skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Twitter's hit mainstream, and even turned into a verb. Google can't really compete on that, as their name is already a verb in a different area :-)
I think that Mundie's trial balloon has more to do with this part of his statement: the car has to pass a test to say it is fit to drive and you have to have insurance.

I will go out on a limb here and propose that the "Internet Driver's License" has more to do with gently guiding governments into requiring Windows, or at least non-free-software operating systems than it has to do with establishing identity, abolishing anonymity or any of the "Four Horsement of the Internet Apocalypse".
In Our Time: Unintended Consequences of Mathematics
> with ssh, I can even look at my mail from anywhere.

That's assuming you can get access to PuTTY and/or ssh from anywhere. :-P
Windows NT 4.0 running on Nokia N900
In addition, I know of no company who provides better spam and malware filtering.
Simple Mathematical Theory Explains Why Time Seems to Go Faster (Graph)
Why does every year seem shorter as we get older? It has to do with our perspective of time over our life. Check out this explanation and graph!
Looks like they want [...] Canvas (2D) to be stripped

Perhaps that Flash-not-needing paint demo made them sweat!
Here's one analysis, which while not all bad, is not particularly positive either: http://www.cfapubs.org/loi/doi/abs/10.2469/faj.v61.n6.2775
You're probably right but what would make them think this would be a tiny minority? Have these engineers never had ex-girlfriends?
Synthetic biology is a subtype of genetic engineering where the focus is on building up a set of modular parts that can be used to assemble "living machines" with (relatively) minimal effort. Think "Lego Mindstorms" for bacteria.
(NYC rules)

- Mention aloud that you see a rat

- Stare at or talk with the homeless guy/conspiracy theorist

- Make eye contact with other passengers for more than 500ms

- Hold or read something that has Arabic lettering on it

- Urinate

- Smile
They didn't, but the they were forced to setup something on their servers that allowed them to capture the keys (or something like that) in one particular instance, IIRC.
I'm not a fan of compatibilism mostly because their strategy seems to be to just redefine free will to be something very weak. Of course, most debates about free will are merely debates about what free will means.
It might not be obvious but I found that even though my profile is not "public", visitors who stumbled upon my Google Profile page could see who I was following / who was following me.

In the Edit Profile section, looks like "Display the list of people I'm following and people following me" is enabled by default.
Well, there's always Windows Live and Yahoo.
Running More Effective Board Meetings at Startups
For all of the complaints about the W3C and browser vendors and HTML5, there is something indisputable: this is the best time ever to be a web developer. Things are hardly perfect, but for the first time in many years the web is moving forward, and quickly. Browser vendors are adding exciting features, but even more exciting is that javascript frameworks have come forward to mask all the little problems and incompatibilities between browsers, leaving me to just develop.

I'm using HTML5 and CSS3 today, and it doesn't matter that the vendors can't agree on everything or that Microsoft refuses to implement features. We shouldn't stop trying to push forward, but we shouldn't forget how bad things were even just a few years ago. Modern web development is here, and it's awesome.
Don't let the FUD fool you. It's "active" in that you can see other people's buzz posts and you get a buzz item on the left menu, but until you create a public profile none of your information (such as follower/followee lists) has been made public.

For you (and others like you and I who picked 'no'), clicking 'turn off buzz' does seem to actually turn off the service for all intents and purposes. No info is made public. Sure, some people 'auto-follow' me, but only those who already had your email address. No real harm done.
More privacy tweaks coming to Google Buzz in response to Harriet Jacobs
I can see that, but the opposite approach seems even more absurd. Most of the physicists (and neuroscientists) who claim their work refutes or could potentially refute free will, seem to be using a definition of "free will" that's inherently magical. Something like: free will means that The Human Mind is an entity outside the universe, and can poke holes into the universe and move matter in a way that cannot be accounted for by the laws of physics.

If you start from that assumption, it seems like a foregone conclusion that free will doesn't exist.
It's not clear it's legal for Hushmail to do that. or so I'm told.
Because he's saying things which are obviously not true and could be verified as not true with a minimal amount of external research (by, for example, reading the text of the screenshot he posted).
Indeed, the question is whether things are improving...
The Age of Impossible Numbers
This makes me think: what should Google do to recover from this? People are angry, they feel violated and betrayed. It's a public relations disaster.

My opinion is that Google needs to draw a line under this whole issue. They need to hold up their hands say "you know what, we didn't realize what we were doing here but we get it now, this was wrong, we're sorry." And within hours of making that statement, pull the whole product off the Internet, and send massive bunches of flowers to the people worst and most publicly affected by the fiasco. In the end, Google is a company with a huge amount of our personal data who's success depends on us trusting them with that data. The precariousness of Google's possession of personal data is debated routinely. And so far a lot of those discussions conclude with someone citing their motto and impeccable past records (the China thing was awesome too). What now? Now, that record has been tarnished. At what cost should that record be maintained? I think killing off Buzz is a small price.

Google really needs to show everyone how seriously it takes people's privacy. I hope they don't miss this opportunity to demonstrate that.
"Double-edged sword" is typically used for these scenarios. But the meaning is more metaphysical than practical, suggesting that two blades facing opposite directions can do an equal amount of harm as good ("cuts both ways").

Oddly, the "Midas touch" fits the definition almost perfectly, but the phrase is almost always used to positively describe someone's uncanny success, ignoring the devastating effects it might have on the person's life.
It really is ridiculous. Seems Facebook is much worse when it comes to doing things you don't ask it to.

There are two things I see people getting frustrated about with Buzz.

1. It makes your name public and therefore allows people to search for you.

2. It's an unnecessary distraction.

If you are bothered by (1), then you are little out of the loop with regards to the state of privacy on the Internet in general. Basically, you need to get used to having your name out there. If you are bothered by (2) then you can turn it off.
I use RoundCube, and I'm very happy with it so far. It has a very active developer base, and it offers the closest thing to an email client experience. I'm currently working on an "Outlook" theme for it, which should be done soon.

My mail server stack looks like:

Linode + Postfix + Dovecot (w/mySQL & imap) + RoundCube + SpamAssassin + managesieve.

With this setup, I get more powerful mail filters than Gmail, a better webmail client than most ISPs, and spam controls that I can access directly from my webmail client.

It's not the easiest setup to pull off, though. I'll need to roll out a second one of these before long, and I'll try to write it up next time.

EDIT: Or for $5/month/domain (the same deal I give my clients), I'll give anyone unlimited domain email hosting, unlimited accounts, (practically) unlimited storage.
Hanlon's Razor comes to mind : "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

I doubt the google programmers are stupid but I would say that they probably were excited by the new feature that they are proud of and didn't think that people would want to opt out of it before even trying it.
Web2py book (2nd edition) released online
Not my personal company, the one I use... which is tiny.

They have treated me well, I have not noticed any downtime, but I am not very sensitive to that.

They also allow virtual domains, so I have three websites, two very low traffic, for the price of one.
Agreed...the system doesn't fully work. This is why people have to leave, create value, and then sell their companies back i.e. Vark
Bright Spot in News Corp’s Digital Media Group? IGN Entertainment
Corporate America Is More Pessimistic Than You Know
Yes that's what I meant. There is too much top down at all the major tech companies.

No one tells a pad manager at DE Shaw what to do. He either thrives or blows himself up and is fired.
According to you, urinating and reading something in Arabic bring on similar amounts of shame?
no-one has mentioned runbox - http://www.runbox.com/

that's who i was thinking of switching to (i want to be able to use google "anonymously", and it's tricky when also logged in to gmail). i scanned through the mail providers listed on wikipedia and that seemed the best. hosted in norway, iirc. surprised no-one else has mentioned it here, though.
If you pull down devel-threads from svn, add a couple of plugins, and tweak a few things, RoundCube IMO actually gets better than Gmail.
"If you see something, say something!"
> " . . .reinstate prosecutions for seditious libel."

A censor's wet dream, that.
What is a relationship of mutual benefit or dependence?
Disclosure: I wrote it.

That said, looking at the economics doesn't require, in my view, actual numbers. Because mostly when we look at the economics of private companies we don't have the actual numbers, or the ones that we have are very imperfect.

In this case, to estimate would have been nothing but pure speculation. With so many variables unknown, it didn't seem to make sense.

That said, if you or anyone else has those numbers and can build a model, I'd love to see it.
This would be a great move.

I have never considered paying for Prime beyond the free trials they sometimes run. But if they gave me a free Kindle, I'd sign up for it. I also know that I'd end up dropping ten bucks a pop for book-after-book-after-book.
"Inferring privacy preferences for new software, based on prior actions in old software, is a recipe for failure."

From this thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1121034

Anyways, here is my take. Buzz isn't a new product so much as it's a new feature of Gmail. It's as much a new product as any new feature of Gmail is. It's also tied into most of the areas Gmail is, and tied into the rest of Google, and uses Google Profiles.

Google made the assumption that because this wasn't so much a complete new product, but rather an extension to an existing one, that it should use existing permissions. And looking at it that way, I can easily see them doing what they did.

What they didn't suspect, or expect I'm sure, is that people would see it not as a Gmail feature, but rather as a completely different system unrelated to Gmail and rather, tacked onto it.

I can see how Google looks at Buzz as merely an extension to Gmail. Gmail is, after all, their communications tool, including email, chat, and eventually (we know this is coming), Wave. Buzz is merely another way to communicate, and because so much of Gmail already includes so many other connections, Buzz being a framework to share things that Email, Chat, and what not are effective at, they built it with a familiar way of doing things. They then assumed (and I'm assuming all of this, mind you) that because they were building on top of an existing structure, that much of the privacy concerns that have arisen were already in use by the people that were concerned with it.

So, the question is, not whether Google was right or wrong, but rather, where do we draw the line? When does a new feature become a new product that requires new permissions, and when is a feature merely a feature that can use existing permissions. After all, there is so much that they do add where we don't blink an eye or concern ourselves with permissions or privacy, despite the potential for problems down the line.

I understand what they did, and why they did it (if my assertions are correct). However, there is more to learn here than to just say "Make everything private." The reality is, most users make assumptions about privacy (this is excellent proof of that), and so do companies. I honestly don't think Google went with Buzz and said "Let's destroy users privacy." I also hope this heightens people's awareness to the state or privacy on the web.
Thats a fair analysis. I bet its less than $50M. Also there's a lot of wasted value by not allowing for autonomy. Look at MSFT http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/opinion/04brass.html?scp=2...
Ha! They say that you have to leave your job to be compensated fairly, but that's the most extreme example I can think of ;)
Well, we have sex ed in high school. How about net ed?
Should Apple buy Yahoo instead of partnering with Bing or Google?
Lots of talk recently about Bing becoming the default search engine on the iPhone, but that is just Apple handing control from one competitor to another.

If Yahoo! search is 'as good' as the other search products, doesn't Apple have the opportunity to gain a huge amount by buying Yahoo!?

Apple would end up with not only the search, but also the advertising, mail, and maps, along with many other media properties which could be used to feed the media side of Apple.
Thoughts?
The Optimizer
Precisely, which is the risk Google assumes. That said, at scale, the premium paid to buy them on an open market likely compares favorably to the expense of internally managing dozens if not hundreds of smaller projects.
Hack
how to get on myspace
Pitfalls of Object Oriented Programming (on modern hardware)
The valuing is tricky, but the M&A groups do it every day.
"The way to turn it off is a very small textual link in the footer of the page that says turn off buzz."

Important quote from http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10451703-2.html

"But all this does is remove active links, leaving your profile still publicly available, along with any public buzzes you might have made while trying Buzz out. In fact, you're still technically following people, and they're following you. Not OK."
Or chatroulette, which is a little of both.
Google is rolling out new privacy tweaks directly in response to this:

http://www.businessinsider.com/google-adding-two-privacy-fea...
It's a catchy name. They were smart to jump on it. One of the bands I linked is pretty heavy grunge metal and the other is an international singer songwriter, so I think their net is pretty wide.
Begging for disruption: where biotech, grassroots, and microfunding overlap
Symbiosis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis
Thank you for pointing this out. This entire Google Buzz is infiltrating my privacy BS has got to stop.
I think a lot of kids get their "sex ed" via the net, these days.
Wi-Fi Turns Rowdy Yellow Bus Into Rolling Study Hall
Absolutely, I use Google for pretty much everything and trust them implicitly. I don't believe that Google will leak anything that matters and think that the whole buzz furore is nonsense whipped up by people who had assumed privacy where there was little reasonable expectation of it.

However, if, like the OP, you do not trust a major corporation with a near-immaculate record on data integrity and an industry-leading stance on LEA disclosure, why trust any corporation?

Hosting your own server is inherently risky, but it is a different sort of risk with different mitigations. As you allude to in your post, the question is whether you fear malicious individuals, the workings of the state or corporate incompetence.
What I don't like about PHP
Ask HN: Anyone developing for Roku or similar platforms?
I'm also interested in hearing opinions on the future of this market and 'on demand' content for TV.
The perceived risk vs reward on a tech startup venture vs. playing the markets is completely different.

In hedge funds, earners get their big juicy paychecks when they prove they are earners. The methods by which you make money, while varied, are a far more known set. In general, you're not going to talk to a finance guy about what he's doing and then walk away thinking they're an idiot. Look at the scorecard, they must be doing something right.

In tech, the opposite is true. Ideas that seem far-fetched or absurd blossom. Sure fire hits crumble. Things that seem insane one year become obvious the next. Startups are incredibly speculative because we're exploring unknown spaces. But that's why you take the risk and go out there... because nobody else believes in it as much as you do.

If you add the bureaucracy of a large company to the mix, there are too many people in the way to say no. To crush the idea and the team before it even exists. And that's why as founders, we quit.
I agree with you in general, but that only works when you can objectively analyze a tool before buying / committing to it.

The CDN market is tough because things like reliability and service can be impossible to measure till the shit goes down. The problem with providers in the CDN (and hosting) space is they all sell you the same line of BS. We've got the fastest hardware the most reliability, etc. They all have tests that show that they're the fastest in some way, and they'll always tell you that their caching algorithm is more than generous and perfect for you. They may even tell you that their competitors are overselling or cutting corners. You'll have no way to verify much of this really.

Basically, what I look for, after I'm sure the essential features are present, is proof that a company is run by responsible smart people with a commitment to their customers.

There's really no good way to do this, companies can seem fine when they're trying to get you to sign, then turn into shit afterwards, but I do the best I can with the hints available.

That said, the sales guy and sales-engineer I spoke to at CacheFly seemed smart and professional. Their network sounded like it was reasonably constructed. With the absurdness of their admin area, and their lack of larger clients, I just didn't feel like I was going with a first class operation. I could've forgiven one of those two, but put together, that was disconcerting.
Your school is a top ranked Tier-1 school isn't it? USNews ranks them in the top25.

I've also noticed a similar phenomenon among schools with a strong sports program. (Ohio State cough cough).

It would be an interesting little research project to come up with a set of typical self-referential statements like my sample one, and go through every school in the country and see where they show up.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that these are not quality schools by any possible stretch of the imagination. But I'd be willing to bet a dollar that the delta between the average Kettering grad and the average MIT grad in the same field is not as high as the ego driven self-referential usage patterns would imply (the average MIT grad is not 80,000x better or more desirable than a Kettering grad).

What's usually surprising is how many of these types of statements ("When I was at...") usually end in a completely banal statement that any university student would be able to complete. Yet these statements are made with the kind of breathless urgency that would make the listener assume there was something really special about this particular permutation of a common experience that only a person who attended that school could really appreciate.

"When I was at Harvard College just a few years ago, there was never any question among young women that we would have both successful careers and successful families." - Caille Millner - http://www.imdiversity.com/villages/woman/careers_workplace_...

"When I was at Harvard four years ago, two of my roommates campaigned for George W. Bush..." - Aaron Greenspan - http://www.aarongreenspan.com/essays/index.html?id=18

"I told her that, when I was at Harvard in my Freshman year, I played football but I broke my wrist mid-season (true) but it still bothers me (false)." - John Vincent "Brother" Quinlan, Jr. - http://www.currentobituary.com/ShowObit.aspx?id=54113&me...

and many many others....
Had the same impression, but searching my mail for their names helped. They were guys like a free software developer whom I had sent feedback about his stuff, people from newsgroups I had exchanged some unimportant e-mails with, etc.
Who is angry? I'm not. They need to fix the privacy issues but not pull the whole thing.
Google: We May Offer Buzz Independently From Gmail
I won't be disconnecting Google Buzz. I think it's great -- it's all the benefits of FriendFeed + all the users of gmail.
Maybe not the way you read it, but this is the paragraph I read.

"The animation in games that use Euphoria bears little resemblance to the slick, organic movement in their tech demo video. For example, here is a video of how fighting looks in an Indiana Jones game using Euphoria. Similarly, in The Force Unleashed game, the only physically-based behavior I could see is magnetic hands -- the stormtroopers' hands stick to anything they encounter. Penny Arcade even made a comic parodying their indiscriminate grasping. Here is the official Lucasarts video showing off this dubious 'feature':"

Their PR video is not an accurate representation of how the technology works.

If you want a statement from the programmers themselves, I can even provide that.

"IGN: Once the video hit the net, there was a lot of speculation as to whether or not that footage was real-time, a target render, etc. Can you set the record straight and let everyone know specifically what it is, what it's built on, and when you created it?

Blackman: One of the ideas the next-gen Star Wars team has been exploring is the concept of the "Force unleashed." To us, the "Force unleashed" is exactly what it sounds like: a Jedi or similar character releasing the full potential of the Force in ways that, while they feel like logical extensions of powers we've already seen, are also new, amped-up, or over the top. The video was created a little over a year ago, still very early in pre-production, so that the development team could wrap our collective heads around the concept and understand the gameplay and production implications.

The video is a pre-rendered pre-visualization of what we're targeting in terms of gameplay, the degree of interaction with the environment, and character reactions."

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/unions/read_article.php?topic_...
Haskell version:

import Data.Number.Fixed

pis :: [Fixed Prec50]
pis = map termToPi $ iterate update (1, 1/(sqrt 2), 1/4, 1)
where update (a,b,t,p) = (a',b',t',p')
where a' = (a+b)/2
b' = sqrt(a*b)
t' = t - p * sqr(a - a')
p' = 2 * p
termToPi (a,b,t,_) = sqr(a + b) / (4*t)
sqr x = x*x

main = putStrLn . show $ pis !! 20
-- 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937583

IMHO that was cleaner and easier than the Clojure code. I didn't really get the bindings thing.

Edit: Out of curiosity I checked with Debug.Trace to see how it runs, and termToPi only gets called once for the term that was requested, even though I said "map termToPi". Fun!
What seems to be going on is that Google was never trustworthy and is being considerate enough to finally broadcast that fact. Too bad they have 10 years of query data on me tied to my email account. [EDIT: Capitalization and verb congruence]
Gates is obviously really guarded here. The inspirational Bill from the 2007 D5 interview (http://d5.allthingsd.com/20070530/d5-gates-jobs-interview/) would be stoked on iPad.
Well, I am. I'm willing to stop using gmail if Google doesn't step back.