Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | datr's comments login

What prevents me from adopting XMPP for my team is the lack of push notifications to my phone. I don't want to have an app constantly maintain a connection and slowly drain my battery.

-----


Push has been formally specified very recently in XEP-0357 (https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0357.html), now is the time for implementors to show what they have !

-----


The Conversations app for Android works pretty well. I've used it for a few weeks with a handful of persistent rooms on a Nexus 5 and I haven't noticed any battery issue.

-----


Some years ago I built an Android SDK that did background location and had an XMPP channel open for push notifications. This was before Android had Cloud Messaging available. Battery drain was minimal/negligible.

-----


The 64GB HDD on the Chromebook is quite limiting too though. (Especially if you develop with multiple virtual machines.) I suppose you could use an external hdd but that seems bulky and I'm not sure it would be as quick.

I might try and hold on to my x220 for another year and see if 2016 offers any better ultrabooks.

-----


Between more RAM and a bigger hard disk I'd always pick more RAM. On my development machine I have a very minimal setup (i3, no desktop environment, Emacs, compiler, debugger etc.) and not more than a couple of big repositories checked out (Linux, Hotspot). I can see why this might not work for other kinds of development setups though.

-----


I also use i3 with vim and a browser as my setup, but I would always go for SSD more then anything. The whole machine feels snappier when compiling and running stuff, although I do back it up with 8GB of ram.

-----


I am using mSATA SSD drive via USB3.0 and it is quite fast and small.

-----


This definitely isn't the norm in my experience. I have friends in many of the magic and silver circle law firms in London. All of them have shared private offices for their junior staff and individual offices for the senior staff.

-----


The upside is that it will become much harder to blackmail people for the same reason.

-----


It's designed to try and avoid a moral hazard where a rogue police office may choose to suffer the consequences of an illegal search (if indeed a case could be brought) in order to get the evidence he or she needs.

-----


Couldn't the agent be referring to a http header, in which case it doesn't seem that improbable.

I've worked on sites before where if you logged in as the admin it started attaching a header with the ip of the application server responsible for generating that page to help with debugging. It's not outside the realms of possibility that something like that could break and start leaking ips.

-----


It seems he was serving an embedded CAPTCHA from his real IP.

http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/09/dread-pirate-sunk-by-leak...

Maybe he used a CAPTCHA library that generates absolute URLs using the server host name.

-----


The HTTP header is not in the packet header. It is in the data section of the TCP packet. If so, this calls the federal agent's capacity to serve as an expert witness in question.

-----


The TCP packet is not in the 'packet header'. Both the Ethernet and IP frames precede it. How can you possibly suggest that a HTTP header doesn't count, but a TCP packet does?

Weev you are disqualified due to your incorrect assertions from being an expert commentator :D

-----


TCP is a packet-switched protocol. HTTP is a socket-based protocol. HTTP as a protocol is a stream of bits that is carried within the data segments of a packet-based transit protocol. HTTP itself does not have a "packet header". TCP has a packet header, as one can simply verify by googling "TCP packet header". Go do some learnin', bro.

-----


Weev you know me, you also know I'm right. TCP as a protocol is a stream of bits carried within the data segments of a frame based transit protocol. Both TCP and HTTP have headers.

-----


HTTP does have a header, but what is carried within the data sections of TCP/IP packets created by the establishment of an HTTP socket are not packets. HTTP is not in itself a packet switched protocol. It forms a circuit. Seriously, your CCNA does not make you a networking expert.

-----


If the agent's claim is true it wouldn't have come from an HTTP header anyways, but instead the IP address was leaked by the captcha part of the SR website, which the agent would have noticed on his wireshark-equivalent dumping TCP logs.

-----


Well, we should still ask for the evidence.

-----


If by we, you mean Ulbricht's lawyers, I'm sure they're on it since illegal search is basically his only defense.

We, the HN community, could probably find plenty of worthy people to advocate for that don't go around paying for assassinations.

-----


Prosecutors can write whatever fiction they want in a criminal complaint. The false criminal complaint I was once extradited on, for example, was based upon a fictitious claim that AT&T was headed in New Jersey, when a simple search of SEC Edgar or Wikipedia can verify that it is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Federal agents have been caught lying multiple times to everyone from the public to Congress, and yet for some reason people still consistently take the garbage they say seriously.

-----


He has.

Conspiracy to Distribute a Controlled Substance; Attempted Witness Murder; Use of Interstate Commerce Facilities in Commission of Murder-for-Hire; Aiding and Abetting

https://ia601904.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.238...

-----


(This was in response to a sentence that has now been edited out that claimed Ulbricht has never been charged for murder for hire.)

-----


The idea that because some Federal agents have lied therefore we should discount anything all of them say is farcial.

-----


I don't think that's what he's suggesting at all. We shouldn't automatically discount their statements, but we should start scrutinizing them very carefully before we make a call.

-----


Scrutiny is fine, but the "scrutiny" on display in this thread is quite fanciful indeed. It's almost as if people were hoping that FBI is, somehow, someway, wrong, instead of skeptically analyzing the data presented using critical analysis and then following where the evidence leads.

E.g. the top comment right now claims that a footnote practically proves FBI employed parallel construction, based on no reasoned argument, and without examining even the possibility that there is a reasonable explanation on the FBI's behalf.

So if scrutiny is the byword, let's practice scrutiny. But I'm just seeing advocacy.

-----


We, the HN community, could probably find plenty of worthy people to smear by accusing them of paying for assassinations.

-----


Well good luck with the Ross Ulbricht canonization effort, sir.

-----


What does your estimation of Ulbricht's moral standing have to do with anything? The HN community is advocating for due process.

-----


First we're not a monolith. Second, I don't see people advocating for due process so much as I see outright advocacy and willful ignorance of the idea that it's possible for the FBI to indict someone without violating their due process.

-----


KeePass 2 can be run under Mono on both Linux and Mac OSX.

-----


My vote also. If used with dropbox you can also sync it with all devices.

-----


I'm having trouble understanding this article. If the count down timers show pedestrians the amount of time they have to cross the road (as they do here in London) why would the driver be watching this and think they only have a few seconds until the light goes red and they can't get through the intersection. Surely, the opposite is the case?

I can see that you could potentially form a similar explanation around that scenario too but it doesn't seem as convincing.

-----


Pedestrian crossings in the UK are rather unusual compared to most other countries in the world, in my experience.

In most places, crossings work on a parallel/perpendicular system: parallel roads and pedestrian crossings are red or green[1] at the same time. This means that cars turning across a pedestrian crossing must give way (yield) to pedestrians.

The UK system, by contrast, isolates the pedestrian phase from traffic phases: when the green man (the WALK indicator) is displayed, no vehicles will approach the pedestrian crossing from any direction. The time between pedestrian crossing opportunities is longer, but there is no contention for the crossing from cars turning into the road.

The article describes the parallel/perpendicular system. In this scenario, a driver will see a parallel WALK light and a (vehicular) green light at the same time. As the pedestrian crossing typically goes red earlier (because people take longer to cross the road than cars take to cross the intersection), a car driver who watches the pedestrian crossing light or countdown timer gains advanced knowledge of the parallel traffic signal.

1. Or white in some places in the US!

-----


New Zealand has a mix. All stop, all direction crossings are usually reserved for downtown high pedestrian flow intersections.

There is also a distinction between green and green arrow turns. Green arrow indicates safe turns and green means yield to traffic/pedestrians.

-----


A crosswalk that is parallel to you (i.e., pedestrians traveling in the same direction across the intersection as the drivers) will have a "walk" signal that is synched with the traffic light. In this case, a green light would be analogous to "walk" and a yellow light would be analogous to "3..2..1..".

It is likely that once the cross walk reaches zero, a yellow light will appear on the traffic signal. Anyone reading the walk signal in front of them will have an early warning about the traffic light and may try to speed up to get through.

If you're a block away from the light and you see a "4", what do you do?

-----


The essential piece of information missing from the article, because it's common in the US, is that pedestrians usually get green at the same time as traffic in parallel with them. In Europe it's a more common pattern that all pedestrians walk at an interval when all traffic is stopped and this cheat would indeed not work there.

-----


The difference between US and UK crossings is that in the US, pedestrians and vehicles are directed to use the same bit of road at the same time. Cars turning right or left on a green light have to look to see if there are any pedestrians crossing, and give priority to them. Then the US also has that weird rule that allows you to drive straight through a red light, as long as you are turning right, which has visitors staring in disbelief.

In the UK/Europe, green means go and red means stop, without the above exceptions. In order to make this work, pedestrian crossings are often segmented, with individual signals for each section. There are a few junctions where all traffic is stopped for pedestrians, but that is pretty rare. Most junctions just allow pedestrians to cross on sections where traffic is not travelling.

UK/Europe also has a lot fewer crossroads than US. Since the cities are older, and do not as often have a grid structure, there are a lot more three-way junctions than crossroads, which actually makes crossing the road easier.

-----


To be clear, right-turn-on-red requires that you stop first, at least in any jurisdiction I'm aware of. That being said, it still increases car/pedestrian and car/bicycle collisions significantly, on the order of 100% [0].

[0]: http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/25000/25600/25603/DOT-HS-806-182.pdf

-----


> Then the US also has that weird rule that allows you to drive straight through a red light, as long as you are turning right, which has visitors staring in disbelief.

This varies by location. For example: In NYS it's allowed unless banned by a sign, but in NYC it's banned unless allowed by a sign.

-----


Not once have I seen this anywhere in Europe. I'm sure you're talking from experience and it's a thing, but it seems to vary from place to place. It sounds a bit inefficient.

-----


The problem with busy crossings is that if both cars and pedestrians have 'green' at the same time, and the traffic is busy (i.e., someone would be walking/driving for most part of the green light), then it's very inefficient for cars needing to make the right turn, that need to cross with the pedestrians. In some street plans (e.g., interleaving one-way streets w. no left crossings) the right-turn traffic is very heavy and has a separate lane; so delaying them is bad.

There are two okay solutions - either you desync the lights, so that there's some gap where the pedestrians have a red light but cars already/still have green, so that they can make that turn; or you make a 3-phase crossing; A-cars have green in one direction; B-cars have green in the other direction; C-all cars stop and pedestrians can cross across and diagonally. It works okay.

What's not a solution - 'right turn on red' doesn't solve it; this problem matters in heavy car/foot traffic, and in such traffic there aren't any safe opportunities to do so.

-----


I don't think it's that common - I've only seen it a couple of places, but it happens. Most places in Europe I've been, there's car traffic going in parallel with the pedestrians.

The most "famous" example in Europe of all traffic being stopped at once, I suspect is Oxford Circus in London, where they changed to start doing this a few years ago.

The reason to do it there, though, was to allow pedestrians to walk in any direction (diagonally as well) across one of the busiest crossings in the country. This BBC article refers to it as a "Japanese-styled system":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7997569.stm

-----


Most sets of traffic lights in the UK allow diagonal crossing, as in all traffic stopped at once, it's just not that common to encourage pedestrians to cross diagonally. What you never get in the UK is the condition described above, where pedestrians and drivers are directed to use the same bit of road.

There are also plenty of junctions where some car drivers are allowed to proceed while on other bits of the road, pedestrians are allowed to cross. So (typically) each road into the junction has a central island and the pedestrian controls for each half of the road are separate. On those junctions, it's never safe to go across the middle as there will always be some traffic moving.

-----


There are a few of those intersections in the US and Canada as well, normally called "scramble" intersections here I think.

-----


Indeed, it is less efficient when cars have to stop for pedestrians and not drive through them.

-----


I'm assuming this has something to do with being able to turn through a red light, which is illegal in London.

But yeah. I had trouble understanding the issue at all, as you note London has them, I've never noticed any issue at all - if anything, it gets the peds out of the road more timely...

-----


Indeed, in England pedestrians never cross when a vehicle has a green light over the path they are going to cross. I.e. completely separate pedestrian phases.

In the US, the walk lights go 'green' at the same time as traffic parallel to the crosswalk gets a green light, in a shared phase. So if the timer is getting close to zero, it means the vehicles are about to go to a red light, and the opposite direction is about to get the green light.

-----


I'm a bit unsure exactly what it is you are describing. Pretty much all the crossings I use regularly in London follows an at least very similar pattern to what I'm used to seeing in the US when visiting, with traffic parallel to the crossing getting green at the same time as the pedestrian crossing in question

In fact, here's a discussion in the UK Parliament in 2004 where it was proposed to restrict the use of all-red phases in low traffic junctions, and where the person proposing the change saw it as necessary to describe why this was even an issue:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmstand/a/...

"Mr. Redwood: Until a few years ago, no one would have understood why new clause 5 would be necessary. All traffic lights that motorists or cyclists encountered on our highways had a simple form of operation which meant that there was always one free route across the junction showing green. In the normal four-way junction where two roads intersected, one road had priority for one phase and the other road had the alternate priority. There could be more complicated variations at larger junctions, but there was always a green phase for vehicles on one part of the junction"

[The proposed clause 5: 'No authority shall be entitled to install or operate traffic signals with all red phases at road junctions where there is no hazard other than traffic.']

You may be right that no vehicles will have green light to cross the pedestrian crossing while pedestrians have a green light, though I'm not 100% sure that's true either - I seem to remember crossings in London at least where turning traffic will have green at the same time as pedestrians, but I don't drive so maybe that's just me as an impatient pedestrian misremembering, as I'll regularly cross on red.

-----


As ealexhudson says here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7975422 , the difference is that in the UK, when you have a 'green man', there is a guarantee that traffic are not permitted to use any piece of road you are crossing.

I was describing the crossroads situation where all vehicles are allowed to travel in any direction when they have a green light (no filter light/lanes), as this is the most commonly occurring situation in towns in the US I think. Not including states where there is a propensity for 'no left turn' intersections.

In the US, this would mean two phases, with each one being a shared pedestrian and vehicle phase, pedestrians crossing in parallel to traffic. In the UK this would be three phases, two traffic and one dedicated pedestrian phase.

I personally prefer the UK system, as in the US as a pedestrian you are at the whim of drivers paying attention to pedestrian traffic, and even if they don't hit you they may well start turning the corner to pressure you to hurry up.

-----


I think the confusion here is that in the UK there is a separate phase for drivers turning left into the junction, whereas in the U.S. drivers can turn right across the path of crossing pedestrians. Obviously the UK system is a lot safer.

-----


I've never seen or heard of that in the UK: if the green man shows, no vehicle can cross the path. It's quite common for traffic to be moving while some part of the crossing is green, but they wouldn't be allowed to use that lane. Indeed, pedestrians will regularly cross at red man - that's allowed, and people know they need to look out in all directions.

All-red phases are a slightly different issue, and indeed, not all crossings have them

-----


Normally after the pedestrian countdown is finished the light turns yellow, then red for traffic moving in the same direction. Traffic in the perpendicular direction then gets a green light making it unsafe for pedestrians to cross.

The issue is that vehicles moving in the same direction as the pedestrians can also see the pedestrian countdown and can use that information to determine approximately how much longer their own vehicle light will remain green.

The article suggests that that different drivers interpret the countdown information differently than the green/yellow/red lights and more specifically, and unlike the colored lights, different drivers interpret the countdown timer differently (some see 3 seconds and speed up, others see 3 seconds and slow down).

-----


The article is correct, and it is a real phenomenon in LA where I live.

To address your question, which I (humorously) don't really get -- the pedestrians who have the countdown and the cars are moving parallel to each other. The drivers and the peds are both looking in the same direction at the countdown timer.

-----


Presumably there is a way to challenge this though. If the court ordered Microsoft to produce a square circle could they still be found in contempt for failing to do so?

-----


There is an advantage to using firstname@lastname.com and that is if google decides to block your gmail account you aren't completely screwed. You can simply change the MX record for your domain, point it at a different service provider and continue getting the email sent to you.

-----


True, but besides the point. The problem is users are conditioned to think that personal addresses don't exist beyond the big e-mail providers. "Not GMail or Yahoo? You, sir, are a liar, such e-mail address can not possibly exist!" (that is an exaggerated version of what I get with firstname@lastname.com: "so, firstname.lastname@gmail.com?" "no, firstname, at, lastname, dot, com." "so, firstname, dot, lastname, dot, com, at, gmail, dot, com?" ...)

-----


If they start flagging mail from your domain as spam you'll have the opposite problem.

-----

More

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: