skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> open-handed slaps on the butt are not gang beatings. It's generally the parent that determines whether the punishment is abusive, not the type of punishment itself.

No, this is criminal in many countries and any parent who hits a child is incompetent.

Hitting a child is unambiguously abusive in many countries, because we see that the parent lacks skill.
How popular websites looked like when they launched
Well, for one thing it's not even a slippery slope. They want to unlock his work-issued phone, not his personal phone, and the FBI admits they have, and other law-enforcement agencies admit they have, an almighty queue of other things they'd like to get force-unlocked if they can only get precedent claiming that companies do indeed have to circumvent their own products on demand.
Chapter 2 is basically a textbook description of how Android handles memory.
There's a forum: http://forums.hackaday.com/
Your C++ compiler. Kidding.
I don't know why PLOS charges more. The point I'm trying to make is that - just because there's an OA journal out there which charges $100 per article; it doesn't mean that the costs are justified.
This paper[0] says "In addition it receives a reward
rt representing the change in game score."

[0] https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~vmnih/docs/dqn.pdf
Norway’s Village where there is no Government and Everything is Private
Dongguan Bathroom Cabinets Manufacturers/Factories on Efull.com
I was gonna say that the rest of the world purchase from these journals, but of course the journal might as well be foreign so that argument doesn't hold.

Good point about the current situation.
Shaken Beliefs: Seismic Lessons from Japan’s Tohoku Earthquake
You're right. I read somewhere that no compiler optimizes modulus by a constant. That's clearly very outdated. I tested with clang 3.2, gcc 4.5, and icc 13 (all on a 32bit platform) and they all quite happily replace the division with other instructions.
Why did this potential Alzheimer’s drug timeline keep shifting?
That's the one! The reason I fell in love with requests was because it was leagues better than python's own http lib. Pay attention to the way he designed he API, it's genius. Updated my comment.
That depends whether you think the point of libertarianism is preferring market solutions to economic problems, or the protection of pure property rights.

The latter is perhaps more ideologically pure, but I think the former tends to lead to much more sensible arguments.
Bingo. Putting the $1000 in context of the total cost makes it much more palatable.
Not until they change the 5th amendment.
I don't really recognise any of what you're describing here - it's trivial to download almost any copyrighted work in seconds, for free, and basically nobody suffers any consequences for doing so.

Even so, it was just an analogy. There's very little stopping people just following you round recording you on their smartphone as it is. When it's semi-autonomous flying robots the size of a grain of rice, I don't believe you are going to have much legal recourse.
Can someone explain me why the researchers themselves don't publish their work for free? The article says they are not paid for the articles so I don't see why they couldn't do that.
What about disabling the bricking mechanism that would have allowed the FBI to brute-force the PIN?
Yeah, it's a bit hacky. It's basically just a bunch of videos, some of which are on YouTube: here's one that you can find on the OP's post:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwGK5RvNOFI
You can't take the costs provided by journals as a minimum because they are likely providing services that are no longer necessary or could be made much more efficient.

Here's an example of how to do it on the cheap:

"Scholastica charges us $10 per submission. We have a grant to cover this and our other costs, which are very low. Our total costs probably average about $30 per accepted article. Therefore, there are no charges for authors, and obviously there are no charges for readers either. A typical article processing charge for one article published in a traditional journal would keep us going for around 50 published articles."

https://discrete-analysis.scholasticahq.com/post/40-welcome-...
Classic HN response.
Distribution deals happened for House of Cards... For obvious reasons distribution deals are usually exclusive per region (I spend a lot on marketing and then some other guy just starts selling the same content...)
I thought a lot of laws were cute intents to work around the constitution.

Any such law would work its way up the legal chain until it got to the supreme court (assuming they chose to take it up the case). As the federal law on armor piercing bullets shows [1] there does not seem to be anything stopping congress passing a law regulating or banning ammunition. Instead of just limiting the ban to armour piercing it could be extended to a ban on ammunition that can pierce the skin.

If you are able to ban ammunition you could certainly ban the sale of the components to make ammunition. Sure there might be some individuals that choose to break these laws, but it would be pretty effective.

Ultimately the choice to do something like this would be politically, not constitutionally constrained. If you oppose the widespread availability of guns [2] why not try to think around the problem rather than bashing your head against the constitutional rock?

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon-coated_bullet

2. I am actually not personally opposed to gun ownership.
the argument isn't only criminals -- it's criminals, and the government.

basically, the private law-abiding citizen is the only one left out of the power loop. everyone else is armed to the teeth.

for those of you who are pro-crypto but anti-gun, the government considers crypto a weapon, plain and simple. they don't share your divided sensibilities. it's real easy -- they want to take both away from the populace, a little bit at a time. and of course the oldest trick in the book is divide and conquer. they know you don't want to apply the same arguments to both fights because of your feelings on firearms, and they are taking advantage of it.

that uneasy feeling you get when you consider a world without private access to crypto is the same uneasy feeling gun owners get when you talk about taking away their access to firearms.
Or perhaps Nim: http://howistart.org/posts/nim/1 (That article btw, is itself an example of beautiful software. So short and sweet, and still manage to cover a pretty deep rabbit hole of computer science and plain fun, with it's mandelbrot-in-brainfuck-in-nim)
I think Obama had that in his character years before he even ran for President, so I think it is an easy out to say he was corrupted by the system in Washington. Basic character doesn't just do a 180. Granted, your ideals may be softened by coming up against those who oppose them, but they do not reverse and hide under the covers. All politicians promise many beautiful things, but they have their agendas. Under Obama drone strikes have multiplied in several nations we are not even at war with, and stayed out of the news for the most part, and he has not been made accountable in the slightest. Through his representatives it has been made clear that he wants Snowden to return and face espionage charges. Even if that is the way to face the government, he did not offer any of his take on it to say otherwise. I am very untrusting of most, if not all, politicians, since I see it is a game for people to gain and feel powerful. I do not idealize candidates in the slightest. Trump polarizes people, and I do not like him in the slightest; I know where he stands though. With Obama his rhetoric and his actions are not in sync.
Do you have any compelling evidence that the costs for OA journals is one or two orders of magnitude less than everyone claims they are? (See e.g. http://www.nature.com/news/open-access-the-true-cost-of-scie... which also shows a wide variety in publishing costs.)
In Canada they have 'tax free savings Accounts'. It basically is a small allowance to invest tax free. You can add 5k every year. It actually allows compounding, so some people have managed to create 'large' accounts totaling more than hundred thousand dollars, although they could've at most contributed like 50k. The tax authority is trying to crack down on people trading in this.

Other than that, all dividend and interest income is taxed as normal income, all capital gains are taxed half income. Si those 80K of income would put you in a high tax bracket.
Exactly. This reminds me of the book "Willpower" by Roy F. Baumeister.
It probably means that you're using Google DNS ;)
My own personal definition is whether the derivative work could survive if the first work did not exist, not for which purpose it was intended to be consumed. Not sure about the legal definition.
Point c is interesting and very insightful (whether it was intentional or not). In order to qualify for a $100k/yr position you must already have a job. This by definition would exclude true entry level candidates, though entry level candidates today seem to be required to have significant work experience as a form of validation.
In CS, conferences (which organise peer review and pretty much all publish open-access proceedings) hardly ever charge more than something like $200 for attendance, and this also pays for the conference venue, logistics and a slush fund of financial support for student attendees. Why would the peer review and publication part cost more in other fields?

It seems much more likely that PLOS simply charges the "$1000 or so" because they can, and it's easy enough to piggyback on the traditional publisher narrative that they are actually providing this amount of added value.
Disclosure: I liked Obama as candidate, and I've liked him as president.

I haven't always been happy with some of his decisions and policies. But, my guess is that he's constantly being whispered the worst case scenarios.

A president probably feels responsibility for the well being of hundreds of millions of people. And, all that it takes are a few highly polished ex-lobbiest communicators whispering, 'if you won't strengthen this program, Mr. President, then a terrorist will unleash a dirty bomb on the east coast and injure tens of millions.' Who would want to be responsible for that? 'Oh, just wiretap citizens? I guess that doesn't seem too bad if it's an either-or-decision.'

Unfortunately, I don't see a way out of this mess. Bin Laden won when he turned the US into a 24-7 terror watch. Now, we live by fear and over-protection against an enemy that we can't see.
unpopular opinion ahead: no, and probably not even for taxpayer funded research.

Can you demand a lift in a garbage truck? or in a tank?
both of these things are provided for local or central government. why not? because it distracts from the job that they are there for.
The same can be said for research (and source code). It takes time, effort and money to publish and peer review research. If journals can't make money providing access to the research who is going to pay for it?

Also there is currently a lot of BAD research out there. Domain experts don't have time to review all of it. Journals with prestigious names act as filters and as sort of priority queues for where you should look first.
Study finds that 3 laws could reduce firearm deaths by 90%
If authors find that such journals fulfil their needs, then the traditional publishers will have been outcompeted. But make that case directly; don't yell at traditional publishers for being expensive, when they also provide far more service. If you don't think it's needed, don't use it.
It wasn't all that long ago that it was impossible to legally get Japanese content in the US. They just wouldn't take your money. It wasn't until scanlators and fansubbers created a large market that the Japanese producers took foreign markets seriously. Even then, I have been told by reputable sources that companies like Viz used to pay about $1000 per volume with no royalties for North American English language rights to manga. Japanese producers just didn't believe it was worth any amount of money in foreign countries. Of course that has changed dramatically now.

I'm hoping as we move to a global market with digital distribution, these dinosaur companies will realize that there is no risk to handling world wide distribution themselves. But it means killing the distributors (who were the businesses that helped you get that content when nobody else was listening...).
Might add that what I've seen of the internals of both Sqeak/Pharo Smalltalk and Racket would probably qualify as beautiful software.
> I doubt that erlang spawns millions of OS processes because that would be extremely inefficient due to CPU context switching.

You are correct, Erlang uses something akin to "green processes" where it manages its own threads but they do not share anything in the way that normal threads would.
Most journals withhold the copyright, and the scientists happily relinquish it. They can distribute preprint copies of their article (very few do in life sciences) but not the article itself.
Banning armor-piecing bullets certainly makes firearms much less effective - after all this is why the law was brought in as it made guns too effective against the authorities (the infamous “cop killer bullets”). Why has this law [1] not fallen afoul of the second amendment?

1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921#a_17
He used to code and wrote his first product zip2 over the summer in 95. Not sure about the hours - I guess you can do long hours for a couple of months https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sLmeYNmZKY

(In the vid he's saying he used to sleep on a futon in the office as he couldn't afford a flat at the time)
Sega Rally on Saturn is pretty amazing. 3 cars, 4 tracks - but it's really nailed the feel.
Just to clarify: Is your position that research written by academic scientists, funded by government grants and university budgets, reviewed by volunteers, and proofread and typeset by the researchers themselves, handed off to a journal to put in a print edition or stick a pdf on their website, should belong exclusively to the corporate owners of the journal for a period of ~100 years after publication, with no profit flowing back to the university, the researcher, or the reviewers?

If this is not your position, can you clarify what you think scientific publishing should look like?

> because it distracts from the job that they are there for.

What is the “job scientific papers are there for”, if not sharing knowledge with other scientists and the people of the world?

As for your silly garbage truck / tank analogy: instead of these, we have buses, which work much better for the task.
Sam Harris posted a video trying to draw such parallels between digital and physical worlds [1]. After reading responses to his first video, he then changed his mind [2]. In particular, one email from a Google engineer he found particularly compelling. I can summarize.

Our phones contain both a) things we consider privacy-sensitive and b) security-sensitive. Family photos and bank accounts. The Googler dispels one of Sam's analogies. Digital security and insecurity is highly scalable. We lock our doors, and police can force them open if needed. Generally, there are not many burglars around. Here I will quote Sam's reading of the Googler's email,

> "The digital world is like having a house at zero distance from every burglar in existence, including the planet's top lock pickers. They have zero cost and near-zero risk attempting to break into my door. The "police" are virtually non-existent, and even if identified the bad guys are probably out of reach of prosecution. Even the amateurs have tools that allow them to probe millions of doors per second, and the pros have access to the same heavy tools that the police would use to force my door. And perhaps I live in a huge condo with a single door, so hacking that one lock will expose millions to ransacking. That's the nature of every digital device connected to the internet. Attacking them is a highly scalable task. You're not protected by your location, there's no affluent neighborhood with low crime and good police, where the wealthy can live and feel safe. Nope, the internet is a dystopian world when it comes to security. It's a Mad Max scenario where you're only safe if your front door and your entire house and your personal car is blinded like Fort Knox's safes, and armed with flame throwers."

Before I realized Sam had recanted his position, I wrote a point-by-point response to his first video [3]. I think the Googler did a better job relating to non-technologists.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQAmlVFjJ9k

[2] https://youtu.be/9HK4IBscfMQ

[3] https://pastelink.net/151k
He's asking to strike a balance in a court case. The tone, the actions, are so incredibly measured. Even though I disagree with them. And let's face it, iPhone encryption is weak encryption, with a single point of failure, the Apple signing key.

In comparison, six weeks after 9/11 we got the entire PATRIOT act rammed through, and the current NSA domestic panopticon put into place illegally and in secret.

And the administration is making it's arguments openly, we are not being manipulated by the general climate and context.

We aren't being made to feel afraid in the way we were in those dark years. We are not being told to buy duct tape and plastic sheeting to seal doors and windows in case of biological or chemical attack. The administration is not making a big show of deploying missile batteries in DC, while the Terror Alert is raised another shade, all based on "chatter".

We had a Vice-President say we are going to have to "work the dark side", and he meant torture. And we did, in dark dungeons on the far side of the world.

We started to torture, and we all have to live with seeing torture a regular fixture in our entertainment. That wasn't the case in the same way before the Bush administration normalized the practice. Obama ended this inhumanity on his first day in office.

When I see how far reaching the changes to our culture were, when I see how it's percolated, when I see it in Hostel, Game of Thrones, or in the far more radical Scandal, which is actually honest about the sadistic motivations behind torture, I wince and mourn what we lost as Americans, and I curse the name of Dick Cheney.

We were, all of us, debased. Even our culture and entertainment was debased.

And the open source, lone wolf style of ISIS has a far greater potential to be exploited to cause mass hysteria. The fact that it isn't is a refreshing departure from what I fear is the norm in American politics.

The entire stance, attitude and tone from Obama makes me feel secure. Because I'm far more afraid of government overreach and repression than any terrorist group.

Watching Trump, hearing Chris Christie call this WW III, it gives me terrible flashbacks to a time I am glad is over.

"And let's assume that we were to send 50,000 troops into Syria -- what happens when there's a terrorist attack generated from Yemen? Do we then send more troops into there? Or Libya perhaps? Or if there's a terrorist network that's operating anywhere else in North Africa or in Southeast Asia?

- Barack Obama
The US government has three independent branches for a reason.
I don't think that's a sound analogy. When does getting a lift in a garbage truck allow you the opportunity to further humanity's knowledge to the same extent as being able to access papers and do some research. These are rather different things.

Also, isn't it true that a lot (or most) of the peer review is done on a volunteer basis?
Dude. I gotta burn all my US dollars and smoke them.
> so the publisher can recoup its costs.

Given that peers review a paper for free and it costs fractions of a penny to host a pdf, why should we care about the publishers? What value do they ultimately bring to the table?

We should be rethinking how this is done entirely.

This is off the cuff, but...

Perhaps researchers applying for public funding should be required to register as peers. Each researcher submits their publication to a public service like data.gov (maybe research.gov?). Peers are automatically assigned according to area of expertise. The peering process proceeds much like it does today.

On completion of review and approval, the paper and any materials needed to reproduce the research is made public and available to anyone.

The cost for all of that would be relatively trivial.

Also, many of those journal fees are paid for with tax dollars to begin with. An expense that would no longer be necessary.
Your analogy is flawed in that a garbage truck or tank isn't designed to provide a lift and providing a lift would incur signicant additional cost to make it suitable for rides.

The same is not true for releasing papers. Government-funded research is done for the public good and its purpose is consumption. Releasing it furthers that purpose. Second, releasing it to public shouldn't incur significant additional cost.
First point: the govt is going to pay for it, by paying the open access fee. Research itself should be freely available, it's only fair to return it to the public which funded it.

Your second point is null, since the filtering job is 100% free (journal editors themselves do little filtering, whenever they are in doubt they forward the job to zero-paid reviewers).
I wasn't implying that republicans controlling all three branches of government would be good. In fact, it's rather horrifying considering the current state of that party.

However, even if democrats won back the majority of congress -- are there enough left leaning democrats enough to support Bernie's platform?
No, he just sanctions low-key drone strikes in countries we're not even at war with keeping a hushed public content. Just listen to his SXSW speech. I think you see the real Obama showing through there, and no, it is not an idealist who was corrupted by Washington. He is slick as they come in Washington.
IANAL, but I looked at the definition of derivative work, and it seems really hard to apply to learning algorithms. But I'm going to disagree with you. I notice that US law mentions "preexisting material employed in the work". IMO a set of neural network weights contains no preexisting material at all. All the examples of derivative works include at parts of previously copyrighted works directly.

I'd like to note that some publishers, like Elsevier, allow you access to their dataset (full texts of articles) under a license with the condition that you can not freely distribute models learnt from their data.
Reviewers do not get paid. In many scientific fields, authors use LaTeX together with a well-defined style to format their own articles. The cost can be minimal, as has been demonstrated by many new journals (see https://gowers.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/discrete-analysis-an... for an analysis by an expert in his field who started what may very well become the most prestigious journal in that field and is freely accessible.)
is he an asshole because he was willing, only willing if he could do it right, because he is an engineer, or some other reason?
Wouldn't it be interesting if ancient historians found evidence of the flood and it made its way into mythology? "Science inspires religion."
Because all of the other kinds of bullets still kill people perfectly well, thank you, and that's all the Second Amendment requires.
There's a lot of this online. Check out Sam Harris' recant of his original position against Apple in which he reads an email he received from a Google engineer [1]. The email is very well written

[1] https://youtu.be/9HK4IBscfMQ?t=2m33s
I'm a little skeptical about the pepper spray accusations myself, but there's no question that a Google security guard harrassed and attempted to intimidate the people making that documentary short film while on a public sidewalk. It's right there in the video on the page.
Yes.

("Betteridge's law of headlines" fails)
What about all the IP generated as a result of taxpayer-funded research?