Nothing Is Cheaper Than Proof of Work (2015) - <AUTHOR> http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest?q=1 <comment><USER2> You know, the problem I have with Proof of Work isn't that it costs in electricity—it's that the Malthusian race-to-the-bottom of mining efficiency has completely destroyed the computer hardware market (for regular consumers.) It's to the point that GPU manufacturers are trying to make classes of cards that _only_ work with games, so that consumers will have something to buy that's actually in stock.

<comment><USER3> How can this be? GPU manufacturers are unhappy that demand for their GPUs is skyrocketing, so they are trying to make GPUs that are less in demand? That makes zero sense to me.

Why would a GPU manufacturer prefer that an end user use their GPU for games rather than cryptocurrency mining?

<comment> ben-schaaf The GPU manufacturers aren't actually making that much more money AFAIK. They apparently have a lot of contracts with suppliers that have fixed pricing. Sure, demand is increasing, and the manufacturers are selling pretty much every new card they make, but until they increase production they aren't making that much more money. Increasing production takes a fair amount of time and money, and with the volatility of the cryptocurrency market it seems like a risky investment.

You can see the effects of this: Nvidia is selling their GPUs at close to MSRP on their website with a set limit on the amount you can buy per customer. If they're making bank on cryptocurrency mining why would they hurt their sales by doing that? To me that move only makes sense if Nvidia wouldn't be making a lot of money otherwise and highly valued their current gaming customers.

<comment><USER4> Nvidia's gross margin is north of 60%. They want to sell GPUs. It seems more likely that they're trying to segment the market so that they can charge miners, gamers, and deep learning customers different prices; the per-customer limits are a way of accomplishing this, since gamers don't need to buy in bulk like the other two.

<comment><USER5> Nvidia doesn't make the hardware. They make designs. Other companies (for example, Asus) make the actual GPUs

<comment><USER6> Nvidia does make hardware. Sure its more common to see a third-party card in a boutique or homebuilt PC Gaming computer, but Nvidia does make and sell cards which are very common in other places. Large PC vendors will use first-party cards (Apple, Dell/Alienware, HP/Origin). Workstation cards are almost all first-party. Compute, ML, and embedded products are all first-party.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "First, the argument is ridiculous because Bitcoin is already doing something useful for society (mining wouldn't be profitable if it wasn't)."

Errrr, no. That's not how things work. Mining is profitable because it produces bitcoins which are valuable. Whether they are valuable because they are useful to society or because of some other reason is unclear.

<comment><USER8> What you quote I also wanted to quote. It appears to be a fallacy, though I'm unable to pinpoint which one it is.

<comment><USER9> I'm pretty sure the quoted piece is 'jumping to conclusions' by labelling all profit making activities as useful to society. Basically the logic is very straightforward but the premise is faulty due to bias.

<comment><USER10> I would also point out the circular logic:

\- distributed payment systems are valuable to society (true for our discussion)

\- POW is the only way to implement them (his overarching conclusion, that may or not be true)

=> Therefore, POW is not wasted, but a legitimate cost of such systems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The idea that marginal costs necessarily approach marginal revenues is plain wrong. The Ethereum wiki [1] says it best:

> It's not enough to simply say that marginal cost approaches marginal > revenue; one must also posit a plausible mechanism by which someone can > actually expend that cost. For example, if tomorrow I announce that every > day from then on I will give $100 to a randomly selected one of a given list > of ten people (using my laptop's /dev/urandom as randomness), then there is > simply no way for anyone to send $99 to try to get at that randomness. > Either they are not in the list of ten, in which case they have no chance no > matter what they do, or they are in the list of ten, in which case they > don't have any reasonable way to manipulate my randomness so they're stuck > with getting the expected-value $10 per day.

The author here suggests that grinding attacks could be that plausible mechanism, but in a PoS system with a minimum account age, grinding attacks depend on being able to predict the state of the blockchain's entropy after that minimum age has passed. See [2] for some ideas about how entropy can be generated.

Keep in mind that grinding attacks aren't free due transaction fees, so an attacker needs a certain degree of confidence that an entropy state will occur in order for a grinding attack to have a positive expected value; they can't just create a huge number accounts to cover all the possible states. In a well-designed system, the minimum account age and minimum transaction fee will be chosen such that all grinding attacks have negative expected value.

[1] [https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Proof-of-Stake- FAQ](https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-FAQ)

[2] [https://vitalik.ca/files/randomness.html](https://vitalik.ca/files/randomness.html)

<comment><USER12> The Ethereum wiki is wrong on this point in my opinion.

Even disregarding grinding attacks, the value diverted to coin purchases ultimately has a cost in goods and services. It diverts economic activity to non-economically productive activity in cycling capital into and out of deposits.

I think Proof of Stake could potentially be better than Proof of Work, but the point about cost being equal across validation methods is correct in general in my opinion. There are specific circumstances where it is not true, like if producing the mining resource creates negative externalities.

Where I think the article is wrong is in neglecting other aspects of consensus algorithm efficacy, like the potential security benefits from Proof of Stake totally aligning the incentives of owners of mining capital (which in the case of PoS is the network coins) with the success of the network.

<comment><USER11> > the value diverted to coin purchases ultimately has a cost in goods and > services

I see what you mean, but that opportunity cost applies to all currencies. Every dollar we hold in currency (be it fiat, PoW or PoS) could have been invested in productive businesses. People tend hold substantial amounts of currency anyway since it's convenient.

If we assume that people are going to hold about $10 trillion in currencies anyway, then it makes sense to ignore that opportunity cost when comparing PoS to PoW.

> Proof of Stake totally aligning the incentives of owners of mining capital > (which in the case of PoS is the network coins) with the success of the > network.

I agree -- aligning validators' and stakeholders' incentives has some nice benefits. It means we can have validators vote on parameters like minimum transaction fees, and the outcome of the vote should reflect what's best for stakeholders as a whole. In a PoW system that wouldn't work well -- the miners would likely vote for minimum fees that were higher than required for secure validation.

<comment><USER12> >>I see what you mean, but that opportunity cost applies to all currencies.

I don't mean that. I mean the actual process of converting liquid wealth into/out-of ether staking deposits, and of sacrificing liquidity to maintain stake deposits. That is not a free activity.

Given the earnings accrued to anyone with staking deposits, there will be competition to increase the share of one's wealth that are held as staking deposits, and that requires increasing frequency of these activities.

The cost of all of these activities will approach the revenue generated by holding ether.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Well, fiat currency seems cheaper than PoW, even accounting for the cost of enforcement.

<comment><USER14> Fiat currency is just a paper/electronic record of a promise. Because money is a promise, not a commodity.

There will always be promises, because that is how humans trade: "Here's a pig, pay me back a pig's worth sometime". There you go - you just created money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I think a implicit-trust powered blockchain is provably cheaper, provided you can guarantee trust for a sufficient amount of time.

One such example I can find is Luckychain[0] which is where I'd start if I was going to attempt something like this. Intel SGX is the closest thing we have to a legitimate system in which we can place trust in the client. That being said, it requires trusting the signer, Intel. And we have to trust that it can't be cracked even with government-level capability, for the duration of the network's lifetime.

I wonder if you could somehow move the job of signing onto the blockchain itself, so it becomes self-trusting and autonomous.

[0][https://github.com/luckychain/lucky](https://github.com/luckychain/lucky)

</comment><comment><USER16> Periodic release is the problem; I'm tempted to suggest that what's needed is a currency consisting of a set number of coins all released at one moment by a government or large corporation or institution but not thereafter controlled by said entity.

A minor variation would have that entity retain ownership of most coins - which are released and in its wallet - to spend over time. Let's say, a United Way issued coin 10% of which was spent (auctioned for contributions in dollars) each year for ten years. After which point, the coin would be free of any connection to the United Way.

But there has to be a small charge, in work, to keep your coins valid in order to maintain the blockchain/shared ledger. Weirdly, this has sorta been tried with a real currency, Alberta (Canada)'s "Velocity Dollar." It was ruled illegal before being fully put to the test, but since it could be used to pay taxes to the government, it would likely have worked, at least as a supplementary currency.

</comment><comment><USER17> I believe this is the important part of his argument:

"If any cryptosystem is to periodically release coins, without immediately creating an incentive to "waste" an amount equal to the value of those coins, the cryptosystem is going to have to release the coins in a manner which is totally independent of all possible human activities."

And he's absolutely right. When you break it down all cryptos need to waste an amount of resources equal to the value produced by the coins. In bitcoin it's mining equipment and electricity but there's another coin which is setup to use these resources more efficiently than BTC or ETH.

EOS is releasing as a dPoS blockchain which converts the energy the 'miners' (block producers) use in a way that's beneficial for the users (server and network resources). It still expends resources, but does so in a non wasteful manner.

<comment><USER18> _> It still expends resources, but does so in a non wasteful manner._

And this is a flaw. There is a law of conservation at work here, whereby to create one source of value, another has to be destroyed. You can't destroy that first source "in a non-wasteful manner". It's not actually destroyed in that case and you've effectively double-spent it and cheated the system in a way that has subtle ramifications on the incentives and security. Even in blockchain, incentives matter and there's no free lunch.

<comment><USER19> Value can be created. Cars are more valuable than the piles of metal they're made from.

<comment><USER18> True, but to nitpick it looks more like this:

Raw materials + innovation + labor + capital + time = waste byproducts + new utility added to the world in the form of convenient personal transportation that is sometimes (hopefully all the time) worth more than the sum of its inputs (profit). But all of those inputs get consumed in the process and one thing of value is the result.

Dual purpose mining consumes the inputs but creates two things of value, such that the miner is able to hedge, and to recoup their losses if the cryptocurrency fails. The fundamental problem is that reduces the cost the of attacking the currency, rewriting the ledger from some past point in history, should the miner decide to attempt that. In order for cryptocurrency to be secure, it requires that the miner be fully committed to the currency and that attacks are maximally costly and risky, unhedge-able (at least within the system, they can always short on third party exchanges and whatnot, but there's nothing the protocol can do about that), such that the miner's highest expected value is follow the protocol honestly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is an interesting argument - but it is based on the assumption that with the same money you buy the same security independently of how that security is implemented. That does not seem to be true.

There is already an update that article: [http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pos- still-pointless/](http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pos-still-pointless/) which partially takes into account the critisism. And here is my reply to it: [https://medium.com/@zby/proof-of-stake-can-be-cheaper- than-p...](https://medium.com/@zby/proof-of-stake-can-be-cheaper-than-proof- of-work-da14223a965)

</comment><comment><USER21> (2015)

<comment><AUTHOR> As far as I can tell, almost all of the arguments in this piece are still valid. Is there any recent work which argues that it is possible to have something cheaper than proof of work?

<comment><USER22> The article is based around bundling together a lot of small points and backing it up with shaky analogies to economic theory(e.g. an undergraduate course would probably focus on utility instead of rent). It's framed in a way that I would consider more persuasive than academic.

It has a general point, in that the ultimate direction of cryptocurrency systems is towards energy efficient systems of value and transaction, but this goal tends to lead towards a spectrum of trusted/delegated behavior where proof is not a hard requirement. Much of the argument rests on trust costing as much as work, and I don't buy that. It defies what technologies do: let you leverage effort in a particular direction and get a resulting overall productivity benefit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Having a state control a currency seems to be.

</comment><comment><USER24> Nothing says credibility like TRUTH COIN DOT INFO.</comment>


Google auto correcting my keyword? - <AUTHOR>

So I have a jQuery plugin called wTip, which google is auto correcting to qTip, a popular tooltip plugin.<p>Should I consider renaming my plugin, does anyone have experience with this? <comment><USER2> Searching for "wtip plugin" I get:

"Showing results for wTp plugin"

So you're out of luck if you're expecting type-in traffic.

jQtip, wowTip, jQryTip?</comment>


How do plutonium-powered pacemakers work? - <AUTHOR> https://blog.plover.com/tech/seebeck-effect.html <comment><USER2> FTA:

> I wondered if there wasn't also worry about plutonium being recovered for > weapons use, but the risk seems much smaller

The answer here is a simple "nope." Plutonium in radioisotopic thermal generators is always Plutonium-238 with a 87.7 year half-life. You can't make bombs out of it. The fissile isotopes of Plutonium are 239 (24,000 year half- life) and 241 (14 year half-life, but a beta emitter instead of alpha). The fission cross section (probability) of Pu-238 is >100 less than Pu-239 for a "normal-speed" neutron and also a lot less at fission-spectrum energies.

<comment><USER3> It sounds to me like it's only a simple "nope" if the only weapons you are worried about are nuclear weapons.

Pu-238 could still be useful for radiological weapons such as dirty bombs. If you're worried about them then it becomes a (slightly) more nuanced, "How many morgues do I have to raid, and can I do it before the authorities catch on to the Crematorium Bandit?"

<comment><USER4> From what I could gather, pacemakers contain up to 4 curies of Pu-238 which is less than 300mg of pure metal. Enough to poison a few people but nowhere near enough to create WMD considering the effort. Industrial radiation sources, in contrast, typically contains tens and sometimes hundreds of curies of mostly undecayed cobalt or iridium isotopes, and is usually much less guarded.

<comment><USER5> I wouldn't be enough to kill many people, but if a certain amount (even non- dangerous, like 1µS/h) of radiations were detected in all Manhattan, the panic would cause lasting damages.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Dumb question, but would it be possible to have a nuclear-powered object in your body producing energy for your body to use?

<comment><USER7> Keeping nuclear material (safely) in your body is the easy part, the hard part is converting that energy into something your body can use. The issue is, our (badly designed) meat-hardware runs on glucose instead of heat or electricity, and there's no easy (or any way that I know of really, but then I'm not a scientist) to convert heat/electricity into glucose.

<comment><USER8> I went to a lecture recently by a researcher who is investigating the mechanisms of photosynthesis. The chlorophyll uses the energy from the photon to pump an electron, which (after a long and poorly-understood chain of reactions, which is what he was studying) creates an energy gradient which powers ATP synthase to produce ATP. Presumably if we understood and could recreate this reaction, we could create the electrochemical gradient directly, and then use it to power the ATP synthase and subsequent glucose-production mechanisms.

<comment><USER9> Biochemists at Caltech were studying photosynthesis back in the 70s, with an eye towards artificially replicating the process.

I see not much progress has been made.

<comment><USER10> This is a paper from two years ago but it shows that progress is still being made in this field. [http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6290/1210](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6290/1210)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm under the impression that most nuclear powered pacemakers were not based on RTGs which is what the article describes but on betavoltaics (which does not use heat of decay as energy source, but converts beta radiation directly to electricity).

</comment><comment><USER12> How long to these pacemakers last? Have people had to get the plutonium "batteries" replaced?

<comment><USER13> Easier to replace the whole pacemaker than the battery, for a couple of reasons:

* Pacemakers are hermetically sealed, usually laser-welded in a titanium case. Adding a replaceable battery with seals would complicate this arrangement.

* By the time the battery winds down, there may be a newer, better pacemaker on the market that fits the patient's needs.

* Since a battery replacement necessitates surgery, you might as well replace the whole unit and get all new parts rather than put an old one back in that may be reaching MTTF.

As for how long the cells last, modern Lithium Thionyl Chloride cells last 5-10 years depending on the pacemaker. They probably actually last longer, manufacturers are pretty conservative with lifetime estimates.

As for plutonium supplies like those in the article, they don't really die since they're thermoelectric. The amount of current you can draw will be proportional to the amount of heat generated by the isotope and the temperature gradient. Since the heat is related to the amount of isotope remaining, the power available will follow an exponential decay. The half-life of Pu-238 is about 88 years, so the battery will last a _very_ long time. The exact lifetime depends on how much current the pacemaker takes to operate.

Most people had these devices replaced with more modern versions, but there are still a few people who have the old plutonium devices which were implanted decades ago.

<comment><USER14> Wouldn't wireless charging pad work well for this? Or is it unnecessary complicated considering how long batteries last?

<comment><USER15> The issue being rather close to my heart, I'd rather have a single-use 7-year battery + full modern replacement of unit, than have to fiddle with periodic recharging just to prolong use of aging technology. Nobody much wants their life relying on >10 year old computers. (Remember: it's already "old technology" when you first get it implanted.)

<comment><USER13> Rumor is Medtronic pacemakers still use 6502 processors (albeit on modernized custom silicon) with code written in the 80s. Big medical OEMs are loathe to change.

<comment><USER16> You don't fix what isn't broken when it's a life critical system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> >Wikipedia says the technique was abandoned because of worries that the capsule wouldn't be absolutely certain to survive a cremation. (Cremation temperatures go up to around 1000°C; titanium melts at 1668°C.)

You'd think they could switch to tungsten if that was the issue?

<comment><USER18> Titanium is nicely biocompatible. Tungsten can be poisonous. [https://patient.info/doctor/tungsten- poisoning](https://patient.info/doctor/tungsten-poisoning)

<comment><USER19> Could you have an inner layer of tungsten to seal the plutonium, and an outer layer of titanium to avoid poisoning the host?

<comment><USER18> I guess that'd work - the patient is going to stop worrying about biocompatibility long before the titanium gets near its melting point!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I did not know about these. They are so cool!

I wonder how long a plutonium-powered cell phone could operate...

<comment><USER21> Not that long... or rather, it could work for a very long time but wouldn't be that useful because of the low power provided.

From Wikipedia - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_ge...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator)

Plutonium-238 has a half-life of 87.7 years, reasonable power density of 0.54 watts per gram - that's heat energy.And then there's math on that which has a rather low efficiency (somewhere around 23% for a stirling engine approach). And well... its hot. And how old is your phone? I don't think my 20 year old phone would still work... why charge power it with something that would last 30 years when the technology that drive it is gone in half a decade.

<comment><USER22> Those numbers aren't that bad, actually. A cell phone's peak power draw isn't much more than 5W, so you'd need 10g / efficiency. At 10% efficiency, that's 100g, which is 5 cm^3 for plutonium. A cell phone battery is about 3 times that size, assuming 3000 mAh and an energy density of 600 Wh/L. Of course you'd have to build in a heat engine, but perhaps even a peltier would work given the generous efficiency allowance.

<comment><USER23> At 10% efficiency you'd still be dumping out around 45 watts of heat in your pocket. We'll just need some aluminum pants for the heatsink!

<comment><USER24> Saying along those lines used to be a popular joke among Soviet nuclear scientists.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I can see unscrupulous sports people having a plutonium powered lactic acid scrubbing device, or an extra lung.

</comment><comment><USER26> Uh, does it run, like, on regular unleaded gasoline?

Unfortunately, no. It requires something with a little more kick. Plutonium.

</comment><comment><USER27> author seemed a bit concerned about Pu-238 being used for weapons, but I think that's the wrong isotope (238 being not fissile, as well as physically hot)

</comment><comment><USER28> I got curious when i misread pacemaker as pEacemaker

<comment><USER29> rofl, sounds like they need some peace over there _EVERY THING EVAPORATING_</comment></comment>


The Defect Black Market - <AUTHOR> http://thedailywtf.com/articles/classic-wtf-the-defect-black-market <comment><USER2> [http://search.dilbert.com/search?p=R&srid=S3-USESD01&lbc=dil...](http://search.dilbert.com/search?p=R&srid=S3-USESD01&lbc=dilbert&w=Software%20Bugs&url=http%3a%2f%2fdilbert.com%2fstrips%2fcomic%2f1995-11-13%2f&rk=9&uid=323827257&sid=2&ts=custom&rsc=9TCgEvamwBjkGHND&method=and&isort=date&view=list&filter=type%3acomic)

"I'm gonna to write me a newmini van this afternoon!"</comment>


How to get around the 8GB limit on root volumes in AWS? - <AUTHOR> https://www.fittedcloud.com/blog/get-around-8gb-limit-root-volumes-aws/ <comment><USER2> This sounds particularly useful for customers that spin up instances constantly, because every time then spin up an instance they are paying for 8GB. They could create instances with smaller root volume and save.</comment>


Sprint Will Sell a $12 Wireless Plan that Only Connects to Facebook or Twitter - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/07/30/sprint-tries-a-facebook-only-wireless-plan/ <comment><USER3> A preview of a world without net neutrality. In the future, your $60 internet connection includes "access to 500 premium websites!" The rest of the Internet isn't necessary to the "average" consumer. Like with cable television...

Or maybe I'm wrong about the corporate vision.

<comment><USER4> Net neutrality is less of a hot topic in the wireless world compared to wired.

In wired world, the carriers were granted monopoly to dig the trenches, and the fact that they now abuse that monopoly without giving access to other players is what riles people.

Wireless world is fairly fragmented - carriers are separate from equipment companies, which are separate from tower operators. Anybody can buy up some equipment and tower space and just start offering mobile voice+broadband. Or start on MVNO to piggyback existing infrastructure and expand from there.

<comment><USER5> > Net neutrality is less of a hot topic in the wireless world compared to > wired.

That's actually not all that true. While both the 2010 Open Internet Order and the more recent NPRM for a new version have provided looser rules for mobile broadband, (fixed wireless has the same rules as fixed wired broadband), its been on the FCC radar, and a number of big players pushing for more full neutrality than the current NPRM offers for fixed broadband have also been advocating for the same treatment for mobile broadband as fixed rather than two separate models.

> In wired world, the carriers were granted monopoly to dig the trenches, and > the fact that they now abuse that monopoly without giving access to other > players is what riles people.

In the wireless world, companies rely on exclusive monopoly licenses to spectrum, so its an ongoing -- not merely historical -- monopoly on which they rely.

<comment><USER4> Good point on spectrum, but it's artificial scarcity set by the government policy (or lack thereof).

<comment><USER6> The scarcity isn't artificial. High powered broadcasts on the same chunk of spectrum directly interfere with each other.

That is why you can't have two FM radio stations on 106.7.

<comment><USER7> > High powered broadcasts... FM radio stations on 106.7

are not even close to comparable. Cellphone towers do not use frequencies and powers that travel nearly as far as those employed by radio stations.

>The scarcity isn't artificial.

Nope, it's artificial.

The next generation of base stations performs beamforming for physics-based channel sharing in addition to CDMA ("algorithm-based" channel sharing). Beamforming effectively allows you to employ a sizable number of "virtual antennas", each aimed separately at individual receivers. With multiple base stations it's an even more effective strategy because you can create signals that constructively interfere at a point rather than along a line. Everyone gets their own spatially-localized signal and can transmit their own spatially-localized signal because the same trick works in reverse for reception.

So no, there isn't fundamental spectrum scarcity. Perhaps there are too few beamforming base stations installed, but that's a problem to be solved through investment in new technology, not by allowing carriers to impose business models that de-commoditize bandwidth.

<comment><USER8> None of those systems are interference free in practice, the amount of which increases with the number of users. Spectrum is still scarce but these methods may make it more efficient to use, especially if channel use is coordinated.

Also beamforming doesn't work as well from the mobile station because you don't have multiple, sufficiently separated antennas.

<comment><USER7> > beamforming doesn't work as well from the mobile station

Beamforming gives roughly the same advantage to TX and RX. While I'm sure mobile stations will eventually take advantage of it for power conservation purposes, very large advantages still stand to be gained even from a one-sided implementation at the base stations which _can_ have multiple sufficiently separated antennas.

Radio astronomy provides a very good example of this: from Earth, stars look like point radiators, yet VLBI astronomy still yields an insanely powerful RX advantage once you get up to effective apertures the size of Earth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Now it all makes sense. This HN crowd views the world as paying $20/mth for Xgb of data. But, the companies fighting against becoming _dumb pipes_ much prefer to charge $5/mth for a base data plan, plus the $12 unlimited social package, plus the $10 for 40 hours of music package, etc.

From a business perspective it's brilliant: selling benefits, as opposed to a commodity (bandwidth). Ie. The price charged for the good sold no longer has relation to the cost of the good.

Now just imagine if we bought other commodities the same way. Would you buy gas by distance, e.g. 'enough gas to drive from LA to NY for $50†' \-- a great deal if you drive a Hummer, but pretty bad for a Prius.

†The actual cost would be much more, but you get the point.

<comment><USER10> At the end of the day, the companies that invest the money to build the very expensive infrastructure that all those little bits run around on aren't going to be content to being "dumb pipes." Ownership of the platform gives you tremendous leverage (ask Apple or Facebook or Microsoft), and the ISP's own the platform. Without them, the internet is just a bunch of software not talking to each other.

<comment><USER6> No. That is what ISPs are without networks like Level3.

The internet, on a B2B level, would work fine without these ISPs. The problem is these ISPs + natural monopolies on spectrum + governments + barriers to entry create national networks are abusing that power in the B2C space.

Please don't claim "The Internet" is purely a B2C entity.

EDIT: I'm amused by the downvote. Given I know this is true [e.g. My day job B2B work purely transits non-B2C ISPs like Sprint or Verizon]. ;)

<comment><USER10> Building the consumer facing networks is a lot harder and more expensive than building the core network. Level 3's capex is a fraction of that of companies like VZN or ATT.

<comment><USER6> 1) That is what you said originally. You can change the argument if you like, that's cool.

2) Smaller companies are able to provider better service in rural areas or towns than VZN/ATT. It is the effects of capex on their stock price, not the fundamental economics.

[http://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2013/07/a-city...](http://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2013/07/a-city-with-two-gigabit-internet-isps-and-neither-one-is- google-fiber/)

Ya, they may not run it to single residential homes. That doesn't change the fact they can do it to something like an apartment complex or buisness park cheaper than VZN or ATT just fine.

And it isn't just them, there are dozens of these companies that are profitable and do this.

You are fundamentally wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> My worry isn't that service providers are finding ways to package and sell limited internet access, and that this violates net neutrality. Ideally I wish there were something preventing this, but if you're paying only for Facebook access, you know what you're getting, and it's just not the same as paying for a standard broadband connection.

My worry is that, if the majority of consumers start paying to access only the sites they care about, we'll end up in a situation where the Internet looks more like broadcast media than like the world wide web.

Imagine if the barrier to entry for creating a website were such that you had to negotiate with content and service providers to get your site featured in the right packages. Looking to start up a new e-commerce site? Get included in Comcast's "shopping channel" package. Want to start a sports commentary blog? Make sure you're in AT&T's "unlimited sports" package or you'll be missing out on your biggest traffic source.

My fear is that the majority of consumers won't really notice a difference, at least not right away. They'll be able to get access to all their usual websites, and if it comes at a heavy discount from the full "Internet" package, they won't really get upset if they can't access a particular website. Especially if every service already comes with the top 500-1,000 websites in their language. My mom definitely wouldn't notice any difference, and many of my less techy friends might not either. So if you left it up to the consumer, you might end up right back where you started with pre-packaged TV subscriptions, leaving the majority of the long-tail Internet to stagnate.

<comment><USER12> I think you're understating what an impact this would have. What has made the web so amazing is the low cost of reaching users allows entrepreneurs to try new things with lower risk. This has lead to high rates of innovation in the tech sector. This change would stifle innovation by increasing the barriers to entry for new web services.

Many of the companies we've grown to love today might not have been able to get started in a world without net neutrality. Your next start-up might not have access to Sprint, or AT&T or Comcast subscribers without paying those carriers.

<comment><USER13> Plus, what about all the services that every major site relies on?

Example: Stripe.com, on Alexa's rankings, is #1,331 in the US. Does that mean every site that uses Stripe is broken, even if you pay for access to the main site?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I can't believe this story is not getting more traction on HN. My submission was like the fourth one...

$12 for access to one app/website? How is this even any kind of deal? I pay $32 for the whole Internet on a T-Mobile plan that is unlimited (OK capped at 5GB).

Worse, it's no deal for the poor who now will be conditioned that Facebook is the "Internet".

EDIT: This submission has made the HN front page but then the url and title was changed. Go figure...

<comment><USER14> I think this might be something that we continue to deal with. If people just want to use Facebook on their phone, then that's what the carriers will give them. Just because the tech community thinks that is dumb; if 10 million "poor" people want that service, they'll get it.

<comment><AUTHOR> I hardy think it is only the "tech" community that will realize this plan is "dumb".

Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they are an idiot... The real fear is other carriers will adopt this idea and then jack up the prices on normal data plans which will railroad poorer people into these types of plans.

<comment> B-Con Journalists have been blaming Google for removing their articles from search results due to the "Right to be Forgotten". Horrible display of ignorance.

It is tempting to overestimate the public's technical understanding. The prevailing mindset is: Out of site is out of mind, and any problems with a website is the fault of the website.

My fear is that communicating information about background forces and decisions to the public will be ineffective. It already doesn't work well in other areas of politics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "For that same price, they could choose instead to connect only with Twitter, Instagram or Pinterest—or for $10 more, enjoy unlimited use of all four. Another $5 gets them unlimited streaming of a music app of their choice."

This is pretty horrifying.

Although if this gets more people connected to the internet(at least in some _limited_ capacity) then that's probably a net good for civilization; ability to reach more people in a disaster, more people get educated(at least in a roundabout way).

I think we'll likely see more services like this as most internet users probably spend their time on only a handful of websites anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if FB started buying up some of the larger content holders(BuzzFeed, etc.) so as to consolidate the content under one umbrella without having to worry about copyright issues.

I'm just saying, for instance, how would this handle YouTube embeds? YouTube just wouldn't work in this scenario? I assume FB will launch their own video network as well. I assume these types of deals are quite lucrative for both FB and the carriers.

<comment><USER16> What I find horrifying is that this has a good chance of sucking in enough people so as to set a precedent that it's acceptable, despite the on-going Netflix shenanigans which have been doing a pretty good job of raising awareness for Net Neutrality. I don't think most people understand the connection between the two.

"What does having Facebook on my phone for only 12$ have to do with my Netflix being slow at home?"

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Every unencrypted byte your last mile provider can see gives them power over you. Here's the only way to fix this: VPNs for everyone. Every single byte encrypted. Your last mile provider becomes a dumb pipe to your _real_ ISP, who actually has competition and therefore an incentive to give you good service.

Anything less is unworkable in the long run; it's a race back to the cable subscription model and the only question is how long it takes to get there.

<comment><USER18> As far as I know, the application connections for Facebook and Twitter are done via HTTPS APIs.

<comment><USER17> The payloads are encrypted, but the DNS lookups aren't encrypted, and neither are the IP headers with the IPs of Facebook and Twitter servers in them. That's how Sprint can distinguish Facebook and Twitter traffic from other traffic, and that's what a VPN would fix.

<comment><USER18> I guess I don't see what encryption has to do with the topic at hand then, since they'd ostensibly only allow access to a known set of addresses with this plan.

<comment><USER17> If everyone used VPNs as a matter of course, it would prevent the oligopoly last-mile ISPs like Sprint and Verizon from having the power to implement anti-net-neutrality plans like this in the first place. It would be a much healthier state for the industry as a whole.

<comment><USER19> > If everyone used VPNs as a matter of course, it would prevent the oligopoly > last-mile ISPs like Sprint and Verizon from having the power to implement > anti-net-neutrality plans like this in the first place.

How? To use a VPN you have to be able to connect to your VPN server. If you have a service plan that only allows connections to IP addresses that belong to Twitter and Facebook, I don't see how you are going to use your VPN to connect elsewhere.

<comment> squeaky-clean The point being made is that if everyone connected to the internet through their own personal VPN, either by educating everyone to do so, or some default system built into the infrastructure, then there would be no such thing as limiting you to a certain websites, because your ISP would never know what websites you, or anyone, was browsing. The only thing an ISP could see is bandwidth to/from your IP address, nothing else.

I think it's a pointless argument though. It's too late to set a system like that up now. The average consumer does not know what a VPN is, does not want to learn what a VPN is, and does not want extra steps in setting anything up on their phone or home internet. And what's the other option? Call AT&T and convince them to pipe everyone's internet to a random VPN not owned by AT&T before sending the traffic out elsewhere? It can never happen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is pure evil. and exactly why we need Net Neutrality.

[http://willchatham.com/wp- content/uploads/2009/10/net.png](http://willchatham.com/wp- content/uploads/2009/10/net.png)

They really want to make this real. :|

<comment><USER20> I made this five years ago.

It's rather fascinating to see it inch ever closer to reality.

<comment><USER6> Fascinating? I'd use terrifying personally.

<comment><USER20> I meant fascinating in a morbid way.

It was also interesting to see in the WCIT leaks a submission by Ofcom that's surprisingly like my creation here.

Edit: [http://i.imgur.com/roimIHy.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/roimIHy.jpg)

And yes, this was a regulatory agency submitting this to the IT-bloody-U. Not even a telco.

<comment><USER6> My god. They must be stopped.

<comment><USER20> No, not them. Not as much as Internet.org and everyone associated with it and Facebook Zero and even Wikipedia Zero should be prosecuted with extreme prejudice. Not necessarily in a judicial court, but definitely crucified in the court of public opinion.

<comment><USER21> "the court of public opinion" I don't think that court cares. It usually doesn't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> How does this even work though? Most of the things that are interesting on twitter or pinterest are links to other sites. They really lost their value if you can't even click through the links.

<comment><USER4> You see a warning page prior to being redirected to an outside URL.

<comment><USER23> "For only $0.99 you can view the rest of the internet for 12 hours. Click yes to approve."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> So this is really coming true

[http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-12-15-net_neutrality_l...](http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-12-15-net_neutrality_loses_whatif.jpg)

<comment><USER20> Which is why I made it. Five years ago. As a warning.

Yet here we are with this having been in the WCIT leaks if people didn't have enough of a warning: [http://i.imgur.com/roimIHy.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/roimIHy.jpg)

The stuff on the right was created by a regulatory agency acting as part of the ITU. The I. T. U. And yet it took John Oliver for the average person to start at least mildly caring.

<comment><USER25> $5 a month for news is less than I pay for a subscription to The New York Times, but it's included for free with your hypothetical evil plan.

<comment><USER20> Just to clarify, TELCO's great value bundles may not include premium subscriptions to our peering partners. Unless otherwise indicated what we have partnered to provide is a prioritised connection to our peering partner to deliver to you and your family value content quota-free at an affordable price :)

If you'd like to upgrade your NY Times beyond our $5 News package and access premium content you can do so from the TELCO portal and additional charges will be on your TELCO bill for a convenient single-stop experience! Additionally, we're currently running a bundle on newspaper experiences where if you bundle both New York Times premium content and another premium news experience where we've partnered with in our Atlantic news offerings so you can get three for the cost of just $10 and three months at half price!

Thanks for loving our great value, we're constantly working on getting our customers the best possible deals and love to hear great feedback like yours :)

<comment><USER25> Your advertising is misleading :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I find it interesting to see the reaction of HN crowds.

Services like this is common in 3rd-world country: they charge you for a very small monthly fee to connect to a select web services as opposed to the "all of the internet".

Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Watsapp, BBM + E-mail only.

The services might grow or reduce depending on the popularity of the web services.

<comment><USER27> It goes without saying that the HN audience of startup founders who want to "disrupt" Instagram/WhatsApp/BBM/etc. are opposed to this.

<comment><USER28> Nothing to do with diruption. The sites I browse most frequently (by an order of magnitude) are HN and Reddit. Neither of these are useful on such a plan, since the entire purpose is linking the internet at large.

However if such plans become popular, we could potentially lose (or pay lots to preserve) the ability to frequent such sites.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I don't know how anyone can say that net-neutraility does not preclude innovation.

What if I was an up and coming social media site? If all the tweens in the world were on this cell plan (which I imagine is a core demographic of this) how in the world would I be able to gain marketshare?

It's so damn clear. It's sad that society doesn't care.

</comment><comment><USER30> _Sprint isn't being paid by any of the apps, but Mr. Draper didn't rule it out in the future. "It's definitely possible," he said. "But we have not gone down that path yet."_

Sprint is collecting users to be sold to the highest bidder.

"Hi Startup, what to be included in our $10 plan? That will cost you X dollars."

Goodbye open internet. Never thought it would actually die in my lifetime. They should start calling this movement ISP 2.0 :(

<comment><USER31> Pay to play. That's how it worked in every industry so far,internet was a "freak" that need to be locked up according to some. Unfortunatly this model will be the future of the ISP business...

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> This is very common in 3rd world countries. Where facebook, and twitter will be free. The idea is that facebook and twitter get members who'll always be able to connect for free. And those social media platforms encourage people to go out on the rest of the web and incur large fees from the cellular service (or pay for a data plan).

<comment><USER33> Without a neutral net, the "rest of the web" will offer a very different menu of services than today's web.

In developing countries, those deals were initiated by Facebook and Twitter. Vodafone declined this option, [http://www.cellular- news.com/story/Operators/64337.php](http://www.cellular- news.com/story/Operators/64337.php)

"That the company has been approached by Facebook to do so was revealed by the Group's CEO, Vittorio Colao who was speaking at a Vodafone shareholders meeting in New York.

He said that he had been directly approached by Facebook's COO, Sheryl Sandberg but declined to their proposal saying that it didn't make sense.

"There is no reason why I should give my network capacity for free." he stated."

<comment><USER34> I'm surprised Facebook and Twitter weren't willing to front (some) of the cost just to get their user counts up and first-mover advantage. Crudely, each Twitter user is worth $100 to the company. Double that for Facebook.

But I guess free is better, if they can get it. They'll consider paying in subsequent iterations.

<comment><USER33> Apparently some telcos have been burned by their Facebook data deal.

[http://adage.com/article/digital/twitter-facebook-rate- telec...](http://adage.com/article/digital/twitter-facebook-rate-telecom- deals-abroad/293741/)

"Yet the future of the deals remains unclear, particularly after Facebook has soured several operators on the arrangements. Multiple people with knowledge of the partnerships said Facebook cut the deals for subsidized data without paying a cent, often strong-arming carriers into adopting its conditions and footing the data bills.

... Three carriers with sizable global reach -- Vodafone, Telefónica and Singtel -- have staunchly resisted Facebook's advances. Several others, analysts said, are showing rising concerns over the bottom line benefits of zero-rating deals.

... Communicating zero-rating deals to subscribers proved more difficult than imagined, the former employee said. The packages free up data on Twitter, but not other websites, a source of frustration and confusion to users."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Quick someone make a web proxy via Facebook/Twitter messenger proxy. Set it up as a SaaS, surf the web with only the Sprint $12 plan and sell as many subscriptions before Sprint notices the unusual pattern in their bandwidth usage!

<comment><USER36> oh yes. So much possibilities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> This is why we desperately need net neutrality laws.

<comment><USER38> Net neutrality is about the desire of ISPs to get paid from both ends of a connection. ISPs want to get money from consumers for getting access to content producers and service providers and from the latter in turn for their content being made available to consumers. The current system is that ISPs are just being paid by consumers for access to what's put online by content and service providers. Content and service providers get access to consumers for free right now. This plan by sprint limits access to consumers of this kind of connection to a single service that the consumer opts into. It seems relevant, but I'm not sure. Would net neutrality regulation prohibit something like this?

<comment><USER39> Yes, because net neutrality is mainly about selling only "the Internet" and giving equal access to all websites to all customers.

You are hearing more about the connection-throttling issues Netflix has with Verizon currently, but it ultimately falls under net neutrality too, as Verizon is trying to de-prioritize connections to Netflix.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I think this is particularly scary to many not because it will be hated by the public, but because it may be embraced by the public.

</comment><comment><USER41> £12 in UK buys 'unlimited' data, unlimited text and 250 minutes (of which I probably use 10)

</comment><comment><USER42> I think what a lot of people are missing about this deal - net neutrality aside - is how silly it is from an advertising and marketing angle.

A significant amount of of Facebook's business model is based on advertising. Now, those links go where? Nowhere? Error pages?

All of those funny tweets containing links? Do those timeout?

Are the top 500 sites supposed to create closed-loop experiences?

</comment><comment><USER43> Well this was more or less inevitable...

I think people are in some kind of serious denial about the drastic increase in bandwidth being demanded by customers.

I don't think Sprint's solution is healthy for the state of the internet, but I do think something will have to change.

I personally don't use any high bandwidth services. I don't watch Netflicks, or a lot of Youtube - and yet I'm stuck with higher and higher internet bills and I have to subsidize other people's use of the internet. Frankly, that's ridiculous.

Ultimately I think the system will have to revert to the $/Gb system we used to have. If we all reverted back to that, I think you'd see some very competitive pricing.

However the selective traffic stuff.. that's a bit scary. I don't think they should be allowed to look at our traffic in the first place. I understand you need to look at the packets to be able to route them, but anything past that just seems like it should be illegal.

</comment><comment><USER44> I can't imagine Facebook is in favor since they wouldn't be able to get any mobile ad revenue

<comment><USER45> The ads would just go to storefronts hosted by Facebook, who get a larger cut of the revenue for hosting them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I've got to say, I'm a little impressed by the reaction to this. T-Mobile doing the exact same thing, sans Twitter, and eventually with a handful of music streaming services didn't receive nearly as much outrage. Some people were even defending it.

</comment><comment><USER47> AOL all over again.

</comment><comment><USER48> This is how the Idiocracy future begins, I'm sure of it.

</comment><comment><USER49> Unlike home Internet, real competition exists in this space, so something as stupid as this will go away rather quickly unless there's an actual demand for it.

</comment><comment><USER21> This is it. The "TV channel" Internet we've all been warned about. This probably won't fly with European regulators. I desperately hope.

<comment><USER50> Maybe not so drastically as in US but I think it may also happen. If I recall correctly some T-Mobile plan in Poland has something like 'free Facebook'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Has anyone tried using T-Mobile's $10 unlimited data plan + a Google Voice number + RedPhone + TextSecure? Does it work as good as normal phone service? (obviously there are areas of the country where it wouldn't work while traveling, mainly concerned about an area that has good Tmobile coverage.)

[http://www.t-mobile.com/cell-phone-plans/mobile- internet.htm...](http://www.t-mobile.com/cell-phone-plans/mobile- internet.html)

It would have only 1 GB of 4G, unlimited 3G, but I personally don't use much data anyways, 3 GB would be $10 extra per month.

I'd also like to add a VPN to that package, I've used PrivateTunnel in the past, does anyone have a better recommendation for a VPN service?

[https://www.privatetunnel.com](https://www.privatetunnel.com) $12 for 50 GB, which would last me a long time on a mobile phone since I use WiFi most of the time.

Basically $11 per month for unlimited everything and it would be encrypted through multiple services.

Back on topic: I don't see anything wrong with Sprint offering this package. Nobody is forced to purchase it since there is sufficient alternatives from both Sprint and other service providers. I personally wouldn't use it and am not sure what people would do if they needed to Google something, but if people want it, let them buy it.

Unrelated again: Why was Twitter (TWTR) up 20% today?

</comment><comment> ryan-c [http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5514](http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5514)

</comment><comment><USER52> Is this going to block adverts? That seems..insane. I mean sure Facebook are doing well with their mobile app ads (I'm guessing you get Google Play or something?) but are they just going to stop people clicking adverts that lead offsite or to an app you're not allowed?

</comment><comment><USER53> It already exist in France since several years [1] and never had lot of traction. I wouldn't be so afraid has everyone else here.

[1] [http://boutique.orange.fr/mobile/forfait-m6-mobile](http://boutique.orange.fr/mobile/forfait-m6-mobile)

</comment><comment><USER54> And when people realize they can't watch any of the funny videos their friends link to, or view the 9gag links they post, or sign the change.org petitions they are hammered with?

Not everything you see on facebook is hosted at facebook.com, and people will very quickly realize that.

</comment><comment><USER55> This is going to be awesome for cheap "phone home" drone projects. I wonder if the sims would work in a mobile hotspot (and just allow traffic to *.twitter.com) or some other programmatic access. I would pay $12/month for my dronrs to tweet.

<comment><USER56> I'm sure the point is for you to "engage with brands" via Twitter. If no human is looking at the ads, Twitter has no reason to subsidize your access.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Please Please Hacker News... LETS DO THIS:

Operation Boycot Sprint

</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>=====

Get yourself and everyone you know out of sprint. Is completly possible to keep your cellphone number so please do it; we must show how serious we are about net neutrality.

</comment><comment><USER58> I guess serving up ads, giving away different deals, etc. specific to a user's Internet pipeline (i.e. firehose vs app/site-specific) will be reality as it's just another filter.

</comment><comment><USER59> What's to stop them from having "Sprint Business Network". Set up your business website with Sprint hosting to allow the $12/mo members to access your site ... for free!

</comment><comment><USER60> In case of Sprint this might be a very good thing for average society. I will never ever pay $40 for any data plan but I will happily pay $5 for only Google Maps. That way this new innovation will earn sprint and additional $5. Similarly my poor aunt who needs internet only for Facebook might end up saving $35 which can then go for her healthcare.

Sprint is clearly addressing a legitimate need in an innovative way and making money in the process.

I do not thing this comes under net neutrality issue. The difference between Sprint and Comcast is that Comcast has put cables in cities using public land and has got a virtual monopoly over the markets. They can screw us from front and behind and we have to suffer it silently.

</comment><comment><USER61> So what happens with outlinks? My friends post tons of links to FB and twitter, seems like thats really where I derive most of the value from these services...

</comment><comment><USER62> I think Twitter just found a new paid VPN offering!

</comment><comment><USER63> brb, implementing TCP/IP tunneled over twitter

</comment><comment><USER64> It is worth noting that this will be a good deal for a lot of consumers. That is the problem with not having strong net neutrality laws. We now need to educate people on why something like this would seem so attractive but will lead to bad things in the long term. It is a smart move by Sprint. If the first salvos in the war over net neutrality are like this and become incredibly popular, it will easy to use them as a precedent for less popular moves down the road.

<comment><AUTHOR> What alternate reality do you live in? This is not a good deal for anyone!

<comment><USER64> There are a large percentage of people who use the internet primarily for social networking. For those people, a plan like this is a lot cheaper than a plan that allows them access to the whole internet. For less than $17 you can have a social media device that allows you to stay connected with family and friends and provides very limited voice and text connectivity for emergencies. This is the ideal type of plan for a teenager (with maybe the addition of unlimited texts) for less than half the price of most prepaid plans and a quarter of the price of most contract plans.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ummmmm... It's great if someone only uses one or two social networks. Most young people use four or five different social networks at least so this plan would be useless. Any teen who had this plan would get beat up in school...

I get the whole internet for $32 a month that is unlimited (5GB cap) with unlimited texting. Come on dude...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> Out of interest, would it be possible to create a facebook app that acts as a proxy server to the outside for this connection?

</comment><comment><USER66> Oh, fantastic. Maybe we can also buy Walmart-sponsored cars that cost $200 and can only drive to and from Walmart.

</comment><comment><USER67> I don't think it's a good idea. I want more than Facebook and Twitter.

</comment><comment><USER68> Splinternet. Bad idea. It won't succeed.

</comment><comment><USER69> RIP The Open Internet

1993 - <USER2>

</comment><comment><USER70> We changed the url from [http://www.droid-life.com/2014/07/30/12-a-month-for- facebook...](http://www.droid-life.com/2014/07/30/12-a-month-for-facebook- sprint-tramples-over-net-neutrality-with-new-prepaid-plan/). Better url suggestions welcome.

<comment><AUTHOR> WTF? There was a reason I choose that url... It was a better article and had a better title. The url and title you changed it to was already submitted by someone else two hours before me but it never gained any traction.

EDIT: My original title and url... $12 A Month For Facebook – Sprint Tramples Over Net Neutrality With New Prepaid Plan [http://www.droid- life.com/2014/07/30/12-a-month-for-facebook...](http://www.droid- life.com/2014/07/30/12-a-month-for-facebook-sprint-tramples-over-net- neutrality-with-new-prepaid-plan/)

<comment><USER70> The title was "Sprint Tramples Over Net Neutrality" and the article began, "Today, Sprint dispensed with all subtlety. Without any pretense of net neutrality whatsoever..." It should be obvious that that is far too tendentious for HN. We're looking for pieces without blatant spin. Readers can make up their own minds.

We changed to the WSJ article not because it was best, but because it was the handiest one that wasn't breathy with drama. That's why I asked for pointers to more substantive articles, if there are any.

As for the original submission not gaining traction, (a) that's fraught with randomness, and (b) traction doesn't prove goodness—if it did, linkbait (for example) wouldn't be a problem.

<comment><AUTHOR> My point was the title and url you switched to were previously submitted hours before mine but drew no interest. It was my title and url submission that caught fire with the HN crowd.

Spin? Come on... The article was right on. I know people like to pretend everything has two sides but in this case...NOPE. This Sprint plan is totally bad for consumers and the future of the Internet itself. Any one who thinks otherwise is a troll or just an idiot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> Too bad the deal doesn't include Wikipedia :(

<comment><USER20> Your view of the universe is ass backwards. What makes Wikipedia and Facebook and Twitter more worthy than a million other websites that may consume less bandwidth even if you summed them up?

Why is Wikipedia more special than Project Gutenberg or the Internet Archive?

OpenStreetMap? Hudong or Baike? Github? Debian/Ubuntu? Representing Wikipedia as the only free source of all human knowledge is about on the same level as a monopoly on free exchange of ideas. If not today, then at some point, or in some subject areas.

It's disgusting. Wikipedia Zero may have good intentions, but in practice it is vile.

<comment><USER23> Basically, even by playing favorites you're contributing to the problem. All information should be agnostic with regards to availability - right?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> This is another demonstration of why "net neutrality" is morally wrong (and therefore not needed). Think about what a law to stop this service means; a "net neutrality" law. It means forcefully stopping someone from offering this service. And forcefully stopping someone else from buying this service. Both of them want to do it by choice, because it benefits them, in their view.

To stop them from doing that, on any non-fundamental basis like an alternate opinion about the value of long term effects, is morally depraved.

<comment><USER73>
      "Both of them want to do it by choice, because it benefits them, in their view."

Both parties? How did you arrive at that conclusion? I'm not offered a 100mbit connection in my location. Does that mean that I don't want it? Does that mean that my 20mbit connection is what I want and that I see the lack of choice as a benefit?

It benefits the provider, certainly, but the consumer may have no choice if they want these services. Their bill just went up, but there's little they can do about it.

<comment><USER72> Your wanting a 100mbit connection doesn't obligate someone to offer it to you. "Choice" doesn't mean choosing among anything imaginable, that may or may not exist. Choice only applies to what exists.

So yes, in the context of what's available (without forcing people to make what you want), both parties are choosing from among what exists.

<comment><USER73>
      "both parties are choosing from among what exists."

No, one party is dictating what exists, the other is choosing. You need to re- read your last post. You say that:

      ""Both of them want to do it by choice, **because it benefits them**, in their view.""

And you are wrong. One party, the consumer, has no real choice. You act as though this is just a great deal for both sides, which is nonsense.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


What does Google's Open Handset Alliance announcement tell us about iPhone third-party apps? - <AUTHOR> http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/11/what_does_googl.html

<comment><AUTHOR> "It's hilarious to hear all of the big wireless companies speaking about open platforms and software. " agreed</comment>


South Pacific Sandy Island 'proven not to exist' - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20442487

<comment><USER3> "It's on Google Earth and other maps so we went to check and there was no island." (Scientists)

"The world is a constantly changing place, and keeping on top of these changes is a never-ending endeavour." (Google spokesperson)

"...though it cannot hope to be useful or informative on all matters, it does make the reassuring claim that where it is inaccurate, it is at least definitively inaccurate. In cases of major discrepancy it was always reality that's got it wrong." (Douglas Adams)

</comment><comment><USER4>
        Sandy Island
        Get Deals & Reviews for Hotels near Sandy Island
        www.tripadvisor.com/AttractionHotels

Ah, how I hate you dynamic ads...

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm waiting to hear that an airliner disappeared over the 'island' and the crew and passengers are now Lost.

In seriousness, I'm wondering why the trip took 25 days. Flying over the area would likely be more (of) a reasonable option.

<comment><USER6> Guessing they were also systematically measuring the depth of the ocean around the area, as they make reference to it being "deep ocean".

In other words, they were seeking to establish that it's not an island that once existed and has been submerged due to rising sea levels, it flat-out never existed.

Not sure if it's possible (or at least, best practice) to do that from an airplane?

<comment><USER7> Sea levels haven't risen all that much - 8 inches in the last 150 years says one reference. There are other options which are more probable. If it was a volcanic island then the top could be easily eroded. Consider the island of Ferdinandea, off the coast of Italy. "At its maximum (in July and August 1831), it was 4,800 m (15,700 ft) in circumference and 63 m (207 ft) in height." while by January 1832 it had eroded to below sea level. Surtsey is another example, this off the coast of Iceland, and Kavachi is a third, this in the Solomon Islands.

If this were the case then depth soundings would easily identify a submerged volcano, even if it were 100m below the surface. A simple visual fly-by wouldn't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The island now has a wikipedia entry: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Island_(New_Caledonia)>. Created today.

</comment><comment><USER9> 1\. Elon Musk launches rockets from the area and talks about the mysterious Hyperloop

2\. Islands begin to disappear

Conclusions?

<comment><USER10> You know too much.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> In Samuel Eliot Morison's _The European Discovery of America_, he has an early chapter on "Flyaway Islands and False Voyages". He remarks on how long some of these lasted on the charts, after regular shipping routes went past or "over" them. Of course, navigation was less precise in the days before Loran and then GPS.

</comment><comment><USER8> I wonder if, at some time in the past, some cartographer examining a satellite image saw something that looked like a long sandy island and labelled it "sandy island" as a provisional description rather than a name, intending to get back to it. But they never did, and the description became a name.

</comment><comment><USER12> "...some map makers intentionally include phantom streets to prevent copyright infringements..."

Wait, what?

<comment><USER13> It's a very common thing to put a made up one way street into the map. If your competitor has the same street then it's pretty easy to tell they are "using" your map data.

Cisco allegedly did something similar when it suspected Huwei was usign it's source code. They added some minor typos to error messages and then check the Huawei routers and sure enough they had the same mis-spellings.

Since no one programs against the textual strings of the error messages, they jumped to the conclusion it was source code theft and not a clean room implementation that Huawei was using

<comment><USER14> Land surveyor and cartographer here. I just came by to say that while "traps" are common on land maps, in nautical cartography they are not. I don't understand why anybody would reasonably surmise that this is a "trap island" since marine cartographers do not use them.

<comment><USER15> The full quote from the article covers your concern.

> "A spokesman from the service told Australian newspapers that while some map > makers intentionally include phantom streets to prevent copyright > infringements, _that was was not usually the case with nautical charts > because it would reduce confidence in them._ "

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Isn't this a standard method for a 'poor-mans copywrite' in cartography?

<comment><USER17> The creation of so called 'Trap Streets' is well known - <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Copyright_Easter_Eggs>

However putting a non-existent island on a Marine chart used for navigation is a few steps above that. It looks like it's the result of a mistake, a mistake that was copied far and wide.

<comment><USER16> Yeah, that's the ticket... guess I wasn't thinking about the requirements for using said charts for effective navigation. I was just wondering if this would precipitate infringement claims once the point of origin is identified. As in it's an accidental "Trap Island" but it's caught some rubes nonetheless...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Interesting to note - while the adjoining areas are well covered by Apple Maps, they don't have a marker for "sandy island" in that spot of ocean - <USER2> clearly using a different source.

</comment><comment><USER19> There are apparently many other "phantom islands": <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_island>

</comment><comment><USER20> What happens if you zoom in on the island using google maps?

<comment><USER21> It's the same black blob. As usual, there's no higher-resolution data for small remote islands.

Though if it weren't labeled as "Sandy Island", I would think it's just an artifact of some kind. It certainly doesn't look like any real island at that distance.

<http://goo.gl/maps/NUWhA>

<comment><USER22> I assume it's blacked out because their geospatial data shows that it's land but they don't have satellite data to cover it.

<comment><USER23> Its seems to exist as an incorrect shoreline in the freely available NOAA GSHHS Shorelines data[1] which digitalglobe[2] uses to crop low-resolution satellite images to be replaced with high-resolution land area imagery, with nothing available for the location this results in the black spot.

Landsat[3] never showed anything there, especially at this size. Earliest depiction[4] I found in the short time via oldmapsonline.org dates back to 1881 While this otherwise well explored map[5] of 1862 does show nothing in place.

GeoGarage[6] pretty much says the same.

This only shows how slowly low priority public datasets are updated/maintained since the french maritime authorities SHOM don't have anything in their official charts of the area.

[1][http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/shorelines/data/gshhs/version2....](http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/shorelines/data/gshhs/version2.2.0/)

[2][https://browse.digitalglobe.com/imagefinder/navigator.do?nav...](https://browse.digitalglobe.com/imagefinder/navigator.do?navAction=PANDRAG&x=-41&y=-26&width=636&height=434)

[3]<http://landsatlook.usgs.gov/> sorry no direct link possible, just got to the location zoom in and search for available imagery.

[4][http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/view/search?q=List_N...](http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/view/search?q=List_No=1494.068&showFirstDetail=1)

[5][http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/view/search?q=List_N...](http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/view/search?q=List_No=5023.062&showFirstDetail=1)

[6][http://blog.geogarage.com/2012/11/south-pacific-sandy- island...](http://blog.geogarage.com/2012/11/south-pacific-sandy-island- proven-not.html)

<comment><USER24> Not sure what you mean about SHOM?

<comment><USER8> Service Hydrographique et Océanographique de la Marine

<http://www.shom.fr/>

<comment><USER24> Sorry, I should have been clearer. What did you think the fact that their maps did not show this island mean?

<comment><USER23> That the only mapmaking authority to whom this island would actually matter is France (SHOM). Since it's in their territorial water and it also would extend their territorial water by being an actual Island. So it's in the very interest of France to have a clear idea what belongs to them and what not, also it's their responsibility to provide as accurate as feasible navigational charts to ensure the safety of ships which travel through their waters.

Look at the french charts featured at geogarage, the post has added a few more SHOM charts for reference which show no Island.

[http://blog.geogarage.com/2012/11/south-pacific-sandy- island...](http://blog.geogarage.com/2012/11/south-pacific-sandy-island- proven-not.html)

So what does it mean?

Basically one would only need to blame Australia for the lack of funding or interest to ground-truth and update their issued charts outside of their territorial waters. The easiest explanation would be a lack of communication between Australian and French nautical mapping authorities. Second to that the Australian authorities didn't feel the need to do their own mapping by means of actively acquiring of information on the area by satellite, plane or ship for civil applications.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Insert Apple maps joke here</comment>


When a Necessary Evil Becomes Indispensable: Testing in Production at Handshake - <AUTHOR> http://blog.launchdarkly.com/when-a-necessary-evil-becomes-indispensable-testing-in-production-at-handshake/ <comment><USER2> Testing in production doesn't get enough attention. While in theory it is always possible to simulate, sometimes the practical difficulty of doing so means some amount of testing in production has to be done.</comment>


Start something. Start something stupid - <AUTHOR> https://knowledgeartist.org/articles/83bfed0d-aa28-448d-a776-62bcf713e736/start-something-start-something-stupid <comment><USER2> Love the spirit. Especially with the free time that comes with covid, I have no excuses not to make things and start projects

</comment><comment><USER3> Does this focus on a particular language?

<comment><AUTHOR> Not really, I have been playing with different languages and technologies. Anything that interests me :)</comment></comment>


Why your desk job is slowly killing you - <AUTHOR> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39523298/ns/health-mens_health/ <comment><USER2> Doc, here. I don't think the article is sensationalist at all. Here's a quick list of basic steps I recommend

* standing desk: I love mine. 2x6 legs, 2x4 connecters, $50 at Home Depot, and 4 hours of work -- [http://www.flickr.com/photos/niels_olson/5097452401/lightbox...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/niels_olson/5097452401/lightbox/)

* live close enough to work to walk or ride. Ride to the train or ferry if necessary. (I ride 17 miles, take a train, then another 4 miles)

* Move to Southern California. I'm not kidding.

* Strength:

 __50 low crunches, 5n pushups, m half-down pullups

 __50 side crunches, 5(n-1) pushups, m-2 half-down pullups

 __50 crunches, 5(n-2) pushups, m-4 half-down pullups

 __50 opposite side crunches, 5(n-3) pushups, m-6 half-down pullups

 __50 crunches

 __Vary n and m to ability

* Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.

 __Michael Pollan, Unhappy Meals (Food, Inc; King Corn, and Omnivore's Dilemma condensed into one essay) --[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t....](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html)

 __Join the Slow Food movement:<http://www.slowfood.com/about_us/eng/manifesto.lasso>

 __Four books I'd like to see in every kitchen:

 __* Deborah Madison, Vegetarian Cooking for Everyone (number one among vegetarians, but also the vegetable cookbook everyone should have) --[http://www.amazon.com/Vegetarian-Cooking-Everyone-Deborah- Ma...](http://www.amazon.com/Vegetarian-Cooking-Everyone-Deborah- Madison/dp/0767900146)

 __* Mark Bittman, Fish (If you can't cook fish after this, kill yourself) --[http://www.amazon.com/Fish-Complete-Guide-Buying- Cooking/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/Fish-Complete-Guide-Buying- Cooking/dp/0028631528)

 __* Harold McGee, On Food and Cooking (unrivaled, in depth, the go-to resource for food hackers) --[http://www.amazon.com/Food-Cooking-Science-Lore- Kitchen/dp/0...](http://www.amazon.com/Food-Cooking-Science-Lore- Kitchen/dp/0684800012)

 __* Julia Child, Mastering the Art of French Cooking (the original food hacker) --[http://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Art-French-Cooking- Vol/dp/03...](http://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Art-French-Cooking- Vol/dp/0375413405)

<comment><USER3> What do you recommend for people with weak joints? I can't stand for long periods of time as my ankle gets really sore. I've done some exercises at the gym to work on balance.

<comment><USER4> Try isometric holds to build up the joints. I've had a lot of success with them. The key reference on the subject: [http://www.sandowplus.co.uk/Competition/Hoffman/ic-adv/ic- ad...](http://www.sandowplus.co.uk/Competition/Hoffman/ic-adv/ic-adv-01.htm)

Why would isometrics work better than range-of-movement(using weights and cardio) in this case? When doing static exercises you are simply pushing until you're stopped by your weakest link, while in range-of-movement, momentum from other muscles can help you cheat on the weak areas, so that even though you expose many angles of contraction, not all of them are always fully contracted. Hence you can end up with spots of underdevelopment.

I'm pretty sure static holds also help to counteract the sitting problem, since flexing has a very relaxing effect on stiff muscles - it would follow that flexing them as much as possible is an even better idea!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The researchers are comparing the time we spend walking against the time spent walking by a bunch of theme park actors they hired? How absurd.

No doubt there were people in history who moved about more than we do. There were also people who moved far less than we do, on account of being snowed in all winter, or chained to a Lowell sewing machine. And I think our diet is on average, better than theirs was. I don't claim to know the causes of the increase in heart disease, but I know specious pop sociology when I see it.

<comment><USER6> Until _very_ recently being snowed in all winter meant constantly feeding a fire with wood or coal. Splitting wood or carrying coal is a lot more work than typing.

Meanwhile, I don't think you can assert that sewing at the professional level is approximately as sedentary as keyboard work without data. The cloth doesn't cut itself. It doesn't load itself. You are constantly moving your hands and arms. Until the advent of electrical controls the machines had to be clutched and unclutched by hand, even if the actual power came from a central belt drive system. And so on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I imagine a lot of people will weigh in on standing desks, but what about just kneeling at a desk? Would that be better than sitting in a chair? What about working while in some sort of yoga position?

<comment><USER8> The standing desk thing is silly. Just stroll around the block every few hours.

<comment><USER6> I get paid for typing. Strolling, not so much.

I don't mean to suggest that walking and thinking is useless. It's quite productive, actually. But theoretical hacking will only get you so far. Sooner or later you have to type things, and read the results, and read the manuals and blogs that explain the results, and I can't really do much of that while strolling around the block.

<comment><USER8> Must be a rough gig if you can't take ten minutes here and there. How do you poop?

<comment><USER7> I think that the point of the article was that taking a stroll now and then does _not_ offset the 'damage' done by sitting. They were pretty much tearing into the idea that you can offset the amount of sitting/inactivity in your life by exercising to try and create some sort of canceling or equilibrium effect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Companies that have vast numbers of adjustable desks (e.g. Fog Creek [1]): How many developers use them in standing mode vs. sitting mode? Do many pick a mode and stick with it forever, or do they change it up throughout the day? And how many who are normally sedentary switch for a few days following a story like this on HN (or the hailstorm of similar stories on Lifehacker not too long ago)? :-P

Selfishly, my question can be boiled down to "build a standing desk or splurge on a GeekDesk?", but I am genuinely interested in how people use them long term.

[1]: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMVeHFrgOpE>

</comment><comment><USER10> Several people have mentioned the Workfit which looks intriguing but I've also thought about getting a GeekDesk. Anyone have experience with either or both?

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

<comment><USER11> We all have GeekDesks at work, and love them. I usually switch from sitting to standing once or twice a day (less so recently because I did my knee playing hoops), and it's a nice change. I got into the habit at Apple because I had a bad back and standing really relieved the discomfort; I'm thinking of getting a WorkFit for the house (because space is constrained.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Anyone have a recommendation for an adjustable stand for monitor, keyboard and mouse that can sit low on a normal desk but raise up 1-2 feet use while standing? I'm not having any luck finding such a product.

<comment><USER13> Full disclosure... I work for Ergotron. But Workfit - S is exactly what you are describing and one of the most affordable on the market.

[http://www.ergotron.com/WorkFit/tabid/640/language/en- US/def...](http://www.ergotron.com/WorkFit/tabid/640/language/en- US/default.aspx)

<comment><USER14> Looks nice. I love the price, but I don't want to have to mount my monitor for a few reasons.

I've been contemplating a geekdesk for ages, but at ~$800... I can't bring myself to do it. I'm a little nomadic, live in a 1 bedroom, and not sure how it will fit in a Mini Cooper or smaller SUV trunk.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> A factor I would like to see controlled for would be the serum vitamin D levels of the subjects. I'm guessing that at least some of these findings could simply be the result of spending more time indoors.

</comment><comment><USER16> Correlation is not causality. It seems that all these studies are simply observing correlations.

Some of the things in this article are just wrong. For example that sitting will cause "bad" forward pelvic tilt. Sitting generally eliminates forward pelvic tilt- which is the real problem. Forward pelvic tilt (sticking the but out) is the posture all humans used until recently in Western civilization.

Also, the idea that sitting will make you fatter because you aren't burning calories is fairly silly. In that case, an hour at the gym would be able to make up for all your sitting. At any rate, most people's appetites/metabolism will simply adjust (read Good Calorie, Bad Calorie for an overview of the obesity evidence).

All this being said, as a personal theory I consider sitting in a chair to be harmful. Any time civilization does something like this it usually has bad consequences. Sitting in chairs could be the number one thing we do that ruins our flexibility. Humans are supposed to be able to squat with their butt on the floor.

Standing while working is a fine alternative (and a treadmill desk would seem even better). However, other postures are going to be required to start re- gaining natural flexibility. I am experimenting now with different postures- squatting, sitting on the ground, and standing with a bent back. It is possible to work at a computer while doing all of these.

</comment><comment><USER17> I bet using something like a treadmill desk would help.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPjN07JyVjo&feature=playe...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPjN07JyVjo&feature=player_embedded)

They say it works in the video for doing things like e-mail and phone calls... maybe it would work for things that require more concentration...I wonder if anyone has had experience doing something like this while writing code.

Looks like a neat idea either way.

<comment><USER9> The founders of Instructables seem to have a reasonably good treadmill desk + code setup (though I personally couldn't tolerate his monitor configuration).

<http://www.instructables.com/id/Treadmill-Desk/>

<comment><USER18> I read this and went to craigslist just to see if it was as cheap as they said. in chicago, there dozens of treadmills posted in the last 3 days and easily ten or so at or less than $100.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Even if you exercise, the more hours a day you sit, the greater your risk of early death

<comment><USER20> Here is a link to Men's Health's 10 Standards to Access Your Fitness Level.

<http://www.menshealth.com/mhlists/be_fit/printer.php>

It was linked in the article. It is very interesting, even if you workout some of these might be hard to obtain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I find it very hard to take this article seriously, since there are constant interruption with things like "Work your entire body in 15 minutes with these three moves for fast muscle" and "Tied to the treadmill? Try these seven ways to burn more fat on the belt".

It reminds me very much of an old SNL skit with Jerry Seinfeld about "news- at-11" style reporting. I can't find a better link than this one:

<http://snltranscripts.jt.org/99/99anewswatch.phtml>

But the whole thing is filled with quotes like "Connor, it's no bark and all bite for golden retrievers and other so-called family dogs. What's causing these sweet and furry creatures to viciously attack sleeping toddlers? Stay, and we'll tell you in a minute.".

</comment><comment><USER22> So this debunks the idea that sporadic gym excercise making up a small portion of your week is not enough to keep you healthy.

But what about intense, all-day excursions on the weekends? The kind that keep your heart rate up all day long and leave you limp and beaten?

<comment> brown9-2 _debunks the idea that sporadic gym excercise making up a small portion of your week is not enough to keep you healthy_

Did you mean to include that "not" in there?

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I recently saw a comparative review of budget standing desk options, and I wish I would have bookmarked it. It was from someone who had evaluated a ton of them, put them up as his own personal opinion.

Anyone know what I'm talking about?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Seems pretty sensationalist to me. HN, please help debunk :)

<comment><USER24> There's real research here with counterintuitive results that deserve honest attention. Given the amount of brainpower here and the typical hacker lifestyle, I'd say the risk of unwarranted rationalization is very high.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Anyone have success reducing the number of hours sitting down while still hacking just about all day/every day?

<comment><USER25> You can set up a stand-up desk arrangement. You will look like a weirdo if you try this in a cube farm, though (I am speaking from experience).

It's better to have something that adjusts easily (like a counter-balanced monitor arm and keyboard tray).

Ooh... like this! [http://www.ergotron.com/WorkFit/tabid/640/language/en- US/def...](http://www.ergotron.com/WorkFit/tabid/640/language/en- US/default.aspx)

<comment><USER26> In an open office configuration it's pretty nice. I have a "standing" desk at Dogpatch NYC (it's really just the standard Ikea desk all the way up + a printer box for my laptop) and beyond the general standing benefits (more mobility, less back pain, etc.) it's also nice to look up and not be staring at a screen and actually see what people are up to (which is mostly staring a screens).

The main downside I've seen is that greater mobility makes the kitchen (which is only 15 feet away) way to easy to get to. I think I've replaced the extra calories I burn with more snacks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> The Modern Healthy Lifestyle Checklist is growing.

1\. Barefoot running. (check for me)

2\. Paleolithic diet. (nope)

3\. Stand while hacking not siting. (nope)

#3 is easy to implement, just put the chair in the other room. #1 is already done. #2 is hard to do because I don't make the choice to shop for X food plus potato chips are tasty.

<comment><USER28> regarding #2, diet fads come and go every decade or so. imho the jury is still out.

<comment><USER29> So what's your advice for the time being? Keep on shoving cheeseburgers to our pieholes?

<comment><USER30> Or perhaps look at the way people eat in other countries outside of America where most people aren't obese and compare notes.

<comment><USER7> Yay America bashing! Let's compare notes with Somalia (or <insert starving nation here>)!

edit: The idea that "America == Bad" and also " !(America) == Good" is a fallacy that seems to get up-voted way too often here (and celebrated in way too many other places).

<comment><USER31> There are a lot of things the US do very well, it's a wonderfully entrepreneurial country and is at the forefront of research and technology. But like everywhere not all is perfect and food is not something where the US shine.

As a european who went to university in Rochester and has lived for quite some times in different countries Asia and Europe. I can say that I've never seen any countries where food habits was as bad as in Rochester... Of course, there were some good restaurants in Rochester, there were farmer markets but all of the restaurants at the university served greasy unhealthy food (I couldn't stand the food there and actually lost 10 pounds in 6 month because after 3 weeks I got tired of all the food served there and just didn't feel like eating much).

Now, Rochester might be extreme, it is after all the home of the "Garbage Plate" but really it was shocking and while all of this is anecdotal, the statistics do show that US has a very high number of obese...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> How many of you can do all this (linked from OP [http://www.menshealth.com/mhlists/be_fit/index.php?cm_mmc=MS...](http://www.menshealth.com/mhlists/be_fit/index.php?cm_mmc=MSNBC- _-Sentenced%20to%20the%20chair-_- Article-_-10%20Standards%20to%20assess%20your%20fitness%20level))?

* Bench 1.5 Times Your Body Weight

* Run 1.5 Miles in 10 Minutes

* Touch the Rim

* Leg-Press 2.25 Times Your Weight

* Swim 700 Yards in 12 Minutes

* Do 40 Pushups

* Measure Up

* Run 300 Yards Sub 1 Minute

* Touch Your Toes

* Toss a Basketball 75 Feet Kneeling

A couple are pretty intense. I lift 3 days a week, climb, and do cardio 1-2 times a week. I cannot bench 285 (1.5x bw; my 5 RM @ 235), or squat 425 (2.25 bw; 5 RM @ 275). Also not sure about the swimming.

<comment><USER33> As a former swimmer, 700 yards in 12 minutes is 2.33 lengths per min, or 25 seconds a length sustained for 28 lengths.

That's pretty aggressive for anyone who doesn't swim very often. Even a relatively fit person who doesn't swim all the time would have trouble hitting that.

Even at my peak I could probably only pull 18s/length, and definitely can't sustain it for 28 lengths.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Isn't there some factor such as posture being left out here? What about monks who meditate in sitting position for very long stretches?

</comment><comment><USER35> What about sitting on an exercise ball? Have read quite a few articles in HN about the benefit of doing so.

</comment><comment><USER35> In the context of this study, does riding a bicycle in the normal seated position count as sitting?

</comment><comment><USER22> Things like this make me question the wisdom in the career choice I am about to leap into headlong.

<comment><USER36> Bike to work.

I'm fresh out of college, at my first desk job. I'm in the best shape of my life. A commute is an exercise routine that you're not about to skip.

<comment><USER22> The studies I've been reading indicate anything more than 3 hours of sitting begins to impact your life expectancy.

I have no concerns as far as _fitness_ goes, I'm very confident I'll be able to keep myself healthy in that respect.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I believe it, at least the general conclusion that sitting at a desk for 40 hours a week, plus sitting in your car for another 5-10, probably ain't that good for your health. It ain't what your body was designed to do.

<comment><USER8> > It ain't what your body was designed to do.

The physical activity levels of hunter-gatherers is actually pretty low, day- to-day. They spend a lot of days sitting around.

<comment><USER38> A fair amount of walking around and standing around, too, I would think. Certainly compared to the modern desk worker.

Do you disagree?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> In the US, 14 people a day die in the workplace.</comment>


What they don't teach you in (W3)school: JavaScript variable scoping - <AUTHOR> http://blog.istvan-antal.ro/2011/01/what-they-dont-teach-you-in-w3school-javascript-variable-scoping/ <comment><USER2> FUD.

w3schools doesn't, at all, make the claims this author is stretching for. In fact, on their JS Functions page (<http://w3schools.com/js/js_functions.asp>), w3schools state precisely what the author illustrates:

 _The Lifetime of JavaScript Variables_

 _If you declare a variable, using "var", within a function, the variable can only be accessed within that function. When you exit the function, the variable is destroyed. These variables are called local variables. You can have local variables with the same name in different functions, because each is recognized only by the function in which it is declared._

 _If you declare a variable outside a function, all the functions on your page can access it. The lifetime of these variables starts when they are declared, and ends when the page is closed._

<comment><AUTHOR> FACT.

There is a screenshot in the post, on your link it may be right, but on the link referenced in the post, it's wrong.

<comment><USER3> Actually, the statements in the image you posted are all outside of functions, and thus in the global context, so the statement that they are equivalent is true.

<comment><AUTHOR> The problem is that particular w3schools page does not indicate that, they simply state that they are the same, without even slightly mentioning that it's because they are not in a function. My article shows off this difference. In short the page is misleading, because it doesn't state that the two are only interchangeable in those two examples, but not in in every situation.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Soon, California kids will have the right to delete things they said online - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/soon-california-kids-will-have-the-right-to-delete-things-they-said-online/ <comment><USER2> Bill text (I think): [http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0551-0600/sb_568...](http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0551-0600/sb_568_bill_20130903_enrolled.htm)</comment>


Facebook May Bust Up the SMS Profit Cartel - <AUTHOR> http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/11/03/07/2139223/Facebook-May-Bust-Up-the-SMS-Profit-Cartel

<comment><USER2> The first website I legitimately want to share with someone else (my roommate was talking about this exact idea the other day, he's not even a techie), and there's no share button to be found (referring to belugapods.com itself, not this article).

<comment><USER3> <http://www.facebook.com/share_options.php> Should work with every site, if they have a like/share button or not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Link to the actual article mentioned in the linked /. post:

[http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/03/04/facebook-takes-aim- at...](http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/03/04/facebook-takes-aim-at-the-text- messaging-cartel/)

</comment><comment><USER5> Not so fast.

1) Push notifications are not free if you're on metered data plan.

2) SMS notifications are still the lowest common denominator, unless you know for sure the receiving party has a smartphone.

</comment><comment><USER6> How is this different than Blackberry Messenger?

<http://us.blackberry.com/apps-software/blackberrymessenger/>

<comment><USER7> More people use Facebook than Blackberry.

<comment><USER8> I'd imagine many people would be excited at the prospect of sending free texts to all their Facebook friends.

The main stumbling is how to get free/really cheap data plans to get younger users online on smartphones so they can send the texts via Facebook. I might actually view Facebook as useful if they pulled this off. The downside would be even more worrying implications for privacy - would you trust Facebook with your intimate texts?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> So Beluga is like Google Voice...only worse</comment>


The Real Lesson for Data Science That Is Demonstrated by Palantir's Struggles - <AUTHOR> http://simplystatistics.org/2016/05/11/palantir-struggles/?platform=hootsuite <comment><AUTHOR> A lot of this hit home to me as similar to my experience in bioinformatics - where all the formats are standardised and everything should be reproducible - but almost every project ends up completely different.

Software + Research = Chaos</comment>