I'll be in this situation soon and was hoping to be able to use Norbert's Gambit: [http://canadiancouchpotato.com/2013/12/03/norberts-gambit- th...](http://canadiancouchpotato.com/2013/12/03/norberts-gambit-the-complete- guide/)

</comment><comment><USER41> I use FX Payments from American Express ([https://fxpayments.americanexpress.com](https://fxpayments.americanexpress.com)). It's "only" $35 per wire. It's a bit of a process to set up but works well once up and running.

</comment><comment><USER42> I've found citibank, apart from thier not great website, have a pretty good deal. I have a US account and an Oz account and transferring between then is instantaneous. The obviously take a cut on the exchange rate, but its been pretty good IMHO.

</comment><comment><USER43> I'm looking for an affordable way to transfer money from Singapore to Germany, but so far the cheapest is sending the money to a VISA or Mastercard. It's fixed S$10 per transfer and it's instant transfer, very handy.

</comment><comment><USER44> You live in Canada and get paid in USD? Just deposit the check in your bank. It take a while to clear (up to 30 days), but the big Canadian banks give pretty good exchange rates since they exchange a lot of USD -> CAD.

<comment><USER45> " but the big Canadian banks give pretty good exchange rates "

 _Not_ this sadly.

<comment><USER46> They really don't (unless you compare them to PayPal, I guess). They take 2-3% of commission to convert your funds, which would mean that they charge you $200-$300 for currency exchange on a $10,000 payment.

If you want to convert your funds at a "Big" Canadian bank, please do so at Tangerine, which has the best rate I found (they take 1.45%) - otherwise, there are plenty of other suggestions in this thread that could help. The best rate will most certainly be with Interactive Brokers (max(0.01%, $2.50)), but the account set up is a bit tedious and they have a few restrictions.

<comment><USER44> Of course you have to comparison shop, I have no doubt some of the big banks will take advantage of the uninformed.

That said, it's much easier to convert USD to CAD in Canada, then CAD to USD in the US. I had an account at a small regional bank and if you were converting less than $100 of CAD, you'd be lucky if you got 2/3rds of the actual exchange rate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> For Canadians that have looked across all the banks, why did you choose the one you're now with?

I have both a CAD & USD account with Tangerine but the lack of wire transfer is hurting now, so looking to switch over to another bank.

</comment><comment><USER48> I do my best to stick to Paypal, since it has the majority of my international financial history it saves me the trouble of reconciling several accounts. If (when) they support Bitcoin/Ether it will be perfect.

</comment><comment><USER49> I have found the best one for GBP to CAD to be:

torfx.com

When I had actual physical cash that I needed to hand in, I found the best rates withL

[http://www.interchangefinancial.com/](http://www.interchangefinancial.com/)

</comment><comment><USER50> I have used ozforex.com.au for business; they have a consumer-oriented branch [http://www.tranzfers.com/](http://www.tranzfers.com/)

<comment><USER51> A friend of mine used ozforex.au while he was living in France, working for an American company, and wanted income to show up in his Australian bank account. He said it was quite painless.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Bitcoin.

When that is not an option, I use a bank that has zero foreign transaction fees, and refunded ATM fees. First Republic Bank's ATM refund account, in my case.

<comment><USER53> BTC seems a bit volatile as a vehicle for transferring between currencies. I personally would want something much more stable if I were transferring any significant amount. If it was just on the order of holiday cash -- and it was convenient to find buyers and sellers -- then maybe, but it seems a lot of trouble to go to!

<comment><USER52> Volatility means that sometimes you make money on the float as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Have you tried asking your bank manager?

Yes, there'll be fees, and it's not as interesting as bitcoin. But it's not a hard thing to do.

<comment><USER18> He probably has, which is why he's now asking for a _cost effective_ solution.

<comment><USER54> Does he want to transfer it in $10 transactions or what?

Even here in Brazil, where external commerce is completely disincetivised, my bank asks $50 a transaction (the most expensive one).

<comment><USER18> $50 might be the best price on offer, but I would consider it infuriating to pay a $50 tax to the bank on each and every pay check _on top of the 3%_ currency spread they probably already charge.

$1200/year in bank fees just to get paid every two weeks? It's real money in comfy western Europe, in Brazil it's surely a fortune?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Western Union: One of america's oldest companies and does one thing only: money transfers all over the world!

</comment><comment><USER56> I've been using Xoom for money transfer to India. For amounts larger than 1000$, there is no fee.

</comment><comment><USER57> I use India specific services which are ICICIDirect and XOOM.

</comment><comment><USER58> Bitcoin or any cryptocoin.

</comment><comment><USER59> I use Paypal + Payoneer.

<comment><USER60> I used Paypal _once_ (UK -> Canada). The rates were better than any bank could offer, and I have a verified account. The transfer - not a large amount - <USER2> without a hitch.

But then a week later, out of nowhere, my account was suddenly 'limited', with the requirement that I send a copy of my passport and latest bank statement to the US. I enquired and got a canned response.

I have not complied. Two years later, my account is still locked, and there is no way to shut down my account. Never used Paypal since; and I never again will. I hate them intensely.</comment></comment>


Dear Congressman Gutierrez, Please Lift Your Hold On Silicon Valley - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/10/dear-congressman-gutierrez-please-lift-your-hold-on-silicon-valley/

<comment><USER2> Unfortunately this is not going to be resolved without our federal government going through the painful gyrations of partisan politics.

The OP mentions the Democratic Party (and the Obama White House) and its opposition to HR 6429, which basically "trades" 55,000 'diversity' visas for the same number of STEM visas. This was actually discussed on HN a few months ago (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4845982>).

The OP says: "I would have voted for visas for 50,000 smart foreign students graduating with STEM degrees from U.S. universities over bringing in 55,000 randomly selected high-school graduates from abroad." In short, he says he would have made the trade.

Unfortunately, Republicans would love nothing more than to do this on immigration and call it day. To independent/swing voters, they can brag that they're not intolerant of immigrants, and in fact authored legislation that opens the doors to 55,000 immigrants exceptional in STEM. To their base, they can say there is no net increase in immigration, and they've resisted on any leniency to the immigrants currently here in the US, including the poisonous word "amnesty."

The OP claims to support elements of comprehensive immigration reform, but then basically says, "well our technology industry is suffering, and there seems to some common ground there, so can't you just agree to more STEM visas and fix the H1-B system and then go back to arguing about amnesty?"

This just isn't going to happen, because there will no longer be an argument -- Republicans will just resist any further attempts at reform. So I am glad this is the stance of people like Congressman Gutierrez. The OP said: "I hate to say this, but women in Saudi Arabia have more rights than the spouses/wives of H-1B workers; it's inhuman the way we treat them and destroy careers and families." Well, that is a problem with our current immigration problem, but we have other problems too, such as the 22 million illegal (or undocumented, if you prefer that term) immigrants in the US. They are not exactly sitting flush with their rights, careers, and families.

We need comprehensive reform because we have a comprehensive problem. So ultimately the OP just comes across to me as, "fix what I want, even though politically, it will basically ensure that other people interested in other parts of immigration reform will get fucked." At best it's naive. At worse it's selfish.

And if you want federal government representatives that don't have to go through such stupid partisan gyrations, then you should do everything you can to elect different representatives.

<comment><USER3> I don't understand the Republican position on / opposition to amnesty. Don't they remember Reagan signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 into law? Isn't Reagan supposed to be the Platonic prototype of Republicans for them?

<comment><USER4> They remember it, but in the conservative narrative it was supposed to be a single and final act that would magically bring illegal immigration to an end. Instead evil Democrats tricked Reagan.

In reality, as far as I can make out, the choice was made to prioritize speed over accuracy in the amnesty process with the result that there was quite a lot of fraud, and little was done to strengthen border security; of course there's a limit to how much you can realistically secure a ~2000 mile long border, notwithstanding the fantasies of some about installing an electrified double wall with a minefield in the middle (actual proposal I heard last year some some primary candidate). 'Business Republicans' like immigration because it fits with a free trade ethic and also provides the treasury with a hedge against demographic trends that are skewing the ratio of taxpayers to retirees downwards, while also serving as a secondary and fiscally 'free' source of foreign aid in the region. 'Social Conservative Republicans,' however, tend to be far more ideological and dogmatically insist that no compromise is possible. I personally feel there's a correlation between the absolutism of such political positions and the sincerity of their belief that bad people are going to spend eternity in a lake of fire, presumably for the entertainment of those sitting up in heaven.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Silicon Valley isn't bleeding talents. They don't want to hire perfectly competent old people.

Also, if you still hunger for talent, consider the fact that the cost of living is high due to low housing density.

Build more apartments and start hiring old people.

<comment><USER6> Second this. All due respect to intelligent, hard-working immigrants, the only reason for the screaming for more visas is to pay engineers below market value wages. Want good engineers? Pay for them, dammit! Supply and demand.

<comment><USER7> What is your target salary? (Serious question)

I find very hard to hire good developers in the Valley. Offering 140k does not help much, I always have to go the long route (convince them we're growing, find a personal challenge etc).

Ryan Smith (Qualtrics) said the same thing: some developers needed 2 years of convincing.

<comment><USER8> $140k just isn't that competitive anymore. I mean its a good salary, but not remarkable on its own. I know it hurts but your flavor of the month CRUD app may have been priced out of the market. Just like $800k isn't enough to get a non-distressed piece of prime SF real estate, even though it was in recent past. Times have changed. Sure, importing H1-Bs would reduce the cost of labor, but that's not the discussion supporters of the quota increase are having. At least in public. Although you know a Romney-47%-type discussion is happening behind closed doors with SV power brokers.

<comment><USER7> So 140k is just OK - what is good then? What is your base salary and bonus expectation?

For example if I talk to a Netflix engineer and promise work-life balance (no weekend, 7 hr/day average vs 12 hr), I still need to go 180k+ with 2k bonus?

<http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Netflix-Salaries-E11891.htm>

How about Google? 145k+ with 60k bonus?

<http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Salaries-E9079.htm>

<comment><USER8> Glassdoor salaries are out of date, munging together years of comp and reporting them all as current. $160 to 180k including bonus/equity, and you're finally getting into competitive territory for poaching talent. You won't be best in class but you'll be better than average.

If you hired workers like you shopped for housing, getting rid of unrealistic expectations based on prices from years past, you'd find them much easier to recruit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I find VW's argument incredibly disingenuous. The fact is that comprehensive immigration reform looks set to finally happen this year, possibly before anything else on the legislative calendar because the wiser heads in the GOP have realized they're staring down the barrel of demographic doom unless they get behind a deal; simply put, they're losing more votes from people of color (who make up the majority of 1st and 2nd generation immigrants) than they are gaining from pandering to xenophobic white people.

There's unprecedented momentum for overhauling the dysfunctional immigration system in one fell swoop. Doing so on a piecemeal basis is the approach that we've taken for the last 15-20 years, and it doesn't work; it's like trying to roast a turkey one side at a time, and goes a long way towards explaining the mess of inconsistencies that is our immigration law.

Finally, Congressman Gutierrez is a Representative, not a Senator. Although he can lobby against piecemeal legislation, and has done so to maintain awareness of the larger issue, he's not a senator and has no power to hold or filibuster a bill, or even block it via committee. Vivek Wadhwa knows this perfectly well and should eschew the sort of misleading rhetoric in the headline. It's all very arguing to 'free the H-1Bs,' and I support his agenda completely on that, but frankly the H-1Bs are on easy street compared to the people who have no visa at all and have no legal avenue at all to file for one.

For the sake of disclosure, I'm an illegal alien, so I'm not unbiased in this matter (albeit more by experience than because I'm directly affected by the upcoming legislation; I'm married to an American).

</comment><comment><USER8> As someone who is merely a worker in SV, not a shill for a flood of cheap labor to inflate corporate profits and increase income inequality, god bless Gutierrez. I know it pains the VPs and VCs in SV when they see the high salaries they have to pay me and my wife, so I am sure every single one of them is lobbying hard for this.

<comment><USER9> You deserve that high salary far more than some guy named Raj [1]. Far better for Raj to continue living in poverty worse than the bottom 5% of America (== top 5% of India) than for you to make slightly less money.

By the way, you do realize your high salary _increases_ income inequality, right? (In both the US and the world.)

[1] Choosing India to personify this example simply because I lived there.

<comment><USER10> If Raj was paid the exact same amount as the American, and had the same bargaining power, that would be one thing. But Raj doesn't. Raj is stuck in the job, terrified of being fired, and making far less than the American. This is a not horrible situation for Raj, but it is making a worse job than the one they'd have to give an American.

It also makes the jobs of the Americans already working there less stable (as terrified Raj isn't going to leave).

<comment><USER11> So make it easier for Raj. Don't make it even harder.

<comment><USER10> I didn't say "No green cards". I said "No H1B visas". There is a good amount of the former. I'm not sure there is a good amount greater than 0 for the latter.

<comment><USER11> Sure, but my point is an H1B is better than nothing.

<comment><USER10> I don't think it is, as it hurts the green card holders and citizens and satisfies the demand for more green cards BETTER in the eyes of the corps than green cards.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't really get the industry-picking idea of the STEM visa. Not every area of STEM has high demand, and not every area of the rest of the economy lacks demand. Why not have some kind of points system like Canada's?

For example, it's much easier to find an American mathematician or physicist than to find good elder-care staff (there's something of a glut of physicists, and shortage of elder-care workers). Yet this reform would propose singling out pure mathematicians and physicists for preferential immigration, while not allowing an elder-care worker to immigrate on the same terms?

<comment><USER3> In the specific case of mathematicians and physicists, I suspect there was some strategic consideration beyond merely market demand. The more mathematicians and physicists you have, the fewer anybody else has. "Brain drain" can harm perceived competitors even if you don't necessarily have anything to do with your extra brains.

In the more general case though, the STEM system is just designed to make it easier to get the people deemed more important, just like the Canadian system. The only way that they differ is that perhaps the Canadian system determines importance more accurately. I am sure the STEM system wasn't intentionally made worse, that's just the sort of thing that happens sometimes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think grid-lock like that described in the article is the best thing we can expect out of Washington. Otherwise, we seem to get one of the two extremes, with no rational thought, much less the hope of a consensus.

So the less that happens in D.C. ... the less pain for the citizens of the U.S.

<comment><USER14> People keep forgetting that the founding fathers didn't want an efficient government. Efficient governments do idiotic and dangerous things quite quickly.

<comment><USER4> People keep forgetting that they didn't want a totally paralyzed one either. You're cherry-picking, like most people who invoke the founding fathers to win an argument.

<comment><USER14> "You're cherry-picking, like most people who invoke the founding fathers to win an argument."

I suppose I could retort "People who reject anything based on pointing to the founding fathers are pretty much trying to ignore actual history and substitute some glorified version."

but...

No, just stating a bit of fact about the origins of the system. Something that is good practice in analyzing why a system is as it is. Checks and balances were much more important than efficiency. In fact the executive branch's quest for more "efficiency" with national programs started in the 1920's and continuing through today have done great harm to the checks and balances enjoyed by the people and the states.

It wasn't exactly a bed of roses with all parties in agreement at the start. The election of 1800 would be a pretty good example of how divisive this country has always been. There has never been the civility that modern politicians believe existed before today.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I have just arrived in London (today) after spending 2 weeks in San Francisco and Silicon Valley with a group of 24 other British founders.

We came as group ( <http://www.ldn2sfo.com/> ) to learn about what makes Silicon Valley special, about the pay-it-forward culture, about the optimism and support, about the venture culture.

The stand-out questions at almost every session and meeting that we had was this: "How are the immigration issues overcome?"

Most of us will take the things we've learned and just apply them to where we are, knowing that even if we individually overcome the hurdles we are unlikely to achieve the same for our teams and people we would love to hire. Only a very few of us are likely to take on the immigration challenge.

Instead, the immigration issue will lead most of us to re-evaluate our local advantages such as access to talent (London does not have the scarcity issue of Silicon Valley for example), cheaper housing, free health... and because of the immigration spanner in the works, those suddenly seem to be bigger advantages.

They're not really that big an advantage... but the immigration issue _is_ that big an issue.

<comment><USER16> The thing that mentally holds me back, rather than the immigration issue, is the threat of patent trolls. I don't know whether this threat is real or imagined, but it appears to be a non-issue if you're operating outside of the US.

<comment><USER15> That's a Maserati problem ( <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1444003> ).

I wouldn't worry too much about that one... when you're a success you'll get sued for something no matter where you are based.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to promote mobile game? - <AUTHOR> I've released my first mobile game for Android and iOS but I'm having a hard time promoting it outside of family and friends.
Does anyone have any tips for promoting games on the App Store and Google Play? Or is it almost impossible for a first time indie developer without a marketing budget to get any attention?
I've tried Twitter, posting on various forums, emailing bloggers and YouTubers, etc. without much luck beyond a few downloads and some generally positive feedback. <comment><USER2> It's not impossible but it is hard and not because you're an indie developer without a budget but because publishing a game is a different skill to making a game, you'll get better at it with practice and experimentation.

I would push quality/content updates to the game so there's fewer reasons for bad ratings, and each update represents a news item someone might blog about so you can push for press every time. If you still fail to get any downloads at least you will improve the product and maybe you can attract a publisher.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, marketing/publishing a game is definitely a different skill then making one. It's a skill I should have started working on long before I finished the game.

Thanks for the suggestion about updates. I do plan to make one or two more significant updates before deciding whether to move onto something new.</comment></comment>


How the economic machine works - <AUTHOR> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PHe0bXAIuk0&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DPHe0bXAIuk0

<comment><USER2> I couldn't get the second rule narrator suggests at the end of the video: "Don't have income rise faster than productivity because you'll eventually become uncompetitive."

Can someone explain it please?</comment>


Ask HN: Why is HN uninterested in Bitcoin? - <AUTHOR> Hardly any posts about bitcoin get upvoted. Is bitcoin not interesting anymore? <comment><USER2> I think that most discussions of bitcoin aren't technical/development in nature, or startup oriented and bitcoin is pretty stable, tech wise. I think an innovative startup using bitcoin could get up on the front page for a while. But stories like how bitcoin is being taxed were up for a while, because that was a significant change for US people.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think HN has actually had a fair amount of interest in the bitty coin. Heck, Coinbase is a YC company.

If people here seem disinterested, I believe it stems from a simple but subtle misunderstanding. The mindset of HN is something along the lines of 'Advances in science, technology, and our collective knowledge as a species are worthy endeavors that should be pursued regardless of personal gain'. Call it an 'open source' mindset. Bitcoin is making people money, a lot of whom are the same people posting about it on HN. For some, that's enough to ignore the technological advances and discount the whole thing.

In short...

Technology that monetizes via incorporation, series rounds, and a big fat valuation tacked on the end is socially acceptable.

Technology that monetizes itself is not.

</comment><comment><USER4> There was tons of Bitcoin stuff a year ago, but the bitcoin hype is pretty much over now.

</comment><comment><USER5> I still see Bitcoin articles almost daily on Hacker News so I don't see the problem.

<comment><USER6> I also see post about btc. There is no problem on HN:)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I believe interesting BTC news, hits HN front-page rather often and from my experience most readers/users are fairly familiar with BTC and understand the technical side (protocol) very well.

Most HNers, being programmers, don't understand the socio-economic aspects of BTC but that's because they don't understand currencies (generally speaking) or the reason of existence of some institutions (e.g. the FED isn't a scheme of the rich for domination of the world's population, which bitcoin will finally set free, to use a free currency, with no fees, hurray!!!).

<comment><USER8> Being logicians by necessity, I'd argue that most developers could debate the socio-economic implications of bitcoin or any other currency better than you would expect.

In fact, it is my experience that most good engineers can accurately debate many concepts with which they are unfamiliar.

<comment><USER7> Not, what I've seen here in previous BTC discussions. But that's just my opinion, I might very well be wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There just hasn't been much happening in the past 9 months with Bitcoin, it will probably take some time until the price will start to rise/fall significantly.

<comment><USER5> Excuse me? In the past 9 months we've seen:

\- Mt Gox, one of the biggest Bitcoin exchanges, closing it's doors, running away with around $500M of their client's money

\- Dell, overstock, tigerdirect, paypal, braintree, balanced payments, newegg, and others started taking bitcoin

\- We've had the Bitlicense proposal, we've had the canadian senate hearing

\- We've seen the introduction of side-chains

\- VC investments in Bitcoin companies are at more than $300M. The amount of money flowing into Bitcoin companies is almost as big as the amount of money flowing into all the internet companies in total back in the days

\- We've seen the launch of professional companies like Circle, Coinbase and Blockchain had some big announcements of their own

\- The FBI coins have been sold by the government to a single buyer

I could go on and on. We've seen MASSIVE amounts of huge Bitcoin news in 2014, whether you'd like to see it or not. You could not be more wrong stating that "not much has happened" during the past 9 months.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I suppose you are new here, last year there was a post titled: "today is the first day without a bitcoin article on the first page".

</comment><comment><USER11> I note interest on subjects such as Ethereum, Counterparty, Sidechains ie where something new is going on.</comment>


Ask HN: Disabling paste in password boxes - why is it practiced? - <AUTHOR> I have the practice of disabling paste functionality into password fields. I don't understand why it is necessary - on the contrary - it discourages use of password managers - especially on mobile devices.
The justification by the app builders is that it "improves security". I dont buy it.
Is there a good reason to disable this functionality? What does it improve since automated hacking programs can always by pass it? <comment><USER2> No doubt some self-proclaimed "security expert" did it long ago and it got picked up by a few places and the rest is history.

There are many such anti-patterns around like requiring "complex" passwords with upper, lower, special, etc. characters yet do not work with >16 characters. Something that pisses me off to no end is Microsoft not allowing spaces in their passwords for some unknown reason.

If it were up to me I would have one limit to passwords, length. A minimum of 12 characters. Sure you will get some moron using aaaaaaaaaaaa but they are the kind of people who will find a way to use an idiotic password no matter what.

The reality is passwords need to _die_. We should be encouraging pass-phrases.

<comment><USER3> Using newer cracking techniques[1], pass-phrases are as quick to crack as many others. I honestly think password managers should not exist without the ability to randomly generate new passwords.

1\. [https://hashcat.net/oclhashcat/](https://hashcat.net/oclhashcat/)

<comment><USER2> For sure in an ideal world all users would have a password manager that generates 60+ character long passwords that are unique to every service but sadly that probably won't happen for a long time.

<comment><USER4> In an ideal world we wouldn't have blackhat hackers.

A more practical solution is to simply generate a public/private key pair on registration.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> In 2012 I had to set up a password for BankID with DNB, (The Norwegian Bank), and used the automatically generated password "P0Q1u-A(Va,?mO?nIrBl" from KeePass. Their entropy estimate showed this password as very weak and did not accept it, even though much simpler passwords were shown as "strong". I sent them an email asking them about their entropy estimation, and complained about their implementation disallowing pasting of passwords.

They quickly replied that their entropy estimation was flawed in handling some characters and that they would fix this. They also said that copy/pasting was disallowed as this password should not be stored in any form. I sent them an email back arguing that this policy forces people to use weaker passwords, to which they replied that this would be taken to their product manager.

Now in 2016 they've updated their implementation which allows pasting passwords, making life easier.

<comment><USER6> That's really nice. I wish that more organisations responded in that kind of way; I certainly know that if someone wrote to us to complain about password or other security issues we'd certainly take it on board.

What are the reasons that such inquiries often get stonewalled - is it simple organisational complexity, and the difficulty of actually contacting the right individual?

<comment><USER5> Their response to the entropy issue (which was a clear bug) was "we confirm that today's implementation yields a somewhat incorrect error message when using some special characters in passwords and that this will be fixed".

When there is a clear bug it is fairly easy internally for them, since they just need to confirm the issue and send it to the right people to get it fixed.

With the copy-pasting issue, their reply simply stated that disallowing this feature was intentional policy on their part and that their passwords should not be stored in any way. Changing policy and implementation would require a greater effort on their part, and admittance that a suggested change would improve their service.

I then wrote a longer reply, arguing that following their password recommendation for the ~150 online accounts I had at the time would be infeasible without a password manager, and insisted that I would like a reply which did not refer to existing policy. The response to this was that it would be taken to their product manager.

If the person handling the issue didn't care about the company doing the right thing or their job, or if they were convinced that their policy was correct, or if they believed escalating would certainly not lead to change in policy, the issue may not have been escalated. So the people handling issues must care enough to escalate unresolved issues, or the company policy must force escalation of unresolved issues, and at some point in the chain of escalation some person must believe that following the suggestion would result in an improvement.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> [https://www.troyhunt.com/the-cobra-effect-that-is- disabling/](https://www.troyhunt.com/the-cobra-effect-that-is-disabling/) nope.

(For the "type your new password twice to change it" fields there's somewhat of a justification: if someone mistypes their password then pastes it twice, they'll be locked out of their account, the point of the double field is to prevent typing errors, which means it should be typed twice.)

<comment><USER8> But it doesn't even _matter_ if someone puts the wrong password in: if they get it wrong, you just nudge them to reset it and everyone's happy.

Getting email address wrong is _far_ more important, but far fewer things do the same doubling up on that.

<comment><USER9> Passwords are entered twice because you can't see them. You could make a mistake and not see it. People recently mistakenly assumed it's "because your password is important" and have consequently doubled the email address too.

I so hate places that make me write my email address twice and disallow pasting, I'm not retarded and it's my own fault if I can't spell my own name (or in this case, email address), _especially_ if I copy-paste it.

You know what? Why don't we make every field double before someone typoes their address and ships it to the wrong place? That'd be such a bad customer experience!

<comment><USER8> I should clarify that I was commenting on the state of things, not endorsing any specific actions. Like you, I am mildly annoyed by any doubling up. Still, I can testify that people mistype email addresses with frightening regularity.

For things like shipping addresses, some types of errors can be assisted with by something that checks plausibility: does that address make sense and do we know that it exists as a shipping address? If not, confirm with the user that it's actually what they meant.

Email address errors are often the same: basic validation can catch the most common types of errors. [http://www.mailgun.com/email- validation](http://www.mailgun.com/email-validation) is an example of an API to do just that. I think an ideal system would do something like send the confirmation email and listen for a bounce message, showing a message to the user as soon as such a bounce message pops up. Also, showing the email address on the confirmation page for the user, with the ability to change the address there and try again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> My thought was that this stems from the idea that while the clipboard may be a legitimate and secure way to transfer across programs from a password manager to the password field, it is also an OS-wide shared space. After you tab away to the next app, it will have access to that password that remains in the clipboard. Browsers couldn't clear it (and apps aren't supposed to touch the user's clipboard anyway) so they discouraged it.

You could also alt-tab over to your IRC client (IRC because this was state of the art probably about when this practice started) and forget what is in your clipboard and paste+enter quickly.

I don't think this is a _good_ reason to do it, but that was why I thought it was done. I have no idea if that's the real reason it got started though.

<comment><USER11> Thus why 1Password and other password managers automatically clear the clipboard after X seconds. It's a handy feature.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The only reason I can think of is to infuriate every user using a password manager and help move the world to a place where stickies with passwords on your screen are commonplace (again).

Annoyingly so Apple has taken to this practice in certain OS password fields, like when you need to enter a password to decrypt a FileVault encrypted disk.

<comment><USER13> I've resorted to selecting the field, pasting into Quicksilver [1] and using the "Type Text" action to get around these restrictions.

[1]: [https://qsapp.com/](https://qsapp.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Another equally irritating problem are sites that use just keyup/down events for validation and when you paste a value (or if password manager fills it for you), they don't let you submit the form until you actually type something in that field.

</comment><comment><USER15> Probably the same reason why some sites have a maximum password length of 8. Security design by people who are clueless about security.

<comment><USER16> Not too long ago Ticketmaster had a minimum length of _4_.

<comment><USER17> Just as safe as my banking PIN then, was it just numbers?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Really this question should be asked in the relevant forum. A better place to ask might probably be: [https://security.stackexchange.com/](https://security.stackexchange.com/)

The main reason is the clipboard is plain text and shared with everything. I recently had it last week where my other half was using my laptop. The cat walked over the keyboard and she wondered where this person's name had come from. Turns out it was from me using the clipboard 5 days earlier.

It dawned on me then, the clipboard needs a time limit. It needs to clear after an hour of inactivity, it needs to clear on resume.

</comment><comment> tony-allan None that I can see. It's a stupid practice to annoy users. I store my passwords in a password manager and copy and paste all the time.

I don't use software that disables paste.

</comment><comment><USER19> I also find it annoying when sites make me type my email twice and won't let me copy-and-paste it the second time - I know my email address and can tell by looking at it if I've typed it correctly, I really don't need to type it again to prove that I can type it.

<comment><USER20> Plenty of people don't even type their email correctly. Ask anybody that runs a service and sends email, then you'll see. E.g. "email@example.com" vs the typo missing the final 'm' "firstname.lastname@example.com"

But I do agree it's rather annoying and not allowing paste is even worse.

I actually trust my copy-and-paste more than me not making a typo because I am human. By not allowing paste, websites are asking me to potentially make mistakes.

Perhaps a better solution is for the browser to have a button on <input type="email"> fields to allow me to select from a list of emails I have. The browser needs to protect this data from being website accessible until I give permission for privacy reasons, but that would have been a way better UX.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Am I the only one here who memorizes passwords, types them in, and it works and they serve their purpose? I've got a few "schemes" to systematize a bit, I share passwords for non critical things, etc.

My biggest beef is the constant asking "do you want the browser to insecurely save this?" How did that become the default? No wonder people can't remember passwords if they never type them. I use many machines, and multiple browsers per machine and I don't synchronize them, so changing the remember passwords setting is such a chore I usually stick to clicking "remember never".

I don't think I can recall (dozens of years of computing) ever having a password hacked. Privilege escalation is the main threat.

</comment><comment><USER22> It might discourage people from storing their passwords in plain text files and force them to memorise it.

It adds to the image that passwords are something special and secret if you cannot use basic functionality.

</comment><comment><USER23> At least one of the reasons is that Windows often picks up rich formatting characters if you cut/copy.

<comment><USER24> This is not a problem with Windows. This is only a problem if the site's implementation allows rich text, which I have never ever seen in a password field.

Windows will paste plain text unless the text field in question is explicitly identified as rich text.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> TurboTax does this and it's very close to making me quit using it.

<comment><USER26> H&R Block Online also does this, and is the primary reason that I switched away from them this year.

Ironically, I switched to TurboTax, but didn't have the same issue because the login is done automatically via my bank login.

Does anyone know of a decent online tax app that doesn't disable the pasting of passwords?

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I use autoit and automater to bind ctrl+alt+v to "type" from clipboard for just this reason.

</comment><comment><USER28> Was there a historical reason about JavaScript on other pages pulling what was in your paste buffer?

</comment><comment><USER29> Making it worse are some websites totally disabling right click. Very very annoying.

</comment><comment><USER30> My bank does this - no idea why. I use a bookmarklet to re-enable paste.

</comment><comment><USER31> My guess is to stop copying and pasting from Desktop\passwords.doc.

<comment><USER19> Is keeping a plaintext password file worse than forcing users to use a password that's easy to type and encouraging them to use the same password everywhere?

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Paypal used to do this, for example.

</comment><comment><USER33> Because some places like to watch keystroke speeds as a biometric factor. It can be quite accurate.

<comment><USER9> I know this is technically possible, but I've never seen it being used. This is definitely not the reason why so many sites disable pasting.

<comment><USER34> Coursera use it (plus a webcam shot) to try to verify that every coursework submission is from the same person.

<comment><USER9> Well they are trying to justify their certificates are legitimate, of course they use every cheater-catching trick they can. This is not just logging into a random site anymore, this is trying to do fraud detection for exams while not physically present.

(Also, one example doesn't make something true.)

<comment><USER35> > (Also, one example doesn't make something true.)

Neither does "I've never seen it being used".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> A side question: why would a normal person paste password in the password field? Its either autofilled or he types it in. Only case I see this happening is when you get the password in the email from website and are asked to enter that, which itself would be a bad practice.

<comment><USER37> Is it bad practice to get your password in an email? I thought that's what happens when you reset your password

<comment><USER38> If a site can email you your password, they are basically storing it in clear text. Otherwise they could not send you your password (because they would only have the hash of it). This is clearly a huge security risk.

<comment><USER39> I suppose they can generate the password, and email it to you before storing the hashed password in database?

<comment><USER40> They could. The real issue is when you do a 'forgot password' and they send it to you. That's a big red flag.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Sculpt Ergonomic Keyboard For Business - <AUTHOR> http://www.microsoft.com/hardware/en-us/b/sculpt-ergonomic-keyboard-for-business/5KV-00001

<comment><USER2> If it ain't mechanical it's a toy.

</comment><comment><USER3> Too bad it doesn't split or allow independent adjustment..</comment>


Patterns for Practical CSS Custom Properties Use - <AUTHOR> https://css-tricks.com/patterns-for-practical-css-custom-properties-use/ <comment><USER2> Am I missing something here or do they keep saying "custom properties" when they just mean "css variables"??

<comment><AUTHOR> They're relatively interchangeable, but the distinction to me is that properties in CSS are on the left side and values are on the right.

So the -- _: declarations are custom properties, with values that get used as variables in other declarations with var().

[https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/CSS/\--*](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/--*)</comment></comment>


Finn – A mount for every smartphone and bicycle - <AUTHOR> http://getfinn.com/ <comment><USER2> Well, the critic in me wants to point out that it won't work very well on time trial bikes, and some people prefer to have their bike computer sitting slightly ahead of the handlebars, like how SRMs are mounted. Still, it should work very well for the vast majority of people, and I'd be looking into this if I wanted to use my phone as a bike computer.

A few more things:

1) I would like to know that it can hold my phone in the event of a crash, and not launch it skidding across the road, possibly into the path of traffic. This is one of the downsides of using a phone as a bike computer.

2) The weather is another reason I would hesitate to use my phone as a bike computer. I'm fairly sure my Garmin Edge 500 is more waterproof than my Nexus 4, although this wouldn't be a concern for everybody.

3) Once you're a more "serious" cyclist and have heart rate monitors, cadence sensors and power meters, you will probably have connectivity issues today. Most of these devices today use the ANT+ protocol, but very few phones support that. Bluetooth SMART is gaining popularity amongst phones, but few power meters etc. support it. Give it a few years and I suspect this won't be a problem anymore.

I suspect phones will become a lot more commonly used as bike computers amongst serious cyclists in the coming years, but there are some very real downsides at the moment compared with dedicated devices. Neat mount though.

<comment><USER3> > 1) ...in the event of a crash...

Even in this edge case, your phone's health will probably be a low concern.

<comment><USER4> Why? I've had a number of minor biking accidents that ended in a few scratches or grazes to me, and moderate damage to the bike - things like snapping both brake lever mounts, buckling the front wheel, etc. Even having to fix those things is a matter of maybe £50-100 tops, but if I had a brand new iPhone $whatever trashed as well, that would suck a whole lot more.

I think the large majority of serious accidents (to normal cyclists, not competitive BMX/downhill/stunts/etc) tend involve motor vehicles.

<comment><USER5> Actually according to a bicycle magazine article I just read only 18% of all bike accidents involve cars. 70% are solo and 50 are of the falling over variety. From most recent bicycling magazine issue.

<comment><USER4> Is that specifically for "serious"[1] accidents though? My point was more that there are plenty of accidents which you can brush yourself off and walk away from, that would lead to almost certain major damage to an unprotected phone on your handlebars.

Would be interested if you have the article ref though, if it is serious injury, I'd have expected cars to play a much bigger part.

[1] Not sure exactly how you'd define this, maybe anything requiring a hospital/doctor visit.

<comment><USER5> My guess is it is for anything serious enough to seek medical attention, be it a hospital, ambulance or police and release under own recognizance, and maybe accidents at ski areas during summer with patrol. It definitely includes many non-crash emergency room visits.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Have it. Would not use it for downhilling, but for the occasional curb in the city it holds up well enough.

And I was pretty skeptical when I first mounted it.

(And from the principle it can only go flying if the forces are strong enough that the thing tears)

<comment><USER7> "We haven't tried downhill mountain biking with our Finn yet, but..."

The first question on my mind was "why not"? And what's the operating temperature? Am I able to use it where we, the Finns, live?

<comment><USER6> Can't say anything about freezing temperatures, but like with every elastic material extreme temperature changes will probably wear it down.

I did not try it for downhill mountain biking because that is not something I do. I'd probably trust it for it though.

[I am in no way affiliated with Finn]

<comment><USER5> Send me some and I'll take em by the mountain bike locations all over seattle and have em tested for ya.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I tried [http://www.quadlockcase.com/](http://www.quadlockcase.com/) and [http://www.rokform.com/v3-bike-mount/](http://www.rokform.com/v3-bike-mount/) in last couple of months. Liked both.

I believe that you need something as strong as it gets, not something compact like this. It might be able to hold my phone just fine but I'll never be comfortable hitting a bump or reacting fast to things on the road.

Nice concept in any case.

<comment><USER9> Big +1 on the Quad Lock bike mount + case.

I was apprehensive at first, but it's as solid as it is sleekly designed.

In the past two months, I've logged more than 500 miles with it over rough city roads, the occasional pothole, and some off-road terrain. I've even taken a spill with it. Not once has it come close to failing. And yet, it only takes a second to get the phone on and off.

The kit comes with four rubber o-rings: two small, two large. I think you're only expected to use two (whichever's the best fit for your bike). But I use all four: the small ones straight across, the large ones diagonally. Works great.

As for the case, I've never used one in the past, preferring the feel of a naked iPhone. But the QL case is thin and nice enough to the touch that I don't bother removing it. I rather like it now. The kit also includes a water resistant (but still touch sensitive) cover, which has worked well for me in the rain a few times.

So yeah, I'm a huge fan. I've actually ordered a second one for my other bike.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Lots of critics in this thread! How many bothered watching the video down at the bottom? Up the ante and make another demo video with the heaviest phone you can get your hands on.

<comment><USER11> Wow, I didn't notice there was anything below the fold!

<comment><USER12> As the web developer of the site, I'm kicking myself :) If I may ask, what confused you?

Thanks in advance!

<comment><USER13> I didn't post earlier in this thread, but I think my comments can be helpful.

I don't think there is a design issue. The confusing aspect is that the GGP referred to "watching the video at the bottom" instead of "watching the video" (by clicking the 'video' link).

Like the GP, I didn't realize that the page scrolls, but that didn't stop me from seeing any of the content since clicking the 'video' link scrolls the page for you.

Although, if you want people to scroll the page without clicking links, you should show something visually (beyond the really thin scrollbar I see on my computer) that indicates it is scrollable. (Maybe you'll get more people consuming content that way vs. clicking links.)

<comment><USER12> Ok, I'm happy at least you saw the content!

I'll give some thought as to how to make it more clear that it is actually scrollable!

Thanks for the feedback!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Immediately bought it. Exactly what I need in a big French city where I would NOT like to leave a fixed mount on my bicycle anywhere in the city. Flexible, works with every phone model, small - I can transport it in my pocket when going out late so when night comes I can use my phone as a light, it has a fair price.

I tried already the Breffo Spider (breffo.com) but it broke after a month of use and it was more expensive.

So I am very curious how this mount will work and how long it will last.

<comment><USER15> What's the problem with using a fixed mount? I use my bike nearly every day in Paris and have never had any issues in the last two years...

<comment><USER14> Nice for you. I have so many bikes stolen and so many bike parts that I do not want to leave anything on my bike that can be dismounted easily.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Wonderful, going to give it a try and will stick a review on LFGSS.com once done.

Shame the checkout process asks you to agree to a terms and cancellation policy that I cannot read: [http://store.getfinn.com/tos/](http://store.getfinn.com/tos/) [http://store.getfinn.com/cancellation/](http://store.getfinn.com/cancellation/)

<comment><USER17> Would you want me to translate it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I like it, but being in London I'm more interested in something that'll hold my phone when it's inside a bulky waterproof pouch. I have a good pouch with a clear plastic cover so that I can see and use the screen (my phone is a Lumia 920 and is sensitive enough to respond through thick plastic), but have yet to find a holder that securely holds it. On road and off.

<comment><USER14> I looked at the video of Finn and I think it should work with your phone in the pouch. Or did I miss something?

<comment><USER18> Maybe. It's difficult to tell how much this holder will stretch.

<comment><USER19> In the video it looks like it can hold a small tablet. It will hold a 920 with a weather case no problem (at least from the video).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Similar mounts from china - [http://dx.com/p/convenient-tie-on-silicone-band- for-bike-lig...](http://dx.com/p/convenient-tie-on-silicone-band-for-bike- light-assorted-color-24369)

not sure how long these have been available for (ie. whether a rip off or not)

<comment><USER21> "Added on 15.10.2009", quite a while it seems like.

Anyway, you just gotta love the Chinenglish on the packaging: [http://img.dxcdn.com/productimages/sku_24369_2.jpg](http://img.dxcdn.com/productimages/sku_24369_2.jpg)

"Regardless and by oneself the lamp, the stop-watch, repair a foetus first aid pack, inflate a bube... All ability easy install".

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I have seen a guy riding MTB Downhill and filming using iPhone and this contraption. He said it works fine.

I had hard time believing at first, but then saw him riding a couple of times throughout the day and the phone was indeed where it was supposed to be.

So I reckon it should work for the majority of use cases.

</comment><comment><USER23> Just what I was looking for! I have a silicon phone mount now that I use and love, but the silicon straps cover part of the screen, which is annoying at best. I'm definitely buying this right away.

Oh, they don't deliver to the US...I guess I'll wait for it to show up on eBay.

<comment><USER23> UPDATE: In case anyone stumbles across this thread. I emailed them and they will ship to the US.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> This would not work too well with a device with better than typical screen size/pocket space ratio (thin bezel), like the Defy, but i really like how they did not stop at their solution to the main task (holding a phone) and also thought of less glamorous problems like being able to elegantly keep the strap on the bike when the device is not attached.

PS: if they are making "Made in Austria" such a prominent part of their branding, it might not be optimal to have a product video that's so markedly Berlin. OTOH, that underpass is such an amazing cross between generic and iconic, i can hardly blame them for using that location (like so many others)

</comment><comment><USER25> In Amsterdam this would say "I'm a tourist, please steal my phone". The latter probably applies to must urban surroundings, which is what they are explicitly promoting.

It doesn't add anything to safety either, because you still have to look down at your phone to use it.

I'm sure it might be useful for rides in the country, especially on terrain where you need both hands on the steering, but then you have to contest with bright sunlight or rain and snow.

Seems like this device has a relatively small margin of usefulness.

<comment><USER26> > _In Amsterdam this would say "I'm a tourist, please steal my phone"._

How? Leaving your phone mounted is like leaving your bike unlocked. It looks like 3 seconds of work to take a phone out and back in, so I don't understand your point.

Also, I'd assume most people would take their phone along simply because they take their phone everywhere.

GPS navigation is a great use case for this. Whatsapping with your friends, indeed, maybe not so much. I think you're confusing "I'd never use this" with "this device has a relatively small margin of usefulness".

<comment><USER25> It will get ripped of your bike while you're waiting for the light to go green.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Bah! Doesn't look like they ship to USA :( Was about to buy one

</comment><comment><USER28> I love cycling and I love tech but when I go out for a ride, I do not want to take my phone. I like being out on my own for a few hours.

<comment><USER12> Hi there! I work for BikeCityGuide, we make the Finn.

We also love cycling and tech and that's why the product exists! We perfectly understand that the Finn is not for every occasion, in fact the Finn is an ideal partner for our App BikeCityGuide, a navigation specialized for bikes, so when you need guidance (or you want to track yourself), the both work great together, so when you do take your phone, consider us :)

Anyway, thanks for the feedback!

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> It certainly doesn't look like it would work with my S4 Active, thanks to its buttons across the bottom. Which might seem nitpicky or whiny, but if you're going to put "for every smartphone" right there in the product description...

<comment><USER12> Hi there! I work for BikeCityGuide and we make the Finn.

First of all, thanks for the feedback, but I really think you should give it a try, I believe it will work for your device without any problem. Maybe when mounting it some of the buttons will be pressed, but other that, you shouldn't have any troubles.

If you would like to try it, and it ends up that it doesn't, you can always get a refund.

<comment><USER29> I'm pretty sure pressure on the buttons would be suboptimal but it occurs to me that I can reassess things once I've got this phone in a case. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Either the favicon is terrible or I am too dirty minded. Nice product, though.

<comment><USER12> Ha! I had never noticed that (and I have a pretty rotten mind!).

Just wanted to let you know that it was definitely not intentional, and next week I'll talk to our designer to see if we can do something for very small icons like this one.

Thanks for the feedback!

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> If you get some of the thick rubber bands from the post guy you can do the same.. I used it in the past to hold a flashlight, this is not very different, just needs some more bands..?

</comment><comment><USER32> I'd be nervous about the silicone degrading over time, until one day it snaps and my Android falls into traffic (perhaps causing a crash in the mean time).

</comment><comment><USER33> This is actually really great.

I always thought that those metallic/plastic phone holders are a bad idea because they shake and wobble too much. This is just perfect IMO.

</comment><comment><USER34> Would not trust that to hold a heavy $600 device. One really good bump or a fall and it's definitely going to go flying.

<comment><USER35> I think I agree, but I will use it to hold my older phone, which still serves perfectly well as a Strava / Maps (offline) / GPS device for getting around. I'm sure that I am not the only person on HN who has a 2 year old smartphone gathering dust somewhere.

<comment><USER36> This might just be me, but if you have a perfectly good two year old phone. Why did you buy a new one?

I recently bought another battery for my Galaxy S2 because the old one died. I have no plans for replacing that phone until I absolutely have to. Preferably not until there is a Samsung Galaxy S6 or so.

<comment><USER37> Hehe, I still use my Galaxy S (one), which appears to be indestructible. Several falls on concrete did not kill the phone. Also, the battery is cheap to replace, so I always have an old backup battery with me. But most important, it's rooted and runs Android 4.2. Yeah, it's a little slow, but upgrading wouldn't change all too much. 400 USD for a little more speed on the same functionality? Naah ... All my previous phones like ridiculously old by now, but even the most recent devices only differ in detail from my good old Samsung ;)

<comment><USER36> Yeah that is pretty much what is keeping me from upgrading.

My S2 is still fast enough to run anything I've tried.

What would I get by buying a S4? A bigger screen, 4G access and NFC? Other then that I am not really aware of any benefits. I run CM nightly anyway so in terms of software it's as good as the new phones, and I only ended up running custom firmware because Samsung stopped doing updates.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I hate having to enter my details (name, email and address) over HTTP. I hope they can update that to HTTPS soon.

<comment><USER12> Sorry about that! We'll hopefully add it soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> A. $16 for $.50 worth of polymer? B. Direct rapid vibration

A + B = No thanks!

</comment><comment><USER40> Not that I want one instant, but something is wrong with their selection of countries they deliver to.

<comment><USER17> seriously... now you know what the rest of the world feels like when something only launches in the US. And by the way, we are the majority...

<comment><USER41> Although to be fair, their list does lack some European countries too. Hungary, Czech, Poland (well, most of Eastern Europe actually), Sweden, Norway...

<comment><USER40> _Although to be fair, their list does lack some European countries too._

That's exactly what I meant. Usually I am quite forgiving about it. Shipping internationally is a big issue, logistically speaking, legally speaking and otherwise. This list looked really strange for me. I should have been more specific.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Genetic Programming in Clojure - <AUTHOR> https://sulami.github.io/posts/genetic-programming-in-clojure/ <comment><USER2> This isn't genetic programming at all.

What's being described here is a kind of sample-based stochastic optimization which, if I were pressed, is most similar to an algorithm known as a "(mu, lambda) evolution strategy". This is in the general subarea of evolutionary computation. Another algorithm in this area, for example, is the Genetic Algorithm.

Genetic Programming (GP) is the application of stochastic optimization techniques to a specific problem: the discovery and optimization of small computer programs or procedures. Because GP is famously associated with candidate solutions in the form of tree structures, it's also applied to non- program optimization as long as the problem involves trees. That's the rough boundary for the community.

The most famous example of a genetic programming system in Clojure is Lee Spector's Clojush ([https://github.com/lspector/Clojush](https://github.com/lspector/Clojush)).

<comment><USER3> And ironically, Push/Clojush don't actually use trees! I quite like Push, and also Linear GP, the DAG-based system used by Schmidt and Lipson, and grammatical GP, depending on the application.

<comment><USER2> Sure, there's no requirement to use trees: but because trees are so common, non-programming tree-representation stuff is also typically included in the GP umbrella.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> im-atx Terminology quibble: My understanding is that "genetic programming" refers not to all evolutionary algorithms, but specifically to those where the code itself (rather than "a few key parameters") is evolved. This doesn't seem to use or implement 'eval' anywhere which I think immediately disqualifies it from meeting that definition.

<comment><USER4> Perhaps they meant "genetic algorithm"? Quite the confusing set of concepts to be so closely named.

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

<comment><USER5> Simply put, genetic algorithms evolve solutions. Genetic programming is genetic algorithms where the solutions are themselves programs.

I'm not sure what terminology change could make things more clear.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This brings back memories... One of the greatest heads-down hacking I did was back in the day, running some variant of Common Lisp, working myself through Koza's _Genetic Programming_ book. The designs arrived at were literally non- human. The story of the FPGA tone recognition circuit (spoiler: lot-specific design) was delightful.

<comment><USER7> My favorite was using GP to evolve a soccer team that outcompeted the handcrafted competion and won the Robo Cup championship in 1997.[1]

I still wonder why GP never got to be as popular as NN's (aka the currently fashionable "deep learning").

Was it just that GP's didn't perform as well? I find that somewhat hard to believe, as Koza's books are chock full of impressive results, and there are hundreds more papers on them.

GP's also have the virtue of ultimately being analyzable and understandable, at least in some cases (I'm not confident enough to say in all cases). That is a feature that NN's seem to lack, and it's becoming a big problem for some critical systems where life, important decisions, and/or ethics are involved.

[1] - [http://www.genetic- programming.com/hc/lukesoccer.html](http://www.genetic- programming.com/hc/lukesoccer.html)

<comment><USER8> GP/GAs were more popular than NNs before NNs started to use gpu a few years ago and had already some real world applications like antenna design or circuit solvers. That said GP (or GA) didn't gathered the same fame NNs have now since using gpu with NNs let NNs provide results far better than GA/GP using only cpu. If someome will have a smart idea on how to get the advantages of using the gpu with GA/GP then GA/GP will become seriously popular.

<comment><USER7> I don't think GP's not being able to use GPU's is the issue, because GP's have run on GPU's for a long time:

[http://gpgpgpu.com/](http://gpgpgpu.com/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The trouble with genetic algorithms is that they are hardly worth it. It's just one of metaheuristics [1], and despite being "biology-inspired" and good- sounding, it does perform worse than simpler alternatives like tabu search [2] or, even better, LAHC [3]. One of the reasons for that is that for local search the speed of neighborhood exploration is paramount, so theoretical advantages of GA get swamped by slower neighborhood iteration. In addition, LAHC or global annealing are _way_ simpler to implement, they are literally just a few lines of code.

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

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

[3]: [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-41019-2_...](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-41019-2_13)

<comment><USER3> I've a fair bit of experience with both GAs and LAHC and in my opinion the results are mixed. LAHC wins for fewer hyperparameters (1 versus a minimum of, say, 3), but in terms of implementation simplicity there isn't that big a difference -- say, 6 lines of Python against 12. People might get a false impression from big EA implementations like ECJ being compared against bare- bones LAHC implementations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> To be fair, the author uses a very simple program: a number that evaluates to itself to show the general approach for a genetic algorithm.

It shows quite nicely the advantages of dynamic typing and abstractions together with very readable data manipulation code. A great showcase for Clojure's capabilities.

Looking forward to the next part where the author wants to mutate s-expressions.

(I'm aware that all of this has been done before sometime in the 90s with Prolog and CommonLisp mostly)

<comment><USER11> I don't see how this shows in any way the advantages of dynamic typing. The same code in a statically typed languages would hardly be more verbose. But it would be much easier to maintain, evolve, refactor, and understand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'd also recommend taking a look at the following libraries

[https://github.com/lspector/Clojush](https://github.com/lspector/Clojush)

[https://github.com/emilyagras/clojenetics](https://github.com/emilyagras/clojenetics)

</comment><comment><USER13> I've always wanted to try genetic algorithms in practice, but whenever I came across a problem that could be solved this way, I was stuck on point 1.

How to parametrize my problem? Be it mathematical operations, source code or gates, how to separate it in pieces that can be mutated efficiently?

<comment><USER14> And that's half the fun of machine learning ;)

Yes, you _will_ have to fight the GA/GPs and modify your problem definition and utility functions until you get the results that you're looking for.

Sometimes the results are very surprising!</comment></comment>


SpaceX is 'critical' to Iridium's future, says CEO Matt Desch - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/25/spacex-is-critical-to-iridiums-future-says-ceo-matt-desch.html <comment><USER2> SpaceX plans to deploy >4000 of their own satellites over the next few years. I wonder how Iridium reconcile SpaceX's plan with their own.

<comment><AUTHOR> Competition is great for us, the consumer, can't wait to have reasonable priced broadband connectivity across the globe - this is probably the major obstacle preventing me from moveing to a sailboat and sail the world...</comment></comment>


Crazy court decision to ban Uber in Brussels. Show your anger. - <AUTHOR> https://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/content/crazy-court-decision-ban-uber-brussels-show-your-anger

<comment><USER2> Working link: [https://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/content/c...](https://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/content/crazy- court-decision-ban-uber-brussels)

</comment><comment><USER3> Page not found</comment>


Review my mobile speedtest startup - <AUTHOR> http://geekaphone.com/mobile-speedtest

<comment><AUTHOR> Looks like we're not detecting t-mobile users in the USA properly, gonna fix that up...</comment>