alan_cx

"And then met a girl the very next day (not kidding) that I really hit it off with when I wasn't looking"

This, IMHO, is the best advice. I remember the Dalai Lama's advice about finding happiness. How do I find happiness? "Stop lookin, be happy", he said.

Same with dating. How do I find a date? Stop looking. More exactly, live life, and in time, you'll meet someone.

Part of the reason why is that someone sort of on the hunt isn't that attractive, because such a person isn't being totally natural, or themselves. The dating game becomes false. That is subtly there to see, and is a turn off. If not then what you get is potentially two false people under pressure to maintain something.

Yeah, I know, it can't work for all, circumstances, time, and all that. But so far, regardless of who I have passed this notion on to, regardless of their situation, in time, its worked. And worked solidly.

Unfortunately, this is something people do get fretful about, and then decide something has to be done.

Im kind of introverted and have no problem. I use another part of my personality, stubbornness. I have a price Im prepared to pay, and am always prepared to walk out if its not acceptable to the dealer. Last car I bought from a dealer was second hand, was advertised for, IIRC, £5k, (Might have been £6k, but I err on the side of caution) I paid £4k. I told them all I had was £4k. I even turned down £4,100 and got up to leave.

I think one problem is that people get wedded to the car before they go to the dealer, are too excited to be totally rational, and get swept along by the salesman. Being introverted might be an advantage.

Yeah, you're not wrong.

Its quite odd, and fascinating, because it has the info you'd want to see, give it a second or two, and it does look purposely designed. But, yes, it looks like a parked domain page. Or at the very least, hints at one.

I guess its one of those instances where no one sort of blinked and saw it how we are seeing it... if you know what I mean. Same sort of thing that happens when a song writer writes a song they genuinely thought was original, only to find out they has dragged up something from their subconscious that they heard before. I bet if at some point someone said, hey, that looks like a parked domain page the designers would have immediately seen it too.

What I think needs to exist is a similar protection government has, national interest. I think there should be, in all democracies, a defence of national interest. The law should never be allowed to obstruct the truth.

"If you believe in the Rule of Law"

You do know how loaded that statement is, right? It can not work in isolation. For it to work, you must also believe in the court's ability to fairly apply this rule of law, and in the people who create the laws in the first place. No rational person can believe in the rule of law in isolation.

For example, dictators create laws to protect their own power, worse, to defeat any opposition. Would you ask someone who lives under the rule of a dictator is they believe in the rule of law?

Hmmm. On one hand, its OTT, but on the other hand, people walking about with an attached camera that may well be always recording is going to cause real problems.

These things are potentially a gross invasion of privacy. They might be very cool tech for the wearer, but frankly Im not prepared to have my privacy potentially compromised so that some one else can have some cool augmented reality. I don't understand how on one hand the NSA is all evil, but some geezer walking round with a camera that could be recording any of us without our knowledge or permission, with the potential to publish these videos on the internet for an entire world to see, is somehow perfectly fine. These things remind me of the hacked up kit pervert voyeurs use to film women in compromising positions. I couldn't care less about people potentially pirating films in cinemas, but if these people start film me going about my personal business, Im telling you, there will be trouble. Thing is, if I see some one possible filming me with one of these things, the law is no use. The person filming me is anonymous and can easily go, leaving me and a lawyer no one to prosecute. I have no choice, I have to grab the guy and his kit. I then want this guy forced to give up all his personal information so that I can be sure he has not uploaded the video somewhere. All of which, as we know is at least technically problematic. Wont be long until people wearing these things will become targets just for wearing them. Only takes 1 or 2 Fox News sensationalist, exaggerated stories, and wearers will become seen as threats. The stories dont even need to be true, just true enough, feasible enough.

I think people are displaying a hypocritical double standard here. Its Ok for the cool kids to invade our privacy, but not the NSA? These cool kids can actually cause normal people more humiliation and damage than the NSA. AFAIK, the NSA has not released a video of a private citizen walking in to a glass door in to the public for humiliating laughs. People wearing these things can, and will. Yes, this has been possible for years, but these google things will make it mainstream and vastly increase the potential for this.

Trust me, there is a whole lot of trouble waiting to burst out.

Im not suggesting banning these things, they clearly have huge value. What Im saying is that society needs to have a serious debate about use and there lines are drawn. What is criminal and what is reasonable.

Really? This is new to you? Really? I mean..... really?

You noticed the NSA thing where the USA harasses the ENTIRE WORLD on line, right? Did you miss that?

Really?

Hilarious. Bet you didn't expect all those references, aye? ;)

Oh, new term : "Cite Troll" Which Im defining as someone who doesnt like something written, so knee jerks in to demaing citations.

@Of_Prometheus

You're hellbanned. Wouldn't normally bother to say anything, but you've gone to a lot of effort there, and most won't see it.

Yes. Assuming a "pack" is 20 joints. Easily. I know by name plenty of people who treat joints like cigarettes.

Personally, I think a big part of the problem is the tobacco in the joint. I'd like to see a safe or safer tobacco replacement for rolling joints with. I know they are other ways to consume pot, a joint is the most convenient. All the things you can do with a ciggy on the go, you can do with a joint on the go. <HNHumourbypasstag>Driving for example.....</HNHumourbypasstag>

No. Microwaves are a general cooking thing, and relatively new. Not considered necessary. Tea, in the UK, is so ingrained in the culture, and has been around so long, that kettles are almost like cutlery. I can't imagine a house or business in the UK without one. Hell, you even find kettles in vans out on site. Where there is a Brit, with in about 20m, you'll find a kettle, and a tea bag.

The only exception to that could well be from recent immigrants. They may not be in to tea in the same way, and may not be so wedded to the kettle. Even then, one British thing immigrants quickly pick up, possibly to help integrate, its drinking tea.

In short, dont mess with the British and our tea.

Oh, BTW.

Im British, I can't stand tea. Nasty foul bitter bile. Who the hell likes this stuff? Surely only sadists actually like tea? I like coffee.....

Yeah. In fact, my current kettle cost £2.99. That was 6 ish months ago.

I buy them, and treat them as throwaway. They seem to last as long as £30 ish kettles, so why bother spending more? My cheapo ones last about a year, then I just get a new one. Awful for the environment, but there you go.

To me it reads like the usual right wing rhetoric, and that any tax collection is some form of evil socialism. Not quite sure how these people expect their flag waving military, for example, to be funded without the big corporation paying their fair share, but there you go.

Never understood why many Americans don't see paying tax as the ultimate act of patriotism, paying for the country they claim to love. They love the country, but resent paying for it. How does that work? Are they the ultimate freetards?

Me too. The picture looks like a publicity shot for a SWAT based sitcom. I mean, it doesn't 'arf bolster the fat american stereotype.

Tongue in cheek, but I think there might be a point here struggling to see the light of day...

Why? I mean, why would women want to get into coding?

If one is not already working with computers, from the outside world, its a crappy job, and the money isn't better than many other things. Not to mention the insane hours culture. Women have a clean sheet choice. Why work in an office, killing your brain on hugely complex things for not much extra money, sat in front of what is essentially a complex toy?

Has it ever occurred to people that perhaps girls take an objective choice based on purely the work and reward (money or psychological) and make a wise choice to do something else?

Also, coders are seen widely was geeky, spotty, awkward, weirdos, who cant get laid. And, um, they are often banging on about getting more women in the workplace. From a girls POV, that's sounding a bit iffy at best.

My attitude is to just let women do what they want to do, and if I get a CV from one, well, I dont want to know if its a woman or not. I just want the skills. I dont care if its a man, woman, or what ever. Just don't get in anyones way and let nature take its course.

But personally, I cant help thinking women are making a smart choice, and going for better way to spend life earning a crust. I mean, really, look at what we do. Its a terrible way to be. And we know this is true because even the big tech companies go out of their way trying to make offices and environments fun and exciting. And that is for men. Heh, even men hate it, and need a bouincy toy to distract them!!! I don't see many of other companies going this far. Why? Because the job is awful.

So, men, stop trying to shit up womens lives by making them feel bad for not wanting to work down the mine.... sorry, code.

XXXXX love you all, obviously ;)

Just my personal thoughts as a hiker; not a hacker, HNer or what ever.

Firstly: Dont be disheartened by my criticism which will follow. Its a decent first attempt, the idea is absolutely worth working on, and could become a valuable resource for a lot of people. On to the criticism....

What goes in the search? Are hikes named? Do I need to know the name to search for? Search for a location? From the first page, what do I expect from the site?

I click discover. Nice pictures. Click one. A description. I expected a map and what not. Not a big blob of text. Why not trail mini map?

As after a few click I didn't see anything useful, I gave up.

I don't initially see what the site is doing or offering. First think I think of looking for hikes is a map of the hike, where it is and the route itself. That tells me a hell of a lot in one go. Where it is, the terrain, length, and so on. Having seen that, then I want information.

I would add a defined difficulty level. Family hike? Casual hike? Hike for the experienced? What kit level? Do I need more than boots? And so on.

UI. Now, I don't like the flat design thing. Thats me. But, I was relieved to see you didn't got the the awful for ever scrolling down thing. So, this "asshole" (I was called that here for not liking those sites) is happy about that!!! But, on a serious note, in my experience, hikers tend to be older, and it might be that a more traditional site would be better suited. I dont know, but it might be worth trying to understand who is likely to use your site and find out what sort of UI they like to use. Or maybe offer a couple of skins ot layouts, one for trendy people and one for us old crusties.

Personally, I think the whole thing need a fundamental re-think, from landing page onwards. It is great idea. Hiking is an area which could do with a damn good info source. IMHO, there are a lot of problems. But, like I said, keep working on it. Its worth it, and I can see you do seem to have the skills to make it work.

Personally, I look forward to V2. Best of luck. It is a good idea, had huge potential, and I'd like to see it progress.

I assume every single one has bias of some description. Problem is, they are all written by humans. I think most are an attempt at some sort of honesty, but with the best will in the world, they are always going to problems....

Hang on... Have I been whooshed? Was that meant to be amusingly naive?

Hip.

Just sayin.

Ego. In my experience, most problems come down to ego.

To go back to blackmail arguments elsewhere...

I hope people see from this that if the OP or any of his friends decides to enter politics, they are compromised. They have strong reason to believe the NSA has dirt on them, and that if they speak out about the NSA in a way the NSA feels threatened, there is information that could be leaked to discredit them. So, will they risk all the good they might be able to do elsewhere to tackle the NSA? And this is merely the compromising information the OP remembers... and wants to tell HN about, or considers compromising. Once the likes of Fox News twist things up, even the genuinely innocent can be spun as vile and evil.

Sure, buying a bit of weed might not be as devastating as other things, but there its the point, there is the mechanism of control. And none of it involves or requires NSA goons inviting one to a parking lot at 2am for a quiet word.

It's used in the same sense that people would say that the CIA 'rendered' people?

While I do get lost as to where the current hate is, is it not Java, rather than javascript, which is currently hated?

The OP knows there is no evidence, hence the use of the phrase "every reason to believe". It is believed to be true using reason, not evidence. Its a best deduction.

Your demand for evidence and facts is bogus, since there cant really be any. What we are talking about is what goes on in the mind of an individual. We cant prove that. But we do know that, for want of a better term, implied pressure to conform works. Its the same reason belief in a god works. God knows all and will punish us if we don't follow his rules. So, if we believe in the god/NSA, we do what is wanted because we don't want to be punished.

We know people act like this. We know it is possible that the NSA has information that might damage us, or ones we love. We know what the NSA wants. Therefor we have reason to believe someone who might want to control the NSA won't out of personal fear.

A reasonable deduction, based on what is known and history. No, sorry, no evidence. That one of the nice things about blackmail, there usually isn't because the victim obviously doesn't want to be outed.

Yes, of course the elected officials are victims in this, potentially. But as elected officials, with the power of democracy, they are, IMHO, duty bound to put that aside. Not doing so is selfish cowardice. Some one has to be as brave as Snowden, and I don't see that in our elected officials.

One thing about that is that if it was suddenly announced overnight, the value of weed could crash. Given that a lot, if not most, weed trade is on credit, (they take the weed, pay the supplier once its sold on,) most dealers would be left with debt and devalued weed to try to settle it. Actually could get rather nasty.

"> The NSA said the technology has not been used in computers in the US. The NSA! The NSA says. And yet I bet a lot of people read that as if the "leak says" or something along those lines, and they probably believed it."

A leak is, if verified, is both allegation and proof. The leak would be an actual NSA document, which the NSA didn't want made public. If they did, its wouldnt be a leak, it would be public record. If the leak was not true, it would not be a leak, it would be a lie, a fiction. The NSA don't even claim that. So, yes, we believe the leak.

A statement by the NSA is simply what they want to say. It cant be proven or verified, you have to take their word for it. Now, if the NSA were to release verifiable documented proof, then we would have to consider that. But it still is not as powerful as a real leak. It can't be because a NSA release has potential for manipulation since they are the source of the release.

Yes, real leaks from a given source are much more believable than statements from that source. Which is why, time to time, governments like to release information in the form of a leak. So, we do have to be very careful about where leaks come from. In the case of Snowden's leaks, I believe we can be sure that they are real and not a very clever manipulation by the NSA or US government.

So, yes, a lot of people would believe the "leak says" over "the NSA says". Rightly too.

Given how in bed with the USA my country the UK is, yes, I would suggest that. I might be wrong, but I would very much make that suggestion.

My problem ultimately, as a Brit, is that it seems that we are more and more becoming a satellite of the US, bound by US law and ideals we never ever voted for. We had a referendum on the EU, but never a referendum for all this. But of course that is a British matter and not something the US should be concerned with. If we Brits want to suck up to the US, why would the US turn it down?

I think that what has happened is a nasty mission creep with regard to intelligence. Its used to be all about threats to a given country. The basic point was to understand the intentions of one's enemies. This was and is vital in preventing mistaken action based on not knowing that an enemy has no plan to, say, invade, or what ever. It was based on the idea that knowledge helps prevent paranoia and fear. All of which is not just OK, but vital. It is why in the cold war, both sides accepted this in a gentlemanly way. Both knew it was vital to both to stop both nuking each other. If the USSR said it would not start a war, the West could verify that by spying and have confidence. And vice versa. Now it seems that a lot of it is about gaining advantage in commerce, and local law enforcement. Its fine to say that the NSA has nothing to do with this, but we know that they give access to the FBI and police. We can reasonably believe that its quite possible that the NSA also gives intelligence to large businesses like Lockheed. What has happened is that economic and local criminal issues are now redefined as matters of national security. The lines have not just blurred, but completely crossed over, perhaps gone completely.

As a result, I think we need to re-examine the role and scope of intelligence gathering. Spying needs credibility. And yes, there is a severe danger of throwing out babies in the bathwater. But ultimately, if the people lose confidence in intelligence gathering, we are in a whole lot of trouble. It is vital to get the balance right.

I know what you mean. Worse still, you need to be a lawyer to understand it. I started on it and ground to a halt, and I do have some limited experience of dealing with legal paperwork.

And of course, while I appreciate the need for precise legally robust language in these things, it use does create a barriers to general understanding.

I dont know how it could be funded, but I'd love to see a service where these sorts of documents are boiled down to something the average person can understand with out a law degree.

Oh please. This line of logic can be abused such that for their own good, as preventative measure, all Muslims could be on a no fly list. And the great bit about that is that if Muslims cant fly it protects them from accusations of terrorism. Its for their own good, you see....

In fact, this logic completely justifies what the NSA are doing.

Cheap until to see the mooring fees, and various add ons, in London. Even on the outskirts in places like Kingston upon Thames, once you add in all the fees, boats are not that much cheaper. That said, given the choice between a boat and some poky flat in London, for me it has to be the boat every time.

I assume there are different reasons for people fearing public speaking. But, FWIW, my thing is to really and fully know the subject you are talking about. For me, the nervousness comes from the fear of being found out in some way. So, I find that if I know my subject, Im quite happy to waffle on to who ever wants to listen, but if I know or think the audience might know more than me and be able to some how show me up to be some sort of fraud, Im a bag of nerves.

I dont know if that works for anyone else, but my theory is that the nerves come for the fear of somehow looking a fool, and that becomes less likely the more you know about what you are talking about.