How to see into the future? - <AUTHOR> http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/3950604a-33bc-11e4-ba62-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3ClFR6nj1 <comment><AUTHOR> An excerpt of key points on forecasting from end of the article:

"How to be a superforecaster:

Some participants in the Good Judgment Project were given advice on how to transform their knowledge about the world into a probabilistic forecast – and this training, while brief, led to a sharp improvement in forecasting performance. The advice, a few pages in total, was summarised with the acronym CHAMP:

● Comparisons are important: use relevant comparisons as a starting point;

● Historical trends can help: look at history unless you have a strong reason to expect change;

● Average opinions: experts disagree, so find out what they think and pick a midpoint;

● Mathematical models: when model-based predictions are available, you should take them into account;

● Predictable biases exist and can be allowed for. Don't let your hopes influence your forecasts, for example; don't stubbornly cling to old forecasts in the face of news."

As a participant in the Good Judgement Project I recall this training (basically an interactive Powerpoint). I would agree that it was helpful in my forecasting performance last year.

<comment><USER2> It's an interesting article, but those conclusions seem so weak to me; little more than formalised common sense. Maybe the training you had did a better job of making them tangible.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think you nailed it, it's formalized common sense (the article hints at this conclusion too). However, the unique addition of a way to track and improve forecasting performance over time is what makes this project work. This was accomplished through a few attempts at custom software in the last few years, and for this year they are using Inkling Markets, so far it is best platform I've experienced for tracking and improving prediction performance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This whole concept reminds me very much of a character in an Iain M Banks novel (I forget which) whereby this character had--historically--shown an incredible knack for predicting/analysing future events, but there was always doubt whether they were just a statistical anomaly (given enough people, _someone_ has to get it right all the time--until, suddenly, they don't) or a real effect. Interesting idea. Presumably they try and control for this.

<comment><USER4> > Presumably they try and control for this.

How could they? They're using a retrospective design, which means they wait until someone's past forecast turns out to be correct, then they tally that as a data point in favor of their thesis. In actual science, one must use a prospective design, to avoid the perversities and statistical pitfalls of a retrospective one, and one must craft and then test a falsifiable theory -- an explanation -- about the forecasting ability.

In a prospective design, one being run by people with even a tiny bit of common sense, on the first day of the study the experimenters would say, "Okay, if there were really an ability to forecast the future, anyone possessing the gift would be busy making a billion dollars in equities, and coincidentally they would refuse to talk to us."

In a retrospective study, the falsifiability criterion on which science depends is easy to circumvent -- all one needs to do is tally successful predictions and discard failed ones. The originally huge experimental group will keep getting smaller, but unless everyone has made a bad prediction, the theory still has merit.

Locating an astonishing record of predictions is trivial -- for a group of X participants, after Y binary predictions, there will likely remain X / 2^Y subjects with perfect prediction records. That means for a million participants making binary predictions (the stock market will rise/fall in the coming month), after a run of 16 predictions, 15 subjects are very likely to remain standing _with perfect records_.

How the designers of this bogus study don't understand this basic statistical fact is beyond me.

It's pseudoscience. If it were not pseudoscience, someone would become richer than Bill Gates or Carlos Slim by making equities calls from his penthouse overlooking the drab world occupied by those who understand logic.

<comment><USER5> You are completely wrong. I don't know why everyone seems to think the researchers are incompetent. From [here]([http://www.economist.com/news/21589145-how-sort-best-rest- wh...](http://www.economist.com/news/21589145-how-sort-best-rest-whos-good- forecasts)):

> The big surprise has been the support for the unabashedly elitist "super- > forecaster" hypothesis. The top 2% of forecasters in Year 1 showed that > there is more than luck at play. If it were just luck, the "supers" would > regress to the mean: yesterday's champs would be today's chumps. But they > actually got better. When we randomly assigned "supers" into elite teams, > they blew the lid off IARPA's performance goals. They beat the unweighted > average (wisdom-of-overall-crowd) by 65%; beat the best algorithms of four > competitor institutions by 35-60%; and beat two prediction markets by 20-35%

<comment><USER4> > You are completely wrong.

Citation needed. There has never been a study of forecasting ability that has stood the test of time -- ever, anywhere.

> I don't know why everyone seems to think the researchers are incompetent.

The null hypothesis, the gold standard of statistical science, offers this as the default explanation, and the researchers have the burden of evidence to contradict it. They will fail, indeed they don't seem to realize they have the burden of evidence.

Have you even considered that the positive results arise from chance? What is the p-factor for their result? Do you know what I am referring to?

Your quotation doesn't have a single reliable word in it, or any content recognizable as science. If it were a scientific paper, it would contain the standard phrase, "Here is our p-factor, the statistical assessment that our result arises from chance."

But it's not science, it's public relations. The thesis is assumed to be correct until incontrovertible evidence proves it false -- the opposite of the scientific outlook, which assumes an idea to be false until incontrovertible evidence supports it.

<comment><USER5> I gave a citation. The quote is more than enough evidence to disprove your naive "the researchers didn't bother to test for regression to mean" hypothesis. They didn't give a p-value, but the reported effect size is quite huge to be chance, and the study included thousands of people.

<comment><USER4> > I gave a citation.

You clearly don't understand the meaning of "citation" among scientists. You posted a quote from a press release that didn't even pretend to be a scientific assessment of the work.

> The quote is more than enough evidence

Press releases aren't evidence. Were this not the case, Bigfoot would come into existence on the strength of his press coverage.

> They didn't give a p-value

So, which is it? "The quote is more than enough evidence", or "They didn't give a p-value"? They cannot both be true.

> ... but the reported effect size is quite huge to be chance, and the study > included thousands of people.

I can see you have no idea how science works.

> ... to disprove your naive "the researchers didn't bother to test for > regression to mean"

You are also not above inventing positions for other people.

<comment><USER5> I never said anything about "science". Only that your accusations are garbage.

It's one thing to say "let's not take this too seriously because they haven't published anything yet", which I don't even know is true, but whatever. However you went above and beyond that:

* claiming their methodology was "retrospective design"

* claiming they picked statistical outliers and didn't bother to test if they continued to make good predictions: "The described program collects forecasts, forecasts that can be expected to be half right and half wrong for binary questions, throws out those that by chance were wrong, and preserves those that by chance were right."

* various insults: they don't understand logic, statistics, it's pseudoscience, etc.

* claim they twisted language to make failed forecasts look successful.

* claim they didn't do any statistical analysis

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> TL;DR - some things are hard to predict. If you still want to have a go, get some other people's opinions too. Oh, and stubbornness is a vice unsuited to the forecaster.

</comment><comment><USER7> Being actively open-minded. I wonder why some people are like that and others not. I've met people like that from different cultures and backgrounds and I've similarly met their opposites. It doesn't seem like cultural and educational background is a factor. Even the article contrasts two such personalities with similar backgrounds but that's just good storytelling.

<comment><USER8> I wonder if it is possible to train yourself to be open-minded, or even to spot if you _aren 't_ open-minded. After all, while it is easy to spot open or closed-mindedness in others, I expect that almost everyone thinks that _they_ are open-minded.

<comment><USER9> If you're close-minded, you're not going to be conscious of it - that's the nature of the beast.

You can't force someone's mind open, as all you're doing then is teaching them to be close-minded with a different set of axioms that you've behooved upon them.

As to yourself - it's hard to say, as having any objective view of self is challenging to say the least.

I like to think I'm extremely open-minded, but I might be wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Quote: "But ultimately one might expect the same basic finding as always: that forecasting events is basically impossible. Wrong. To connoisseurs of the frailties of futurology, the results of the Good Judgment Project are quite astonishing. Forecasting is possible, and some people – call them "superforecasters"– can predict geopolitical events with an accuracy far outstripping chance. The superforecasters have been able to sustain and even improve their performance."

This is such perfect nonsense. The described program collects forecasts, forecasts that can be expected to be half right and half wrong for binary questions, throws out those that by chance were wrong, and preserves those that by chance were right.

In the next round, using only subjects that were right already, the same procedure is used -- throw out the bad forecasts, preserve the good ones. Each experimental cycle eliminates 1/2 the participants. After 8 repetitions, 1/256th of the original participants remain, all with perfect records. These are the "superforcecasters" the article describes. A computer could do as well, with an equal amount of logic -- none at all.

There is a financial scam called "Miracle Man" that uses the same scheme. It seems very convincing until you think about it:

[http://arachnoid.com/equities_myths/index.html#Miracle_Man](http://arachnoid.com/equities_myths/index.html#Miracle_Man)

If this were't the most absurd kind of pseudoscience, if real forecasting ability were being modeled, it could be tested using a prospective model (the gold standard for real science) instead of the useless retrospective design presently being used.

The authors of this study need to learn statistics, probability, the undermining influence of confirmation bias, the importance of the null hypothesis in result analysis, and a bit of common sense wouldn't hurt.

</comment><comment><USER10> It has always seemed to me that 'predicting' the future is useless from an actionable perspective.

Even if you were able to give me a perfect prediction of the future, I don't need that. I need to model how my actions to take advantage of that future will change the outcome from what you predicted.

Most smart people can predict future trends, the value is knowing the right methodology to interact with that data to take meaningful action.

I see nothing here that relates to that.

<comment><USER11> Or as the Cowboy Junkies put it: you can always see it comin', but you can never stop it. (Bea's Song)

[http://www.cowboylyrics.com/tabs/cowboy-junkies/beas-song-- r...](http://www.cowboylyrics.com/tabs/cowboy-junkies/beas-song--river- trilogy-part-2--10703.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> 1\. Find 20,000 people to participate in Coin Predicting.

2\. Flip a coin. Sort out all participants that were wrong.

3\. Repeat step 2 until there are 10 people left. These 10 people now have a track record of predicting the future. Some of them even will continue to predict the future for a number of times. Eventually, all will be wrong.

The thing is, you don't know who will be the expert forecaster in the first place and the same is true for the Good Judgement Project.

<comment><AUTHOR> The Good Judgement Project does encourage forecasters to make informed predictions. In fact there is an RSS feed of relevant news stories on the topic up for trade.

Your coin example is a game of pure chance while trading on current events have much more context to inform predictions. It's really quite a difference.

<comment><USER4> > Your coin example is a game of pure chance while trading on current events > have much more context to inform predictions. It's really quite a > difference.

The only difference is that, in a coin toss, the statistics are much clearer. In real event forecasting, the perversities of language can make a failed forecast seem successful. Here's an example:

A seer in the Greek city of Troy issues a warning: "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts." The citizens don't know what to make of this saying, so they proceed as before.

After the now-famous Trojan Horse incident, the seer repairs her reputation by revising her earlier warning -- "I actually meant to say, 'Beware of gifts bearing Greeks'."

The bottom line is that, whether flipping coins or evaluating real-world predictions, one can separate successes from failures with equal efficiency, and an equal lack of meaning.

<comment><AUTHOR> In a prediction marketplace there are predictions that are more successful or less successful, resulting in more or less profit for the predictor. While the result may be binary, the forecast intelligence is useful in that it contains trend data that provides better predictions than any one forecaster can provide. Further, the outcomes of many individual prediction questions are multifaceted rather than binary, with four, five or more possible outcomes.

<comment><USER4> Yes, and without rigorous scientific controls, predictions can be made to look much, much better than they really are. The study being discussed didn't even perform a statistical analysis based on the null hypothesis or produce a p-factor -- the possibility that the result came about because of chance. These are basic to science, and in their absence, the result is anecdote, not science.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value)

Quote: "In statistical significance testing, the p-value is the probability of obtaining a test statistic result at least as extreme or as close to the one that was actually observed, assuming that the null hypothesis is true."

Chance occurrences can be made to look very convincing. Consider the "Miracle Man" scheme used in investing -- on first hearing about it, many people assume it's not possible:

[http://www.arachnoid.com/equities_myths/index.html#Miracle_M...](http://www.arachnoid.com/equities_myths/index.html#Miracle_Man)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If I wanted to know how to see into the future, I'd ask a futurologist with a good track record, not a publication whose MO is writing about things that had _just_ happened (hours or days ago.)</comment>


The Genetics of Staying in School - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/05/the-genetics-of-staying-in-school/482052/?single_page=true <comment><AUTHOR> The subheading gives a clearer idea of what the study says: "A huge study found 74 gene variants that are associated with years of formal schooling—but that doesn't mean there are "education genes.""

See also this FAQ [1] by the authors of the study

1\. (PDF) [ [http://ssgac.org/documents/FAQ_74_loci_educational_attainmen...](http://ssgac.org/documents/FAQ_74_loci_educational_attainment.pdf) ]</comment>


Berkshire Hathaway Shareholder Letters - <AUTHOR> http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/letters.html

<comment><USER2> Love these letters!!

Priceless to anyone who is running a proper business!</comment>


Astronomers Detect a Burst of Gravitational Waves from the Region of Betelgeuse - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencealert.com/astronomers-detected-weird-gravitational-waves-from-the-direction-of-betelgeuse <comment><USER2> Betelgeuse is actually not in the region where the waves were detected. It's mod way between two regions.

Clickbait journalism...</comment>


Ask HN: Thoughts on Meme Marketing? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Super cringey. TripleByte did this and everyone hated it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Does it give better ROI than traditional advertising? As I have read about the ROI thing somewhere.</comment></comment>


Your startup gets $20k cash + 20 mentors this summer CapitalFactory 2011 - <AUTHOR> http://blog.asmartbear.com/capital-factory-2011.html <comment><USER2> What, no blind $150k investment? (Just Kidding)

It is interesting to compare the applications to both Capital Factory and Y-Combinator.

For one, Capital Factory gives you up to 500 words per responses, while YC suggests you stay within a 120 word count.

Also, YC emphasis less on the actual idea and more on the team dynamic and personality of the individuals. Where else Capital Factory express a need for more detail about the idea and startup.

I am interested in hearing other peoples opinions about Capital Factory versus YC, since I am applying for both.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've worked with Jason Cohen (asmartbear) and also with Josh Baer - both are Managing Directors of Capital Factory.

They are smart and talented guys and although I've not participated in Capital Factory personally, I think it's an excellent incubator program.

Although I live in San Francisco, I've done a lot of work with Texas based startups. There is certainly a lot of merit of getting out of the bubble that is Silicon Valley and basing yourself in somewhere like Austin, esp during the 'heads down' phase of a startup.

Anyway, I just wanted to put a good word in for these guys - definitely apply!

<comment><USER2> What were some of your experiences participating in Capital Factory? Best parts? Worst Parts?

<comment><USER3> As I said I've _not_ participated in the Capital Factory program, but I'm a hands-on advisor with a company that is founded by Jason Cohen and backed with resource by Capital Thought (the company behind the Capital Factory program).

<comment><USER2> Oops sorry, misread that line.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> am i the only one who sees these other incubators and thinks they pale in comparison to YC? (no i'm not a YC-funded founder)

<comment><USER5> I think this is the point where pg would jump in and remind everyone that YC is NOT a incubator and thus comparing these two programs would be like apples and oranges...

That being said, YC seems to be in a league of it's own. I bet that they could change their terms ("we'll give you 0 money, for 10% of your company") and the quality and quantity of the applicants and selections wouldn't drop.

It seems to come with the best advice, the most successful alumni, some amount of built in press coverage, a big foot in the door w/ the VC community, and what seems to be an intangible "boost" that really changes your company's chances for success (..assuming you work hard, etc. etc.). Oh, that and-- atleast for this current crop--acceptance to YC literally guarantees you (some) financing.

At this point, pg is damn right for favoring people to products. With the benefits above, YC could take a good team with no real idea, hash out a decent one in the first week, crank out an MVP in 3 months, and with their 150K in the bank have the time to make it to a 10-20 million exit. Like My Fair Lady or something.

I'll be glad to play the part of Eliza Doolittle.

<comment><USER4> they're using different terms, but if you look at the details they're saying the same thing. i'm just wondering, other than getting rejected by YC, why would you choose another?</comment></comment></comment>


Smartphone patent wars redux: Nokia sues Apple, big time - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/12/smartphone-patent-wars-redux-nokia-sues-apple-big-time/ <comment><AUTHOR> Most of the patents are related to radio so I can't really comment on them, but '602 takes the cake. It seems to me that any phone with 1 piece of material used for the sides and rear with a cutout for a camera would violate it:

161\. Each of the '602 Accused Products includes a one piece housing forming enclosed exterior lateral sides and a rear side.

162\. For example, as shown below, the iPhone 6s has a one piece housing that forms enclosed exterior lateral sides (identified by the red arrows below) and a rear side (outlined in green below).

163\. Each of the '602 Accused Products includes a cut out in the rear side of said housing.

164\. For example, the iPhone 6s includes a cut out in the rear of the housing, as shown in red outline below.

165\. Each of the '602 Accused Products includes a camera located in said housing and extending to said cut out at said rear side.

166\. For example, in the iPhone 6s, a camera is located in the housing and extends to the cut out at the rear side of the housing, as shown above.

Ars hosted the complaint itself: [http://arstechnica.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/12/nokia.appl...](http://arstechnica.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/12/nokia.apple_.complaint.pdf)</comment>


Idea: World tour with a smartphone - <AUTHOR>

Hello,
it's been a long time I was thinking about that project, so I guess here is a good place to discuss about it.
What if Air BnB, Skyscanner, Instagram and Apple join together to sponsor a trip around the world, where the lucky guy/group will have to use only apps from their smartphone to get all they need?
I mean, book flights with Skyscanner, find were to sleep with Air Bnb, document visually everything with Instagram?
Obviously there's a lot of other apps that could be used to fill every needs - Foodspotting to eat good food? Foursquare to find great places around? - document the trip - Twitter, Vine - and other apps I sure don't know
This project actually wants to demonstrate how the apps world is changing the way to live, organize and simplify our life.
- Sorry for my italo-english!
- yea I'm an Apple fan <comment><USER2> Pack a light bag, get on a train and have a walk in the forest.

Apps don't simplify your life.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well it's sure a nice plan to pack a light bag and just go, I did it many times around europe when I was 20. And enjoyed a lot, without smartphone or computer, just me and friends.

But now we got smartphone and services in our hands, why not use it? I've booked a flat from airbnb the night before leaving to london during a barbecue with friends, in 5 minutes I had a place to stay.

I think in some way apps are really simplifying our lives. It all depends on which and how we use em.</comment></comment>


How to write "Pretty Code"? - <AUTHOR>

I'm looking for books, guides, tutorials to "beautiful code". I'm looking to improve my programming style with better variable name choices, comments, and white space usage. I'd like to learn reasons why certain bracket placement is advantageous to others, or why 2 space indents are better than 4 and so forth. I realize that some of these issues may be language dependent, but there are some general rules to follow.<p>The only book I've come across regarding this is the Kernighan and Plauger's "The Elements of Programming Style". However it's a bit outdated. <comment><USER2> Two words: Code Complete.

[http://www.amazon.com/Code-Complete-Practical-Handbook- Const...](http://www.amazon.com/Code-Complete-Practical-Handbook- Construction/dp/0735619670)

</comment><comment><USER3> Most of what is written on this topic is essentially opinion and not fact.

In that spirit, this is an article worth reading and thinking about: <http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Wrong.html>

</comment><comment><USER4> i read some great book about similar things you looking for, but forgot its name :/ [http://www.amazon.com/Code-Craft-Practice-Writing- Excellent/...](http://www.amazon.com/Code-Craft-Practice-Writing- Excellent/dp/1593271190) this one might be it, but i dont remember now as i dont have that book near me</comment>


Dyson Designs Ventilator in 10 Days for Covid-19 Patients - <AUTHOR> https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/dyson-designs-ventilator-10-days-covid-19-patients <comment><USER2> If they can really start delivering these in early April as the article says then he deserves a second knighthood.</comment>


How tiny flaw in deck design gave poker star the upper hand - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2323122/Phil-Ivey-Gambler-won-7-8m-reading-cards.html

<comment><USER2> Phil should get that money. It's the casino's fault that the dealer rotated the cards and exposed their value to Phil, and that the cards weren't destroyed at the end of each day. If they present a deck of cards with a flaw, that is their fault.</comment>


Civilize – Manage Your Debt - <AUTHOR> https://www.civilize.it/ <comment><USER2> I'm very familiar with whats necessary to clean credit, debt validation letters, things of that nature. I feel like you do a very poor job of describing what the site is. I'm not sure what I get if I sign up. I get a registered mail service, that's cool, but what else? What is the inbox? Do the letters go out from you, and you receive the replies, and then put the replies into the inbox? A lot of these letters require a SCARY level of information, I just wrote one to TransUnion that required my social, last 3 addresses and several other things- can't wait to find out that was accidentally grabbed out of the mail.

How do the letters go from your mailbox to the inbox? Programatically? Does an intern see all of my info?

Is that even what happens? I have no idea because your site doesn't explain WHAT it is actually capable of doing.

What templates do you have? Can I import my own templates? What is consumer protection resources?

How do you plan to market this to someone less familiar with credit repair?

I just signed up to hopefully answer these questions but this should be laid out on the first page.

Edit: This is meant to be wholly constructive, I'm just in the middle of a few tasks right now so it's pretty jumbled up.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi- thanks for all the questions, since we are just launching- I am happy to get feedback because I want the service to be easy to understand.

I'll start with the safety of your information. Any critical customer information that a customer needs to enter or access is stored on a separate and encrypted server. Nobody except the CEO and tech lead have access to the server.

The letters are sent as hard copies to an employee from CIVILIZE who collates and sends the registered letters. Our team works closely and there is a protocol for how the letters are handled.

There is always the option to send the letters to the collection agency via registered mail yourself. The copies of letters are kept on the encrypted server.

The template letters are the ones provided by the consumer financial protection bureau to verify a debt, dispute a debt, cease and desist, and give instructions for future contact. You can't import your own templates- but if you have a good one, you can always contact our support team because perhaps we would add it.

For those who sign up for our paid service, they send the registered letter with instructions for contact and inform their creditor that the only way to be reached is through CIVILIZE email platform.

From that point on, the communication between creditor and client happen like a normal email service (like gmail) it is not visible to our staff (except our lead tech) unless it is flagged by the client as being abusive.

Our protection resources besides the letters and email are being rolled out so it isn't public yet.

We are not marketing this for "credit repair" as much as we are trying to address the pain of being harassed and abused. This is something that people seem to understand easily.

Please keep asking if there is anything I missed!

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the answers. Honestly, one of the worst parts for me about credit repair is having to send the letters, find the templates, and all of that other hoopla. I've used services like Skyblue and they actually a fantastic job, but they would only debt validate.

Because I'm too lazy/technical/lazy to go out of my way to buy stamps and send registered letters I'm sure I'll be using your service.

I do really recommend breaking it down for more inexperienced and non- technical users, though. Clearly outline where and why I would use your service - your site feels like it was made by someone who wrote the backend and didn't really consider some random person stumbling on it after searching for "credit repair/harassment."

Hope this helps!

<comment><AUTHOR> This is super helpful, and I am going to create a "How it works" page to break it down for people. I will also probably add in a few more questions to the FAQ.

I created the company because I had to do all this for myself and I was too lazy/technical/lazy myself and saw that a bunch of other folks were just like me.

Also, I wanted to send Cease and Desist letters but then I would end up stuck without important information (like pending lawsuits) so I created the email system so that there was a safe way to communicate that wouldn't give me PTSD.

When the phone would ring off the hook I would literally have an anxiety attack every time. I also missed important phone calls because they came from blocked numbers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> If you want to try it out- use the coupon code: free4ever

You will still need to put in your credit card information because registered letters cost money but we will never charge you for the service

<comment><AUTHOR> Just to clarify- we will never charge you for the monthly service, only if you order and send a registered letter (which you can always print and send yourself)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Last time I posted this, we got so much traffic the site went down and no one got to see it. A bunch of people were interested so I am trying it again

<comment><USER3> Neat! Good luck, seems like a growth industry.

<comment><AUTHOR> It is a massive growth industry- around 111,000,000 Americans currently have a debt in collections

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Finally, a debt solution that provides basic dignity to those in debt.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks- that is our goal

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Awesome. Really helping people. How did you choose this idea?

<comment><AUTHOR> It has been an evolution- I got into debt during a life crisis and was shocked by how I was treated. I was hounded and devastated.

I researched the industry and saw how broken it was, and how many people didn't know their rights so I created something which could help them.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> If there are any other questions- please feel free to ask...

</comment><comment><USER6> Cool idea.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks!</comment></comment>


Copyfree is not the new copyleft. - <AUTHOR> http://blog.appamatto.com/2011/12/04/copyfree-is-not-the-new-copyleft.html

<comment><USER2> I must be missing your point... please explain.

"I can't distribute my program without also distributing its sources if it contains a copyleft component."

Well that's perfectly fair if that's what the original author wants. If you want to distribute derived work from my copyrighted material, I've decided let you do that without paying me or even talking to me as long as you follow some rules (maybe the GPL, whatever). You are of course free to contact me and negotiate a different deal. You are, after all, wanting to use MY copyrighted code to build something and distribute it.

"Copyleft also contains all the asymmetry of copyright: licensees will have their right to silence violated but the original creator can go ahead and create proprietary derivatives."

If I write code, of course I'm free to distribute it however I want. I can grant various permissions to people normally not available to them due to copyright law. "Licensees" don't have any rights violated - they have whatever rights they chose to accept or negotiate or purchase or whatever when they decided to use my code and what that would imply. In the absencse of that license, they simply can't use my code at all. They are free to write their own. They are also free to contact me and negotiate terms.

I think I'm missing your point though - what is it exactly?

<comment><AUTHOR> There are two big points I wanted to make.

1) _This isn't just a matter of taste._ Choice of license has moral value. Although legally "it's my party and I can GPL if I want to" I don't think this is the case morally, and I try to argue that it the post.

2) _Copyleft is not anti-copyright._ Copyleft imposes additional restrictions that are not possible in a world without copyright. Copyfree (and specifically copyright waivers in countries that allow them) best simulate a world where we can share freely and also choose to withhold freely.

3) _Copyleft is often used specifically to sell proprietary software._ This is because the arrangement between creator and licensees is much more asymmetric in copyleft. If you're directly selling the software you're licensing then you're probably going to need to use a copyleft license.

I think #2 is well known although not often written about, and #1 seems contrary to what people on all sides (copy{right,left,free}) say. I haven't seen #3 written about elsewhere.

Those are my points, did that clarify or muddy?

<comment><USER3> re: 3 . . .

 _BSD/Copyfree vs. Corporate Copyleft_ : <http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=622>

It has been addressed elsewhere.</comment></comment></comment>


Toxic sofas are a secret scandal - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/26/toxic-sofa-eu-red-tape-flame-retardants <comment><USER2> I'm the civil servant who was leading on the UK regs until 2015 when I was pushed out of the job for taking out a whistle-blower case. George Monbiot has done a good job overall and he asked me to clear the final draft. It's an immensely complicated mass of issues, with the hugely powerful flame retardant industry pulling the strings. They played a big part in setting up these Regulations in the first place; just like they did in the US. It's not going to get any better unless action is taken. Just yesterday, I met the civil servants currently responsible and under questioning, admitted they aren't going to change anything for at least another 9-12 years.

<comment><USER3> Any recommendations on how to more rapidly move the needle? Your work is appreciated!

<comment><USER2> For a long time I was written off by government and industry as a lone maverick with a chip on his shoulder. But things have changed a lot over the last year, first with the report by the Environmental Audit Committee in July which agreed with my findings and bollocked the Department for Business to get on with changing things. Second - and having massive effects behind the scenes but coming more into play - was the formation of a contaminants group in the FBU. The two guys behind it were outraged to discover only recently (and much of it from my website) that for 30 years they've been exposed to massively toxic fires without even been told about it by their management. Part of the problem there is corrupt fire safety officials in the pay of the flame retardant industry.

So in a short space of time, we've had people running for cover, resigning from committees and being axed from their jobs for corruption.

What else will move things on? Get your MP to write to the Department for Business. I met them yesterday and while they're crapping themselves about the attention that's now on them, they admitted that in effect they're not going to make any changes to these Regulations for another 9-12 years. I spelled out to them that that means we're going to continue poisoning our children as they sleep but these people have segmented minds and somehow avoid taking any responsiblity, concerned only about their careers and pension.

<comment><USER4> > Part of the problem there is corrupt fire safety officials in the pay of the > flame retardant industry.

What's the evidence for this claim?

<comment><USER2> I provided some above. The names are well known within the fire sector and they've not denied it. There are two ex-firefighters on record (BBC interview, online records) who were heavily funded by the flame retardant industry to push for more of their chemicals in furniture and other products. One of them still operates: Mike Hagen. Both claim that they were not funded while in service but logic suggests at the very least they were sounded out before retiring. Another still in service is Paul Fuller - who regularly pushes for flame retardants in children's clothing. Then there's Sir Ken Knight who played a major role in blocking safety changes to the Furniture Regs that would have hugely reduced flame retardants. The same Sir Ken who signed off the Grenfell cladding as safe; and the same Sir Ken who was appointed Chair of the Grenfell independent experts panel and refused to even look at the role the faile furniture regs played in the fire.

<comment><USER4> I find your language extremely troubling. If I'm honest I'm struggling to take you seriously and it seems you are on a particularly self appointed mission. Which is fine. But things like

> but logic suggests at the very least they were sounded out before retiring.

Logic had little to do with it I fear. Secondly the UK tabloidesque vilification of public servants who leverage their expertise when their career is over is tiresome. That is not evidence of "corruption".

<comment><USER2> It really doesn't matter if you're struggling to take this seriously because key people do. I'm also not sure what exactly you mean be 'evidence', above what I've been reporting. People who are bribed are hardly likely to keep written records of the fact. But how about this: Matt Wrack, head of the FBU, told Prof. Anna Stec (who is reporting to the FBU on cancers in firefighters) that he'd sacked Dave Sibert for "colluding with the flame retardant industry". My mission is far from self-appointed: it's been appointed by many including a government select committee and the contaminants group in the FBU who I'm advisor to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The worst part is that application of fire retardants was not a science based solution.

It was cigarette companies who lobbied pro fire retardants. People were setting furniture on fire while falling asleep with cig in hand. And instead of taking blame, they shifted focus and made the laws pass.

<comment><USER6> This sounds a bit weird to me. Why do cigarette companies take blame for people who smoke and cause fires while falling asleep during it? Do we blame knife manufacturers when a cook cuts himself?

<comment><USER7> The cigarette companies use paper that doesn't stop burning when a drag hasn't been taken in a while, because it probably allows them to sell 5% more cigarettes (due to inattentive smokers.)

Note that I'm not saying here that they simply fail to use some technology or chemical that would cause a cigarette to burn out. They are doing the opposite; a hand-rolled cigarette burns out on its own.

Cigarette fires are usually caused when a smoker falls asleep while holding a cigarette.

<comment><USER8> Little rings of gunpowder in the paper to make it act like a fuse, that's nothing.

At one point tobacco companies developed _non-addictive_ cigarettes and kept it a secret.

Source: A long time back a friend of mine's brother was part of a faux-jury assembled by tobacco company lawyers to do like a focus group to research how real juries in some real trial might think/feel. They revealed all kinds of stuff to these folks. They made them sign NDAs, of course, but he told us everything anyway. That was one of the things I remember: they made non- addictive cigs and kept it a secret.

<comment><USER9> carapace says> _" Little rings of gunpowder in the paper to make it act like a fuse..."_

There is no gunpowder in cigarettes:

[https://www.verywellmind.com/big-tobaccos-list- of-599-cigare...](https://www.verywellmind.com/big-tobaccos-list- of-599-cigarette-additives-2824422)

[https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=27857](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=27857)

A non-addictive cigarette would have to have no nicotine b/c nicotine is addictive:

[https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research- reports/toba...](https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research- reports/tobacco-nicotine-e-cigarettes/nicotine-addictive)

"Source: A long time back a friend of mine's brother was part of a faux-jury assembled by tobacco company lawyers to do like a focus group to research how real juries in some real trial might think/feel."

Ycombinator post<\--carapace<\--friend<\--brother<\--faux- jury<\--lawyers<\--tobacco company

Even facts get changed when they're nested >5 levels deep in human networks.

<comment><USER10> especially if it had no nicotine, it could help people to stop smoking who miss the fidgeting or social aspect. e-cigarettes/vaping is really good for this, because you can taper down to 0mg liquid, keep vaping until you've kicked the nicotine, and then maybe months later try to stop all together

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The title is too clickbaity for such an interesting article otherwise. The fire retardants (and their problems/limitations) themselves are more interesting of a topic than the whole Brexit/EU spin that the title is trying to bait with.

It is like someone tried to write an interesting article then someone else came along and said "How can be mix Brexit into this?" Particularly as this issue has been well known for over ten years, long before Brexit was a realistic thing and the UK solo could have done something without the EU if it had wanted.

<comment><USER12> Much as I like the Guardian, it seems that every single article they publish now has to mention Brexit in some way shape or form.

<comment><USER13> But it is connected. Dropping EU standards means the UK has to decide afresh on many such issues.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think this comment from the original article sums things up nicely:

"The 1988 regs are a total mess. They work for no one except the chemicals manufacturers and the most slapdash furniture manufacturers. They could be described as either over-regulation or under-regulation. In either case, it's the wrong regulation. But because they have created a certain kind of industry, that industry, with its sunk costs and established interests, wants them to stay as they are. And despite years of handwaving and consultations that go nowhere, governments have obliged."

</comment><comment><USER15> This article does a terrible job of explaining the specific threat. A few paragraphs in, buried, is this:

> ... It took until last year for mattresses and furniture containing the > highly toxic retardant deca-BDE to be banned, under European law, from sale. > ...

If that's the threat, then Wikipedia has a long way to catch up:

> In 2004, ATSDR wrote "Nothing definite is known about the health effects of > PBDEs in people. Practically all of the available information is from > studies of laboratory animals. Animal studies indicate that commercial > decaBDE mixtures are generally much less toxic than the products containing > lower brominated PBDEs. Because of its very different toxicity, decaBDE is > expected to have relatively little effect on the health of humans."[5] Based > on animal studies, the possible health effects of decaBDE in humans involve > the liver, thyroid, reproductive/developmental effects, and neurological > effects.[25]

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

<comment><USER16> I mean, look at how they framed the article...that this is a scandal because of Brexit...because Brexit is designed to hide corruption.

Even though the wheels started turning on all of this a few years ago. Even though the EU themselves only banned things in the last year.

Rather than jumping into the actual story, they used it to push an entirely unrelated political narrative. Worse still, a lot of folks are going to see those first two paragraphs and not read the rest of the article.

<comment><USER2> There is probably some truth though that government is to a degree hoping that Brexit will sort out the mess that is the UK's furniture regulations, i.e. that the officials concerned can cover their backs by allowing industry to replace the regs with codes of practice that will they hope keep flame retardant levels up - something that would have been harder to do in the EU.

<comment><USER16> I could see that being the case, but that's not a conjecture that I would lead my story with.

That kind of journalism is really divisive and irresponsible, IMO.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> So where can people buy sofas and beds without these chemicals? I recently asked about this at Restoration Hardware (an expensive furniture store), and they had no idea about it.

<comment><USER18> In California, most furniture now appears to have a label that indicates whether flame retardants were used. Sadly, this is quite recent, and CA more or less required flame retardants until a couple years ago.

<comment><USER19> I wonder if they are still labeled with some form of "known by the state of California to contain carcinogens"? Those are more than a touch concerning as a visitor, although you soon notice that they are on everything.

<comment><USER20> Yeah, as someone who recently began spending more time in California, those signs are inadequate and completely ignored by everyone. It should be specific, which carcinogen in which part of the product is used, and why.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> "According to parliament's environmental audit committee (EAC), mothers in the UK and the US have the world's highest recorded concentrations of a toxic class of flame retardants in their breastmilk"

So this is a US thing too or what? I couldn't find anything else in the article mentioning the US.

<comment><USER11> It has been widely reported in the US for years e.g.

\- [https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/four-chemical-classes- co...](https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/four-chemical-classes-cost-us- public-270-million-iq-points-over-15-years/4011087.article)

\- [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/this-everyday- chemical-...](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/this-everyday-chemical-was- cast-aside-its-replacement-might-be-making-cats-sick)

\- [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/12/191213115438.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/12/191213115438.htm)

\- [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191022080726.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191022080726.htm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is an interesting and important topic buried under George Monbiot's usual political posturing and making any and every issue about Brexit.

An example of where EU hasn't regulated properly is somehow supposed to automatically be made worse leaving the EU?

He claims that the government is using Brexit as a distraction from this issue but then links to a parliamentary report as one of his primary sources. (I know parliament is not the same as the current government, but come on, this is not some kind of top-down conspiracy)

Regulations frequently butt up against eachother. Making something non- flammable and non-toxic is obviously not trivial. I would love to understand more about this because there is almost certainly something worth investigating here but can we please give this to anyone but George Monbiot to write about.

</comment><comment><USER23> is there a way to get a list of flame retardant chemicals on a product?

</comment><comment><USER24> This article is mostly FUD

This is particularly funny - "Edge contends that many of the deaths at Grenfell Tower were likely to have been caused by toxic emissions from furnishings"

But there are issues around this, and the way forward I think it getting pollution meters into peoples houses.

We need to reduce PM 2.5 but VOCs also seem important, allow people to measure these.

Start with the upper class and clean air, bottled water shows this is possible, make it cool.

</comment><comment><USER25> Urethane foam, aka "solidified hydrocarbons" should probably be banned...

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snlhECzj1E8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snlhECzj1E8)

[https://foursevenfive.com/blog/reason-foam- fails-2-unaccepta...](https://foursevenfive.com/blog/reason-foam- fails-2-unacceptable-fire-hazard/)

</comment><comment><USER26> Side note, what about carpets? Admittedly I haven't read the article fully yet, but does my apartment's carpet also contain flame-retardants?

</comment><comment><USER27> Any information about the usage of these chemicals in Australia?

<comment><USER27> [https://www.thenaturalbeddingcompany.com.au/](https://www.thenaturalbeddingcompany.com.au/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Haven't flame retardants in clothing been banned?

</comment><comment><USER29> I gave up on this article right away after the first paragraph hamfistedly tried to make it a brexit issue. I don't even have an opinion on brexit, but I have no faith in journalism that leads with something like that.</comment>


Show HN: Things I wish someone told me when I started college - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@sacheendra/things-i-wish-someone-told-me-when-i-started-college-81b9e220524c#.cwqswjd9q <comment><USER2> This is not a Show HN post.</comment>


UK government report calls for the end of broadcast TV - <AUTHOR> http://www.reghardware.com/2012/08/01/house_of_lords_call_for_the_end_of_broadcast_tv/

<comment><USER3> This was a report from the House of Lords Communications Committee - not the Government itself.

[http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees- a-z/...](http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords- select/communications-committee/news/governments-broadband-strategy-risks- leaving-communities-behind/)

Also, it apppears to be talking about terrestrial broadcast TV - not the satellite broadcasting used by Sky and others.

Edit: I love the comment from the report: "The Government's strategy lacks just that – strategy."

</comment><comment><USER4> The other part of this report - the focus on universal access to 2 Mbps broadband instead of higher speeds in cities - I think is wrong. It assumes that you can't have both, and it also assumes that 2 Mbps is good enough for everyone, whereas in fact it's ridiculously poor for anyone in a modern society (we should be aiming for 1 Gbps minimum in cities).

Edit: One of the comments on the Reg article[1] points out that there wasn't a single engineer on the committee.

[1] <http://forums.reghardware.com/post/1494829>

<comment><USER5> > we should be aiming for 1Gbps minimum in cities

Without wishing to make a "nobody will ever need more than 640KB ram" comment. There has to come a point where bandwidth speed starts to matter less. I have 100Mbps down at the moment, and my LAN (802.11n or powerlines), my hard-disk, or the ability of my CPU to decode video are gating factors in most cases and not my Internet connection.

Getting every home to a _good_ (e.g. achieved) 10Mbps is in my mind far more important than aspiring to Gbps connectivity.

<comment><USER6> 100Mbps is reasonably fast right now, but when building infrastructure you want to focus non on your current needs but your needs when you finish building that infrastructure. Vary high speed internet has enabled me to got a lot more use from a small SSD by downloading games I want to play again vs. trying to keep local copy's of everything. Sure, by it's self that's not a big deal, but the internet is more than just cat video's on youtube.

PS: Ever download a show because you where trying to remember a quote?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This title is incorrect on several levels. Yet again the Reg mangles details.

1) In the UK "broadcast" can mean over the Internet. It's a term defined in a couple of tv laws.

2) There's a difference between "terrestrial digital broadcast" (what the article is talking about) and other forms of broadcast; eg satellite, cable, etc.

3) No-one is asking for "broadcast" tv to end. The Reg article quotes the committee:

> _"We recommend that the government, Ofcom and the industry begin to consider > the desirability of the transfer of terrestrial broadcast content from > spectrum to the internet and the consequent switching off of broadcast > transmission over spectrum."_

Weirdly that quote comes just after the Reg manages to give an incorrect summary:

> _Rather than take up vital electromagnetic spectrum, TV should be delivered > exclusively over the internet, the House of Lords' Communications Committee > concluded._

Well, no, they're only talking about switching digital terrestrial tv to the Internet. They're not talking about cable or satellite tv.

<comment><USER8> This is pretty much just suggesting what industry started doing a few years ago already.

There's already several IP based "cable" services in the Uk, with BT Vision being the main one; all the main TV channels offers streaming, and BSkyB - <USER2> main satellite provider - offers their "Sky Anytime" service which downloads over a broadband connection, as well as Android and iOS apps to stream to up to 6 mobile devices.

With big performance upgrades being rolled out by both Virgin (cable) a BT, the number of subscribers that can trivially stream the TV shows is growing rapidly.

<comment><USER9> BT Vision relies on DTT to provide Freeview services.

<comment><USER10> It also provides a number of additional channels over IP

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The use of RF frequencies to broadcast TV content is by far the best way to deliver that content for a certain subset of programs that cover live events for huge audiences[1]. Serving that stuff over IP would be a real challenge. I'd prefer it if we could keep a few RF broadcast channels around but move all the Family Guy and Top Gear re-runs onto on-demand IP based systems.

[1] Things like major sporting events, Saturday night talent show finals, large scale news events e.g. 9/11, Christmas specials and key episodes of certain soap operas.

<comment><USER12> I agree, it is challenging but there are already techniques which solve most of the problem. Namely IP multicast. Maybe this would finally push ISPs to properly support it?

<comment><USER13> Australia's upcoming NBN supports it, specifically for streaming TV.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Nice idea, but I can't see this happening for a long time to come, for the fundamental reason that we simply don't get the required bandwidth to the premises.

I live in a reasonable sized city in Scotland, and can't watch iPlayer streaming because we don't get the bandwidth (5km from the exchange...). FTTC will help, but its never going to have the reach of the wireless transmissions of broadcast TV (Highlands and Islands for example). Even worse is that with a massive number of new houses going up in this area, they aren't putting any "next generation" communications infrastructure in - meaning to get FTTP or even FTTC they will need to dig the pavements up in future, which is horribly expensive, and thus happens very slowly (if at all).

Until we have a method of delivering high speed broadband over the current twisted pair, or power lines (or any other existing infrastructure), this simply won't happen.

<comment><USER3> There are some interesting projects trying to get broadband internet access to remote communities in Scotland:

[http://www.glenelg.co.uk/news/broadband-solution-provided- fo...](http://www.glenelg.co.uk/news/broadband-solution-provided-for- arnisdale-and-corran-by-tegola-project/)

<http://www.tegola.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Main_Page>

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> It's a great idea that's totally unworkable right now. Maybe 3, maybe 4 years time, when BT finally pulls it together and gets more fibre runs in, when there's a bit more of a sane understanding of download limits and so on then we'll see it.

</comment><comment><USER16> I'd very much like to see this in place, personally I have not watched TV in a long time (I am in the minority of course), but there really is no need to clutter up the RF spectrum with what is obsolete technology. Measures and facts like these only come in to place long after people stop using them however, so this isn't going to be implemented any time soon.

<comment><USER17> How well would the internet hold up against a billion people watching the Olympics opening ceremony[0]?

_____

[0] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_watched_television...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_watched_television_broadcasts#World)

<comment><USER18> If Multicast[0] routing was used, it'd probably hold up quite well.

[0]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_multicast>

<comment><USER19> That's not the point. The point is if ISPs and backbone companies can cope with all that bandwidth.

<comment><USER8> If multicast was used, the bandwidth used wouldn't be particularly high, that's the point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I wonder why the environmentalists never weigh in. Probably too technical for them (as a group) to understand, or maybe there's political implications WRT who to support and who to trash talk. I've been in RF for quite a while and at 10 to 500 KW output for each station, broadcast TV and radio electrical demand adds up pretty quickly, for frankly fewer users every year.

The killer is you usually see stats like 500 KW for a UHF transmitter (which is not entirely unusual, I know there's a 800 KW in Ireland where birds flying nearby must fall out of the sky cooked well done). So 500 KW for a coverage area of 4 million residents where I live is only an eighth of a watt per person per each transmitter 24x7. However ... only 1% of the population might watch that individual station at any given time... and only 10% or so still get the station OTA instead of cable or satellite or uverse or internet or whatever ... so suddenly thats 125 watts of transmitted RF per viewer, or perhaps 250 watts input power to the TX per viewer. Yikes.

Its interesting that the power budget for watching TV OTA is now roughly, insanely, 50:50 where roughly one watt of transmitter power is required for each watt of TV power. This ratio is going to get even worse over time. "Soon" there will come a time when you need to transmit a KW per viewer and that's not really economically sustainable, aside from being a really bad environmental idea.

<comment><USER21> Digital TV switchover has killed a lot of the mega-power transmitters, though.

In the North West, for instance, Winter Hill used to run around 1,000kW for each of the analogue TV channels. Post-DSO, this is down to 100kW per multiplex, as the DTT signal is far more robust.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'd very much like to see this happen. A lot of posters seem to be missing the point.. the idea is use the TV spectrum to allow mobile broadband to become a viable main-use broadband, which would set a decent minimum standard across the whole country without the need for re-cabling etc. For those of us with already fast internet, it would allow decent speeds (and theoretically prices) when travelling.. awesome (and IMO more useful than 1Gbps home internet). (note to ROW: we don't have LTE etc yet).

Today, giff gaff offer unlimited mobile broadband for £10/mo (+texts and a few calls), although TOS states use on mobile only.

</comment><comment> k-mcgrady I can definitely see this happening but not for a while. We are only just completing the switchover from analog to digital this year (and if I remember correctly that process started around 4 years ago).

</comment><comment><USER23> I would love to see the end of broadcast TV. I know too many people that waste their lives away sitting in front of a TV every night and letting it stream content. Yes, someone will come along and duplicate that functionality on the web, but let's just ignore that for now. Content should move to and stay on- demand only.

</comment><comment><USER24> While we are messing around could we grab some of that TV bandwidth and run a looping broadcast of the most heavily trafficked media data for the last 24 hours to be cached locally ? Ceefax on steroids...

</comment><comment><USER25> With Gigabits speeds happening, why not? Even 100 Mbps would be more than enough for 1080p TV.

<comment><USER20> This seems fairly likely since OTA can do 1080p and its only 19.39 megabits/sec complete with all the overhead. After all the overhead is stripped away the raw mpeg2 transport stream is around 18.3 megabits/sec.

As a point of comparison, no one encodes DVDs and bluerays at full rate because then you run out of disks, and can't fit in all the garbage that purchasers supposedly desire, like mandatory unskipable previews and piracy warnings and so forth. But a good rule of thumb is your typical DVD is a round 6ish megabits/sec and a blueray encode stream should be around 30ish megabits/sec.</comment></comment>


Is Samsung's Reported Interest in WP7 a Sign of Android Fatigue? - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/2010/11/22/is-samsungs-reported-interest-in-wp7-a-sign-of-android-fatigue/

<comment><USER2> No - they're diversifying their product line-up. That is all.

Furthermore, I'm thrilled that WP7 is getting high praise. Nothing enhances an ecosystem like competition. With Apple, Google, and now Microsoft all playing their A game, things are only going to get better in the smartphone scene.</comment>


DoorDash CEO announces that now your tips will go to delivery workers - <AUTHOR> https://www.engadget.com/2019/07/24/doordash-ceo-announces-that-now-your-tips-will-go-to-delivery-wo/ <comment><USER2> In other words they misrepresented to the customers where the tips were going. Where is FTC ?</comment>


Bees that wear tiny sensor-filled backpacks could monitor farms all day long - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/612589/bees-that-wear-tiny-sensor-filled-backpacks-could-monitor-farms-all-day-long/ <comment> xkcd-sucks Just in time for bee extinction haha</comment>


Parallel tests for Cucumber - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/grosser/parallel_tests

<comment><AUTHOR> Also if you're using Ruby 1.9.3, you can run parallel unit tests: [http://www.ruby- doc.org/stdlib-1.9.3/libdoc/test/unit/rdoc/T...](http://www.ruby- doc.org/stdlib-1.9.3/libdoc/test/unit/rdoc/Test/Unit/Runner.html)</comment>


Is It OK to Invest in a Company if Its CEO Beats Women? - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/04/24/radiumone_founder_pleads_guilty_to_domestic_abuse.html

<comment><USER2> Legally? Yes. Morally? Up to you.

</comment><comment><USER3> Is it ok to witch-hunt a perfectly adequate CEO because you disagree with his personal life? Oh wait...</comment>


Bootstrappers Beware - <AUTHOR> http://www.tonywright.com/2008/bootstrappers-beware/

<comment><USER2> If you build a solution to solve a business problem and have an underserved market ready, then you can make money.

If you build something like Twitter then you need funding.

Personally, I think most people would be over there head if they trying to develop something so generic like a twitter or a video upload site. Not that it is hard but if you are not solving a problem that people are willing and waiting, no begging, to pay for then well you need venture funding for sure. The chances of venture funding is about squat for your average joe.

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure why I'm responding to someone who didn't seem to actually read the post, but...

It's not a question of whether customers will pay (and that's not what the post is about). It's a question of how many customers will pay and how quickly they sign up.

No one would argue (I hope) that Basecamp doesn't solve a real problem... But it took them 12 months before they could afford to focus on it full-time.

SpanningSync looks cool and quite successful. So does PlentyOfFish, but that doesn't mean that you're any likelier to build an overnight AdSense money machine.

Most bootstrappers I meet think that SpanningSync stories are the norm. They aren't.

<comment><USER2> I work for a bootstrapped company. Back in 1999 the guy had to borrow $50,000 from his mom because his credit card debt was too much. He was getting about $5000 a month from the sale of a small travel company he sold to the co- founder.

Once he figured out what would work (and that took awhile after a few missed tries) he had his market and intial funding based upon a really bad working demo I created (that would break when more then 1 person was using it at a time and I would have to reboot the server after about 5 minutes or so). The intial funding came from the customers who were going to use it. There were 40 and each paid $3,000. That was enough money to hire some very inexpensive "programmers" from a local trade school and we were able to upgrade the demo into a full product.

The company is doing just fine, has 4000 monthly subscribers, I am making him a new product and I believe he will double the number of subscribers.

I did just read the article :) But I am familiar with bootstrapping. On my own I am about to release "OfficeZilla Pro" and pray that there is enough take up to at least pay the $500 a month hosting bill. I am working on versions for vertical markets and one day will see it to profitability.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think that's the sort of cold shower that a lot of people need. DHH waves his hands about working 10 hours a week, and "all you have to do is ask for money, it's so fucking simple!!!", but the reality is that it's far from simple.

<comment><USER5> Yes, the VC people have it right. It is much simpler to spend 6 months hoping for the money fairy to appear, and then give up when it doesn't.

<comment><USER4> Oh, I'm not saying they're right either, but at least they don't sprinkle all this "easy", "simple", and "work less" over everything.

<comment><USER5> You're the first person to say "work less". I agree that "working less" is a luxury only 37Signals has. I've never worked harder in my life.

<comment><USER6> Why does 37Signals only have the luxury of working less? I'm sure when they were starting out (for their consulting business, not Basecamp) they had to work hard.

Maybe it doesn't feel like work so much when you really enjoy solving the problem that your software is addressing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't understand what's so hard to understand about the bootstrap business plan. I'll repeat it:

(1) Consult. (2) Take a half salary. (3) Use the other half to pay for an FT dev. (4) Wean off consulting with product revenue. (5). Vary as necessary.

If you call the developers at my company "half-assed" because of the consultants who currently pay their salary, I'll take offense. Tony Wright is smart, has an awesome product, and has done this before. What's his problem?

<comment><USER3> I agree that's a great plan (so would 37s, I imagine!). But it's not the one that most people follow because of (IMO) insanely optimistic projections about organic growth/sales fueled by (presumably) word of mouth and, er, TechCrunch.

Depending on the market timing-- the half-assed effort might kill you, too. People who bet big can win big, and people who hedge can lose as a direct result of their hedging-- so I don't think your formula is perfect for all markets or goals.

The half-assed stuff is from a headline from a previous post of mine (that was syndicated on VentureHacks and in BusinessWeek). You're the first to take umbrage that I'm aware of. It was playful and tongue-in-cheek, but you're welcome to take offense if it suits you.

<comment><USER5> Taking offense _always_ suits me. My question for you: what does it matter whether your market projections are wrong if your company has cash flow? I look at the funded companies that aren't cash flow positive in their 2nd and 3rd years of operation and wonder why people think that's such an awesome plan.

<comment><AUTHOR> It makes sense to not be cash flow positive in the 2nd and 3rd year if you can show that investing in R&D or sales/marketing will accelerate growth by a nice factor. I think you're oversimplifying.

<comment><USER5> More startups fail than exit successfully. "Investment years" are a gamble.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah but that's the point. :)

<comment><USER5> No, it's a terrible idea for the founders. "2 out of 3 businesses fail. So investors need the third to make up for the other 2." Remember, all three of the companies got pushed into a stupid business plan by the "hockey stick" requirement, when a less risky plan could still have made the founders millionaires.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't understand why bootstrappers are any more unrealistic than YC applicants or anyone else starting a company. Folks in the "talking to VC's" loop are often woefully unrealistic about how long it will take to raise funds (and 199 out of 200 won't). Tony writes a great headline but if it's taking longer than he anticipated to make a profit with Rescue Time perhaps he might have abridged the post to the need to focus on the profit model earlier. I find bootstrappers who are consulting in parallel with product and customer development--provided they are working with at least one other person--to be more grounded in reality than the individuals or teams who are seeking money from investors before they have a viable application with paying customers.

<comment><USER3> Strangely, I think a lot of funded startups are more realistic about the challenges involved. It's well documented. We read about flameouts every day.

All of the bootstrapped businesses that get 6 months into their business and realize it's a much longer road just sorta fade away. We don't hear much about 'em, don't read about 'em... But a lot of people have latched onto the (very inspiring) story of 37s and a few other bootstrap stars. Good on 'em.

The volume of people chasing the (more realistic) 37s-style dream is high, but I've been struck by the unreasoned optimism-- not the "we can build something really good" optimism (which is required, I think) but the "we'll be rolling in money within 6 months". Thus the post!

Regarding abridging my post to say "focus on profit earlier" - nope. I don't think I'd go back and go that route, even if I could... But that's probably another post.

<comment><USER7> There are very very few funded startups, so the question for me is the comparison between those seeking funding and those that are bootstrapping (seeking revenue from paying customers). I find the former to be much less realistic than the latter but we are probably looking at different data sets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Here's a company that's a little over a year old with paying customers.

<http://blog.spanningsync.com/2008/06/spanning-sync-p.html>

Solve a real problem and customers will pay.

<comment><USER5> Look at any Mac software company and you will see it again and again --- the white whale of entrepreneurialism! --- companies that achieved success without taking a dime from investors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I agree with everything OP has to say.

OTOH, if you are addressing an immediate need; that is, if you have prospects whose hair is _really_ on fire and you can put together a good (not perfect) solution fairly quickly and cheaply, then you have a "sugar daddy".

That's right, a customer who can bootstrap you. You have a nice influx of cash, real user feedback, a raving referral, and a tangible asset in your back pocket as you go out into the world. Not easy, but not unusual either.

Imagine writing software for 3 months, selling the first copy for $50K, and keeping the IP. It's very doable if you know what you're doing. Not a bad springboard for a bootstrapper, huh?

</comment><comment><USER5> This article simply ignores the fact that 37Signals was a thriving business _before_. _they_. _launched_. _product_. It could have taken them _ten years_ for people to start paying for Basecamp. They would not have gone under.

<comment><USER10> Actually, he pretty much states that fact directly. 37signals _already had_ the money to survive long term. This article specifically addresses people who think they can work on products full time without a plan for paying the bills for 12 to 18 months (or maybe longer), because its going to take that long to start a business from scratch and generate significant revenues.

<comment><USER5> They did not have the money to survive long term. They had a _business_ that generated _cash flows_. There's a huge difference. They didn't inherit it.

My point is, you can do the exact same thing. If you have the talent, consult. Tens of thousands of developers spend their entire lives freelancing. Consulting dev work is not a crazy pipe dream. Now, instead of dropping all your 1099 wages into your bank account, create an LLC, get it an ING account, and send your money there. Hire. BANG. Now you're a business. Go do something cool.

<comment><USER4> Sounds sensible, but... how common is it, really? If it isn't, what's the missing ingredient that makes it a difficult transition that many people never seem to accomplish?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why big companies slow down, and what to do about it - <AUTHOR> http://dandreamsofcoding.com/2014/12/16/why-big-companies-slow-down/

<comment><USER2> Working Software had 8 to 12 employees during the three years I worked there during the early nineties. When I hired on, we sold four retail products and one OEM codelibrary (OEM Spellswell) for sell to other developers. By the time I left, we had nine retail products, three OEM libraries and an Open Source SDK that we gave away for free.

We worked closely with an Apple Developer Evangelist on that Open Source product, as the Word Services Apple Event Suite enabled word processors to communicate with our Spellswell spellchecker, so the word processor vendors didn't have to license a speller, or deal with integrating one, and users got one common speller UI, one single dictionary. The protocol was also open, in that we cooperated quite enthusiastically with all of our direct competitors.

One day the evangelist, Sue Layman, came to visit our office. She had not realized how small we were. She was quite envious at our very smallness, because we could "move quickly", for example ship a new product in response to changing market conditions.

At Apple, one could never write any code that shipped to end-users without an ERS - an Engineering Requirements Study. In general, ERSs were good things, in that they would explain the proposed design of the code, what it could do for the company and so on.

However, lots of people had to sign off on them before a project was authorized.

At Working Software, I once wrote a product called Toner Tuner. All it did was make your hardcopies lighter - that is, an adjustable grey rather than black - so as to save money on toner or inkjet ink.

We did that by hanging the controls off the Mac OS print dialogs, as well as injecting extra data into the stream going to the printer.

One day I happened to point out to our President that I could, with very little work, build a "watermarking" program out of Toner Tuner's codebase. It needed different print dialog controls, and to inject different data into the print stream, but the hard part was getting any controls at all into the dialogs, as well as getting any data at all into the print jobs.

I discussed this with Dave for maybe five minutes, it took a few days to produce a beta (starting with Toner Tuner's shipping code), we were able to charge quite a lot more money for Working Watermarker than for Toner Tuner, and it sold like hotcakes.

The total amount invested in paying me to write it, Dave to manage me, for our tech support and office staff to QA it - we didn't have a dedicated QA team - to design and print the product box, floppy disk label and manual was quite a lot less than what Apple would have paid, just to have a bunch of engineers and managers attend the meetings where new ERSs were discussed.

Apple and I expect quite a few large companies do some really stupid things sometimes. For example, while I was with WSI, Apple once dropped one million pieces of direct mail without testing anything at all.

When we dropped direct mail, we would start with a bunch of carefully controlled tests, where we would rent lists from other software publishers, trade magazines and the like, compose different offer letters, try out different text on the outside of the envelope, different prices for the product we were selling in the piece, even send the mail from different post offices.

It was only when we were dead certain we had a offer that would profit consistently, that we would roll out a large drop. Even then we would do it in stages, starting at say 10,000 pieces, then 50,000. Our very largest single drop was 250,000. It profited handsomely.

Steve Jobs did a lot to restore Apple's profitability, but I still see the company do really stupid things, like changing the UI of its software in ways that I cannot tolerate, while at the same time failing to fix quite serious bugs that I myself reported to them.</comment>


Tim Cook to Apple Investors: Drop Dead - <AUTHOR> http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-Apple_Tim_Cook_Climate_022814.html

<comment><USER2> "NCPPR is a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition, whose object is described as "dispelling the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific, and risk analysis". They deny climate change and confront the CEO's of large companies claiming ROI is more important than protecting the planet for our children."

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

</comment><comment><USER3> What Tim Cook should have said was that he is thinking of ROI when Apple does these things that it does. That it helps the Brand, that it helps attract and retain talent that wants and is motivated to change the world. The next great product at Apple will be built by someone who believes in the positively impacting policies at Apple.

If Apple became a company that only believed in doing things for money, they would rapidly lose their innovators and market value would drop rapidly.

</comment><comment><USER4> From the people who was there, it didn't sound like the way this _press release_ suggested it went. This was probably intentionally worded as such to __stir the pot __.

Cook got angry when the second question was asked, which sounded like the rep demanded Cook to commit to a promise not to do anything that won't make the company more profitable.

</comment><comment><USER5> This press release is put out by an anti-science climate change denial group (yes, there are still people this dumb in the world) and shouldn't even be posted on Hacker News. Downvote if you can.

</comment><comment><USER6> Eh only certain ignorant ones.</comment>


Symbian CEO Disses Linux-Based Android (2007) - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2007/11/symbian-ceo-dis/ <comment><USER2> Steve Jobs was dismissing it as recently as Oct 2010 - probably still does :)

But given the state of Android in 2007 and the state of various Linux based platforms it was probably well justified to diss it in 2007.</comment>


Oracle is the Borg: Enterprise Software Development Will Be Assimilated  - <AUTHOR> http://blog.herlein.com/2010/11/oracle-is-the-borg-enterprise-software-development-will-be-assimilated/

<comment><USER2> _So it's pretty clear to me that Oracle is playing for keeps, and playing to own the Enterprise space._

It's not like Oracle's behavior with MySQL and Java is something new for them. Larry Ellison has always been a guy who buys a company, streamlines their processes, figures out a way to squeeze every last cent out of their products and then hires 1,000 new sales reps to sell it to enterprise customers. More than anything, I'm puzzled that it took this long and I'm puzzled that this hits anyone as something unexpected.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm actually flirting to move to everything Oracle for my career (seriously). There's a big money and (hopefully) less work for those who know how to use 10% of Oracle's other software aside from their database.

Now I can go home by 5 and have a side project/job on the evening and weekend using Emacs, Ruby, Rails, and jQuery.

I'll be set for the next 10 years!

<comment><USER4> Careful. What you say is somewhat true. But that side project/job doing what you really love is going to be increasingly starved for time. You may want to have a family or friends or hike or read or learn to play piano at some point. You'll be stuck with a somewhat non-enjoyable day job where much of the focus is on Oracle's tool stack.

That said, I completely poked my head-up after grad school, saw that there was some demand for skills that started with the "Oracle" adjective, and have found reasonably stable and lucrative work in those spaces.

I've also been able to move to a more open shop, where I've been able to sneak in some RoR and am currently hacking some Lisp to do, of all things, some ETL/data transformation stuff to make my life a little easier.

My bigger issue is that if you position yourself as the Oracle stack expert is that you may windup stuck in that professionally. I laughed when I read it, but I remember PG saying something about never being worried about competitors to Viaweb who advertised for Oracle programmers. It's a bit of an exaggeration, but the hackers I respect the most have been somewhat disappointed in their corporate "big IT" careers.

<comment><USER3> Thank you for your response and to share your experience as well. Greatly appreciate it. It would be great if I could have some stability in my career and yet still able to work on something else (be it RoR or LISP or something else).

<rant> I've been working in a few, of what people would call "software product", companies. The one that Joel mentioned a lot in his essay.

First of all, if I were in Silicon Valley, I wouldn't probably even think of Oracle. I would hone my CS skill so bad that I could hack my own compiler. Alas, I don't live there. Even if I do, I have an expiration date stamped on my head: good only for 10 years after graduation. Silicon Valley wants hot- shot, young, energetic, red-bull-drinker, all-nighters type of programmer. So if I can't be a "product manager" or "CTO" or management material by the time I'm 32-35 years old, time to get out from SV.

Product based company tend to be unstable in where I live. I also noticed this trend isn't particular to where I live, it's everywhere else too. When the product is not selling well, lay-off happens. The first to go are usually the QAs.

Once the QAs are gone, the next one to go are the "internal" tools developers: these are the ITs and the tool developers. The last one to go are the junior developers and weak performers. The ones who left must work super hard to prove that their worth of their salary.

Product based company is cool during their first 3 years. After that, it's all maintenance of legacy and hacked-up code. I don't know which one is worse: maintaining half-ass, hacked-up, badly designed product with tight-deadline (that usually leads to OTs) or writing PL/SQL or customizing Oracle modules.

Here's another problem: standards, scrum, xp. These are great things to have in a software product house for quality and longevity of the company. But at the same time, they are a double-edged sword.

Let me explain why: once the standards are in place, most people are replaceable. Take Scrum/XP for example. One of their important points is that we all should share knowledge (via Pair Programming, or something else).

They want to make the unknown to become lesser unknown or to be known. Once it is repeatable and known, you have no value anymore to the company. Intermediate becomes Senior, Junior becomes Intermediate, and you're being let-go and they will start to hire new people.

The choice is either to move up to management or not to do scrum/xp (which is equally horrific). Not doing scrum/xp would lead to bad result, bad quality, unhealthy working environment, and the need of a hero-like effort to fix some bugs.

I have seen my friends keep changing job within 2-3 years. That might be okay with them but not with me. I don't like to waste my time preparing for interviews, cleaning up my resume, every 2-3 years. I don't mind learning and improving myself, but not for the sake of that kind of cycle.

Here's another problem with software development: programming languages. Too freaking many of them. People have too many opinions. Some like LISP, some like Java, some swear by .NET, some would invent a company based on F#, some deal with Struts1/2, some would want PHP/Drupal/Wordpress. This leads to a very fragmented field.

I rarely see a company that is looking for the bare minimum (say, Java, or C#, or Ruby) but with X-years of experience. I often see companies looking for specifics (must know Java, Struts, XML, XQuery, XPath, XSLT with 7 years of experience).

I thought about doing Rails and iPhone for a while until a couple days ago where it hits me that you can actually outsource iPhone app development. Those 2 guys that were being interviewed by Mixergy did exactly that.

I also see a few consulting offers lingering in a local job-board looking for an iPhone/Android developer. But most of them are unstable due to the nature of consulting. I don't think they're willing to pay the premium ($100-$125) anyway.

Some consultants might be able to charge premium during the first few years of a new technology (like iPhone), but they need to find the next big-thing again every 2 years.

The point is this: low entry barrier sucks.

When I look at Oracle, the barrier to enter is a bit higher (or so it seems) than being a developer and not too many people want to do the job. It's a niche. Just like what one of the HN-ers mentioned about how he did quite well with his freelancing/consulting gig (he's doing PHP, Drupal, and Wordpress) </rant>

<comment><USER5> So, if I understand you correctly, you'd like a 9-to-5 job where you won't be forced into management and be able to keep your valuable skills to yourself while you work on more interesting things after hours?

I think I am currently in that situation. It's not all it's cracked up to be. First off, your time on nights and weekends is not as long or of the same quality as 9 to 5. You don't have the same energy level or focus.

As for the job, no job is immune to change. If you have skills that are valuable to your employer, you'll find that either your employer will overwhelm you with work and/or they'll seek to have your co-workers gain those skills to distribute the workload. This kind of stuff will make you more and more unhappy with your job and this will surprisingly make it harder to work on your side projects outside of work. If you put all your eggs in one basket by anchoring yourself to the Oracle stack, when you go to look for another job (because you're tired of your current job), prospective employers (and especially recruiters) will see mostly Oracle stuff and you'll be pigeonholed into jobs that are similar to your current job.

Don't make perceived stability the central focus of your job search (unless you have others that depend on you financially). Choose jobs that will serve you better with respect to your career goals. That may mean changing jobs more often than you'd like (but not necessarily so), but you'll get to where you want to be sooner.

<comment><USER3> I don't mind occasional OT (with compensation). Fact is, in where I live, companies can get away with lots of OT and not compensating them. I don't mind to go to management position late in my career. Not now, but maybe later.

Interesting things can have different means. To me, Google architecture (GFS, BigTable, MapReduce) are all interesting, but I have no desire to learn them for the sake of learning. Rails is interesting in the sense that I'd like to learn it, make a website using it, and take a poke at running a small business.

I'm also interested at the business of iPhone apps. I'd rather pay someone else to write the app than writing it myself. I prefer to focus on the operational side: making sure we have a website with good SEO and graphics design. Promote the iPhone apps and start making money (even with a low profitability margin).

But at the same time, I'm not a big gambler or a risk taker. Steady fixed income and experimental on the side is my sweet spot.

In short, I'd like to be able to run my own side business, be it iPhone apps or selling stuff online. That excites me more vs toying with various programming languages or solving hard algorithm problems. I prefer to talk with people than with machines. I don't mind to do occasional programming cause I like to build stuff. I just don't want them to dominate my whole life. I prefer not to be 40 or 50 and still hacking C, UNIX, Java, C# or Ruby for a living.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> YAY! Oracle is going to drive MySQL into the ground! Thank god.

I'm getting really tired of cleaning up relational disasters.

<comment><USER7> This is wishful thinking on your part. I know it's _cool_ to hate on MySQL, but it's too big now for Oracle to kill. It has too large of an installed base, too much mindshare, and too strong of a community to be killed by anything Oracle does.

If Oracle were to stop developing, supporting, and licensing MySQL today it would not stop MySQL. There would still be Percona, Facebook, Google, Monty Program, Drizzle, and a large ecosystem of others supporting, patching, releasing, and blogging about it.

Love it or hate it, it's probably not going anywhere soon.

<comment><USER8> They wont kill it . They will increase the price of it. That will make MySQL to less popular for sure .

<comment><USER7> I don't think so. In my experience, the only folks who pay for MySQL are big conservative companies who must have support contracts, and companies who bundle MySQL with their closed source products.

My gut feeling is that folks who will be directly impacted by Oracle price increases represent a tiny percentage of MySQL users.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think people often forget that Oracle also owns Peoplsoft, another big enterprise play.

<comment><USER10> I am unfortunately reminded of this every workday. The money spent on licences and inept consultants is obscene. The tools are ancient, the code unreadable, modules grafted on after various other companies were bought. I often get told how much money there is to be made in consulting, and alternatively how one can never learn all of Peoplesoft. As much as the former is comforting, the latter is depressing. I just want to be able to code in emacs for a living...

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is a recurring pattern in history of "enterprise software" (for whatever it means) the fade of technologies and the high-cost of maintainability for those legacy systems. This is a common business model in the software (or hardware) sold to large corporation. Usually the customer wants just something that works for their business and don't always understand the implication on relying on their ancient systems. And by extension, those large corporation just paid (a lot) for maintaining the legacy system up and (somehow) running...

As mentioned in another comment, this is allowing some space for better designed software where the large corporation can't find something versatile enough. The history in software is just a circular loop with a feedback input (where the innovation is coming from other companies or individuals).

Oracle is only playing on the field of legacy systems to maintain. At the end, this is great for start-ups, free software developers or individuals who are innovating. For us, this is a brand new world opens with plenty of opportunities...

<comment><USER12> You could look at their JVM play and continued MySQL Community Edition development (presuming _that_ happens) as giving them a foothold in the non- legacy fields; there's a _lot_ of fun stuff happening on the JVM these days, and MySQL is still (for better or worse) the default first open source RDBMS that people tend to use for new projects.

Whether they see it that way or not is a _completely_ different matter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> ...so how long now before Oracle makes a bid for Red Hat?

</comment><comment><USER14> Ðe irony… : Error establishing a database connection

</comment><comment><USER15> ...because there are _no_ other database vendors out there. There's definitely no such thing as Postgres, SQL Server, or DB2.

<comment><USER12> That would be to completely underestimate Oracle. It's not just about databases any more.

They now own two major database platforms, a major software deployment ecosystem, a decent OS or two and a decent hardware platform. You can bet that they'll be integrating and up-selling the rest of the stack like _crazy_ into any customer of any single part of it. It just doesn't make sense to have bought them otherwise.

The comparison shouldn't be with DB2. It should be with IBM.

<comment><USER15> Regardless, the point is that Oracle isn't without competition. IBM and Microsoft aren't going away anytime soon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Any chance of getting a copy of the text? Site is down and neither Google nor Coral have it.

<comment><USER17> Here you go.

Oracle is the Borg: Enterprise Software Development Will Be Assimilated

By gherlein, on November 6th, 2010 - No comments

Oracle made some moves this week that look like the opening pawn moves in a master chess game. The end game will have Oracle having a controlling position in every aspect of Enterprise software development.

First of all, Oracle has removed InnoDB from the MySQL Classic Edition. Now, you can still get the GPL community edition that has InnoDB in it. But if you want support, you'll have to buy their version. Oh, and they just raised the price on that. I'm not sure if they require it or not, but if you use Linux Oracle prefers that you run their software on THEIR version of Linux – a customized Red Hat. This week they also released plans for the JVM that will include a free version and a premium paid version. Oh, and if you want some new hardware that will really make it all work well together, they can sell you that too (they bought Sun, remember?).

So it's pretty clear to me that Oracle is playing for keeps, and playing to own the Enterprise space. Want to use a database? Buy Oracle, or use MySQL… but if you want support, you pay them. Then you pay them for Linux. Then license the JVM. Then license the app server (they bought BEA last year, so WebLogic is all theirs now too). Want to code in Java? Well, they own that too. Business folks call this "owning the vertical."

Watch for them to take even more steps to make sure that they have control points around as many places they can. Nearly all software that gets written is business application software. Clearly Oracle has been embedded firmly there for a long time – but these moves are enveloping and will sink hooks into so many more places. I predict that when Google and Oracle settle – and they will eventually, since the cost to litigate a huge patent battle does no good for either party – that Oracle will get some hooks into mobile as well. Maybe some email integration, or provisioning, or something deep and fundamental.

So watch out, stay alert, and think about your tools. Or you too will be assimilated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Ah yes, capitalism at its best.</comment>


"All I Want for Christmas is You" through MIDI then MP3 converters - <AUTHOR> http://red3blog.tumblr.com/post/135098280942/formeldeharv-i-put-all-i-want-for-christmas-is <comment><USER2> It's like Mariah Carey's running through a forest of wind chimes and you can just make out her voice through the chaos!</comment>