Ask HN: How do you do home security? - <AUTHOR> I recently moved to a new town and am living alone. The neighborhood is decent and my building has security too. However, it just seems like good sense to me to implement an extra layer of home security apart from the usual (locked doors).<p>I was looking for ideas and was wondering how people on this forum go about securing their houses? <comment><USER2> I live in South Africa in a gated community with 24/7 guard patrols and 12 ft high barbed wire fences.

My own house also has blade-topped fences, I have an electronic gate which requires a 6-pin entry pad and a thumbprint. I have 3 dogs, double-plated steel doors and retractable window bars.

Some fucker broke in through the ceiling last week while I was asleep and stole my iPhone and wallet.

The reason we do this in South Africa is because of safety. Home invasions, car jacking, mugging, kidnapping are everyday occurrences here. I know of 3 people who have been killed during one of these engagements and everyone I know knows someone who has died.

If you worry about your kids wandering the streets in America, Canada, New Zealand.. Come to Africa and get some context.

Possessions are meaningless, your health and your friends are what counts. That's something some people learn the hard way in this country.

<comment><USER3> Not to be rude, but why do you chose to live there? If you value your health and friends, why live in a war zone.

<comment><USER2> If it was as simple as that notion sounds, I wouldn't be here. And believe me I know many of people who have decided to start families in other countries.

I hate my government, the corruption, violence, bigotry.. But this is my home. I love the people, the culture, the food, my friends and family.

I've traveled and I've lived in other areas in the world. But this place is my home.

People wonder why anyone would want to live in the Middle East; Iraq, Afghanistan, the Gaza Strip? Because this is my land, these are my people, my tribe.

I will stay, and I will fight and protest for a better life for everyone in this country.

Sorry I feel this is too offtopic for HN, but I couldn't help but reply.

<comment><USER4> Are things getting better? I can definitely understand this mindset, and I feel like once momentum starts building, people get behind it and start believing in a better tomorrow.

I'd feel a lot more hopeless if things were stagnating or getting worse. I can't imagine being a Syrian right now, for example.

<comment><USER5> > Are things getting better?

That's not really what it's about for us. South Africans have become experts at making the most out of a bad situation so things are always "good" in a way that's hard to describe out of context.

When you ask if South Africa is improving you have to qualify that with: which class? Anything that the government controls is going backwards. The middle and upper classes, however, have in a way created their own functioning infrastructure.

* The police force is complete ineffective. Solution: build a fortress and hire private security.

* Continuous controlled blackouts because the power infrastructure is inadequate. Solution: buy a generator.

* Hijackings, muggings. Solution: lojack all cars (car insurance now _requires_ it) and don't walk anywhere.

As I said, we make it good.

<comment><USER6> The South African government has improved the lot of the poor in some ways- child support grants form the basis of a welfare system that protects people from utter destitution. Sadly, as you point out, the public healthcare and education systems are dismal, and the failure of the education system means that human capital is being wasted.

<comment><USER7> Some things they do means well, but doesn't deliver as much as you would think. Having a single parent with no job, no education and no support means that frequently that money goes into buying alcohol. If you think the majority of the poorest have been uplifted significantly, you haven't been in the streets in really poor areas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't. I own nothing I would cry over if I lost it. My wife doesn't own expensive jewelry, all our money is in the bank, and all my work is backed up to external servers, so losing the laptops would only cause me some delay. We are not attached to any object that we own, and we only lock the door for our own protection. If someone wants to burglarize my home, all I ask is that they wait until we're not home to do it.

<comment><USER9> That's not a healthy attitude. You don't have to be attached to an object to be averse to losing something of monetary value. It's like you're trying to be weird on purpose.

<comment><USER10> Just another opinion: I find that attitude very healthy. As a society, you can have a general policy of not locking doors. Will work basically the same as a society with generally locked doors. Burglars will find a way in - this way or the other. There will be hotspots of crime in both cases. The overall rate will not differ that much.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Here's how it's done in Italy:

* Big, heavy solid doors. These things are bulletproof. It's a bit ridiculous, because I think smashing down the front door is probably not the most common burglary technique, but still, here you won't find any of those doors with the doorknob right next to a big plate of glass.

* Serious shutters. They're called 'rolling shutters' in English, and standard on houses here. [http://www.topsystem.biz/wp-content/gallery/tapparelle/pvc4....](http://www.topsystem.biz/wp-content/gallery/tapparelle/pvc4.jpg) \- these are not the wimpy 'venetian' blinds in the US, but sturdy things that will keep out the sun in the summer, cold in the winter, and when locked at the bottom, anyone but the most determined intruder, who would still likely need some good tools and time to boot. I wrote this a few years back: [http://blog.therealitaly.com/2007/08/09/window-technology/](http://blog.therealitaly.com/2007/08/09/window-technology/)

<comment><USER12> Here's how it's done in Switzerland:

You don't do anything and just file an insurance claim. In fact, if you got a break-in and call the police, they come, but only to issue a report for your insurance company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> We have two dogs. By far the best deterrent that you can get. The alarm goes off when someone _approaches_ the house, let alone tries to open anything. You can't sneak up on them. They're also furry and warm, which is a plus.

One thing to note is that burglars don't fixate on a house or apartment. They are looking for the easiest, lowest-risk house. Dogs immediately upgrade your house to "harder than the next house over."

I'm not worried at all about someone breaking into our house while I'm away. They can have my shit. I'm much more concerned about someone trying to invade while I'm home, because that's what gets people perforated. Dogs are an immediate deterrent to that.

Other than that, we have a couple guns from when my girlfriend worked at a prison and had psychos threatening her life on a daily basis. She keeps a taser in her center console of her car, I keep a heavy tire iron in the door of mine. That's about it.

<comment><USER13> My friend had 3 dogs shot and killed, just so they would stop barking :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> My home security setup:

\- Dogs. Obviously this won't work for everyone, as you may not like dogs or be allowed to have them or able to afford them. Also not all dogs will be effective alarms; one of mine starts growling if she hears a butterfly down the street, while the other one would unlock the door for a burglar if she could, just hoping he'd pet her.

\- Lighting on all points of entry. I have time-controlled lights on the doors and motion-sensing floodlights on the detached garage. All are LED so they're fairly efficient and long-lasting.

\- Simplisafe security system. It's self-installed, wireless, and no contract. Depending on your subscription you can get monitoring only, or monitoring plus a mobile and web app. I really got this more for the 24/7 smoke and carbon monoxide alarm monitoring, but the entry and motion sensors are a nice addition. (If you do have dogs, you might consider declining police dispatch though.) And there are little stickers / signs to try to scare off burglars.

\- A large can of pepper spray (stream, not spray). I don't own a firearm (and I'd really rather not use it in the house even if I did). I think someone breaking into the house would most likely be a burglar and would rather flee than get in a fight, so I think a non-lethal solution is good to have.

\- Cameras. I have a mix of brands of wireless cameras and iSpyConnect, watching the entrances. This is more for me to check in on things remotely, but the recording could be handy too.

\- Neighbors. I'm not super-close friends with mine, but I'm neighborly, and we look out for each other.

\- Insurance. If you're renting, make sure you have renter's insurance. A security system may get you a discount on your home or renter's insurance also. And an automatic offsite backup system is a good idea, of course (I use CrashPlan).

</comment><comment><USER6> Internal and external burglar bars on all windows, and an outside perimeter fence. High walls on side and back, topped by barbed wire. Security gates on all doors. Burglar alarm linked to armed response, and outside perimeter beams. This is fairly standard in South Africa for standalone homes in decent areas. Much of this is to protect against home robberies (violent home invasions).

Many people have internal gates separating sleeping areas from the rest of their homes, as well as CCTV and electric fences. If you live in a gated estate with security, you can afford to forgo some, but not all of these.

<comment><USER15> Wow, that's pretty extreme. Is it nerve wracking living in an environment where that level of security feels necessary? I can imagine it would be stress-raising unless you were used to it?

There'd be a low risk of minor burglary in my area, but the risk of anything violent would be almost nil.

I lock the doors and cross my fingers.

<comment><USER6> You get used to the stress, and the ubiquitous security, and you get on with your life. But you have to constantly be aware of new threats: a newish one that has hit a few people I know is "car jamming" where remote locks on cars are jammed and the contents are looted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I have an alarm system with passive sensors on each side of the house. So when I go to sleep, I activate the outside passive sensors.

There are also passive sensors inside the house so if I am not at home, I activate everything using a remote control. The system is pet friendly so my cat can move around freely.

I built a CCTV camera and installed it above the outside gate. It's more of a DIY camera than anything else, but it looks pretty good. I used a halogen light fixture to hold a Logitech web camera, and I've created my own adapter to convert the USB output to an ethernet cable setup, and back again to USB before it gets to my home server (which is in the garage). This was the cheapest way to do a USB webcam over such a long distance (8-9 meters).

I'll write a blog article about the camera project if anyone's interested in the details.

</comment><comment><USER17> I used:

\- magnetic contact sensor: [http://www.amazon.com/Magnetic-Sensor-Window- Warning-Switch/...](http://www.amazon.com/Magnetic-Sensor-Window-Warning- Switch/dp/B0050N7SM0)

\- raspberry pi: [http://www.raspberrypi.org/](http://www.raspberrypi.org/)

Wired up all contact sensor and connect to gpio on pi. Use pi to detect circuit break and send messages or phone calls via google voice.

</comment><comment><USER18> I bought a piper ([http://getpiper.com](http://getpiper.com)), you can integrate with some z-wave accessories to monitor the door, windows, turn on/off lights or device.. Is nice, whenever you want, you can connect and see whats happening in your house, see statistics (only for the last 48h) about temperature, humidity, light, noises, etc Unfortunately is far from being perfect, a basic feature like automatic activation of the alarm during the days is not possible (and to me seems a quite basic feature for an alarm system).. This, together with the fact that activating/disabling the alarm takes too long, ends with me not using the alarm system at all, except for long absence from home Having some public API to play with would be nice too..

<comment><USER19> So do you just put the camera/piper-thing in one room? Or do you have a few?

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> You could easily install a $10 door alarm that chimes when it is opened. They can be ordered online or picked up at stores like Radio Shack, etc.

</comment><comment><USER21> Not much. To get to my place you actually have to know how to get there, you just can't randomly get to it. When inviting new friends over and even providing a map with directions, I get "where the hell is your place" calls most of the time.

Other than that, I have a Raspberry Pi with a camera running motion; it records video when movement is detected and offloads to a remote server. I have it in my room, pointing at the door, and I have a script that alerts me with Pushover whenever:

* Movement is detected and my phone is not in range.

* Movement is detected and an unknown WiFi device is in range (it sniffs WiFi probes).

<comment><USER22> Where do you live? Woods? Mountains?

<comment><USER21> It's an old residential area, next to a main road, but the only access is a private path along which you have many other houses and their own security cameras.

That path is a dead end, and the last section is around 50 m (~165 feet) long and not even accessible to cars or wheelchairs; too narrow and with steps. The gate to my place is the very dead end.

That's why people have a hard time finding my place. Now, I feel like talking about security a bit more.

After the gate you have other 20 m (~65 feet) to the door, and most valuables are upstairs.

Basically a burglar would have to take multiple trips, up and down inside and outside stairs, to load up a car/van parked before the narrow end, with faces and plates invariably captured by cameras. Or do the multiple trips for maybe 300 m (~1000 feet) each to a parking spot across the busy main road (there's no space to park on my side of the road; you'd block it).

In case of break in while I'm out, after I get the notification on my phone I'd call a neighbor to block the path with his car and wait for the police to arrive and do the rest.

There are other possible break in spots, but they involve wall jumping, so damage would be way more limited. Somebody could jump into my garden over the 2 m (~6.5 feet) wall from my neighbor's, but they have to break into the (wealthier) neighbor's before.

The rest of the garden is surrounded by a concrete wall, 2 m (~6.5 feet) high on my side, 3 m (~10 feet) on the other side, that separates my house from a residence complex with its own security and all. But you can't really see this wall; it's hidden by thick foliage on my side. Once I got my quad-copter crashed into this residence and it took me 30 minutes worth of branch cutting (saw and hatchet) just to reach the wall, and I tried to grab it for a while, with a hook and hung from a tree, before even considering jumping that high, getting hurt, and possibly be unable to jump back in again.

So a burglar would rather steal shit from any not as logistically messy target.

TL;DR: my house can't be accessed by car and I'm surrounded with other houses and apartment blocks that are not as much trouble to burglarize.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Can you describe what you are looking to add?

Security is a process, and it depends on the situation how far you want to go. You can buy / build / rent a home security system & service. You can establish good security practices like not allowing location services data (or your own big mouth) to broadcast or otherwise tell the world where you are or when you are or are not home, not placing valuable items in window view, keeping your doors and windows locked, doing regular lock checks, switching your door deadbolt lock so that former owners/renters/etc can't get in, etc.

</comment><comment><USER24> Whenever I leave home I lock the door and hide the key somewhere. If I leave for more than a day, I give the key to my neighbor. That can come in handy, like once I forgot the passport at home, and the neighbor could get it and send it to me. But I live in a small village where everybody knows everybody. :) Also, I don't have anything expensive and that I would miss, except maybe my laptop. I'm more worried of somebody stealing my axe if I forget it outside than of somebody breaking in.

</comment><comment><USER25> We use one dropcam pointed at the valuables in the house (the living room with all the monitors and computers etc.) Dropcam offers a lot of sensible features like camera schedules and location sensitive activity alerts that make the experience of buying the $200 device worth it. There's also night vision and a microphone + speaker. Needless to say, everything works seamlessly across devices, and you can buy 7-day cloud storage for an additional $99 a year.

<comment><USER26> Keep in mind, the Dropcam only helps if you know the thief. We had a theft in our old office and caught the thief on Dropcam. The police saw the video and noted that they had seen the guy at other thefts as well. My obvious question: "anything that you can do about it?" And unless ubiquitous CCTV with face recognition is widely deployed, the answer is basically no.

<comment><USER25> I agree. But activity alerts are pretty good. You can set Dropcam up so that if someone enters the area when you're not home or the camera loses network connectivity, you get an alert - and if you do, you can alert the neighbors or the cops.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I too have recently moved, I haven't yet purchased a security system but I have been looking around, these are the things I was looking for:

\- No monthly fee

\- A loud alarm

\- Not necessarily calling the cops, I just want to be contacted, I can call the cops myself if needed.

I have found only two systems I like:

\- The most expensive one: SmartThings, about 550$ for what I want, looks easy to set up. The only mentioned inconvenience is the wiress range of the hub. I have a pretty big house so I need to consider this.

\- Skylink SC-2200 security system on Amazon. This is much cheaper 187$. But requires a landline (I don't have one). You can make it work using an "OBi100 VoIP" (also on amazon). The Obi100 can connect to google voice (free account but only in the US), it has a landline phone port which allows you to make the skylink system work. From what I have read you also need a cheap (8$) landline phone to make test calls at first.

Now I prefer the SmartThings system because it's simpler, and also you can control everything from an app on your phone. Skylink all it does is placing a phone call to your phone when something gets triggered ("door X has been opened"). Both systems used in this way have a failing point, your cable connection. If someone goes outside my house, and cuts the cable, my system is ineffective. With Skylink I think you can set up a sim card, and other system too. But that ends up costing a monthly fee, which I don't want.

I still haven't decided, I don't have much extra money for any system right now as I've spend so much for the house.

<comment><USER28> There similar do-it-yourself security systems for about $2-300 that use a sim card and the cell networks.

[http://www.amazon.com/PiSector-Cellular-Wireless-Security- Qu...](http://www.amazon.com/PiSector-Cellular-Wireless-Security-Quad- band/dp/B007GP3JUA)

You can program what numbers to call. I had one similar to this in a building I leased along with some IP cameras. It went off a few times by itself and woke me up in the middle of the night and I drove down to find nothing.. maybe the window vibration sensors or a mouse or something.

We moved recently, but I haven't put it up at the new house. My main security at home is two dogs and a short barrel pistol grip shotgun with a blinding light. Everything irreplaceable is in a fireproof gun safe that is bolted to the floor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> You are probably being paranoid about safety. The chances of someone breaking into your house through locked doors violating building security in a decent neighborhood are very small. You are far more likely to die in a car crash.

That said, if you want extra security in your house you could use deadbolt door and window locks. Those are very hard to get through. You could also buy a gun. Get a dog if you will be a responsible pet owner.

</comment><comment><USER30> Insurance, but not too much. The expected value of insurance is generally negative, so only cover things you can't afford to lose or you think your risk is much higher than the insurance company estimate.

Cultivate a healthy attitude towards your possessions° - don't let them own you, and remember that it's just stuff at the end of the day.

° Incidentally, in my first draft I wrote relationship, not attitude, which is exactly the problem!

</comment><comment><USER31> We have a dog, which is an excellent anti-burglary system. He won't bark at the mailman, but he will bark at strangers in my yard or people standing in front of the house in the middle of the night. (This actually happened a couple of weeks ago when my neighbours came home from their holiday late at night).

The thing is: the vast majority of burglaries are spur-of-the-moment things. Here in The Netherlands at least. Sure, if they know you have a lot of cash at home they might actively target you, but most of the time it's much simpler: they see an open window or 'easy' door lock and they act upon it. Burglars are extremely opportunistic. To fend off most burglars, you don't need to have the best security, you just have to have better security than the least protected.

If you read the crime reports in the US, this rings true. I can't tell you how many times you read 'phone stolen from unlocked vehicle' or 'entered house by slitting the screen door'. Common sense can go a long way.

For countries like South Africa and some countries in South America it's a whole other story I guess.

</comment><comment><USER32> I'll never understand people going full security mode when they live in complete harmless neighborhood (and insurances are not crazy themselves). If anything you are asking to be robbed to be honest, combo challenge + there is probably something good to get.

You already living in an apartment in a secure building. Who do you think is coming for you? The Ocean's 11 squad? ><

<comment><USER33> There aren't many safe neighborhoods. I live in a gated apartment complex in a nicer part of the Bay Area, and I came home one day to a completely destroyed front door (they didn't get in thanks to the thick fire doors, but it could easily have been looted). On top of that, our car was broken into and they looted everything that wasn't bolted in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I'm from Poland and I use solid doors and rolling shutters as described by davidw. I also have an Satel Grade-3 alarm system (one of the best systems in the world) that is basically used in banking institutions with sensors that are pet save. The funny thing is that I don't own any expensive stuff, so it's just for our personal safety.

</comment><comment><USER35> WRT electronic countermeasures:

You can get a bunch of motion detectors and controllable outlets for cheap through Insteon/Smarthome. BestBuy has a decently priced starter kit with a hub, which uses both X10 and wireless transmission for redundancy. I've seen reviews of more expensive home automation systems that aren't as reliable because they use only one mode of communication, so I'm happy I chanced on the right choice. The system also works with ultra-cheap X10-only devices if that's good enough for you.

I have a couple controllable outlets with sirens attached to them that I can trigger remotely if my motion sensors and foscams show me something undesirable, and control the hub with Perl-based Misterhouse software. I think I saw Python and Java interfaces out there as well.

</comment><comment><USER36> We have 4 internal cameras that use motion detection, and a house alarm that calls us if the motion sensors go off, or goes nuts if it detects movement at night.

We were broken into last year while we were asleep. We were only alerted after a few minutes when one of our Dogs freaked out and started barking. They ran away.

The cameras will be useful in terms of potentially identifying future burglars, but it's also more about feeling violated. They actually made off with very little considering what was just lying around but I'd love to know exactly what they were doing while they were inside. Pretty scary with a newborn sleeping upstairs and we were non the wiser.

</comment><comment><USER37> One of the thing that always fascinate me with American film is how 'simple' a suburban house can be. You have 4 feet open windows and glass wall everywhere living in a neighborhood without any gate or security guard. That led me to believe that American must have it nice over there...until I actually went there. They do have similar common sense of protection as where I'm coming from such as hardened/laminated glass for window, and solid door+frame.

I add CCTV just to expedite any insurance claim. Socially, nothing beats tight-knit neighbors.

And if your toilet have one of those airduct/vent. Make sure the size is no more than a feet.

</comment><comment><USER38> A couple of inexpensive PIR sensors and a couple of wireless IP cameras.

Sensors can trigger video camera, then images uploaded to cloud. Or just use the sensor built into camera (not as good).

The same sensor can alert your phone, and send image after which you can choose to alert cops or take more pictures or trigger alarm or even talk to the intruder all from your phone.

Some security cameras have "alarm out" and "audio out" for connecting optional alarms and speakers. I like Lorex IP cameras, but there's plenty of choice.

</comment><comment><USER39> Ruger LC9 downstairs and Remmington Shotgun upstairs. I usually keep the LC9 on my pesron including while I work / watch TV etc. Someone is awake at all hours of the day and night and we have 2 dogs.

BUT

One thing I think a lot of people underestimate is a relationship with their neighbors. We don't have a neighborhood watch but we do communicate with our neighbors about shady activity and are always looking out for each other.

</comment><comment><USER40> Good building security seems rare. I've been pretty surprised at the number of problems I've seen in SF buildings where thieves hit the mail room and bike storage regularly by just following residents in from the street.

Depending on how easy it is to tell if you are home it might be helpful to install a doorcam. That way when thieves knock to see if you are home you can answer remotely.

</comment><comment><USER5> Make your house secure with other suggestions from here, and then add very visible additions to _show_ that you are secure. E.g. Put up an armed reaction sign even if you don't have armed reaction. Barbed wire fence even though barbed wire is easy to work around. A red flashing LED light.

The best possible outcome is nobody ever testing the measures that you have put into place.

</comment><comment><USER41> My wife visited her grandparents in western Pennsylvania some years back. They were going out to lunch, and being the last one out, my wife locked the door. When she mentioned this, her grandmother said, "I hope I have the key". She routinely left her house with the door unlocked!

Myself, I have a dog. I got to test the dog recently, when a locksmith was replacing the ignition switch on one of our cars. I kept waiting for him to finish. Finally, I gave up waiting for him and went to use the can. Of course, that's when he finished, and came in looking for me to pay him. The dog made it very clear that the locksmith was _not_ coming any further into the house. It didn't attack him, but it drew a clear line on the floor: you go no further.

So, we lock our doors, and there's the dog. Anybody who gets past that has to worry about whatever I find handy. Lime-Away? Really good chemical warfare agent in a handy spray bottle (but it's almost like a gun, you can blind someone, so you'd better be _sure_ before you pull the trigger). That tool for unscrewing supply hoses from the bottoms of sinks? (Good for jabbing or clubbing, light enough to get good velocity, heavy enough to do some damage.) Even a cat can be thrown, and will hit with claws out looking for some traction. Think. You've got way more weapons in a house than you might expect.

Now, would I consider that adequate in some situations like Mandatum's in South Africa? No way. But for where I live, it's probably good enough. (Or maybe I'm just cocky because I've been lucky.)

</comment><comment><USER3> Location is everything - move somewhere there is no crime. Failing that, get some IP cams setup and archive the footage offsite.

</comment><comment><USER42> What are you trying to achieve?

Is it personal safety from intruders? Or safety of possessions from burglary or damage?

If the latter, do you really own anything that cannot be re-purchased? Any works of art or otherwise irreplaceable high value items? If not, just get insurance and do whatever the policy requires (window bolts, certain grade of locks for doors, etc).

</comment><comment><USER43> I recently installed a Simplisafe security system. Easy to do, fairly inexpensive, and it really works. Sometimes too well.

<comment><USER44> I've looked at this system as an alternative to ADT. Can you go into any more detail regarding your likes, dislikes, and what "sometimes too well" means?

<comment><USER43> Sure,

It's wireless, which is great. It's super simple to stick the sensors where you want and not have to worry about wiring anything up. I think my total setup time was somewhere in the range of 20 minutes, which included signing up for their monitoring.

It's fairly inexpensive, too. I think I paid like $150 for my set? It came with almost everything I needed (no glass break sensor and I needed an extra entry sensor).

All of the sensors seem to work well, with only minor issues occurring every so often. There are rare times that it simply doesn't register a sensor has been tripped (I can open my door, for example, and it doesn't think I have). Other times, the sensors trip for no reason at all. I've gotten calls about tripped motion sensors, but it has never been legitimate.

The entry sensors that go on the window don't have any glass breaking capabilities. There is a sensor that "listens" for the sound of breaking glass for about $35 on their website. I haven't tried it, so I can't speak to how well it works. I'd feel a lot more comfortable with impact sensors, though.

The monitoring service seems to be top notch. I have had to communicate with them 2-3 times. The first time was a little confusing, because they ask you for your master password, which I assumed (incorrectly) was my code to turn the alarm off. They don't tell you that you got it wrong for obvious reasons. The police went to my house, cleared it, and then billed me $300 for a false alarm (which they later waived). The other times I have spoken with them they have cleared everything up in seconds.

The online management is great, I can disable/arm/check the status of my alarm all from their website. The only thing that doesn't seem to work is the temperature sensor. I'm not sure if I have that or not, but their website makes it appear like I do.

My only major gripe is that for several days my base station lost connectivity with their monitoring station. Because of this, it acts only as an alarm, and can't alert the police if it goes off. Rebooting it, etc. did not help. I had to go through a lot of troubleshooting with them to get it to work again. That being said, it's the only time I have had to contact their support, and my e-mail at 1 a.m. was answered within minutes.

I would suggest this if you are looking for a low cost solution that isn't guarding a pot of gold or something. If you just want the piece of mind that you can turn it on and get alerted if someone or something trips a sensor, then great. If you are looking for advanced protection it's probably best to invest more into a professionally installed system.

<comment><USER44> Excellent. That is quite helpful. Thanks for taking the time to write that up!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> 12 gauge shotgun

<comment><USER46> Unless you live in an awful place which doesn't allow handguns for self- defense, shotguns tend to be a pretty poor choice for home defense. Confined spaces make them unwieldy, and it's frighteningly easy for an adversary to grab it outside of your grip and use the bigger lever arm to twist it out of your hands, as I demonstrated a few years ago to a nephew who's bigger and much younger and more fit than I am. Normal self-defense handguns are much easier to retain, and not quite so overpowered.

<comment><USER28> I very strongly disagree. I believe a shotgun is very much the best home defense weapon.

Most people are poor shots with a handgun, especially if woken up in the middle of the night. A shotgun is a point in the general direction and shoot kind of thing. It also has a lot more stopping power than a handgun.

Also, with a shotgun, you can use larger gauge bird shot or something like #4 buck shot and it is less likely to penetrate walls and hurt someone you didn't intend.

A 12 gauge pump shotgun is also an intimidating looking and sounding weapon. Much more so than something like a 9mm handgun. Finally, the laws regarding shotguns for many area of the US are likely to be much less restrictive than on handguns.

I understand your comment about the unwieldiness of shotguns, but in my particular case, my shotgun has double pistol grips and no stock. I would be much less concerned about loosing control of it than I would a pistol. I have a top mounted light that triggers when the front pistol grip is grasped. It is (almost) as short as the law allows... the entire weapon is just over 2 feet long (28 inches to be exact). I hope I never have to use it in defense or worse yet, shoot to kill someone. For this reason I have 5 shells in the chamber. The first two are birdshot... deadly at close range, less likely to be so at a further range. Then I have two rounds of #4 buck, then a slug. I have 5 more rounds of #4 buck in holders at the top. I've considered having the first two rounds rubber like the police use.

<comment><USER46> _A shotgun is a point in the general direction and shoot kind of thing._

Now, I have to admit I haven't patterned any shotgun at close range, but everything I've read and seen says at home defense ranges you have to aim them with almost as much care as a rifle, the pattern expands rather slowly, even with cylinder choke (no choke). And I know from too much wingshooting that at range you have to be pretty precise as well.

A quick check with Google came up with [http://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o- truth-3-the-shotgun-me...](http://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-truth-3-the- shotgun-meets-the-box-o-truth/) which doesn't fill me with confidence in the lack of interior house construction penetration of #4 buck. Note, per the above, that the pattern at 12 feet was 3.5 inches, which matches pretty well the 1 inch spread/yard metric I first read about in _Patriot Games_. And #4 buckshot is not a good perpetrator; if you're a Facklerite you want 16 inches (in case you have to shoot thought an arm to reach the vitals). Birdshot is obviously much more iffy.

As for intimidation, well, some people don't intimidate worth a damn, although I agree a Europellet dispenser is not a good choice unless their are other constraints; me, I stick with .45 ACP in M1911s (primarily because the gun has fit my hands like a glove since I was a teen).

It's true, in some areas of the US a shotgun is your best option because of restrictions on handgun ownership, but this is not true for the vast majority of the country, land and people. Like, outside of Hawaii? and several of the Northeast states.

No stock == not very accurate in most people's hands, negating the aiming advantages there while indeed mitigating to some degree the issues if it gets up close and personal. Me, I keep my police configuration with full length stock 870 in my safe, loaded with #1 buckshot, which all things being equal is 40% better than #00 (lots more pellets with sufficient penetration). I bought it while living in Massachusetts, one of those states where getting a handgun is difficult to impossible in the more urban areas, now I've got it mostly in case I need a literal riot gun.

And if, like in most of the nation (although absent a saving throw with the Supremes it looks doomed in California), you can carry concealed, there's a lot to be said for learning well only one type of gun, i.e. not just a particular semi-auto handgun model, but ones in a family that are more and less suited for carry and home defense, that have the same controls, ergonomics, etc. E.g. there's _lots_ of models to choose from in the Glock family.

<comment><USER28> Interesting article. I would note a couple of points though...

1)Notice the drywall collapsing? That's what is going to happen to a person getting shot at close range with a 12 gauge.. even with birdshot. It would be something like getting smacked with a sledgehammer. I'm less interested in penetrating vitals than flat out knocking the person down. A person who's arm, or even lungs are penetrated cleanly by a high caliber round might still be functional for a bit... functional enough to shoot back.

2)Even though the #4 buck did penetrate multiple layers of drywall in this guys test, what is the lethality after 2 or 3 layers? You say yourself that #4 buck is less likely to penetrate vitals in the first place. Your 45 on the other hand will likely easily penetrate multiple layers of drywall, then completely penetrate the person on the other side.

Anyway, different strokes and all that. A firearm is a good home defense weapon in general. Always nice to meet another person who doesn't feel owning a firearm makes one a Neanderthal of some kind. Where I live, I wouldn't be without one in the home. I sleep much better at night and feel I could protect my girlfriend and our belongings against invasion.

I also have a number of other firearms including military type rifles, hunting rifles and some handguns, but the shotgun is the one I keep in bedroom for defense.

<comment><USER46> As someone who follows Dr. Martin Fackler on interior ballistics, I believe that at worst case the incapacitating mechanism has to be sufficient blood loss. That is, for a subset of perpetrators, simply being shot is not sufficient (I gather as many as half will desist when that happens), and you can't count on being lucky enough to make a disabling CNS hit (spinal cord or brain). If so, you need penetration to the vitals causing a lot of blood loss ... and you need to stay alive until that takes effect. The debacle of the FBI Miami shootout is perhaps the most notorious example of all this, see e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout)

I don't believe the kinetics you're posting will work on a human. F = mv^2, force = mass * velocity squared, so velocity is a big factor (although much less so on the target unless it usefully dumps energy before exiting). The recoil _you_ feel will be significantly greater than the impact the target gets unless at contact range, because in addition to the lead, higher velocity gasses exit the muzzle (although a muzzle brake will mitigate that at a cost of visual and aural ergonomics, see Obama's famous shooting picture). The target is only going to get the impact of the lead. The only mitigating factor is that the recoil you feel is spread across what's initially a larger area, although it won't take many yards for the areas to be equal, following the ~1 inch spread/yard of distance rule of thumb.

And you're welcome. I grew up hunting and shooting, and after going to college in fact got my first guns after getting a girlfriend to protect in the Boston area, which was and still is pretty high crime.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Are you talking about personal security or security of your posessions?

<comment><USER47> Either way, two key things you should have, IMO, are:

\- renter's insurance

\- off-site backups

Sometimes it's best to focus on mitigating risk. If someone were to break in and steal something, would you be able to replace those things?

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> 180 lbs of dog in the form of two adult (if aging) German Shepherds!

</comment><comment><USER49> Grandma keeps the house safe.

</comment><comment><USER50> dog

</comment><comment><USER51> Shotgun.

<comment><USER45> Beat me to it

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Not living in the USA.

<comment><USER4> The vast majority of people in the US live in safe neighborhoods. Burglary and home invasion are some of the least common crimes committed. The reasons are that it has a very real chance of getting you killed, the prison penalties are steep, (B&E is a charge in and of itself, along with the larceny) and its rewards are complete garbage. A fence will give you 5% of the retail value of the product, if you're lucky (even less for stuff like jewelry). You have to be completely tweaked out on meth and crack or be a dumbass teenager to even consider it these days.

<comment><USER3> From [http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in- the-u.s/2011/c...](http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in- the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/property-crime/burglary)

In 2011, there were an estimated 2,188,005 burglaries

Victims of burglary offenses suffered an estimated $4.8 billion in lost property in 2011

Seems pretty high to me.

<comment><USER31> Pretty high in relation to what? I live in the Netherlands, which is considered to be a safe country, right? We have 0.00539 B&E's per inhabitant, whereas the US have 0.068 B&E's per inhabitant. Not that much difference, if you ask me.

<comment><USER2> It's more than 10x higher?

<comment><USER4> He mis-wrote it. The Netherlands is significantly less, but not by an order of magnitude.

US per 100000 people: 715 Netherlands per 100000 people: 428

For reference, England is 986, Sweden is 1029, Australia is 1017, Belgium is 891, and Japan is 117.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why do modern web forms not have input labels? - <AUTHOR> Go to most websites and their forms do not have labels anymore! The placeholder text is the only indication what you're supposed to put in the field. <comment><USER2> Uses less space on the site, and it's much more cleaner that way. Much more customisable I guess.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree that it's cleaner, but it's not particularly good for usability. Placeholder text is usually a light color and screen readers have no clue what's going on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Can you give me an example of a site like this?

<comment><AUTHOR> * GitHub's signup on home page ([https://github.com/](https://github.com/))

* Stripe's login page ([https://dashboard.stripe.com/login](https://dashboard.stripe.com/login))

* DigitalOcean's login page ([https://cloud.digitalocean.com/login](https://cloud.digitalocean.com/login))

* Many, many more</comment></comment>


Conway's Multiplayer Game of Life - <AUTHOR> http://lifecompetes.com/ <comment><USER2> Author here.

The front page of HN is proving to be a great way to stress test this. I'm surprised NginX (serving the static content) and Node.js (all the websockets communication) is handling 50+ players, no problem.

<comment><USER3> I seem to have lost my bits :-) Somewhere out there are 2 blue boxes that I can't tell apart from a sea of other blue boxes.

This is thoroughly fun!

<comment><USER2> If you click a cell and it becomes occupied before you can click the "place cells" button, you can either click the cell again to "unflag" it, or refresh the page. I'm assuming this is the problem you're describing.

I should add some hover-state that shows the cell's owner on the board.

<comment><USER3> Ah yes, a hover state to show the owner's cells would be perfect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This reminds me of David Brin's book Glory Season, where a common pastime for the characters is the play a competitive version of the Game of Life.

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

</comment><comment><USER5> Nice! Simple tactics I found so far:

1\. Place an [http://www.conwaylife.com/wiki/R-pentomino](http://www.conwaylife.com/wiki/R-pentomino) wherever there is lots of space and you have 5 to spare. Or another [http://www.conwaylife.com/wiki/List_of_long- lived_methuselah...](http://www.conwaylife.com/wiki/List_of_long- lived_methuselahs) (sort by initial population).

2\. Free-ride on others' cells to create some fertile configuration with less than 5 investment. In most cases this benefits the original owner more than me.

\- Add a 3-line to a block (or anything with a 2-cell side):

       xx
       xx
         OOO  <- my 3 cells

      This resembles one of the predecessors of an r-pentamino and grows nicely.

     - Add 2 "ears" to a blinker — a complete takeover!:

       OxO
        x
        x

     - Add 2 onto some diagonal edge, e.g. beehive:

        xx
       x  x
        xxO
         O

       This is very sensitive to what I attach to, e.g. in this variation my cells die out:

        xx
       x  xO
        xxO

<comment><USER2> Nice. I hadn't considered attaching three cells to another player's block.

Another tactic that I've seen in the game is to use 1-3 cells to cause other patterns of >10 cells to "self-destruct". This can work directly in your favor if another player's cells are obstructing a future growth-path of one of your methuselahs.

<comment><USER5> I pretty much gave up on real-time interaction with dynamic structures as I have no idea what it'll do. It would much more practical if the game gave a glimpse into the future, including effects of cells I marked for placement but didn't commit yet. Something in the spirit of [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xg0PKAvL01Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xg0PKAvL01Y) only looking into the future rather then past.

<comment><USER2> That is another good idea. I may implement that as well.

The problem I'm focusing on at the moment is that the game is both less challenging and less fun when fewer players are online (if you have any ideas to increase player retention/engagement or make the game seem more "active" when fewer players are online).

<comment><USER5> Frequently I was out of cells to place and waiting for a sufficient number to do something interesting is boringly slow. I found myself wasting 1-2 cells on mostly ineffective gambits because I was too impatient to wait for 3+... Or I could switch away, and at some point come back later with 12 cells - but that could be half a hour later.

1\. show number of cells-to-place in tab title / favicon. Helps with switching away but coming back when I have something to do.

2\. consider having several "rooms" so an active player can always have something to do without entirely switching away. Or instead of independent rooms have a larger map with distant areas of it having independent supply of cells.

Wilder idea: the game runs so slow to let you carefully place many cells, and give _some_ hope of reacting events in real time, right? What if it run faster but you could enter "bullet time" when you're placing cells? Moreover, what if you could unwind time back a few steps?! The latter sounds especially cool, because it gives limited foresight (and ability to experiment) within the same interface. This can be allowed without inconsistency due to speed-of-light delay, under baddox's idea where each player can only place cells in a separate area. Maybe even possible in some adaptive way with unrestricted gameplay, but much harder.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Great concept. The generation rate is too low for me to stick around though. It might be more interesting to do 10 or 20 generations per tick.

When I read the headline, I was imagining an endless board where each player got a grid, say 20x20, where he could place anything he wanted, and all the boards would be right next to each other so you could try to "invade" your neighbors.

<comment><USER7> this version sounds great too!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I do like this - can't wait for the sequels:

\- Conway - the first person shooter

\- Conway II - no more nice evolution

\- Conway text-RPG - "life! don't talk to me about life!"

\- Conway multi-levels "The high life"

\- Conway or the highway

\- Conway the Barbarian

(I think it's time I stopped)

Nice one.

</comment><comment><USER9> Very cool! I was able to use some 'strategies' for cell placement that I learned while making this:

[http://dj.github.io/react_game_of_life/](http://dj.github.io/react_game_of_life/)

It started as just an attempt to create the game of life in react, but as I started to add some interactivity to it, I started to wonder if there was an actual game in there somewhere. Never really figured out what I wanted to do with it though.

</comment><comment><USER10> I never thought about Game of Life as a game (great job, thanks for sharing!). If it can be made "multiplayer" then "strip" does not sound ridiculous anymore ([http://xkcd.com/696/](http://xkcd.com/696/), [http://konstochvanligasaker.se/stripgameoflife/](http://konstochvanligasaker.se/stripgameoflife/)).

</comment><comment><USER11> Interesting. I extended the Game of Life to three states instead of the usual two states when I was learning javascript. Just a fun little hack.

[http://bl.ocks.org/rsivapr/6108940](http://bl.ocks.org/rsivapr/6108940)

</comment><comment><USER12> Finally, after much ado, top ranked (except for that amazing bot).

</comment><comment><USER13> Oddly, my highscore dropped. It was 35, then it went to my current score of 26. Does your highscore reset when you lose all your bits then start to place more?

<comment><USER2> Nope, the server crashed and restarted! Some of the local data on your client was out of sync with the server during the restart (at least, that is my best guess).

</comment></comment><comment> Al-Khwarizmi Does not work in Opera 12.17 - I click "Play" and nothing happens, although my nick appears as taken if I try to use it from another browser.

</comment><comment><USER14> Strange, I only see a growing & collapsing circle. Game of Life isn't supposed to be _that_ boring.</comment>


Ask HN: What do DNA companies do with their data troves? - <AUTHOR> So a lot of my friends and family have been submitting their DNA to these companies for ancestry results. Unfortunately, they got nothing interesting back about their history, unlike what they saw on the commercials. Some of them are egging me on to try it out. As an old timer, I'm not used to giving out my information willy-nilly like that.
Companies portray it as peeking into the distant past of my family history, but if I submit my DNA to these companies, what exactly do they get in terms of sequencing? Do they sequence all my genes, and so they will be able to gleam into what pre-disposed health problems I have, or what at-risk cancers I fall into? Can they see what the state of my body is in right now?
On the market side, do they reserve the right to sell my data to health insurance companies so that my rates could go higher, or could I be denied coverage for some pre-existing ailment? Does this bypass HIPAA compliance since it is voluntarily given to them?
Presumably insurance companies will buy and piece together data submitted by my relatives to make educated guesses at me, and then base my premiums on the DNA submissions of my relatives' health?
Not that I'm planning on doing it, but I was curious to know if anyone knows exactly how this works, or what they do with the troves of data they own? <comment><USER2> Big pharma is super excited about buying access to this data: [https://mediacenter.23andme.com/press-releases/gsk- and-23and...](https://mediacenter.23andme.com/press-releases/gsk-and-23andme- sign-agreement-to-leverage-genetic-insights-for-the-development-of-novel- medicines/) and [https://venturebeat.com/2015/01/14/23andme-has- signed-12-oth...](https://venturebeat.com/2015/01/14/23andme-has- signed-12-other-genetic-data-partnerships-beyond-pfizer-and-genentech/)

I wouldn't be super surprised to see insurance companies get in on the game, though there's already laws against discrimination on the basis of genetic information, so I'd be interested to see if that would face any regulatory blowback: [https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/special- topics/g...](https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/special- topics/genetic-information/index.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> For at least 20 years, they have sold it to insurance companies. That is why I fought the military collecting DNA. I escalated all the way to Al Gore. That bought me enough time to get my honorable discharge and walk away from those lunatics. Before someone mentions it, 23andMe has not been around that long, but companies are just flavors. They come and go but the same people and labs have been around for a long time.

My unit commander said, "Are you afraid we are going to clone you?". I replied, "No sir, you should be afraid you are going to clone me." We both had a chuckle because we both knew I was right. I then explained how insurance companies were retroactively canceling insurance policies based on "genetic predisposition to {xyz}" for people laid up in hospitals with large medical bills and that it was my patriotic duty to fight this, even if it meant a court martial.

I should add, all of my FOIA replies were about as generic as a car commercial. It amounted to: The Chief Medical Officer of the DoD can do anything with this data and retain it as long as they wish.

</comment><comment><USER4> Citation needed, but I'm fairly certain I've read that companies like Ancestry retain the right to use your DNA/data for a variety of commercial reasons. Also, if I were you I would be concerned about it being used by the government [1]. Sure, looking up a serial killers DNA is something most can agree with but imagine this being used in an automated way for way lesser crimes.

[1] [https://www.npr.org/sections/health- shots/2018/10/11/6562687...](https://www.npr.org/sections/health- shots/2018/10/11/656268742/easy-dna-identifications-with-genealogy-databases- raise-privacy-concerns)

</comment><comment><USER5> In 10 years or so, they could create a racial assassin, spreads like flu, renders target race infertile, or girls/boys only fathered. Later on they could customize it so Joe Smith could be killed as the virus spread finally encounters his personal sequence. This is within reach, but not in our grasp at this time, unless it is blocked. Hard to gain favor for a blocking a virus that will give republicans/decocrats hemorrhoids, as both sidesare probably secretly at work on it now ;)</comment>


EBay Architecture - <AUTHOR> http://highscalability.com/ebay-architecture

<comment><USER2> The author of the post referred to in the article is one of the brightest architects I've ever worked with. (Former eBay'er here.) Definitely worth reading to get his take on how eBay works, but the lessons are applicable in other contexts.</comment>


I'm a commis in a Chinese restaurant kitchen, this is what I do - <AUTHOR> http://eightmileswide.svbtle.com/i-m-a-commis-in-a-chinese-restaurant-kitchen-this-is-what-i-do <comment><USER2> Wow, surprisingly interesting.</comment>


I also stand up for Stallman - <AUTHOR> http://raganwald.posterous.com/i-also-stand-up-for-stallman

<comment><USER2> I can't say I agree with this "stand up for weak people against bullies" defense of Richard Stallman. It doesn't do rms any favors, because it makes him look like a weakling.

I don't agree with rms right now, but he deserves a lot of respect for the work he has done throughout his life. I'm just going by the wikipedia page, but he wrote gcc and gdb - that alone should give someone a fair amount of respect. If you add the concept of copyleft and the GPL on top of that, you've got a substantial legacy that we owe a debt of gratitude towards.

He is an extremist, though. He has always been an extremist. His opinions were often unappealing even when he was writing in opposition to The Borg. His opinions have only become more unpalatable as closed platforms from Apple and Google have become more appealing on their technical merits.

In my own experience, though, it seems like some newer folks don't really understand that those extreme ideas came from an important place. They don't understand the hacker ethic or have much of an idea of the culture that rms comes from, exemplified, and fights for. I imagine most readers here are familiar with it, but it's a fading ideal, for sure.

Anyway - I've made fun of rms as much as the next guy, but he doesn't need me to defend him. And I doubt he cares what people say about his rider.

<comment><USER3> you cant call someone like RMS extreme just because his views are REALLY DIFFERENT. there is a lot of room on the spectrum between expressing your views non violently and actually forcing them onto people.

<comment><USER4> I can't read your mind so I don't know if this applies to you, omlette, but I read a lot of similar comments and they come off as trying to be politically correct. Yes, very different views and extremism are different but there's a fine line. Should we say terrorists (even excluding the suicide bombing types and leaving only the hostage taking ones) aren't extremist but just expressing very different views? No.

RMS can be called an extremist because he refuses to accept that the opposing views have any merit when they clearly do (see some of my other comments on this post for examples, my apologies for hanging around this thread so long haha).

Just because the guy isn't holding college auditoriums full of undergrads hostage in exchange for GNU/Linux being installed on all campus computers doesn't mean he isn't an extremist. The FOSS movement, while stirring up a fair amount of debate and heated views, doesn't lend itself very well to suicide bombing, hostage taking, or any other type of violence. Maybe a little protesting but that's all. Even so, it doesn't mean he's not an extremist.

It's all about that fine line between strongly held belief and extremism. Peaceful protest doesn't equal not being an extremist.

Please don't pull out dictionary definitions of extremism to counter my point. I'm not saying black is white and white is red, I think I'm being pretty reasonable here. There's also a lot of people on the "well, x idea used to be considered extreme" bandwagon. I'd say to you that different isn't always better. Communism, socialism, feudalism, and others used to be considered extreme... And different too. Turns out all the naysayers were right! Those things unfortunately were tried and they all bombed out with everyone involved surely wishing they'd never been tried to start with. I'm not saying, at least not in this sentence and the next, that Stallman is wrong. What I'm saying is consider the possibility - really think about it. If you can do that then at least people like me can't call you am extremist.

<comment><USER3> ok, maybe he fits some form of extremism, but labeling him as such still isn't enough to dismiss him. William Lloyd Garrison was called that, and so was Joeseph McCarthy. it doesnt really mean anything and it clouds the discussion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's not fair to tie all criticism of rms to bullying. This whole dust-up appears to have been started by a reaction to a post by kottke in which it's not at all clear to me that rms is even being mocked.

I'm not denying rms gets unfairly criticized, or that bullying is bad (and the part about your son was poignant). But all criticism of rms is not bullying. In fact, since his position is so important, it would be wrong _not_ to hold him to a higher standard.

<comment><USER6> Kottke was trying to start a reasoned debate about parrot husbandry, was he?

That's an awfully generous reading.

Though I can believe that Kottke didn't mean to instigate a mob (it is so easy to do by accident), there's no sense in pretending the mob isn't there, now. I'm not about to fuel the fire by _linking_ to multiple people, many with large audiences, who have been poking fun at RMS's personal habits while pretending – not very convincingly – that they're doing so out of principle, but such links aren't hard to find at the moment.

And, yes, we can all tell the difference between disagreeing with (or even _joking_ about) RMS's very strong and sometimes _very_ offbeat technical, legal, and political ideas... and making fun of his socks. The first is fine – it is something he _invites_ – but the second is just rude.

<comment><USER7> > And, yes, we can all tell the difference between disagreeing with (or even > joking about) RMS's very strong and sometimes very offbeat technical, legal, > and political opinions and making fun of his socks. The first is fine – it > is something he invites – but the second is just rude.

Are we talking about the same Richard M Stallman who once wrote:

> Could people please not use this list to announce information of no > particular interest to the people on the list? Hundreds of thousands of > babies are born every day. While the whole phenomenon is menacing, one of > them by itself is not newsworthy. Nor is it a difficult achievement—even > some fish can do it. (Now, if you were a seahorse, it would be more > interesting, since it would be the male that gave birth.)

> These birth announcements also spread the myth that having a baby is > something to be proud of, which fuels natalist pressure, which leads to > pollution, extinction of wildlife, poverty, and ultimately mass starvation.

in response to someone mentioning the birth of their child?

If we're going to have an intellectually honest conversation about bullying in the tech community and the separation of personal attacks from technical matters, let's not attempt to do so under the delusion that RMS only invites comments on technical and political matters and never engages in extremely insulting social attacks on others.

RMS is and always has been a controversial extremist who has been more than willing to engage in personal attacks in service to the causes that interest him.

<comment><USER8> > RMS is and always has been ... more than willing to engage in personal > attacks in service to the causes that interest him.

Can you cite something? Your above quotations are not personal attacks. He is explaining (poorly) that the chosen venue was not correct for the content being communicated. He is speaking in terms of principles and not attacking the person's identity.

<comment><USER7> His first sentence is a (slightly testy) comment that the emacs mailing list wasn't the right forum for a birth announcement.

This didn't require telling the guy that the birth of his child was menacing, insignificant because it was accomplished by a female instead of a male, and complicit in mass starvation and genocide. The "wrong forum" content was just an incidental cover for a long-form attack on that person because it happened to push Stallman's buttons, and Stallman was in a position of power on the list from which he could conveniently abuse the poster without fear of repercussion.

It's bullying every bit as much as the attacks on Stallman.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> One sad thing about arguments is that dismissing them with ad hominems is incredibly effective. You can see this in the media all the time. "The Tea Party is just a bunch of racist, homophobic astroturf." "The OWS movement is just a bunch of anarchist hippies who aren't willing to get a job like the rest of us." Etc.

These ad hominem dismissals are, logically speaking, irrelevant, but they sway people, often more than the actual merits of the the arguments. As a result, it is often frustrating when someone who is on the same side as you, and very visible, makes themselves such a lightning rod for them. I currently feel this exact way about OWS. It's a mixture of "I'm glad people care about fixing our broken financial system" and "oh no, they're going to make moderate America associate financial industry reform lazy hippies."

Stallman is a tireless promoter of his ideology, and if you subscribe to the same then you would have to have mixed feelings about him because of this. His "weirdness" does some amount of harm to the cause because in the end it's always the moderates (who are most easily swayed by irrelevant things like parrots) who decide the issue.

This is, of course, no reason to be uncivil to him, but it at least partially explains (though in no way justifies) the sort of behavior you see even from many who are predisposed to agree with many of his ideas.

</comment><comment><USER10> I think a more nuanced view is in order. As with many things, this is an example where agreement or personal likability is probably not a Boolean thing for most people.

Personally, I don't care what he looks like and I hate it when disparaging anecdotes are being passed around. It doesn't matter that he's a stereotypical "weird kid" as Dave Winer describes him. We're all hackers here and before the days of the Brogrammer, most of us were (and still are) weird kids. What does matter is the message Stallman conveys in his talks. It's an important one, and he brings it across very eloquently.

He himself is, however, an extremist and people do well to always keep this in mind. He is still influential because he is an extremist with a lot of legitimate grievances. When he is giving talks he sounds reasonable, because the fundamentals of his ideas are reasonable. That doesn't mean he is a reasonable person. In many interactions he does in fact appear to be the bully, not the victim.

In the end, RMS is so fanatical about his vision of Free Software that he as a person becomes remarkably non-free. That's a tremendous price to pay and I respect that. So there is no need to come down for or against RMS. He is what he is - he does his thing irregardless of the world around him.

I believe it's not always productive to try and pass a final judgement on people or ideas, to try and weigh the good vs the bad and arrive at a net value. It is not necessary to stand up for or against Stallman. Sometimes, it's OK to let the pros and cons stand for themselves and acknowledge them as such without giving in to the urge to make a weighted sum of the whole thing.

</comment><comment><USER11> If people were following stallman arounnd when he was trying to do his shopping or whatever and jeering at him or threatening him or making malicious comments about his weight or his beard or something then that would be bullying him.

He makes public comment as the leader of a large software organisation, many people strongly disagree with his statements and post their reasons for this on technology related forums.

I don't really see an issue with 99% of what is posted here on HN, juvenile or downright nasty comments usually get downvoted pretty hard.

<comment><USER12> > many people strongly disagree with his statements and post their reasons for > this on technology related forums

I'm 100% ok with this. In my essay a few years ago about optimism (there's a link in the post), I suggest we we try hard to praise people and criticize behaviours. That's where I try to go. I think it's perfectly ok to criticize words and choices. I try to avoid criticizing people. It may seem like a meaningless distinction, but to me there's a world of difference between:

So-and-so is a dick, and:

So-and-so wrote some dickish words.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Perhaps calling Jobs a corrupt, malign evil slaver the day after his death might also be construed as rude by some.

"Steve Jobs, the pioneer of the computer as a jail made cool, designed to sever fools from their freedom, has died.

As Chicago Mayor Harold Washington said of the corrupt former Mayor Daley, "I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad he's gone." Nobody deserves to have to die – not Jobs, not Mr. Bill, not even people guilty of bigger evils than theirs. But we all deserve the end of Jobs' malign influence on people's computing."

<comment> loup-vaillant By many, actually. But this is ridiculous anyway. If they _read_ his post, they would have seen the rudeness just isn't there, at least when you assume (and this is not unreasonable), that the lock-in in Apple latests devices is plainly unacceptable:

(1) Stallman got his facts right. (Jobs _is_ pioneer of the walled garden that people actually buy.)

(2) Making people accept such a lock-in can reasonably be called "malign influence" in my opinion.

(3) Stallman quite clearly stated that Jobs didn't deserve to die.

(4) The timing was probably appropriate too, as Jobs death creates a surge of interest for Apple's locked-down devices. It wouldn't do for the Free Software cause if Steve Jobs became a martyr for Proprietary Software.

<comment><USER4> No. I call weak sauce on that one. It's like you're _trying_ not read the hate and pretending there is no subtext there. A computer didn't write Stallman's post on Jobs. Stallman did. He's a human and everything we say, do, and write has a subtext. Sometimes that subtext isn't very obvious but you can tell by someone's written words how they feel not by the words themselves but how they're strung together and how they fit into the larger thought behind the writing.

All 4 of your points are factually accurate (number 4 can be debated but I'll give it to you now for the sake of argument) but they miss the glaring, obvious, in-your-face subtext of that post which was:

"I Richard Stallman, am going to use the death of a high profile enemy of mine to purposely stir up controversy and get attention, despicably, by calling him evil, but not directly, then adding in this Herals Washing quote so I can have plausible deniability that my supporters will use to defend me".

The worst thing about what he said is that he purposely infused that post with words and a quote that he could use as plausible deniability.

You know, Id be mad but would definitely not think of Stallman as a coward (which that post makes him) if he were to just come right out and say what he meant which was so obviously:

"I'm glad Jobs is dead because that means the company might flounder under new leadership and fail, making my movement seem attractive. Oh, and I do hate Jobs, always have, think he guy is evil along with his product line".

Anyone denying that his post on Jobs was not full of vitriol or schadenfreude is one of the following:

* an RMS fanboy * someone who didn't read the post * a contrarian * blind (physically or otherwise) * lacks human emotion, intuition, and the like

That post was seriously just completely damning for RMS. we'd expect that out of some random Internet jerk but somehow because it's Stallman and because he laced it in his cloak of plausible deniability its become a debate. There should be no debate. The guy said he was glad Jobs was dead without having the balls to come out and say he was glad Jobs was dead.

<comment> loup-vaillant You seem to assume that one can't make the separation between the deeds and the man. I know of the halo effect[1], but we can break free of it to some extent. I suppose you have read Stallman's followup[2], where he addresses this point, and the timing as well.

Also, it is quite obvious for everyone that Jobs' work is overall quite against Free Software (though it doesn't hesitate to use Open Source). That is something worth reminding, especially while everyone else is praising that very work. But how can you possibly criticise a man's life work without making it look like you want to soil the man himself? My guess is, you can't.

[1]: <http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Halo_effect>

[2]: [http://stallman.org/archives/2011-jul- oct.html?ohai#27_Octob...](http://stallman.org/archives/2011-jul- oct.html?ohai#27_October_2011_%28Steve_Jobs%29)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Maybe it's because I just spent three hours watching re-runs of "The West Wing". Maybe it's because I used to be an elected official, and had to deal with more than a few crackpots and nut-jobs with paranoid tendencies. What every it was, the line "My ideas deserve to be heard ..." made me wonder to what extent that's true.

I don't wish to deny anyone the right to hold their ideas, or to speak them (even stupid ones). But the right to speak is not the same as a right to be heard. I saw this as the foundation of the argument. I agree that some honor is due someone who adopts a principled stand and lives by a moral code of conduct, even if I may disagree with the morals or their consequences. But that does not mean they have a right to be heard. The mere existence of an idea does not grant the right to be debated.

Pragmatically, ideas are shared by those who have attention. And the act of obtaining attention reflects—whether it should or not—on the idea itself. That's what the hubbub is about, not whether someone should be allowed to speak.

<comment><USER15> I had the same thought when reading about "deserve to be heard": does not scale. But the author probably means that if you are going to pay attention to ("waste time with") that person, its their ideas that you should be caring.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> raganwald, if I were to spit on you and shove you into a locker, people would be expecting me to apologize to you, not follow up my bullying by attempting to justify my behavior. Anything less than an apology would be deserving of scorn.

The analogy you've drawn between Stallmam and your kid does not validate. rms isn't being bullied; he is the one doing the bullying. The public reaction is appropriate and rational. There is no excuse for Stallman's behavior, and if you disagree that it's deserving of backlash, well then we'll just have to disagree.

That said, it hurts my heart as well to hear about your son being picked on. I hate the thought so much. Your kid isn't the bully. He's the victim. I hope you've explained to him, and I hope he realizes, the difference between him and those who push him around.

<comment><USER12> Thank you for your very kind words. They touch me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Someone with Stallman's level of clout is not the victim of bullying. He has been _very_ well recognized for his work, including a MacArthur "Genius" grant. He's a big enough deal that he can have really specific requirements in his rider and can walk away from speaking engagements when the organizers don't meet them.

This is getting a little paternalistic. Stallman is not a child, and speaking of others' bullying him strikes me as somewhat diminutive, particularly when the example Raganwald compared Stallman to was his son.

<comment><USER18> _Stallman is not a child_

True enough. But behavior fitting only for overgrown children is still a bad idea, even if Stallman can take the heat. I agree with raganwald here that if we can say "I am a human being" we ought to have some basis for treating all of our fellow human beings humanely.

<comment><USER19> RMS's repeated failure to demonstrate any humanity has an awful lot to do with the dislike people are feeling towards him.

<comment><USER20> I seriously doubt that, it seems ad hominem attacks are used because his detractors in general don't feel they have enough to argument with and/or that their arguments hold little weight. He, being an 'odd bird' from a social aspect makes him an easy target for these kinds of attacks. Has Steve Jobs displayed more 'humanity' than Stallman? Has Steve Ballmer? Linus Torvalds, Mark Zuckerberg?

<comment><USER4> , Ballmer, Jobs, and Zuckerberg, and even Torvalds aren't on the font lines of advancing an agenda. And they also didn't write posts about being glad a competitor was dead the day after that death (don't even try to say Stallman didn't say he was glad, see my comment above a little ways on why that argument is total bunk). Those guys aren't looking for controversy like Stallman. They do their job, get things done, and don't whine constantly like RMS. The others you mention certainly do get their fair share of ad nominee attacks and they don't even set themselves up for it like Stallman. RMS has an appropriate last name as he really is stalling the progress of the FSF.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Isn't this submission a little redundant?

<comment><USER18> I think raganwald offers a different perspective from Dave Winer, and I think both posts are important for our community.

<comment><USER21> I think raganwald's perspective is fine and dandy, as a comment on the original article, which is how he originally left it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'd really hate to live in a world where everyone was bland, unoriginal, or even-worse so completely dishonest that they pretend that there is nothing that makes them the least bit unique.

</comment><comment><USER23> A bit offtopic, but:

      > coïncidence

While I get that the diaeresis signifies that the first part of the word isn't one syllable like "coin" but two syllables like "co-in", it seems a little archaic to write it that way. Should one also write "beïng" or "goïng", lest someone pronounce these as one syllable words?

</comment><comment><USER24> This is an aside to the main point, but I get the impression that raganwald doesn't quite understand the "it gets better" movement (I'm not sure if that's quite the right word to use for it, but I'm failing to come up with a better term). "It gets better" wasn't started to try to claim that the situation for LBGT teenagers was improving (although that's true), because that message doesn't really help the individual teen. The message was: as you, individually, get older, it will get better. And, more specifically, please don't kill yourself because your life is difficult right now. A similar idea appears in some of PG's essays where he points out that high school is pretty unpleasant for nerds, but most of that disappears later in life. It gets better because the community of adults is structurally different than the community of children.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, I do understand that it gets better when you get out of HS. Paul Graham made a similar point about being a nerd, I don't recall which essay it was from.

Here's an interesting video, Rick Mercer calling on people in the limelight to stand up and be counted. I am not endorsing his views, just suggesting it's an interesting perspective to think about:

<http://youtu.be/Wh1jNAZHKIw>

And his words from 2007:

<http://youtu.be/t1Y7qpiu2RQ>

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Isn't it documented that people in the pecking order constantly have to assert their position or risk losing it, while people at the top do their best to give the appearance of not caring about the pecking order? We should do our best to use our intelligence but bullying is very natural and has its roots in evaluation. It is the job of the top of the pecking order to police it.

</comment><comment><USER26> the future needs free software, open source software and the incredibly innovative licenses stallman pioneered to create. [http://www.augmentedmadness.com/we-from-the-future-also- stan...](http://www.augmentedmadness.com/we-from-the-future-also-stand-up-for- stallman)

<comment><USER27> There was free software befor rms, there are other licenses which are more free than his. I know many will not agree with my opinion that rms and his ideas are obsolete and irrelevant, but they are. Mind you, free and open sofware is not irrelevant, quite the opposite. But rms view of the tech world is.

<comment><USER20> If GPL ceases to be used (which seems extremely unlikely since it's the most popular software licence) then perhaps you could state that his ideas are obsolete and irrelevant. I do not share Stallman's view regarding proprietary software (although I can see where he comes from given the printer-driver which inspired him to craft GPL) but I certainly see the value of a licence which enforces source code availability of distributed derivates, both practically and ideologically, just as I see the value of licences such as BSD/MIT.

As for his predictions regarding the 'tech-world' they have unfortunately been very accurate with software patents posing as the biggest threath to both open/closed source development just as he predicted back in 1996 (if not earlier). Add to this the increased widespread use of computer 'gadgets' and their locked-down functionality. As such I think his views of the tech world is more relevant than ever, despite not fully agreeing with it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> You've got to be kidding me! No one is bullying Stallman and even if they were, standing up against Stallman-bullying != anything close to the LGBT movement, women's right, and definitely not slavery. I say it often and I must say it again here as it definitely applies: Really? C'mon. Reaalllyy?? Just c'mon!

I'm going to write a blog post about how no one can say mean things about the president anymore (any president from now on) and equate strongly disagreeing with prominent public figures and saying any mean thing about them is as bad as slavery and gay bashing. Does that sound reasonable? Nah. Didn't think so.

Stallman is a public figure and like it or not, people say mean things about them publicly. It goes with the territory. People like that have to deal with it and I really doubt they lose sleep over nasty comments on Internet message boards and blog comments.

You know, I was always a huge Steve Jobs fan. Maybe even a fanboy. I've seen all sorts of crazy comments about him all over the web but I never once thought the guy needed me or anyone else to stand up for him nor do I think he paid any mind at all to what us little people said about him.

I admit I'm a bit biased. I don't like Stallman. I'm on board with _parts_ of what he stands for but generally don't like his attitude and the way he conducts himself publicly. That said, if Stallman wants people to stop bullying him then he should get out of the public eye. I know he's no Paris Hilton when it comes to media attention but amongst circles like ours here on HN he qualifies as a public figure. This post is preposterous to me and I can't believe it's a top story.

Oh, and please don't down vote me because that's bullying and losing all my karma on HN would hurt my feelings! (Actually, I would get a little tiny bit upset but I, apparently unlike Stallman am prepared to face the consequences of voicing my opinion in a public forum).</comment>


Polyphonic overtone singing – explained visually (2014) [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHTF1-IhuC0 <comment><USER2> Holy cow! She sounds like a human Hammond Organ!</comment>


MS OS/2 SDK Document Dump - <AUTHOR> http://www.os2museum.com/wp/ms-os-2-sdk-document-dump/ <comment><USER2> I love to see projects like this. I've always lamented that my father threw away his set of System 360 manuals while cleaning out the garage. He also had boxes of early computer science books - nothing like them today, first half of the books were always dedicated to explaining the professor's particular diagraming style and symbology, second half of the book was the actual computer science content. I'm always on the lookout for books like that when I hit the used book stores but have never found any.

</comment><comment><USER3> Oh boy, what fun memories! I paid $3,000 in 1987 for the SDK and to go to the developers conference. Steve Ballmer shouted, "OS/2 is the operating system for the next ten years!" He was about right.

</comment><comment><USER4> Ah OS/2! You could use the computer even while formatting a floppy.

As I recall, IBM would send you OS/2 for free, on a bunch of the new-style 3.5" floppies. I think it was about two dozen floppies.

<comment><USER5> Surely not in early 90's Portugal, where OS/2 was only available in IBM PS/2 PC with MCA architecture, with a tax of additional 500 € (more than one month salary minimum wage) versus the 386SX/DX OEM PCs.

<comment><USER6> There was a widespread belief that it needed a PS/2 and MCA, but it didn't.

I ran it on Librex laptops and several generic clones. No version ever _needed_ MCA.

It's just one of many things that doomed it. :-(

<comment><USER5> Might have been the case, but on my small town buying such IBM model was the only way to get OS/2.

No one was selling it on OEM clones, and buying a PC clone was already expensive enough, to even think about trying to get an additional alternative OS at IBM prices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I never got to actually use OS/2\. However, when I was a kid I filled out one of those survey cards from a computer magazine, and I started getting all kinds of catalogs and stuff.

One of those catalogs was from Indelible Blue. It was basically a catalog full of OS/2 software. REXX scripting always fascinated me.

[https://books.google.com/books?id=kzoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA89-IA1&l...](https://books.google.com/books?id=kzoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA89-IA1&lpg=PA89-IA1&dq=indelible+blue+os/2&source=bl&ots=HDaNEQVISj&sig=ACfU3U1FB2P6MWu4iB2cRCPYzJW6cXKn3w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjf5NfQhevmAhVCa80KHeWVDi8Q6AEwBHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=indelible%20blue%20os%2F2&f=false)

</comment><comment><USER8> It's great that it's being preserved instead of thrown away. I'm curious -is there plans for mirroring it on bitsavers too?

<comment><USER9> Should probably be mirrored on the Internet Archive as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> These old docs are always interesting. I also love old books on archaic programming languages and operating systems. But there's usually just so much stuff to read through. It makes me wish for modern books that boil down the complexity of the old systems into a condensed manual. Something like The New Apple II User's Guide.

</comment><comment><USER11> That is actually fucking great. I don't know if that Necasek guy reads HN, but thanks!

</comment><comment><USER12> Scan quality is great

</comment><comment><USER13> Useful, thanks</comment>


How to Not shut down a 'backup' service. - <AUTHOR>

Just got an email from memolane.com (social backup tool) reg. them joining another team etc. and will be shutting down memolane.com and deleting all their content. TOMORROW! Might be the best example I have ever seen of how to NOT shut down a service.
See their blog here for the announcement: http://blog.memolane.com/
At least they seem happy in their group shot. I bet not all their users feel the same, especially if they forget to check their mail for ONE day! <comment><USER2> From the email sent on Feb 21:

" Today we want to share the exciting news that our team is joining another company that will utilize the Memolane features in an expanded way, adding more value to all the great memories captured on social media.

Unfortunately this also means that we will be shutting down the memolane.com service. Your account with Memolane and all its content will be deleted on Friday Feb. 22th. "

</comment><comment><USER3> But isn't all of your social media data/content in its original place? Does it matter if they shut the service down if it's saved elsewhere?

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh I don't consider memolane an 'essential' backup tool at all (that would be an absolute disaster scenario). Nevertheless you would imagine they could have given their users a little more heads up especially if they are not going out of business.

<comment><USER3> Yep, one day is crazy short.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What are your favorite tools? - <AUTHOR> What are the best tools you have discovered that help you to code, write, think, and be productive? <comment><AUTHOR> Here's the tools I want to share:

\- [http://draw.io](http://draw.io) \- a brilliant diagram editor, it really helps me to organize my ideas. I use it to visualize my thoughts, to me it's like a more covenient alternative to mindmaps. It's also amazing for making mockups.

\- [http://gingkoapp.com](http://gingkoapp.com) \- an incredible tool that I have recently discovered, it combines mindmapping and text editing, allowing to organize information in several layers. It is amazing for writing and coming up with ideas.

\- Spacemacs. Spacemacs is a customized version of emacs, and it's what I use for programming, note taking, general text editing. I also highly recommend org-mode for todo lists, etc.

\- i3wm - a window manager for linux. It helps me to organize my workspace, I wrote more on it here - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12724281](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12724281)

\- ArtStation - my favorite Chrome extension, every time I open a new tab it shows me beautiful digital art. It's simple, but I'm surprised at how much this thing improves my life.

\- TracknShare - an iOS app that I use to track my daily habits. I've been using it for years, it really helps me to focus and to gradually develop useful habits. (I wrote a post about it here: [http://orangemind.io/post/habits](http://orangemind.io/post/habits))

Other iOS apps that I use regularly and that became indispensable to me:

\- Editorial for text editing.

\- Focus Keeper - pomodoro timer.

\- Mr. Reader - RSS reader.

\- Audible - for audiobooks.

\- Overcast - for podcasts.

</comment><comment><USER2> A sane (not resource heavy) alternative for ad blocking

This is all I use and need

1\. [https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix](https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix) \- Breaks websites, learn how to use it correctly

2\. [https://www.eff.org/privacybadger](https://www.eff.org/privacybadger)

</comment><comment><USER3> Some windows productivity tools... couldn't work without them

        Windowpadder.ahk, Launchy, allsnap
        taekwindow, Virtuawin, dexpot</comment>