Why Aren't Smartphones Making Us More Productive?  - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323982704578455163211575512.html

<comment><USER2> "By that I mean they can't find how these mobile devices are improving worker productivity, which computers have been doing quite ruthlessly for the last 70 years."

Actually, computers in general have failed to show up in these measures for a long time:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_paradox></comment>


Cartographer - Thematic mapping library for Google Maps - <AUTHOR> http://cartographer.visualmotive.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> One of demos - Map of 10,000 random Twitter users <http://cartographer.visualmotive.com/twitter.html></comment>


Los Angeles Tries to Prove That It Doesn't Necessarily Need the Car - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/los-angeles-tries-to-prove-that-it-doesnt-necessarily-need-the-car <comment><USER2> I work just down the street from the Santa Monica station. It literally opened a week ago or so, and the author's complaining that people getting on downtown don't yet know which line to take. Well duh! It's brand new!

As for the complaints of old trains and scuffed up seats - the train isn't new. I've ridden it downtown occasionally for the last 3 years or so. What's new is the part from Culver City to Santa Monica. It didn't used to go out that far.

It's like the author didn't bother to check the actual facts or history of the project. This was a stupid article.

<comment><USER3> I totally agree. I too live in Santa Monica near the downtown station.

I took the train on the first day and everyone in my group was commenting "I can't believe there is graffiti already!! Hooligans" them we remembered that the trains have been running from downtown to Culver city for years and this is just a line extension.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Full of the stereotypical things the NY media likes to print about LA. Hollywood openings? Check. Advice to New Yorkers headed to LA? Check. Comparisons of any LA phenomenon with NY analog? Check. Lacking perspective on the city as a whole, beyond Hollywood, downtown, and the west side? Check.

Sigh. Yet, some truisms sprinkled among the retreads.

Author's about page: _A New Yorker at heart (and by area code), I'm currently based in Los Angeles._

<comment><USER5> Well, the publication is called the New Yorker!

Can you please elaborate where in LA you don't need a car? Beverly Hills on Shabbat? :)

<comment><USER6> Speaking from experience, you can easily get by without a car in DTLA, Santa Monica, Echo Park, Highland Park, Chinatown, Koreatown, and Venice (west of Lincoln Blvd). You could probably get away with it in Hollywood/Silver Lake/Los Feliz too.

I went carless in Pasadena and I could get around town, to downtown LA and to places on the northeast side OK using the Gold Line (5 minute walk from my apartment). Unfortunately many of the Pasadena stations are in less-than walkable areas. Making it to social events outside of the Gold Line's coverage area was hard (connecting through DTLA sucks, will be improved when the regional connector is built). I'm sure things would have been better with a bike and had Uber been around when I was doing that.

<comment><USER7> My experience was that buses in LA smelled like piss and were in disrepair. The two times I tried to give the buses a chance in Hollywood seemed to confirm this. Can you elaborate on the quality of bus transit?

<comment><USER8> Use a gasmask

<comment><USER7> Modern day AR, and here I thought I would have to wait another decade for it!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> In defense of the LA train system, most of the rolling stock on the Expo line are nice new trains, and Hollywood to Santa Monica via Downtown is almost the most pathological route between major destinations you can take in terms of car vs train.

I've been taking the Expo lately and it's already standing-only crowded during rush hour and heavily used off-peak.

<comment><USER10> Ya, it's pretty amazing as far as how quickly it gets you from downtown to Santa Monica, and I experienced the same thing. It's already in heavy use.

One complaint, tho, is that the cars don't have decent accommodations for bicyclists, which is really annoying. You basically have to stand/sit w/ your bike all the way.

Also, you still mostly take it in the bum on travel time in the transfers and many bald-spots of decent coverage. I found that to get from Santa Monica to Silverlake, for example, was more convenient on the 704 bus, because there's a spot for your bike, you can sit and work on your computer the whole way, and it's a closer fit for minimizing your talking time/distance, and it's a more direct route.

The train alternative is to find and descend into a red line station, transfer through the greater depths of Union station to the expo line, and then babysit your bicycle all the way to Santa Monica, which is the bulk of the transit time.

Gotta give Santa Monica props tho for the treatment they gave that Santa Monica train station and the surrounding area. I really like it.

Overall, nice stopgap improvement, and when the world improves and human- driven cars are outlawed, it could be paved over and made a thoroughfare that allows only self-driving electric cars to use it, and they could tap into the electric mains for a recharge along the way. :)

<comment><USER11> Last mile cycling (folding bikes perhaps) infrastructure plus trains seems like the best bet for LA.

<comment><USER12> Bike share at the metro stops and on both sides of the light rail lines would make a lot of sense as a last-mile solution.

<comment><USER13> This is in progress: [http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2015/08/03/in-l-a- efforts...](http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2015/08/03/in-l-a-efforts-are- afoot-to-make-bike-share-a-genuine-part-of-the-transit-network/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There was the recent article about how ridership has risen, which signaled great public transport stuff in the US.

Digging only slightly deeper, it was evident that if you took the massive rise in NYC public transportation out, public transportation in the rest of the US, including LA, actually dropped, despite the money being spent on it.

The reason while not established, appears to be because instead of making existing systems more reliable, and better connected, the money has been spent on vanity projects. An isolated light rail here, and a Park and Ride which doesn't connect to anything there.

<comment><USER15> Heavy rail ridership increased by 3.3% in 2014, with 8 of 15 cities reporting increases. New York was around average, at 3.4%.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> As a carless person who's considering moving to SoCal -- specifically the San Gabriel Valley -- in about a year or so (only because upcoming legislation next spring is likely to force me out of Texas), articles like these are much appreciated. I've been thinking a lot about how I'm going to get around if I move there. I'm used to public transportation not being super awesome (I'd call the public transit where I live half-decent, emphasis on _half_ , and I get around fine), and worst comes to worst I can take Lyft or Uber everywhere, but more transit is always good, and I'd like to know what I'm getting into if I move.

So thanks for posting this.

<comment><USER17> The new gold line extension gets pretty close! Try to get within walking distance if you can.

<comment><USER4> Yes. The Gold Line extension is going to have a huge impact on the SGV.

I don't live in the SGV, but the impact of the Gold Line on the Chinatown- Highland Park-Pasadena corridor [which it reached years ago, before the recently-completed extension] has been very significant, including lots of denser housing within Pasadena and sharp increases in house prices along Figueroa parallel to the Gold Line. I expect the extension to have an even greater impact over time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I think you have to start somewhere. Since you can't build an extensive light rail/subway network over night.

So, I hope Los Angeles will continue to extend it.

<comment><USER19> They're slowly making progress towards the purple line extension from Korea Town west as well. Won a lawsuit against Beverly Hills trying to block it in 2015

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

<comment><USER18> But when I read that taxi companies and parking lot owners prevented the Green line from reaching the LAX airport, I'm like: wow. This is really a weird world, in which we live.

<comment><USER19> Uber ran a promo recently when the expo line opened to discount uber pool to or from a station. Uber/Lyft has already beaten the taxis opposition to picking up at LAX. They don't seem to think of these transit options as threat like the taxis do. Maybe more public transit enables more people to ditch personal cars and increase both public transit and uber. I know that my Uber use has increased after moving to more bike commuting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Funny, the joke used to be that there was nothing to do in downtown LA. Guess that's slowly starting to change.

<comment><USER21> Downtown LA, including the Arts District, is excellent now. Plenty of restaurants, shops, bars, museums, etc.

<comment><USER22> I agree but they need to get a handle on the tent cities and homelessness if they want more people to care and visit more than once in a blue moon.

<comment><USER21> Meh. You get used to the homeless after awhile. They're more noticeable in SF

<comment><USER22> Yeah I'm not a fan of SF mostly because of it. If I wouldn't want my wife to walk around by herself, then it's a no go for me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The rail stuff is a bit of a sideshow -- I think in a decade or so the outline of transportation in LA will begin to take shape around 2 modes:

1\. 2 wheeled vehicles driven/ridden/pedaled by a person

2\. ridesharing cars, shuttles, & vans driven by a computer

</comment><comment><USER24> The new trains and stuff are nice. Some of the other aspects of this "Mobility Plan" are really annoying. The main one I dislike is how some already incredibly busy streets have had a whole lane sliced out for a bike lane. It's usually empty, and not that safe, because of people turning right across it. I get that everyone having a car in LA is not a way to allow greater density, but, it's reality for now and making everyone in that reality suffer isn't a great way to get re-elected. More light rail lines, awesome, making driving a car more miserable than it is, not so much.

<comment><USER25> The opposite of that, addressing current concerns, is what created the mess of LA to begin with. Here's some examples:

In the 1920s, to alleviate traffic on a specific downtown to miracle mile commute, macarthur park was split in half and wilshire was cut through the middle of the park. The park remains split in 2016 due to this 1920s era problem.

In the 1950s, due to a lack of downtown parking, pershing square was gutted to be a multi-level underground parking structure with a poorly accessible park on top. Now in 2016, when we want a walkable city, many lament that our one central park is really just a multi-level parking lot.

The central problem here is that when city policy crafts a solution with 80 years of consequences to alleviate a 3 year problem, the urban landscape becomes disjointed and short-sighted.

Instead, this concept, which includes things like bike lanes, high density dwellings, and trains, are people trying to come up with 80 year solutions that are forward thinking.

There's been a problem getting all the right funding and public support on board but it's far easier today then what it took to get that first train to long beach open in 1990. The newer high density housing is still not pedestrian accessible, but that is changing in the buildings that are being planned right now and will be complete in a few years.

I think LA is attracting the right people and fostering the right attitude for a workable city that will blossom with sustainability, creativity, and livability in the upcoming generation.

<comment><USER17> > In the 1950s, due to a lack of downtown parking, pershing square was gutted > to be a multi-level underground parking structure with a poorly accessible > park on top. Now in 2016, when we want a walkable city, many lament that our > one central park is really just a multi-level parking lot.

I think [Grand Park] might be the New Central Park™. But it is, to your point, divided into three sections by streets cutting through the middle of it. =(

[Grand Park] [https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-118.2459343,16.35z](https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-118.2459343,16.35z)

<comment><USER25> The upper two levels have been parks and plaza space since 1966 when it was called El Paseo de Los Pobladores de Los Angeles or just Civic Center Mall. Prior to that the lower level had been a parking lot and there was a road that cut through the center, leading to city hall. They cut the lower parking lot into the park in the 2010 project you talk about.

So yes, grand park has been gradually growing in size for about 50 years. It certainly now has a more memorable name. It's going in a good direction...

Cars make surpassing a certain level of urban density really difficult. As parts of LA are getting there, people are finding out they really can't do it and at the same time allocate enough space for everyone to have their own car. The divorce of the 60s onward happend as a physical necessity. I think LA is growing past such reactionary urban planning. I hope so

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I love the extension of the metro line. I use it to commute from culver to Santa Monica.

</comment><comment><USER27> US, you guys really need to get your public transportation in order // Rest of the developed world</comment>


The brewing City Council - Seattle Startup feud - <AUTHOR> http://crosscut.com/2013/11/18/business/117499/brewing-city-council-seattle-startup-feud/ <comment><USER2> Email addresses of the City Council: [http://www.seattle.gov/council/councilcontact.htm](http://www.seattle.gov/council/councilcontact.htm)

firstname.lastname@example.com

email@example.com

firstname.lastname@example.com

firstname.lastname@example.com

email@example.com

email@example.com

firstname.lastname@example.com

firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> As a single page: [http://crosscut.com/2013/11/18/business/117499/brewing- city-...](http://crosscut.com/2013/11/18/business/117499/brewing-city-council- seattle-startup-feud/?page=single)</comment>


Let's put phone numbers in the DNS system (2012) - <AUTHOR> https://jarofgreen.co.uk/2012/07/phone-numbers-in-dns/ <comment><USER2> Just for the records, there is actually quite a strong connection between DNS and good old telephony. I refer to directory services and LDAP in particular. I am not familiar with the popular Active directory from Microsoft, but I know that many companies maintain LDAP internally for holding office, user and telephone data about their employees and there is that Domain controller thing to maintain DNS within LDAP or so (anybody knowing details? :) ).

</comment><comment><USER3> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_number_mapping](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_number_mapping)</comment>


DropBox grows like weed. Reaches 2 million users. - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/09/24/dropbox-reaches-2-million-users-continues-to-grow/

<comment><USER2> You know what's really cool about this? Microsoft and Apple have both taken stabs at this problem multiple times. The companies that make the operating systems on about 99% of PCs have both tried this. They've had some success at it, but it's never been a killer app or a feature that people rave about.

Knowing that, dhouston still created DropBox. He did a fantastic job. He knocked it out of the park. Now 2 million people have used the thing and he's well on his way to building a very successful business with it.

Don't let the big guys scare you.

<comment><USER3> I suspect people underestimate how successful Microsoft and Apple have been with their competitive services.

<comment><USER4> Care to elaborate ?

<comment><USER5> Anecdotally, I see FolderShare quite widely used. I have no idea how number of users compares to DropBox though.

<comment><USER6> FolderShare was acquired. I don't know if Microsoft has done a terrible lot with the program since the acquisition to be able to claim the success as its own.

<comment><USER7> Actually, the closest Microsoft equivalent is Live Mesh.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm a customer. it's indispensable.

<comment><USER9> Agreed. I actually got introduced to it by a client who you wouldn't expect to use a startup's product. Fastest I've ever gone from free account to paying customer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'd love to know what percentage of their new users come from their affiliate program:

<https://www.getdropbox.com/affiliates>

</comment><comment><USER5> Any info on how many are at $10 and $20? I love it, but I'm a freeloader.

</comment><comment><USER11> They should do all they can to buy <http://dropbox.com/>

</comment><comment><USER12> Anything that scores me points with my wife gets my $$$.

When my wife called me and said, "Honey, I love dropbox" I figured this team had hit a homerun. I'd been pushing a backup/network solution for her for a few years because of various harddrive failures and file loss debacles, but only dropbox dropped in and "just worked" for her - she's the perfect candidate for dropbox, moving between multiple laptops and computer labs for document editing and statistics programming.

Good luck to the team there and many thanks. I hope you all get filthy rich. Seriously.

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm one of the 1 million users whose accounts are dormant.

I love the product, but it bothers me that it's not open source. (Not their problem or anyone else's, but I prefer not to use close-source software if I can help it.)

Also, after I don't know how long, the whole "the API is around the corner" thing began to feel like a shell game.

<comment><USER14> It's two years old. Give them time, they're evolving their site constantly. Also, I don't think you know what a shell game is.

 _I love the product, but it bothers me that it's not open source. (Not their problem or anyone else's, but I prefer not to use close-source software if I can help it.)_

They created one of the fastest and best methods of syncing there is, maybe the best one if simply being intuitive counts. They make their money by licensing it to you. How would you take that and open-source it without killing dhouston's method of making a living?

Also: What's this about not liking closed-source? That's like saying you dislike songs that you can't download as individual tracks. Maybe it's cool that some things are broken down and easy to tinker with, but it's silly to turn that into disliking the ones you can't break.

<comment><USER13> > Also, I don't think you know what a shell game is.

If my imprecision bothers you, feel free to s/con game/shell game/.

>Also: What's this about not liking closed-source? That's like saying you dislike songs that you can't download as individual tracks. Maybe it's cool that some things are broken down and easy to tinker with, but it's silly to turn that into disliking the ones you can't break.

I don't think you know what the value of free and open software is. It has nothing to do with wanting things "you can break." I have no idea how you make that leap (open source == breakable?). I would add that a closed source application built (as far as I've read) on open source pieces (SVN? Python? Rsync?) is especially off-putting to me.

To clarify one other point. Ubuntu has already reverse-engineered Dropbox (as Ubuntu One), so if Dropbox's profit relies on their having the sole access to the magic formula, it's already too late. Anything can be (and generally will be) reverse engineered. I don't think that closing off the source is a royal road to success.

<comment><USER14> _If my imprecision bothers you, feel free to s/con game/shell game/._

Your _imprecision_ , as you call it, is that you are associating Dropbox saying they're working on an API with a shady person trying to steal your money. Unless you've paid them for an API that you didn't receive, they haven't conned you.

 _I don't think you know what the value of free and open software is._

I'll hazard a guess: It's free, and also anybody's able to improve it if they want. I've only got five years' experience with open source, though, so perhaps I'm still an amateur at this.

 _To clarify one other point. Ubuntu has already reverse-engineered Dropbox (as Ubuntu One), so if Dropbox's profit relies on their having the sole access to the magic formula, it's already too late. Anything can be (and generally will be) reverse engineered. I don't think that closing off the source is a royal road to success._

So they use Dropbox's exact code? Or are you saying that they saw what Dropbox did and decided to copy it? Because that's not reverse engineering.

Funny story: Once upon a time I thought that open source would lead to everything getting better. I thought Firefox, for instance, would just continue to be an unstoppable beast because, after all, anybody who wanted to could make it do anything any other browser did. Then I realized Firefox was slow and ugly on the Mac, moved to the closed-source Safari, and enjoy its incredibly sleek design. It was around the time I stopped using Ubuntu because I realized the closed-source OS X was better. Now that Windows 7 is spreading, I think Ubuntu's dropped to my third-favorite OS.

The problem with your line of thinking is that open source doesn't pay. The best people in certain fields, meanwhile, only work for money, and occasionally only for large gobs of money. That includes interface designers, and a lot of the people who work on fixing the ugly problems that nobody really likes working on. So open source's downfall is that it can't compete with the quality and focus of closed-source. It's the problem with democracy, so to speak.

I like open source for some things. I still haven't found an open-source application that's as cutting-edge as its closed equivalents. Even Quicksilver left me dissatisfied until I discovered the Google-sponsored Quick Search Box.

<comment><USER15> Safari is based on the KDE browser's open source rendering engine, however. I don't know how much of it is left but certainly it was a huge boon for them -- and later Google -- to start with a highly standards-compliant and open code base.

I've found the best OS projects are system libraries and utilities and tools where the developer is also the end user. The more UI is piled up, the more non-developer involvement is needed the worse it gets. The worst are open source games; nothing good since Nethack.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Holy crap. That's about 5000 new users per day.

<comment><USER4> While impressive, the number is actuallu quite meaningless until they disclose how many of these become _active_ users.

<comment><USER17> nearly 1 million, as it says in the article.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Wow, congrats on the huge growth dhouston

</comment><comment><USER19> I would like to ask, if someone can compare DropBox with Live Mesh. I tried DropBox in the past, but at that time it could not get over our company firewall.

I use now Mesh with satisfaction, and just comparing the features, in Mesh I have 5GB web storage (while can sync also over 5GB limit, in which case it will just not be stored on the cloud), and it also has remote desktop. Now the question is if there is some reason for me to re-evalute Dropbox again.

<comment><USER20> I'll take a stab at it as I've used both. Or rather I've used both for actual work.

DropBox wins for me because it can access their servers through our firewall (which only allows HTTP/S access to less than 5 ports). Live Mesh could not do this.

I found dropbox a tiny barrier to entry. It was so unobtrusive. Live Mesh pops up stuff on startup, complains that it can't access the internet. Etc. Dropbox just stays silent and waits file locks are released and internet connectivity returns.

Getting at my files online is SO much easier with DropBox, ESPECIALLY now since they have the new UI. It's fast, Mesh isn't.

I've never used the remote desktop feature so I can't comment.

Oh and the feature I use nearly daily is the Public folder where I just save a file in there, right click in Explorer, copy the public URL and give them the URL rather than worry if the email client can support a 10MB file. Brilliant, much faster than slow Messenger file transfers! I don't believe Mesh has this ability.

Anyway, DropBox is a simple enough concept and I feel they refined it so well that anyone can use it. Mesh is just complex and has way too much UI stuff going on.

I'm still well under the 2GB limit but have a 50GB Pro account (for now anyway) - just waiting for the selective sync feature now

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I had a chance to briefly chat with Drew, and he's an extremely sharp, knowledgeable, _and_ helpful guy. I suppose he might not have been that good when he started Dropbox, but he's certainly one of the smartest people I've had the privilege of talking to in the Valley. If you believe that A players hire A players, the whole Dropbox team must be top notch. They deserve every bit of the success.

</comment><comment><USER22> I'm curious if anyone is using this on KDE3?

The site refers to "Linux" as if it had some single monolithic desktop manager, but what they really mean is "running Nautilus", a GNOME file manager. I'm reluctant to just install nautilus for fear of desktop side effects.

<comment><USER13> I got it working just fine on a Debian machine (Lenny) running Openbox without Nautilus. You can do the installation purely from the command-line and run the daemon in the same way. The one downside is that Nautilus used to be the only way to get visual notitification of syncs, etc. I got syncing just fine, but nothing on a panel or the like.

I haven't used Dropbox in some time though, so someone may have figured out a hack to integrate the tool with KDE's panel in some way. Their forums are pretty active with a variety of Linux distros and desktop environments. Search there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Drew and the crew deserve the success. I'm a very happy user. The file sync is near instantaneous. If I'm working on a document with someone, by the time they tell me they've saved it in the IM window, it's already transferring to my local dropbox.

</comment><comment><USER24> Great achievement. Some may argue dropbox is a feature rather than a business, something Windows / OS X should do out of the box. And indeed they should, but they don't (not nearly that well anyway). But as soon as the success of DropBox is evident, I think we can expect the next version of OS X to have a "dropbox" that's part of their mobile me strategy, and MS to finally push out this feature aggressively. After all they are both after recurring revenues of this sort. Let's hope they buy DropBox before then.

<comment><USER24> BTW I've signed up cause I've lost my USB stick =) still prefer USB sticks as upload speeds are slow here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> One thing I'd prefer is dropbox using _my_ S3 buckets so irony rely on them only for syncing. What are the economics of such an approach?

<comment><USER26> How many of dropbox's paying customers have their own S3 buckets?

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> For those looking for an alternative to dropbox I can recommend SpiderOak (<https://spideroak.com>)

\- Unlimited number of devices (computers) in one account \- Slightly cheaper \- Windows, Mac and Linux client \- 100% Zero-knowledge security and client side encryption key creation.

My 5 cent

</comment><comment><USER28> My GF has used both DropBox and SugarSync extensively, and the vote goes to SugarSync - more flexible in what's shared.

</comment><comment><USER29> great services attract tons of users, who'da thought it.

<comment><USER30> Not to turn this into a huge circle jerk but for me it's the simplicity. I can recommend it to my friends without worrying that they will ask me to troubleshoot later.

Edit: And I am sure it is the same for other people. The simplicity adds to their ability to spread like "weeds" because people aren't afraid to recommending it.

<comment><USER29> if there was one service that deserved a good circle jerk it'd be dropbox, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> For someone working regularly from multiple computers running both Windows and Linux, Dropbox has been a lifesaver. Good on them.

</comment><comment><USER32> Dropbox is a brilliant service that's so well executed it makes baby jesus cry. That's how much I love it. (paying customer)

</comment><comment><USER33> Curious: has anyone done anything similar using S3 as a backend?

<comment><USER34> Yes. Dropbox uses S3 as its backend. (And Jungle Disk is a somewhat similar product that lets you use your own S3 account.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> How about a working CLI client now? the python one is broken.

</comment><comment><USER36> Anyone can explain me how this business can do money other than having some plan that cost some money. I suppose that most of the account are "free" one. I have hard time to understand how it can be profitable to run.

<comment><USER14> They charge money for more space. That's _exactly_ how they make money. So what else are you asking?

<comment><USER30> I have to agree it was a badly worded question. I think the OP has bandwidth concerns. Dropbox could charge based off an upload metric similar to Evernote (which gives 40 MB of transfer free a month).

<http://www.evernote.com/about/premium/>

While that model more closely aligns to bandwidth costs, I think dropbox is in a different market. For one, Dropbox is competing with external hard drives. It's easier to understand the value proposition when you can compare based on storage.

I sure as hell have no idea how much 40 MB is in terms of use. I do some word docs and some pictures. If I do 5 saves an hour, averaging 10 kb in size and I work for 40 hours a week, is 40 MB enough storage?

<comment><USER37> Limits based on some ineffable-to-the-layman bandwidth usage numbers totally break the "it just works" factor

<comment><USER14> Though I must admit, every time I share something with a friend in a public folder I worry that I'll trip up some "amount of shit you can give people" limit and end up banned.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Count down to google acquisition?

<comment><USER39> You know, it _would_ make me buy Google Apps Premier edition, even though I don't need its other benefits.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> is the analogy in the title really necessary?

<comment><USER41> It does add a little - it's clearly not viral growth, that would be millions overnight. Weeds self-seed and grow steadily overtime getting larger as resources allow - it seems to be a fine analogy. Necessary, no; worthy, yes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I think I've created 2 accounts there before to check it out but never used it again. So, if you're counting "active users" it's only 1,999,998

The app looks great, I just have no use for it. I'm just saying, call it like it is. This is an account-tally, not an "user" count.

"User" counts implies "use" - but this may not be the truth.

<comment><USER43> Someone didn't read the article:

"Of those, Dropbox has almost one million users that are active."

It was hidden in the first paragraph though.

<comment><USER4> It'd be nice to know if idle accounts that still connect to the service are included in the count. I am guessing that they are as 50% user retention rate is an atypically (very) high number.

<comment><USER44> Maybe it's an atypically good product.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Colleges Are Failing In Graduation Rates - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/business/economy/09leonhardt.html?_r=1&hp

<comment><USER2> "The first problem that Mr. Bowen, Mr. McPherson and the book's third author, Matthew Chingos, a doctoral candidate, diagnose is something they call under- matching. It refers to students who choose not to attend the best college they can get into. They instead go to a less selective one, perhaps one that's closer to home or, given the torturous financial aid process, less expensive.

"About half of low-income students with a high school grade-point average of at least 3.5 and an SAT score of at least 1,200 do not attend the best college they could have. Many don't even apply."</comment>


My New Project - Surprise Book Shop - <AUTHOR> http://www.surprisebookshop.com

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a little side project I created last week - the idea is to take people outside of their reading comfort zones while also helping local charity shops shift their huge stocks of unread books.

I'm aware that the website is very simple - I decided that getting the project moving was more important than fussing about design in the early days. I like the idea but I have no idea if it's of any interest to other people.

</comment><comment><USER2> This is neat. I'd only recommend that you add a few more genres. In non- fiction, your list could be longer (e.g. no "History" in there).

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback - I'll get it added. Any more you genres you could suggest?</comment></comment>


Google hiring comedy writers for Allo - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/10/google-laughsistant/ <comment><USER2> white board's over there. make this punchline order of n.</comment>


New York Times Running On Fumes - <AUTHOR> http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/10/new-york-times-nyt-running-on-fumes

<comment><USER3> I wonder how much their situation would improve by opening up their archive for free and removing the registration stuff? They'd get vastly more page views, and thus more ad revenue.

For that matter, if they do go down, what happens to the archive? I hope that something like Wikimedia or the Internet Archive gets access to it, so all that information isn't lost forever.

<comment><USER4> They'd probably die just as quickly.

The problem is likely twofold:

1) Print is expensive. 2) Internet ads don't pay like print ads used to pay.

Okay, threefold:

3) Craigslist has killed the classifieds market dead.

Newspapers around the world are suffering from these things. It's just acutely sad that the paper of record is no better off than the rest....

<comment><USER5> Craigslist has killed the classified markets dead x 100. This is huge for newspapers and not to be overlooked.

<comment><USER6> Don't forget about automotive and real estate ads...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I use to work for a newspaper. At the time (might show my age here) newspapers were switching from traditional cut and paste/film-plate production to digital composition. I had to push and push just get the newspaper to think about stopping the use of knives to cut and paste content and start using digital layouts. The management basically refused to change. Being inside the industry I know they saw the digital age coming - and even though they knew it was inevitable - just like the Trains business of yesterday that didn't realize that they were transportation companies not just train companies - <USER2> took to long to understand that they are more than print. From my point of view newspapers should have lead the drive to the online content world instead they stuck to their print... Like I've heard before - its easier to kill a business than it is to fix it.

<comment><USER8> The quote I always hear about that from Rob Curley is something like this:

"We're in the newspaper business, and for too long people have been stuck on the second part of that word."

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> They should sell their presses and go to a Print on demand model. They could have special NYT dispensers at kiosks that allow you to choose which stories you want to read and makes a custom newspaper with ads targeted to match for each patron. Then over time it should learn each readers tastes and recommend stories. Google news for the unwired world. Vendors would rent the specialized printing machines from NYT for the privileged of being able to sell the worlds premier news paper.

<comment><USER10> Setting up those kiosks, even in New York City alone, would require a massive capital expenditure; the NYT company doesn't have the cash to spend, and this is not exactly the best time to raise investment for such a project.

And a-la-carte pricing is actually _bad_ for newspaper profits. First of all, if the customer has to look at each headline and think, "do I want to spend another penny for this story?", the customer is likely to pay less. Second, aggregation lets the newspaper profit from people who value different articles at different rates, as Clay Shirky explains ([http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2000/12/19/micropayments.ht...](http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2000/12/19/micropayments.html?page=2)):

"Imagine a newspaper sold in three separate sections - news, business, and sports. Now imagine that Curly would pay a nickel to get the news section, a dime for business, and a dime for sports; Moe would pay a dime each for news and business but only a nickel for sports; and Larry would pay a dime, a nickel, and a dime. If the newspaper charges a nickel a section, each man will buy all three sections, for 15 cents. If it prices each section at a dime, each man will opt out of one section, paying a total of 20 cents. If the newspaper aggregates all three sections together, however, Curly, Moe and Larry will all agree to pay 25 cents for the whole, even though they value the parts differently."

<comment><USER9> If you did it right I think it would work.

iTunes makes money by unpackaging songs and selling alcarte why not news?

The POD device could offer other printed materials as well and you could sell it to the news stands as a way to avoid buying a bunch of inventory that is going to go stale in 1 to 30 days anyways.

What that article is really saying is that you could charge more for a customized paper even if it had less content and people wouldn't care.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've been fascinated by this question for a while, and my interest has been piqued since hearing the Technology in Journalism session presentation at DjangoCon.

I can think of so many ways that newspapers could monetize their content online, but they really don't seem to get it. Newspapers have tons of great long tail content that can be mined and monetized. They just don't know what is possible and what can be done.

<comment><USER8> Such as?

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> They wont go bankrupt. They are the closest thing to the worlds premier newspaper. If the company was distressed they could sell it in a heartbeat.

Even if it ran at a loss it still has value due to its prestige. Newscorp recently bought the WSJ for 6B when it was in a similar predicament.

<comment><USER13> There are a lot of papers who can reasonably make that claim (e.g. The Times here in England). The problem, structually, is that newspapers in general are retailers of wholesale product provided by PA, AFP, Reuters, etc etc. Their value-add is in their original content, and that tends to be quite localised i.e. it doesn't scale. I worked in Manhattan for a while, I still have friends there, I enjoy reading that content in the NYT but I've no plans to go back and I wouldn't pay for that content (tho' I will see ads which I will ignore). Original content is expensive to produce. _That_ is the problem for newspapers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is sad news, even more so since NYT is likely to be rated as junk by Moody's... There aren't many ways out of this kind of mess.

[http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN23458880200810...](http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN2345888020081023)

<comment><USER15> Standard and Poor's just rated the bond as junk yesterday evening. Hopefully they find some way to make money, NYT is basically the only newspaper I read. [http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN23535859200810...](http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN2353585920081023)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Alright, time to strap on some plums. Dump the print division entirely, get rid of registration for the front page articles, and start charging for premium content.

<comment><USER17> Be the first non pornographic pay site to make money.

<comment><USER16> WSJ makes decent money from paid online subscriptions.

<comment><USER18> WSJ has oodles of original content.

Also, if you're in finance and you don't read the WSJ, you're not going to be able to communicate with your colleagues.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Seems like something Google should actually buy for the content-making-people. Maybe there's just too much debt though, and they can just hire the people directly.

<comment><USER20> I doubt the people are worth that much. Staff journalists don't vary _that_ much in quality (though editorial standards do) and there's tons of fresh meat coming out of j-school every year.

The most valuable asset that the New York Times has is its brand. Well, that and a big honking New York skyscraper.

<comment><USER19> Interesting. I honestly don't really know how newspapers work, but I feel like TNYT has something that's an order of magnitude better than most papers that just republish AP crap. Maybe I'm just misled by the brand though.

I'm thinking along the lines of reporters who are funded for long enough to go to a foreign country, genuinely spend time understanding what's going on, and writing thoughtful, lengthy articles (that then of course get parroted all over). Is that largely the responsibility of the editorial staff at a newspaper?

I guess Google should get those people and maybe get them to throw in the logo. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment> patrickg-zill "Mediasaurus" by Michael Crichton. Google it.

</comment><comment><USER21> I don't understand the business, it shouldn't take more than 50 writers to write a paper, pay them 100k , that's 5mm sell 500k subcriptions at 50/yr that's 25mm

And that's not counting ads (or printing cost) perhaps they cancel out though

<comment><USER22> The NYT has a circulation of 1,077,256. Delivery is anywhere from $3.35 per week to $6.70 per week depending on frequency of delivery. Obviously many people just buy single copies at newsstands. They employ 11,965 people including 350 staff writers.

<comment><USER23> How about this - fire everyone but the writers and a couple of great managers, sell all of the office space. Meet at Starbucks, if you need to, and organize everything over e-mail.

<comment><USER24> Do you know what those other 11,615 employees do? I don't, and this is just a stab in the dark, but I'm thinking you're as clueless as I am. I don't know how such an absurd statement gets modded up on a site like HN that tends to be geared for the entrepreneur types.

How exactly would firing 97% of the workforce help turn things around? Let's say you've got 350 writers and a couple great managers. Nevermind what your massive layoffs do for morale or company image. Who is going to publish what they write? Do you stay in the print business or do you take it online? Who prints it? Who is going to distribute it? Who puts it online? Who is going to do the investigation necessary to provide the writers with interesting things to write about? Who is going to market the business? How are you going to process payroll and handle day to day HR issues? Don't you also need a legal department? Afterall, you are writing stories about people and they may not always like what you write. You are going to have the occasional libel suit even if you have covered your bases. Oh, and who is going to run your email servers through which all of this will be organized?

Meet at Starbucks? Sheesh... This is the New York Times. They've been in business since 1851 and have received 98 Pulitzer Prizes. That's more than any other paper. In 1964 they took a case to the Supreme Court (Times v. Sullivan) which further established freedom of the press. In 1971 they successfully argued a Supreme Court case against the US government over a series of articles which revealed the expansion of the Vietnam War at the same time President Johnson was promising not to expand the war. There's no doubt they have some major problems, but this is a very prestigious organization you're talking about- not some crappy startup blog/amateur media outlet.

Your idea solves just about nothing and creates enormous problems. Running a newspaper, or any business for that matter, involves a lot more than you've taken into account.

<comment><USER23> Good points. My post was moronic. I'd vote it down if I could.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Serves them right for covering up the illegal wiretapping story to help Bush win reelection. The sooner they are out of business the better. I personally prefer to get my news from sources that don't conspire with the government to promote genocide and the erosion of civil liberties.

<comment><USER24> Would you care to share any of those sources? I'm just curious. I've been trying to get away from the Reuters/AP stuff myself and discovered The Christian Science Monitor a while back. Despite the name it's not a religious paper. Anyway, they employ their own staff of investigative reporters around the world and do not rely on AP or Reuters. Their news is not updated as frequently, but the content selection and writing is top notch. I was very impressed.

Now to my point... I read up a little bit on the history of the paper. It was founded in 1907 by a woman who had been targeted by the owner of the New York World. By the way, this man goes by the name Joseph Pulitzer. She started the paper so that she would have a forum to fight back. The lesson here is that there is no such thing as a media outlet without some agenda. Sure, they may not be conspiring with governments, but there is an agenda. It's important to keep that in mind.

<comment><USER25> Personally I like Salon. They don't publish very often, but unlike newspapers I don't find blatant errors in all the subjects I know anything about. Their investigative journalism is pretty good too; they've covered everything from NetHack to what really happened at Columbine HS. IIRC they even broke the bridge to nowhere story and were the first to publish the Abu Ghraib photos. It doesn't really have any agenda. The columnists tend to be socially liberal, but it's clear the beliefs they're expressing are their own and not just what they're told to write about. Think of it like Jon Stewart in newspaper form.

Anyway I don't think they are really ready to be a suitable replacement to the NYT quite yet, but if the NYT goes bust and Salon were to scoop up some of the talent and merge with a couple other independent outlets they might be able to put together something good.</comment></comment></comment>


Is Hulu Driving People Back to Piracy? - <AUTHOR> http://newteevee.com/2009/02/21/is-hulu-driving-people-back-to-piracy/

<comment><USER2> First of all, it's important to differentiate between Hulu and its content partners. I'm willing to bet Jason Kilar didn't make this call.

Second, yes, it is a stupid move that shows a lack of foresight. In five or ten years, everyone will have their TV connected to a free web-based source of content. If the content owners wise up, then it will be their source (something like Hulu) and they'll get some ad revenue. If not, then it will be a pirate source instead. As we saw with Napster.....(four years)....iTMS, the sooner the content owners accept the inevitable the sooner they stop losing money.

</comment><comment><USER3> Hulu is a U.S. service only. Should i find a way to trick hulu that i am from the US, or should i just do a google search with "torrent" at the end of the query?

<comment><USER4> The Greasemonkey extension for Firefox with the 'IMDB Pirated Version' script is great, you go to IMDB read about a movie and the script puts a link at the top of the page to any website with a torrent of the movie.

<comment><USER5> 'Pirates of the Amazon' does the same thing to Amazon.com.

IIRC the site was shut down recently, but i think the extension still works

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> One thing people have to realize is that this wasn't so much a Hulu decision as it was a Network decision.

The networks want to control where you view the hulu content (at your computer). If you're watching it on TV you may as well be paying for cable (in their minds).

<comment><USER7> You're making an arbitrary distinction there since the networks own Hulu. They're just doing some good cop bad cop PR, and you're falling for it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> What do you mean, "back to"?

</comment><comment><USER9> South Park is a really great example of how to do online television from a user's perspective.

1\. They are really good about getting episodes up quickly.

2\. It's high quality.

3\. Episodes are never taken down.

4\. It's ad free.

<http://www.southparkstudios.com/>

Now granted it doesn't deal with big media's concerns. It's not set up to make money. There are no ads, and the show archive is great, so it could be argued that it removes incentive to by season dvds. think Matt Stone and Troy Parker might be making a little money because of it, but it's from product sales, not from ads.

<comment><USER10> Hmm, last time I watched it, they had ads.

I do agree that it's excellent that they don't take episodes down. If the episode isn't available online, I'm not going to go watch it on TV. Hulu could learn a lesson.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> No, it never did anything for piracy, because it didn't have as much content. I'd venture a guess that most piracy is for brand new movies, not single episodes of shows(for most shoes, some exceptions like Entourage exist obviously)

<comment><USER12> Actually, I think you'd be surprised how often this happens:

1\. New episode of favorite show airs

2\. Forget to record.

3\. Look on network site, not up yet.

4\. Look on Hulu, not there either.

5\. Pirate Bay and done.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> bad move from the online community. Hulu represents a tenuous olive branch between online content watchers and the big media interests. If this gets screwed up it will be another 5 years before tv gets into the 21st century.

<comment><USER9> I wouldn't take it that seriously. Most pirates want access to high quality material, when they want it. Sure, if Hulu screws up, it will probably take a while for big media to try something like it again. But I think pirates would accept something new pretty quickly.

It's incredibly easy to get something off bittorrent, so there's no risk in trying a new website. Hulu seems to value their user's trust a lot. It's really nice, and shows intent. But I don't need to have a lot of trust to use Hulu. If I don't like how they let me access a tv show, I can just use some frictionless means to get it a couple hours later.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> In a word: yes.</comment>


The per capita rate of innovation (2004) - <AUTHOR> http://brucegary.net/book_GE/Chapter_20.html <comment><USER2> I do hope everyone realizes this is silly.

Everything in this comparison relies on the quality of data. The "number of innovations" data comes exclusively from a book by Isaac Asimov with under 1500 entries. To make some sort of grand pronouncement about a date range for the end of humanity based on Asimov's very subjective and unscientific qualification of what makes an innovation is absurd.

It's interesting that we think incremental improvement matters less than a brand new idea. Even steel tools built upon prior knowledge, and took decades to get right. Machines were incremental improvements from manually powered systems, which gradually evolved into the complex machiens we have now.

Some of these changed may feel like evolutionary innovations rather than revolutionary ideas, but that's how technology develops. It's easy to look at past innovations from the Greeks, because we see how the technology went from 0 to amazing. But we do it in retrospect, and speaking in terms of centuries, which makes innovations appear to spring out of nowhere more than they actually did.

<comment><USER3> It is a bit silly, but if you use a variety of encyclopedias and source texts with various temporal cutoffs (not just this one, but Simonton's work or Murray's _Human Accomplishment_ where he ignores any item after 1950 while drawing on published books), you do pretty consistently get the late 1800s as the apex for per capita.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The estimated 50% chance of human population collapse between 2140 and 2600, seems reasonable.

Our power to destroy ourselves with weapons or accidents, or use biological and information technology to productively enhance or replace ourselves is growing at an exponential rate.

Any scenario where humanity reaches the year 3000 without either having destroyed ourselves, or enhanced ourselves beyond recognition, seems unlikely to the extreme. The only scenario I can imagine where radical technological change does not result in a radical change to the human condition is if a totalitarian government managed to enforce a no-progress civilization for hundreds of years.

I am marking the years 2140-2600 on my calendar so I can remember to look back and review the results of this prediction using my post-human thinking apparatus. Hopefully I didn't extinct myself.

<comment><USER5> For a second there I read, "enhanced ourselves beyond _redemption_..."

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've had an intuitive sense for a long time that the innovation rate has fallen dramatically since the 1950s. What we're doing now really feels like small incremental improvements to technology that was all invented prior to 1970.

Has anything actually been invented since 1970?

Relevant:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJDv- zdhzMY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJDv-zdhzMY)

<comment><USER7> The Internet and everything in it?

<comment><USER8> It's important not to confuse the rapid production and reproduction of novelty with innovation.

<comment><USER9> Where do you draw the line?

<comment><USER8> I feel like this @hipsterhacker tweet sums it up nicely: [https://twitter.com/hipsterhacker/status/466077431061696512](https://twitter.com/hipsterhacker/status/466077431061696512)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The full book is somewhat interesting: [http://books.google.com/books?id=RNhLAW615QgC&pg=PP1&dq=inau...](http://books.google.com/books?id=RNhLAW615QgC&pg=PP1&dq=inauthor:%22Bruce+L+Gary%22&ei=6On7S6ajDYXclQT1qpWnDw&cd=2#v=onepage&q&f=false)

He paints an excessively pessimistic picture IMO.

</comment><comment><USER11> A lot of innovation is individual as opposed to institutional.

Motivated, technically qualified individuals have always been "out there", but now they are lost in the wash with so many highly degreed average people dominating both institutional and venture efforts.

The traditional "great man" innovators are more out-of-place than ever in this landscape, where quantity of technical people is the limiting factor for shareholders requiring rapid growth.

If structures allow a return to having the quality of the innovators prevail over the quantity, more of the outstanding unrecognized individuals may be able to contribute again like what was seen 50 to 100years ago.

Some shareholders would not be able to accept the longer incubation periods and slower exponential growth necessary, but not all shareholders are the same. It could happen.

Ask yourself, if DaVinci, Newton, Edison, Einstein or somebody like that were unknowns but wanted to innovate for you, or wanted you to support their efforts (which might already be in progress), which of your exclusionary tactics would eliminate them in the first or second round?

I've said it before, technology has progressed but it's clear that PEOPLE used to be more advanced than they are now.

</comment><comment><USER12> Where is this data coming from? And why are there no confidence intervals on his measures?

</comment><comment><USER13> The attempt to give a formal treatment to data as subjective as "innovations" is probably not much more than a fun exercise. And, from that perspective, I did have fun reading it. :)

</comment><comment><USER14> We changed the submitted title ("Global literacy rate over time (and more)") to what seems to be the author's phrase for the key idea of this piece. Better title suggestions welcome.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure. I posted mainly because I thought literacy rate over time was interesting, but wanted to post more context than just the graph. Looks like others found the rest of the page interesting.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Suggestions for Mac Laptop - <AUTHOR>

I'm interested in purchasing a Mac laptop, but have very little knowledge about them. My prior experience is limited to a few brief tristes in various Apple stores.
I don't need anything fancy as far as graphics or gaming. I'd mainly use it for Rails and web development.
What do you guys recommend? <comment><USER2> Easy: buy whatever the cheapest laptop Apple sells, at any point in time. The 2ghz white Macbook is standard issue at our company; we use 'em like a chef uses a Global chef knife: software development, C code compilation, running Windows tools under VMWare, and running custom VM's for target software during analysis.

There's no feature of the Macbook Pro anyone on my team ever misses. The larger screen is a liability when traveling; at the office, you want a monitor anyways. You're almost never going to be CPU bound, and even if you were, the difference in processor performance is negligible.

Just get the cheapest Macbook and spend the rest of your money on more important things.

<comment><USER3> CPU's a big help if you're compiling a lot. Then again most projects are small enough where it doesn't matter. But my MBP's a necessity when it comes to compiling Firefox.

<comment><USER2> Even compilation is mostly IO bound. I'd be interested in an off-the-shelf benchmark on compiling Firefox, MB vs. MBP. I haven't seen one. Regardless, you're paying a _lot_ for what may be a nominal difference; you could spend that money better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> You've got like 3 choices, it's not that complicated.

<comment><USER5> But there's the stylish one, the _other_ stylish one, and the other _other_ stylish one.

<comment><USER2> There's 4 at the moment:

* The super thin, relatively expensive, stylish one that's limited and hard to expand. (Air)

* The super cheap, relatively unstylish white all-purpose machine. (Original Macbook)

* The cheap, flashy, glassy new one. (Macbook)

* The expensive, flashy, glassy new one with the big screen. (Macbook Pro).

<comment><USER6> The old 17-inch Macbook Pro is still available.

<comment><USER2> Did not know that. See? It _is_ more complicated than Matt Maroon said.

<comment><USER4> You got me.

Lack of choices is simultaneously their biggest weakness and strength.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'll tell you one thing: a white macbook is not a good laptop for travelling a lot. Mine is busted along the seams, the hard drive failed after 5 months, and the plastic above the hard drive has now turned yellow, I assume because of the heat. Also, the keyboard is missing a lot of standard keys for my language.

I wish I had gone for the IBM x series instead. They look like they can handle the travel much better.

<comment><USER8> Agreed. White does not travel well. I've learned there's a reason most travel gear is sold in black -- it hides the dirt and scratches!

To keep my white MacBook looking clean, I bought a ProTouch keyboard cover from iSkin, and a "PalmGuard" wristpad covers from Moshi -- and even then, I try to use an external keyboard and mouse as much as possible to reduce wear and tear on the laptop.

I'm glad Apple's brief flirtation with white laptop design is over.

<comment><USER9> the first ibook came out in '99, i would hardly call the last 9 years a brief flirtation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> As a Macbook owner I had to admit the Toshiba Protege latest ultraportable leaves it biting the dust. The current Macbooks look a decade older. Compare it with the Macbook Air: \- Weight 1kg (vs 1.35kg) \- Slim (even more) \- 3G modem built in. \- It has a DVD player. \- Removable battery. Apple needs to catch up fast or they are going to loose on this one. Unless something changes, next year I'll be buying my first Toshiba. Apple can't charge prime and under-deliver.

Oh, and asking to pay full price on new OS version that came out only three months after laptop purchase didn't help. This is probably bye bye Mac for me, unless something major changes.

<comment><USER4> Apple's really far behind on ultra-portables because they tried too hard to make the Air thin. Nobody sticks a laptop in their pocket, and any bag is designed for a much thicker one than that, so there's really no use for it.

What there is use for is a spindle and multiple USB ports.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Buy the least expensive new Macbook. I am in love with this machine. It plays World of Warcraft at 40-60 FPS, I have 4 spaces at all times, it never lags on anything I do. With all my windows on full screen, 13 inches is enough space to do everything comfortably, including gaming. The aluminum casing is truly revolutionary, there are no screws at all on the entire case, it's incredibly sturdy and light.

I am currently developing on it on a daily basis, 12 hrs at a time (Ruby on Rails too). Macs are really good for Ruby on Rails because they have Ruby built in, and it's easy to use gem to get Rails and all those other goodies.

But if you want to keep yourself up-to-date, you should probably ditch the Ruby that comes with your Mac and use Macports to get the newest Ruby, some new programs are dependent on it, ie. Capistano.

<comment><USER2> Strongly advise rebuilding Ruby (or for that matter Python) yourself. You should be developing on a build of your runtime that you understand; for both Ruby and Python, I've run into incredibly annoying problems in the built-in versions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Consider replacing the HD in one of the aluminum Macbooks with one of the new Intel SSDs (about $600 now for 64GB) which will speed up IO drastically. Or wait half a year and do it substantially more cheaply.

<comment><USER13> Here are two reviews of the X25-M SSD you're talking about:

[http://paulstamatiou.com/2008/10/29/review- intel-x25-m-80gb-...](http://paulstamatiou.com/2008/10/29/review- intel-x25-m-80gb-ssd)

[http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2008/10/so-i-got-one- of-...](http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2008/10/so-i-got-one-of-new-intel- ssds.html)

I'm waiting a few months until the 160GB version is available (and costs about the same as the current 80MB version).

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Developers are often seen with MacBook Pros. For example, RailsConf: <http://flickr.com/photos/twylo/173895378/>

With the new MacBook/Pros, it's basically whether you want a bigger screen or not, and if you want more GHz of processing power. There are 2.0 and 2.4GHz MacBooks available, $1300 and $1600, respectively, and MacBook Pros start at 2.4 up, starting at $2000.

To put things in perspective, here is what you're getting for $400 more in the MacBook Pro 2.4GHz than the MacBook 2.4GHz:

      - bigger screen
      - extra NVidia 8600M 9600M GT graphics card
      - FireWire port and ExpressCard port
      - and of course, 2" more of real estate.

Or, you might be okay with the 2.0GHz MacBook, if all you are doing is Rails work, in which case you would save another $300.

So the question basically is, 1) do you want 2.0 or 2.4GHz (suggest 2.4), and 2) do you want the bigger screen, and if so, if that is worth $400 to you (along with the other stuff.)

<comment><USER2> In 2008, does anything use the ExpressCard port that you care about? Isn't it basically obsolete?

You'd say the same about Firewire --- except:

* Losing Firewire also costs you "target disk mode", which lets you mount another Mac as an otherwise inert external hard drive, which is hugely helpful for backing up and restoring machines.

* Firewire is the standard remote debugging interface for the Windows kernel, and is an all-around great debugging interface (Firewire itself is basically nothing but a network protocol hooked directly up to a DMA engine); there's no perfect replacement for it that I know of.

<comment><USER14> ExpressCard _is_ obsolete, and I don't care about it. That's just a list of the differences between MB and MBP.

It's only useful if you have an old EVDO/3G card that relies on ExpressCard.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I recommend the one I just bought, the previous generation 2.5 GHz Macbook Pro. Was $2500 a few weeks ago, now selling on Amazon for $1650:

<http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0013FLTNS/>

In many ways it's better than the new version. IMO it's the best laptop ever made.

<comment><USER15> I also upgraded it with this RAM from Newegg for $55:

[http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231...](http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231154)

Not only is it 4 GB, but it's lower latency than the stock RAM so it's a little bit faster.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Go for the refurb's from the apple store... cheaper and through more testing than your normal mac

</comment><comment><USER17> Anything with an Intel core duo or up. G4 powerbooks are slow, always thrashing the hard drive. Also would avoid 1st gen MB pros, from early 2006, they were blazingly hot, and you'd get just a few months apple care right now. avoid Airs, i don't think they've solved core shutdown problem:

[http://paulstamatiou.com/2008/10/26/hopping-on-the-new- macbo...](http://paulstamatiou.com/2008/10/26/hopping-on-the-new-macbook-pro- bandwagon)

for inbox specials, refurbs, look at apple store. Also

<http://www.smalldog.com/>

<http://www.powermax.com/>

<comment><USER2> Apple doesn't sell a laptop with anything less than a Core 2 Duo at this point. Having burned through at least 4 Macbooks in the last couple years, I wouldn't buy one used or refurbed.

<comment><USER18> I have a 17" MBP, refurbed, and a macmini, refurbed. Never had a problem. I used to have a 15" MBP, bought new through work, nothing but problems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I can't afford a Ferrari, but I can get the best laptop on the market. And that's the Macbook Pro. You may be able to find a better value, but you won't be able to find a better machine. If you have the money, get one.

</comment><comment><USER20> I still have my first gen Macbook Pro (Core Duo 1.83Ghz) and its still running great for me.

Although I play WoW on it so I wish it was a little faster, and Photoshop takes its time to open, its great for web development! :)

Screen size is what you should be looking for, I wouldn't want the Macbooks screen — so you have 2 choices, the new Macbook Pro 15", or the old Macbook Pro 17". :)

</comment><comment><USER21> I'd say the new MacBook, if you've never got one before and don't need graphics. It means you have the advantage of the newest design - I disliked the older MacBooks a lot, personally - and you're not paying for the MBP, which is double the price and offers a lot of things you don't exactly need. Then you can customize it with whatever RAM and graphics updates and hard drives you need.

</comment><comment><USER22> The answer depends on your budget :) Personally, I would go for the 2.4Ghz MBP and buy my own extra memory for it. Saying that though the cheaper 2.4Ghz MB also looks like a good machine. Question is if you really need a laptop. I really wanted one, but ended up getting an iMac instead. Looking back I'm very happy I got a desktop rather then a laptop.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the tips. Why are you happy about the desktop?

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> It really depends on your price point. I do ruby dev work (merb, postgres, nginx) on Mac Air and absolutely _love_ it. Its by far the best laptop experience I've ever had.

I have not run into any problem with performance for my dev work or for testing using VMWare Fusion running Windows XP and Ubuntu server.

</comment><comment><USER24> I have my eyes on the 13" 2.0GHz Macbook w/ 4GB Ram and SSD. The price adds up to be a little more than entry-level MBP. What do you guys think?

</comment><comment><USER25> Get a maxed out 13-inch macbook pro! it will run for years with no problems. And you won't get pissed off ;P

</comment><comment><USER26> MacBook</comment>


Villainy - a sbvtle inspired Octopress theme - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/drunkdev/villainy-octopress-theme

<comment><USER2> Do you have a demo version of it running anywhere?</comment>


Lisp as the Maxwell's equations of software (2012) - <AUTHOR> http://www.michaelnielsen.org/ddi/lisp-as-the-maxwells-equations-of-software/

<comment><USER2> I think if anything should be seen as analagous to Maxwell's equations, it should be the lambda calculus. It is actually a piece of mathematics, rather than the mess of compiler internals this article describes.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. The Binary lambda calculus

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

features this universal machine:

        (λ11)(λλλ1(λλλλ3(λ5(3(λ2(3(λλ3(λ123)))(4(λ4(λ31(21))))))
        (1(2(λ12))(λ4(λ4(λ2(14)))5))))(33)2)(λ1((λ11)(λ11)))

which parses a binary-encoded lambda term and evaluates its application to the remaining input bits.

</comment></comment><comment> vezzy-fnord Previously on Hacker News:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3830867](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3830867)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9038505](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9038505)

</comment><comment><USER4> I like the article content but analogy is completely off putting. Maxwell's Equations weren't exactly known for its compactness. When he published them, they were huge in number and size. The major achievement of Maxwell's equation was to calculate speed of light with previously known completely unrelated constants. This opened up door that light was perhaps electromagnetic waves. The code described in this article is cool for its compactness but otherwise from computer science perspective its not breaking any new grounds.

</comment><comment><USER5> Neat seeing the python and the lisp implementation next to each other. It reminds me of 'Make A Lisp'[0].

[0]: [https://github.com/kanaka/mal](https://github.com/kanaka/mal)

<comment><USER6> Back when I was into Python (mid-2000), this reference was quite famous:

Python for Lisp Programmers - [http://norvig.com/python- lisp.html](http://norvig.com/python-lisp.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The tiddlylisp implementation is interesting. Seeing a Lisp compiler in my usual language (Python) is helpful. If nothing else, I'm really glad I read the article since I'm giving Lisp another try (via Land of Lisp, [http://landoflisp.com/](http://landoflisp.com/)) after a 9 month hiatus.

</comment><comment><USER8> Technically these are Heavyside equations who was fond of Div and Curl. The original 20 Maxwell equations are here:

www.zpenergy.com/downloads/Orig_maxwell_equations.pd</comment>


Websites are never finished, only abandoned - <AUTHOR> http://trevorfitzgerald.com/2011/08/websites-are-never-finished-only-abandoned/

<comment><USER2> "As soon as you're born you start dying"

I think that could be said of most websites too. Even the great Facebook/Microsoft/Google/Apple/Twitter with their millions of users aren't immune. At some point in time, they will die out.

It could be a long time. The Dutch East India Company lasted for 200 years. But they came to an end eventually, and so will all these companies.

<comment><USER3> I understand the meaning behind "as soon as you're born you start dying" but that phrase really irritates me because, well, you're not really. You're growing, new cells are being created, new memories being made... I'd say that's pretty much the opposite of dying.

<comment><USER2> You never stop growing. New cells are always being created. Old cells are also dying. When do you stop growing and start dying?</comment></comment></comment>


Apple CarPlay Infotainment System Runs on BlackBerry's QNX - <AUTHOR> http://n4bb.com/apple-carplay-infotainment-runs-blackberrys-qnx/ <comment><USER2> Depending on how this thing is implemented, the claim in the title might or might not be true. For all we know, CarPlay might just be an extension to the existing car entertainment systems, using something like VNC (or hopefully something more optimized for the use-case) to show the iOS screen on the existing infrastructure.

In that case, the car is running QNX because it has always been running QNX and because the car must be useable even if the user decides to switch to a different platform or loses their device.

In that scenario, saying CarPlay is running QNX is similar to saying your Thunderbolt display is running OSX when it's connected to your Mac running OSX, or using an even closer analogy, similar to saying that your OS X machine is running linux because you're using SSH connected to a linux box (or any other kind of remote desktop)

Personally, I would guess this is the kind of integration at work here. This is not about actually delegating the entertainment system functionality to iOS. This is just about sending touch events and maybe telemetry data to iOS while displaying the video feed produced by iOS.

<comment><USER3> Indeed, CarPlay appears to use the existing h264-based display streaming technology that Apple employs for AirPlay and the Lightning Digital AV adapters.

<comment><USER4> The CarPlay name, which is similar to AirPlay, seems to hint at that too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> No, the in-built car infotainment is built on QNX. Of course it works without phone, too! The CarPlay is just for iPhone users if they want to use their iPhone that way. It's similar to AirPlay. Android users can plug in their devices and get Android on that thing (when Android gets the compatible software).

</comment><comment><USER6> CarPlay doesn't run anything. It's a protocol for iOS to talk to in car entertainment systems and controls. It's better to think of it as a specialized version of AirPlay for cars.

</comment><comment><USER7> QNX ... In late 90s there was a story making rounds that all street lights in Toronto were managed from a single 486 box running QNX. Does anyone else remember it?

</comment><comment><USER8> I always wondered why they would use something like QNX and have more work ahead of them in integration vs. just put iOS on it like they did with an apple TV. The cost is low enough to make it practical.

<comment><USER9> QNX is already used in a lot of in-car infotainment systems and the auto manufacturers have plenty of experience with it. It's also better optimized for this sort of environment. For example an iPhone can take up to a minute to start up, but QNX can boot almost instantly. It's not just a case of slapping iOS into a car, job done. The environment, required performance characteristics, device drivers needed to integrate with the rest of the car's systems, etc, etc are a whole different world. It's not that Apple couldn't do it, it's just that there are existing systems that do exactly what's needed.

<comment><USER10> Also interesting to note is that Tizen has a presence for infotainment systems with car manufacturers also.

[https://01.org/solutions/why-tizen-for-ivi](https://01.org/solutions/why- tizen-for-ivi)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "We have a long-standing partnership with Apple to ensure high-quality connectivity with their devices, and this partnership extends to support for Apple CarPlay."

That statement from QNX doesn't seem to confirm that CarPlay runs on QNX. Might it be QNX is working to support Apple CarPlay integration / interaction with other head unit devices?

That said, I don't often follow automotive head unit software so I might be missing something that is not in the article.

</comment><comment><USER12> Link bait.

<comment><USER13> More specifically, the title says "runs on", the body of the post says "may actually run" and the only evidence given is that Apple listed somewhere on the QNX website.

<comment><USER14> The update is saying that QNX has confirmed this.

<comment><USER13> Oh I see, missed that, thanks. Well, I'm splitting hairs here, but "runs on" and "this partnership extends to support for Apple CarPlay" is not really the same thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Lots and lots of stuff runs QNX. My brother works in lighting and stage design, and it's big there.

</comment><comment><USER16> Why is this news? CarPlay can run on top of any platform (it could run on windows if it was ported there) just as a VNC client can. They are essentially the same concept. Apple is actually playing catch up with the Android centric MirrorLink technology.

<comment><USER17> Do everybody a favour and just don't post if you aren't interested in the topic.

I for one am interested in how this was implemented. Who cares if someone did this before ? Apple has a long history of coming in later and implementing the overall solution better.</comment></comment>


Hayflick Limit: number of times a human cell population divides before it stops - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayflick_limit <comment><USER2> What did you find interesting about this article?</comment>


Night Sight: Seeing in the Dark on Pixel Phones - <AUTHOR> https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/11/night-sight-seeing-in-dark-on-pixel.html <comment><USER2> A big recent thread about this: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18301745](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18301745)

</comment><comment><USER3> This feature is honestly amazing. I had serious doubts about Google's claims with Night Sight, but The Verge has a great article[1] that uses the pre- release APK and the results are nothing short of spectacular.

On a side note, I hadn't bought a new phone in 4 years and decided to spring for the new Pixel 3 XL. Very satisfied so far.

[1] [https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/25/18021944/google-night- si...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/25/18021944/google-night-sight- pixel-3-camera-samples)

<comment><USER4> If the Pixel had a headphone jack, I would probably buy one as well. But that's the thing...

<comment><USER5> You might as well get used to no headphone jack, they're not going to make a come back.

<comment><USER6> Seriously. This argument is getting old. Bluetooth headphones aren't that difficult to find cheap now anyways. Are people really that attached to their old wired headphones?

<comment><USER7> * Bluetooth headphones are VASTLY more expensive compared to wired equivalents.

* Bluetooth headphones are a _nightmare_ to temporarily pair to devices.

* AUX is a standard available on all devices in decades.

* Bluetooth headphones needs to be charged.

* Blueetoth headphones have a very limited lifespan because you can't replace batteries in them.

* AUX is quick, pairing to your friends car for a 15 minute drive - nope.

* Bluetooth is quite buggy. AUX is not.

As someone who has bluetooth headphones, bluetooth in car, wifi casting at home - lack of 3.5mm is still a deal breaker. I'm so happy my new phone has it (last one had an adapter that I couldn't bring with me constantly (oh and it started to glitch on me after a year...).

<comment><USER8> You know the Pixel 3 comes with a USB-C to Aux adapter, right? You can still use wired headphones.

Admittedly, you still lose the ability to charge your phone while listening with headphones unless you use wireless charging or find a USB-C splitter.

<comment><USER7> That just makes it even more infuriating. In what universe is bringing an adapter _with a phone_ a valid thing?

You could "pair" it with your headphones, which works ok if you only use them with your phone (and don't have to decouple them ever) - big if. Also assumes you only have one pair that you use.

But the headphone jack shines for temporary and unexpected situations. Where you don't have your headphones you are out of luck.

Just no, seriously. NO.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Without pushing the cost astronomically high with f/1,4 lenses, it seems as if Night Sight somehow algorithmically allows the standard f/1,8 camera to shoot two-thirds up and allow for these low-light, long-exposure shots.

It's honestly an amazing challenge they accepted and quite possible they accomplished their goal.

<comment><USER10> What do you mean by shoot two thirds up?

I don't think it's physically possible for an f1.8 lens to pretend to be f1.4, it's the physical dimensions of the iris. The only way is by bringing up the ISO which is what every camera does when adjusting exposure.

<comment><USER9> The lens itself is never going to be able to change, correct.

When we get into implifying the problem by "bringing up the ISO" though, this is where you'll run into problems. Anybody can raise ISO from 800 to 3200 but then you run the risk of inadvertently producing massive amounts of noise on your photo. This is why Google introduced HDR+ to reduce noise. [0]

So, what Google did, or at least it seems like, is they were able to take an algorithm that will automatically adjust ISO, reduce noise, and allow for low- light conditions that f1,8 glass would never be able to produce cleanly.

[0] [http://ai.googleblog.com/2014/10/hdr-low-light-and-high- dyna...](http://ai.googleblog.com/2014/10/hdr-low-light-and-high-dynamic- range.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I read that some people have gotten the APK to work on non-pixel devices with decent results.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/9u7srh/pixel_3_cam...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/9u7srh/pixel_3_camera_with_night_sight_works_on_nexus_6p/)

<comment><USER12> Yup, works fine on my Pixel 2.

<comment><USER13> I think you may have misread his post.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Google continues to really take their cameras to the next level. It's just a shame the rest of the hardware doesn't follow suit.

<comment><USER15> When you say "rest of the hardware" are you referring specifically to Google's Pixel phones? From a hardware perspective, they seem pretty great.

Or, are you referring to the phone industry in general, and how they're unable to make cameras that match the quality of the ones in the Google Pixel line?

<comment><USER14> I'm referring specifically to Pixel phones. They made weird choices with awkward notches, small storage and RAM, as well as a mediocre at best battery.

<comment><USER16> Also, removing the headphone jack for no reason except that it's fashionable right now.

<comment><USER14> The conceit that it makes it slimmer is ridiculous. Give me a thicker phone to fit in that headphone jack, and while you're at it, fill the rest of the space with battery.

<comment><USER17> And a floppy disk. An an IEEE-488 interface.

<comment><USER18> This argument is disingenuous. I hope people would stop spouting it.

There will ALWAYS be an advantage to wired headphones over wireless: reliability and versatility.

Bluetooth headphones can be VERY finicky about who they'll connect to and with how much hassle. They also cannot be plugged into a separate DAC/Amp setup.

Perhaps if it were standard for headphones to allow the user to bypass the bluetooth DAC and run the drivers on our own signal, but I haven't really seen this on affordable headphones.

<comment><USER19> This argument is equally disingenuous because you're implying that you simply can't use wired headphones of any kind. You can still get wired headphones without a headphone jack and just use the USB-C port.

<comment><USER16> And demolish any supposed gains in size and weight from removing the jack in the first place.

The thing that gets me is, removing the headphone provides no benefit whatsoever for the vast majority of users. A few grams and some fraction of a millimeter aren't enough for you to feel the difference in your hand. If you don't use wired headphones, you gain no advantage from removing the jack. If you _do_ use wired headphones, there's a substantial disadvantage to removing the jack. So if it doesn't benefit anyone, why do it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I wish there was an app combo to stack images in post on the laptop. There are choices to be made (dynamic range for one), and when done in such a way there is almost unlimited computing power.

There are a few astrophotography apps, but they don't use accelerometer data and aren't particularly suited for uneven motion blur AFAIK.

<comment><USER21> IIRC Astrophotography stacking app is DeepSkyStacker for if anyone interested

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> That's with a tiny cell phone imager. Combined with a real color night vision imager [1] the results should be as good as daylight.

[1] [https://www.x20.org/color-night-vision/](https://www.x20.org/color-night- vision/)

</comment><comment><USER23> The final example picture is from downtown Galt (Cambridge), Waterloo region. I wonder if some of this work was done at the Kitchener engineering office?

Here's the same angle on Maps: [https://email@example.com,-80.3149752,51a,35y,2...](https://email@example.com,-80.3149752,51a,35y,226.21h,65.16t/data=!3m1!1e3)

</comment><comment><USER24> Is anyone doing the equivalent for the iPhone?

<comment><USER25> No reason they couldn't. It would just involve some fairly advanced algorithms, so it is not trivial. But the hardware is there. Apple could release this in a update if they wanted. Doubt it will happen till next year though.

<comment><USER26> It's been the case since the Pixel 1 that if you want the best in class camera - buy Pixel.

If you are happy to wait, sure maybe it'll come to iOS - Google are unlikely to stop their efforts though.

<comment><USER25> Night vision is best in class for sure. But it is quite a stretch to claim that pixel still has the best camera. The anandtech review of the Pixel 3 consistently said that in daylight the iPhone Xs and Galaxy S9 produced better photos. They just have better hardware. As amazing as software is, you can only do so much to make up for lower class hardware.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Do the links to the full resolution images result in a 401 for anyone else?</comment>


What the gospel of innovation gets wrong - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/06/23/the-disruption-machine <comment><AUTHOR> OP here: One of my favorite articles which combines analysis of a management theory gospel (innovation, disruption!) with an incisive falsification analysis and how the myth persists.

This article led to an epic twitter rant by @pmarca which has since disappeared.</comment>


WordPress Wins $25,000 from DMCA Takedown Abuser - <AUTHOR> https://torrentfreak.com/wordpress-wins-25000-from-dmca-takedown-abuser-150305/

<comment><USER2> Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to read the good news. But the one thing I can't get over is the enormous discrepancy between the actual claims being rewarded vs attorney fees.

$960.00 for Hotham's work and time, $1,860.00 for time spent by Automattic's employees, and $22,264.00 for Automattic's attorney's fees.

And they didn't even have to argue the case. The defendant didn't show up in court.</comment>


Ask HN: Where do I find Mock interview services for Phone/In-person interviews? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Are you in tech? If so, you can use us viz. [http://InterviewKickstart.com](http://InterviewKickstart.com).

Our primary thing is a coding interview prep bootcamp, where we do a lot of practice and mock interviews with people who are working at or alumni of some very coveted companies in the valley.

We don't advertise, but we also do one-off mock interviews, both in-person and on phone or online.

</comment><comment><USER3> careercup.com and hiredintech.com

There are also local meet ups for interview practice. What city are you in?

Also a plug for my own interview prep site. [http://kelukelu.me/interview/](http://kelukelu.me/interview/)</comment>


Windows 10 is the official name for Microsoft's next version of Windows - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/30/6868695/microsoft-windows-9-announced-official <comment><USER2> Lol there was an April fools' article last year saying the same thing [http://www.infoworld.com/article/2613504/microsoft- windows/m...](http://www.infoworld.com/article/2613504/microsoft- windows/microsoft-skips--too-good--windows-9--jumps-to-windows-10.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Nope, it's actually "9", but it's expressed in Base 9, so, "10".

We should all refuse to call it anything other than "Windows 9 base 9".

<comment><USER4> I'd prefer "Windows 10 base 10, base 9"

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> From the people who brought you the Xbox 360 (2nd Xbox) and the Xbox One (3rd Xbox)...

</comment><comment><USER6> there was a massive internal debate to talk the marketing dept down from naming it Windows 10 Live Active Desktop 2015 Home Edition

<comment><USER7> I'm sure there will be enough editions to confuse the average buyer. And different upgrade paths.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7_editions#Comparison_c...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7_editions#Comparison_chart)

<comment><USER8> The average buyer isn't confused by which version to use. They use the one that comes with their computer, or if they really want to upgrade on the same computer, the one that is on the shelf at Best Buy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This feels embarrassingly cringe-worthy. Did they just skip a number for no reason?

What's wrong with Windows 9? Too simple?

<comment><USER10> My guess is that they skipped 9 to demonstrate just how much better than Windows 8 this release will (they hope) be. And I must say, as a bit of marketing I think it's not bad -- it (and the release of 8.1) really makes you feel like they take the criticisms of Windows 8 very seriously. It remains to be seen, of course, whether they can put that into practice.

Also 7 8 9.

<comment><USER11> _My guess is that they skipped 9 to demonstrate just how much better than Windows 8 this release will (they hope) be. And I must say, as a bit of marketing I think it 's not bad_

Like Slackware Linux, which went straight from 4.0 to 7.0 ;).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Go easy on them. They're just trying to catch up with OS X!

</comment><comment><USER13> I don't like the appearance of Live Tiles in the Start Menu. They aren't really related functions. It's a compromise.

<comment><USER14> I kind of like it. It makes sense for something like Weather, which is information you want at-a-glance but you don't want to see all the time like on the start screen. On previous versions of Windows, there'd be links to My Documents and Control Panel and such, but I'd rather use search to find that stuff.

<comment><USER15> If links to Documents and Control Panel can be added via those tiles, I think we'd have a win-win

<comment><USER16> Yeah, It would be nice to have things like CPU usage and RAM available at a glance sometimes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Taking a cue from the PHP internals team.

</comment><comment><USER18> Or is it Windows X?

<comment><USER19> They probably would have used that if it weren't for the x windowing system.

<comment><USER20> Why should that stop them.

Similar naming didn't stop Apple from releasing MAC OS 9, when Microware OS-9 already existed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> [https://twitter.com/0xabad1dea/status/516998685386100736](https://twitter.com/0xabad1dea/status/516998685386100736)

</comment><comment><USER22> "Maybe if we skip a version number, they'll think it's an even newer and better version..."

No but my guess is that 8 bombed so hard that they didn't want to sell it as 9 since that would make it specifically a successor to 8 (which it is, but we wouldn't want the consumers to know). Same way we got 7 instead of Vista 2 or whatever. They want 10 to seem like a new hip thing instead of a desperate attempt to fix their mess.

</comment><comment><USER23> Although Belfiore stresses that this preview only shows a glimpse of the changes in Win10, it's striking that it only shows that Microsoft is making it more like "classic" Windows again. To be honest, apps run now in normal windows - this is such a no-brainer, it should have been there from the start.

</comment><comment><USER24> There was never really any consistent list of Windows versions you could come up with that would lead to "Windows 7" actually being the 7th version. So it's not like the numbers mean much anyway. Why not 10? [1]

[1] Maybe they should have gone for 11, since it's one more.

</comment><comment><USER25> "Q: Now it's Windows 10, will we see future versions named after big cats?

A: Probably not."

</comment><comment><USER26> Love the look of the start menu.

</comment><comment><USER27> They're not taking any chances. From Wikipedia: "The Japanese consider nine to be unlucky because in Japanese the word for nine sounds similar to the word for "pain" or "distress"

</comment><comment><USER21> "We believe that, together with the feedback you provide us, we can build a product that all of our customers will love," Myerson said. "It will be our most open collaborate OS projects ever."

followed by

Q: When it comes to your enterprise customers about Windows 10. How big has the push back been to get Windows away from Live Tiles, back to Windows 7 stuff?

A: We don't hear pushback that we don't like Live Tiles. We hear pushback about too much training.

So basically "together with your feedback" means "we'll ignore your feedback if it conflicts with a design decision we've already made"

<comment><USER9> Not sure why you would draw that conclusion. Do you really think people have a problem with the _live tiles themselves_? That's like saying users are opposed to "icons". Live Tiles are simply icons on steroids.

The Q&A sounded to me like he's saying there's nothing wrong with the Live Tiles, but the UI was simply not lernable especially the dichotomy between tablet/desktop mode. They want to fix the latter problem, but don't see a need to ditch live tiles.

<comment><USER21> Live tiles were one of the most contentious parts of Windows 8!

<comment><USER9> My impression has always been that people misuse the term live tiles to mean the general interface. While I've heard people complain about about the "live tile interface", I don't think I've actually heard a complaint about live tiles vs static icons.

<comment><USER21> Then why would the interviewer specifically bring them up as an example of what people have complained about?

<comment><USER9> As a misnomer, while the speaker answered talking about live tiles themselves. At least that's my interpretation, per my initial reply.

How I read it:

"Q: How are you responding to push back regarding live tiles? A: We actually didn't see push back from live tiles, but learnability. We are addressing the latter."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Of course, they'll probably undermine their claims of it being leaps and bounds past 8 by making the internal version 6.4

</comment><comment><USER29> Was 7 really called 7 because it was the 7th version of the NT kernel? If so, then 7, 8, 8.1(9), 10 makes sense sorta kinda.

<comment><USER30> 2000 (5), XP (5.1), Vista (6), 7 (6.1), 8 (6.2), 8.1 (6.3)

<comment><USER31> And Windows 10 will be 6.4.

It just doesn't make any sense.

<comment><USER32> One popular theory is that there is software out there that checks for Windows version == 6 instead of >= 6 when deciding to enable features for Vista and above. This was definitely true of libcurl at one point, for example.

<comment><USER28> In that case, my vote is for Windows X to be version 6.3.1.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> They had to distance themselves from 8.

<comment><USER34> Is 8 have that bad of a reputation. I bought a laptop last year and once I figured out how to get it to start on desktop mode I've been happily using 8 like I was 7. Barely spend anytime in the Start screen. What else is there that people don't like about 8?

<comment><USER23> People who are still on Win7 mostly associate it with the death of the start menu. What's more, for desktop users it barely has any huge improvements over 7. At least that's my impression.

<comment><USER8> I always know I'm using Windows 7 at work because I really miss the much improved task manager and file transfer screen that Windows 8 has.

Plus I'm running an anti-virus. That's a big tell than you're on an outdated OS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> What is wrong with Windows 9? Why don't Microsoft win by merit instead of silly marketing naming game?

<comment><USER8> What is wrong with Mac OS11? Apple keeps going with OSX because it's so marketable. What is wrong with Linux kernel 2.6? Linus bumped the version number purely for marketing (after saying he would not bump the version number).

Version numbers are pure marketing anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Guy needs a hair cut.</comment>