Ireland to ban new petrol and diesel vehicles from 2030 - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48668791 <comment><USER2> The first thing which needs to change:

"Coal and peat continue to be used for power generation. In 2017 coal and peat accounted for 49% of carbon emissions from electricity generation, despite only accounting for 19% of electricity generated.The result of this is that the carbon intensity of the Irish electricity was the fourth highest in the EU in 2016, despite all our progress on using renewable energy."

[https://www.seai.ie/resources/seai-statistics/key- statistics...](https://www.seai.ie/resources/seai-statistics/key- statistics/electricity/)

<comment><USER3> Peat? Seriously? Peat in Tasmania (Australia) is protected, because it occurs in national parks. This suggests it is a big deal for biodiversity. Yet apparently people are burning it for energy...

<comment><USER4> [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braunkohlebergbau](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braunkohlebergbau)

In Germany they have relocated some 100.000 persons over the years, just to mine and burn lignite (not peat - corrections) for electricity. I think that's crazy. (The irony is that the Green party is currently the strongest political party in Germany, but the energy sector seems to have a stronger influence, go figure)

<comment><USER5> Peat == Torf

<comment><USER4> Not a big difference to the environment, is there?

<comment><USER6> Peat is worse.

That's not to say lignite is in any way "good", it's still a horribly inefficient way of getting energy. But peat stores large amounts of methane and carbon which gets released when drying it. Mining lignite coal also release some of that, but in much smaller amounts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> For Ireland this makes total sense. It is a small country on an island, so 99% of the cars do not travel the distances we do in larger countries/continents. Almost every electric car in production in 2019 can cover any city pair in Ireland. Looks like a smart move to me.

<comment><USER8> > "The weighted average trip distance is 9.4 miles. Vehicles owned by urban > households averaged 8.5 miles and rural vehicles averaged 12.1 miles." [0]

In the U.S, a considerably larger country than Ireland, greater-than-EV-range journeys are outliers.

The same purchasing decisions that are applied to vehicle capacity will get applied to range. People don't own large vans for the once-in-a-decade they move house with all their furniture. Owning an EV that can do 200 miles might be the norm, but the regular journeys are <10% of that.

[0] [http://www.solarjourneyusa.com/EVdistanceAnalysis7.php](http://www.solarjourneyusa.com/EVdistanceAnalysis7.php)

<comment><USER9> Average journeys are incredibly short, but also not really relevant. If I get a car that can only travel my mean trip distance, half of my trips can't be traveled without refueling during the trip. Even the 95th percentile, as analysed by the linked article, isn't very useful. A car covering 95% of trips still can't make 1/20 trips. The car needs to cover _at least_ 99% of trips, making me refuel only during 1 out of 100 trips. Some people will even demand covering 99.9% of trips.

The borders of an island simply cutting off the long tail of trip distances does a lot to reduce required range.

<comment><USER10> You can always rent a car with a higher range for long distance trips. We could build much more efficient cars if we optimized for normal usage, that is, 1.1 people in the car, short trips, city speeds and moderate acceleration, instead of building 250HP monsters that can tow a house and using them to sit alone in traffic jams. If you have exceptional needs, rent something for the day.

<comment><USER11> I just have to laugh at putting "250HP" and "monster" together....

I'm a gearhead, I daily drive a ~320HP car and am building a 600HP car, so I realize I'm a statistical outlier when most people just wanna sit in their appliance and commute to work as cheaply and safely as possible. A future of nothing but minimum-range electric toasters on wheels is probably resource- efficient, but definitely sounds depressing and boring to me.

<comment><USER12> I would think that a gearhead would love e-motors given their torque and general performance.

Telsas generally trounce all other cars off the line. The (still vaporware) Rivian has a 200hp e-motor at each wheel.

Most folks won't ever use this type of performance, and most folks won't buy high-spec EVs, but to write them off as an entire class seems silly IMHO.

<comment><USER11> I have nothing negative to say about the raw performance of electric motors. As you've said, the torque delivery is simply insane, there are very clever applications of using them to cover the "low points" in the torque curves of turbo-charged petrol engines and whatnot. Putting an electric motor in each wheel gives independent torque vectoring with probably less complexity than a traditional AWD system. From a competitive racing standpoint they have value and very interesting applications.

But from a driver experience/driver engagement standpoint....they are lacking. Same reason why car enthusiasts would rather have a manual transmission than an objectively faster-shifting dual-clutch trans. It's about how your interaction with the machine makes you FEEL.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wonder how much was driven by them missing all their 2020 EU targets, and the prospect of ever bigger €??bn fines on the way to 2030 targets...

Still, the whole plan is reasonably well thought out. They have considered that the need to retrofit most existing buildings to bring them to acceptable standards, they are suddenly keen on community heat and power, and that business will be reluctant participant and so on.

Going from 30% to 70% renewable, and closing all coal and peat in ten years might be a challenge, but it's in the plan.

A couple of glaring holes around plastic and agriculture, but a bloody good start.

</comment><comment><USER14> This is only a proposed policy, it is not a law, it hasn't even been voted on by parliament.

<comment><USER15> And with elected representatives like this, I wouldn't be putting money on this becoming law any time soon: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2e-gOeN3DM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2e-gOeN3DM) or if it does become law, expect it to become a rolling target that gets kicked down the road rather than a fixed one.

<comment><USER16> That's Danny Haely-Rae; he's an idiot, yes, but not in the ruling party and generally politically irrelevant. This agreement is government policy and will very likely become law.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Good, and I'm also not sure that EVs are the answer anyway, because I don't think cars are the answer.

</comment><comment><USER18> Good. Measures like this are finally starting to approach the level of urgency required to have any realistic chance of averting the worst climate disasters.

Obviously Ireland is a small country and won't have much impact alone, but at least it's dawning on some policymakers that this isn't a problem for "the next generation".

<comment><USER19> I agree this is good. But 11 years feels to long, I wish it were sooner. Remember this is only the sale, not usage.

<comment><USER13> Cars is but one small measure of their pretty comprehensive - and challenging - 2030 plan. Not sure they could go much quicker.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Ireland has some excellent wind resources. They already seem to have over 4 gigawatts of nameplate capacity.

</comment><comment><USER21> That is something Germany should have done years ago. They have an industry to shift.

<comment><USER22> Won't really make any environmental difference since they'll have to produce more energy. Since germany utilizes gas and coal you will basically shift to that from petrol since they shutdown their nuclear power plant

<comment><USER9> The climate impact would be limited in Germany because of the large amount of electricity produced from coal. But it would still make an _environmental_ difference: German cities have a big problem with particulate matter, which seems to be a major cause of lung cancer and other resparatory diseases. Moving pollution out of the cities into electricity plants would be very beneficial, even if there was no climate effect at all (which there will be because the power mix is consistently changing for the better, with coal becoming uneconomical).

<comment><USER23> There is still a problem with electric cars, the tires also produce particles that are carcinogenic.

"Electric vehicles emit no NO2 but do produce small particle pollution from the wear on brake discs and tyres and by throwing up dust from roads. A recent European commission research paper found that about half of all particulate matter comes from these sources."

<comment><USER9> EVs use their brakes less because of regenerative breaking. The particulate matter of tires is for the most part comparatively big an heavy, so a larger part of it stays near the ground and gets swept away by rain, and could be cleared in problematic locations by wetting the street (also bigger particles seem somewhat less problematic for health).

You're right that EVs don't fully solve the problem, but they are a giant step in the right direction.

<comment><USER24> EVs are also generally concerned about overall weight and have smaller tires on average than non-EVs in their respective categories.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> While I absolutely agree with the goal of reducing our species carbon production and associated impact on the environment, I have a more personal and selfish concern with these proposals. The only way I'm able to have a reasonably nice car with good handling and entertaining performance is by buying a used car from probably 10-15 years ago. The sorts of cars that have nice leather seats, a sunroof, maybe a v6 or smaller v8, think the 2004 Subaru Legacy.

Given the rate of failure and failure modes inherent in current battery technology in things like Teslas and such this market simply wont exist leaving me with a choice between keeping a petrol powered nice car going with whatever tax and fuel increases are decided, or buying the absolute cheapest electric car available with whatever comforts, safety features and plain enjoyment I lose in the process just being part of the deal. I'm sort of disappointed that my personal hobby is going to disappear soon and what's left for people like me will be the Hyundai i10 of electric cars forever more.

I'd still prefer that to not having a planet to live on though...

<comment><USER26> I think this is the thing - it will take some lifestyle and leisure changes to make that happen, and individual freedom is simply not as important as fixing this - given that not fixing this is equivalent to losing all individual freedom via horrific means.

Where I live cars are already somewhat unwelcome - and everyone bicycles or takes trams, metro, buses and trains. They are removing parking spaces by the thousands. Cities are gradually ceasing to be built around cars.

The notion of high car ownership in the future seems questionable at this point full stop.

<comment><USER27> I envy you. It's the other way around in the third-world country where I happen to live. As the people climb out of poverty they deem it necessary to buy bigger and bigger cars. I think easily half of transport on the roads are giant SUVs, which are built like tanks and take 1.5 lanes. Each car takes ten times then space of one fat-ass behind the wheel.

Also, I personally know a guy who makes a decent living from knowing (and applying) how to circumvent pollution controls on many car models. He has a large wait list from locals who want to up their fuel consumption by 20-30% to be able to make that 100 km/h one second faster.

Absolutely nobody I ever talked to gives one flying fuck about environment pollution. They don't even care if it affects them personally (and it does, judging from the constant cough you hear from everybody all day long, and my sore throat, which has been sore every day for the last I don't know how many years).

<comment><USER28> That sounds pretty grim! Which country are you in?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Is it just my misplaced optimism, or are many countries suddenly now 'aware' of our climate change issues?

<comment><USER30> They are aware that a shift in the car market is happening. Therefore they can legislate that this thing that is already happening must happen and claim credit when it does.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Bureaucratic mandate of technology is probably an important step in making people think not just of themselves.

</comment><comment><USER32> Yeah, not buying it until I see the plans on how they're going to increase the national grid to power this.

<comment><USER33> I'm not familiar with Ireland's grid, but if it's anything like Britain, there is already more than enough capacity to power a fully electric vehicle fleet, provided a significant portion of charging happens at off-peak times.

This is something that has been studied in some depth in the UK:

[https://theenergyst.com/millions-electric-vehicles-sooner- pr...](https://theenergyst.com/millions-electric-vehicles-sooner-predicted-no- sweat-says-national-grid/)

[https://www.nationalgrid.com/group/case-studies/electric- dre...](https://www.nationalgrid.com/group/case-studies/electric-dreams- future-evs)

<comment><USER34> That's not what your links say. The first link says nine million electric vehicles might require 4GW or 8GW of extra generation capacity (depending on smart technology)

But there are 38 million vehicles registered in the UK [1]; and even the optimistic 4GW is greater than the power output of the proposed Hinkley Point C nuclear reactor [2].

If 9 million vehicles need 4-8GW of generation capacity, 38 million would need 17-34GW, i.e. 6.5 to 13 nuclear power stations' worth (or the equivalent in wind or solar)

[1] [https://www.racfoundation.org/motoring- faqs/mobility#a1](https://www.racfoundation.org/motoring-faqs/mobility#a1) [2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station)

<comment><USER33> All of the National Grid forecast scenarios assume >30M electric vehicles in 2050. You might be confusing the peak power demand (in GW) with the total energy consumption (measured in GWh/TWh).

Clearly if everyone charged their vehicles at peak times there'd be problems meeting demand. But that's not the case: EV charging is a flexible demand, and with "smart" chargers and incentives in place to encourage off-peak/overnight charging, demand peaks can be managed.

Here's the link to the full _Future Energy Scenarios_ document where you can dig in to the figures in great detail:

[http://fes.nationalgrid.com/fes-document/](http://fes.nationalgrid.com/fes- document/)

<comment><USER34> I'm reading the second paragraph of your first link which states "Nine million electric vehicles on UK roads might require 8GW of extra power generation capacity if people charge them when they like. But smart charging could cut that to 4GW, potentially less, according to National Grid's EV lead, Graeme Cooper."

I don't think I'm confused about that - it seems pretty unambiguous to me.

<comment><USER33> Right. That's a worst case scenario for _peak_ power demand if everybody was charging their EVs at peak time. The solution is to install smart chargers, and incentivise off-peak charging so that a high proportion of charging happens at off-peak times, when there is plenty of surplus generation and grid capacity available.

Or, to put it another way: It doesn't make sense to spend billions on building new power plants just because everybody is plugging in their cars when they get home at 6PM every night and causing a huge demand spike. Smart charging and demand management is a much cheaper way to solve the problem.

<comment><USER34> The 8GW figure is for everyone charging at peak time; the 4GW figure is for smart chargers (i.e. dynamic internet-of-things off-peak charging)

So smart charging halves the need for new power stations - but doesn't eliminate it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I suspect a market for "used" imported cars with under 1000 miles will emerge to circumvent this law.

<comment><USER33> Most European countries will be working towards a ban around the same time, or shortly after. So there won't be a ready supply of such vehicles for Ireland to import.

Besides, given the economic advantages of electric (especially if petrol taxes are gradually ramped up to discourage their use), there won't be much demand for combustion technology past 2030 anyway, except amongst vintage enthusiasts.

<comment><USER35> Don't we need to like more than double our current level of power production (+capacity of the power network) to be able to ditch ice cars? I wonder how more than doubling of the number of power plants is supposed to get funded. Is there some proposal that is grounded in technical and economical realities?

<comment><USER33> No. In the UK it's around a 30% increase on current electricity demand by 2050 for a near-100% EV vehicle fleet. But as a significant portion of EV charging can be done off-peak/overnight, in terms of new _generation capacity_ it's even less.

This is something that has been studied in some depth by the UK's national grid:

[https://www.nationalgrid.com/group/case-studies/electric- dre...](https://www.nationalgrid.com/group/case-studies/electric-dreams- future-evs)

[https://theenergyst.com/millions-electric-vehicles-sooner- pr...](https://theenergyst.com/millions-electric-vehicles-sooner-predicted-no- sweat-says-national-grid/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I can't help think Tesla instigated all this kind of stuff.

</comment><comment><USER37> How about veteran cars?

<comment><AUTHOR> Do an electric conversion. Here are two examples:

[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-16/vintage-rolls- royce-c...](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-16/vintage-rolls-royce- converted-to-electric-vehicle/9869888)

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

<comment><USER37> Rather not be alive to see air-cooled, rear-flat-engine Porsche 911's from the 70s go electric

<comment><AUTHOR> It'll happen eventually. Allow the Porsche Taycan to make up for it:

[https://www.automobilemag.com/news/2020-porsche-taycan- turbo...](https://www.automobilemag.com/news/2020-porsche-taycan-turbo-ev- electric-ride-review-photos/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> So will China or India follow suite?

</comment><comment><USER31> Bureaucratic banning of technology is the beginning of the downfall of civilization.

<comment><USER38> I appreciated when they banned lead pipes for water.

<comment><USER31> I guess we have usable alternatives to lead pipes. For electric cars let's see where is the externalization of emissions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> While I doubt this will go into effect, this is simply bad policy.

The economic shocks that will accompany a hard ban make no sense when compared to the option of a gradual phase out (gradually increase fuel taxes? gradually increase taxes on the sale of new petrol vehicles?)

<comment><USER40> Government investment in charging infrastructure, increasing fuel prices/registration fees on ICE vehicles, etc., those are approachable and realistic options, and things we can do _right now_.

I personally believe, that come 2026, car manufacturers will sound the alarm, that they simply won't be able to produce enough EVs come 2030 to meet demand. The policy will then likely get postponed till 2040, and so on for a couple of decades.

<comment><USER41> Yes. Some realism on the subject!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Yay so we can switch to batteries that produce more carbon emissions in their production than the fuel the vehicle is spitting out. Ultimately just make the problem worse if you think about it.

<comment><USER43> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_aspects_of_the_e...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_aspects_of_the_electric_car#Environmental_impact_of_manufacturing)

It appears to be quite a nuanced picture.

<comment><USER44> That table is interesting, it looks like we get the same benefits from switching to PHEV as going to full electric.

I've always been slightly sceptical about the claims, just because the costs are so high. If you assume money is a reasonable proxy for energy then the high acquisition costs imply more emissions.

<comment><USER9> > If you assume money is a reasonable proxy for energy

Everything points to money being a very poor proxy for energy. Part of our problem with climate change is that energy is usually one of the smallest contributors to cost, making incredibly wasteful supply chains economically preferable.

<comment><USER44> Yet GDP per capita is strongly correlated with energy consumption:

[https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and- maps/figures/correlation-...](https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and- maps/figures/correlation-of-per-capita-energy)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Uber Free Rides During the Sydney Siege - <AUTHOR> http://blog.uber.com/sydneysiege

<comment><USER2> The original surge pricing was the latest piece of evidence that there's probably no adult human making the calls at the top. The rightful horror expressed in the initial media coverage would have been obvious to almost any actual adult participating in normal human society on a day-to-day basis.

<comment><USER3> High prices (algo or otherwise) have the side effect of generating at least two surges of news articles - one for the price surge and one for the human intervention to reduce pricing. By now, this must be a well-honed skill.

<comment><USER2> You seem to be implying that Uber _wants_ news coverage of it's surge pricing during every humanitarian crisis. To me it sounds like a surefire way for activists to push for laws banning the practice of surge pricing (more normally known as profiteering or price-gouging in a crisis).

<comment><USER3> Have activists been successful in changing Uber policies? Activists and irate taxi drivers generate even more news stories, i.e. more free coverage and watercooler talk for each Uber launch.

<comment><USER2> Perhaps you've not been following the news lately. [https://www.google.com/search?q=uber+bans&oq=uber+bans](https://www.google.com/search?q=uber+bans&oq=uber+bans)

<comment><USER3> One could argue that those events have not changed _Uber_ policy, except for conciliatory blog posts.

Uber, in their infinite wisdom, have chosen to lobby for legal changes in the court of public opinion, rather than working directly with regulators. Such an approach requires maximum public visibility to gain new riders before the service is shut down, in order to garner public support for reversal of court rulings.

This playbook has been consistently applied in many cities globally. Cities and activists need to develop defensive strategies which do not play directly into Uber's campaign for maximum public visibility.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Quick nice reaction from Uber, the PR was really starting to turn against them with surge pricing making it cost 100 AUS to get the hell out of dodge

BTW,seeing the situation unfold is Sydney is insane. Been at that café and have friends working a block away

</comment><comment><USER5> Apparently, their surge pricing, as reported earlier, was generating too much bad PR for them:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8750431](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8750431)</comment>


AMD's $499 Ryzen 7 1800X Beats $1700 i7 6950X with 1-Click OC on Air Cooling - <AUTHOR> http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-overclocking-performance/ <comment><USER2> I just hope this lives up to the hype. I built my last machine using Phenom II X6 1090T but I always regretted it after; as the 6 core advantage that I thought future games will use, never materialized and per core performance of that was not as good as the Intel CPUs of the same generation. Most of the benchmark leaks have focussed on top of the line Ryzens, I would be interested in seeing how the mid level Ryzens are comparing to Intel I5s.

There are already reports of Intel CPUs getting price cuts, so this looks good for now at least.

<comment><USER3> You were just ahead of your time :)

Multicore advantage for gaming is starting to materialize with Vulkan, mantle, etc.

<comment><USER4> Aren't Vulkan/Metal etc about GPUs rather than CPUs ?

<comment><USER5> Indeed, they are designed to reduce CPU load. Even so, if the game can't use multiple cores and previously was running game logic & OpenGL driver on the same core, now it's only the game logic. [1]

\--

[1] nVidia actually implements Vulkan on top of their OpenGL driver, but nVidia's drivers have been relatively well optimized in terms of CPU usage already. AMD is the bigger winner here.

<comment><USER6> The OpenGL threading model is completely screwed up. You essentially have a global lock per GL context, which means you're restricted to 1 thread for issuing rendering. And in GL a context is for everything, including shaders, texture states, you can't even reasonable do uploads of new scene data in a separate thread.

Vulkan fixes this big time, by allowing apps to construct GPU workloads for a single GPU in parallel. Only the final submission step (which is supposed to be very low overhead if the driver design is decent) is single-threaded per GPU context. And even for that Vulkan is better: It allows you to allocate different contexts for separate engines (e.g. rendering vs. compute vs. copy engine for data up/download to/from the GPU vram).

The lower CPU overhead is just the icing on the cake, the real deal is that Vulkan fixed the threading/locking model.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Just a reminder that wccftech.com is notoriously pro-AMD. I would caution against taking their word as proof.

I'm not an AMD hater (actually own AMD stock), just cautious.

<comment><USER8> It's more of a rumor/gossip tech site with a reputation for immediately publishing almost anything you could put a click-baity title on.

As a result it does look pro-AMD, because there is significantly more hype (the infamous hype train) in AMD community (just compare /r/amd and /r/nvidia on Reddit). I can't say if it's something that emerged organically in those communities and embraced by corporate or the other way round.

<comment><USER9> Also [https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/](https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/)

<comment><USER10> And of course [https://www.reddit.com/r/AyyMD/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AyyMD/)

Right now the hot topic is this gem:

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

<comment><USER2> Haha. Amused to see the hype train Ryzen has created.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I won't be replacing my i7 6800K build any time soon, but I'm very happy to see AMD looking competitive again. There hasn't been much excitement about the recent generations of i7 for good reason, and hopefully this forces them to start pushing the envelope again.

<comment><USER12> Exactly. Ridiculous Intel pricing and artificial limitations were a consequence of de facto monopoly.

I absolutely hate how they cap maximum RAM on consumer machines, so that you need to pony up for a Xeon workstation if you need more than 64 GB.

<comment><USER13> 64gb workstation ought to be enough for anybody. Jokes aside, what do you do if you are interested in >64gb workstations?

<comment><USER8> Some examples that can easily push you beyond 64 GB: \- high resolution photo editing: when you start with a 80 mpix / 48 bit photo from a medium format camera pushing beyond 16 GB requires only a couple layers and a couple undo steps being available \- high resolution video processing. 1 second of uncompressed 4k 60fps video is almost 1.4GB \- very large application compilation: building Android requires 16GB of RAM/swap - I'm sure there are apps that push that requirement even further \- development environment for a complex system that requires you to run dozens of VMs if you want all components running locally (I've had to run 2 VMs with 12GB requirements each once)

<comment><USER14> If you can afford a $30,000 medium format camera, you can afford the Xeon workstation it usually needs. The kind of person that work with those systems would pay $6,000 for an umbrella that doesn't even have any electronics in it: [https://www.adorama.com/bcb3355203.html?gclid=CLKvmd2erNICFY...](https://www.adorama.com/bcb3355203.html?gclid=CLKvmd2erNICFYWEswodIDUCJQ)

Absolutely no one that owns one of these professional cameras uses them with non-Xeon CPUs.

Really the only use for greater than 64Gb for non-Xeon CPUs would be student animation or machine-learning projects.

<comment><USER15> Just because someone can afford to rent a $30,000 camera doesn't necessarily mean they have unlimited cash to burn on other things.

<comment><USER16> It's about $2000/week to rent an IQ180. If you can afford the rental price, you can afford a computer to process the images.

<comment><USER17> thats not how money works. Just because you can afford one expensive luxury, doesnt mean you can afford all the other expensive stuff. Sometimes you do sacrifice all the other thing to get that one important expensive stuff

<comment><USER18> Also the camera rental cost goes to the client. The computers to process are generally owned by the company doing the work. Big difference. I will regularily spend $1-2k for cameras for ~1 week, and pass that on, but still use our own gear for processing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> That TDP is unreal. 95 Watts?

Looks like AMD has made a real performance breakthrough here. When is general availability expected?

<comment><USER20> And 65W for the Ryzen 7 1700, which is an absolute feat for 8 cores

<comment><USER21> Would the 1700X and 1800X also be 65W if they were downclocked to 3GHz, or is the 1700 fundamentally different from them?

<comment><USER20> They will also be 65W in that case, they are made from the same dies

<comment><USER22> That depends, the binning process means that products using the same die layout can have different characteristics. We don't yet know to what extent Ryzen is binned but here's a possibility: the 65W 1700 is made from cherry- picked dies that tolerate especially low voltages, the premium 1800X is made from dies that tolerate especially high clocks, and the 1700X is made from leftovers that didn't qualify for either.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Lots of skeptical comments below. I tend to believe the result, given that Intel has slashed prices on its Kaby Lake/Skylake processors in anticipation of the Ryzen launch:

[http://wccftech.com/intel-amd-price-war-ryzen- processors/](http://wccftech.com/intel-amd-price-war-ryzen-processors/)

<comment><USER21> That shows 'Microcenter' slashing prices, not Intel.

If Intel slash prices it will presumably be at the bulk "tray" level and reflected on their ARK website.

<comment><USER23> Microcenter has a tradition of getting really good cuts before/just after a new product comes out. I remember the Surface RT + Keyboard sale they had for Black Friday:

[https://www.neowin.net/news/micro-center-selling-surface- rt-...](https://www.neowin.net/news/micro-center-selling-surface-rt-with- touch-cover-for-17999-for-black-friday)

Not saying this is predictive of an Intel price cut, but I do think that MicroCenter knows its audience.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> SG- This article doesn't actually list any benchmarks and the link/URL is totally broken for the "Ryzen offers even better single-threaded performance per clock than Intel's Kaby Lake." \- [http://single-threaded/](http://single-threaded/)

<comment><USER20> Yes, customer Ryzen CPUs support ECC.

<comment><USER24> I pre-ordered 1800x + the Asus TOTL mobo for Ryzen. It doesn't support ECC: [https://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VI- HERO/s...](https://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VI- HERO/specifications/)

Memory AMD Ryzen™ Processors 4 x DIMM, Max. 64GB, DDR4 3200(O.C.)/2933(O.C.)/2666/2400/2133 MHz Non-ECC, Un-buffered Memory * AMD 7th Generation A-series/Athlon™ Processors 4 x DIMM, Max. 64GB, DDR4 2400/2133 MHz Non-ECC, Un-buffered Memory * Dual Channel Memory Architecture __Refer to www.asus.com for the Memory QVL (Qualified Vendors Lists).

AFAIK, Ryzen won't support ECC, sadly.

<comment><USER25> Hmm, the cheaper ASUS boards are listed as supporting ECC, according to this page: [http://geizhals.eu/?cmp=1582178&cmp=1582183&cmp=1582185&cmp=...](http://geizhals.eu/?cmp=1582178&cmp=1582183&cmp=1582185&cmp=1582881)

<comment><USER26> This page does not match the information given on the ASUS website: [https://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/PRIME-B350M-A/specifica...](https://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/PRIME-B350M-A/specifications/) As such all we can say for now in my opinion: inconclusive

<comment><USER24> More history in this which supports your inconclusive conclusion: [https://community.amd.com/thread/210870](https://community.amd.com/thread/210870)

I'm not holding my breath for ECC support. My thinking is that if it could run ECC RAM with the actual corrections enabled, they'd be talked about that as a selling point. I'd sure like it with the 32GB I have going into this build, but I just went with "G.SKILL F4-3000C15D-32GTZ TridentZ Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3000 (PC4 24000)" for now, with the idea that I'll get a second of the same kit in a couple of years when it's half the price of today.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I can't wait to see the result this will have on the CPU market especially with the rest of their CPU line up coming later this year

<comment><USER24> Intel _could_ just drop their prices, but it looks like Intel will [also] rush out their 8th-gen stuff this year, even though it's still on 14mm: [https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/02/intel-coffee- lake-14...](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/02/intel-coffee-lake-14nm- release-date/)

<comment><USER28> It will be a very interesting match to witness. Intel will have to act under pressure while saying goodbye to a huge sum of money.

<comment><USER24> Just saw this, looks like Intel is already dropping prices significantly: [http://wccftech.com/intel-amd-price-war-ryzen- processors/](http://wccftech.com/intel-amd-price-war-ryzen-processors/)

If you were on the verge of getting a 7700k or something, it looks like now is the time to buy (or give Ryzen a shot!).

Personally I'm willing to pay a bit more to give Ryzen a chance, because hopefully it will lead to sustained competition in this space again. A $500 8-core CPU is more than I need for gaming right now, but given that my 2500k has been great for 6 years, I don't have a problem spending $2k on a PC every 4-6 years for really great performance.

<comment><USER29> > Just saw this, looks like Intel is already dropping prices significantly: > [http://wccftech.com/intel-amd-price-war-ryzen- > processors/](http://wccftech.com/intel-amd-price-war-ryzen-processors/)

Those are Microcenter's normal prices - they have always sold Intel processors significantly under normal pricing as a loss-leader (not sure if it's an actual loss). They will also knock another $30 off if you buy a motherboard at the same time.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapcsales/comments/5cvz4z/cpu_i...](https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapcsales/comments/5cvz4z/cpu_intel_i7_6700k_40_ghz_25999_2999940/)

For example, they have been running 6700Ks for $260-280 since before Christmas. They sold Kaby Lake 7700Ks for $330 once those launched, now they're down to $300. This is just the normal Microcenter pricing life-cycle.

But, that's the kind of "journalism" you come to expect from WCCFTech. They will literally publish any random garbage someone writes up.

<comment><USER30> Those prices match Intel promotions and bonus gifts Intel ordinarily offers to big distributors for pushing hi-end product (CPU and Chipsets). There is nothing suggesting Microcenter is running a loss on this, they might have a very thin margin, or even sell at 0 and only count Intel gifts as a potential profits (Intel will give distributors gifts like "free" SSDs for selling X number of expensive parts). Its all in the spirit of tactics that were killing AMD in ~2002 and lead to Intels monopoly trial, just made a little more subtle this time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> If you were thinking of this as being a cheap CPU for a GPU training rig. It only has 24 PCI Express lanes. It might be better to stick with Xeon CPUs because most have 40 lanes.

<comment><USER32> Thanks for that. Was thinking about building a similar build I current have which uses a 5960X for the 40 lanes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Anyone knows where can I get detailed information about the processor? I tried to search in AMD page but the information is very scant.

Namely do these processors support ECC and what virtualisation capabilities do they have (for KVM with full GPU access).

<comment><USER34> No official statement yet, but I think they will support virtualization. There hasn't been an AMD CPU in ages without AMD-Vi/IOMMU.

But lack of ECC support is a problem if you want to use virtualization for security, as Rowhammer can be used for attacking other VMs and ECC is often the last line of defense against Rowhammer.

[https://fahrplan.events.ccc.de/congress/2016/Fahrplan/events...](https://fahrplan.events.ccc.de/congress/2016/Fahrplan/events/8022.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Finally some competition. I'm sick of Intel monopoly. Good job AMD!

</comment><comment><USER36> Micro Center is selling Intel i7 7700k for $299

Those 4 cores are stronger than the first 4 cores of the 1700X or the 1800X. If you are a gamer, then most if not all of your games will use 4 or less cores. Why pay more money for worse gaming performance?

[https://www.techpowerup.com/230638/amd-ryzen-benchmarks- leak...](https://www.techpowerup.com/230638/amd-ryzen-benchmarks-leaked- amazing-multi-core-and-single-core-performance)

<comment><USER37> Not sure, but some gamers are youtubers and they need to process videos. What about having an extra core or two for handling recording and playing live? Those cost serious real time processing.

<comment><USER38> Extra cores might help with that, Intel Quicksync might be even better or some GPU based video encoding.

<comment><USER30> Quicksync is a marketing bullet point. Nobody sane uses this crap because quality is abysmal. Its bad for streamers (they usually run second PC just for stream compression), and bad for archiving video(quality again).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> How is the single core performance in real world beside benchmarks?

AMD mentions some AI technology to improve the perf. If one runs the same software many times, will the performance change? It could be good if it learns and improves the performance, but results might not be reproduce. Is it like the Pentium 4 with its long pipelines that ideally result in better performance but meant more misses?

Good that AMD has something in peto to compete with Intel again.

</comment><comment><USER40> The AMD strategy seems to just be "give the customer what they want". Revolutionary indeed.

</comment><comment><USER41> While I recognize it is a 'what is there to lose' kind of move, I think it is really awesome that AMD is unlocking all of their Ryzen parts. Seems like a when for the "I want to smoke my own processor thank you very much" generation.

</comment><comment><USER42> I'm maybe the only amd fan who is going to miss my power/$ of my 8350 for 150$ (or was it even cheaper?...)

<comment><USER43> I can say I don't miss the $/power from my electric bill when I shut down my 8350 home server/nas box.

<comment><USER42> That 65w does look pretty impressive!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Beating a 10 core doesn't sound real, but it sure kicks the Intel 8-core's ass

</comment><comment><USER45> What're the chances Apple puts ryzen into their lineup?

<comment><USER46> Zero.

While the performance of Ryzen is pretty good, the overall power consumption and efficiency (idle, semi-load and load) i still no where near Intel. They won't kill 2-3 hour battery life on Macbooks for a AMD CPU.

<comment><USER47> How do you know this? The only Zen-based chips we have any information about are desktop parts and we don't have any power usage benchmarks.

The Raven Ridge chips, which are meant for laptops, would have the added advantage of removing the need for a discrete GPU in the 15" MacBook Pro. Switching to AMD seems unlikely but I'd be interested if they did.

<comment><USER48> Absolutely, nothing is really known at this point. The leaked power consumption results that we have show that a Ryzen engineering sample uses slightly less power than comparable Intel CPU's (i7 6900k). But we don't know if the leak is real.

So let's wait for real benchmarks (at march 2) before saying Intel is better in power consumption @ sparkling. But keep the following in mind: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13736809](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13736809)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> If the 32 core Naples server Zen, due Q2, has anything like this kind of price/perf versus Xeon, Intel is in trouble.

</comment><comment><USER50> Meaningless, oh look our overclocked cpu beat an non-overclocked one that could have been overclocked.

</comment><comment><USER51> Fake news?

</comment><comment><USER52> Intel probably have something ready to go from 5+ years ago (that was never released because they didn't need to)...</comment>


What if something like the Morris Worm never happened? - <AUTHOR> https://stories.shrikrishnaholla.in/what-if-1557e226c6d#.26dp7o3ce?ref=hn <comment><USER2> Has a ransomware or botnet perpetrator been convicted of a crime in any country?

Morris was convicted under CFAA, it's surprising to me that it isn't a "regular" thing to hear about another hacker getting convicted on a daily basis. What are the reasons this doesn't happen? I understand they can hide their identity, etc., but are there even active investigations? Is there a single biggest reason why, like not being able to prove which person caused something to happen?

I don't really like real world analogies for computer systems, but if there was a big line of people in masks knocking at my door and trying 100s of different keys in the lock, 24/7, I'd probably seek some legal remedy rather than just getting more locks.

<comment><USER3> It's really hard to track down the perpetrator unless they make a mistake. Even if you tracked the perpetrator down, there is a very good chance they are in Eastern Europe or some other country/region that will not prosecute or extradite them.

So basically it's almost certainly a waste of time for law enforcement and they mostly don't bother. If they did, we would see command/control moved inside Tor and it would become even more difficult to track (AFAIK this already happens in the more sophisticated botnets).

The appropriate analogy is probably something like fake check scams. Illegal, but difficult to trace and likely to lead to a dead end.

<comment><USER2> > The appropriate analogy is probably something like fake check scams. > Illegal, but difficult to trace and likely to lead to a dead end.

Oops, I actually jumped topics for the final paragraph and was making an analogy about scanners trying random passwords on a known port, or similar.

<comment><USER3> Well - and this goes for ransomware too - if you are smart then you aren't doing the portscanning or mailing from your personal PC. It's coming from compromised PCs or IoT devices in a botnet. So tracking down the perpetrator still involves finding the well-concealed owner of a botnet.

As a mitigation strategy you can certainly perform filtering and rate-limiting at a firewall, or even blacklisting certain IPs. I'm pretty sure there are already collectively-maintained blacklists of badly-behaved machines/devices. But you're really just taking some compromised PCs off the net, not going after the perpetrator.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> HAHA

      When he took off the headset, there was a single tear in   his eye, and he was smiling... "We'd like to fund you"

-No VC ever

</comment><comment><USER5> fun read.

But...I'm sure there would have been another worm or virus (and many others - like there had been) that would have caused the same vigilant info security that we have today.

<comment><USER6> The way I read it, the point was that "another first virus" wasn't likely to be designed as a benign proof of concept by a tinkerer who meant no harm. The author's view is that the Morris Worm was a happy accident in that it grabbed all the attention owed to the first virus to affect networks on a global scale but it did so without causing any real and lasting harm.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Sorry I know this is a story but this is dumb. Morris wasn't the only person thinking about security, and sure it happened but it was bound to happen as some point. And I'm sure he doesn't feel any shame whatsoever from it.

During that time, viruses were being transmitted without Internet through sharing floppies, and they were widespread.

</comment><comment><USER8> He should suspect it before actually running the simulation.</comment>


A Gentle Introduction to Hypervisor Memory Introspection - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@hvmi/a-gentle-introduction-to-hvmi-baa91e1571d1 <comment><AUTHOR> What HVMI is and how you can use it to monitor and/or protect your VMs.</comment>


Apple gets smacked by $450M e-book price-fixing fine - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-gets-smacked-by-450-million-e-book-price-fixing-fine/ <comment><USER2> > _Apple did not conspire to fix e-book pricing and this ruling does nothing > to change the facts We are disappointed the Court does not recognize the > innovation and choice the iBooks Store brought for consumers. While we want > to put this behind us, the case is about principles and values. We know we > did nothing wrong back in 2010._

Unless I've read patently false accounts of the behavior, discussions, and conduct of Steve Jobs on behalf of Apple circa the iBooks store preparation and roll-out, this is one of the most laughably false statements that a lawyer has put to paper in 2016. The year is still early though.

<comment><USER3> Price fixing doesn't just mean the fixed their own price, otherwise the dollar store would be in trouble.

When Amazon has 90% of the market it's silly to call what Apple did price fixing. Apple didn't work with competitors to fix prices for consumers, they told _publishers_ to get on board or get bent.

That should be an option every company has, unless they own the market, IMO.

Edit: Somehow typed the word "eBay" instead of the word "what" \- for THAT I do blame Apple ;)

<comment><USER4> > Apple didn't work with competitors to fix prices for consumers

No, they worked with publishers to fix the prices for consumers

<comment><USER5> But didn't they just work with the publishers on determining the model for the Apple iBook store? Even if they discussed and agreed for some pricing model to which all adhered in at that moment effectively just starting iBook store, how was that colluding?

The iBook store didn't exist before, so Jobs had to win the publishers somehow, that means that all had to agree to some model that would be favorable to them and certainly more favorable than Amazon's.

And how was that anti-competitive or worse?

Does anybody have some exact references, like the court decision that explains that?

<comment><USER4> Here it is the DOJ ruling [0]. The link comes from this blog [1]

> The iBook store didn't exist before, so Jobs had to win the publishers > somehow, that means that all had to agree to some model that would be > favorable to them and certainly more favorable than Amazon's.

They forced the model TO ALL the stores

[0] [http://dearauthor.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Cote- Decisi...](http://dearauthor.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Cote-Decision-on- Price-Fixing.pdf)

[1] [http://dearauthor.com/features/industry-news/thursday- news-j...](http://dearauthor.com/features/industry-news/thursday-news-judge- cote-finds-apple-conspired-to-raise-prices-with-publisher-by-implementing- agency-pricing/)

<comment><USER5> Thanks. And what about the current ones? The linked materials are from 2013. Based on what was the 2013 ruling confirmed now? Or on previous appeals?

I'm reading the 2013 material and I can't find the "meat." OK, they establish that Apple did propose the "agency model" which was not available to the publishers by Amazon, that Apple did say it was ready to sell books for more than 9.99 that was an Amazon's _fixed_ price. But how was that "making conspiracy"?

Amazon held the market, the publishers effectively had _no choice_ before Apple introduced their store. Apple offered something different. The publishers were able to make new deals with Amazon. And? What was actually wrong to do? To even mention that they were willing to sell the books for the price that publishers liked more, even if it's higher than 9.99? Why? That is in the document claimed as the "start of conspiracy." How is that? To design the iBook store to have an "agency model"? Why is that not allowed? To even meet the publishers about all that? How should it be otherwise done? What was Apple supposed to do? Just offer what Amazon offers? Isn't that the opposite of the any reasonable principles?

Does it mean nobody is allowed to disrupt the current model of the effective store monopolist? That he can't sell in his store at higher prices? That he cant have another model in his store? That he can't discuss his own model? What?

<comment><USER6> The publishers aren't allowed to coordinate on such matters, that's a cartel of suppliers, and Apple isn't allowed to arrange such coordination between them.

<comment><USER5> > Apple isn't allowed to arrange such coordination between them.

But they coordinated without Apple anyway, it's also in the court decision that the executives had meetings among them before Apple even appeared on the e-book scene:

[http://dearauthor.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Cote- Decisi...](http://dearauthor.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Cote-Decision-on- Price-Fixing.pdf)

"On a fairly regular basis, roughly once a quarter, the CEOs of the Publishers held dinners in the private dining rooms of New York restaurants, without counsel or assistants present, in order to discuss the common challenges they faced, including most prominently Amazon's pricing policies."

Apple made the iPad, with the reading experience up to then unmatched by anybody (no tablet with such characteristics existed before 2010), wanted to open the e-book store, gave the publishers the offer they liked, but definitely didn't invent that communication between the publishers.

What was Apple supposed to do, given that whatever coordination existed, it existed even before Apple approached the publishers? Apparently not a single publisher was satisfied with Amazon's (monopolist) terms. Of course Apple offered them different terms.

<comment><USER7> Apple was a participant in the conspiracy. The publishers all settled a long time ago though.

<comment><USER5> How was it a participant if it just opened its store under a different model from Amazon in order to attract the publishers? Even the model wasn't invented by Apple:

"Hachette and later HarperCollins surprised Apple with their suggestion that, instead of a wholesale model, Apple adopt an agency model for the distribution of e-books."

It sounds like [http://www.indiana.edu/~p1013447/dictionary/nomfall.htm](http://www.indiana.edu/~p1013447/dictionary/nomfall.htm) (They "conspired" because we call them "participants.") It doesn't actually prove anything.

<comment><USER8> It participated by being the definition of a participant. It designed a marketplace around appealing to the publishers who were eager to fix prices.

A fact that the publishers decided not to contest.

<comment><USER5> As far as I see, Apple just opened their own store and was able to win the publishers to sell there. The publishers did what they wanted to do, including communicating among themselves even before Apple appeared, insisting on higher prices, proposing the agency model and making their new deals with Amazon. I've quoted all the supporting parts from the court decision in my other posts.

I still don't see any argument under which Apple had to insist on the same terms that Amazon had. And Apple didn't have to insist on the same terms, and had the right to open their own store, what it actually did wrong?

Can anybody really say that Apple _had_ to say "no we won't open the store if the prices aren't the same as at Amazon"?

Apple actually made the clause that their prices are allowed to be minimal of all other stores. And Apple didn't have the problem to sell items even for $0.99, that's how they started with the iTunes store years earlier.

<comment><USER8> It doesn't matter if the publishers were looking for a partner to fix prices with even without Apple.

Apple was the one to provide the service, and ultimately enabled it. How can you possibly suggest that leaves Apple blameless?

<comment><USER5> It's just the store that Apple opened, and Apple didn't fix the prices. It had working mechanisms to sell even for $0.99, like they did with songs. It didn't enable fixing, it just became the competition to Amazon. The publishers used their leverage to negotiate new deals with Amazon. Until then they weren't able, it was Amazon that was effectively a monopoly.

What was Apple supposed to do, in your opinion, as it wanted to open its e-book store?

<comment><USER9> You probably want to read the original case material before conjectring any further, which quotes extensively from emails at the highest levels of Apple and participating publishers.

Start with the opening presentation:

[https://www.justice.gov/atr/case- document/file/486701/downlo...](https://www.justice.gov/atr/case- document/file/486701/download)

<comment><USER10> What is it about the DOJ that makes them produce unsearchable, low-resolution PDF documents?

I spent 5-10 minutes looking through that document and can't find anything that makes Apple look bad. I see the publishers telling each other to "double delete" each other's emails. That looks bad. But it isn't obvious to me that Apple is engaging in any illegal behavior based on the email quotes in that document.

It seems more like consumers and government were accustomed to Amazon's pricing model, in which they sometimes take a loss. Then, when publishers wanted to set their own prices, they sought a service that would allow them to do that and found Apple. I'm a consumer and don't like high prices, but I can also understand how a publisher might like to decide how to price their books. It's beyond me why that should be deemed illegal.

<rant> If the DOJ or FBI get an increased budget I hope some of that goes towards increasing their transparency by not only making information available, but also making it searchable.

And why do I need to pay for C-Span transcripts? Wouldn't it be nice if we could all read and search through what our representatives are saying? </rant>

<comment><USER8> The first slide after the coversheet. The deck is a narrative of illegal activity best processed in order. It's not a dense document.

At what point will you admit Apple's wrongdoing and stop talking about the searchability? Please have the grace to admit you were wrong in public.

Apple did this on the principle that they should have the right to collude with the industry and increase prices to the consumer. That's what the company did. Its partners in this process all agreed to settle. The only people who continued to protest this characterization were at Apple. And they just lost a massive court case over it.

I dunno what more you want.

<comment><USER10> > At what point will you admit Apple's wrongdoing and stop talking about the > searchability? Please have the grace to admit you were wrong in public.

Hi Kirin, I'm a different commenter with my own opinion.

Increasing transparency of government actions is something I care about. I also believe in competitive markets.

The first slide isn't evidence showing Apple knowingly conspired to do evil, in my opinion, and nor is the rest of the deck. _Before_ Amazon started selling eBooks, publishers were able to sell hardcover books, i.e. new releases, for a higher price point. Then Amazon, being the only ebook retailer, was able to _very quickly_ undercut the publishers' in-store new- release prices _on a global scale_ due to the nature of digital products and their position as a monopoly in the ebook retailer market. This cost the publishers money. Then Apple appeared as another retailer and publishers asked Apple to give them their agency model back. And, publishers said they would only join Apple if all the publishers would do it. Apple said okay.

Regardless of this court decision, I imagine we'll see more agency model pricing in the future when more options open up for publishers.

It's perfectly fine if you disagree. I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just sharing my opinion.

This case was in court for years. If it were so cut and dry as you proclaim, the case would have been over much sooner.

<comment><USER8> Hi StudentRob.

I am not pointing a mind control ray at you or threatening your family. I'm saying the evidence strongly suggests your opinion is not founded in reality.

"Evil" is not an interesting conversation here. "Legality" is another. Apple saw an opportunity to break the Google+Amazon pricing lock on the market. They realized this opportunity by working with publishers to beachhead a new model. They acknowledged that this _explicitly_ raised prices for consumers, and would only work if the publishers all used Apple as the leverage.

I know you want to say this is in favor of competition. Apple sure does. But everyone agrees that it was _illegal._ You can't just say "Apple Happened To Be There™." They facilitated the entire process, and it was built on the back of their dominance in desktop computing, mobile and media reach.

And while no SINGLE slide tells that whole story in a single pithy quote, the ENTIRE linked deck certainly tells that story. You've been given a smoking gun and Eddy Cue's fingerprints and replied, "Gosh that sounds complex, why isn't this easier to search?"

<comment><USER10> Hi Kirin,

> I am not pointing a mind control ray at you or threatening your family.

That's good. It would be really strange if you were. This is an internet conversation which I consider to be pretty casual. Most likely, only you and I will ever read this, and whoever else reads it will stop when they find it uninteresting.

> "Evil" is not an interesting conversation here.

That's subjective. I say it's interesting, you think it isn't. I have no problem with that.

> You can't just say "Apple Happened To Be There™."

I gave a summary of my take on the situation. Again, I see no problem with that.

It's hard for me to see Apple as a ring leader as the DOJ claims, or that publishers were convinced by Apple to pursue this course. They already had this plan together _before_ Apple came to the table. Apple was more like the final piece to the puzzle than the ring leader. _They_ asked _Apple_ for a proposal and told Apple the terms under which they would agree, essentially creating the proposal themselves, yet having it come from Apple's mouth.

Perhaps it will make you feel better to know that I believe Apple ought to have known better about the risks of appearing like the master conspirator in this case. As I mentioned in another comment, Apple ought to have known better about the risks, and it seems they could have launched this model, albeit slower, without such a concerted effort.

> You've been given a smoking gun and Eddy Cue's fingerprints and replied, > "Gosh that sounds complex, why isn't this easier to search?"

None of us are privy to all the details of this case. We get summaries, and I'm saying they are in a lousy format, unsearchable and low resolution. It's a side rant but relevant towards increasing transparency of our government. We all have limited time, and making things easier to read helps everyone. If you feel that's off topic, that's cool. My comment about the DOJ's awful document- creation skills is not the basis of my support of Apple. However, it does contribute to my theory that our government does not understand technology, and that we need more representatives who have technical knowledge like Ted Lieu.

<comment><USER8> Apple doesn't have to be a ring leader to be legally responsible for their actions. I don't know why you act like that is the case, but I can see you'd rather do anything other than admit Apple was guilty of any sort of wrongdoing here. You will talk about literally anything other than the simple naked fact they participated.

So please, respond as you like. But I'm filtering out your posts from now on. You're the exact kind of person I shouldn't engage with on HN.

<comment><USER10> > Apple doesn't have to be a ring leader to be legally responsible for their > actions

It _does_ make a difference in the ruling and applied punishment.

The 7th circuit's decision from Toys R Us vs. FTC decision states,

 _As TRU correctly points out, the critical question here is whether substantial evidence supported the Commission 's finding that there was a horizontal agreement among the toy manufacturers, with TRU in the center as the ringmaster, to boycott the warehouse clubs._ [1]

The Toys R Us ruling was referenced in the 2nd circuit court of appeals ruling against Apple. Therefore, the above statement has bearing and Apple did need to be perceived as the ringleader to receive the brunt of the punishment.

> So please, respond as you like. But I'm filtering out your posts from now > on. You're the exact kind of person I shouldn't engage with on HN.

That's your choice. I think I've been cordial. Feel free to point out anywhere I haven't been respectful. If disagreement is disrespectful to you, I don't know how else I can help.

[1] [http://antitru.st/toys-r-us/](http://antitru.st/toys-r-us/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The news is fine but why drag Amazon into it?

>At Amazon headquarters, however, they're probably popping open the champagne.

>Amazon, however, is probably grinning like the Cheshire Cat.

The author is not doing justice to his job as a reporter. If you want to opine then separate it from the facts. Amazon which has nothing to do with the ruling gets depicted as a villain and Apple which actually is guilty doesn't get its share of bad words. What is worse is that he starts to paint Amazon that way before he gives any of the details of ruling.

<comment><USER12> >The author is not doing justice to his job as a reporter. If you want to opine then separate it from the facts.

Implying internet bloggers are reporters. The prestige of the journalist today is in the toilet because the barrier to entry is essentially nil. You can just start writing for some fly by night site and get hundreds to thousands of readers overnight, without any basic understanding of the profession or established practices.

<comment><USER13> > Implying internet bloggers are reporters.

If your making a living by reporting your a reporter. Just like all other professions you make a living at it that's your profession. To belittle that profession if they don't have a degree or at a smaller place well that isn't quite the same thing. This is the place where journalism lives since there are so few non-internet reporting positions.

<comment><USER14> Saying a blogger isn't a reporter is not belittling. Its correct. Blogging isn't reporting, as plumbing isn't carpentry.

<comment><USER13> > Blogging isn't reporting, as plumbing isn't carpentry

Care to qualify that with something that even makes that analogy work? Blogger and Reporting are almost meaningless words. Some of the best reporting in technology would also be called a blog. Mary Jo Foley is a great example and re/code with Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Maybe the case has merit or not but I am really tired of just imposing fines. We have reached a point where big companies and banks can do whatever they want and the worst thing that can happen is to pay a small portion of their earnings. Basically they are outside the law.

<comment><USER16> IMNAL, but I think you are trying to apply criminal legal theory to a civil situation. In this case the law dictates redress of the infraction through restitution and not punishment.

I'm not sure I would want to live in a world where administrative regulations were punishable through imprisonment. I think there would be some pretty severe unintended consequences to economic activities.

Helpful definition of criminal vs. civil law: [http://www.diffen.com/difference/Civil_Law_vs_Criminal_Law](http://www.diffen.com/difference/Civil_Law_vs_Criminal_Law)

<comment><USER15> My point is that the little guy gets destroyed in the same situation whereas the big guy gets way with it.

<comment><USER17> The little guy usually gets destroyed for doing something unambiguously illegal that was unambiguously illegal at the time. Whereas the big guy gets a (proportionately) small fine for... well, ultimately the court decided they were breaking the law, but it was more a matter of making a judgement call the wrong way.

This case may be more clear-cut, but that's generally why you see these differences.

<comment><USER15> A while ago I did some reading about lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies that promoted unapproved uses of their drugs. There is a very good book about epo. According to that reading the main reason is they get small fines is that the government doesn't have the budget to go after big companies. They simply can't afford it and take what they can get.

<comment><USER17> You won't find any clear bright line violations there though. Doctors can prescribe drugs off-label. Pharmaceutical reps can talk about what other doctors have done, they just can't promote off-label uses. It's very much the kind of judgement call I was talking about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Apple is actually innocent here. What Apple wanted was the dinosaur publishing industry to adopt the agency model for pricing ebooks. The publisher sets the price, and revenue is split 70/30\. This was the model for all digital goods on iTunes for the previous decade. The publishing industry had always been a wholesale model. They set the 'list' price on the book jacket, and the retailer would 'discount' it to the consumer. The retailer would pay the publisher the wholesale price, which was about 50% of list. Amazon loved the wholesale model because they compete on price.

Amazon, at the time, was trying to create an expectation for consumers that all ebooks were $9.99. What the consumer didn't know was that Amazon was taking a loss on each ebook. Amazon was able to get publishers on board with their plan by paying the 'list' price on an ebook, and turning around and selling it for a loss at 9.99. Amazon's long play was 1) creating a market for ebooks in a price band they thought was attractive and 2) forcing the publishers to capitulate later when they had more leverage. Amazon never wanted agency pricing since they would lose their competitiveness if it ever came to bare.

But Apple was successful - it eventually got publishers to adopt agency pricing, and that also meant Amazon ebooks had to adopt agency pricing (if you're setting the price, you can't give one outlet a better price). Amazon hated this development and championed this price fixing suit as a result.

If you ever wondered why physical books are priced less than ebooks at times, this is why. Agency pricing.

<comment><USER19> > Apple is actually innocent here.

Ok, I get that they were going up against a monopolist who appears to be dumping. In what world does responding to that by building a cartel of suppliers engaging in monopolistic behavior to raise the pricing above the price of physical books and fix the pricing across all retailers turn into "innocence"?

We as consumers are worse off for what Apple did here.

<comment><USER18> I'm not so sure that ever came to pass. I think all Jobs was saying is, if you don't adopt agency pricing, the value of your goods will be artificially low. If you adopt agency pricing, you can keep it high (that is, the same as physical).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Well if Apple felt that Amazon was acting as a monopoly, and unfairly blocking them from entering the market with low prices why did they not request an investigation from the FTC instead of doing something they knew was illegal?

<comment><USER21> For the same reason Uber did not try to fight taxi regulation in every local municipality instead of doing what they knew to be illegal.

Litigation takes a really long time. By the time you win, you've lost.

Jobs wanted to launch iBooks _right now_ and was willing to cut corners to get what he wanted.

<comment><USER22> I wish we could create a "Galt's Gulch" and quarantine all the toxic individuals/entities who believe that the rules don't apply to them. They would be free to "cut corners" and "win" to their hearts content only amongst themselves.

<comment><USER23> Sometimes innovation requires breaking rules. Uber wouldn't have had the success it's had if it had gone through "proper" channels. While it made them successful, I'd argue that it also benefited consumers.

<comment><USER24> "It also benefited consumers" is not a get out of jail free card.

If I break into warehouses, steal merchandise by the truckload, and sell it at a tenth the price, that also benefits my consumers.

<comment><USER25> Who says it should be a "get out of jail free card"?

I think that's a good approach: someone _openly_ breaks a rule that they think is unfair and/or outdated, and then society can decide whether to re-evaluate the rule or fine them (even into bankruptcy, if they're a company).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> 450 mil for this but 1.3 for Verizon super cookies, and Verizon doesn't even have to stop doing it. I guess Apple should hire better lobbyists.

<comment><USER27> They _did_ just embarrass and piss off the federal government - $449M of this along with "no appeals sorry" probably sits under the heading "revenge".

<comment><USER28> The supreme court is rather independent of the executive branch and of law enforcement. Furthermore, this was an appeal of an appellate court's ruling that occurred last year. Keep in mind that the Supreme Court primarily concerns itself with cases that potentially set or clarify precedence. As they didn't feel that any new legal ground would be made here, they didn't take the case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Notice how authors get lost in this? Apple + 5 major publishers vs. Amazon. What a joke.

As an author it's a great time to self publish and make it work on your own, but I find it absurd that ANY of those companies would attempt to dictate the price of books.

P.S. You can read my book about creative work for free here: [http://brianknapp.me/books/creative- pursuit/](http://brianknapp.me/books/creative-pursuit/) I talk about the importance of Self Publishing in Chapter Four.

</comment><comment><USER30> Meanwhile in most of Europe we have (e-)book price fixing by law: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_book_price_agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_book_price_agreement)

</comment><comment><USER31> Can you correct me if I'm wrong but now Apple can repatriate some of it massive overseas cash hoard and offset it against the $450M fine without attracting any tax on it as it is a loss. technically their balance books will be $450M worse off but they wouldn't have been able to use that money anyway without attracting a high tax on it. is that correct?

<comment><USER32> I'm pretty certain they're taxed on the money simply because it crosses a border. It's not treated as revenue which can be offset by expenses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> They probably have this in petty cash. What use is a fine of this amount? It is like fining a football player 1500 for an illegal hit.

</comment><comment><USER34> [statement from Apple:] Apple did not conspire to fix e-book pricing and this ruling does nothing to change the facts

Isn't that exactly what a court ruling does. It settles what really happened.

</comment><comment><USER35> Can I get an honest explanation of why what they did was "bad"? They set the price of products they sell in conjunction with the publishers?

Isn't that what every major seller of goods does? I watched a documentary on Wal-Mart a while back where they were working with Chinese DVD player mfgs to get the price Wal-Mart wanted.

I genuinely don't understand the harm of their actions, and would be thrilled if someone could explain?

<comment><USER36> Short answer: Publishers were too weak individually to challenge Amazon's ebook business model (the wholesale version). If all the publishers colluded to stop selling to Amazon, that would be a violation of the anti-trust act. Apple comes along and writes contracts with each publisher such that in aggregate the contracts provide the cover to do exactly what the publishers could not do on their own.

The harm in the short term was to Amazon - under threat of being cut off by every publisher, it would have forced Amazon to move to a different model of pricing. The follow on effect would be to raise prices for all consumers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> The eBook fixing collusion is so obvious. I remember when eBooks where $4 because it makes sense -- no printing, no shipping, that's what it should cost. Now it's $16.99 for some eBook, and I think it's a disgrace because authors and customers get screwed with the rigged pricing.

<comment><USER38> You're not paying for shipping and printing, you're paying for writing. If you want a shipment of bound, blank pages, you can get that for $4 any time.

<comment><USER39> Uh, no. You're paying for middlemen (printing, marketing, big publishing, etc) . Authors typically take 10 to 15%, either of royalties or net profit.

<comment><USER38> I've never paid for a printed ebook.

<comment><USER39> Well no shit. You were arguing that the significant portion of the cost of physical books is the writing. It's not.

<comment><USER38> No, I was arguing that one should not expect ebooks should not be massively cheaper than paper books just because they aren't printed. There's still a lot to pay for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I find the modern view of monopoly peculiar:

"the market for retail distribution of electronic books ... was essentially a monopoly, with Amazon.com ... controlling 90% of e-book sales. Amazon sold many of the most popular e-books at a loss, making it difficult for other retailers to enter the e-book market as they 'would run the risk of losing money if [they] tried."

along with the 1999 conviction of Microsoft being a monopoly in part because they gave away Explorer.

A monopoly is historically identified with having a higher than market price, not a lower.

<comment><USER21> > A monopoly is historically identified with having a higher than market > price, not a lower.

This is not the definition of a monopoly.

What Apple (and Amazon) are being accused of is predatory pricing to root out competition. Monopolies are not bad because they raise prices. Over the long- run, the _tend to_ do so, but raising prices itself is not "bad."

Monopolies are prosecuted when they use their position to discourage competition, which stifles innovation. That's what Apple is in trouble for, by lowering prices such that less-funded incumbents cannot enter the market. That's what $MSFT was in trouble for with IE. Yes, they gave away a browser for free, but in the process abused their power as distributor of Windows to corner another market. No company could reasonably compete with a pre- installed browser, meaning $MSFT would be discouraged from innovating.

In some instances, monopolies are a natural conclusion of free-market dynamics. Centralizing production into one entity maximizes possible economies of scale (ain't no scale like 100%!) Most government programs are based on this principle. The assumption is the NASA, bringing together the financial and technical capabilities of the entire United States, has the best opportunity to advance aeronautic engineering.

In other instances, monopolies use their position to prevent competition. These are the bad guys and gals. Think Standard Oil or the old AT&T. Sometimes, multiple independent companies will collude to form a cartel and abuse their collective market power. Airlines do this by raising ticket prices together, despite no external force (like higher taxes, union wages, or oil prices.)

NASA is a great example of a monopoly that does not abuse its position. It actively encourages competitors (e.g. SpaceX) by granting the contracts.

EDIT: Replaced incorrect usage of "market power" with "predatory pricing". Thank you @baddox and @chipotle_coyote for the corrections.

<comment><USER41> > Monopolies are prosecuted when they use their position to discourage > competition, which stifles innovation. That's what Apple is in trouble for, > by price gouging here.

Has that helped competition at all? It seems like before Apple's foray, Amazon owned the eBook market, and now... Amazon owns the eBook market. I don't really see how competition could have gotten worse, and after Apple's legal failures it hasn't gotten any better.

<comment><USER42> I'd say it is even worse than that. The years of strict agency pricing trained people to not even bother looking at competing ebookstores, entrenching Amazon's dominance.

<comment><USER41> > years of strict agency pricing

You mean the years of strict wholesale pricing?

<comment><USER42> No, I mean 2010-2013 when agency pricing made shopping across ebookstores a waste of time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Price fixing. Salary fixing. H1B fixing. Fuck you Apple.

</comment><comment><USER44> Mere beer money...

<comment><USER22> Why does that sound so much like a kid saying "That didn't hurt" while furiously rubbing the punched arm?

Apple cared enough to try and appeal the case to the highest possible level (SCOTUS). To paraphrase a commenter on Ars Technica: $500,000,000 is a _lot_ of iPads/MacBooks sold. All down the drain due to anti-consumer shenanigans.

<comment><USER45> Apple would appeal a $1,000,000 court case until and unless they expected to lose more money by fighting it than by just paying the fine. And essentially, $500mil is more than enough money for keeping on some lawyers for half a decade.

Still, it's worth comparing to how much money they make. So, a half-billion fine once in the last few years, and they made $18billion this quarter:

[http://moneymorning.com/2016/01/26/q1-apple- earnings-2016/](http://moneymorning.com/2016/01/26/q1-apple-earnings-2016/)

I honestly don't see Apple being seriously hurt by this.

<comment><USER22> Apple partisans act as if the money is coming from Apple's petty-cash drawer. My point is somewhat similar to your: in that they would do anything not to pay the half a million dollars.

Comparing to the numbers in their last FY (Oct '15), the settlement is 0.94% of their annual _profit_. I too wouldn't be "hurt" by a 1% fine of my net annual income, but I'd rather put it to better use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Retribution for standing up to the tyranny?

</comment><comment><USER47> When I think of how much shit a bank would get for a headline like that...

</comment><comment><USER48> Cool, nearly half a billion in repatriated money that won't be shuffled to offshore accounts...

</comment><comment><USER49> Makes sense. Apple gets sued for charging more than a retailer that owned 90% of the market in an Anti-Trust case and is fined $450 million.

Verizon is a common carrier that manipulated the traffic in the service it provides from its government granted monopoly for 4 years and is fined 1.350M.

This is why people vote donald trump. It is the voting equivalent of YOLO. It's basically the civic equivalent of a weapon, and proving the point that he can get elected may draw into stark contrast that we might need to make a few tweaks here in there with how we operate going forward.

<comment><USER50> So, you're saying that since there are major issues with the current system the best idea is just to burn it to the ground by electing a reckless maniac? That's just a way to make sure everyone is equally screwed.

<comment><USER51> Historians centuries from now will never understand how the famous and wealthy scion of one of the wealthiest families in the most famous and wealthy city in the world was ever perceived to be a "reckless maniac" outsider. This guy is as inside as inside gets. His entire public persona is a calculated pose. He was recorded saying that he would develop such a persona, were he ever to deign to run for office. A vote for Trump is the opposite of a vote to burn down anything, no matter what the rubes think.

If, as seems more and more likely, Trump is elected, I guarantee the following: no "border wall" will be built, the TPP and TTIP will _both_ be ramrodded through, and the "1%" will get even more "1%" than they already are.

<comment><USER52> > He was recorded saying that he would develop such a persona, were he ever to > deign to run for office.

Source? There's a quote about him claiming that he'd "run as a republican, since they're the dumbest voters in the country." but that quote has been debunked.

[http://www.snopes.com/1998-trump-people- quote/](http://www.snopes.com/1998-trump-people-quote/)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Strange Death of Europe - <AUTHOR> https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B06XDV5R78/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 <comment><AUTHOR> No book has made me more uncomfortable or challenged my views more in a long while</comment>


University of Glasgow gives away software, patents, consulting - <AUTHOR> http://www.gla.ac.uk/news/headline_181588_en.html <comment><USER2> I've always been rather surprised as to why all UK universities don't give free access to all of their IP produced through taxpayer funded research to all and any UK taxpayers.

Even better, do the research publish the results in the appropriate forums and let anyone anywhere do what they want with it.

Of course, if the research is paid for privately then that's completely different. But for publicly funded research - make it public.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is insane... lots of possibilities

[http://www.gla.ac.uk/businessandindustry/technology/easyacce...](http://www.gla.ac.uk/businessandindustry/technology/easyaccessipdeals/)

That list sums it up

</comment><comment><USER4> It would be better if they didn't waste money patenting it in the first place!

<comment><USER5> I am not so sure, at least for properly tangible patents.

There are considerable risks and costs to developing a technology from a demonstration in a university department to something marketable.

If companies especially of small to medium size, or their investors, don't have patent protection they may consider the investment not worth the risk of being "beaten to the punch".

A university granting royalty free IP may be the best of both worlds in terms of openness and practicality. IP is free to anyone willing to take the risk but then they get to take a crack at it knowing the idea is protected.

<comment><USER2> Actually, you might have a point there - looking at how Google licensed PageRank from Stanford seems pretty similar to this scheme.

I wonder who paid for that research though!

<comment><USER6> I guess that Google has paid and will continue to pay back its investment many, many times over.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Company Fit Matters | allenc - <AUTHOR> http://allenc.com/2013/08/company-fit-matters/ <comment><USER2> totally agree.

<comment><USER3> I couldn't imagine not fitting into a company - it would be miserable past a certain point and when you get to that point everyone knows your work and effort start to diminish and most of the time it's definitely noticeable.</comment></comment>