Fool's Gold 2.0: The siren song of Bitcoin - <AUTHOR> http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/essay.html?id=97 <comment><USER2> Yet another failure to understand the purpose of mining. The energy is NOT being wasted. In fact, the energy spent mining is the exact thing that makes the Bitcoin network function. The energy is being converted into trust. The more energy that is spent on mining, the more difficult it will be for a well- capitalized entity to perform an attack on the network.

Aaron Greenspan, repeat after me: Mining energy is not wasted. Mining energy is not wasted. Mining energy is not wasted.

Now, it _is_ an open question as to whether the cost of running the Bitcoin network is worthwhile. However, for the moment, it clearly is. The fact that some miners can turn even a small profit on the Bitcoins they're rewarded with demonstrates that the utility they provide has positive market value.

Of course at some point it may be that it costs substantially more to mine new Bitcoins than they are worth on the market. If this happens soon, Bitcoin will likely fail. If it happens later, it's possible that transaction fees could prop up the network, but that's purely speculative.

Another thing to consider when assessing the energy efficiency of the Bitcoin network is how it compares to the efficiency of existing currencies. Cash has a physical component and must be manufactured. Electronic fiat is backed by huge, complex, and expensive networks. Visa's datacenters are not free. Keep in mind that credit card transactions typically have a transaction cost of 3%, which in some way represents the cost of operating the Visa network. 3% is kind of a staggeringly huge number, and off the cuff I expect that's actually quite a bit higher than the total Bitcoin network cost to volume ratio...

<comment><USER3> This isn't a judgment on bitcoin, but on your logic:

The fact that some farmers can turn even a small profit on the tulips they're rewarded with demonstrates that the utility they provide has positive market value.

<comment><USER2> Well, what other measure would you use? The markets did, rather quickly, correct themselves with regards to tulips. There was a brief window of mania, but for the last several hundred years the tulip market seems to have been pretty reasonable.

It's just not possible at this time to know whether Bitcoin provides enough value to succeed in the long term. But to survive in the long term, it has to survive in the short term, and our best measure of short term utility is the market.

Again, if the market crashed far below the mining costs, then I would view that as a demonstration of the lack of Bitcoin's utility. And that very well could happen! But it hasn't yet.

<comment><USER4> _Well, what other measure would you use?_

There is no other way to calculate whether something is done at an economic loss or profit than by the loss/profit mechanism of the economy.

 _Again, if the market crashed far below the mining costs, then I would view that as a demonstration of the lack of Bitcoin 's utility._

Keywords being "far below". In cases where gold was the unit of money, there would be times where mining gold was economically unprofitable. As a result, more goods started chasing a fixed supply of money, bringing up the price of money making it more profitable to mine gold.

<comment><USER5> FYI: price of gold currently is at its mining cost.

And Greenspan would still call it a "bubble"

When he is personally responsible for creating dot-com bubble _and_ the housing bubble. Who would ever listen to this clown anyway?

<comment><USER6> You are confusing Aaron with Alan. And Alan Greenspan was one of the first to point out the dotcom bubble (he coined the term irrational exuberance).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> He's trying to tie the value of bitcoin to the forced syncing process - "bitcoin represents spent electricity." That's just not right. In reality, bitcoin represents agreement by parties to honor debts in its ledger. Bitcoin's backing is the information system, not the resources that go into it. The value is tied to people's faith in the currency and ledger system.

EDIT - other criticisms:

\- He criticizes energy waste, but doesn't compare it to the energy use of existing financial systems.

\- He points at the risk of owning wallets without recognizing that this should be a diminishing risk as better software develops.

<comment><AUTHOR> I never actually wrote the phrase you have above in quotes. Regardless, tracking debts and using resources are not mutually exclusive as you suggest.

<comment><USER7> I wasnt trying to quote directly, but to clarify, Greenspan (you?) wrote:

 _At its core, Bitcoin is a proxy for another commodity we are all familiar with: electricity_

You're right that tracking debts (or, to be more correct per cpervica's comment, tracking balances) and using resources are not mutually exclusive, but I don't think that resource usage is the scarce resource that bitcoin represents, as Greenspan (you?) suggests. I think the scarce resource is a set of values contained in the bitcoin ledger, and the mining needed to change their ownership is (as the second question puts it) an externality.

<comment><AUTHOR> (I am Aaron.)

I disagree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > _Yet this is exactly how Bitcoin works: you are rewarded with new coins once > your computer has consumed a certain amount of electricity (measured by the > complexity of computing hashes of data, which takes time). Worse yet, the > amount of electricity required to be wasted to earn a reward predictably > increases, which means that the more Bitcoins one wants, the more one has to > waste._

Couldn't the same be said of gold? Mining and extraction are resource (energy) intensive and yield a result (gold) that is less than it's practical intrinsic value (eg. for industrial purposes).

<comment><USER9> Of course it could. Except there aren't any industrial uses for BitCoin yet :-) Understand that Aaron has a vested interest here (the whole FastCash thing) and so any chance he gets to complain about BitCoin, he does.

Nothing he says in the article is false, except that it is also not "correct." True anything can be used as a marker for value, from notched sticks in Egyptian times, to rocks on an island, to BitCoin. As long as a community exists which agree on their relative value, the marker continues to work as a marker. And the more difficult it is to counterfeit, the better marker it is. So far BitCoin meets that criteria and so it is not 'fools gold.'

He also missed the part where someone cracks your 256 bit key to your wallet and steals all your BitCoin. There is an interesting cryptography problem/question which looks at the cost of mining new BitCoins in comparison to the cost of attempting to guess BitCoin wallet keys.

<comment><USER10> >There is an interesting cryptography problem/question which looks at the cost of mining new BitCoins in comparison to the cost of attempting to guess BitCoin wallet keys.

[http://directory.io/1](http://directory.io/1)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> _Says the guy with a potentially competing product (FaceCash) and also happens to be suing Coinbase and CoinLab, among others._

<comment><USER12> Until recently, I have never seen such extraordinary bias in written work in my life. Almost every time you see someone writing about Bitcoin, they are one-sided to the point of absurdity.

The relentlessly negative articles (like this Aaron Greenspan piece) gives me the impression that the author has a spiteful resentment of those who bought early, and wants to see it crash to $0 so he can be right in the end and tell everyone "I told you so".

On the other hand, many unquestioningly positive writings (which we also see plenty of) are hugely influenced by the fact that the authors invested in Bitcoin and want to see it rise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The author has a huge conflict of interest: FaceCash. Therefore, his opinions are nearly worthless.

<comment><USER14> People with a conflict of interest are often the best to criticize something, as they have a bigger incentive to do a good and thorough job. Treating them with heightened skepticism is good, but dismissing them out of hand is bogus.

<comment><USER15> ...and often the worst.

Greenspan's criticism of Bitcoin is reminiscent of the same pontification he had about Facebook. It competed with his houseSYSTEM. Later, in an open letter for publicity, he advised Zuckerberg to either keep Facebook a closed network, exclusive only to students and faculty of an educational industry (.edu addresses), or to sell to Yahoo at their bid. That's interesting. Then he hawked CommonRoom. I had a level of disgust over Facebook's cavalier attitude with privacy and security that Greenspan seemed to have shared. Competition? Great. Bring on the competition. Criticism? Yes. Let's hear everything. However, the way it was presented as a whole didn't command credibility.

I stopped reading his criticism of Bitcoin when it was clear he didn't understand Bitcoin. "Processing" might be a more digestible term to him, rather than "mining." There are valid criticisms of Bitcoin. This has been the case for 5 years. So too, there are valid criticisms about _anything_. Bitcoin was never intended to be everything to everyone. It will likely remain relegated to a subset of people. Knowing the state of security and the virus- prone systems of today, I wouldn't _want_ the average person to use bitcoin beyond light money. It's risky. Beyond this, bitcoin's positives are entirely purposeful to enough people to trump its negatives. Being different _and_ useful is rare. Being both and decentralized is a true marvel. Fool's Gold 2.0? Nothing is fake about bitcoin. Bitcoin never claims to be _what you want it to be_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It seems that most comments posts are either pro bit-coin or anti bit-coin, but both sides seems to make wrong arguments based on a flawed thinking of mining.

A fixed amount of bit coins are mined (on average) per unit time. Thus, how much work it takes to mine a coin depends solely on the number of miners. Econ 101 theory tells us that the aggregate costs of the miners will equal their aggregate rewards. So, the total cost of mining (hardware, electricity, people's time who work on it) will equal the reward.

That's all that's happening with mining. No for either side to complicate it and make it seem like more is there.

</comment><comment><USER17> The author seems pretty hung up on the fact that mining consumes electricity, but let's look at the numbers.

Miners consume an estimated 108,619 megawatt hours per day (according to [https://blockchain.info/stats](https://blockchain.info/stats)). This is actually a very high estimate as most miners have switched to ASICs and are consuming orders of magnitude less power, but let's use it anyway. This would add up to about $16m spent per day on electricity.

In 2011, the United States alone consumed 367 million gallons of gasoline daily (according to [http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=23&t=10](http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=23&t=10)). At an average gas price of $3.576 / gallon ([http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd_dcus_nus_a.htm](http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd_dcus_nus_a.htm)), this would be $1.3b spent per day on gas.

Pretty much everything on Earth is going to consume power, but I don't think Bitcoin mining consumes enough to worry about.

<comment><USER18> Of course, if Bitcoin was widely adopted, the price would go up, meaning that far more people would mine it and far more energy would be used in mining. The only reason energy consumption from mining is that low right now is because Bitcoin is incredibly niche.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Actually, I agree with him, but it's funny how these articles always pile on when the price is crashing.

<comment><USER20> By funny, you mean intentional, right? I am fairly sure there are parties trying to upvote and/or post these articles to get BTC price up or down, whatever their need is. Currently, it's clearly "down" so they can buy again.

<comment><AUTHOR> I actually had no idea that the price was crashing until after I posted it. I've been writing it for a few days. And I have no stake one way or the other.</comment></comment></comment>


Learning languages is a workout for brains, both young and old - <AUTHOR> http://news.psu.edu/story/334349/2014/11/12/research/learning-languages-workout-brains-both-young-and-old <comment><USER2> Quote from the second paragraph:

"Learning and practicing something, for instance a second language, strengthens the brain"

So it is not just languages, but generally learning stuff. Who would have thought...

<comment><USER3> Yes, and unless you're planning on an extended stay somewhere you'll put it to use, there are so many alternatives which are likely to be more valuable than learning a language.

<comment><USER4> There are other reasons to learn a language, such as access to its literature. For example, once I left school I was no longer in an "extended stay where I could put it to use" (in this case, Greek and Latin) but the pleasures of the languages and cultures (especially the ancient Greeks who were _weird_) caused me to continue to use them.

But learning _anything_ is good for the soul...and as Blake said, there is a universe in a grain of sand.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I attribute much of my expertise at software development to learning languages at school.

Translating a piece of text from one language to another consists of abstracting the core ideas and meaning from the text using the first language and reimplementing them in a natural way in the second. This is a very similar mental process to taking real-world concepts and reimplementing them in software.

Among the languages I learnt was Latin, which is a very "elegant" language. Ie, it conveys much meaning in few words. Being able to do the same in software still gives me a buzz after 25 years.

<comment><USER6> Honestly, I'm not sure computer programming is even remotely related to language learning. If it were we would probably see more evidence. Anyway, I taught myself how to program while I was in high school, a few decades ago. Learning Spanish probably took me a decade and I never really got it until I immersed myself by studying in Guatemala for 10 weeks then backpacking to Argentina over the next several months. Actually, I considered myself good by Colombia. People didn't respond in English and I didn't have to repeat myself.

<comment><USER7> All human languages consist of syntax and phonetics. Programming languages act as an intermediary between human intelligence and machine intelligence. We almost always require the language aspect of programming to communicate with computer hardware. It is a link for compiling syntax between both the human mind and the computer mind. We need a common means to compile information, just like communicating ideas between people. Programming languages are exactly the same thing as traditional spoken language.

I'll argue that to parse any language requires a specific cognitive skill. Ever sentence diagram, look up a word in the dictionary, or look up what specific programming "words" do in a computer?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Interlinear (2 or 3 different languages in alternate line) versions of ancient religious texts are a good learning tool, because the source text has received much translator attention over time.

Foreign-language bibles were one of the tools used by the inimitable sci-fi writer R.A. Lafferty ([http://ralafferty.org](http://ralafferty.org)) to gain a reading knowledge of ten languages.

<comment><USER9> I was cautioned against using this approach too much when I studied Classical Greek and Latin in college.

There are two potential problems, as I understand it. First, learning a language, particularly an ancient language, involves learning ancient words for things that have no analog in modern life, whereas translation involves mapping those very things onto their closest equivalent in a modern language. It would be too easy using the interlinear method to start thinking that the Greek word 'krater' means a bowl or cup, when really it is a specific type of bowl used for mixing wine. That can really only be learned by consulting a dictionary, and probably a few pictures.

The second issue is only really a problem for people who are particularly familiar with the text in translation - it's very very easy to start mentally reciting the translation you're familiar with instead of actually parsing the original text. This is one reason that Attic Greek is preferred to Koine (New Testament), even though Koine is generally simpler. Even a secular person usually has enough familiarity with the Bible to make this an issue.

I certainly wouldn't say that this method can't be used profitably, but rather that one should be careful not to fall into those particular traps. The same criticisms could be made to relying on the Loeb editions.

Also, minor nitpick: The New Testament isn't really written in Classical Greek, it's in Koine. Going from Koine to any classical dialect is going to be much more difficult than going from any classical dialect to Koine, due to the simplified grammar and vocabulary of Koine Greek.

<comment><USER10> Back in grad. school in Classics the professors called students who depended on the inter-text translations the "Loeb Rangers."

Also, while it's true that you're better off learning Attic first, learning some Koine can give some the vocab. and conceptual grounding in the inflections to get a handle on Attic, so long as you don't stick with Koine for years it's not such a bad approach.

<comment><USER9> My Greek professor called them the Loebomenoi.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I could have a big-time bias toward believing this headline is true as written. (See my user profile here on Hacker News for more details about my language studies.) But I wonder if the really generalizable finding is simply that adult learners taking on a new challenging learning topic prompt their brains to grow and stay flexible longer. For me, after learning a lot of natural human languages, brushing up and extending my knowledge of mathematics for a career change seemed to provide a fair amount of intellectual growth. Maybe now it's time for me to take up music lessons or an active team sport like soccer. There is always time to learn something new, and there seem to be a lot of benefits from learning almost anything.

<comment><USER12> I personally seek new, ridiculous, absurd, positive things to learn that no one has written about. Sometimes I feel like I get a touch of it, the more careful and in control I am with writing code. Life is fun when it's positive and unpredictable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The article seems to contradict itself.

"Of the subjects learning the new vocabulary, those who were more successful in attaining the information showed a more connected brain network than both the less successful participants and those who did not learn the new vocabulary."

Those who were successful showed a real improvement. But what of those who weren't successful?

"The researchers also found that the participants who were successful learners had a more connected network than the other participants even before learning took place."

So... people could be grouped into success or failure even before the learning.

Those who weren't genetically set up for it, got little advantage.

<comment><USER14> I thought the same thing, I didn't see anything in the article that mentioned that learning a new language improved your brain, unless you already had a very good and connected brain to learn the language.

Maybe we can infer that if you try to learn somethign which you don't have the brain capacity to learn, it will be of no use. But if you try and learn something at your level of brain capacity, it will improve your brain.

Therefore, to improve your brain you need to challenge it everytime with something it's capable of solving. Sounds a lot like it's saying, just actively practice your brain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I've been teaching my 2.2 yr old son 3 languages since birth. I speak 60/40 Chinese/English to him and my wife speaks 100% Japanese to him. We only let him watch around 1 hr of TV a day, a mix of 3 languages too. So far, he's vocabulary is only ba(dad), ma, and go (throw toy for our dog to fetch).

I wonder if his confusion over the 3 languages pay the major part for his late speaking abilities, or if he got too much of my left brain genes, or a bit of both. Anyone here with experience teaching their kids 3+ languages since birth? What was their speaking ability like around this age?

<comment><USER16> We have two boys who are tri-lingual (thai, german, english). The essential thing is that the kid makes the association:

one person = one language

If you speak both English and Chinese to your son, he might be later confused on what words are from which language.

I would recommend you only speak Chinese to him. For our kids, English is now their strongest language but it was only taught by their 'environment' i.e. kindergarten / school and they started with English only at age 2-3. Now they talk English with each other (before they went through a period in which they talked German or Thai with each other). So you should not underestimate the 'environment language'.

Also, you might consider having some other relatives speaking certain specific languages with your son (e.g. grandparents). This could reinforce their language skills.

Personally, I do not believe that learning languages from TV is effective. Learning languages is about relationships and interaction. I think the 1 hr per day would be better spend on interacting with your son in the respective language, e.g. by playing memory game etc.

Regarding late development of speaking. We did not experience this with our kids. But they might be a bit delayed when learning to read and write because of different phonetic rules of the respective languages.

<comment><USER4> > The essential thing is "one person = one language"

I was told this by many people but I am not sure why they say this.

My wife and I always spoke a mixture (German/French) together so of course did so also with our kid (plus English/Spanish outside the house). He had no problem, and in school or was quite orthodox in regards to which language to speak with which person. But at home or with relatives and polyglot friends he would switch back and forth. His classmates seemed to be the same.

I have seen my mother, in her 70s, switch mid sentence when arguing with her brother. Then turn and speak to my father in English.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Is there a certain way that languages are supposed to be learnt to maximize brain workout? In other words, does one way of learning a new language benefit more than the other?

I use Duolingo for learning new language(s).

<comment><USER6> Many people claim that spaced repetition systems are the best way to learn, in general. Anki is a well known app that uses it.

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

[https://ankiweb.net](https://ankiweb.net)

I believe Duolingo uses this technique to some extent.

By the way, I've been dabbling with iOS language learning apps. I've been trying to add simple games to help with the repetition that's required to learn a new language. Plus, I recently add a thousand images so people can learn by associating the foreign word with a picture. I think it can be better than associating the word with your native language. I've built apps for several languages (French, German, Italian,Russian,...). Here's my Spanish app: [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/h4-spanish- lite/id388918463?...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/h4-spanish- lite/id388918463?mt=8)

I also started building a language site to gather my notes in one place and try out new ideas: [http://thespanishsite.com](http://thespanishsite.com)

<comment><USER18> Spaced repetition is excellent for building vocabulary and learning new words. I'm less convinced of its effectiveness for more subtle things like grammar and sentence structure—those are the kinds of things that don't fit well on a flashcard. I'd say those things are more well-developed through deliberate practice and interactions with other speakers of the language.

I'll throw out a recommendation for Memrise ([http://memrise.com](http://memrise.com)) as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I wonder if learning different programming languages does the same? Or as the comment earlier states, is it just a matter of challenging yourself and learning new things that does the same?

</comment><comment><USER20> If you want a really really good workout, practice writing with your non- dominant hand.</comment>


Getting started with component(1) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.kewah.com/2014/build-a-web-app-with-component/

<comment><USER2> I was really excited about component when it came out, but having used it in production projects, the shine has certainly worn off. The endless updating of component.json, and the resulting duplication of effort, the fact that using component alone is not enough (many things are only available with bower) and the lack of support for sourcemaps means I've switched to browserify for new projects and I'm much happier.

<comment><USER3> When you say "endless updating of component.json", do you mean the changes to the component api and therefore the required updates to the component.json file?

I chose component a few weeks ago after not wanting to export my angular modules as modules, I thought component has a nicer syntax for actual components.

<comment><USER2> no I mean, if you decide to use component to structure your own application, you must explicitly list the files and dependencies for each internal component in that application in its component.json. This doesn't sound like much, but it's overhead I don't want, especially because you often don't know that you've forgotten to do it until your build process is finished and your tests have run. I liked the idea at first, but the reality is that browserify accomplishes roughly the same thing without any of this manual work - it walks your `require()` tree instead, and it works with NPM which simply has more packages and more momentum. Also, source maps.</comment></comment></comment>


Thieves Grab 3,600 iPad Minis Worth $1.5M In Airport Heist - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/11/15/thieves-grab-3600-ipad-minis-worth-1-5m-in-jfk-airport-heist/

<comment><USER2> I'm sure they'll be for sale at your local gas station anyday now</comment>


Absolute Vibration Level and Damage Factors for Machinery Health Monitoring - <AUTHOR> https://reliabilityweb.com/articles/entry/standardization_of_absolute_vibration_level_and_damage_factors <comment><AUTHOR> "The raw data from a vibration transducer mounted on a test structure is obtained in time domain. The vibration signal in time domain is useful to the extent of finding out the overall vibration level. The overall vibration level may not exactly indicate the impending defect that is growing in the system. The frequency that is responsible for a particular defect is to be identified rather than the overall vibratory level. For this the vibratory signal in time domain is to be converted to frequency domain using Fast Fourier Transforms and the vibration analyzers (FFT Analyzers) do this job [2]. Special analysis techniques like envelope spectrum analysis, cepstrum analysis, spike energy method, shock pulse method, waterfall diagram etc., are used when the spectrum analysis does not give much information about the defect, or when the technique suits the system to be monitored than spectrum analysis."

Might be interesting for anybody working with e.g. server or equipment logs. If you have such a volume of logs that identifying recurring events is impossible and counting absolute numbers of errors is not useful, could throwing the log into an FFT and examining the frequency spectrum of errors help?</comment>


Show HN: Standup Buddy, a checklist for things you won't care about long - <AUTHOR> http://www.standupbuddy.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> I wrote this app because I was always forgetting things I needed to talk about during daily standups. I'd love any feedback on it. The name needs improvement, as people who would find it useful won't always know what a standup meeting is. It'd also be nice to charge for it. I'm thinking something like $10 for life. In the mean time maybe I'll put up a donate button.

It was first written using just jquery, but after I saw a couple articles on backbone.js here I rewrote it. Man, backbone.js made it way, way easier to deal with.</comment>


Ask HN: What LaTeX resumé template do you use? - <AUTHOR>

I'm looking to update my resumé, but I want it to look a little nicer.
I was thinking about compiling a PDF in Photoshop instead of writing it in LaTeX.  What do you suggest?
Rails dev, here. <comment><USER2> I personally prefer LaTeX to any other typesetting or word processing software and I use the Modern CV template to be found at [http://tug.ctan.org/tex- archive/macros/latex/contrib/modernc...](http://tug.ctan.org/tex- archive/macros/latex/contrib/moderncv/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I write my _resumé_ in LaTeX. I did not use any template. What I did was:

a) I collected a few sexy-looking _resumés_ from various illustrious academics.

b) I selected the features I liked the most from each of those sample _resumés_.

c) I created my own LaTeX document from scratch, including the features I liked the most from the collection of samples. It takes some work, but you get exactly what you're looking for.

<comment><USER4> Is the LaTeX source posted somewhere ? Or at least the final output, so I can check out these sexy features ?

<comment><USER3> Any academic (professor, post-doc, grad student) has a CV or _resumé_ in PDF or PS format in his / her webpage. Sources of inspiration galore.

Googling for LaTeX source code would work too. I use _TeXnicCenter_ to write LaTeX files, and it probably comes with a _resumé_ template already.</comment></comment></comment>


The Miracle Of Human Flight - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/03/20/houston-we-have-liftoff-human-birdwings-guy-finally-enjoys-the-miracle-of-human-flight/

<comment><USER2> A viral for Red Bull?</comment>


The Secret Sharer - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all

<comment><USER2> Judging from the article, it sounds like the NSA has a complete searchable copy of every email sent by every American in the last decade, along with a (completely illegal) surveillance file on every single one of us. If true, it makes Drake's assessment ("This is too serious not to talk about") the mother of all understatements.

So hats off to the New Yorker in general, and Jane Mayer in particular. Given the monstrous scale of the lawlessness she's alleging, and the catastrophic failure of governance needed to sustain it, firing a shot this public and well-timed was exceptionally brave. Unlike Drake - who seems to have seriously underestimated the response he'd trigger - the authors of this piece must recognize that they're making themselves the targets of a seriously scary bunch of people.

And yes, this (alleged) embrace of domestic spying does make the Nixon Administration "look like pikers." It also adds plenty of weight to Evgeny Morozov's contemptuous dismissal of "utopians" who consider the internet an unalloyed force for democracy and freedom.</comment>


Facts everyone should know about oil exploration - <AUTHOR> http://www.quora.com/Oil-Exploration/What-are-the-top-five-facts-everyone-should-know-about-oil-exploration

<comment><USER2> This is a great piece for putting the energy problem into stark perspective. I do quibble with a few of the arguments and some numbers.

Of the numbers presented by Ms. Carlyle, the one that's probably most arguable is the growth rate of solar. Installed capacity (that's a measure of peak output, not actual power production, more later) is doubling about every 3 years, not the 10 she suggests.

Solar energy _capacity_ (power output, in GW) translates to _energy output_ (GWh) based on capacity factor (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor>). This varies by type of solar (it's higher for concentrated solar power, CSP, lower for photovoltaics, PV), and siting. A low range of 13% for PV in Massachusets, a high of 75% for CSP in Spain. Let's call it 15% on average (conservative but realistic).

Global solar capacity was around 69 GWm in 2012. Let's call that 7 GW after capacity factor. Oil produces roughly 500x more power at present, or 9 doubling periods. If solar output doubles every 3 years, we might be able to match existing oil capacity within 27 years.

That's not great, but it's within reason, and may be soon enough.

There are other tools in the toolbox: nuclear, particularly in the form of thorium or TerraPower reactors. Wind. Perhaps even large-scale geothermal development (Iceland, Kenya, Japan, New Zealand, Italy, Indonesia, the Philippines, and US all have significant developments in the 500 - 3000 MW range). Anathema though it might be to the wilderness crowd, the Yellowstone caldera represents an immense potentially for development, and unlike many other geothermal opportunities, is within transmission range of significant population and industrial centers.

The other problem with oil, of course, is that nagging little climate problem. Yonatan Zunger posted a charmingly bleak piece on that here: [https://plus.google.com/103389452828130864950/posts/SgzQU5DM...](https://plus.google.com/103389452828130864950/posts/SgzQU5DM3LQ)</comment>


Rooting the Transcend WiFi SD card (a different way) - <AUTHOR> https://gist.github.com/deckar01/6d9b76bdef21eaab0568

<comment><USER2> Almost more than by the hack itself I'm impressed by the fact that these cards exist (which I didn't know until now).

It's just crazy what they can fit in the space of a thumbnail nowadays ([http://www.sandisk.com/products/memory- cards/sd/extremepro-s...](http://www.sandisk.com/products/memory- cards/sd/extremepro-sdxc-sdhc-uhs-3/)).

<comment><USER3> Jeez, next iteration is going to be a terabyte on a tiny SD card. The future is crazy.</comment></comment>


Saatchi boss' sexist slurs are straight out of Mad Men - <AUTHOR> http://www.thememo.com/2016/08/01/sexist-saatchi-boss-kevin-roberts-cindy-gallop-sexism-advertising-mad-men/ <comment><USER2> >Under his leadership, only new generations of Don Drapers will thrive.

Love Don Drapes. We need more boss like Don Drapes. Confident. Competent. Knows what he is doing. He's tough, but fair.

I hate incompetent bosses that just slow you down. The kind of assholes that are tough but not fair.</comment>


Ask HN: How soon do founders usually realize that startup failed - <AUTHOR>

Of course it depends. PG even wrote that founders on early stages usually have a false impression that their startup failed. But if the idea is not working (no market, etc) how soon do founders usually understand this? How soon do they realize that there is no point trying to save the company? <comment><USER2> Usually as soon as they've hit the market and haven't made the sales, revenue or numbers they expected to make.

At this point a decision to pivot may be made, along with minor tweaking. It all relates to the metric being measured, which is usually $$$ or userbase. No traction = no future.

</comment><comment><USER3> it will fail when you realize you aren't 100% passionate about what you're doing.

we fail every day, maybe every hour. If you realize you're failing, that actually translates to you being aware enough to know what's going wrong.

By knowing what's wrong, you can fix it. If you're totally dedicated and obsessed, failure is just part of the process.

Failure also happens often, there's just one massive failure at the end which is basically representative of an individual who has finally found an excuse to quit something they're not totally in love with.

Startups end as a failure because the founders choose to see it that way. There's no other concrete reason why.

</comment><comment><USER4> It's inversely proportional to the money received by a VC. That's why it's a must to have your startup as small as possible.

</comment><comment><USER5> The day we wake up dreading what we're about to do</comment>


CSS3 Scroll Effects - <AUTHOR> http://lab.hakim.se/scroll-effects/

<comment><USER2> Very nice, but I don't think this improves UX at all. How does having an animation for something help the user understand what's going on? They know something is scrolling because they see the data changing -- a flip / slide / other animation is not necessary.

In fact I think it interferes with UX because it's harder to quickly read the list -- you need to wait for the animation before reading the text. The only exception to this is Skew (because the item text is always visible), but even that is harder to read than just a normal list without the animation.

Very impressive demonstration of CSS3, but just because you can doesn't mean you should.

</comment><comment><USER3> Cool, almost as good as <blink>. And by that I mean, interesting stuff on a playground, but please don't use it in a real UX.

<comment><USER4> I've worked as a designer in the [pop] music industry. As much as you don't want this list view when you're picking hotel dates, I can assure you that experimental stuff like this has it's place. Please don't respond with blanket statements ruling out it's use. Good designers are quite capable of deciding when and when-not to use this kind of stuff.

<comment><USER3> Good designers sure are. I was more worried about the bad designers ;)

<comment><USER4> Bad designers don't need help from experimental css to create bad experiences :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The effect is awesome, but on a real website it's most probably excessive design.

</comment><comment> john-n These should probably never be used in an actual list on a real website. Its impossible to skim them (at a stretch, maybe with *skew") and makes them incredibly hard to use.

<comment><USER6> I've been working on a UI control with some similarities to these, but built specifically for skimming long lists. The general idea is that the faster you scroll, the more "zoomed out" the view becomes. As the scrolling speed slows, the zoom returns to normal. So if you're scrolling quickly through a very long list, it's like flying at a higher altitude. The list includes big "landmarks" (e.g. letters of the alphabet) to provide a sense of position. The control is tuned so that the apparent velocity of a given item through the control's "viewport" remains within the same narrow range. Instead of getting an illegible blur of items zooming past, you instead see an increasingly zoomed out view as scrolling speed increases. In an environment that provides momentum scrolling, the overall effect is like taking big, high leaps along the list in low gravity.

<comment><USER7> Any public link or none yet?

<comment><USER6> Nothing yet; it still has some pretty ugly parts. As soon as it's ready, though.

<comment><USER8> Keep me posted! (mherodev at gmail)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Cool effect.

But I will come to your door with an axe if you dare use it on an actual website.

</comment><comment><USER10> I'm not sure about using them for list scrolling, but they are definitely interesting effects that would be great to show new elements getting added to a list (e.g. of notifications for example).

<comment><USER11> Yeah, there sure is a place for fx like these - but it's applied in the wrong place here. Scrolling lists are a nightmare to read even without such effects. A place where I could imagine myself using it is as an intro/outro effect, drawing a user's attention to a list.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> If your list has more than a dozen items or so, then you need a better way to represent your data (EDIT: just to be clear, not in a data structure way— rather in a graphical representation way. See Tufte's "Envisioning Information" (and Tufte's work in general)).

That being said, the effects are really sweet. Zipper and Fan are my favorites.

<comment><USER13> Big lists can be useful as reference tables, though in that case I'm not sure I would bother with fancy scrolling. For example, while you _can_ make better visualizations of per-country GDP for various purposes, just the plain sortable table imo is the most useful basic reference format.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Despite the silly negative comments here, there could be some REAL UX advantages to using animations in this way.

Loading large databases of information is very taxing on mobile devices. Users really don't like being interrupted when scrolling, but sometimes they have to be. Animations like this might make the server queue time a little less painful and more gracefully notify users when its ready.

Immediate example that comes to mind is the iOS app for Netflix.

<comment><USER15> Here's a sane implementation for addressing server queue time - preload the next N results. Problem solved, no need to go back the the 90's with useless moving visual elements and sanity is preserved.

<comment><USER14> Your snip answer lacks experience. You can't cache what you don't know a user will do next. And queuing next n results is very slow over cellular networks.

<comment><USER15> >You can't cache what you don't know a user will do next.

The user will probably keep scrolling if they are scrolling through a list of items.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> If a more practical use such as for implementing faceted lists or haystack navigation of a large quantity of items, that could be a cool use. Outside of that, I keep thinking a lot of the effect demos (if used straight away) are fostering more of the "condescending ui" [http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/9/2616204/the- condescending-...](http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/9/2616204/the- condescending-ui) ... Has anyone talked about transition animations being able to be turned off and on? I'm thinking about Android developer options that let you do just that.

</comment><comment><USER7> Great great work Hakim.

I will try and implement some as well.

Great art/advertising/motion graphics effect potential.

Love the organization of the stylesheet. Past/Future is a lovely way to organize your state keyframes.

Thanks so much!

</comment><comment><USER17> Great job. I especially liked the fan and tilt effects, I can see them being used in a real world project. They visually notify the user that new content has been added to the bottom of the list without too much distraction

</comment><comment><USER18> Unfortunately it doesn't work on my Samsung Tab 10.1. Scrolling is fine but animations don't play.

Surprised my iPhone 4 plays it, though some effects seriously lag. Here's looking at you Papercut and Skew.

</comment><comment><USER19> Wow, I have never heard of this. What is triggering the transformations?

<comment><USER16> According to <http://lab.hakim.se/scroll-effects/js/stroll.js> it is the scroll event. I had worked on a Parallax project recently, and iOS Safari likes to queue DOM manipulation events until after a scroll even stops, but I'd be curious how this works on iOS. Anyone know of a method by which the same event type stuff could be simulated in CSS3?

<comment><USER20> Sure is frustrating that you can't get an update ('scroll') event from -webkit-overflow-scrolling: touch, so I left the scroll effects with regular overflow scroll.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I don't think I would ever do business with a company that would deploy these FX, it makes everything hard to use and read.

</comment><comment><USER22> Very nice effects. But, Out of all "SKEW" seems smooth to my eyes and then comes tilt and Papercut. How about you guys??

</comment><comment><USER23> This could be very useful for populating load-on-scroll lists. I think Flip and Tilt are the least distracting.

</comment><comment><USER24> I love all of these different CSS3 transform effects people are coming up with!

</comment><comment><USER25> Nice, but all of these max out the CPU on all the browsers I've tried...

<comment><USER26> Same here..

<http://i.imgur.com/2VvTX.png>

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Trying to replicate some these on iOS with core animation.

<comment><USER28> was about to say. too bad it doesnt work on ios/adnroid, but other than that -- i can see places here and there this could be useful so thank you!

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Anyone know how this is working on iOS Mobile Safari?

<comment><USER30> Works well on my 4S, although sometimes it can get choppy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> This is awesome. Thanks for the share.

</comment><comment><USER32> the skew is my fav. looks like the lists are pushing and pulling..very creative indeed.

</comment><comment><USER33> Check out his other stuff: <http://hakim.se/experiments>

</comment><comment><USER34> Any way to antialias these?

</comment><comment><USER35> I like it ... wonder how it would look if it was added to Svbtle articles.

</comment><comment><USER36> "twentysize"?

</comment><comment><USER37> really nice, like it!

</comment><comment><USER38> The temptation to use it in my current project... must... resist...</comment>


$300 app can crack full-disk encryption on Macs, PCs - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/security/2012/12/cheap-app-cracks-pgp/

<comment><USER2> This looks to be the old firewire-DMA attack, with a similar thunderbolt-DMA implementation as well. I was of the impression that these attacks no longer worked since recent machines limit IO DMA access to RAM. Also, they would require the computer to be running (or at least suspended) to have any chance to work.

In short, sounds like a non-story.

</comment><comment><USER3> The article claims that hibernation files are vulnerable when using Truecrypt, but according to the release notes from version 7, July 19 2010:

"As Windows XP and Windows 2003 do not provide any API for encryption of hibernation files, TrueCrypt has to modify undocumented components of Windows XP/2003 in order to allow users to encrypt hibernation files. Therefore, TrueCrypt cannot guarantee that Windows XP/2003 hibernation files will always be encrypted. Therefore, if you use Windows XP/2003 and want the hibernation file to be safely encrypted, we strongly recommend that you upgrade to Windows Vista or later and to TrueCrypt 7.0 or later. For more information, see the section Hibernation File. "

<http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=version-history></comment>


Star Control: Origins removed from Steam after DMCA takedown notice - <AUTHOR> https://www.pcgamer.com/star-control-origins-removed-from-steam-after-dmca-takedown-notice/ <comment><USER2> The Star Control devs (and the company Toys for Bob) have been very accomodating toward freeware fan projects and ports of their games (see [http://sc2.sourceforge.net/](http://sc2.sourceforge.net/)) for decades now.

The fact that they're litigating this leads me to think Stardock's actions are really egregious.

<comment><USER3> I've been a long time fan of Star Control. I've been watching things for a while. If you check out YouTuber Law on YouTube, you can get a really good take. Not a lawyer, so my layperson's understanding:

The creators sold the rights for Star Control's trade mark, marketing and distribution rights on the condition that if the game fails to generate $1,000 in revenue then all rights revert to them. The distributing company eventually stopped selling the game. The creators presumed the rights reverted to them, but never got a declaratory judgement to legally cover that they did. The defunct rights were eventually sold through companies until it wound up with Atari, who sold the trade mark rights to Stardock. Stardock believes that the contract for the copywrite is still in effect; thus, they own the franchise.

Stardock wanted to make a game and began doing so. It's he said/she said at this point: Creators says they were in discussions with Stardock who wanted to by rights to the copywrite to make a game, but ultimately the creators said, "No, we want to make a sequel." Stardock says they told the creators they have the rights to make the game and wanted their blessings/input. There appears to be evidence that Stardock's version of events have changed over time and misrepresents events.

Whatever the case, Stardock decided to go ahead with the idea that the most the creators could own is the original characters, artwork and music. So, they made a game with the core idea but with alternate versions of the characters, art and music. The DMCA takedown was issued because it appears that Stardock then decided to use some original characters in the game, to which the original creators claim copywrite.

The most recent court ruling was less than stellar for Stardock, who used very poor legal arguments: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ieb1ajwwUFo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ieb1ajwwUFo)

<comment><USER4> Good summary! One small correction/amplification:

 _> Stardock wanted to make a game and began doing so. It's he said/she said at this point_

The filing in the Leonard French video indicates that the court has access to correspondence between Wardell and Reiche/Ford from this period, in which Wardell explicitly acknowledges Reiche/Ford's claims to the _SC1 /2_ IP and says that he accepts those claims as valid and would not incorporate such IP into his new game without a license from them. (Which Reiche/Ford refused to grant.)

Much later on, Stardock released DLC content packs for _Star Control: Origins_ that incorporated some of those very IP elements Wardell acknowledged Reiche/Ford's rights to into that game. Example:

\- _Star Control: Origins_ Arilou Content Pack: [https://steamdb.info/app/899550/](https://steamdb.info/app/899550/)

\- The Arilou alien race from _Star Control_ and _Star Control 2_ : [http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Arilou_Lalee%27lay](http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Arilou_Lalee%27lay)

So if Wardell is saying now that he has never accepted Reiche and Ford's claimed rights to the _SC1 /2_ IP, and the court has written evidence that at one point in the past he absolutely _did_ acknowledge those rights, that would put the dispute outside the "he said/she said" zone.

<comment><USER5> Typically when you buy a franchise you have the right to use characters and develop derivative stories. Acknowledging that Reiche and Ford own the IP for Star Control 1 & 2 probably just means Stardock don't expect royalties from those exact titles.

This is actually really common place and appears near identical to how 20th Century Fox owns rights to Star Wars Episode 4 but Disney own the franchise and can use the same characters and develop derivative products.

<comment><USER6> The rights for Star Control have historically been seen as follows:

• Reiche and Ford own the entire copyright on Star Control I and II, including code, story, universe, etc.

• Reiche and Ford own copyright in the characters reused in Star Control III, but Accolade owned the code and all characters/concepts new to the SC3 universe. (Accolade had to get permission from Reiche and Ford to use their characters in this game.)

• The name/trademark Star Control has always been owned by Accolade.

• Distribution rights and royalties for SC1 and SC2 were granted to Accolade for a fixed period of time, or until a fixed period went by with no sales, or until Accolade ever went bankrupt.

All this was written down in a contract between Reiche/Ford and Accolade decades ago; the original document is readable in the court filings.

All three of the termination conditions above have since occurred, so Reiche and Ford claim—correctly, in my layman's opinion—that the distribution rights for SC1 and SC2 (except for the name) reverted to them years ago.

When Atari tried to sell SC1, SC2, and SC3 on GOG in 2011, Reiche and Ford disputed it. Both sides agreed to split revenues equally, and the game went back up on GOG (see the email chain in [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/27/report-from- pla...](https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/27/report-from-planet- surface)).

But when Stardock tried the same thing on Steam in 2017, relations soured dramatically, leading to a Stardock lawsuit claiming Reiche and Ford hold _no_ rights and were not the creators, and DMCA takedowns from Reiche and Ford.

<comment><USER5> After watching that video on the court ruling re: DMCA I agree with you that it's pretty clear Stardock are in the wrong here. In my comment above I just wanted to point out it's possible to own IP and distribution rights a particular media release, without necessarily owning franchise IP and future distribution rights.

However, it seems that while Stardock supposedly _thought_ they bought the Star Control (lore) franchise/IP from Atari/Accolade; that's simply not the case as Atari never owned the franchise, just Star Dock 3 additions to the franchise and the trademark.

<comment><USER7> I would have been inclined to give the same charitable interpretation, but then I stumbled upon this Arstechnica article [1] from the time of the sale with a quoted statement from the Stardock CEO Brad Wardell:

"We won't be making any changes to the existing Star Control games. And Atari doesn't actually own the copyright on Star Control 1/2 so it's not like one could make a Star Control 2 HD or what have you without a license from Paul Reiche. And even if we did have rights to SC 1/2 I wouldn't touch them without his blessing."

[1]: [https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/07/stardock-acquires- sta...](https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/07/stardock-acquires-star-control- rights-in-fire-sale-plans-reboot/)

I simply do not know how the interpret the above quote in any other way than that Stardock was aware that at least some of the rights were retained by Paul Reiche III at the time of, or immediately following, the purchase from Atari.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Funny story - Zoey Quinn tweeted about this a few months ago, and then Stardock's PR guy started trying to argue with her about it (she ignored him), and then I responded to defend PR and FF, whom I've worked with and found to be absolutely upstanding. Brad Wardell himself jumped in to argue with me, accused me of libel and said I could be sued, accused me of living out of a car (???) and then muted me and told someone else in the thread that he had blocked me and that I was delusional.

So uh... not really making Stardock's case look better.

<comment><USER8> Sorry about the abbreviations, they're Paul Reiche and Fred Ford, the creators of Star Control and founders of Toys for Bob.

(And I missed the edit window for my original post... damn.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Given StarDock's bait and switch practices when it comes to their Start10/Object desktop line I have no sympathy for their situation.

More detail is that if you try to purchase Start 10 which is an unlimited licence, they will try to upsell you to their other object desktop product which is a 1 year licence without telling you that you will loose access to the original unlimited product you wanted.

They then ignore you when you reach out to them about this bait and switch.

Never deal with Star Dock.

<comment><USER10> wardell seems like quite a scumbag.

<comment><USER11> He seems to be a genuine fan and gamer with some serious personality issues.

I know him from way back on Usenet (probably comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic or something like that) when he was working on _Galactic Civilizations_ , and he was rather insistent that games should be DRM-free, which I really appreciated. He has some other issues on which I strongly agreed with him.

But as a CEO, he seems to have trouble with the idea that a) not everybody likes him or what he does, and b) other people have rights too, and they may conflict with what he might prefer to be true.

And once he gets on the wrong side of an issue, he tends to double down and make it a bigger problem than it needs to be. I believe there was an issue with sexual harassment that he reacted really badly to, and now this. And probably quite a bit more in between.

<comment><USER10> He threatened to shut down stardock before he'd be forced to change his personality (he claimed it wasn't sexual harrasment, 'just how I am').

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Stardock has now changed the first sentence of their original announcement on Steam, originally it was like "PR and FF, who were _contracted by_ Accolade to create SC2...".

It seems that we are past the initial anger, because it now reads "PR and FF, the _designers on_ the classic DOS game...".

If you think the DMCA is an overreaction, just imagine that Stardock legally questions whether PR and FF are the creators of SC2. Really? That nullifies any kind of sympathy one might have had towards them.

<comment><USER6> That questioning of creatorship has been going on for months, and even more blatantly.

In November of 2017, Stardock made an anniversary blog post downplaying Paul and Fred's involvement as creators of Star Control 2. [https://www.stardock.com/games/article/485810/star- control-i...](https://www.stardock.com/games/article/485810/star-control- ii-25th-anniversary---on-the-shoulders-of-giants)

Under normal circumstances, that's innocuous—nothing more than highlighting all the people involved in the making of a great game. But even then, Greg Johnson of Starflight fame, whom I suspect had heard some of the behind‐the‐scenes goings‐on personally from Paul and Fred at that point, gently stepped in to reaffirm Paul and Fred's role as primary creators of both the original games and the franchise. [https://forums.stardock.net/485810/star-control-ii-25th- anni...](https://forums.stardock.net/485810/star-control-ii-25th-anniversary ---on-the-shoulders-of-giants#3699873)

Not even a month later, Stardock filed a lawsuit against Fred and Paul, containing such incredible allegations as this one:

> …Reiche and Ford have over the course of time and up to now have repeatedly > held themselves out as the "creators" of Star Control I and Star Control II, > especially in their marketing, advertising and promotion of the Ghosts of > Precursors Game… However, Reiche or Ford's advertising that they are the > "Creators of Star Control" is false. As Reiche and Ford know, it was > Accolade, not them that created Star Control I and Star Control II. …Any > authorship that Reiche and Ford may have contributed to the Classic Star > Control Games was limited, and it was instead a team of many other authors, > including numerous artists, animators, musicians, designers and writers, > among others, that collaborated together to develop creatives used in Star > Control I and II.

>…Contrary to the common public understanding and what they have portrayed to the public, Reiche and Ford may not have created _any_ of the artwork, animation or characters incorporated in the games, or otherwise substantially contributed to the authorship of Star Control I and Star Control II. Reiche and Ford's advertising themselves as being the "creators" of the Classic Star Control Games is false and misleading, and has been made in an attempt to dishonestly benefit from the goodwill and reputation associated with the STAR CONTROL Mark to which they have never had rights.

All of a sudden, what might have been an innocent blog post has an alternate and much more self‐serving interpretation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Ars has a detailed walkthrough the mess leading to this - [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/02/star-control- cou...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/02/star-control-countersuit- aims-to-invalidate-stardocks-trademarks/)

</comment><comment><USER14> If one can DMCA a launched game, what would stop me from torpedoing a launch of an AAA title during the first few days after launch? I could do millions in damage with a single letter with questionable legal standing.

<comment><USER12> This was not a lonely teenager sitting alone in his room trying to hack an "AAA" title, this was ordered by court, as a legal action as part of an ongoing case that's been going on for some time.

<comment><USER6> To be precise, the DMCA takedown wasn't ordered by a court, but rather, a preliminary injunction (from Stardock) to _prohibit_ such a takedown was _rejected_ by the court. [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268...](https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf)

Gem of a quote from the order:

> …The harm Plaintiff complains of is indeed of its own making. Plaintiff had > knowledge of Defendants' copyright claims from the outset. Despite that > knowledge, it developed potentially infringing material without resolution > of the IP ownership issues, and then publicized the release of that material > during the pendency of this action. It now claims that its investment in > Origins and reputation are on the line. Given that Plaintiff largely created > the foregoing predicament, the Court is disinclined to extricate Plaintiff > from a peril of its own making.</comment></comment></comment>


How Gamification Creates Engagement - <AUTHOR> https://getbadges.io/blog/why-gamification-works-part-2-engagement <comment><USER2> I setup ZohoCRM for one or my clients and it's been great, but by default their "game" was on. I have it turned off but have debating if it would be beneficial to have the employees using it. Not sure if it would produce better results or shift their focus into getting badges in the game as fast as possible (reducing quality of their updates to the crm or worse impacting how they interact with contacts/clients)

<comment><AUTHOR> Seems like the badges were not aligned to the results you wanted. Good badges would be related to the company goal (selling products) instead of housekeeping the CRM. Some early badges can be related to keeping the CRM updated to create some habits, but long-term objective is definitely different.

Besides that gamifying sales is promoting individual achievements and creating a competitive environment, whereas in IT it should be oriented to building a reliable and happy team.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I have a problem with people adding gamification in an attempt to increase engagement. Often times this means stimulating the same dopamine reward responses that people get from gambling. I see this in particular with apps geared for children, and it bothers the hell out of me that it's completely non-regulated.

<comment><USER4> Does it really have to be regulated? I don't like it either, but don't parents have a role in children's lives? When a child asks for money to purchase microtransactions, a parent can simply say "no." Think of a world where if you want to add this type of functionality, and you're not marketing to kids, you still have to go through some additional licensing or legal step to add a few lines of code to your product...

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The Overjustification Effect says the opposite to this, basically saying gamification would actually decrease engagement over time

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

<comment><USER6> The complaint about gamification on that page is:

> gamified contexts such as foursquare might provide expected rewards for > activities that do not adequately meet self-determination theory's three > innate needs for intrinsic motivation—relatedness, autonomy, and > competence—and therefore reduce intrinsic interest in those activities.

The article kind of addresses this, discussing how you get someone interested with a long term narrative or goal rather than numbers. This would mitigate issues with autonomy and competence that are created in a numbers only environment.

<comment><USER7> In those cases I would say it's not gamification that creates engagement. Rather, these people __already __want to be engaged, and they 're using these badges as a tool for themselves. Basically it's being used as a way to accelerate engagement but it CANNOT create engagement that doesn't exist. The difference between the two is very important because most "gamification" companies confuse the two and end up failing thinking they're doing the right thing. Instead, what they're doing is starting from a wrong assumption, and wrong assumption never leads to good results.

It is a good idea to use a tangible milestones mechanism to motivate people who are already motivated, or who will do those things anyway. For example, I visit coffee shops in the morning to pick up coffee. This need already exists. So that's why a coffee shop providing "buy 10 get 11th coffee free" stamp card can make me come back. It doesn't "create" engagement, since it's not like I would go to a coffee shop 5 miles away just for this coupon deal. It simply makes it easier for me to make the decision I already make.

However it is arrogant to think that you can "create engagement" this way, and you are doomed to fail. Because you're nothing more than a gimmick. I have never seen anyone succeed with this philosophy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Justyna, the style of "quoting" you're using is correct for Polish, but not English, which uses a pair of upper quotation marks, like so: "". Good luck with your startup.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I've fixed that :)

<comment><USER9> I'm seeing that strange quoting style all over your actual website too (not just the blog post). May want to change it. I thought it was a HTML coding error till I read the parent post.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for checking all pages. Looks like I have a lot of work to do to fix this :)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Protect Your Library the Medieval Way, with Horrifying Book Curses - <AUTHOR> http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/protect-your-library-the-medieval-way-with-horrifying-book-curses <comment><USER2> One of the headline quotes in this article may be a forgery:

"For him that stealeth, or borroweth and returneth not, this book from its owner, let it change into a serpent in his hand & rend him. Let him be struck with palsy & all his members blasted. Let him languish in pain crying aloud for mercy, & let there be no surcease to his agony till he sing in dissolution. Let bookworms gnaw his entrails in token of the Worm that dieth not, & when at last he goeth to his final punishment, let the flames of Hell consume him for ever."

I don't know anything about this topic, I just saw this after looking it up real quick:

"The book curse from the San Pedro monastery is no such thing. It is an amusing hoax dating from 1909. Edmund Pearson, joker, librarian and true-crime writer, claimed it was part of a rediscovered Old Librarian's Almanack originally published in 1773. The Old Librarian dated the translation to 1712, "English'd by Sir Matthew Mahan" in a guide to his Spanish travels." [https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/marx- pandora-a...](https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/marx-pandora-and- the-tower-of-porn/416409.article?storyCode=416409&sectioncode=26)

</comment><comment><USER3> Today we protect our libraries with the GPL, a different kind of horrible curse.

<comment><USER4> Upvoted because it was funny, not because it was right.

I really struggle with AGPL however.

<comment><USER3> I write GPL software for a living, I mean it in the best possible way.

What's your problem with the AGPL? I'm pretty neutral on it myself, I havn't used it for my own projects but it seems like an ok license to have around for people who don't want their code used in locked up SaaS.

<comment><USER5> I interpret a lot of AGPL projects I see as "we're willing to negotiate a secondary license to your private business". If you're the best in class (or just the only available public option) it can make sense as a way to try and make money. If there's a more liberally licensed substitution, however, it's probably best read as a "don't use me for your business" flag...

<comment><USER3> Right, but, from a business perspective, the same argument goes for GPL vs permissive licenses; why use GPL if there's an Apache or BSD alternative.

I'm ok with dual licensing, what annoys me is businesses that makes nominally free software but puts half the core functionality in proprietary extensions. It feels like they're saying, we want the community to contribute to our core, but we're going to sell the profitable parts.

Even worse is a company like Odoo (not to name anyone...), who switched from all AGPL + selling support model to a free core + proprietary modules model. They relicensed their codebase, claiming they own copyright for all of it since they rewrote all community-contributed parts, but that's really questionable. You can't erase 10 years of community contributions.

<comment><USER6> I don't really have a problem with this sort of practice, and I think it is reflective of the model I feel most companies should use: keep the core-to- your-business software for your company proprietary and open-source all non- core-to-your-business software. It is the only model that will help keep open- source alive and well funded.

It is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect a company to open source everything it creates; there are legitimate competitive advantages to keeping that software to yourself. It is much easier to convince companies to share their non-core software, and companies will actually gain from doing this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Should thou not copiest this book most faithfully, taking care afterwards to dispatch it to three of thy brothers, thy brains shall be cudgelled forth and fed to the crows.

<comment><USER8> Clever and relevant. We look back on these sorts of things with a certain conceitedness, yet we still have the modern day equivalent with chain letters and social media posts.

<comment><USER9> Hah, I was not thinking of chain letters and social media posts. My mind was going in this direction:

 _> You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet the following conditions:

_>You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License; and*

 _> You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files; and_

 _> You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works;_

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> We still use these today. We call them copyright notices. "If thou copies or distributes this work without thy lord permission... bad things." Then as now, the most ominous warnings are reserved for situations with the least likelihood of being caught.

<comment><USER11> Sure. I you got caught back in the days, horrible things would happen to you indeed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12>
      If you are not the intended recipient
      of this email, then:

      (a) Please notify the sender of this email
          immediately by return email or telephone
          and immediately delete this message;

      (b) You may not print, store, forward or
          copy this message or any part thereof
          or disclose or allow information in this
          message to be disclosed to any other
          person or third party.

      The information in or attached to this email
      message is confidential and may be subject to
      legal privilege and client confidentiality.

      We cannot be held liable for any harm or loss
      resulting from malicious software code or viruses
      in this message or attachments, including data
      corruption resulting therefrom. None of our
      employees or representatives are permitted to
      send unsolicited messages ("spam") and our company
      cannot be held liable therefore. If you regard this
      message as spam, please inform us immediately by
      sending an email to email@example.com

      Unless otherwise agreed:

      (a) We are only deemed to have received
          an email once we have confirmed receipt
          thereof to you;

      (b) We are only deemed to have sent an
          email once reflected as "sent" on our
          email server.

      If this message contains offensive, derogatory or
      defamatory statements or materials, it means the
      message has been sent outside the sender's scope of
      employment with us and only the sender can be held
      liable in his/her personal capacity. This disclaimer
      applies to our original message, any attachments and
      all subsequent messages or attachments we may send.

      If you have any questions on the above disclaimer,
      please call Lorem Ipsum at (555) 555-5555 or email
      us via email@example.com

... _rolls eyes_.

</comment><comment><USER13> So, no different from a standard EULA?

<comment><USER14> Quicker to read and easier to understand, actually.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I wonder how many medieval book thieves could read?

Also relevant as an early form of DRM: [http://www.wimborneminster.org.uk/110/chained- library.html](http://www.wimborneminster.org.uk/110/chained-library.html)

</comment><comment><USER16> I wonder if these would work on eBooks? :-P

<comment><USER17> "If you are reading this on an unauthorized device, it will explode when you turn the page."

<comment><USER18> Which, given the recent news with Samsung, is now actually a somewhat believable curse.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I can understand this one: _May the sword of anathema slay, If anyone steals this book away._

And this one: _If anyone take away this book, let him die the death; let him be fried in a pan; let the falling sickness and fever size him; let him be broken on the wheel, and hanged. Amen._

But I'm puzzled by this one: _Get our latest, delivered straight to your inbox by subscribing to our newsletter._

<comment><USER20>
      One newsletter he did slay
      but two rose up from where the first one lay
      two, then four, then eight and more
      A mere human cannot defeat this beast
      "Unsubscribe" he set the auto-reply
      but thousands, no millions, no billions, no trillions
      of newsletters filled up his dying inbox
      Perhaps the first one wasn't so bad?</comment></comment>


Register a Business Today - <AUTHOR> http://swombat.com/2011/1/3/register-a-business-today

<comment><USER2> In many European countries it costs considerable money to keep a business alive, REGARDLESS of any income.

In Spain you have to pay €250 a month Autonomo, a social tax, even as a sole trader/freelancer. €250 x 12 months is €3000 (roughly $4000). This is a lot of money to get taxed for nothing annually in a country where minimum monthly wage is in the region of €550 and rent prices are high. Ever been to Barcelona and wondered why it wasn't the design Mecca it had all the makings of? The fantastic design scene seen in the design of posters, flyers, logos, shops, interiors, all the design festivals, the conferences… yet nothing significant comes out of it. The social tax prevents small business there from starting up, a policy that makes room for large companies.

In Poland, it costs a similar amount of social tax (ZUS) just to stay registered as a company (a sole trader that is, there are higher costs associated with keeping a proper company registered).

It's better in the UK and Republic of Ireland:

In the UK the minimum amount of social tax (NIC) for a sole trader with minimal or no income is £2 per week, which seems fair enough.

In Ireland the social tax (PRSI) is 3-5% of your income but no less than about €250 per year (might have gone up this year). Seems bearable as well.

In both countries (not 100% sure about UK) you can register a Business Name (€20 in Ireland) without having registered a company. In Ireland you can start trading without even registering with the Revenue until you make around €3500.

<comment><USER3>
      Finland:
      Start-up notification by private trader 75€
      Start-up notification by private limited company (min. 2.5k€ share cap) 350€

No liability to collect VAT if annual sales do not exceed 8,5k - unless you are a foreigner with no fixed establishment in Finland.

      May neglect the appointment of an accounts auditor if more than one of following are not met:
      Balance sheet total exceeds 100k
      Net sales or corresponding earning exceed 200k/year
      There are more than three employees on average

Self-employed pension insurance (YEL) not mandatory e.g. if not resident, annual work income is below 6 775,60 euro...

<http://www.yrityssuomi.fi/default.aspx?nodeid=15325> (guide text) <http://www.prh.fi/en/kaupparekisteri/hinnasto.html> (registrar, prices)

Quite easy, but for example dividends are taxed so heavily that Estonia is a good alternative to set up shop. You should come here mainly because of quality workforce. Finland is a low-paying country for engineers (65-75 % of German average, 60-85 % of French average, 65-80 % of UK average - stats from 2001 though).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you live in California there's an annual minimum franchise tax of $800, plus whatever annual fees are charged by the state you incorporate your LLC in.

<comment><USER5> My unused CA S-Corp has been the bane of my existence lately. From the $800 fee to the documentation required to stay in good standing (small, but easy to forget when the company does nothing), it's more pain than it's worth.

If you're someone with lots of ideas and lots of peaks of excitement, it actually might better to postpone incorporation until you can't responsibly continue without some sort of limited liability.

<comment><USER6> Which is why we invented <http://foundrs.com>, which is a way to have your cake and eat it too. Don't pay any taxes until your business takes off (at which point you should incorporate), but have a good founder agreement in place so that the compan doesn't explode during takeoff :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> You can even register a business for things that you might consider a hobby as long as you can earn a little bit of money doing it. For example, I know someone who is an amateur photographer who occasionally takes photos for his friends at weddings or other family gatherings. His business only barely breaks even, but it does allow him to consider his camera and computer equipment as business expenses - things that he would probably spend money on for himself anyway.

Any small business owner should be familiar with the IRS Guides at <http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/index.html> , and especially Publication 535, which tells you business expenses are allowable: <http://www.irs.gov/publications/p535/index.html>

<comment><USER8> this is not exactly true, there has to be a reasonable chance that this is a profitable enterprise defined both by your effort/intention and at least some profitability over a period of time. if it doesn't meet these standards, it's a hobby and you cannot deduct associated expenses. see here: <http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=169490,00.html>

<comment><USER7> You are correct, in this case the person does make a little bit of money from photography, some from friends and some from stock photography sites. He did speak with a tax expert and is apparently in the clear as far as the IRS is concerned. I think his "income" is somewhere in the $100/year range.

My point was just that there are a lot of activities that most of us might be doing anyway for fun, not considering the tax advantages of organizing a business. e.g. amateur photography, helping people with computer and website issues, personal services, blogging, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There are extra benefits to incorporating a C corp in the USA before 12-31-2011: the Small Business Jobs Act 5-year 0% capital gains thing.

</comment><comment><USER10> If you're in the UK, Companies House have a web page that explains the basics of setting up a limited company.

[http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/infoAndGuide/companyRegistr...](http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/infoAndGuide/companyRegistration.shtml)

You can also use their WebCHeck service to find out whether the name you want is taken or not.

<http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/>

<comment><USER11> For the UK, also worth noting that it's worth getting the printed certificate of incorporation, since you will need that in order to open a bank account.

<comment><USER12> Barclays let me open a business account with a PDF of my certificate of incorporation.

<comment><USER13> Same for me with Cater Allen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's worth noting that one can buy companies 'off the shelf', i.e. companies incorporated some time ago, from many formation agents. I have to say, in the UK at least it's about as easy to see whether a company is trading or dormant and to see its filings as it is to check its date of incorporation, so I'm not sure how much extra utility it provides.

</comment><comment><USER14> California: A $20 reporting fee and a statement of information are required 90 days after formation and then every two years. An annual $800 LLC tax is due 75 days after formation and every year thereafter. There is a minimum annual fee of $865 if the LLC's net income exceeds $250,000.

Nevada: A $125 fee and an Initial List of Managers and Members are due 30 days after formation. The annual report filing fee is $125. There is no state income tax or franchise tax.

Delaware: There is an annual LLC tax of $200 due each June 1, beginning the year following formation. There is no state income tax.

New York: Every LLC must publish notice of its formation in two newspapers in the county in which it was created. In some areas, the fees for this publication can run up to $2,000. The company must then submit a certificate of this publication to the state, together with a $50 filing fee. For LLCs that choose to be treated as a partnership, there are annual fees that increase based on the number of members the company has (from a minimum of $325 to a maximum of $10,000).

<http://www.legalzoom.com/llc-faq/llc-operating-costs.html>

</comment><comment><USER15> In New Zealand: NZ$10.22 to reserve the name (a necessary prerequisite), NZ$153.33 to register the company (total cost ~ US$126.50). There are no fees or taxes due for companies with no income.

Companies are legally required to file an annual return to the companies office (there are no fees for online filings). Annual returns can be as simple as confirming company details, stating the date of the AGM, and indicating a resolution not to appoint an auditor was passed.

Tax returns (and company tax payments as a percentage of before-tax profit) are required by a separate government department if any income is earned, but not if no income is earned.

Name changes cost $10.22. Changes to the company addresses, director details / addresses, or shareholder details / addresses must be notified by law (changing the details online is free).

</comment><comment><USER16> Where can you register a business for $30? Most states have fees for registration closer to $100 a year and any website you use is also going to charge you a fee upwards of $100.

<comment><USER17> Varies according to business type. My Sole Proprietorship was about $25 four years ago.

[edit] And that's one nice thing about the US: how quick and easy it was. I literally only created a business name and got a bank account because a customer wanted to pay me by check instead of the usual PayPal. The dollar amount was well worth it, so I took the check, registered the business and opened an account to deposit it all within a week or so.

<comment><USER18> Companies that check out your years-in-business history (one of the central points of the original article) normally do not go for sole proprietorships. If an RFP says, minimum 3 years in business, the next line is usually, minimum X number of employees.

As far as costs, yes, it may cost you $25 to register your sole proprietorship but then it will cost you hundreds of dollars to file your year-end taxes, plus all the quarterly's. Add hundreds more for UBT. Plus most states get you in other ways, e.g. the metropolitan commuter tax in New York.

<comment><USER17> Sole props are the cheapest, simplest tax structure around.

I don't know why you think it costs "hundreds of dollars to file." Perhaps you're talking accountant's fees? My tax accountant does the Schedule C for about $75 extra as part of our personal taxes annually -- I just provide him with a P&L statement for the year. For previous businesses I did all the taxes myself: the IRS provides lots of easy to understand, free publications for small business. Hell, I did a few years of 1065 (Partnership) returns (stupid decision to form business as partnership!) myself and those are awful.

<comment><USER18> I agree with your point that sole props are cheap and simple. My comment was within the context of the submission. The author recommended creating a "placeholder" entity to be able to pass years-in-business requirement, and unfortunately, for situations where that requirement exists in the first place, a sole proprietorship is not going to fly.

And yes, I meant accountant's fees. You don't just have your IRS filings, you also have the state and the city which depending on your location require multiple filings plus UBT and other complications. So you have a minimum of 15 different filings (1 yearly plus 4 quarterly, times 3 for federal, state and city), and usually more. I am not sure where you live - personally, I've filed in the US, East and West coast and Midwest and it's never cost me anywhere near $75. Perhaps you and your accountant have been ignoring deductions, self- employment taxes, UBT, etc. I simply don't see how you could have a professional CPA charge $75 for all that.

As far DIY tax prep I think it's a waste of your time to understand all the complexities. Tax requirements change every year and sometimes mid-year... if you are a consultant, your time is best spent doing what you know.

(So did I understand correctly that your accountant files just one yearly form in addition to your personal taxes? That doesn't sound right. If you are not in the US, you can probably gamble on not being audited, otherwise I'd be looking for a new accountant asap, and paying him to re-file your previous years as well).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Should you validate your idea first before registering your company? And is it ok to start out with a DBA and then LLC later?

</comment><comment><USER20> My CPA recommended "The corporation company" ( incorporate.com ) to save the hassle, but web reviews are mixed. Anyone have experience with a simple, reasonably cheap, incorporation service?

</comment><comment><USER21> _If your company registration date is 2 months ago, you will be at a disadvantage in negotiations about price, up-front payments, and other similar things._

OTOH, if you build a compelling product that satisfies your customer by extinguishing his hair on fire (which you should do anyway), then the rest of this is just details. If a prospect will cut of his own nose to spite his face by negotiating price or terms based upon your incorporation date, then maybe that's a customer better off not converted.

There may be good reasons for registering a business now, but this isn't one of them.

</comment><comment><USER22> What websites would you recommend to register a SAAS company. I'd guess that a Delaware LLC might be the best way to go? Can anyone with experience chime in?

</comment><comment><USER23> fwiw, I created a company with 100 shares of which I took only 1 at time of creation.

Apparently this makes things easier if/when you come to distribute shares to others as it will be a simple allocation of unallocated shares rather than a more convoluted 'transfer' process.

<comment><USER24> so if I were to create a website that (hopefully) generates money and in the future I'd like to add investors/workers, I should already start thinking about "shares?"

<comment><USER25> definitely not if you haven't created the website yet. MVP first, how can you make that 1st $ asap to validate your idea

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I would have done this a long time ago if my country wouldn't levy taxes on companies that aren't active (dormant).

I hadn't considered incorporating abroad seriously until now.

Are there any gotcha's with a company abroad? e.g. annual tax filing in my country (Belgium)? wages paid out by foreign corporation? ...</comment>


Slavery not a crime for almost half the countries in the world – study - <AUTHOR> http://news.trust.org/item/20200212132545-vdpzu <comment><USER2> Slavery never vanished. It was just extended to all races.</comment>