Upping the volts will make hybrid cars much cheaper - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21704778-upping-volts-will-make-hybrid-cars-much-cheaper-last-48-show <comment><USER2> This article is seriously confused. Current BEVs use 400+ Volts for the motive power, but still have 12V for accessories due to the established market.

Increasing to 24V or 48V means less current for the same load, which means smaller cables for accessory power. Above 30V or so you get into "high voltage" by electrical safety standards.

A 48V electrical system is not going to be driving hybrid vehicles, it is purely to reduce the cost of wiring looms.

<comment><USER3> I have always heard that <50V is considered low voltage by electrical safety standards, which is why 48V is a good choice.

<comment><USER4> For electrical safety, <50V DC is common definition for ELV. For some (probably business oriented, ie. to do price differentiation for telco equipment) reasons, some electronics manufacturers classify anything over 30V as high voltage.

<comment><USER5> The US National Electric code defines <50V as low voltage but UL defines anything over 20V as high voltage.

UL generally deals with products so that is probably why they are more conservative. Picture a baby sucking on something and you can imagine why they want anything over 20V to be double insulated. If car manufactures want to comply with UL standards that would mean they would no longer be able to use the car's frame for the current return path.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Even the opening sentences are wrong:

> VOLTAGE is to electricity what pressure is to water: the more you have of it > the more oomph you get. That is why electrical power lines work at high > voltage.

No. Losses in transmission lines are proportional to current squared [1]. High voltage is used because it results in lower current (for the same power), so lower losses.

[1] [http://www.bsharp.org/physics/transmission](http://www.bsharp.org/physics/transmission)

<comment><USER7> I think the analogy holds up quite well, even though they don't go into the details that you mention. Losses in water transmission lines for example are also proportional to velocity squared.

<comment><USER8> Voltage is how hard the nozzle sprays, current is the diameter of the hose. High pressure + small hose can be as much flow as a fire hose just gurgling out. Correlates well to how much current a given wire gauge can handle as well. If you hook the garden hose up to a fire hydrant and open it up, the garden hose might explode since it can't handle all the water. A pressure washer might use a thin hose, but the water sprays so hard that it can cut your skin.

Idk, that's how I learned it growing up before I learned about stranded vs solid core wire, skin effect, resistance, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm seriously waiting for auto-makers to pull their heads out of their asses and start putting kinetic energy capture systems into _every_ car, economy to performance.

The absurdly priced Porsche 918 is the only car to date that takes advantage of this technique in an ideal fashion (small batteries, small electric motors augment the engine and brakes).

After that, what about ICE's that run at optimal load/RPM for the highest possible efficiency to charge a smallish electrical system?

Batteries are still a long way off from gasoline in their energy density. Gasoline will never be "clean" but the way we burn it in our existing automotive fleet is horribly inefficient.

There's this beautiful middle ground in the technology that no one is exploring and it's such a shame.

<comment><USER10> Isn't the Chevrolet Volt what you describe in your third paragraph?

<comment><USER9> Edit: corrected a mistaken assessment here. Yes, Volt is closest on the market but it's a horrible car.

My point is that every single car produced from VW to Ferrari can get 50% better fuel efficiency if the auto manufacturers changed their approach to the problem.

<comment><USER11> 50%? That is only in the worst case of stop and go traffic.

The volt and pirus are a small aerodynamic cars. They would get in the upper 30mpg range with a traditional power train. On the highway they could get better mpg with the right traditional power train (0-60 times would be in the 20 second range - there are obvious reason nobody does this). That hybrid system is just extra weight once the battery is exhausted so you need a slightly bigger engine to haul it around on pure highway driving.

Don't get me wrong, hybrid makes sense for most people. However it isn't that the system is more efficient for everything, it is that for the way most people [want to] drive it pulls in enough advantages to be worth the negatives.

<comment><USER12> > The volt and pirus are a small aerodynamic cars.

Priuses (except the first generation Prius and the current Prius C) aren't particulary small; they are midsize sedans.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is not the first 48v debate. Several years ago is came and went over the desire for electric brakes, solenoids rather than hydraulic calipers. They would theoretically be cheaper and simpler to manage electronically. 48v or higher would be needed for such things (also for running AC pumps). But brakes are very established and mature tech. They are also the primary safety system. Antilocks work well enough as is. Manufacturers balked at the idea of starting from scratch with purely electric brakes. With the need for higher voltages mooted, the debate came and went.

Anyone worried about hacking cars, imagine the nightmare should brakes be completely electric, with no hydraulic or mechanical option should either the power or control system fail.

As for saving weight on cables, smaller metal doesn't mean smaller cables. Higher voltage would require greater shielding, thicker cables. The increased risk of sparks/shorts would also be a thing, as would the risk of electrocuting those working on their cars. With 12v you can get away with stuff that at 48v might put you in hospital.

<comment><USER14> Surely any electric brake would fail closed? Just like air-brakes on large trucks. That would make them safer right?

<comment><USER15> Only truck brakes are designed to fail closed. Passenger vehicles aren't, even though they could be. In fact, there's a lot of safety systems that passenger cars don't have, for no discernible reason.

There's no warning light for the brake fluid reservoir or pressure, even though it would be trivial to add. The oil warning light for passenger vehicles is so useless, when it comes on you have to stop your vehicle immediately. Gasoline gauges are designed to trick people into thinking they're on empty and then provide an extra gallon or two, even though they could actually design the gauge to display average miles based on the rated mileage of the car and size of the tank. Transmission, diff, brake, and engine oil fluids could be measured or at least timed for when they need to be replaced and a warning given to the user that it's time to maintain it. Only in modern [usually expensive] cars do you find tire air pressure sensors.

Why don't we have these basic maintenance and safety systems built into cars? Too expensive? Too technically challenging? Nope - they want you to bring your car into the dealer regularly to regularly charge you for maintenance you may not need.

<comment><USER16> >There's no warning light for the brake fluid reservoir or pressure, even though it would be trivial to add.

What deathtrap are you driving? This is a common thing. Even my old 96 Camry has it.

<comment><USER15> Hmm. Well it seems like it's possible the cars i've had have shared the same indicator for multiple brake notifications. But i've not noticed a dedicated light for brake fluid. There's one for the e-brake engagement, and one for ABS, for no particular reason, because it's a non-critical brake feature.... but i've not seen a dedicated brake pressure light.

<comment><USER13> Sometimes they are linked to other systems. My 92 bmw shared the brake fluid reservoir with the clutch. A leak in the clutch triggered the brake warning light.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Question: Why not go to 96V?

Everything wants to go higher for all manner of reasons, and the semiconductor switches probably don't care all that much. If the jump has to be made, make the jump as far as possible so that the jump doesn't have to be made again.

Is there a safety reason or something?

<comment><USER18> Inertia and fear of the unknown. Also below 50V is generally considered "safer" and anything around 100 and up is "dangerous" due to the impedance of the human body.

<comment><USER19> Dangerous as in a bad kick, but it can't fry you like current AKA amps can (which is usually the worst part, which you want to avoid).

<comment><USER20> That's like saying that falling off a building can't kill you (because it's actually the stop that does).

You lower the current by lowering the voltage.

<comment><USER21> > You lower the current by lowering the voltage.

I assume you meant increasing there.

<comment><USER22> If you're talking about a controlled situation where you need to provide a given amount of power - ie driving the accessories of a car, then yes, a lower voltage would require higher current. P = IV

When you're talking about safety though, the issue is what happens if the voltage gets applied to your body. In that case the relevant formula is I = V/R. R is the resistance of whatever circuit you've mistakenly formed through your body. The higher the voltage applied across that circuit, the higher the current that will flow. (This is also why it's more dangerous if you're wet, or in bare feet, for instance, because those things lower your resistance, resulting in greater current for a given voltage.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> A shock from 50V DC can be fatal.

This is more a cost cutting measure than a feature. Instead you lose a feature: safety.

<comment><USER24> It would be very hard to get several mA of current through your body from only 50V. That's why up to 50V is generally consisted safe low voltage which is not harmful to touch.</comment></comment>


The Rise Of Elementary - <AUTHOR> http://wickedchap.roon.io/the-rise-of-elementary

<comment><USER2> Looks beautiful and easy to use.

This is what Linux needs!</comment>


FeedBurner sucks - But what options do you have ? - <AUTHOR>

For long, the A list bloggers like TC and RWW have complained about how pathetic FeedBurner has gotten over the last year or so:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/01/22/feedburner-needs-to-get-it-together/ http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/feedburner_may_not_be_hearing.php
As a blogger who uses FB, I completely agree - but then whats the alternative ? The value FB provides is far outweighed by how much it really sucks these days. I would happily stop using it if it werent the problem of having the few thousand subscribers to update my feed url. FB has become like a pseudo-lockin - similar to the scenario where you dont really want to change your phone number because all your contacts have the current number.
I think there's potential for someone to start a competing service - where you charge a monthly fee for real time updates - a feature that is oft-needed by these top bloggers. Unpaid subscribers get their feed crawled at a slower rate.
Can you think of a way by which one could move out of FB with the least inconvenience caused to the subscribers.
Edit: Just found that FB provides a 30 day redirect option.
Also just read about FeedSqueezer @ RRW:
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/why_were_desperately_awaiting.php
If you're interested in discussing more about this, drop me a line. <comment><USER2> FeedBurner really has been getting horrid lately, so it's nice to see there's an alternative (although it'd be nice if it wasn't in private beta). Thanks for the pointer to FeedSqueezer. :)</comment>


Guy quietly informs company about a huge security hole. They called the cops. - <AUTHOR> http://www.scmagazine.com.au/News/276678,researcher-discloses-vulnerability-to-firm-gets-police-visit.aspx

<comment><USER2> They did admit it was a mistake and apologised. That's quite a lot of big businesses these days</comment>


Demo of Photosynth from TED conference - mind blowing - <AUTHOR> http://youtube.com/watch?v=s-DqZ8jAmv0 This is some really awesome technology.  Lots of cool stuff here, but at one point he demos a 3D metaverse created from scraped Flickr photos.  Worth y of the multiple standing ovations he gets.  Apparently this was bought by Microsoft about a year ago. <comment><USER2> An oldie but goodie TED Talk. These are consistently the most engaging and interesting speeches. FYI I run a video site called Chime.TV and we created a channel just for TED Talks: <http://chime.tv/tedtalks>

Recent ones I've enjoyed are Erin McKean's Redifining The Dictionary ( <http://chime.tv/tedtalks/3l9sg> ) and Rives: Is 4AM The New Midnight? ( <http://chime.tv/tedtalks/2gdlw> )

<comment><USER3> And that is the answer to the old question of "When is it a good idea to plug my site?"--when you've made something people want, in that particular situation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Thanks to this video, I discovered the main TED website: <http://www.ted.com>

It's a nicely constructed web site with decent resolution videos of TED talks. Just checked out Dean Kamen's prosthetic arm demo... very cool.

<http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/82></comment>


"The 3D universe in which we appear to live is no more than a hologram." - <AUTHOR> http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2010/10/20/fermilab-scientists-to-test-hypothesis-of-holographic-universe/ <comment><USER2> If the universe is pixelated, we'll need to consider Nick Bostrom's simulation hypothesis seriously. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis>

<comment><USER3> I thought it was well-known that the universe is pixelated at the Planck scale?

<comment><USER4> No one knows exactly what is going on at the Plank scale, That is partly what the guy says in the article.

"People trying to tie reality together don't have any data, just a lot of beautiful math," said Hogan. "The hope is that this gives them something to work with."

Theories vary widely on what happens to the universe at that scale. This kind of experimental data might be the thing that transforms string theory from "Not even wrong" to actually wrong, or maybe even partly right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The universe is a construct of our imagination. Individual consciousnesses are incomplete holograms of the original universe. In fact, it seems to me that interactions between humans (piecing together of the universe) are an effect, not cause of the interactions on a lower level.

[5]</comment>


99-Year-Old Minimum Wage Custodian ... Why Everyone Hates Economics - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/07/22/_99_year_old_st_petersburg_custodian_and_why_everyone_hates_economics.html

<comment><USER2> The article is trying to make a good point but it seems to be getting lost in some inner-conflict on the part of the writer. In asian countries, it is not uncommon for well to do families to employ a bunch of people for jobs that aren't strictly necessary. A strong part of the motivation for this is to provide a type of welfare. This is but one side of the coin. I know of a few older (post-70) individuals who are in reasonably good health but work "odd" jobs with low wages just to get the company of other people or to have a purpose in life. One 80+ individual just hung out at a garage and helped around. The "traditional" idea of playing golf/gardening in retirement are not as global as one might think. The fact that this company is continuing to pay their 99-year old custodian comes off as a good thing in my books.

<comment><USER2> I want to relate the story of the doorman in my old Manhattan apartment. First off, my apartment had like 5 or 6 doormen that alternated in some weird schedule. The residents and the doormen had a very kind relationship. One of the older doormen went on for a few months about his retirement (he defn looked older than 65) and how he was going to miss us (residents). When he eventually left, about a month later there was a notice in the apartment that he had passed away. On one hand, that's life. On the other, back in the old country, I've seen people whither away once their purpose in life goes away. I know mentally that there are so many problems on this earth, so much help we can provide each other. So you can argue that a person can keep doing new, good things despite their age. But I think when you get to your 60s or 70s or whatever, you come to terms with it - with your own purpose in life. Time is cruel and the human body is frail. We should truly respect our elders.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Good article, but the title is a stretch. This isn't about everyone hating economics. It's that people operate for reasons other than just money, and this can appear irrational. That's where behavioral economics comes in. And keeping someone around to keep others happy does have economic benefit.</comment>


Apple Launches 8GB iPhone 5C - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/18/5518296/iphone-5c-8gb-price-release-date

<comment><USER2> An interesting move by Apple as iPhone5C sales were not picking. Apple reduced the price of iPhone 5C & iPhone 5S in US by $ 100 . [http://www.dazeinfo.com/2014/03/19/apple-inc-aapl-cuts- iphon...](http://www.dazeinfo.com/2014/03/19/apple-inc-aapl-cuts- iphone-5c-iphone-5s-price-100-8gb-fewer-countries/)</comment>


FBI director says companies should ditch encryption - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-12/10/fbi-director-calls-for-encryption-end <comment><USER3> >>> FBI director James Comey has called on tech companies to stop "by defaut" end-to-end encryption -- so that the FBI can monitor communications again.

Note the "by default". That suggests the FBI isn't interested in spying on smart people. They only want to go after the dolts who cannot be bothered to enable encryption. Mr Comey obviously doesn't think much of his adversaries if he assumes they won't bother trying to hide.

Either that, or they want to spy on the population generally for purposes other than the prevention of crime. Which is it? Does be believe terrorists are not tech savvy, or does he not care about clever terrorists and instead wants to monitor the plebs? I doubt he has any coherent answer beyond beyond 'More data = good'.

<comment><USER4> I hypothesize the FBI wants to expand its credit card fraud division, and the way to accomplish that is make it possible for a thief to simply open his Wifi at Starbucks, run the right script and snatch unencrypted CC's out of the air.

The resulting influx of credit card theft would do wonders for the headcount and political importance of the credit card fraud investigation department...

<comment><USER5> I get your point. But, tangentially, I believe the Secret Service handles more of the credit card fraud stuff. There was just some discussion in the news the other day about the Secret Service being stretched too thin because of all the time they spent on investigating financial "cyber crime" vs. guarding the president and such.

Anyway, here's a couple links on what to report to which:

Secret Service: [http://www.fraudaid.com/solution_center/jurisdictions/usfed-...](http://www.fraudaid.com/solution_center/jurisdictions/usfed- secretservice.htm)

FBI: [http://www.fraudaid.com/solution_center/jurisdictions/usfed-...](http://www.fraudaid.com/solution_center/jurisdictions/usfed- fbi.htm)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Great Mr. Comey, so you won't mind providing a public feed of all of your personal audio / video / text communications, and your Internet traffic, right? I mean, if nobody needs privacy, I'm sure you'll be standing at the front of the line to surrender yours...

<comment><USER7> Senators Feinstein and Schumer would sooner race to the front of the line to turn in their guns...

<comment><USER8> Feinstein the hypocrite. She has a conceal carry permit yet many in CA are unable to get such.

I'm really done with her being one of CAs senators. Of the two, I don't like either, at least I can respect Boxer for not being the overwhelming hypocrite and self aggrandizer that Feinstein is.

<comment><USER9> I'm tired of being lectured on guns by people who have concealed carry permits and armed security. Sulzberger from the NY Times is another - he has the paper in full-throated support for gun control while at the same time he has a concealed carry permit hardly anyone in NYC can get.

<comment><USER10> It's generally rational for people who campaign against bad policy to make use of those policies while they exist and are advantageous.

Mayday.us is a superpac designed to end superpacs. This is not hypocrisy. See also signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

<comment><USER9> It's not hypocritical if you think Sulzberger intends to give up his permit after he gets the gun control he wants. Personally, I don't believe it for a second.

I don't blame him for wanting to be the only guy with a gun. I just don't think he should be allowed to arrange that through the government.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Chief of Police encourages businesses to remove all locks from their doors in case police forces need to enter the building in the instance of an emergency such as a break-in.

Furthermore, all business owners are encouraged to stop locking their cash and recipes in a safe, as this prevents police from ensuring none of it has been stolen.

<comment><USER12> There's a very important difference that we "people-in-the-know" forget every time this topic comes up:

\- When doors are locked and police want to go inside, they can still break the lock or the door. It will only take some time.

\- When a safe is locked, it doesn't prevent it from being opened. It will only take some time.

What the FBI ultimately wants is not necessarily ban encryption, or give them an additional key; what they _really_ want is breakable encryption so they can decrypt the content. Much like a lock is not unbreakable but is defined in terms of security by how much efforts it takes to break it, and much like a KDF is defined to take a given amount of time, they want to have breakable encryption -- ie, encryption that only takes, let's say 1 M$ to break (the figure is just to have clear ideas).

Of course, as we all know, if it takes 1 M$ to break, everybody with 1 M$ can break it (not only the "good guys"). This is further exacerbated by the fact that it's online (contrary to a physical lock, for which you need the appropriate tools _and_ physical access to the lock).

So the equivalent is not "Comey wants us to remove all locks", it is "Comey would like us to use locks that can't resist a 1 M$ attack". That is still undesirable (we've grown extremely accustomed to almost-infinity $-resistant crypto), and looks very much like a call back to exports-grade crypto. If the quality of a crypto cipher doesn't decline too fast, I think I'd be happy that LEO could decrypt the messages _provided they have all the required legal provisions_.

<comment><USER11> I am guessing you missed the snark, either intentionally or not.

<comment><USER12> Oh I perfectly understood the snark, but it's not exactly correct. It's like mocking something over a trait that is not correct; a straw man, if you will.

<comment><USER11> A joke should always be EXACTLY correct.. otherwise it creates opportunity for ill-humored pedantry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> No thanks, I'd sooner ditch the FBI director.

</comment><comment><USER14> The old ways of controlling people are going to need an update. Once upon a time violence was a sufficient tool to inhibit or dissuade criminal activity. The new paradigm is that you cannot use violence and your knowledge of criminal activity to dissuade actions, instead one must remove the desire to perform them in the first place.

IMO this looks like: \- Stop bombing/attacking/interfering in Islamic nations. \- End the most grievous forms of poverty world (such as lack of opportunity) such that increasing numbers of people have nothing or little to gain by being criminal \- Stop utilizing violence as a protected means, only allowed by some (ie the government). By universally outlawing violence, it becomes morally clear that no amount is valid.

<comment><USER15> How does one outlaw violence?

<comment><USER14> That, of course was the whole thrust of the comment. That removing the incentive to use violence is the most effect means to lessen / discontinue its use. Conversely there situations which basically leave little other choice than the use of violence (extreme poverty or abuse for example). Therefore by removing the sources of those things, we can stem much use of violence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I expect USGOV to lose the keys argument, but not without extracting vast sums from Congress for projects that promise to work around the obstacle of strong encryption. I'm also hearing less and less about cues missed that could have prevented the recent CA attack, and hearing more and more about the encryption debate. Good PR and understandable given the thankless and impossible task DHS/FBI has of getting it right every time. One right/freedom I wish we had in the US was that our leaders could be free to admit imperfection and mistakes without Congress and the Press piling on.

</comment><comment><USER17> The headline is misleading. Comey wants providers to control the keys, not the end users. Providers can be compelled if needed. In many cases, end users have 5th amendment protection.

EDIT: The headline on the Wired website is more accurate, the HN headline is sensationalized.

<comment><USER18> Your characterization of the protections users have is misleading. There has been no definitive nationwide court case which has settled the issue.

In one case, a citizen was protected from giving over the password to their phone, but was compelled under penalty of contempt of court to unlock the phone for investigators to analyze. In other cases, courts have compelled defendants to hand over the passwords.

Providers can be compelled, but that is because companies have no strong desire to protect the civil liberties of their customers (or in the case of social media -- their products), but _do_ have a strong desire to prevent financial punitive damages or legal defense fees from being incurred.

The FBI wants providers to be able to unlock data because that can be done without the notification to users that there is an investigation about them (which serves multiple purposes).

<comment><USER17> >There has been no definitive nationwide court case which has settled the issue.

You're right, there has been no supreme court case. Which is why I did not make a definitive statement. However, recent cases support 5th amendment protection more often than not.

[0][http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp- cont...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp- content/uploads/sites/14/2015/09/Huang.pdf)

Are there any cases where the 5th amendment did not serve as protection where the forgone conclusion doctrine was not applied?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> You'd think in a democracy freedom would take precedent over control. But nope.

</comment><comment><USER20> So after "109 messages with an overseas terrorist" which they _can 't decrypt_, they don't bother to place that suspect under immediate surveillance?

So we're supposed to believe that this happens every day, their systems detect it, but because they don't _know the contents of the messages_ they're unable to do anything...

Sounds to me like they should be working on their meta-data collection.

</comment><comment><USER21> I'm guessing he's never heard of the pidgin OTR plugin which puts encryption keys back in the hands of even the least technical.

<comment><USER22> There is a tendency - especially among highly-technical crowds like HN - <USER2> assume ignorance or stupidity whenever a topic like this comes up. This is _dangerous_. Hanlon's Razor is a good heuristic when _all else is equal_ , which is absolutely not the case with these attacks against encryption. All else is _not_ equal.

James Comey has been attacking crypto since the _first_ crypto wars 15+ years ago. There is no way he is ignorant of how crypto works or how easily available it is. His rhetoric is an attack on the power that Silicon Valley has been acquiring, and tech companies better start treating as an attack. This latest push is trying to paint tech companies as "being unreasonable" in the public eye, so legislation can be pushed outlawing encryption _wherever it is inconvenient_ (finance can always have an exception carved out). It need not be _effective_ \- it's just another tool that can be selectively enforced.

So where are the "full-page ads" and other media blitz form tech companies countering these attacks? Where are the counterattacks accusing Comey of trying to undermine American Businesses Interests? Well, far too many of those businesses use surveillance as a business model, and actual security would undermine their interests as well. I hope they like the future they are creating.

For everybody else, the time to start fighting against these political attacks was "yesterday". Better late than never?

<comment><USER21> Wish I could upvote your response twice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'll paraphrase here... "Stop encrypting so that we can break the law by spying on our own citizens."

</comment><comment><USER24> I think they see opt-in encryption as an important filtering signal they can use to determine who to target. The assumption they work under seems to be that law-abiding people won't need to use encryption. Either way, this is pretty disgusting.

</comment><comment><USER25> While were are at that, let's ban whispering and in-person conversations altogether. I bet a lot of bad deeds and terrorism acts are planned using these methods.

</comment><comment><USER26> I think the techincal issue is guaranteeing the that the backdoor, whatever form it takes, can only be used in the service of a lawful court order.

<comment><USER27> Putting even the most secure and resilient backdoor should be considered a failure of freedom, privacy, and politics.

At the end of the day backdooring encryption does nothing but weaken everyone's security without actually helping intelligence agencies, at least in the face of serious actors.

Fine, agree to a global backdoor or all crypto with a handful of trusted key holders, how long until the algo or key is leaked, how long until a flaw in it's implementation is found, how long until some TSA agent is photographed with the password blinking on his screen in a news article.

All this will do for bad actors is ensure they assume whatever service provider isn't to be trusted in their implementation and just use a 3rd party process and/or open source tool chain to produce encrypted messages that will be routed over already encrypted networks. Great, your backdoor got you to a second layer of ciphertext that you still can't make heads or tails of, meanwhile you've weakened the security of literally every person on earth.

A backdoor is unacceptable, no matter it's perceived strength, value, or safety.

<comment><USER26> I understand the aversion to backdoors and am quite sympathetic to the view that all encrypted communication should be revealed only to the sender's intended recipient(s). However, the choice is not always ours to make.

<comment><USER15> How do you propose to remove that choice from me?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The API I've been working on for the last 596 days is now live - <AUTHOR> http://blog.sproutvideo.com/sproutvideo-api.html

<comment><AUTHOR> To be clear, I only started working on the API 22 days ago and have been waiting 8 days to get re-verified for my class 2 SSL certificate before releasing the feature today. The 596 days is in reference to the first request of an API here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1590295>

<comment><USER2> So why the ridiculously link bait title? "The API that was first request 596 days ago" and "The API I've been working on for the past 596 days" are _completely_ different things!

(For reference, current title is _The API I've been working on for the last 596 days is now live_ )

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure, I won't deny that it's somewhat link bait-y, but I have commits from before I launched that are related to the API, so it's not entirely untrue either. I just started working on it, in earnest, so that I could release it, 22 days ago.

<comment><USER3> Amusing (and recognizable) that you use the long developing time as attention getter and then feel the need to point out that you're really a fast developer. O Vanity. :-) Seriously though, site and API look great. The best of luck with your business.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Prostitution : An old industry is in deep recession - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21578434-old-industry-deep-recession-sex-doesnt-sell <comment><USER2> Come on, man. You can't even justify this as remotely technology adjacent. If we all treat HN like reddit, it will become reddit. The story is interesting, but it's posted to the wrong link-sharing site.

<comment><USER3> Links posted here aren't necessarily about technology.

 _" On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."_

<comment><USER4> Also for more on the tech side, check out the Ugly Mugs web app mentioned in the article.

[https://uknswp.org/um/](https://uknswp.org/um/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Without revealing too much detail... one of our clients happens to be a purveyor of online temptation and, although prostitution per-se may not be paying, the "companionship" model apparently still does sell (if the traffic is any hint).

There's also a surprising number of people drawn to the chat model and a major part of their infrastructure is now geared toward concurrent live streams, sessions and sandboxed chat (HTML / JS; no HTML5 WebSockets yet) with by-the- minute or monthly billing.</comment>


Apple's Patent Win Is Bad For Us All - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/01/one-bad-apple/ <comment><USER2> Dan Pallotta wrote an article titled "When My Business Failed". It included a quote that explains the Apple/Android war perfectly:

> I've learned that the adage about innovation is true — that at first, people > say your idea is absurd, then they say it was obvious all along, and then > they say it was their idea to begin with.

That's exactly what I've seen with Apple since Steve Jobs returned. Remember all the "giant iPod" comments when the iPad was released? Or the "this will fail without a keyboard" when the iPhone came out? Those people shut up now. With each product Apple released, people dismissed it immediately.

Now people are saying they're "obvious" ideas. The argument that Apple shouldn't be allowed to defend their designs all center around how "obvious" they are. Of course, they weren't obvious when Apple released them. They're only "obvious" now that other companies have copied those ideas. I won't get in to design with most of you because you aren't designers but the simplest solutions are usually the hardest to come up with. It's easy to make something complicated. It's very, very hard to make it simple or intuitive.

You can't rewrite history. When the iPhone was being developed, Android looked like Blackberry. Those are the facts. What should be obvious is that Eric Schmidt sat on Apples board and suddenly pivoted Android before being removed for "conflicts on interest." And you wonder why Steve Jobs was pissed? That's a serious breach of ethics.

Most of the anti-Apple comments are absurd. Like the Xerox thing: Apple didn't steal anything. They paid for something Xerox didn't believe in and weren't going to develop further.

If you have an issue with patents write your congressperson. Donate to not- for-profit organizations trying to fix the patent system. Contact the companies that abuse the patent system (especially if you're a shareholder or large customer) and tell them what you think. But don't use patents as an excuse to attack companies you irrationally hate.

<comment><USER3> I love how you turn some people into "people" like it was all people. Remember the Palm os? No? Revionist history? Wasn't that before iPhone? What about Knight Ridder's iPad in the 90s? Doesn't ring a bell? Thought so. I also love how revisionist history of Android being a black-berry clone, then suddenly not is still propagated. When Google first took over Android, it's aim was to work on all platforms - to be open. That's still the aim... blackberry, or iPhone like - it doesn't matter. I feel it important that the tech community discusses the validity of patents, not -only- write letters to a congressman. Let the world discuss how broken and harmful they are. Also, I advise you to pick your examples a little better to blindly defend companies that you love. My love is first and foremost to society. I have no particular preference to Apple, Google, Android, Canonical, Microsoft - or whatever. But anything that harms society, I will take offense to. Before you shoot me down for being anti-Apple, I own no Samsung or Google/Android products, but I own an iPad3, iPhone4 and three iPod touches. However, I am vehemently against Apple in their IP crusade - which I wholeheartedly believe is to stifle competition, and in effect, harm society.

<comment><USER4> _> I am vehemently against Apple in their IP crusade - which I wholeheartedly believe is to stifle competition_

Who has Apple sued that aren't blatantly copying the iOS UI? Are they suing Microsoft over Windows Phone? Are they suing HP over webOS? Are they suing Nokia over Symbian? Are they suing BlackBerry?

I don't see how permitting blatant copying of a company's UI is supposed to encourage innovation. If we want to encourage innovation, then we must encourage companies to _innovate_ \-- not _copy_.

<comment><USER5> > Are they suing Microsoft over Windows Phone?

The don't need to, they got Microsoft to buy a license.

It's interesting that Microsoft chose to purchase a license outright rather than work out a cross-licensing deal. It seems like MS did this to lay the groundwork for Apple to purse their competition in the Android space, since Apple could then go to court and say, "Look, even Microsoft paid for a license!"

<comment><USER4> _> The don't need to, they got Microsoft to buy a license._

I'd be willing to bet good money the the _reason_ that Apple licensed iOS UI patents to Microsoft was to make Microsoft sign something saying that they wouldn't copy the iOS UI too closely, rather than for Apple to make a killing on licensing fees. Making a killing on licensing fees is Microsoft's approach, which they have used successfully against Android.

Apple took this same approach they're taking now back with Windows 1: They licensed Mac OS UI elements to Microsoft, but then ultimately sued Microsoft when Apple felt that Microsoft violated the terms of that license and made a UI that was too similar in look-and-feel to Mac OS.

If anything, this is evidence that Apple is _not_ trying to squelch competition or innovation. They don't seem to mind competition at all, and will even license their technologies, as long as other companies aren't slavishly copying Apple's design.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The way I see it this verdict was effectively a make-up call. There was no clear way for Apple to take legal action against Samsung for copying their device, so they found a legal loophole to enable them to do so. While most of us would agree the patents Apple were granted are common sense patents, most of us would also agree that Samsung blatantly copied Apple's design and UX. I think this was an important win because it brings to light two major issues with our patent system: 1. What kinds of things should be granted software/UX patents? 2. How can we create rules that protect companies like Apple who invest in innovation?

<comment><USER7> > 2\. How can we create rules that protect companies like Apple who invest in > innovation?

Why exactly does the biggest company in the industry need to be "protected"?

Making fashionable-looking hardware and putting together some obvious and old ideas (eg., pinch to zoom) is not the same as "investing in innovation".

Apple is the perfect example of how what matters is execution, they are successful because they execute better than their competition, and executing better than your competition is already its own reward.

<comment><USER8> _"Why exactly does the biggest company in the industry need to be "protected"? Making fashionable-looking hardware and putting together some obvious and old ideas (eg., pinch to zoom) is not the same as 'investing in innovation'"_

I read comments like this, and all my brain sees is: "WAAAH!"

Companies don't give up their rights to legal protection once they get to a size that the internet thinks is "too big". And that's a great thing -- it's how small companies become large companies without being killed by nasty parasites who do nothing but copy good products to eat away at profit margins.

As for the argument that Apple didn't do anything innovative: take a walk, please. Unless you're too young to remember the world of cellphones in 2007, you can't make a reasonable claim that there was no innovation in what they did with the iPhone. Lots of people want to _post hoc_ rationalize the fact that the market has been flooded with iPhone-esque devices by calling it "innovation" (as if lower prices were somehow innovative). But I was there, and I _remember_ the phone I had before I had an iPhone: It flipped open. It had a keyboard. It barely fit in my pocket, and had a tiny, low-resolution screen. _I had to buy an expensive, custom headphone to listen to music._

Rationalize whatever you like, but Apple revolutionized the cellphone market, and they deserve the spoils of their risk-taking. If this is how they do that within the confines of the current legal system, so be it. They deserve to win.

<comment><USER9> 1\. Big companies should be less well protected, or there may be a monopoly. Intel is innovative, but it has to tolerate AMD using its instruction set. Big companies is much more dangerous than small ones, you don't want them to dominate your life.

2\. Apple may be innovative, but it should try and be more innovative. The patent system is to encourage people to innovate more, by protecting their innovation. The protection is the means, not the ends. If Apple cannot innovate any more, why protect it? It's not like Apple will die tomorrow if not protected.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Patent system is meant as an incentive for innovators. There is a need to clearly define and enforce:

1\. What is patentable 2\. What is the level of protection that a patent holder gets 3\. What are the terms and obligations regarding patent licencing.

In the absense of a suitable patent system, innovator's incentive will come down. Will it hurt the consumers by limiting disruptive innovation? If it does then it makes sense to see how the existing system needs to be made better. If not, let us not differentiate between software, pharma, hardware or whatever - because innovation in any form requires tremendous leaps of faith and pioneering efforts from inventors and should be protected by similar terms and instruments.

<comment><USER11> Patents are not the only way to incentive innovation. You know what's a great way to incentive innovation yourself? Became an angel investor, those guys are investing in innovation and pushing progress forward many orders of magnitude better than intellectual property is. Don't have enough money? Join an angel group, or fund a kickstarter project. I don't know about the us, but many.countries have programs to inventive innovative startups with funding, incubation and mentorship.

Bottomline is, there are.still means to inventive innovation without granting monopolies. If intellectual property magically ceased to exist, men would still invent awesome stuff. You can have my word on that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I wish Microsoft would be castigated for their aggressive use of mostly BS patents as well. Apple wins a one time only $1 billion payment, but Microsoft is getting to the point where they might get $1 billion from the companies using Android every 2 years or even every year if Android keeps getting even more successful. Is that right? Would it seem right if Microsoft did this to companies using Linux? They are even going after companies using ChromeOS. Why isn't there a bigger outrage towards them? Is it because they take the money in small bites compared to Apple? Is that how they get under the radar? They are making Android cost almost as much as their full phone OS license, thanks to a bunch of patents. That's not right.

<comment><USER13> I hereby castigate Microsoft. Are you happy? MS is evil, but they are broadly happy to be a parasite. They aren't trying to keep their competitor's products out of the market entirely. Other companies, like Nokia, are behaving similarly. And it's hurtful and wrong.

But sorry, it's objectively not as hurtful, nor wrong, as what Apple is doing right now with their shotgun suits, refusal to license at reasonable cost, and demands for import bans.

The fact that Apple is at the top of a very long list of evil doers doesn't excuse them.

<comment><USER3> >The fact that Apple is on a very long list of evil doers doesn't excuse them.

FTFY.

<comment><USER13> Please leave that sort of ridiculousness on Reddit where it belongs. HN aspires (at least it used to) to a higher level of discourse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Perhaps PG can just pin a "Apple vs. Android" discussion to the top of HN so we don't have 20 articles every few hours on the front page regurgitating almost the exact same set of ~20 comment and counterargument types? Am I the only one getting super tired of this?

<comment><USER7> The problem with the out of control patent insanity is absolutely not about "Apple vs. Android".

The patent wars around the mobile market are just a symptom of how rotten the whole patent system is.

<comment><USER15> Sure, that point is brought up every time too. It's not new, insightful, or interesting at this point, it's been discussed to death and repeated hundreds of times. It also doesn't prevent the media outlets from writing these hollow armchair-lawyering Apple vs. whatever stories to gain click-throughs, and it doesn't make it any less boring to see them submitted on HN every hour.

<comment><USER11> Obviously there are still many who don't get it, even here. Until everyone understands what the problem is, it's still worth repeating. We can only declare beating on a dead horse, when the horse is dead. This one is not only alive, but getting stronger. We have a long long way to kill it.

<comment><USER16> The beatings will continue until everybody shares the same thoughts? Now what does that remind me of?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Sorry but the author attribues the deficiencies of the patent system to Apple. If not Apple someone else would have done it. I would also contest the competition argumen by saying that lesser clones in the market make for better competition. The way I see it, I am happy that there will be lesser clones and more original stuff for me to choose from purely from a consumer POV.

<comment><USER18> This "if not Apple someone else would have done it" argument is the biggest pile of horseshit Apple apologists have been spewing since these lawsuits started. Do we see similar search lawsuits started by Google against Bing? Or against Duckduckgo?

<comment><USER19>
      > Do we see similar search lawsuits started by Google
      > against Bing?

What it has to do with search? As for mobile—there were numerous spider-web type graphs showing who is suing whom. You can actually see the lawsuit started (again) by Motorola agains Apple. Motorola is now owned by Google, if you missed that bit of information. Ultimately there are no good guys and no bad guys—it all boils down to the stupidity of patent systems and who you like more.

<comment><USER20> I think his argument is that Google has a big pile of patents in search and distributed systems, but isn't using any of them offensively. So, the whole argument that it's okay to act unethically (but legally) because someone else is bound to rings especially hollow here. As for the rest of your comment, it's a disingenuous argument that's been thoroughly debunked, so I won't bother wasting the time or keystrokes on it.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The original proposal for Type Classes - <AUTHOR> http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/class-letter/class-letter.txt <comment><AUTHOR> Just read the CMU interview of Simon Peyton Jones posted on HN and found the link to this inside. Could really help other beginners like me understand type classes better.</comment>


Theranos is shutting down - rising-sky https://qz.com/1379288/elizabeth-holmess-theranos-is-shutting-down/ <comment><AUTHOR> Ya, well, at this point this is no surprise. They were finished long ago.</comment>


My Bowl of Ramen Might Save Your Startup - <AUTHOR> http://blog.trak.io/my-bowl-of-ramen-might-save-your-company/

<comment><AUTHOR> TL;DR; Dried ramen comes with a fork - not chopsticks. Ramen makers know that their product isn't bought by people looking for a gourmet authentic Japanese meal - they're college students and busy people who just want quick carbs. Look at your product: are you lying to yourself about who your customer is?</comment>


Fighting against a censorship machine (Google Blog) - jim-greer http://googlepolicyeurope.blogspot.fr/2013/09/fighting-against-censorship-machine.html

<comment> jim-greer Google really doesn't want to have to automatically censor search results. European courts might make them do it.

(Full disclosure, my wife wrote this blog post.)</comment>


Busy Person Patterns (2006) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://hillside.net/plop/2006/Papers/Library/PLoP%20Busy%20Person%20Pattern%20v8.pdf <comment><USER2> This is pretty cool

Should be the kind of thing that is in new hire orientations and onboarding training (especially for new grad hires) but basically never is

</comment><comment><USER3> The missing one is, "Eh, fuck it."

<comment><USER4> That is pretty much "drop unimportant tasks" (on page 27)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's like a diversified portfolio of attention, time, and energy investments. Remember to keep some in cash (unscheduled time, my favorite).

</comment><comment><USER6> Wow, this is a jewel! I need to paste snippets of this on my work and study area.

</comment><comment><USER7> I really like the TLDRs for each section in the table of contents. Pretty neat idea. Maybe I don't read enough, but I haven't seen this in a lot of books.

<comment><USER8> Chapter X. IN WHICH PASSEPARTOUT IS ONLY TOO GLAD TO GET OFF WITH THE LOSS OF HIS SHOES

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I love this.

</comment><comment><USER10> Hmmmm.... needs icons. My favorite patterns books (which seem more exhaustively researched) have icons used in diagrams. Makes things more 'real' somehow....

<comment><USER9> Can you recommend some patterns books?

<comment><USER11> Not the OP but I can recommend this: [https://www.amazon.com/o/asin/0321200683](https://www.amazon.com/o/asin/0321200683) and it has icons, too.

<comment><USER12> Are you sure you're talking about the same thing?

This article is about psychological patterns related to task management and productivity. The book you linked to seems about software messaging system design.

<comment><USER11> Apparently ues, because the OP gave exactly the same answer: he was talking about "pattern books" in general, and apart from this pdf and the original Alexander's book the absolute majority of "pattern books" (and articles) is about IT themes.

<comment><USER12> That's quite odd because such patterns and archetypes exist everywhere. It seems like quite a mathematical notion.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Higgs Boson Explained by Cartoon - <AUTHOR> http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120501.html <comment><USER3> From the video around :30 seconds in, "...this is when surprises might happen. Any day could be the day that changed the world."

I am still looking for an answer as to how the world could be changed by the discovery of the Higgs Boson particle. What are some possible outcomes for society? I do not doubt that it will change, and I agree fully with it's value, however, I can't find any specifics in what ways it might change or what new technologies might be created with or without the Higgs Boson.

Also, at a 9 Billion USD price tag, how were our governments convinced? There must be something beyond scientific intellectual curiosity. Those of us with this curiosity may be happy to pay for it, but how were politicians convinced? What value will this provide to the governments of the world who made the decision to purchase this answer.

I'm sure it's not this...

Scientists: "We need 9 Billion to find out if the Higgs Boson particle exists."

Governments: "OK, here is your 9 Billion."

... 15 years later

Scientists: "The answer is yes. The Higgs Boson does exist."

Governments: "Oh, that's really great."

 _Update: I understand and agree fully with the value of this research. I am asking if there are any specific technologies that are expected to be advanced or if it is just added knowledge that could lead anywhere. I am also wondering how it was explained to politicians who don't have specific interest in science._

<comment><AUTHOR> Understanding of how things work, so we can bend them to our will.

Better understanding of the standard model will buy us many things, most of which we don't yet realise will be interesting, useful, fun, exciting, and important. Better understanding of the standard model will possibly give us:

* Quantum computers

* Room temperature superconductors

* Substances strong enough to build a space elevator

40 years ago we had no idea how to build 'planes that were bigger, stronger, faster, and more efficient than the ones we had, and yet people did the basic research anyway, just because they thought it might be useful. They found composite structures, and we got the 'planes and other things. The metals used in car engines have improved enormously, in part because of what was seen at the time as being basic research that might not really go anywhere.

But in the end it's basic science, and we don't always know how - or whether - it will repay itself. For every advance that has gained us something there are other efforts that have led nowhere, but we never know in advance which will be which.

        That's the nature of research -- you don't know
            what in hell you're doing. -- 'Doc' Edgerton

        If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be
            called research, would it? -- Albert Einstein

So who knows what will come out of this. The research could give us teleportation, or Star Trek-style replicators, or dirt-cheap solar energy harvesting paints that cars can run on, or electricity storage devices, or plastics that can be made without oil, or entirely _new_ substances, just as plastics once were.

I have no idea how old you are, but I'm fifty, and stuff exists now that didn't when I was in my teens, partly because of people doing basic research.

<comment><USER3> I understand (somewhat) and agree fully with the value of this research. (Great specifics by the way.) I am hearing from you that we have no idea what we will discover, but it could be anything and likely something really cool.

The question I have is really how it was explained to politicians and decision makers who are not scientific. Was it really, "with this research we could discover anything from teleportation to a better way to make toasters", or was it something more specific?

I currently see our governments doing everything they can to limit discovery and creativity because they don't understand basic science or the Internet. It is interesting and heartening to me that a project like this currently exists and is mostly not questioned.

<comment><USER4> I don't think the top politicians in each country had to sign off on this. More likely the money was already allocated to scientific research and there were people in charge of deciding how to spend it.

<cynical rant>To the extent that politicians did have to be persuaded, they were probably persuaded by other means than that of elucidating the potential scientific payoffs. They were probably persuaded using political arguments, i.e. how it would play with their voters. Politicians are not, in practice, guardians of a sacred trust. They operate by their own rules and for their own reasons.</cynical rant>

<comment><USER5> no no no you're coming at this from the wrong angle.

To the politicians, it suffices to say that "It's bigger than what the Americans got".

The importance of CERN for European science and culture as a whole is an interesting subject, but I'd assume it's had very much positive effect.

<comment><USER6> The timing of the announcement, 4th July, surely suggests this could be what actually transpired.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Slightly off topic:

I admire this method of conveying ideas and information (animation). It's a great way to consume these clips.

The RSA has a whole series of 10 minute lectures which they animate on a whiteboard in this style. The illustrations are brilliant.

<http://comment.rsablogs.org.uk/videos/>

(search for RSA Animate)

<comment><USER8> Those are fantastic. This would be a great way to do a budget "about" video for a startup. Get a decent voiceover with a script, then have your designer do one of these videos.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I still don't get it.

I still don't get how they jumped from "We have this Higgs field" to "and hey, the field is a particle."

<comment><USER10> Don't worry, don't worry. This one of the most complicated theories in physics (apart from string theory) to grasp intuitively. I'm a physicist and I could try to help you.

Think of an excitation of the field. One of the "axioms" of quantum field theory is that the energy of an excitation is related to the inverse square of the wavelength. Don't ask me why, it's just like that. Think of UV radiation or X-rays, which are just light with a higher frequency and you know those radiation is more damaging to the human body than for example radio waves.

Now, are you familiar with Fourier decomposition?[1] It's the idea that all functions are the sum of a waves (sines and cosines). We do the same thing in quantum field theory, we have our quantum field and we write it as the sum of our elementary wavefunctions, which are called plane waves[2]. When you look at a wave packet[3], you can't really say what its wavelength is. Wavelength is not a local concept, as for example the height of the wave, but the wave differs from place to place, so it's impossible to give it just one wavelength! We don't have that problem with plane waves. Because they're the same all over the universe, they have a clear wavelength and thus a well- defined, unique energy. This concept, an excitation of a field with a well- defined energy (and thus a well-defined mass!) is what particle physicists call "a particle".

When a collision happens in a collider, we're actually preparing two plane waves and pointing them in the same direction. As they collide, the wavefunctions of the various fields become incredibly complex. We humans can only "see" excitations with a well-defined mass, or better yet, our detectors can only detect excitations with a well-defined mass. And thus instead of a complicated field, we see a mess of particles going in different directions and having different masses, energies and speeds.

Does that make it any clearer?

[1]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_series> [2]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_wave> [3]: [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Wave_pack...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Wave_packet_%28dispersion%29.gif)

<comment><USER11> This was a very good explanation, thank you. One question: the Standard Model describes a finite number of "fundamental" particles/waveforms, correct? What makes them "fundamental"? Presumably they are orthogonal (or at least span a complete vector space), but there must be some restriction on the (otherwise infinite) domain? (e.g. "waveforms with total energy = 1" and "wavelength is kX where k < 4" or some such.)

<comment><USER10> Are you under the impression that all particles live in one All-Embracing Majesty? That is not true, although all particles of the same type are excitations of a single field, different types of particles have their own fields. For example, the electron and the tau have two separate fields. The weak interaction makes for some mixing, but that is not really important.

If you're wondering why there's exactly 12 (+ 1 for the Higgs?) fields, I cannot answer that question and it's one of the open questions in current theoretical physics.

<comment><USER11> I understand that there are different fields. More so my question is, why are there a finite (as opposed to infinite) number of fundamental waveforms for any given field? My intuition is that this is because the domain of "candidate" waveforms is restricted to those which exhibit particle-like behavior (i.e. compatible with a particle physics). I'm not sure if this intuition is correct however.

<comment><USER12> There are an infinite number of possible waveforms; pretty much any waveform in the electron field is a valid one. What we see as a single electron is simply a "spike" waveform localised in a particular position. There's no reason you couldn't have a more smeared-out waveform that was "an electron somewhere in the universe", though entanglement comes into play at some point.

When we have particular constraints (e.g. known energy) that constrains the space of possible waveforms. E.g. when we talk about there being an electron in an orbital around an atomic nucleus, what we actually mean is there's a waveform. of a particular shape around the nucleus.

Are you asking why we only ever see waveforms corresponding to whole numbers of electrons? That's the "quantum" part of quantum mechanics; certain values are quantized (e.g. electric charged). I don't have a good intuition for why that's so though, except to observe that the time evolution of a system preserves this quantization, so there's no way to ever go from having one electron to having half an electron (for example).

<comment><USER13> At some point "why" becomes impossible - everything just becomes a set of relationships between things that we can define and predict. The only real answer to "why", from a scientific point of view, is ultimately "because that's how it is"

<comment><USER12> Most good science comes of asking "why" - if you took "because that's how it is" as the answer to "why did the apple fall" science wouldn't have got as far as it has. Whenever a theory has some seemingly arbitrary property it's worth asking "why"; sometimes the answer is "we don't know yet", but that doesn't mean it's not worth asking the question.

<comment><USER13> Couldn't agree more - I wasn't thinking about how that might be interpreted when I wrote it..... Absolutely we ask "why" - and look for explanations. I meant nothing with regards to being defeatist and not looking at things - <USER2> that, as far as I can see, even though we'll keep going deeper and deeper and discovering more and more, we'll never get to a final answer (other than perhaps getting to a point where we can't research further without blowing up the universe? I read too much sci-fi.

A final answer would be boring..... WHY is a fantastic question - it's just not something pure science can answer with finality, only layers until we get to an unknown.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I watched it here some months ago:

<http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1489>

</comment><comment><USER15> Depressingly this cartoon is more complex than almost all of the BBC science output.

Broadcasters with the BBC's remit need to have science programmes that are far beyond my understanding. Almost everything on the BBC can be followed by a reasonably smart 14 year old.

<comment><USER16> While I would like advanced science programming, I think the BBC is not the right medium. Particularly, as the material gets sufficiently advanced, it targets a progressively smaller audience. At some point, it is better to have this on the internet than on TV.

It's the same logic as to why there aren't any interesting TV programs about, say, programming languages, but you can find good content on Channel 9 (not really a channel :P) or Google Tech Talks.

<comment><USER15> I agree with you, until I start comparing the amount of heavy duty arts programming on the BBC.

So, on BBC radio 4 you'll have A day set aside for "Bloom's Day", heavily promoted before hand, with James Joyces' Ulysses newly dramatised and broadcast over five and a half hours, in seven slots from 9:00am to midnight; and the cross-promotional stuff.

(<http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01jl7l9>)

This is a considerable amount of time and money on a well known (but little read) book. And when you hear arts items on news programmes no-one stops to patronise the audience[1] yet anything that goes beyond very simple science on news is handled very gently, as if all the audience are idiots. I don't even mind that so much - but it's the lack of any programming at all that goes beyond the curriculum that a 15 year old would study that is problematic. Of course, there are notable exceptions, and I know that it'd be as bad or worse in other countries.

[1] They'll mention names of artists but not bother explaining any context; you're just expected to know that this person is a scupltor or has won some award or whatever; and you're expected to be aware of some of the main themes in their work.

<comment><USER16> Hmm, that's a fair point. And I have seen some programs about art history from the BBC that are probably rather advanced.

Perhaps it's a fundamental difference in the two fields? For something like Renaissance art, you can get away with not knowing too much about other sorts of art; on the other hand, for any sort of even moderately serious physics, not only do you need a good grasp of related physics but you also need a strong grasp of relatively advanced mathematics.

Also, thinking about it, it seems that CS is even more underrepresented than other sciences. At the very least, you see _some_ shows about physics and cosmology and biology, however basic. But I've never seen even a painfully basic show about CS. There are shows about robotics, but more from an engineering standpoint than a CS standpoint. Math also seems rarer than the sciences, but I recall _some_ math shows.

Of course, I watch any sort of TV very rarely, so I have a small sample with a distinct selection bias (namely, I mostly watch what other people in my family are interested in). This bias trivially explains the disproportionate amount of art history (my mother is an art teacher) but does not explain the complete dearth of CS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Can someone explain or point to sources where the implications of finding/not finding the Higgs Boson are clearly quantified?

Or is it that they are not sure what they would do with it when they find it.

Further, how would this discovery affect the modern day/upcoming tech?

<comment><USER18> Current theory predicts that Higgs boson exists. If it is found, the theory is deemed 'correct' (that is, reinforced, not disproved). Then we're a step closer tho the 'general theory of everything'.

If Higgs boson is clearly not found where the theory predict it, then the theory is deficient and has to be seriously rethought or thrown away altogether! It would be exciting time of uncertainty, crazy ideas, and new and interesting stuff to try (like it was with quantum mechanics). Or maybe not — the new and interesting effects may lie far away from the range of masses and energies of daily life (e.g. we don't usually directly see any effects of general relativity).

<comment><USER19> Actually, if the existence of the Higgs boson exists and it is right where we expected it, we are zero steps closer to a theory of everything. To get closer we really need to find something unexpected. Finding something we expected merely further confirms the Standard Model and gives us nothing to work with, even as we know something must be wrong with it. We need clues about how it is wrong, not more confirmation it is correct.

<comment><USER20> It's not as simple as that. Confirming something will make it more attractive to build on and extend. And it will save time that would be spent looking for fundamentally different theories.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It seems as if a Higgs confirmation announcement is going to happen in about 12 hours [1]. A video was briefly up on the CERN site, before disappearing behind a password. Apparently it is part of preparations for an announcement at the International Conference on High Energy Physics, which started today in Melbourne, Australia.

[1] [http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/weve-observed-a- ne...](http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/weve-observed-a-new-particle- leaked-video-reveals-apparent-god-particle-confirmation-20120704-21g63.html)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Found via midko's comment here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4193517>

</comment><comment><USER22> If this is still too advanced for you, and you need to brush up on the atom, proton, neutron, and electron, this video of Venus Flytrap explaining the concept in 2 minutes might be a good place to start. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhbqIJZ8wCM>

</comment><comment><USER23> So if I've got this right, mass shouldn't be thought of as the "bulk" of a thing, it's simply thought of as a charge within that thing. So a photon is a particle of substance that contains no mass charge on it, despite the fact that it has some amount of volume?

<comment><USER24> "Mass", as referred to by physicists is what may be known to others as "rest mass" or "invariant mass". An electron and a positron both have rest-mass. (Think of it as a fundamental property, like charge.) When they collide, the result is two photons that no longer have rest-mass.

It is important to note that gravity affects _energy_ (mass-energy). This is why a compressed spring weighs more than the same spring uncompressed. A spinning ball weighs more than the same ball when it is stationary because there is more energy.

It's an important but subtle distinction that even a lot of physics professors don't quite grasp. Matt Strassler has some very good explanations of it on his page.

<comment><USER13> Great comment.

I want to hijack it and add....

Couple of points along the same lines that I always like to explain to people.

The familiar E=mc^2 we all know - people like to say that means that the energy in a system is equal to the mass times the speed of light (squared) - if we convert between the two. Which is true..... but it's also saying something else. In this formula, energy is measured in joules, and mass in kilogams - the speed of light in meters per second. Importantly, notice the c^2 is a constant - it's there for unit conversion. What we really have is a statement that energy=mass. Energy and Mass are the same thing.

In the same line - there's no such thing as "pure energy" (if I'm wrong, someone educate me, I'm all ears) - people have a hard time with this. Energy is a property of a system that can be calculated. "pure energy" doesn't exist. Radiation is not what we mean by "energy" (though obviously it's got energy) - energy is a property that we can calculate and work with, and a rather important one at that.... but it's not a "thing" or "stuff" or "non-stuff" that moves around... it's a property of a system that can be calculated.

<comment><USER24> Yep. Energy is one of the more difficult things to explain, because it's really more of a mathematical property that results from a conservation law about symmetric transformations (Noether's theorem).

Luboš Motl has a great explanation here: [http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3014/what-is- ener...](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3014/what-is-energy-where- did-it-come-from)

Feynman's explanation is pretty amazing as well. I can't find the one where he gives an analogy to blocks (or something) but here is one definition he gives: [http://www.phy.davidson.edu/fachome/swp/courses/PHY110/Feynm...](http://www.phy.davidson.edu/fachome/swp/courses/PHY110/Feynman.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> What I don't understand about quantum mechanics is the reason nature had to make things so damn complicated. What was the fundamental problem that led to the solution of quantum entanglement, or the duality of the wave-particle situation.

<comment><USER26> Arguably having separate waves and particles would be more complex, since there would be more entities.

<comment><USER25> Yes but why you need to have a wave function in the first place? Why can't we just have particles with a single state?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Shy physicists explain dating and relationships in extremely roundabout way.

</comment><comment><USER28> Awesome video! I had Daniel Whiteson as a Physics professor at UC Irvine last year. My favorite professors ever. Very great at explaining concepts and makes the class fun.

</comment><comment><USER29> love this! it's like khan academy on steroids. It must have taken a lot of work to create. great way for Jorge Cham to get his name out. I'll be subscribing to PHD Comics

</comment><comment><USER30> My takeaway from this: CERN's cafeteria beats the shit out of ours! Years ago I had the chance to visit there and didn't, talk about the road not taken.

</comment><comment><USER31> great cartoon, shame about the cafeteria audio.

<comment><USER32> I thought it added a nice "at the scene" ambience, as if you were in the cafeteria yourself overhearing a great explanation between two researchers. It gave it a great university feel to it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> The cartoon says "Interestingly, you can't have negative mass, or repulsive gravity." It would be interesting to hear why.

</comment><comment><USER34> Fantastic animation, but doesn't give any indication as to _why_ it's such an important search!

</comment><comment><USER35> I has it.

      heep://jessecrockett.com

<comment><USER35> <http://jessecrockett.com> ? ...

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Another particle, another Nobel prize.

</comment><comment><USER36> So if mass and charge are both just attributes of particles, what is the "charge equivalent" of the Higgs boson? And if there isn't one, then why is it assumed the HB exists? Why cant particles have a innate "mass charge" in the same way they have an "electric charge"?

</comment><comment><USER37> waste of my fucking time

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not sure why you would take time out of coitus, obviously an activity you would enjoy, and watch this instead.

Would you care to explain further?

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> All I want out of it is an anti-gravity device.</comment>


Introducing Cake: Great conversations about topics that fascinate you - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@chrismacaskill/introducing-cake-great-conversations-about-topics-that-fascinate-you-6093ca405c95 <comment><AUTHOR> This could be interesting, and it's certainly timely. Hope it works. I signed up to get an invite.

Ryan Grove (@yaypie on Twitter), director of engineering, says:

"We want Cake to be a place where people have great conversations. That means we're not interested in being a platform for hate speech, harassment, and trolls, because those things aren't great. Cake was built with this in mind from the beginning, not as an afterthought."

[https://twitter.com/yaypie/status/977263143817699328](https://twitter.com/yaypie/status/977263143817699328)

</comment><comment><USER2> I'm not trying to be cynical here, but what is the difference between this and following hashtags that interest you on any other social media platform?</comment>


Jakob Nielsen: iPad apps need more interface consistency - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/7746134/Apple-iPad-apps-need-more-consistency-says-usability-guru.html

<comment><USER2> Isn't it a lack of structured and required interface consistency which pushes UI's to experiment and find new and better ways of doing things?

The examples in the video are just VERY badly designed apps. I don't think it has anything to do with 'interface consistency' as it does with hiring a good UI/UX designer.

</comment><comment><USER3> I have been thinking about user interfaces a lot in the back of my mind. I think that most applications could be made much more usable if the user actually had an idea about what kind of data the application is actually handling, where it's getting it and how it can be manipulated.

What I would like to see is an UI that can represent any kind of data within a consistent framework of GUI-widgets or whatnot. Everything in the UI should be searchable, inspectable,sortable and otherwise manipulable via some real programming language.</comment>


Ask HN: Where have all the coders gone? - <AUTHOR>

I have been spending months trying to track down the coder of my dreams - the one Seth Godin is always talking about.
You know what I mean - results oriented, and gives a personal touch to every line.  Especially someone who's starting out and really loves tearing it up.  Perhaps I'm just looking in the wrong places?
If you think you know someone like this, would you ask them to drop the rest of us non coders a line.
As for me, an email to email@example.com will work just fine. <comment><USER2> Does anyone have any idea on how "hard" it is to create software? The toll on a person who is "tearing it up", without break, for a year. Oh, and not for their direct benefit?

You are seeking a person in the upper percentile of intelligence, fluent in a specialized skill set and asking them to pull off some solo Death March that should require 5-10 people minimum, and for what, to be the "coder" while the idea man is running around with half-cent business cards with CEO in front of their name.

Assume this person _is_ this smart, maybe even smarter than you, most likely he too has realized its easier to be the idea man than to be the guy who has to do all the work.

Ergo the world is stuffed with idea men and suffers a dearth of doers.

<comment><USER3> I agree with your conclusions but not your reasoning.

It's certainly hard to write software, but I don't agree that writing software is harder than the non-technical work for a start up. Programming is deterministic (for a smart enough person) in that effort goes in and software comes out.

Sales, marketing and PR is highly non-deterministic and getting it right only looks easy in retrospect. Hours and hours of effort goes in, and you might get back magic or horse manure regardless of how good you are - although there are people who have a decent average at obtaining magic.

The reason I agree with you however is that a lot of the 'idea men' pitching programmers are no better at the required non-technical disciplines than a blind man navigating a maze on a moonlit night with a bag over their head after a drinking session.

I suppose the only way you can tell if a prospective partner is good is to sell if they can sell something - and if they can sell you on working with them that test is passed. Self selection in action!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think you should post a job offer. Nice sentiments are appreciated, of course, but people actually might want to know about you first and what you want done. Otherwise your post has plenty of warm feelings and zero information, as it is.

</comment><comment><USER5> I hate this "rockstar coder" thing. Whenever I see a job offer where they're looking for a "rockstar coder" I'm automatically repulsed, I always think the company is run by 2x year old fanboys who believe everything they read.

Who describes themselves as a "rockstar coder"? If you're young and realistic about it, you can't have enough experience to tell. Most good experienced programmers I know are modest people and would never describe themselves as "rockstars" and would never apply to such an offer.

This seems to be a way to get "arrogant coders" to apply...

<comment><USER5> If you're looking to hire a good programmer, think of what good means to you and what specific skills your project needs and write them down. Writing "rockstar programmer wanted" is a hint that you can't even do that (instead you're pushing hype-speak), which sets off alarm bells. Also, at the end of the offer you can write something like: if this sounds interesting to you but you don't exactly fit the bill, you can still apply, but also attach an explanation why you're interested and why we should be interested in you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Hmm, "just starting out," "loves tearing it up," and "results oriented." So you want someone young that you can work to death and not pay very much? What exactly are you offering that would make such a person want to work for you? Whatever Seth Godin is telling you, we developers are people that are motivated by more than developing code for free so that business people can get rich. Maybe you can't find these great developers because they don't think you offer them anything that they couldn't get from every other nontechnical person that just wants to exploit them. I don't see one thing in your post that suggests that you do.

</comment><comment><USER7> I don't know about other programmers but I got out of the game. I still program for myself but I got sick of people asking me for miracles. I was to make them happen but it drained me every time and was consuming my life. The other programmers had a more balanced view (corporate programmers) and didn't think about programming outside of office hours but I couldn't do that. I tried working for a couple of startups but they all failed so I decided to change industries. Programing is essentially problem solving and problem solving can be used almost anywhere. I still program on my own projects but not during work hours and to be honest it feels great.

<comment><USER8> "but I got out of the game."

So what do you do these days, if it is ok to ask?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Aah, the elusive _rockstar_ coder.

I would suggest you rewording when looking for a coder as in your case: explain briefly what is expected of them, what they would be doing, the technologies/languages in use. If those are too specific or have not decided yet, then you're looking for a technical co-founder instead of a coder.

</comment><comment><USER10> We're hiding from you! Check behind the couch

</comment><comment><USER11> There are loads. They want lots of money, no management bullshit, and respect - otherwise they'll just go do their own thing.

<comment><USER12> "I'm looking for a rockstar coder who can solve all of my problems, do all the graphics design and layout, magically take my half-cooked idea work in a perfectly scalable and performant way in multiple natural languages in only 80 hours per week for 10 weeks. And will be thrilled with the 25$ an hour I'm willing to pay him/her".

I grow weary of the above conversation (note it's not really ever much of a conversation. I mostly just listen, nod, and then tell I was joking when I said I was a programmer).

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> All the good ones are probably working on their own ideas.

<comment><USER3> Or full time for someone else - only a small number of the professional programmers I know do 'out of hours' coding for fun or profit. The ones that do tend to be restricted to a fairly narrow age range and are working on their own things or with a well-trusted friend.

Despite the fact that I am running my own business I frequently get asked to work on <an idea that is sometimes good but usually not interesting to me> by  who seem to be under the impression that because I can code I'd be happy with a 5% equity stake and will jump right on it.

I take it as a compliment that they think highly of my abilities and try to be helpful by trying to point them at people who are looking for work, suggesting some ways they can make their pitch more credible (for example, committing to the prospective programmer how many hours they will put into PR and sales work), and resetting their expectations up to about 50% of equity.

Right now the tables are turned on me as I would love a good PR and sales person to work with (not business admin - I'm good at that). But I need someone who can fund themselves for 12 months and so that puts me firmly on the wrong end of the supply/demand equation for once. The experience has given me a lot more empathy with the B school grads out there looking for coders.

<comment><USER14> developers looking for non-technical partners - now that area would be in demand. The power shifts to the developer, but that would be a good thing for the project. A site for this would be great - developers would never have to take a project again that they don't like again (well that's a goal). One of the logistics involved is geographical dispersion of founders: is that acceptable, and how can it be overcome?

<comment><AUTHOR> When do we get to work?

<comment><USER14> when people pay you, and go into partnership with you. You are being paid for your ideas and your skills. Is that what you mean?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Ok. So you are a real coder looking for a real coder. 1 : Take no care to the resumes. Do not let anyone filter postulants. 2 : Recieve yourself everyone 3 : You'll know in a matter of minutes if he's a real coder or no. Well, if you're a Real Coder.

=> Anoying but small invest of your time. That pays.

<comment><USER12> Wait .... wat?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> See, there is a fundamental problem with this. You, as a non coder, will NEVER be able to tell who is and who isn't a "rock star". And odds are, your dream coder will probably not want to work with you. Unless of course you're working on something really cool with a bunch of other really smart coders.

</comment><comment><USER17> I am sorry to say this.

        Coding is no longer treated as adding value to the company.

</comment><comment><USER14> linkedin or meetup.com is a good place to start. Otherwise try a local software house, but they may not help much with requirements or take equity - and you'll pay high prices, but at least you can meet physically and get the ball rolling.

</comment><comment><USER18> if you're looking for someone who's "starting out" and is "the dream coder" at the same time, you're most likely looking in the wrong places indeed...

</comment><comment><USER19>
      Long time passing.
      Girls picked them every one.

But seriously, these kinds of coders are very difficult to get your hands on, you might want to go read some of Joel Spolsky's writtings on how to interview programmers.

The basic problem, as you have found, is that the greatest programmers aren't looking for a job, not even now during a recession, and certainly not with you.

Standard advice involve networking, showing up at user groups, trade conferences, et cetera.

These can take a long time to work however, so in your case I would take a look at how to make your company more interesting for the type of people you want to attract.

Try to look at your company as and outsider might do:

1)What would a great programmer love about the work? Because , as you might as well face now, you are not going to get anybody really good really excited about the prospect of maintaining an in house Java ERP system. You would have a good chance to get one to work on a new system build in Clojure though.

2)How are your managers going to treat people? The old fashioned manager based on the military/factory hierarchy or the new get out of the way so the people can do awesome work while I watch their back politically?

3)This is something you might not have thought about, but do you really need this type of person? They are way better technically, but Joe the coder is going to be way easier to satisfy, employ, manage, keep around and replace. You don't need the rangers to take Berlin, you need a lot of expendable barely literate soldiers.

Anyway this is just a few things you might want to think about.</comment>


The Power of the Marginal (2006) - <AUTHOR> http://paulgraham.com/marginal.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Re-reading this made me think about how honest the start-up communities "test's" are.</comment>


Implementing your own programming language in Rust in one hour - <AUTHOR> https://gitlab.com/frondeus/meetup-2019.02 <comment><AUTHOR> slides: [https://gitlab.com/frondeus/meetup-2019.02/blob/master/Meetu...](https://gitlab.com/frondeus/meetup-2019.02/blob/master/Meetup%20%238.pdf)</comment>