I'm not obese, but I gain weight from eating a little more, very easily. Last summer, I followed a Keto ("ultra low carb, high fat, medium protein") diet for about 4 months. After the first week of feeling terrible, a well-known side effect, I felt perfectly fine. It felt like I was binge eating, I limited what I could eat and just went mad eating it. Any time I was remotely hungry, grab an approved snack. A big plate of bacon and eggs for breakfast, Chipotle for lunch, and a hefty meal for dinner.
I never went hungry, and as someone who likes food, it felt more like a treat than a diet. Colleagues thought I was trying to gain weight, and my girlfriend thought I'd gone mad with hunger. But the fat melted off. I didn't walk into a gym in those 3 months, and dropped 2-3lbs a week (starting ~250 at 6"3'), every single week.
I'm not saying it's perfect, or even viable for everybody -- it's not cheap, it's awkward to eat with friends, and the first week or two can be hell. Despite what people have been told, fat won't make you fat, and Keto has been shown over and over to reduce the risk factors for heart disease, 'cure' diabetics, and provide huge body transformations.
For anyone interested, /r/keto is a reasonably mature community, and can provide a lot more information.
I've found it very sustainable, and my general health has improved in addition to losing around 15kg over the last 15 weeks. Fasting has also given me more awareness and self-control over what I eat on the off-days.
It did help him alot but the cool thing was there was a guy who lived on a meal a day which had athlete like body fat levels.
There's also a runner, Fauja Singh, who ran a marathon at 101 years of age featured in it who practices something close to intermittent fasting 
It was extremely interesting and I do feel after watching it that 3 meals a day is something conjured by man but may not really be all that natural.
Link to episode intro: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGHDBIaibok
The best lifestyle change I've made is to drastically cut down on carbs, generally avoiding wheat and try never to eat sugar, in particular fructose. Note this doesn't stop me eating carbs but that I generally try and avoid them in my day to day eating. I no longer feel tired in the afternoon.
I also cycle to work.
Fortunately, clicking through to another article in the series (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25498742) gives more details about what was tested here:
The food, during the [5-consecutive-day] period of the restricted diet, was designed to be highly nutritious. It consisted of plant-based soups, kale chips, a nutty bar, a herbal tea and an energy drink. The total number of calories, in five days, was about 2,500 - a little more than the average person consumes in one day. No additional food was allowed. For the rest of the month we were allowed a normal diet. The regime was repeated three times, followed by a control period, when we could eat anything.
Even in Islam, during ramzaan people fast everyday for 30 days . They eat before dawn break and eat again after dusk.
They refused to sign-off on any deal that did not involve Jail time. This was THE one point that weighed more on his mind than any else per the recorded statements of his partner.
MIT's pig-headedness in this aspect really destroyed any respect I had for that institution. JSTOR made a much more reasoned statement http://docs.jstor.org/summary.html - Clearly indicating that they had NO INTEREST in any further prosecution (since they were the primary wronged party).
Aaron was facing a cumulative maximum penalty of 35 years in prison.
The roommates of one of the Boston bombers was only facing 25 years in prison if found guilty of helping Dzhokhar Tsarnaev dispose of a laptop, fireworks, and a backpack in the aftermath of the bombings.
I understand it's not a straight comparison, but no matter how I try to re-arrange those numbers in my head, I can't reconcile the impact to punishment.
It's a natural response to a suicide; we try and search for something to blame. But unless you argue that MIT should have known Aaron was mentally unstable, saying MIT "caused" him to kill himself is illogical. People who commit suicide may desire to because of what they feel about their lives, but the final decision is one's own.
It's sad that it takes a death to bring attention to the IP issues that Aaron's trial had raised.
"United States Attorney Carmen Ortiz, in the midst of a prosecutorial tear that would lead the Globe to name her 2011s Bostonian of the Year, held up Aarons indictment as a warning to hackers everywhere."
Those big numbers come from simply taking the maximum possible sentence that can ever be given out for each charge, and adding them all up.
There are two things that make that unrealistic in most cases. First, the defendant is almost always charged with several similar or related crimes that have mostly the same elements. If convicted on more than one charge from such a group, they are only sentenced for one of the convictions.
Second, the sentence takes into account the severity of the particular acts that constitute the crime, and the prior criminal record of the defendant. To get the maximum possible sentence you'd need to have gone way beyond what ordinary violators of that particular law usually do, and you'd have to have a serious criminal history.
What Swartz was actually facing if he want to trial and was convicted was something ranging from probation to a few years, depending on just how much damage the court decided he caused.
If he took the plea the prosecutor was offering, he was facing up to 6 months.
Details with citations on the above are available at  and .
In the dozens of discussions of the Swartz case we've had in the last year here, the 35 year or 50 year myth has been repeatedly busted. Yet it keeps coming up in each new discussion--often from people who were in some of the previous discussions! Why is it so persistent?
If anything, I'd think screwed up laws and an overzealous prosecution are the real issue here, and I'm not sure what pointing fingers at MIT accomplishes.
I am on the end of a civil suit. It's nothing big, but I have never felt so helpless. I can't imagine what Aaronwas feeling.
I don't know if MIT was complicit, but a few things suprisedme--50k charge to public libraries.
I never realized Norton agreed to talk with the prosecution against Aaron's wishes.
The article hinted at the fact MIT ran an "Open network" which ran counter to the charge of "unauthorised access". MIT should have commented on that in their report.
MIT worked with the prosecution to help build there case, that's fine, but talk about "neutrality" as that clearly isn't.
Anyone arguing that MIT didn't do anything wrong, I would say, just isn't rational.
But we still haven't gotten causation (Are they to blame for Aaron's death?).
There is always some people who say that suicide is only the victims fault, no one else. But do you apply that to people being tortured? Or people with no hope to live out their life as they thought they would. Was it the jews fault for committing suicide rather than face the camps?
Now applying that extreme analogy to the US legal system, and in particular, the plea bargain system... isn't it the same dynamic? They want to make the proposed outcome so bad that you take an easy way out. In the process they destroyed parts of your life (in Aaron's case it was his friendships, girlfriend, family, wealth).
Thus, aiding this system (the prosecutor) (as MIT did) certainly deserves some of the blame, no?
Swartz's death was the result of institutional failure. The criminal justice system and more broadly the US government are very sick institutions if their standard operating procedures can result in a tragedy like this.
EventParrot for news alerts: http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/10/4823278/twitter-eventparr...
MagicRecs for notifications: http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/24/4767290/twitter-will-notif...
1000+ engineers that include (perhaps a majority) of people working on reliability/operations.
Mobility - engineers _can_ move every quarter to a team that has an open position
Peer-feedback (360?) promotions based system (this is rather popular)
I guess I was hoping for something more about the actual structure and interactions, but it's mostly saying it's not too centralized, nor too distributed and that it's "like a school" and they're using lean/agile methodologies.
They spend the episode interviewing car salespeople and managers at one particular dealership over the course of a week (IIRC), where the salespeople are trying to rack up a certain number of sales to qualify for a bonus payout that means the difference between being in the red vs being in the black. They clear up some myths about car sales and generally get to the heart of what it's like to be a salesperson.
The things that were interesting to me were the various mindsets and tactics the salespeople use to sell a car, especially when they're desperate. The way the salespeople negotiate between two different parties on one side with the customer, on the other side with their manager was also something I hadn't thought about.
That's about the gist of it: a week in sales during a somewhat desperate situation from a car dealership's perspective. As a semi-regular podcast listener who really likes TAL but feels like they have some hits and some misses, this one is definitely a hit.
There's a lot to be said for a stable paycheck.
Personally, I only buy used cars and pay cash. But if I didn't, I know that I'd be buying my car at the end of the month...
If you listen to this, don't forget to to look at the photo gallery. I waited till after I'd finished listening to look at it, I think that worked out well.
This sort of salesman is exactly the sort of person I always want to avoid when I am looking at purchasing something, so I am glad to see his techniques were not all that effective.
Overall, the piece doesn't paint the dealership model in a very positive light. While it makes one sympathetic to some of the individual salesmen (at least, to some extent), it also largely reinforces many peoples' assumptions that, mostly, they are prey when they arrive at a dealership, unless they know what they are doing (or, if they happen to arrive at the end of the month during a poor sales month and happen to be slightly stubborn).
A related note: I'd love to see more car sales go the way of Tesla and Saturn  (yes, Saturn), where pricing is much more transparent/fixed. Basically, I find the current dealership model's incentives to be largely mismatched to the actual needs of consumers.
 (~10 cars per month) http://www.thisamericanlife.org/at-the-car-lot/
But what we really need is more self-realization like this at the top. This is where the change for these sorts of policies can happen. On one hand, it's really sad that we're so work obsessed here - money is more important than people so much of the time. But, on the other hand, there is still room and freedom to make your own way and write your own rules.
I think about this topic a lot, especially because I am fighting burnout myself. I didn't do any work for most of xmas break and when I went back this week I kept thinking "I need another few months off". I even had to push for the two days after xmas off - there was a little push back from the ceo since we're a small 4 person company. But, I'm a little older than everyone and I was thinking "fuck it, I need to chill".
Ideally, my dream job is to just work for myself (I'm sure that's everyone else's too). Sure, there are tradeoffs with that, but there's something about working when you want, where you want. I think there can definitely be a balance between being on vacation a lot and outsourcing all the non-important work to other people who will do it. Time Ferris is a great read for this type of living and it exemplifies the work to live not live to work thing (or work as little as possible and really live).
I did a vacation a few years ago where my wife and mother in-law went to Spain. It was awesome, my first time there, but I was 'pressured' by work to keep crankin on our app. It was such bullshit and I was really pissed about that pressure - vacation was not vacation. I told myself: 1) I'd never work for someone else on vaca again - ever, and 2) I'd never make anyone else do that. Needless to say after a few days I was like, 'fuck this, this is the stupidest thing in the world. I'm in one of the best food and historical places in the world and the guys at home want me to keep coding. Bullshit.'
I think there's a point where you either keep going with everyone else's rules or you make your own. Get busy livin or get busy dyin. I'm at the point in my life where I'm getting to the last of dyin for someone else's deal and starting to live for my own. It's not impossible, just take discipline and focus. Otherwise, me, and everyone else is working under someone else's thumb, by their rules, working on vacation. Dumb.
One might argue that two weeks is sufficient for a week-long vacation every six months, but most people I know use most of their time off for family obligations and "work outside of work" like home repairs. This is a crap situation.
* Quotes because it is becoming less and less common to work for a company for decades, so the traditional system of awarding vacation based on length of tenure is becoming more and more insane. How many people never even get past the initial level of paid time off before switching jobs?
At least don't deride the author for sharing some interesting ideas. If you've thought about each and every one of these, good for you, but I had some interesting thoughts while reading.
A "Night time Delivery Service" could help start in one city and expand to others. The existence of Luna in SF shouldn't dissuade anyone from starting the same thing in a different city, because it will take years for any one player to expand and colonize more locations. If anything, Luna is at a geographic disadvantage due to SF's high wages.
The way you use Luna seems very convenient, which is that the customer has the package shipped to Luna by any shipping service, and then once it arrives there, Luna does same-night last-mile delivery for $7. This is nice because it can interface with any existing shipping service without the need for Luna to win any contracts.
Eventually, once a company like this is starting to scale, they could aim to get a contract with UPS, FedEx, DHL, or USPS to pick up packages directly from the UPS/whatever warehouse, saving both time & money for all involved.
If the company wants to exit they could sell to Amazon.
The company might have to pay a wage premium because the work is at night, but then again, in this economy maybe the workers would just be happy to get a job (and the hours involved would make it a great 2nd job). Also, compared to daytime shipping services, the nighttime company would be more productive per hour due to its drivers facing less traffic.
So much talk about ideation and execution and force multipliers blah blah.
Real key of the matter is knowing your opportunity costs and choosing the right thing. That actually takes time and experience to learn, albeit you can take the shortcut and finding the right mentors to guide you.
These scribbles from my notebook may be a bit more tech heavy or have other barriers to entry;
Student loan servicing Programmatic corporate founding docs, term sheets, seed rounds (legalese as code) Self managed SMB 401k/IRA/125/etc SaaS Crowd-based intermediation of credit [card] payments Single-click self-hosted [insert data-sucking, privacy violating SaaS here] SMS for every business Bid on anything (build the demand curve) Stop social fallout (crisis management as a service) P2P two-party escrow Telepresent expert hired by-the minute/hour (fix my ___) LouisCK as a Service (the way he sells his content, not him specifically) Self-hosted everpix Yours If You Want It - A way to buy a gift for someone, but only if they 'accept' Disciple - Subscribe to talks by geniuses in your industry
Happy Hacking in 2014!
I'm in the eyewear business. I've struggled with the idea of wood or bamboo for a while now. There seems to be a lot of interest in the area but I'm skeptical. Materials like these are porous and people sweat -- not the best combination.
I've been waiting for the acetate fad to fall out of fashion but we're still doing pretty well in this area.
However, these are pretty good ideas. At the very least, they should inspire further tweaks to the ideas for execution. Great list!
Oh God yes.
On a different note, I've been intrigued by the idea of an MMORPG with a mechanic that coerces players into acting in-character. I think DayZ just pulled this off. You can be the desprate survivor just trying to hang on, you can be the thug monopolizing precious resources, or you can be the dangerous, unpredictable psycho, and all these possibilities feel perfectly in-character. There's no grinding, leveling up, or amulets of +2 charisma.
I suspect that right there is the real reason for this particular game's success.
>  make your own fun, and thats often at the expense of the other players, or perhaps due to their actions towards you. Its a playground for the perverse.
As entertaining as this game very well might be, I think Ill pass on putting myself through what sounds like a collection of potentially traumatic and dehumanizing experiences. I think Id be a worse person for playing it.
I cannot for the life of me, though, understand the appeal of Day Z. Perhaps I've had the misfortune of only seeing the "slow" parts, but, from what I've seen, it's a lot of running around in large environments and then... hiding out? sometimes? Then there are zombies? I really don't get it. I tend to fall in love with niche market games, but this one doesn't do it for me.
Toady (the developer of DF) is preparing a big update to adventurer mode, by the way.
It's not about the game anymore. It's about the online community surrounding it. Games today are social networks. It's not about the game-play anymore. It's about the mods, the chatting, the culture, community, etc.
If you see Minecraft as a game like Sonic is a game you are blind.
I have been Netflix customer for years. I thought the idea was brilliant - super-cheap movies arriving whenever you want, what could be better?! I loved Netflix. Then I slowly discovered Netflix is running out of movies I want to watch - up to now where about 95% of movies I want to see are out. Then there was that streaming vs. DVS fiasco - and I stayed with streaming. But then I discovered there's nothing for me to stream. I thought maybe my tastes are weird - so I went to wikipedia and IMDB and looked "top X movies" - and most of them, of course, can't be watched on Netflix, except for those few that I've already watched long ago.
And that million dollar recommendation system? I've over 800 ratings, and I have hard time remembering last time their system suggested me something useful. In fact, the only reason I am keeping the subscription is because my wife has some series on her sub-account that she's watching. For me, Netflix has become almost 100% useless. So I wonder, with all the high praise to their brilliant data usage and innovative technology - am I doing something wrong? Am I missing some important part of Netflix that everybody else is seeing?
House of Cards was basically a data driven production. Based on Netflix's customer preferences, they knew that a political thriller, starring Kevin Spacey and directed by David Fincher would maximize the number of views based on the habits of its customers.
It would appear the data was correct!
Lots of businesses want "recommendation engines" to appease their cargo cult gods, few ask what possibilities their data really creates.
Sometimes data can make you better at delivering your service. Other times you can optimize inventory, enter entirely new lines of business or even obsolete your competitors.
But then there's a fairly entertaining look into what happened to content at Netflix after the million dollar challenge.
Now implemented, "My Top Picks" last night were still dominated by My Little Pony.
Also would like to choose which shows she can watch, but the client doesn't support that. </complaints-over> ;)
And the final sentence, feels like the real reason this was posted to HN: "And sometimes we call that a bug and sometimes we call it a feature."
Edit: Also, the 'Gonzo' genre of Post-Apocalyptic Comedies and Friendship seems it's got its first one in "This Is The End".
I cherry picked this from the source for those who might want the generator. I "think" that's everything, correct me if I'm wrong there. I didn't really test it, just took a few seconds to grab what I saw for later.
I wonder if Netflix can tell if multiple people are rating movies. Does it think we are one confused person, or two distinct personalities?
I want to see that script.
2. $80MM is way, way past the threshold believed to be required to break the most widely deployed public-key crypto, RSA-1024. Put differently: there are venture capitalists who could successfully fund an effort to break the most widely-deployed public key crypto.
3. If it is feasible to build a quantum-theoretic machine to break RSA, it is vitally important that the NSA attempt to do so; such work is at the very core of their mission.
I have no insight into what's actually happening behind this disclosure, but the price tag on it suggests to me that it's just a research project.
Since NSA is the kind of organization that historically spends $80MM on paper clips, the number suggests to me that quantum-theoretic attacks on IFP and DLP crypto aren't currently a serious thing. But that's a wild guess.
* Fully general. By this I mean capable of solving BQP problems in polynomial time. This excludes D-Wave machines, for example.
* Sufficiently large. 100 qubits would probably enable qualitative advances in cryptanalysis.
* Low enough error rate. This is a slightly redundant requirement, as too high an error rate would provably prevent the computer from being asymptotically faster than classical - which is what we care about.
The last requirement is due to the quantum threshold theorem. Briefly, there is an error rate below which quantum computing is possible and above which it is not. The precise value is not known but it is probably over 1% and, at least for some kinds of circuits, under about 40%. That means that at the theoretical level, the task is to create a model of computation that has as high a threshold limit as possible, and then to design an error correcting scheme that comes close to that limit. This is something that a secret agency could plausibly do in-house.
However, there is then the question of implementing the model of computation in a physical system, with a sufficiently low error rate. NSA, GCHQ etc. are not known to have this sort of experimental expertise - they would probably have to contract it out (and indeed this is the major piece of new information in the article). The history on fundamental advances over civilian technology shows that this normally depends on co-opting basically the entire research community working in the field - as in radar, nuclear weapons, stealth etc. This is not at all the case for experimental quantum computing, which is not in practice treated as a 'sensitive' field.
Thus it is my opinion that the NSA may well already have some theoretical tricks up its sleeve that it can use in the future for a decent edge, but is unlikely to get the opportunity to use them before quantum computing becomes considerably more feasible in the unclassified world.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_threshold_theorem.Bounds lifted from http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.1464.Qualifications: I studied the mathematics of quantum computing as a Masters student, although I can't claim to still be current on the state of the art.
If the NSA did have a quantum computer they might fund a project like this as it would be suspicious not to.
EDIT: The more I think about this, the less it says about the NSA capabilities. They may attempt multiple paths to QC. The classification document that WashPo released (http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/world/classifying-nsa-...) outlines Level A (public) and Level B (classified) research. All this shows is that the NSA is dedicating at least ~0.8% of their budget to QC.
What we should not do is use those discoveries to illegally spy, but rather to improve our security. Unfortunately, the NSA has lost credibility in contributing to encryption standards, so how that would happen is unclear.
Breaking encryption with new technology is entirely different than subverting encryption technologies intentionally or using their asymmetrical powers to tap into communication systems. Any attacks that can be discovered will hopefully first be discovered by relatively good actors (US intelligence) rather than relatively bad ones (Chinese intelligence.)
Because there is no limit to tax dollars the government would be willing to spend to spy on it's own citizens. Congresspeople are already happy to line up to throw money at the spy machinery which is the new arm of the industrial war complex.
Nothing to see here but false outrage and surprise, move along.
How to reduce the value of the Internet as much as possible for everybody.
Nice, really nice.
>> "His leaks revealed that James Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, lied to Congress when testifying in March that the N.S.A. was not collecting data on millions of Americans. (There has been no discussion of punishment for that lie.)"
Has there ever been another person whom the executive has done everything in its power to paint as a dangerous enemy of the state, whose approval rating was several points higher than the President's and several times higher than that of Congress? Or is this a never-before-seen situation?
The inverted totalitarianism we live in can seem almost invincible, but this to me is a big glimmer of hope that some people at least are still unwilling to swallow the (two-)party line.
I hope this leads to some real change, but then again, I can't exactly hold my breath.
But the NYT has deep connections to the USG, so I'm wondering where this editorial is coming from. It could be a trial balloon on the part of the administration to test the public's appetite for a reduced sentence for Snowden.
I hadn't been doing so hot in high school (writing assembly for my TI-83's z80 was more fun than reading Shakespeare and doing derivatives), so my parents locked my laptop in the attic for me to focus on revising during that week.
Of course, I spent a few hours reading at the local library on lock picking, and managed to get my laptop from the attic on the first day (the lock was a fairly old model too, which helps). I spent the rest of the revision week writing C and hanging out in IRC :')
For the record, I did pretty well on the baccalaurat :)
I also cover disc detainers, and a bunch of other stuff. I'm shooting a new series on lock forensics presently, just got a great microscope that can take my DSLR for high def microscopy.
The older Abloy locks from 60's/70's can apparently be picked if you're really skillful but it takes a lot of time and effort, and this was never common knowledge.
I read about hackers who were picking locks in the USA, or just outside of Scandinavia, and how pin tumbler locks work, and realized that those would indeed be plausibly pickable but I never had access to them in practice. I think probably could've found some if I really, really wanted to but nobody was using them for anything serious so learning to pick something considered as toy locks wasn't very motivating.
unlike a credit card it doesn't snap or break very easily - the type of plastic will become softer when placed under pressure and is very flexible but strong - if you continue to force it in the right area it will work its way around hard corners and into tiny gaps until there is enough pressure to pop the bolt. when the bolt has an edge that is sloped towards you it will pop on the first push (the way i see most 'yale style' locks fitted on doors that open inwards - i.e. most front doors)
it takes an exceptionally tightly fitted door frame to prohibit this (e.g. one with brushes or hermetic seals)
the one time i couldn't break into my own home doing this was because there was a brush fitted down the side of the door - fortunately there was not one fitted in the letter box, so i found a long spanner at a nearby construction site and then spent the next four hours of my life whacking the mechanism from through the letterbox blindly until i caught the handle the right way and the door popped open...
Good presentation on types of locks and approaches to picking: http://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-europe-08/Deviant_O...
And a guy who knows a ton about picking: http://deviating.net/lockpicking/slides.html
Also, just owning the tools is illegal in some states.
1. get any torque wrench (L-shapped metal that goes in the keyhole)
2. get any triangular pick (any thin metal that goes in the hole, saw a triangular tip)
3. insert the pick as far as it goes, apply some tension to the torque wrench, pull the pick out it pressing against the lock pins.
4. repeat #3 until lock is open. you will usually ram the lock like there is no tomorrow, so some graphite or other kind of lubricant may help.
Abloy also claims it's pick proof. Whether that will remain true in the future I'm not sure, but I do know that at the very least it has yet to be successfully picked. If someone did figure out a way it would likely be extremely difficult to do in practice.
After watching some videos that showed just how easy it is to simply kick a door in, another thing I did was replace my strike plate with a heavier duty one, and replace the worthless 3/4" screws that "hold" most strike plates in with 4" screws that actually go into the 2x4's of the house frame.
What are your thoughts?
I still remember a fun talk I heard about the safety of gun safes (or lack thereof). They cracked it and told the manufacturers how easy it was and got a reply along the lines of "well maybe it's easy for a specialist like you with good equipment but it's safe enough for normal folks". Next slide contained a video of a 6 year old kid (highly trained security specialist) cracking the thing with a straw (specialized security equipment).
I bought two locks, diassembled then and reassembled leaving aside a number of pins out.
So I had a lock with only one pin, one with two, one with 4 and one with all the 5 pins.
It helped a lot because you learn to feel when the pin stucks on the open position and also to learn about how much pressure you need to put on the tensor. Too much and it will prevent the pins to go down. Too little and the pins will not stuck on the outer frame.
Ahh, and ofcourse, see the lock diassembled over my desk, and reassemble it gave a lot more insight on how it works than to just watch some animations.
If you're at all interested in picking, do yourself a favor and get this practice lock for ~$40 it is amazing:
Also, I highly recommend getting on the TOOOL email list for your area.
in the SF bay it is email@example.com - great group and good list, although I mostly lurk.
Here are some of my picks.... ignore the lame embellishments; I am not very artistic :)
Insert the binder clip wire, apply some torque, and scrub the pointy end of the triangle on your former paper clip against the pins. The lock will turn in seconds. You may need to adjust the shape of the triangle somewhat to achieve best results.
Popping open your first lock with entirely improvised materials is a powerful reminder that cheap locks are little deterrent to anyone but the most casual and unmotivated intruders, just like privacy locks in bathrooms.
Though this makes me wonder, the routers are running some kind of openwrts firmware, it would be interesting if someone had the chance to unsquash/decompile it for backdoors because from a sigint perspective (especially in the horn of africa) being able to tap into these networks (like via uav recon ops) will probably be on the table.
Edit: Looks like they are funded by the New American Foundation with Eric Schmidt as chairman, interesting
How much do you think the whole setup would've cost if you did it yourself? I ask because I've always thought that the cost of the special hardware for a mesh network was the major limiting factor.
Surely the main way people access the internet is through 3G either directly on the phones or on mobile broadband. When I was in Hargeisa in 2008, 3G connectivity was common, and I would assume that it is still the case (though its possible Abaarso doesn't have a very good mobile connection).
But then he seems to define maintenance as having fixed a specific bug that's been around for over a year, blocking a point release.
He admits that he can't follow the developers list to see if they're genuinely doing active maintenance (reasonable enough: he has a lot on his plate), but also won't accept the testimony of Emacs developers that the mailing list is dead and there's no evidence of real maintenance.
When questioned, he says that there's too much at stake to abandon bzr if it can be avoided at all. But the proposed replacement is GPL software. This is just madness.
(and surrounding posts).
I confess that my perception of Mercurial is the diametric opposite of the author's. Recently I believe I have seen a modest resurgence of interest in Hg and increased uptake. Am I just seeing this through some peculiar VCS-warped glasses?
I believe that much of the popularity of git stems from github making it very easy to adopt, something that bitbucket doesn't seem to have pulled off as well.
While I respect the PR they are going for, the reality falls far, far, short, due to years of 'cost management' minded outsourcing and hamstringing of customer service. You simply cannot remake a company if you don't eliminate the cruft of crappy infrastructure. Perhaps they could hire someone from Zappos to start fresh.
For instance, our family and parents share 5 phone on 1 plan on Ting. There is a flat $6 monthly fee per device, and our charges are based simply on the amount of minutes and data we use. The rates are cheap (about $0.02 per minute for voice calls). You can use almost whatever Sprint-compatible device you want (we use some cheap Nexus S phones we bought used from a reseller) and can add, remove, or swap devices at anytime through their online interface. If your outside of Sprint's network, voice calls will roam over Verizon's network at no extra cost. You are free to do whatever you want on Wi-Fi at no cost, and there if no charge for tethering, either.
Their customer support has been superb. We've called them a couple of times when we had some issues activating a new device (mostly my mistakes) and someone knowledgeable picked up the phone immediately. No waiting, no transferring between CSRs.
Similar innovations are occurring with other MVNOs like Republic Wireless. Why people are sticking with the majors I don't understand.
I don't work for T-mobile, I just really like how they're one of the few consumer-friendly companies out there (I don't care about their motives).
I'm a bit horrified to read this here. If you're a sysadmin and don't have both automated and manual testing of backups, it's hard to imagine what else was a more important use of your time.
There aren't many things that could bankrupt a healthy business overnight, but catastrophic data loss is certainly one of them.
An analogous entry for a lawyer might be to pay attention while reading contracts.
3.1 "Check that you can actually restore a file/recover a database"
I happened to spot this building in Osaka from the Floating Garden Building (http://www.osaka-info.jp/en/search/detail/sightseeing_3147.h...)
I had read the wikipedia article before, it was very exciting to see in person. Looking back it appears the wikipedia photo is taken from the same spot as my video.
Bonus: http://d.pr/i/Q7dn and http://d.pr/i/L9cV give you some more perspective on the surrounding area.
(Disclosure: I work there)
I was hoping they'd show what it sounded like on the 4th-8th floors. Can't be optimal working conditions.
(scroll all the way down)
I'll keep an eye out for it next time I'm there.
- Sailfish OS is really nice looking, and the gestures have grown on me. Actually, I find myself trying to perform the gestures like closing an app by swiping down on the iPhone as well, and when it doesn't work, the iPhone feels old and clunky.
- The phone feels good in the hand, the back has a pleasant smooth feel. It's nowhere as plastic as the galaxy phones, but doesn't have the weight and solidity of the iPhone. In general, I'm happily surprised by the quality of the hardware.
- Terminal and SSH access is one click away.
- There are no apps. The ones that are there (a media player, a calendar, a mail app) are extremely bare bones. They work, but lack essential functionality. On the plus side, they look good. Well, the browser looks a bit iffy and some of the UI choices there are no good.
- Android apps don't really work that well. Of the ones I've tried, only the official Twitter app and the Youtube player really work okay. Most apps either fail to detect network connectivity or crash. Plus, the Android apps run in a VM, not appearing as separate apps in the sailfish UI, and are pretty sluggish. Not a great experience.
- The screen is not great, fonts in the browser in particular look terrible. Hopefully this is something that can be improved (some of the fonts in sailfish itself look great). It's not a terrible screen, but it's fairly low resolution.
- The camera is pretty bad. This is a bit sad, since my last maemo/meego phone was the N900, and it had a fantastic camera for its time.
- Wireless and 3G data are flaky, and 4G is not working at all, yet.
Right now, my impression is, despite its flaws, pretty positive. Once there are more apps, the worst bugs are fixed and the browser is a bit more polished, it'll be a pretty nice OS on a slightly outdated phone. If they can get sailfish running on something like the nexus 5, I think that could be a pretty nice choice.
-it is Jolla's home market of Finland
-Finland is a small market where slight changes in absolute sales volume can show significant changes
-Jolla is satisfying pent-up demand for their phone
-it is on one carrier in Finland (the only one where Jolla is offered)
-iPhone aggregate demand is split into 2 whereas there is only 1 Jolla model
But hey, a win is a win...and it is certainly better than, say, failing to outsell the iPhone on this one carrier in one country
And the Jolla also outsold high-end Nokias (only the low-end Lumia 520 outsold the Jolla)
If this OS, and phone, can get that same sort of support and community around it(and I don't see why not seeing that they're based on the same cores built by the same teams) I see great things in the future. Like booting Ubuntu, Jolla and Mozilla from the same phone.
- those numbers are only for DNA: it was the operator that I used, great service; it is a relevant operator on the market, but apparently not the best for international roaming or the countryside; Helsinki coverage makes it a preferred option for the savvy, but not the most senior crowd who travels abroad quite a bit;
- the tech scene is extremely tight-knight, sprung out of Nokia; most of those have close ties to some of Jollo developers and have internal information on the project;
- the country is not only fairly small, it includes SuperCell, Rovio and thats the tip of the iceberg: dozen of thousands out of the 600k-1.3M people living in Helsinki or around develop for mobiles; most people openly describe how the country made a conscious, political, country-wide pivot from Nokias experience in sparse mobile code to iOS games and apps; half the people there seem to personally know game developers;
- iPhones 5C and 5S were not available early this summer and as you can imagine, this was a significant, professionally dire problem (on that note: Seriously, Apple!?); people flew and came back with fistfuls of the things up long after Finnish resellers suffered shortages; I believe that operator subsidies on the handsets are not significant (but I cant say for sure: as a foreigner, I couldnt hold a contract myself).
Because of that, Im assuming that operator sales of smartphones are a biased sample; traffic data would be preferable for actual use. However, even that usage is skewed: most people have a mobile platform written in bold on their LinkedIn profile, or ask one who has before buying a handset. That they sold significantly is a great sign however: if the product wasnt good, local buyers would have heard rumors before and many people buying are actually considering developing for the thing.
In addition to this, there's a new Firefox OS phone coming soon (I hope).
* Big market
* Iphone is too expensive because its built outside of Brazil and have heavy taxes because of it
* Android doenst actually have a strong brand.. its good looking and the hardware is more cheap, so people buy because of the lack of options (actually to be fair, samsung is pretty good, as everybody knows) - People dont buy a phone because its a android like they do with Apple
Map for the gold mine:
* Find a good brazilian partner with good relations and well stablished in traditional industry
* Ask for money in development banks like BNDES to build a factory(or use some part of one already built) in Zona Franca de Manaus (with tax incentives) (it will be easy for a project like yours as long Jolla have well conected people here)
* Use the factory to export to other south american countries with tax incentives for exports
I think Brazil is a unique market to launch this things because of the unique environment you have here..
Once Jolla made a pitch and some hits here, they can start to launch in more saturated and sophisticated markets (read apple fanboysm here) like US and EU
Really, Jolla should be very serious about that possibility..
'Jolla fails to outsell 3 Samsung phones, Nokia phone'
I realise multi-booting isn't practical for end-users, but very useful for developers and tech evaluators while the Cambrian explosion of mobile OSs plays out.
That being said I would really like to see an outsider come into the US and gain some marketshare.
For me this seems to invalidate the ecosystem concept underlying for example the Nokia switch to Microsoft and making Jolla and other smaller phone makers' chances of success a lot bigger.
I look at the second example--the "good" example--and the basic plan looks like it gives me---nothing. So now I have to go to some other marketing page, read the description, then, in my head, subtract all the great things that higher tiers give me to figure out what exactly I'd get with the base tier. Having it all in one place is preferable to me. The second problem with the "good" site is by summarizing feature each plan comes with, rather than being more specific, they are assuming that they know what is important to me. What if I could care less (and this has happened to me several times) about some big picture feature, and just need the version that provides database X integration? More clicking, and more likelihood that I buy a higher specced plan that I actually need.
And that is where I think these come from. Not a desire clearly layout what you get for your money, but a desire to obfuscate just enough with requisite marketing to push you towards more expensive options.
I've been considering a similar approach for a simple SaaS we run, which we have had trouble with getting traction for.
Anyone here ever been to Santana Row in San Jose? They have a GUCCI store in there; no prices are displayed for anything.
"If you have to ask, then we're too expensive for you."
It's like how most of us can generally walk into any Target Store or even Macy's(well, some of us) and just buy what we like without looking at the price.... or maybe this is just me.
Advice from YC companies to...
> Land a new job
HackerRank * Hire Art * The Muse
CodeAcademy CodeCombat HackerSchool
Vayable * Airbnb * Hipmunk
 - https://www.hackerrank.com/categories/fp/intro
In general I think the list is really great.
I have one nit with it -- I just had it analyze my portfolio; I find it odd that FA recommends no changes to an employer sponsored retirement plan due to "significant amount of unrecognized holdings", while it knows what options are available within the plan (ie, it doesn't suggest rebalancing the plan)
After going on a bit about requirements for different kinds of terrain, the kind of strata the road needs to go on etc. and how those were difficult and expensive to surmount (so curves were often chosen to deal with it instead of a more expensive solution). He lamented that the most difficult and expensive aspect of new road construction was right of way through existing developments and other properties. Most of the curves we experience on highways are apparently the result of somebody, or a block of people, simply not wanting to give up their land.
Edit: HS2 in Britain, for instance, is being designed with a maximum of around 0.01g vertical acceleration. If Elon's has figured out how to get passengers to handle 50x that much, he could save them a lot of money.
Their baseline optimization focuses on 5 subsystems: Compressor Cycle Analysis, Pod Geometry, Tube Flow Limitations, Tube Wall Temperature, and Mission Analysis
Initial results indicate that the concept is still very viable. However, due to very tight coupling between the tube and vehicle size, the tube size will need to be around twice as large as originally proposed by the Tesla/SpaceX team to reach the proposed speeds.
Feel free to download the entire analysis and play with it yourself, without purchasing several expensive toolboxes from MATLAB!
Their Shanghai Maglev only cost $1.2 billion.
China is clearly interested in building a 21st century transportation infrastructure. Beijing to Shangai is 800 miles. Perfect for 700 mph hyperloop.
Also, the structure would need to be tall (or short) enough to bypass highway bridges and overpasses...
So the "reinventing" might work out for a measured few while the rest have a hopeless, orwellian future ahead barring some serious course correction.
It's so lopsided that I doubt the authors believe their own thesis. They're trolling -- http://xkcd.com/386.
It was at this point that I started reaching for my revolver.
That was funny!
Not very much content, except that solar panels and natural gas continue to get cheaper. Don't get me wrong -- I love to hear the US is about to return to being a world class manufacturing nation, and it might even be true, but this seemed like a pretty content-free article.
The Best To-Do List: Org-Mode
Edit: Nevermind, it does save date completed.
My wife and I put an old iPad up on our fridge and use Trello to maintain needed groceries, chores, household repairs, and upcoming events. Even better, these lists automatically sync to our phones and PCs. I can just head to the grocery store whenever I have a free moment and my grocery list is always up to date and ready for me.
The spiral bound means it can be left open to the right page, and the thick paper is great. Version control (new pages) is built in. And the best part is that it's always right there in front of me, and I can glance down.
The ability to quickly slam a checklist into a gist and share it with others is very handy.
I appreciate innovations in this space, however I stopped even trying new things as experience shows they don't bring much once novelty wears off.
A line = a task
Deleting a line = task finished
A text file = a list of tasks related to some context
The best and fastest editor for this on a Mac: NValt
This is the most efficient and simple solution for managing plenty of todos, no cumbersome rules, check boxes, markdown, web interfaces.
I do think that gists could be an ideal platform for a more robust todo list, though. It could easily serve as a backend for todotxt , for example.
I find that I keep short-term notes--need to know in in the next hour--in a notepad on my desktop. Tasks that need to be accomplished in the next day+ go into Google Tasks. Things that need elaboration, depth, detail go into Workflowy .
Also, come on people, you all know that "Best" is subjective. This is the best tool for this guy, so there's no need to shoot it down.
However I've recently found I want to have some sort of task hierarchy, and to associate notes with tasks. I was going to just extend my text-based file format but luckily came across taskpaper which is pretty much exactly what I was aiming for. I'm now playing with taskpaper.vim and finding it promising: <https://github.com/davidoc/taskpaper.vim>. I just need to reconfigure vim's display of folded blocks so having all task comments folded is less painful.
In this particular case, the advantage over gist is that you can edit it offline on mobile (I ride the subway) and it syncs automatically
I think probably the most important feature of the TODO list is that it gives you mental clarity. Both the popular book "Getting Things Done" and a career couch I worked with for several months talk about the importance of clearing the mind before being able to begin work in earnest. If you have "do the laundry" stuck in your head, it's going to be a major hurdle for getting through work. So, having some sort of system to capture everything that needs to be done is essential for staying on task with work.
So that means that the most important feature of TODO is capture. Any system that imposes overhead on capturing items for your TODO list will eventually fall out of habit. You'll start to mentally prioritize which things go on the list and which things do not. That ultimately defeats the purpose of the TODO list, to get things out of mind, squirreled away in a safe place.
Thus, very formal issue trackers like BugZilla or Redmine (or anything else that has a separate "issue entry page") are far too cumbersome for capture.
But being streamlined on capture is not the whole solution. Having used sites like PivotalTracker or Trello, I've fallen into traps of recording TOO much. Certain pie-in-the-sky tasks will sit in the list for months on end, getting no closer to ever getting worked on. It then becomes its own mental burden, worrying about whether or not certain TODO items will end up in that moribund pile. I even tried writing my own that had an arbitrary limit to the number of items I could enter. It just didn't feel right. It was always too easy to just bump up the limit and keep adding items.
So with all of my experience with various activity and issue tracking systems, I went straight back to pen and paper. My system is very simple, but it is not from lack of design. Its simplicity is the design.
I use an ink pen on a yellow legal pad. The pads are cheap and readily available. The ink requires strike-throughs for error corrections. I write in two columns, but only to be able to use all of the paper. There is no semantic difference between the two columns.
I do not number things, unless I'm in crunch mode and am working very fast through a series of items. I am more likely to underline the high priority items, rather than number them. I don't think it's really possible to prioritize things any more than "things I'm working on in the next few hours" versus "things I'm not working on soon." Anything more than that really calls into question the entire concept of priority for me. It's easy enough to scan the list and figure out priority as I work. I can also rewrite the list with higher priority items at the top if necessary. Usually it's not necessary.
Completed items get scratched out, fairly heavily. The goal is then to fill the page with ink. It becomes a motivating factor to finish the last few items on the list.
The list is limited to 2 columns only and is not allowed to spill on to a second page. I rewrite the list either once a week or (more often) when the page is full to remove the completed items. I did three columns for a while, but it started to develop a deadpool at the bottom right end of the page, so I went back to two columns. Multiple pages would be even worse, and would make it harder to scan the total list. That basically means I'm limited to a max of 50 or so active items on my TODO list. I've found that, if I need much more than 50, then I've failed to manage my work correctly. The desire to record more is a signal that I'm procrastinating things and taking on too many commitments.
And that's it. Any other feature of TODO list tracking is either too restricting on capture or too enabling on over capture. Pen and paper is it for me.
It's goal is to be an extremely simple to-do list. I'd love to hear what you guys think.
I was furious. Time Warner had left a backdoor in all their modems that gives them administrative access to my private connection. And yes -- she did alter the password remotely. She didn't seem to think there was anything wrong with this. I tried googling for relevant information, but wasn't able to find anything more than speculation at the time.
Most annoyingly, AT&T put out a firmware update some months later that closed the exploit, but didn't fix any other problems. So, I found another more intrusive/permanent exploit. Still waiting on them to patch it next heh. But now they are actually putting out some updates that actually fix problems too at least. Hopefully user uproar will continue to drive them to fix more problems
It's a totally different attitude when the intended market is enterprise: it's assumed that if a product causes a failure, the vendor is going to receive escalating, unpleasant phone calls until it's resolved.
That's a pretty scary prospect. If its been 'known' and exploited since at least 2008. Poor form Netgear/Linksys.
If I flash the firmware warranty is void and I have no user/pass to re-enable the ADSL. So basically, my router is a hostile AP.
Given the fact that, it's a common pattern among ISPs in order to offer quick service - I firmly believe that ISPs do it for practical reasons - and end up killing your security, the best thing is to put the router in bridged mode and get a cheap custom-made router like carambola2 and install FreeBSD on it.
Disclosure: I donated one of these devices to Adrian Chadd in order for him to port FreeBSD on this device, which enabled me to use PF - my favorite firewall - but I have no affiliation otherwise with 8devices or FreeBSD.
I wonder if there is anyone still working in the GPL compliance department.
Assuming GRC isn't out to decive me, can I assume that my router is fine?
Bill, using a Netgear router.
Many of Linksys' old DSL modems were manufactured by them, AFAIK.. and it seems many of the noted 'probably affected' models have a SerComm manuf'ed device for at least one revision of that model line
More probable SerComm manuf'ed devices are visible at the WD query link below..
If you ask many people an audacious "Can we do X?" their response is usually along the lines of "No, because [valid reasons]". They're not wrong, but the basic attitude is to shoot down what doesn't seem to fit with one's own view of the world. These are "no, because" people, and big companies are often full of them.
Much rarer and infinitely more valuable, especially for an entrepreneur, is the person who hears "Can we do X?" and responds, "Yes, if... [possible solutions]". Their response is one of problem-solving instead of confrontation, seeking to find a synthesis of the new perspective and their own. It seems like a small thing, but it is a very significant shift in mindset. Thinking like a "yes, if" person can unlock so much potential.
A friend of mine, one of the most talented and knowledgeable game programmers around, could easily have shot down many of the ambitious ideas that came his way. Instead, he greeted them with enthusiasm, often saying, "It's software! We can do anything!" Wouldn't you like to set out to do amazing things with that person on your team?
 - https://d23.com/harrison-price/
"My friend Andy Grignon worked for Steve Jobs and was on a very small team building the original iPhone. Steve told him "sorry, you can not hire anyone who has worked on a phone before."
Why not? For exactly the reasons laid out here. He didn't want his team to find out what they were attempting to do was "impossible." Andy learned that when he went to AT&T to pitch them on what became visual voice mail. Andy and his team thought it was possible. The AT&T folks thought they were nuts. It took lots of work by Steve Jobs to convince AT&T to try."
Is it not reasonable to suppose that it was an idea before its time, and useless in the particular historical context and implementational form in which it appeared?
There has always been utility for mechanical computation, but it's entirely possible that the world simply did not have an application for The Analytical Engine in the 1830s-1840s because other sectors of technology and the economy simply hadn't evolved to a level where they could effectively utilise it, especially given its physical properties--its size, scale, and energy consumption.
I don't know that for a fact, and can't effectively gauge the merits of my own suggestion, as I am neither a mathematician nor a competent historian of the intellectual, scientific and commercial zeitgeist of that period. But, for the sake of argument, is it not possible that this invention fell into the "interesting, novel, but useless" category?
Now, as for the telephone:
1) From the point of view of the telegraph establishment, it was a competitor;
2) Unintelligible voice really is useless. They just weren't far-sighted enough to see that the voice quality could improve, and indeed, it was a quite a long time before it did. Local loop quality improved first. Long-distance toll voice really didn't begin to sound good until digital trunking came along. Ask your grandparents or great-grandparents what coast-to-coast long distance phone calls sounded like in the era of analog lines and waveguide-type multiplexing technology;
3) In the heyday of the telegraph era, deploying lines was an extremely expensive and capital-intensive process, and it wasn't until other technological advancements that made possible various multiplexing and aggregation schemes (frequency-division, and later digital TDM) came along that the idea of running a copper line into every home really got to be realistic. I agree that Western Union was a bit shortsighted in turning down this patent, but one could hardly blame them for thinking that universal telephone service wasn't economically possible. That's like selling a business idea today that relies on everyone having a 10 terabit fiber cable run to their home. Yeah, it's possible, and I have no doubt someone will make fun of me in a decade or two for naysaying it in any way, but would you invest $2bn in a related patent today?
What mistake did all these very smart men make in common? They focused on what the technology could not do at the time rather than what it could do and might be able to do in the future.
I don't disagree, but that needs to be fleshed out. No viable entrepreneurial venture can succeed solely on the basis of what it is logically possible for the technology to someday do, or what it could, in principle, in theory, one day. There is a need to realise a return in a usefully short period of time that is also unanimously acceptable to a coterie of investors with varying needs in terms of payoff time frame and patience.
Thus, you need a practical plan for getting to point B, making the technology do X. Even the most far-fetched, high-risk, R&D-driven ventures entail a proposal to concretely deploy and commercialise technology in a period that is usefully short and politically palatable, and that means everyone involved is somewhat constrained to what can be practically envisaged in terms of today's possibilities. One can make some leaps of faith, some intelligent extrapolations and some prescient forecasts, but ultimately, it's something expressed largely in the observational language and ontology of today.
Thus, I can't bring myself to fault someone for doubting, in 1995, that the consumer web is going to be what it is today, or even be what it was six or seven years later, in the early 2000s. It was possible--perhaps even reasonable--to suppose so, but would you have bet the farm on it? Your retirement savings? I'm not sure I would have (not that I have a farm or retirement savings, pero bueno).
The smart choice is obviously a happy medium. Too much of a "can do" attitude is just as harmful as too much of a "can't do" attitude. We all need reality checks.
And this is why diverse teams and groups are so important -- one person says "of course we can't do", another says "of course we can do", and everyone hashes it out until they've come up with a realistic assessment that is neither clouded by overly optimistic nor overly pessimistic thinking.
And picking those jackpots and their critics ignores the majority of crazy ideas that indeed fail - "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
Here's some criticism of a crazy idea that actually failed (CueCat): http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000037.html
Obviously there is a lot of criticism for the sake of proving oneself smug. Unfortunately sounding smug does not automatically make one wrong.
This blog post claims that the quote is fake: http://blog.historyofphonephreaking.org/2011/01/the-greatest...
Slate says it "may" be fake and is awaiting verification: http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2014/01/02/why_p...
The first stage of innovation should use "Yes, if" approach. This is similar to brainstorming session, where negativity should be kept to minimum. This mentality lets people find ways around the obstacles.
When the idea is ready for evaluation, it should be evaluated in light of resource constraints and similar. In this phase "No, because" approach should be used to identify all possible downsides. If the answer is "No", the idea can be either retired or returned to brainstorming session, until it is ready for re-evaluation.
So it is not a question of Yes/No, it is a question of appropriate answer in appropriate moment.
We notice this same thing here on this site, where every new idea seems to get immediately piled on with negativity. The feeling is that it didn't used to be this way, and many of us old timers will remember a time when new ideas were mostly met with encouragement and constructive criticism.
But I bet if you look at the threads today and then, you might find that the absolute number of constructive, encouraging comments hasn't changed much at all. Rather, they are simply lost in a sea of negativity spouted out by the peanut gallery that seems to have washed in from other places where people dump all over tech news. We used to be conspicuously entrepreneurial here. Now we're a lot more representative of the tech world at large.
So yeah, I think that there are still plenty of people with the right entrepreneurial mindset out there. It's just getting harder to find them.
More audacity and innovation, less audacity-lacking "innovation" of the form, how to get users to click ads more often and exit this company for a multiple ASAP.
I think it's useful to be optimistic when it comes to visions of the future and how a business can accomplish it. Electric cars for everyone? Sure, give it a try. All that can be lost is a little money, and maybe you make a huge fortune and change the world. Isolated government programs can be a similar story -- e.g. NASA, which is unlikely to lose anything but a small amount of money but can be really inspiring or create some great things.
However, when it comes to government policy, the downside can be utter disaster. It pays to be a little skeptical that the "help the poor" bill (or whatever other utopian title) will actually deliver as advertised. Or skeptical that a war will be a simple in-and-out proposition.
Or some things just have little upside. We see this all the time in engineering. Someone wants to use a fad technology or model of some kind, or wants to reimplement something to be a little faster, or whatever. There's huge project risk that it could derail other projects and destabilize the entire product -- which is fine if you're going to change the world with it, but not fine for a 10% speedup on some specific workload.
Moral of story: optimism and "can do" attitude is good when the upside is huge and the downside is contained (like in a startup). Not exactly a profound revelation.
All managers were like 'be like apple' and 'we must release iPad app' and 'PC is over'. Programmers on other side wanted to rewrite some critical parts, introduce automated tests and fix some very old bugs.
I was speaker for programmers, soon I became 'tablet hater' (kind of funny since I had Android tablet). Latter we even bough some iPads for developers to learn, those were locked in managers office :-). I left company shortly after that.
So for me 'Can-Do vs. Cant-Do Culture' is just sort of bullshit to mask real problems. Sure Jobs made iThinks, but he pulled massive resources towards the problem. Apple actually bought factories for touch screens before iPhone was made.
If a startup founder is an asshole, let's not excuse the behavior because they are building something worthwhile.
If a startup makes a mistake due to lack of concern about its users (i.e. Snapchat and their security hole), they should be criticized.
All told, I'm all about "can do" culture, but let's not use it as an excuse for boorish behavior or bad business practices.
"In February 2011, Andreessen Horowitz invested $80 million in Twitter, becoming the first venture firm that holds stock in all four of the highest-valued, privately held social media companies: Facebook, Groupon, Twitter and Zynga"
Otherwise its a great article.
The lesson that I took home: I always held that asking/questioning of assumption is also of value; but this article told me that I have to be careful here, and that style of communications is often also very important - style determines how a person is evaluated by others.
What's the real data here? From a practical standpoint, isn't it just risk vs reward? Can-do's probably get a bigger reward than can't do's, but they fail more. A can't-do gets smaller reward, but succeeds more.
> Cherrypicking. A great majority of startups fail and their ideas are proven as unworkable or impractical, so it is not unreasonable to summarily dismiss most of them.
Clearly read the article but is trying to justify his own negativity in the past and undoubtedly.
>Would love to see a post on how you define "great" in this context, Ben.
Who the fck, address someone they don't know by their first name like that?? Ending the statement with his name also seems a bit passive aggressive.
Enlightening check out the comments and see how many people actually respond to the article. All too often when reading articles or listening to other people, instead of listening or understanding, the goal is: 'let me read until I think think of something I can say'. This really hurts that person and just isolates people in their own point of view
(note this post could be ironic. Its not though, the article was freakin awesome! I will try to change my mindset towards a more positive one after reading and rethink what it means to innovate)
A few days ago I posed the question of whether Git's crypto is an example of dangerous amateur cryptography, since Linus isn't (AFAIK) a crypto expert: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6961683
The general answer I got was that Git isn't really crypto, because it isn't using the hash to guarantee integrity, but simply as a checksum to detect corruption.
I didn't find this argument very convincing at the time, and I would now offer the above quotation as evidence that people do in fact treat Git's hashes as a security mechanism that can withstand an adversarial attack.
Breaking out of virtual machines is a really interesting process but it's important to remember that a hypervisor can be attacked with pretty much the same techniques you can attack any other program. Virtual machines aren't a magic contain-all-the-hackers solution. There was an interesting talk on DEFCON 19 about breaking out of KVM: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVSVdudfF8Q
Simple logic: The defacement was amature at best. If the group has a 0-day in a hypervisor they would have gone to multiple hosting companies and multiple attacks would have taken place, there are many more targets that are worth much more than openSSL.
Most likely, the administration panel of the hosting company was comprimised through malware/phishing. Seriously, if a group like this had a 0-day in hypervisor then they would be doing much much more damage.
"x86 virtualization is about basically placing another nearly full kernel, full of new bugs, on top of a nasty x86 architecture which barely has correct page protection. Then running your operating system on the other side of this brand new pile of shit.
You are absolutely deluded, if not stupid, if you think that a worldwide collection of software engineers who can't write operating systems or applications without security holes, can then turn around and suddenly write virtualization layers without security holes."
I've been hearing this usage more often these days.
"Virtually Impossible: The Reality Of Virtualization Security" talk videofrom 30C3 a few days ago: http://media.ccc.de/browse/congress/2013/30C3_-_5445_-_en_-_...
Slides from apparently same talk from Defcon Russia: http://www.slideshare.net/DefconRussia/gal-diskin-virtually-...
"Performance: Launches ~1000x faster, runs ~10x faster"
"Launch scaling: Hadoop (~N), MR+ (~logN)"
"Wireup: Hadoop (~N2), MR+ (~logN)"
"But the reality of why socialism or communism dont work is precisely because as human beings were fundamentally motivated by power and greed and thus those that set out to form perfect societies end up just controlling the resources and people for their own personal benefits."
I wonder where the author got that information which I concieve as plain wrong. No sources for that information were given. Humans aren't motivated by greed or money and I think it's possible to set up a society were it doesn't exist.
-> 340m/s / 0.005m = 68000Hz.
If we limit the frequency to above human hearing range (>20000Hz) then maximum size of objects held in this way would be about 1.7 centimeters.
Obviously the palsy needs to be fixed, but assuming that's solvable, it would be interesting to see it used as perfectly sterile tweezers.
Alternately, there seems to be some impressive vertical momentum imparted. Perhaps it could be used to launch small components into the air to be caught by another acoustic field, which does a more refined drop or transfer.
Or... Well, there's an awful lot of applications, really. Truly cool tech.*
* This isn't the first time a trick like this has been done, but it's the first I've seen with such control and dexterity.
Low frequency sound "halting" flow of water (illusion):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mODqQvlrgIQ
Non-Newtonian fluid on speaker:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zoTKXXNQIU
Of course yesterday's article on General Fusion showing the power of a well focused waveform:http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6996683
In case you're wondering, the other submissions have no comments, so I won't link to them, even though the other sources may have more videos, more commentary, or better explanations. I've decided not to do the cross-referencing for a while.
Not nearly as sophisticated as the linked post, but still pretty neat (especially seeing how he messes around with it).
I wait for the day when it's finally proven they were advanced civilizations or helped by aliens :D.
This could be extremelly useful, I'm excited for more news about this.
Mix & combine foods, chemicals, and drugs without contaminating them or using beakers or containers by floating them around the warehouse on tracks of sound imiting assembly lines. I'd imagine a huge factory with minimal moving parts and sterilized air where liquids are floated out and mixed. If you're afraid the liquids will evaporate into the air while being mixed you can encase the assembly line in Anti-microbial glass vents (or black ones that don't let UV light through). Basically floating chemicals through really clean tubes without touching the sides.
The example at the end is perfectly well written using the class statement and using register as a class decorator, while being more familiar and readable.
It gets tiring to hear people say "oh advanced Python? Like metaclasses, I'll learn that".
Learn useful things instead, like writing readable, testable code.
This is probably my all-time favorite StackOverflow post!