EFF taking on software patent reform - <AUTHOR> http://defendinnovation.org

<comment><USER2> EFF's position is too moderate. 5 year monopoly on software ideas? If not even the EFF is willing to take an unequivocal stance against software patents, the trolls and the system will keep their legitimacy.

We should not be afraid to take (seemingly) radical positions. Fear of offending the status quo is what keeps it in place. Not too long ago the idea of patenting a theorem or a gene was dubious; the moderates may only slow the tide, not push it back.

<comment><USER3> A 5 year monopoly on software ideas is no more ridiculous than a 5 year monopoly on mechanical ideas or chemical ideas.

<comment><USER4> Very different. The cost of coming up with chemical compounds is often quite large. With software most new work is done by very few people.

<comment><USER3> At the same time, a successful chemical compound might mean tens of billions in sales. A modest software innovation might have a very niche application with much smaller sales.

Is a small research team less entitled to protect their novel work than a big corporation?

<comment><USER5> If you use the word "entitled", you're thinking about this wrong. Patents are not designed to protect fundamental rights (e.g. to a "reasonable" profit), they are designed to maximize societal good by balancing a monopoly incentive with the benefits of open use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "If the patent is invalid or there's no infringement, the trolls should have to pay the legal fees."

By offering to reduce the time to five years, they are implicitly supporting the idea of using and defending the patent for those five years. You might legitimately think there's infringement and then the court might find otherwise. Calling anyone who goes to court with a patent a troll seems unnecessary in that case.

"Infringers should avoid liability if they independently arrive at the patented invention."

You don't pay damages, and then what happens? Do you still have to get a license or can you keep going because you invented it on your own? Also: how do you prove you independently arrived at the patented invention? Who's burden is it to prove / disprove it?

</comment><comment><USER7> Wrong. EFF, this is not what we the members are asking - software patents should be abolished, not changed to "acceptable" terms. It's just a boil-the- frog strategy. There are no conditions that would make software patents a good thing ethically and economically.

<comment><USER8> Indeed. I was about to go contribute, but then I saw that it's a total concession in principle. I don't want haggling over how much when a robber robs me at gunpoint, I want the robber to be stopped. I don't want a concession to the principle that robbing is legitimate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Number 4 is a tragically bad idea: "Infringers should avoid liability if they independently arrive at the patented invention." I love the EFF (and donate) but as a litigator it appears entirely unworkable. The root problem is that this proposal commingles the standards for copyright and patents. In copyright law, independent creation means there was no copying, and thus no infringement. Patents (sw or otherwise) are entirely different and exist for different purposes. Patents protect early work done by inventors from poaching by later (or larger) entrants. The inherent tradeoff is that the inventor must disclose to the world how his invention works in exchange for receiving a limited time period of market exclusivity. (EFF #1 is spot-on that the current time period is too long for software). However, the EFF is saying "If inventors can't understand a patent, then they, as a matter of logic, cannot copy it. Likewise, if inventors don't know about a patent, they cannot copy it." If all inventors required was copy protection, they could rely on existing copyright law. Patent protection is important because it protects 'non-literal' duplication through the doctrine of equivalents and other established principles. Done right, a patent system should protect small inventors whose creation is groundbreaking in their industry, but that could be easily reverse-engineered or duplicated by the big players based simply on recreating the inventor's product without literal copying. TiVo vs. cable DVRs is a good example.

<comment><USER10> Yes #4 could be problematic if not implemented carefully, but it is addressing a real problem. Parallel evolution is commonplace in the tech industry. In the current system, if two (or three, or twenty) companies legitimately and independently happen onto the same idea, whoever gets the patent can blindside the others. Often after the other inventors have made large investments in developing and fleshing out the idea, possibly to a much greater extent than the patent holder. This makes no sense, whether you're interested in promoting innovation, or simple justice and fairness.

<comment><USER3> I think the impetus for #4 goes away if we raise the bar for obviousness, which we need to do. If you patent a complicated system, it's vanishingly unlikely that someone will come up with an independent version of the same idea within the patent term. If 20 companies legitimately happen onto the same idea, to me that suggests the idea is too obvious to be patentable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> A lot of people think we should get rid of software patents entirely. I'm curious to get peoples' feedback on this:

I spent years working for a wireless startup. Our innovation was in the domain of software, but our product was not software--software just drove the product (military radios). The algorithms took years and millions of dollars of research to derive, and we patented them.

I think that business model is valuable, and it's extremely common. The companies that manufacture radios, telephones, networking equipment, etc, don't necessarily have the agility to come up with innovative software, and the small firms that can come up with innovative software don't have the manufacturing capability to go into the end-user product market. Software patents allow them to focus on their core competencies, then engage in mutually beneficial transactions with the assurance that the legal system will keep them from getting ripped off.

So my question is: how would businesses like the above work without software patents?

<comment><USER11> Unless you open-source your code or describe it publicly, I can't tell what algorithm you use.

So there are 2 possibilities here:

1\. Your algorithm really requires years and millions of dollars of research to develop, in which case you have little to worry about - your competition is years behind you and probably doesn't have millions of dollars to spend on re- developing the algorithm. Trade secrets will work for you just fine.

2\. Someone can quickly and cheaply come up with the same algorithm independently from you, in which case you don't deserve patent protection in the first place.

When it comes to patents, everyone brings the "super hard, expensive to develop" case, which carries the assumption that they're so smart that no other persone on the planet can come up with the same idea.

The reality is that even the patents that survive in courts and reap millions of dollars in damages, are laughably trivial and are a result of routine work of software developers, not to mention the vast number of patents that were granted and then stricken down during litigation, but only after both sides spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on said litigation.

<comment><USER3> > Unless you open-source your code or describe it publicly, I can't tell what > algorithm you use.

But how do I sell it to someone without opening the code or describing it to them? With trade secrets, I'm forced to go into the business of building military radios (or whatever). What sense does it make for a small shop of wireless technology experts to go into the manufacturing business, learning how to manage supply chains, support end-users, etc?

That's the very problem patents were designed to solve 200+ years ago when they were introduced. To allow a separation of design from manufacturing. To allow the guy who invents the telephone to sell it to someone without going into the business of making telephones.

Think of other property abstractions, like stock. Stock allows separation of the roles of investor and manager. The CEO doesn't have to come up with the capital to buy the company, and the shareholders don't have to figure out how to run it. That's a useful separation of concerns. Patents allow separation of the roles of designer and manufacturer. ARM can focus on designing CPU's and patenting the novel features. They don't have to get into the business of manufacturing all of the different products that might contain their CPU core.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Tangential, but was just thinking about this today.

Last week I visited the white house as a part of this program -> <http://www.businessfwd.org/>

The two topics I brought up with the administration were patent reform and immigration reform. Brought up all the obvious issues that play on HN frequently. Today I got a follow up email intro to someone at the USPTO and here's a copy of my reply to that person. I also pointed him to the defendinnovation.org.

Text of my message to USPTO----

The main concern I brought up during the white house visit was around software related patents and frivolous lawsuits by trolls. I'm sure you get this question often from technology and startup folks, but in my opinion it's pretty clear that the USPTO is effectively levying a giant tax on output of my industry due to issuance and complicit enforcement of patents around elementary concepts.

To me the biggest costs to our economy come in the form of -

\- fear of patent conflicts prevent new companies from doing truly novel things that would generate jobs and innovation

\- costs of licensing patents from trolls or patent groups impede growth of companies at the most delicate nascent stage (e.g. MPEG-LA or Intellectual Ventures)

\- settlements out of court with trolls and/or direct costs of litigation to defend (for the bravest large companies who want to take a stand, e.g. google)

\- giant piles of money burned litigating frivolous patent disputes between large companies as a proxy for competing directly in the market (oracle vs google)

In general software patents attract the worst elements of the free market. People and companies that take advantage of the system, who extort, abuse and profit from the structural deficiencies of the USPTO. A typical patent troll group will acquire a set of frivolous software patents covering concepts in use in literally any major piece of software so that technically every large company is an infringer. They will then approach a set of large or medium companies with a veiled threat and offer to sell a share of the patent troll entity. They give a choice to their target to get on board or take an ethical stand and if the victim chooses the later, they'll get sued for infringing and likely be forced to settle because truly there is infringement according to the drafting of the patent that was granted. It's the modern mafia.

The root cause of all of these problems are two fold

1 - granting of patents for non-novel and trivial software and concepts

2 - inability to efficiently litigate and have a patent invalidated by demonstrating that it is truly trivial

Google is a major force of good in this fight and the Oracle litigation has shown my industry a great deal of hope on this front. In particular Judge Alsup on that case showed a very keen understanding of the technology in question and how ridiculous the patent was that Oracle litigated with. That story had a happy ending, but honestly in large part because of that one judge. If this were a different court there could have been a vastly different outcome.

[http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57445082-94/judge- william-a...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57445082-94/judge-william- alsup-master-of-the-court-and-java/)

My question to you is simple - How can we address these root causes?

The current patent system and review system was not designed for software and is clearly failing to adapt to the current environment and pace. USPTO is granting patents at an ever increasing rate. We quite literally are in such a broken state that I would wager that every piece of software being sold today is infringing on some patent. How long until that structure completely halts the development of any innovation at all?

Too big of an issue to ignore. Thanks for listening.

</comment><comment><USER13> Recently someone posted a link to change.org petitioning the EFF to take a tougher stand on patents:

 _Petition the EFF to Oppose Software Patents_ \-- <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4134873>

</comment><comment><USER14> I appreciate their efforts, but I disagree with a couple of their points. First, their use of the term 'troll' automatically imbues the reader with a sense of the type of person from whom this effort attempts to protect innovators: people whose single business purpose is the collection and enforcement of patents. That's simply a small, yet quite vocal, subset of the majority of people who benefit from patent law, and who should be entitled to protect their inventions.

With that in mind, I completely agree with limiting the term of software patents. In fact, I agree with limiting the terms of patents, generally; not inventions are the same, and technological innovation across various sectors does not progress at the same rate. Pharmaceutical patents, for example, typically aren't enforced until FDA approval occurs (which is sometimes up to 15 years later, giving them only 5 years to recoup the often immense investment in the research leading to the drug!).

The second point is awful: why should someone with a bona fide claim in patent infringement have to pay when the court rules against their favor in something that's an arguable question of law? Claim construction is done by the court; that is, the judge is the one who decides what claims in a patent mean. If the judge's decision goes against what you reasonably believed to be a correct construction of the claims and the defendant then prevails on a motion to dismiss, but you appeal, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reverses, but then the defendant appeals and it goes to the Supreme Court, which agrees with the original judge and by dint of their judgment creates new law? Shouldn't both parties have to pay their respective attorneys' fees here? Of course. Oh, you mean cases of vexatious or malicious litigation, which are effectively extortion? Call the bar association of the lawyers involved, and file an ethics complaint. Patent trolls can be kept in line with ethics complaints.

I disagree with 3, because it violates due process unless there are significant changes to the Patent Act. Keep in mind: there's a major difference between sufficiency of disclosure and _actually_ practicing an invention. Patent law has never required an inventor to actually produce or manufacture their invention, because it understands that sometimes, this is impossible. In software cases, what happens if you've imagined a beautifully complex system that's novel and non-obvious, but the software, skills, time, etc. required to bring it to fruition preclude you from doing so for whatever reason? What if you instead wish to license the invention to someone who can produce or manufacture the software? This provision would perpetuate corporate oligopolies by entitling those with the resources to reap the benefits of patent protection. We cannot allow this to happen.

That brings me to independent inventions: I'm on the fence about this. Copyright law has something similar to this, but patent law doesn't, and I'm not really sure why. My only idea is that during the inventive process, you will always be looking to prior art, and a reasonably prudent person would likely discover the patented subject matter during this process. Of course, this doesn't address the concern with an 'ignorant inventor' independently inventing something patented. Here's the issue: issued patents are published, and the public is 'on notice' that this invention is no longer in the public domain. Of course, there are more than 7 million patents, of which maybe 2 million or so are active. While possible, it's just not the best use of someone's time to ensure that they're not infringing on someone else's invention. But it's also unfair to the inventor who took the steps to patent their invention if this 'independent inventor' is allowed to reap the benefits of something taken out of the public domain with notice given. I guess the problem we have is that notice isn't 'effective', and that falls onto the patent office: they need a better categorization system. This is a problem with the executive branch, rather than the legislative or judicial.

Finally, I just want to talk about the sixth point, that someone shouldn't be allowed to collect 'millions' for a 'tiny infringement.' To me, this discredited the entire post, because it unnecessarily muddies the water with regard to liability. Patent infringement does not lead to treble damages (which I guess they fear), but willful patent infringement does. When an inventor sends you a cease and desist letter and you continue to practice the invention knowing that you're infringing, then you're liable for enhanced damages. But, you have to continue practicing the invention in willful disregard to the patent--it's a jury question.

In short, the patent system IS in need of reform to take into account the mutability of technological advancement. However, let's not jump to conclusions and pollute the Patent Act with exceptions to a technology that appears on its face to be an exception; we need to find and eradicate the root cause of the perceived injustices.

<comment><USER15> I think independent invention is really key to the whole issue. If a particular problem is solved in a similar way by multiple independent parties, then the solution on its face should be unpatentable due to obviousness. Independent invention should always be permissible evidence in overturning any extant patents.

The whole idea of a patent is "but for my ingenuity and investment you never could have solved this technological problem. Therefore you must pay me to use my solution."

If it is not the case that nobody could have solved the problem but the patent holder, then the patent is invalid.

<comment><USER14> That's a very good point, but recall that the standard is the hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. From KSR, we know that it's this person who's the baseline for determining which, if any, inferences or creative steps are obvious.

If a person NOT falling within this definition were to independently arrive at an invention and could have arrived at the same invention prior to the issuance of that invention's patent, then there's an issue. KSR states: "a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." It follows that a hyper-creative, one-of-a-kind person who proves that he or she independently arrived at the invention would not be this hypothetical person. Although obvious to a genius in the art, it was non- obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. That's where I disagree with your reasoning.

EDIT: This is not to say that the genius in the art should be out-of-luck. He or she should be entitled to continue practicing the invention, but the patent itself shouldn't be invalidated. This should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and treated as an exception to the general rule.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I think this is a good set of reforms to investigate, but I think a real problem is simply the PTO issuing bad patents, a large percentage in the realm of software, for the past decade or so. By "bad" I mean failing a basic novelty/obviousness analysis.

I think it's more of an issue in software because software developers are essentially producing tens of "inventions" a day, every day, any of which are potentially infringing due to poor PTO operation. Whereas in something like chemical engineering a patent might affect maybe a few hundred other well- capitalized firms at a single point in their process, in software for any given app/developer potentially multiple patents are implicated in the course of a normal day's work.

A lot of patent trolls seem to be exploiting "we got here first nya nya" patents. That is, they patent solutions to problems that the market has not deemed significant enough to solve yet (like in app purchasing, before the iphone). When the market does move and encounters these problems, the straightforward solution(s) are developed, and then in swoops the patent troll.

The PTO just needs to become more sensitive to the unique industry that is software development: the high natural rate of invention, the high likelihood for multiple independent similar solutions to problems, the fact that a problem hasn't been solved yet doesnt mean the first submitted solution should nor can be patented, etc.

I think if a patent holder can show "but for my solution, you never would have solved this problem in a reasonably efficient manner" then sure, let's protect his IP. Determining when that condition is true is obviously difficult, but the current PTO strategy of giving the benefit of the doubt to the patent applicant has proven a bad bet.

</comment><comment><USER16> I say, at that point, let the FSF "reform" software patents.

</comment><comment><USER17> This seems like a good first step.

I never understood why people think we should try and abolish software patents. We can't. Period. There's too much money in them. We can attempt to reform or reshape them so they are less destructive, but crying for total abolition seems to be akin to attempting to abolish the IRS. It might make sense in a perfect world, but it will never, ever happen.

<comment><USER18> _> There's too much money in them._

This is not an argument. I'm pretty sure there was a lot of money in the slave markets as well. Didn't stop the US from abolishing it, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> If we're going to be moderate about this, the source code should need to be public and open sourced after the term of the patent expires.

<comment><USER20> I think that's probably covered by this: "Patent applicants should be required to provide an example of running software code for each claim in the patent and tell the Patent Office which claims are covered by which lines of that code."

The reference implementation in the patent itself would almost certainly be public domain once the patent expired.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> It is already against the rules to patent an algorithm, as they are considered mathematics and thus unpatentable.

The reform we need is just better application of the existing patent rules.

<comment><USER22> Anyone know the legal distinction between an algorithm, which is not patentable, and a business method/process, which apparently is?

I wonder if a viable legal strategy could be to have the definition of the former extended to the latter in some way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Most important of all, if you want a patent, provide working code.</comment>


Building a Forum with Clojure and Angular - <AUTHOR> http://www.flyingmachinestudios.com/programming/building-a-forum-with-clojure-datomic-angular/ <comment><USER2> This is a great article! It's very close to the stack I think I'd chose to build a web fronted project nowadays - with the exception of Haskell on the backend. I'll post some more thoughts when I've properly digested it. Thanks for sharing!

</comment><comment><USER2> Any reason why you didn't go for clojure script for the front end?</comment>


So much help, so few startups - <AUTHOR> http://blog.8thcolor.com/2012/09/the-meta-startup-world/

<comment><USER2> "The number of companies, people, administrations, tools, software dedicated to help or support startups is overwhelming. While insomuch a good news (especially for us), I'm worrying somewhat that more people and energy seem to be dedicated to help startups that to make startups."

That's where the money is. You can make a nice, steady living selling pick axes to gold miners on their way to disappearing into the mountains.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not sure I like the analogy (as a gold miner disappearing into the mountains), but it certainly made me laugh.

I remember someone saying that one of the biggest winners of the incubators processes were sometime the incubators themselves (via the equity they get in the companies they help). You analogy is not that far.

Thanks for the thought.

Martin</comment></comment>


Search engine relevance - an empirical test - <AUTHOR> http://blog.doloreslabs.com/2008/04/search-engine-relevance-an-empirical-test/

<comment><USER2> Yes, it is true that Live, Yahoo and Google are pretty close in terms of relevancy. People think of Google being the best, but the fact is that other engines are catching up. There are 200 search engines out there and most of us only know about the 4 big ones. Back in 1997, everyone used Yahoo or MSN and thought they were the best. Same applies to Google in 2008. There will be other players that will take over in the next few years.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think the test is a good idea but the 'relevance raters' are only looking at the listing results - not the actual page. The relevance of the actual page is far more important to the user experience than the listing text. A clever 'made for adsense' site could scam the listing but obviously not the actual content.

</comment><comment><USER4> The more important question is, for the prices they are paying for labor over at Mechanical Turk were the participants sufficiently literate in the English language.</comment>


Two Perspectives On API Product Design - <AUTHOR> http://www.metalaureate.com/?p=926

<comment><USER2> Interesting post and nice approach. Would be really nice to see some examples of unit-test specs and how they translate to the actual API implementation.</comment>


Ask HN: Idea already implemented by others. How to differentiate? - <AUTHOR> I've got an idea which I've been thinking to develop as a side project... until I discovered (here on HN, by the way) it's already been implemented.
What would you do to differentiate the product? What steps would you follow? Or would you drop the ball altogether (hopefully not!)?
For instance, from what I can see:
- though the target audience is the same, it's live in a continent different than mine - so maybe I can play that card instead?
- the pricing plans are all subscription-based, so I was thinking maybe I can introduce a "Pay as you go" tier, instead?
I guess, my bottom-line question is: what dimensions would you (or did you) consider to differentiate your product? <comment><USER3> Execution, delivery and all the subtleties therein. Sounds deceptively simple and it is but the details are what matters. People can have the same idea but execute and follow through with very different results.

For example: plumbers all basically do the same job. Except they don't. They vary in how well they do it, how well they turn up on time, so in general their technical skill and quality of execution has a big impact.

Another example: Movie makers have the same or similar idea as others. Except the idea is executed differently. Technical skill still matters but the idea itself needs to be fleshed out differently to avoid "being too similar". Synthesise not replicate.

In business, you provide value. Figure out to what degree you can simply replicate (plumber example), to what degree you need to synthesise (movie maker) and for how far you can innovate towards differentiation (be better than the other plumber). Sometimes you just replicate with a few twists just enough to not make it too identical (Better movie maker example).

Get others _in your market_ to provide opinions of the other company's offerings. Is it price? Is it the breadth/depth of the offering? Can you leverage something about your environment differently? Some aspect of your teams skillset? Speed of delivery?

Another way of looking at it: if you were to set up as a franchisee of that other company how would you do it? What would you need? What costs? Where would you operate from? Make lots of assumptions and sanity check them. If franchising is unfamiliar, if you were to set up a business from scratch how do you plan on proceeding?

<comment><AUTHOR> > People can have the same idea but execute and follow through with very > different results. Or not execute at all as is my case ;)

But I see what you're saying. Most of these, I suspect will become clear after people start using the product (e.g. breadth of offer, delivery, differences in the environment).

Others should probably be clarified from the start (e.g. price, quality/expectation).

Thanks!

<comment><USER3> Sometimes _not executing_ is the best plan. Taking the wrong action is best avoided altogether. But also, just doing it small can help. Don't buy all the trappings of success unless they matter.

I wrote all that having done wooden furniture as a sideline for a few years. There are many competitors doing this. Skills are a factor but there are plenty of people better than me, especially when I started. But I realised I wasn't actually competing with them. I was only competing against the inefficient / less experienced version of _me_.

Its kind of like reading other people's experience of running a coffee shop and they all had nightmare situations but you start small anyway and subsequently discover it wasn't that hard and you succeed anyway. Your execution of the idea is different. You bring different angles on everything so your results are different.

See how you go. Business is one of the strange things in life. It succeeds or fails in all sorts of ways. People are always wondering how or why but the full story isn't usually linear or clear.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I can't give specific advice without knowing more about the idea, so I'll keep it general.

I think pretty much whatever you do, if you do it long enough, at some point you are going to discover there is a competition. It is a validation that your idea makes sense.

In your case you discovered it early, even before you started. But does that really matter? What would your decision be if you have been working on the project for 1, 3 or 6 months and then discovered it? I would ask myself that question in your situation.

If somebody had the same product idea, it is not like they "own" it now and you are not an original anymore. If your intrinsic motivation for doing it is strong enough and you want to do it long-term, it shouldn't really matter. Of course, I am assuming here your competitor is also in the early stage and has not overtaken 90% of the market.

You don't even have to differentiate in the beginning - why would you? You can both offer the same service - there are Pepsi and Coke, Intercom and Drift and they basically offer the same service.

As the time progresses, it is likely both of you will differentiate more and more, and orient toward a specific niche of the customers.

You even have an advantage coming in the second - you can learn from the existing solution and make it better.

So alltogether, I would say that the main question is whether this is something you personally want to do long-term or not, whether you have the internal motivation for it. If it was just a "quick" idea you had and the main motivation was to make a quick buck, then probably not. But if this is something you are interested in and want to keep doing it, then why not.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're right, had I discovered this earlier or in a few months' time, it wouldn't probably have made much difference.

I admit I've never thought about _not_ being different from the start. Thanks for the encouragement!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Hey there varlock! It's a good thing you're asking this question here.

Now the answer to your question[s] will really depend on what it is you're trying to build (and more importantly, sell).

Take for instance a website like Stackoverflow, it will be quite hard for anyone to develop and get people to use an alternative for the same because the entire value the website delivers is derived from its user base.

However, if your idea is something like Mailchimp, it will be a lot easier for you to build and sell the same because the value delivered by the product depends mostly on whether it works for prospective users and your ability to convince them about the same.

> What would you do to differentiate the product? What steps would you follow?

I would pick a niche (subset) from the market the incumbent player is catering to and build something superior catered only towards them and then grow horizontal from there.

> Or would you drop the ball altogether (hopefully not!)?

Hello no!

Depends of whether networks effects are an important aspect of the incumbent's success and the resources that are at my disposal. So if I don't already have a bunch of money or risk appetite (even in terms of time), I wouldn't really invest myself in doing a marketplace sort of thing (where network effects matter i.e. product value is derived from user base).[1]

If network effects don't matter and I can build and sell this thing on my own or if I at least have access to the sort of people that can help me, I would go ahead. This might be a good read: [https://invertedpassion.com/copying- ideas-is-highly-underrat...](https://invertedpassion.com/copying-ideas-is- highly-underrated/)

> What dimensions would you (or did you) consider to differentiate your > product?

Pick a niche from your competitor's market. Get into the skin of your user / customer from this niche. You'll start finding aspects which you can improve and build upon to make a prospective user possibly switch. Don't dismiss things like being a small bootstrapped company with an accessible team can be a differentiator too.

[1] - However, this will differ a lot from person to person because everyone's risk assessment in life is quite different based on their goals and current situation.

<comment><AUTHOR> Regarding the example of Stackoverflow vs Mailchimp, it'll be definitely more on the Mailchimp side.

As for the niche to pick, it's not yet clear to me what I can focus on - <USER2> looks like we're targeting the same people - but maybe it'll be clear after a while. Maybe, as @matijash was saying, I can start without differentiating and then do it down the line.

In terms of resources, it shouldn't cost much in terms of money, but it'll probably be in terms of time, as it'll be hard to fit the day job, family and this side hustle together.

Also, thanks for the link - definitely an enlightening read!</comment></comment>


Laser Tracking Projection with Kinect and OpenCV - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1heqFVrQGU

<comment><USER2> Nice! Here's the description:

 _What I did was rig it to track contours on the depth image, and attempt to pick out a rectangular object. Then, by using the detected location of the corners, I can apply it as a perspective transform to my laser projector. The end result is that the cardboard box I'm holding becomes a "virtual screen" that is tracked by the laser projection in real time and in perspective :)_

Reminds me of Johnny Lee's awesome Projector-Based Location Discovery and Tracking work: <http://johnnylee.net/projects/thesis/>

Also, there seem to be a fair number of Kinect projects popping up nowadays. Is there a website to keep track of all this? If not, perhaps it would be worth someone's effort to start a blog on the topic...</comment>


Even if you're rich, you could die poor - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/get-there/the-color-of-money-book-club-falling-by-william-mcpherson/2017/03/31/698bfee6-13d3-11e7-833c-503e1f6394c9_story.html <comment><USER2> Here's the link to the primary article. Must read for all, it's eye opening.

[http://www.iasc- culture.org/THR/THR_article_2014_Fall_McPher...](http://www.iasc- culture.org/THR/THR_article_2014_Fall_McPherson.php)

<comment><USER3> This is the spooky part:

> The pension would start twelve years later when I was sixty-five. What cost > a dollar at the time I accepted the offer, would cost $1.44 when the checks > began. Today, what cost a dollar in 1986 costs $2.10. The cumulative rate of > inflation is 109.7 percent. The pension remains the same. It is not adjusted > for inflation. In the meantime, medical insurance costs have soared. Today, > I pay more than twice as much for a month of medical insurance as I paid in > 1987 for a year of better coverage. My pension is worth half what it was. > And I'm one of the lucky ones.

<comment><USER4> I'm glad you highlighted this paragraph, but I'd say it is much worse. Sure, the headline inflation rate may be 109%, but that is just for a limited basket of goods. Other things like _RENT_ have gone up far more than that, many multiples.

Also, not sure how this person pays only "twice as much for a month of medical insurance" compared to 1987, my rate is up more like 500%. Almost everyone I asked pays 500% more per month for medical now than when my friends graduated (2001), plus the deductibles are higher ($5 or $10 --> $50 for basic visits; $5000k+ total annual.)

<comment><USER5> The author has phrased it awkwardly, but he's saying his insurance costs have increased more than 24x. He pays a monthly rate that is double his yearly rate in 1987, and had better insurance in 1987 to boot.

<comment><USER6> I think it's pretty hard to compare insurance from 1987 to insurance from today.

There's all sorts of treatments that simply didn't exist. And a lot of them are pretty expensive.

There's been huge medical inflation, I don't dispute that, but new, effective treatments are going to increase the cost of insurance outside of medical inflation.

<comment><USER5> Oh sure - to be clear, the "better insurance to boot" was just my paraphrasing of the author. I fully agree with the idea that it is hard to directly compare whether a particular insurance in 1987 is better or worse than a particular insurance in 2017, for just the reasons you stated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> This reminds me of the Andrew Carnegie Fortune. He was one of the riches man of his time but only left his family enough to be comfortable when he died but none of his descendants are rich. Even his brother's descendants, who were left a rich inheritance, are now having trouble financially.

Here's a link to a Forbes' article on it. [https://www.forbes.com/sites/chloesorvino/2014/07/08/whats-b...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/chloesorvino/2014/07/08/whats- become-of-them-the-carnegie-family/#37a1fdf27b55)

</comment><comment><USER7> let's-tryagain posted a now dead comment:

> I have no desire to gloat over someone's misfortune, but it would be useful > to hear exactly how the subject of the article went from 401k/real-estate- > income/savings to "I'm-broke". I know he had a heart attack, but there is > some other vague reference to "spending too much" in Europe which honestly > sounds like papering-over poor judgement. We can't learn how to swerve > around the potholes if we don't know where they are. Maybe McPherson fell > down a particular hole like a bad lease or a partnership gone bad...I would > like to know so I can avoid the same fate.

I have to agree, you can't downvote this into oblivion. The fact of the matter is if you have money and income you go poor by spending too much or being forced into a position which drains you of your money. You can't ignore this. But this article doesn't mention a single thing about it. There are plenty of rich people who don't die poor.

<comment><USER8> You can vouch for comments now (and I did for that one), it seems it wasn't downvoted to dead. It was born dead (check their history, didn't read the comments but enough dead posts to see they'd been shadowbanned).

</comment></comment><comment> lets-tryagain I have no desire to gloat over someone's misfortune, but it would be useful to hear exactly how the subject of the article went from 401k/real-estate- income/savings to "I'm-broke". I know he had a heart attack, but there is some other vague reference to "spending too much" in Europe which honestly sounds like papering-over poor judgement.

We can't learn how to swerve around the potholes if we don't know where they are. Maybe McPherson fell down a particular hole like a bad lease or a partnership gone bad...I would like to know so I can avoid the same fate.

<comment><USER8> What I gathered was poor budgeting (oh, I've already spent $2k this month, well another $200 won't hurt), poor market timing (not much to do here, but do avoid panic selling), and poor management by others (while overseas, this is easier to avoid today with the relative ease of self-managed brokerage accounts).

In some other financial management threads some folks say "earn more, don't worry about budgeting" (that's an almost literal quote I've seen a few times). Ignore that advice. Budget, invest, and spend wisely. Examine what you really need (financially) and do your best to stick with it. Figure out your budget, stick to it, grow your capital each month (on average, some months will be negative because of a big purchase, but outside those outliers you should see more growth than shrinking).

Invest wisely. Don't buy (much) of a stock a friend or friend-of-a-friend tells you about unless you understand it well enough to judge it yourself. I'm focusing my investments within industries I have familiarity with and index funds, this has turned out well so far (a couple "throwaway" investments based on such tips, for relatively trivial amounts of money, one worked out decently, the other was a complete bust). Pay attention to who is managing your money if you're not doing it yourself. Stay on top of their reports. Do not ignore it for a long stretch of time (this burned me with a mutual fund that changed management and started doing terribly, changed again and recouped the losses but should've been worth so much more by now).

Plan your tax strategy. For salarymen, this means planning your retirement contributions and other things to maximize the tax benefit and yield the best per/year net income (including within retirement accounts). For contractors and business owners, this will be more complex and I can't speak to it.

Plan for emergencies, but you can only do so much here. This is partly offset by insurance (I've never been without health insurance, and with one necessary surgery in 2006, the insurance coverage saved me enough to cover all my premiums through 2011 or 2012; other surgeries and things since have put me in the positive through 2020 or later).</comment></comment>


Why the Apple Watch is not a sustainable brand - <AUTHOR> http://www.creativebloq.com/hardware/why-apple-watch-not-sustainable-brand-41514738

<comment><USER2> as hundreds of other articles have said already; comparing the Apple Watch to a traditional watch is the same as comparing an iPhone to a rotary phone. They're similar in that they can tell the time / make phone calls. They're vastly different in that the former is basically a mini computer on your wrist / in your pocket and the latter is just a watch / phone.

If all your going to do with your Apple Watch is tell the time, then yes, you'd be happier with a Tag Heuer. I have a few watches - Tag, Movado, Tissot, etc... They're all vastly different in they're appearance and I wear them on various occasions (though my Tag is my favorite, until Friday). I can't imagine I will stop wearing an analog watch; formal events, meetings with clients, etc... a nice watch is a great accessory.

And a watch recording my heart beat and sending it god knows where, for, you know, research, is vastly different then a camera staring at me, day and night, recording my every move and sending it somewhere for research.</comment>


Show HN: Visualizing Postmates' first 1000 deliveries in San Francisco - <AUTHOR> http://1000.postmates.com/ <comment><USER2> That is one hell of a sexy (and dynamic) infographic (and page). Congrats on launch. Pat your designer(s) and frontend devs on the back for a job well done.

<comment><USER3> I felt like the numbers were too big compared to the text describing them.

I agree that it _looks_ impressive; but I wouldn't say it was as easy to consume the data it is trying to show.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi, i'm one of the founders of Postmates. We just launched Postmates but in the last 3 month we did over 1,000 closed beta deliveries in San Francisco. We created this infographic to share some of the insights with you. It would be great to get your feedback!

<comment><USER4> Hi Bastian. Postmates looks very cool, but the site seems a bit sparse with details (I did find the help page, but it was very hard). For example, if I wanted an item delivered, does it need to be boxed up like I would if I were shipping with UPS (e.g. cardboard box, packing tape, etc.) or are you guys more flexible (or, alternatively, can you guys deliver a box to the shipper, wait 2 minutes to get it packed, and then ship it)? How flexible are delivery times?

<comment><AUTHOR> Eridius, this is great feedback. We can probably do a better job at describing this process. You do currently don't need to warp your deliveries with Postmates - so we're pretty flexible. Today our couriers can transport items that "one" person can carry but we will extend that in the future.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why create your own courier company? Why not leverage and consolidate others. For example, <http://www.phantomcouriers.com/> Phantom Couriers is the Web 1.0 version of Postmates up here in Canada. I could see them benefiting from a new UI like Postmates offers... they would already have the contracts with law firms, etc....

<comment><AUTHOR> We're using existing couriers - instead of creating a new courier company, we make them more efficient and give them awesome tools.

<comment><USER5> Ahh! I had no clue! Awesome you're doing that... would love to use you when you come to Vancouver, Canada.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Congrats!

Note to self: great visualization; very good javascript; what would I do to get those guys on my team ...

Note to bastian: you may consider adding viewport statistics to your google analytics account (you can add many other useful events the same way):

[http://wishfulcode.com/2011/11/02/measuring-viewport-size- wi...](http://wishfulcode.com/2011/11/02/measuring-viewport-size-with-google- analytics/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Zeratul, that's very kind feedback!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Congrats on hitting the milestone! The UI is really wicked. Props to the designers. Mind sharing the technology behind it? All in HTML5?!

<comment><USER8> Hey there,

I developed the site but we have our amazing head of design, Skyler, to thank for the beautiful layout.

The First1000 site is entirely native javascript/html5/css3. No jQuery or frameworks. I believe that frameworks are fantastic but only if you are utilizing their full potential. In the past I've included jQuery for random bits and pieces but I found myself coding around it and I really don't like including a library where I only use a couple of its functions.

Here are some of the cool things we included.

Multiple background images in CSS3. This is a beautiful thing. We should rarely have to nest divs inside divs to achieve a layered background effect now.

Transitions (Webkit, Mozilla, Opera etc have their own implementations) for most of the animations you see on the site. I found myself using the transiton-delay: property a fair bit too. This is really helpful as you can set a delay before the animation start point. Using delays is how we make the flip cards start from the top left and gradually flip over to the bottom right. Each group of flipcards (diagonally) are given a different transition- delay. We transition opacity, width/height, top/left positioned coords and background-colors.

We use Transforms to achieve rotation. Each card has a slightly different angle ranging from -3deg to 3deg. If I had NOT been using transforms then I imagine each card would have been a nightmare to implement at an angle like that. It would have taken forever and I would have had to use images for the text. Thankfully you can transform an entire div (and its contents, of course) with ease in CSS3.

As you scroll down the page you'll notice the switches on the right highlighting depending on which card you are viewing. jQuery has plugins for this kind of thing (to see if an element is visible in the current viewport - <http://remysharp.com/2009/01/26/element-in-view-event-plugin>) but I thought it would be a nice challenge to achieve this effect with native javascript.

For things like numeric figures ascending from 0 to 5700 (for example) I used javascript's setInterval() function with a very short interval adding +10 to the innerHTML of the container. The loop breaks and clearInterval() is called, stopping the loop when the desired number, 5700 is reached.

I used a lot more absolute positioning that I would like to, but it worked out very well.

Transparent PNGs positioned above each card give the 'noise' effect.

I took advantage of lossless PNG compression (using Google Page Speed), and minified our CSS and Javascript.

Other cool things like text-shadow to make text appear to be slightly raised, or impressed always come in handy too.

Thanks :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> i have to know which stop light in SF is 20 mins - google turns up nothing.

<comment><AUTHOR> :) Did you click on the video link? It was actually when Obama was in town for a fundraiser.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> <https://1000.postmates.com/> doesn't show the right page, 443 seems to be not properly configured for this domain.

</comment><comment><USER11> Just a note, doing some liberal hovering over elements might reveal additional interesting facts to you about the first 1000 deliveries.

</comment><comment><USER12> 5.7 miles in a city that is 7x7 miles?

Also, 43 minutes to go 5.7 miles? Is that round trip?

<comment><USER13> It's San Francisco, so between the hills and the traffic, an average of 43 minutes for 5.7 miles (~8mph) doesn't sound unreasonable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Love the animation. Congrats guys.

</comment><comment><USER15> Very pretty.</comment>


14-Year-Old Prodigy Programmer Dreams In Code [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DBXZWB_dNsw#!

<comment><USER2> I actually don't think dreaming in code is that uncommon. It's happened to me a number of times. I once had a dream about flirting with a girl I liked in SQL. When I woke up, the queries were actually useful in solving the de-duping problem I was working on!</comment>


Ask HN: Anyone else getting invalid cert for HN? - <AUTHOR>

In Chrome, I'm now getting NET::ERR_CERT_AUTHORITY_INVALID when trying to load https://news.ycombinator.com/.<p>If I open up Safari or FireFox, it loads fine... <comment><USER2> Cert looks fine in FF: [https://i.imgur.com/W7RWBhw.png](https://i.imgur.com/W7RWBhw.png)

Also no issue in chrome (39.0.2171.65 m): [https://i.imgur.com/tEQVCP6.png](https://i.imgur.com/tEQVCP6.png)

</comment><comment><USER3> Nope, looks okay here. Sha1 Thumbprint follows: da 4f f2 2d 77 27 ca 03 7e c4 5a cc e8 0a 8c db 97 c2 32 2f

TLS 1.2 and AES 128 GCM ECDHE RSA

What do you get?

<comment><AUTHOR> Same thing, but saying COMODO is invalid CA. I can't remember deleting any root certs, but it must just be me. Strange.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you have OCSP checking turned on you'll occasionally get this error with a cloudflare backed site.</comment>


How to Build a Killer Startup: A Chat with Chill's Brian Norgard - <AUTHOR> http://reyhanilaw.com/blog/how-to-build-a-killer-startup-a-chat-with-brian-norgard/

<comment><USER2> cool! thanks brian. i liked what you said about a startup's success also requiring an understanding of user psychology.</comment>


Waitlisted – Wait list management for startups - <AUTHOR> https://www.waitlisted.co/ <comment><AUTHOR> Waitlisted uses a waiting list for its own signup (of course!). However you can bypass that and get an account straight away if you use the link on Product Hunt: [http://www.producthunt.com/tech/waitlisted](http://www.producthunt.com/tech/waitlisted)

</comment><comment><USER2> Of course, a waiting list, how else could it be. Love the recursion ;-)</comment>


Google's "Immigration Fixer" - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/googles-immigration-fixer/?hp

<comment><USER2> When reading the comments of the users at the NYTimes article, there is another thing that pisses me off: all those xenophobic comments that say "send the foreigners home" etc. etc.

They forget that more than half of techonlogy companies had a foreign born founder. If these idiots had their way, probably many technology companies (which make about 17% of the US economy) wouldn't had existed today.

I am all about have good filters, to let the smart people (that there is a need for) in, and give them full rights of movement/freedom (no H-1B shackles), but just kicking people back home is a recipe for future economic malaise. And one of the senators that is raising a big ruckus is from Alabama! (I the bottom of the barrel in technological terms). I hope people stop listening to these populist voices, unless you want your country look more like Alabama.

It kinda looks like a version of: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFG2P-toC6k>

<comment><USER3> Dude, I hear you. But you need to recognize how much abuse and fraud there was and continues to be in these programs. I agree that there are some idiodic trolls out there, and they're easy enough to refute. But you should not equate all criticism (even very intense and angry criticism) of this program with this kind of "idiotic xenophobia".

First, a recent repot on the H1B visa showed that 6 of the top 10 users of this visa were Indian outsourcing companies - using the visa to cycle a worker through the US and then back to India. Of the remaining four in the top 10, two were US based outsourcing companies. According to Ron Hira, some of these companies were paying their "critical workers that couldn't be filled with Americans at any price" a $12/hr wage! I don't think it's fair to lump talented engineers with this sort of program, but this is the sort of thing that sounds almost designed to rouse populist anger. Here you have Microsoft and Google claiming that the cap is too low - but then you see that most of these visas are snapped up by non-US companies that are mainly interested in moving jobs offshore as quickly as possible. That screams for reform, but instead, the response was always to just lift the cap even higher.

People often point out that a high percentage of tech companies have one or more foreign born founder. Andy Grove and Sergey Brin are often mentioned. However, these folks didn't come to the United States on a work-related visa. The US takes over 1.2 million immigrants a year - and many of these folks become founders of tech companies. To me, this would imply that we _don't_ need an H1B visa to keep the pipeline open - our existing immigration system is already bringing plenty of talented folks here.

We need reform, badly. I think it's very important that the US be open and welcoming to top talent from around the world. But I think we instituted a program that pretty much enabled employers in the US to fire ordinary US citizens and replace them with ordinary foreign nationals under the guise of bringing in "Best and brightest."

We need intelligent reform (which should not, in my opinion, amount to unlimited visas for anyone who wants one). But instead, we may throw the baby out with the bath water. This is what happens when the powers that be fail to reform an obviously broken system to the point where populist anger takes over.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's incredible. Do you have some good articles that describe the problem? I've actually never heard the opposing viewpoints.

<comment><USER3> Here's a link to the original story on businessweek (the link is msnbc, but the original story was on businessweek)

<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17048048/>

The quote from Ron Hira was on an NPR dicussion program...

[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1424156...](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14241565)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've had to do this for a job before. Basically, the beauracracy requires that a position always be advertised even if they already have staff that can do it. I was hired by the company as a contractor at first. When a permanent position became available instead of just asking me if I wanted it I had to do a dog and pony show. My manager wanted to give me the job (it was my freaking job, just a different badge) but told me to type up a job post and be real specific. I walked down to HR and handed in the posting with my CV.

Stupid HR drones sent back five CVs and mine wasn't among them. I had to sit down and interview these poor guys without hinting we were wasting their time. And while everyone I interviewed could have done my job, the amount of time retraining would add more overhead

<comment><USER5> However the important distinction in your case is that you were doing it for internal beauracracy reasons. If you were doing it to get a work visa for someone the practices you describe would potentially be illegal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is a specific example of a vast industry: "compliance". Any corporation of a certain size has people on the payroll whose sole job is to make sure the company breaks the law as little as possible.

I would be interested in knowing how big this industry is.

</comment><comment><USER7> _The printout on Ms. Doyle's desk includes names of five people who applied for the job. Ms. Doyle has determined none of them qualifies. (The desired candidate must have a Ph.D. in computer science, and specific technical skills in geo-location programming)._

Appears then that another potential solution would be to create more American born PhD students in the relevant fields.

How can we do that? How long will it take? How much will it cost? What position has the power to put something like that together?

<comment><USER8> Why? What is difference does it make to you if some guy who was born in the US got the job, or some guy who was born in India got the job?

Really, this idea that people should prefer people who happen to be in their "own" "nation" is rediculous, nationalism is rediculous.

<comment><USER7> Why do we have any laws controlling immigration at all? Why can't anyone migrate and live/work anywhere they want and for any company they want, doing any kind of work they want? Why do nation states exist at all? Passports, visas, check points...

Why does any of that exist?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Now is it just me, or is finding the person you want to hire, and then advertising for the position locally, getting the cart before the horse? Whadaya bet the advertisement is overly specific and tailored just for the guy they want to hire?

<comment><USER2> Blame the immigration rules. It is actually harder to file for a GC, if the person is not already working there.

It works like this: 1\. Company hires guy that is foreign. Some are coming from abroad (unfortunately some are coming from the "sweatshop" factories from india), while many, like myself, come young and were educated in the US, and are usually pretty good at what we do.

2\. Foreign guy has max 6 years of staying in the country. He needs to get something done. He has already friends, maybe a gf/bf, maybe a house. He is fully integrated, and wants to get a GC, so he is not amymore a "second class human being". Company likes foreign guy, as he is very productive/good, whatever, so they file for GC>

3\. In order for the Green Card process to go on, the company has to demonstrate that there are not americans that want the job. They will have to advertise in the news papers, and internally in the company for 60 days. If there are any suitable american employees, the process stops. The american guy doesn't get hired, (why would a company let go somebody that is already proved to be a good engineer?), but foreign guys application stops.

4\. Most companies want to keep the foreign guy/girl. He/she is already proven, so they will try to make the position available as closely to mirror what the guy's experience is. There are clear limitations, as by law they can't request things that are unreasonable (like foreign languages, or experience/education that is not revelant for the work).

This is a clear example where the "Laws" are out of whack with the reality and needs of companies.

If there have been layoffs in the company for hte past 6months, it becomes even harder for the process to move forward.

Now, you can say, well there are plenty of US workers that just need a little retraining blah blah lbah.

Well, let me give you a clear example. I am a mobile engineer. Been working on the field for 6 years (since the first java phones came out). My official title is "Senior Software Engineer", but that doesn't really tell the story of the huge experience that I have accumulated this years, with trial and error.

Imagine a startup, advertises my job. A US person that has maybe few months of experience or no mobile experience at all,and his title is "Senior Software Engineer" doesn't necessary make him more qualified.

you can claim, well the company should take the time and "train him", as it is the patriotic duty to do it. I say bullshit. An early stage startup might not even survive wihout the product for the whole year that this guy needs the training. I'd rather have a startup hire somebody that can get product out, and be able to hire more people later, than hire somebody that doesn't know what they are doing, just because they happen to be American, and risk everybody's job.

Sorry, but that is very un-american.

If you want to just completely stop foreign talent, you are just Detroiting silicon valley. Technology companies will start looking exactly like govermernt/defense companies (where you have to be a us citizen to work, in most cases). Everything comes late, and over budget, and eventually, in a global economy, they will just die.

<comment><USER4> I wouldn't be too quick to judge defense contractors. I have friends that work at some. These guys do professionalism with a capital-P. You will hear of the occassional disaster story about a project but most (and there are tons) fly under the radar on time, on budget and to spec.

Please remember, a lot of smart people got burned after the dot-bomb. It's not like that sat around for a few years waiting for work to pick up on the internet. A lot of engineers went into defense, unlike the bay area, they pay in cold, hard cash. You rarely ever hear of a defense company going under.

<comment><USER2> "You rarely ever hear of a defense company going under." -- 1. There is no real competition. The taxpayers have been footing the bill all along. 2. The DoD just canceled a bunch of projects and one of the reasons are "Project have been systematically late and the budget has spiraled out of control". [http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/04/gates_budget....](http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/04/gates_budget.html)

Think about it, ALL startups in the silicon valley, COMBINED (even with Facebook's 15 billion evaluation), are not worth not even 10% of the 530 billion dollars a year that is the defense budget.

<comment><USER10> That's hardly a fair comparison.

You're comparing the valuations of software startups with the entire operating budget of the military? You first need to discount salary, equipment, maintenance, etc, all costs not relating directly to software.

A more realistic comparison would be comparing the defense budget to the entire economic output of the bay area. Even then it's apples and oranges.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _The desired candidate must have a Ph.D. in computer science, and specific technical skills in geo-location programming_

Sounds like an additional solution would be to make more American born PhD's in the technical fields.

<comment><USER11> Sure, but how? And why not both encourage our citizens to pursue advanced degrees _and_ poach smart people from other countries? What's the downside?

<comment><USER7> That's what I was saying, "an additional solution"

How is you make college cheaper, you reward productivity, you forget no child left behind and start thinking about providing advanced opportunities for the gifted children.</comment></comment></comment>


Raising a child without disclosing its gender - <AUTHOR> http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/babiespregnancy/babies/article/995112--parents-keep-child-s-gender-secret <comment><USER2> I submitted this yesterday: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2576144>

No comments, no upvotes.</comment>