Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | analyticsjam's commentslogin

Personally I like the interface and think dumbing it down would be a mistake. I would recommend adding a "minimum reviews" filter, as I sometimes sort by avg rating but get things with 2 or 3 reviews that are probably fake anyway.


You can do in two steps by jeviz.com. 1-) Choose sort by Most Reviews, which is an sort option Amazon generally hides 2-) From Average Customer Review choose 4 stars and & up this will sort all products that are 4 or above stars but in most reviews order.


Yeah, I always look for something that has been reviewed by at least 5 other people.


I found most of sort features by try and error. I will look into it if Amazon provides it I will implement it.Thanks for the feedback.


Oh, you're not running the search over your own data?


No I am directing to Amazon with right search query url.


Silicondust is releasing their DVR in the next month or two. I'm in on the kickstarter but not at the level that is currently testing. There are also dedicated devices for people less tech savvy.

https://www.silicondust.com/products/hdhomerun/hd-homerun-dv...


I'm really looking forward to the Silicondust DVR software. I was never able to make MythTV work correctly for me.

I've been using Windows Media Center with an HDHR Prime, but the quality of the WMC listing accuracy took a huge dive around the time when they announced they've halted development and would not provide a version for Windows 10.


I recently read a similar case in Simon Singh's book Fermat's Enigma http://www.amazon.com/reader/0385493622?_encoding=UTF8&query... about the 14-15 puzzle. It was similarly unsolvable and provable the same way.

Interestingly, his account is rather different than that on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_puzzle Singh claims that Sam Lloyd created the puzzle, secretly proved it was impossible, and offered rewards to anyone who could solve it.


I spent a few years supporting these from the financial end. Modern cables are built in a loop so that they automatically fail-over. For instance, most Trans-Atlantic cables have pops in New York, Florida, England, and mainland Europe. If there is a cut in one segment, traffic automatically switches to the other.

Most customers these days are also on products that mux across these cables. So, if your Trans-Atlantic cable has two simultaneous outages, your traffic would automatically route itself across the Pacific. Your latency would go up, but your service would continue.

When I was there, construction was beginning on SMW-4, which had the dubious honor of being the first billion dollar cable. They are typically incorporated via international treaties between states and companies that are roughly about 100 pages long. Each partner has to cover maintenance on the part between the main cable and their drop, while everyone chips in on the main part.

It really is fascinating; outages are typically caused by boat anchors close to shore or large earthquakes. Once a guy in Hawai'i cut the Southern Cross wire with a pair of clippers while doing yardwork.


Also have the privilege of still working on these types of networks; one of the things that fascinated me was the money and effort that telecoms companies are spending these days on tracking boats/ships/fishermen by their transponders.

There dedicated people, equipment and networks just to track these offenders, as the telecoms obviously want to work out who to send the bill onto once they've fixed the cable, or which insurance company ;)


Yeah, the other funny thing is that there are only a few boats in the world that can repair breaks. So if there are too many outages, you just have to wait for them to finish and then sail across the world.


Then you can have them bobbing up and down for days or weeks because of the weather, very frustrating ;)


>Modern cables are built in a loop so that they automatically fail-over.

I know of a company that did this on a regional network - ring physical layout. Only to discover that murphy's law never fails to deliver and the SLAs suffered as a result. They switched to multiple interlocking rings soon thereafter.


So if someone can cut them with their clippers by accident, certainly a malicious actor could wreak tons of havoc? Why does this not seem to occur? Even from a juvenile "hey I turned off the Internet lol" kind of level?


As I recall there have already been cases of cutting cables to move traffic to other cables which have better monitoring capability. But as for the lulz, I expect that even the most naive of folks who might do this understand that it would get them some serious prison time, and there would be a huge amount of effort put into catching them and making an example out of them. Not quite worth it I'd expect.

That said, we've had folks take sniper shots at power substations in California[1], which can cut power to big chunks of real estate.

[1] http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_26419083/pg-e-substat...


Overloading the 512K BGP tables was a fun way for people to toss a monkey wrench into the Internet. But then, it didn't affect everyone easily and nor would cutting a cable, which not only doesn't affect everyone, but, I imagine, is rather hard to do. It's much easier to mess with the Internet using software, and by doing so remotely, you've a better chance of not getting arrested for it, I imagine.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: