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

Everyone, has something to hide.


Backblaze for persistent cloud backup.

Semi-Manual (I need to dock my latptop and plug in the drives)

Weekly copy to external HDs (at home) using SyncBack


I backup by hand my FileZilla profiles, Google Docs, project management web app (XML file).

I get tons of these WHOIS emails as I build websites for small businesses. The last ICANN email I see regarding WHOIS data accuracy said the following (GoDaddy)

"If you find that your domain contact data is current and accurate, there's no need to take action. If, however, your domain contact information is inaccurate, you must correct it."

This was sent on May 5th - when does this new policy take effect or does it only effect when you renew/transfer/register?

Edit: I RTFA again and see that the date is June 23rd(?)

It's June 23rd because that's when EasyDNS renews its accreditation. It would be different for other registrars.

OVH also just sends an email that you can ignore if the information is accurate.

The email you received was a "friendly reminder" to make sure your registrant contact information is accurate. It is officially called a Whois Data Reminder Policy email.

If it was accurate, GoDaddy is correct - there is nothing further for you to do.

If, on the other hand, the email they sent you would've bounced back as undelivered then you would've ended up into the next phase. "Click this within 15 days or else."

In fact, GoDaddy in particular (used to?) charge you $25 as a penalty if they determine that your whois information is incorrect. That's the reason I took my domains elsewhere.

Let's not forget about SOPA/PIPA/OTHER_PA which godaddy famously support.

Oh wow, OK thanks for the tidbit - I will be in the lookout for my clients - many of whom barely know where they registered t heir domain, let alone the accuracy of their WHOIS contact data.

Some registrars do it differently to minimise the junk that gets sent out. For instance, the registrar I work for groups domains by email address when sending out WDRP emails, so if you have, say, ten domains with the same expiration date, you only get one email.

That email you got out was a WDRP email; the WHOIS Accuracy Program is a different policy.

I laughed at this "Think about what you did" - I've been a bad WordPress dev :(

No mention of backups, but that can at least save you from some of the freak out - assuming your site isn't changing more frequently then your backup scheme.

Daily backups are nice, but the problem might not be detected immediately - so snapshots (week, month, 6 month) are advisable.

Re. Backups:

check out rsync's "--link-dest" option. It's amazing.

Alternatively, this is one thing that version control could help with. Set up a cron job to check for changes every day and commit if needed.

httrack is also very nice! I found it more comprehensive than wget's recursive mode, but I haven't compared it to rsync --link-dest.

Those tools do a very different type of job (archiving generated html). Rsync is just file transfer.

I see backups more suitable for a slighlty different topic. Something like "how to take care of your website" where there would be db otpmization, recurring backups, daily & monthly snapshots, etc.

I'm not so sure. When shit goes wrong, backups are not directly part of "solving the problem" but they are a part of the process, an essential one that can mitigate losses and provide developers with a clear path forward.

Good article though - and you're right backups probably deserve their own focused article.

thanks man!

I always wanted some tripwire feature on wordpress hosts. You'd see quite fast who managed to poke to your install.

There are numerous logging plugins, and security plugins that can email you when anyone does anything on a WP site. However, it's usually not someone else who broke it, and normally is due to plugins/themes/core updates.

I remember trying a few, but ... I don't know, I wanted to have an independent isolated component.

It's a good point - a plugin that logs access won't work if you can't access the WP admin! If you move up outside of the WP environment you get into the hosting/server world and the solutions become vendor specific.

I would imagine there is (or should be) a third-party backup and logging solution that keeps the data offsite but works host-independent.

How can one party be a "jackass" if both cars are autonomous?

What if jackass in question installs a mod that makes the car drive faster (and therefore more accident-prone)?

As with current insurance, if you mod your car without telling them they will invalidate your insurance.

Once you do tell them you've altered the programming on the cars computer they are more than likely to tell you to find someone else crazy enough to insure you.

The self drive feature of a car is about to get very proprietary, like a flight system there is going to be assurances that the software the manufacturer installed is the same one that's running. Crash investigators are going to have a tonne of information from these cars (Assuming they don't blow up in a Michael Bay style crash).

I have no intention of ever traveling in an autonomous road vehicle. So the GP's question stands: why should I have to pay for Tesla's firmware bugs?

You're under the assumption you'll still be able to afford insurance for a non-autonomous vehicle, something I find unlikely if self driving cars are as safe as they've already proven to be in the million+ miles they've driven.

Use of self driving cars hockeysticks-># of human drivers plummets->premiums skyrocket for remaining human drivers.

You do realise that 1 million miles is an infinitesimal sample size, right? According to the US DOT, in the past 12 months vehicles have traveled just over 3 trillion miles on US roads[0]. It's also worth mentioning that substantially all of those autonomous miles were on freeways, which also happen to be the safest roads for human drivers. It's simply not possible to draw any meaningful conclusion from such a data point.

[0] http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/DOT-Miles-...

We don't have to quibble on data points; autonomous vehicles will continue to get better, at a faster rate than humans can get better at driving (or actually, you know, concentrate on it instead of eating, using their cellphone, texting, and so on).

Humans aren't obsolete yet, but we're well on our way.

We'll have to agree to disagree. You can put your life in the hands of firmware and I can stay home, and we'll see who lives longest.

I put my life in the hands of firmware every time I fly, at 500mph in commercial aircraft. Hundreds of thousands of miles, seems to have worked fine.

Right now, in a lot of states, you can just post a bond in place of having insurance.

It also might work out that self driving vehicles end up reducing the rates for human drivers. I think a lot of road risk actually comes from a small pool of drivers, who will tend to be the most eager to stop insuring themselves. So even if if the pool of human drivers shrinks a lot, the risk involved could lead to lower rates than we see today.

My criticism is of no-fault used today.

From a futurist perspective, I imagine there might be scenarios of people taking manual control and causing an accident or manufacturers writing bad software. Imagine if Toyota's newest update causes 10x as many crashes. Why should I subsidize their incompetence via my personal insurance premiums?

If autonomy happens, ideally, the car companies should be paying insurance. The same way they pay for warranty. Its all in their control and its an incentive to keep them honest and care about making cars that don't crash.

"Why should I subsidize their incompetence via my personal insurance premiums?"

If you think about that, that hardly even makes sense. "Incompetence" has been a perfectly normal part of the insurance package for a long time. I assure you measurable amounts of what you've paid in insurance have already gone to "incompetence".

That seems to be the solution. I hate no fault because I trust a stranger only as long as he will suffer consequences of his actions, and under no fault there are none.

Even if we have a no fault insurance scheme for only unmodded autonomous cars that means the manufactures have no incentives to make their cars safer.

Do people really drive differently depending on the insurance environment? I don't care what kind of insurance I have, I don't want my neck broken.

Moral hazards are real things.


I imagine there are many personality types who only behave because it would cost them too much to misbehave. My gut feeling is that this is probably 80% of the population.

Not much in the way of face protection. In the linked video provided by another HNer I see the face gets some protection from the "visor" but not all falls are perfect faceplants on flat surfaces.

In the "culture" of racing/biking - a biker with a "bucket" helmet is a sure sign that the rider is more concerned with vanity than safety (is is just a noob)

Sounds like you're talking about motorcycle helmets instead of bicycle helmets.

Depending on the type of biking you do, bicycle helmets have face protection: https://www.google.com/search?q=downhill+bike+helmet&espv=2&...

They look like motocross helmets, but are much thinner and lighter.

Light on content but had a neat riddle (I actually "solved" or guessed it pats self on back)

"You're standing on the surface of the Earth," Musk begins, according to the book. "You walk one mile south, one mile west, and one mile north. You end up exactly where you started. Where are you?"

Answer in the article.

This riddle doesn't look hard at all (solved it nearly instantly after reading it), but I'm not sure I could provide an instant answer during such stressful conditions as mentioned in the article.

That's what I thought when I first read it (how easy) but then realized that under stress, expecting an impossible mind teaser, a nervous applicant might mess it up.

Depends if where you started is based on coordinates or a location on the ice, and how long it takes you to walk the distance.

I would do nearly anything to work for him in cali.

I picked a client at random (typical small business in the US) and see a 54% drop in IE8 and a 32% drop in IE9 usage year over year.

IE11 represented the most traffic (for IE users) and it grew by 346%.

Sessions from IE users overall were down 15% for the same period.

Source: Google Analytics

I wonder how this handles obstacles. The trails we ride are not wide open ski slopes, or rivers, often times they are tight/wooded trails. Would like to see how it handles "close following".

Lastly, the part in the video where the guy just tosses it into the river was definitely mind-blowing.


This is the big reason people don't buy these types of drones (this one certainly isn't the first of it's kind).

It doesn't have obstacle avoidance or it will make a massive deal of it.


Intel last keynote demoed very capable drones. They're showing it off, it won't be long until it hits the market. They named the components RealSense, a miniature kinect I guess. Nice demo at 4:55:



RealSense uses projected IR and thus doesn't work outdoors.

(edit: because short-range and little ambient IR are required)


Except the end of that video shows it working in a forest... https://youtu.be/Us0BqJvsF9k?t=6m14s

OK, that's cool. I stand corrected. Clearly it can work outdoors in some circumstances. IR texture projectors get washed out by ambient IR from the sun. Thus the choice of a shady forest for the very nice demo. People have also used Kinect outdoors in the evening, etc.

But in the general case you can't rely on this approach because sun.

> because sun.

That's a fair point. So RealSense will probably work at night, in a shady forest (like the demo) or maybe the shady side of a mountain, but as soon as the sun is involved IR becomes unusable. I don't suppose you could switch the other side of the visible spectrum and do UV cameras, could you? Having your data reduced to one dimension per pixel really makes the AI easier.

There's a lot of UV in sunlight too. Hence sunscreen. Many birds can see it. Some birds have patterns on them that are only visible in UV. Fun facts.

Thanks for the tip. Are there any portable technology that would work outdoors ?


Vision works for animals, and a lot of people are working very hard to do it for computers. Google "UAV visual SLAM" for examples.

LIDAR works already but is heavy, power hungry and expensive. Not good for these small vehicles.


Yeah, I pictures a Google Drone laughing.


stereo vision, structure from motion, animals use both


Now shipping in mobile phone size - http://www.pcworld.com/article/2907352/intel-shrinks-realsen...

Shame the dev kit only has Windows support.


Confirms my thoughts, it really is a miniature Kinect-like kit.


I probably have no clue what I am talking about, but wouldn't it be sorta like steering forces?

Seek A Avoid B

In your case, a ton of Bs in terms of leaves, branches and etc.

I guess it would need a wide scan to detect if there is a path either vertically or horizontally.


It is a hard robotics problem. Saying that "it would need a wide scan" is a vast underestimation. Try looking up some papers on obstacle avoidance. Also, consider the costs of sticking the additional sensors on the robot, processing that data in realtime, and still powering the whole thing.


I am guessing the biggest problem is the noise. Yeah, it's easy to figure out if there is a giant wall standing in front of you, but what about snow that constantly blocks its lens? Some leaves may be attached to tree so it might be required to circumvent, but some might not even be worth circumventing if it's just a piece of leaf falling.


Well, (A) has a tracking device. All the (B)s don't. If they did, then yeah, this would work.



Yeah but I am thinking it has some sort of an scanner, sorta like self-parking cars do :).

So once it Avoids (Steers away) B it can continue to Seek (Steers toward) A with the tracking device.

Obviously depends on how well the scanner to pickup obstacles work. You would need some sort of a heat map to detect leaves or branches.


maybe someone can pull it off with ultra sound? Those can be pretty cheap.


Probably won't have much resolution for leaves. I've used ultrasonic transducers for a college class project almost 15 years ago. Ultrasound worked great for hard surfaces like walls, but softer materials like clothing reduced its range of detection. Snow covered trees, I think will have a similar signature that would be hard to detect except at close range. With a UAV, it could be done, but it'd have to be moving pretty slow I think. You'll probably have better luck with some sort of optical system.


I see it the other way around. This could help humans handle obstacles, at least if it could launch itself automatically and when it's a bit smaller so that it's really easy to carry around.

African American males could carry it. Then, when police was nearby it could launch itself. Maybe it would be triggered by the sound of sirens or if there is a website that tracks police cars, maybe it could launch every time they are near. Or maybe an apple watch could detect fear from differences in pulse and then launch it. Maybe some other trigger

A future, self launching, slightly smaller version of this could be a great protector of civil rights.


This is not a bad idea.

Women could carry it if they run at night and if they don't make it home it could fly to a police station.

Parents could send them out with their kids.


That would enable the truest form of helicopter parenting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_parent)


It's been enabled already... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240860/Father-build...


I heard the phenomenal term "curling parenting" the other day, where the kid is the stone and the parents are the two people frantically working to reduce the friction in front of it.


This is a colossally stupid idea. How is this better than someone having a cellphone? Are you always holding it outstretched on your hand, anticipating a cop to drive by any second? Or can it crawl out of your pocket to defend your civil rights?


Or perhaps mounted on top of an ACLU baseball hat?


Police do not react well to being filmed. What will likely happen is that your drone will be confiscated as "evidence" or destroyed. Its not as if cell phones do not exist to fill the same role here.


The ACLU makes an app that streams the video recording to an Internet server in real-time at the best possible quality given your data speed. It will also upload the full video when possible without additional action.


Im sure you can do that with a phone. Im not sure what the drone adds to the equation.

Wonder if you can buy a few and tell them to follow each other.


You could probably just duct tape the tracking device to another drone. Looping them together like ants would be cool! :D.


Tape the last drone's tracker to the first drone, and launch them all at once. I'd pay to see that video :-)


How much would you be willing to pay? For about 5 grand I could make this a reality some time around February 2016! Interested?


This is the true hacker mentality right here


The FAQ says they're working on having multiple cameras follow one person


I wonder how well it will work for surfing. Probably great for small crumblers and open faces; probably not so great at the Right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_N_-vxfz4uw . Can you imagine how sick it would be to get this thing to follow in a tube at Teahupoo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7w... !!


do you surf? Have you ever experienced the push of air that develops from a closing / collapsing tube?


yes, yes [i assume you mean either getting spit out, or closed out on]. drones are starting to make inroads here too, but it is still mainly remote stuff, taken from afar and manually controlled by someone on the beach. something like this at jbay would be amazing.

Yeah. I kiteboard and I would love to make some images using Lilly. But I'm pretty sure eventually Lilly may crash into the lines or kite.


Ugh thinking of that gave me shudders. Kiting is dangerous enough without these things flying around, I would definitely give someone a piece of my mind if they started flying a drone in a busy spot.


Same. Also curious about the max wind speed it can handle


> rivers

I'm a rower so fortunately I won't have the obstacles issue. In fact, these could be great for rowing coaches who can put the controller in the boat then get close up to the rower/crew without needing oversized launches that wash everyone else down.

20 mins might be a problem, but I don't see it as insurmountable.


The biggest showstopper for me on this is the hugely disappointing top speed (40 km/h). I'm an alpine skier (ex-racer) and the only times I go that slow is on transport stages. This thing literally wouldn't be able to keep up with Usain Bolt running the 100m. It needs at least twice the top speed.


That's actually pretty speedy for a quad, especially to remain stable. If you want to race at 100MPH and have gyro-stabilized video you should get a helicopter and a camera crew.

I for one would prefer the aerial robot following me to not be traveling at 60MPH. That's asking for a serious injury.


Well, I would imagine a lot of your speed is downward right? Then it's a matter of a controlled decent really. I'd guess that would increase the top speed of the device as it's really just falling out of the sky and steering.


It's electronically limited to 40 km/h, so I don't think so.


Usain Bolt does around 38 km/h


Not for 20 minutes.


Yeah, but I bet he accelerates faster.

Edit: he accelerates from standstill at 9.5 m/s^2. I couldn't find data on what drones do.


Drones usually accelerate quite rapidly (electric motors and all).


Well electric motors can accelerate rapidly, but if they're pulling something heavy, all you'll get is rapidly spinning electric motors and a slowly rising object.


Still, that's zero to 95% of top speed in one second (or 5 meters).


It's not hard to make a quad fly 150km/h - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JO85qrlUqkw.

Obviously gets quite dangerous in populated areas like ski slopes.


Maybe you can send it ahead of you and instead of following you it just shoots as you come towards it?


Not to mention that the speed (+-) is variable by the wind speed.


> I wonder how this handles obstacles.

According to the creators v1 doesn't handle obstacles at all due to time and cost. I'm sure a later version can be made to do so; I feel like it should be far easier to do in a 3D space versus a flatted space like ground vehicles.


I guess the drone wouldn't be able to launch from the water if it had landed upside-down?

(As a concept, this is amazing - excited to see how well it works in practice.)


Waterproof will be amazing safety for kitesurfing and surfing in general, quadcopters are super cool, but you don't want to drop one in salty water. There are already techie stuff for kiters, we use the Woo device and gopros a lot.

Most areas have a club to keep members under control (irresponsible kiting can be dangerous to people not in the sea, unlike surfing) ... our club is keen on getting Woos, GoPros, webcams, internet enabled wind-o-meters etc... Hope they decide to get one of these!!


I can't imagine that propellers play nicely with kites...


if you could but a beacon of the leading edge of the kite and setup a NO GO zone between the remote and the kite's beacon that would solve that issue.


Sounds good in theory, but in practice kites can move really fast when manoeuvring or doing tricks. No guarantee that the drone would always avoid you successfully. You'd have to stay aware of where it is and where it's going, which would probably interfere with your kiting significantly.


Waterpoof also means we can start seeing drone footage from within rain storms.


I would think the wind in a storm would pose a challenge, but I'd love to see that.


Relatedly, I wonder what would happen if you turn it on and then walk inside a building...




No, that would be calling out the author by name as a shill. Remarking that the source the author is relying upon could possibly be biased/tainted is not an ad hominem in any way.


It could be considered an ad hominem attack on a study if OP had said "the source was funded by coffee sellers and therefore it's all false and incorrect". But that's not what's happening here anyway.


The OP is "implying" that based on who funded the research, this may be truthful. So while the claim was not made outright, it was insinuated.


If the strength of an argument depends partly on trusting the integrity of a source, why is doubting that integrity a fallacy?

In an ideal world you judge experimental results by their reproducibility, but who on HN has the time to reproduce results?


If all you are doing is casting reasonable doubt, that's fine. The logical fallacy arises when you point to the source of a proposition and declare that mouth that spoke it makes it false by nature. There's a big difference between "This pro-coffee study was funded by Big Coffee, so I'm skeptical and would like further studies and independent verification" and "This pro-coffee study was funded by Big Coffee, therefore the conclusion is false and coffee actually isn't good for you." Even if Big Coffee funded this report and benefited from its conclusions, the conclusions may very well still be valid; it would be a fallacy to reject this possibility outright.


Careful, OP isn't claiming that a lack of funding data makes the article false or inaccurate. The point is simply that (in OP's opinion) some of the most critical information needed to determine whether or not this article's conclusions should be taken seriously is missing. This is not an instance of an ad hominem fallacy.


I agree it wasn't a perfect fit - I'm not fluent enough in debate terminology to know, maybe this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy


I don't think there was a fallacy involved at all here. If in fact critical data is missing, then OP is right to point that out. This doesn't inherently negate the conclusions of the article (and claiming that it does would in fact be a fallacy), but I don't think OP was claiming that anyway.



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