skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Like a tour guide, only with a duty to constant watch visitors and keep them away from anything deemed unsuitable, including unsupervised talks with normal citizens.

(Disclaimer: I haven't been to North Korea, this is just the definition I've gotten from what I've read about people who have. Take it with a grain of salt.)
Child porn laws, like any laws, should be enforced without respect for the defendant's status. If the definition of child porn is so broad as to include what this school has done, then they should be prosecuted as mercilessly as anyone else would be.
"The bill's sponsors are surely aware that much of the language is flagrantly unconstitutional."

Garbage, and it's even a power that is clearly given to the Congress in Article I Section 9: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Sta...

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
No, it's bootstrapping from friends and acquaintances who are known within this online community, both in readership and interaction.

It really does make sense for hackers to support each other in this way.
Writing Outstanding of Assignment Conclusions
Since it takes a lot of time and energy to write a whole assignment, why should we care so much about the two or three final paragraphs? Well, we must! Assignment conclusions are not something to leave aside, since the final statement of the work is actually one of the most important parts
Was it possible to understand what Goldman was selling? They certainly weren't telling the whole story. Isn't part of the suit about disclosure? In general, I agree with you, if you don't understand it then don't invest in it, but in reality close to nobody would invest in anything if they only invested in what they really understand.

Regardless of which side prevails in the courts, there are some ethical issues that have been raised. Would you ever buy something from Goldman now? Personally, I've had brokers tell me they thought I was being to aggressive or careless with investments, that's pretty much what I pay them for. Perhaps it's a different relationship at that level. Between the flash trading and front running questions and then the piles of cash that they've made since the crisis, it definitely warrants more investigation.

If you invest in index funds, odds are pretty high that you simply won't make money at any given point in the future, that was good advice 60 years ago, there are an awful lot of people who did that and see 2000 to 2010 as totally flat. It doesn't seem easy to call cash a good idea either, at some point the over extended currencies are going to normalize.
WHO IS Your LIFE PARTNER
"During her deposition to Robbins’s lawyers, she invoked her Fifth Amendment rights and refused to answer questions as not to self-incriminate. One of the questions asked of her was whether she had downloaded “…pictures to her own computer, including pictures of students who were naked while in their home,” the motion notes."

Somehow, I can't help but think that it would have been better just to answer the question - refusing to answer on the grounds of self-incrimination sounds just as bad or worse as answering yes to the question.

On the other hand, maybe she hasn't looked through all the pictures she's downloaded, and doesn't want to be hit with perjury as well. Or maybe it's that combined with having used a computer which was not technically hers but which was not used by anyone else, making definitions potentially a tad unclear.
It seems like Paul is only looking at one side of the table: the one to be hired. Certainty, we're all able to switch to better opportunities, but the long term signaling effect says you're not going to be their in tough times. Persistence is key in startups, so I can see why he'd be anxious - as would I.
Good point. But, what if in the "imaginary case", Google starts to become the one and only internet service?

They will have the largest capital, the best human resources, and they could control the market. I mean factually nobody could compete with Google. Because of a reality that nobody could make money if they want to compete with Google.

Let's also imagine that they start venturing into non-internet service, and they were able to do that too because of the large amount of capital that they have amassed from a long time.

I understand that government should not break companies just because of their political power, but in this imaginary Googlism society. How do people who are upset with Google or at least not satisfied, start to find or build another provider?

(I know this is quite impossible, given the amount of competing internet services, but just imagine).
This is a commercial transaction with all that entails.

If you as an employer are any good - you will have the best people wanting to join you and if you are not , then well , it is going to be a revolving door.

The best people will always have more offers on the table.
Nice counterpoint article.

The thing not mentioned in either posting - what about guys like me that take/prefer contract work? When you are an indie developer trying to go your own way you inevetible take a lot of of short-term contract work to keep yourself floating.
i laughed at this line:

>As the old saying goes: money can't buy you love, but it can buy you prostitutes
The real issue as people have been summing up is:
"The Abacus Fund bought risky mortgage loans and literally bet that they (and the homeowners who held them) would default to the detriment of investors and consumers."

The abacus fund was the name of the Fund that John Paulson setup.

Let me get the facts out of the way:

1) It is not possible to have a long and short position in the same instrument on the same account simultaneously.
... unless of course it was calls vs puts. but while they are both options they are separate instruments as you can go long/short/offset on calls or puts for a complete trade without using the other. i.e. sell call and buy them back to offset.

2) Of course they could have used another instrument to do this. that is going Long on the futures while buying puts. and that would be illegal. oh wait! thats called hedging. thats not illegal.

3) Of course again if the fund was hedging there is no fraud possible since the money would be with the fund, hence with the investors.

4) If the opposite position was in another account, another fund, or whatever that is also not illegal. Though NOW since these were not hedges they had to be naked shorts. But wait thats not possible, aren't there hundreds of articles that say Goldman, Paulson, Lehman, MS etc etc etc lost tons of money by buying into CDOs...

5) But that would mean, that these were in fact hedged trades!

6) Of course there is also the fact that banks, investment advisors, etc are obligated to tell all their clients what their other clients are doing, now in cases like this that would include internal propitiatory trading desks. OH WAIT! thats illegal too...

Whats the effing case again?

That they sold mortgages that the investors wanted to buy (unless they were forced to do so under pressure/on gun point... without a choice.... that would definitely be illegal)?

That they hedged?

That the investors who had the money and sensibility to invest in these risky exotic securities, did not know that they should have hedged against their trades?

That its common knowledge that every transaction needs to have a sound exit strategy, and factor in the worst case scenario (hence the hedge), in this case it would be that the investors and consumers could default?

Since, if this case has any base, can we expect Full disclosure of Speculation, Investment activities of citizens to get included with emails to the Patriot Act? Oh wait... where did I get that idea from!

Since banks can now be taken to court for not disclosing this information, can we add this requirement to lawyers too?

Ok back to the topic.. what I think of this case is:

For every vague law GS has been blamed to break there is at least one not at all vague law that clears them, the fact of the matter is that this case is not at all about lawful merits, but rather political gain by creating an emotional and moralizing case that will be won even without wining the real case. By using word like literally betting against homeowners etc.

enough said.
The existence of the short is always clear. Who that short is, and why they're short, is not. In this case, ACA worked with Paulson to pick the reference portfolio of RMBS under the belief that we was long the equity tranche.
Relax guys. I wouldn't hire Mark Suster either, but it's nice that he's helping startups in LA.
Isn't that a bit like handing out free tickets to paradise? Right now, a fanatic has a choice of a few cartoonists to kill, many of whom might be under police protection. After May 20th, all a fanatic has to do is google for one of thousands or even millions cartoonists, choose one to kill, instant paradise. It might not be a DDoS on the fanatics, it is a DDoS on the police.

In any case it seems very unlikely that fanatics would be deterred by such an action. One could perhaps hope for confusing them (can't decide whom to kill). Or an individual might feel safer in drawing a cartoon, because the random chance of being the selected victim among thousands has become smaller.
If Apple had never allowed native apps at all --- you know, like they originally claimed they were going to do --- you'd have nothing to complain about. From where I sit, they gave an inch, and the peanut gallery is demanding a mile. I think you already know that's what I think, but just to clarify...
Why do you imagine this? Apple in 2010 is to my eyes a completely different company than the one Wozniak worked at.
Wozniak has publicly criticized it.
I wouldn't say it's entirely nonsensical.

The Miranda-izing of the Christmas "Knicker Bomber" resulted in a loss of intelligence about what is going on in the rather hot area of Yemen, the same place where Anwar al-Awlaki is thought to be residing, who is an American citizen whom the President of the United States has ordered the "targeted killing" of (!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki#Current_status).

Nonsensical, perhaps, in that in practice the Congress can't force the Executive's hand like this, but perhaps adding a little clarity here might help in the long run.
Dupe:

http://searchyc.com/bubble+machine

Incidentally, Megan McArdle's takedown of the article is more interesting than the article itself (and I actually like Taibbi, when he's not writing about finance):

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/07/matt-tai...
Correct that, partial refunds.
Is there a waterfall mentality in non-tech fields still?

I would assume yes, especially if there is an academic component to the field, and it's based on a social science (ie theories are unprovable). PhD's design the crap out of things, and then pass it on for implementation, during which, half their design assumptions will prove wrong.

The only example I have is esoteric: library science. others? Journalism?
Working Mums Stress Over Sick Children
The issue is not whether the long side knew the short side existed, the issue is did GS mislead/lie about the composition of what the security contained?

Alternatively, did the people selling insurance know what kind of insurance they were selling? By saying that ACA was constructing the portfolio and omitting Paulson's role, GS implies some kind of standard for portfolio construction. Was that standard different than what Paulson helped construct? My assumption is absolutely. Paulson was not creating a diversified portfolio, Paulson was creating a concentrated portfolio. Does the average bank/institution ever want to have a concentrated portfolio? Probably not.

There's always somebody on the other side of the trade. Is that person misrepresenting what the goods are is the question.
I am working on something similar for Node.js called NodeRed:

http://github.com/fictorial/nodered
Good. Let the human filth that thrives on extinguishing others' voices honk their little horns like the clowns they are.
I never understood why people actually get so angry when they take offence to something.

Consider what happens to someone who is offended, absolutely nothing. If your offended by something, it's not as is something really bad has actually happened. It's not as if you've physically been hurt, or someone you know has been hurt. The world is still exactly the same place it was before you took offence.

Offended? So what, get over it.
I have all the material possessions I can really think of, in fact I enjoy getting rid of things when I can. I want an experience and a reason to learn new skills. I won't just blindly run into any investment, I'd just like some advice on where to start learning for a not-so-large amount of money.

Edit: This is hardly a small amount of money for me. I don't mean to sound nonchalant
Robert Lang on computer-aided origami
Selling a service in a different country/culture than your own is a lot harder than you think. I would strongly recommend that you exhaust your local market (the one that you know and understand infinitely better), before you think about expanding abroad.

I'm speaking from my own experience. My first start-up was a tutoring / language instruction tool. The biggest market in the world for this is in South Korea, so we tried to launch there first. Big mistake. A few specific problems:

1) It's really hard to evaluate a) how good a foreign salesperson is, and b) how well they know the local market. Think about it. Most of sales relies on subtle, cultural cues (body language, slight intonations, really specific language), and it's difficult to gauge this. Much more importantly, though, anyone can tell you "oh yeah, I understand my local market in X space," and this is really hard to evaluate if you're not from/in that place.

2) Localizing is hard. Even if you hire coders and designers from the place you're trying to get into, again, evaluating their work is hard. Their work might look awesome to you (if you get lucky), but the viewing public of your launch market might think it looks terrible.

3) Your service probably has great applications around you that you haven't even thought of. For us, our workforce of smart, college-age language teachers, were equally suited for tutoring and and college counseling in the US as they were for teaching English to students in Korea. And the big difference was, we knew the US market infinitely better.

These are just things I found to be true in my own experience, but if you want to launch in foreign markets, then good luck and all the power to you.

If you do, the one piece of advice I would definitely give you is to find a local partner (someone who has YOUR interests in mind, whether through equity, etc.) and use that person to fill out your team/vet your talent there. This can mitigate a lot of the aforementioned problems.
Are you retarded or danny's brother or something?
In this case the "error" was a serious and warning other entrepreneurs will help lots of entrepreneurs make better decisions in the future.

The only thing BootOut was ever any good at was social media PR... the rest has real value less than zero.

We all know there is entrepreneurial risk in new ventures, that's why funding sources for these ventures should be solid, not unstable funds run by individuals with no related experience and a history of business failures.
This article has been submitted probably a dozen times, each time failing to spark a discussion. I assume in the context of what's going on with the SEC, it's more appealing now.

That being said, this article -- like most of Taibbi's -- is a well-written, entertaining narrative that sews together selective elements to construct something plausible. Go one step further by looking at the environments of each "bubble" to get a less filtered context -- what other companies were doing, what economic forecasters were saying, etc -- and it falls apart quickly.

Goldman Sachs is a company comprised of smart people. Sometimes elements of the company get involved in shaddy things. That happens everywhere -- finance, government, gumball manufacturers.

Interestingly, John Galbraith's chronicle of the crash of '29, did detail perhaps the most egregious of the young company's offenses. He also said: Our political tradition sets great store by the generalized symbol of evil. This is the wrongdoer whose wrongdoing will be taken by the public to be the secret propensity of a whole community or class. We search avidly for such people, not so much because we wish to see them exposed and punished as individuals, but because we cherish the resulting political discomfort of their friends. To uncover an evil man among the friends of one's foes had long been a recognized method of advancing one's political fortunes. However, in recent times the technique has been greatly improved and refined by the added firmness with which the evil of the evildoer is now attributed to friends, acquaintances, and all who share his way of life.
UK based: http://www.diginate.com/
You have paying customers - great! Ask them why they're paying for your service. Ask them to describe the value they're getting. Then (minimally) clean up those words and use them on your website. No one can market your product better than the people who are using/loving it.
While those points might still seem relevant, I'm sure that they really are. Take the iPad as an example. With it's puny amount of memory it plays 720p movies perfectly which my netbook with 8 times doesn't.

Simply comparing these things directly isn't so meaningful anymore.
I do not want to live in a world where I have to "watch what I say" under the constant threat of death. The recognition of the inalienable right to speak your mind, using property that you own (and that includes your mind and body!), is fundamental to any legitimate government.

Patrick Henry said it best: "Give me liberty or give me death."
Visual Basic - VB .Net - Shell32 - Dateiinformationen ermitteln
That's an interesting discussion! They did built a lot of dams and highways, but they ignored that the country was quickly urbanizing and now we have chaotic cities.
This is a 101-style intro post, but http://blog.unmaskparasites.com/ in general is good stuff because you get to see how real crackers are hacking WordPress and other web server software.
The three OS examples you give are all at varying stages of completeness: Movitz is just a text-mode Lisp prompt; HURD has been in development for over 20 years and still hasn't had a stable release; Plan 9 has had multiple commercial releases in those same 20 years, each a significant advance over the other, and now the whole system is free. I've worked with Plan 9 for several years now. The advantages for a developer are that you can understand the entirety of the kernel with a little effort, there is a centralized location for user-contributed code, the tools are excellent, and the community is small enough that you can really get to know everyone.

Linux has 30 different applications for every task, and most of them suck hard in at least one major point, but you get the feeling that there's nothing left to write. In Plan 9, there's a wide open field of useful things to create. It would be nice to have some decent calendaring tools, for instance. While we only really have one windowing system, rio, there's nothing at all to stop you from making a different one, say with title bars and buttons--and people would use it, especially clueless disgruntled newbies :)

So really, the tutorial for Plan 9 is "read the wiki, play with the system, write some code when you're ready."
Absolutely wrong. These guys thrive on the fear they can stir up. You let them win this relatively small battle, then the larger ones follow.

Every single American lost an amount of freedom when Viacom caved to thuggish threats. I am no longer able to choose to watch South Park. Someone else chooses what I can and cannot watch based on their non-pluralistic religious sensibilities.
Right. Let's just be silent instead, afraid of voicing our opinions... Gee, I wonder what kind of message that will send.
Yeah, that would have been impressive. Considering the typical Twitter user PNG is larger than most Apple ][ programs in their entirety, it would be a massive feat (unless you add your own bank-switched memory or something).
You could say that, but the fact is that it was my feeling of stragenss with the iPad / netbook comparison I mentioned in another comment here that got me to thinking about this.

The netbook has 8 times more memory, but can't play movies as well as the iPad can. So comparing such a basic spec isn't meaningful any more.
In the case of a synthetic CDO, there are only two reasons for a short side to be short: they want to hedge or speculate.

As for ACA working with Paulson, yet somehow not knowing they were short, I'm having a hard time believing it. If it is true, how come the SEC isn't charging Paulson with fraud?

Regarding the mechanics of it, it also seems extremely unlikely. The purpose of their meeting is to negotiate with Paulson - to build the best CDO possible (to increase the changes of finding buyers) while still allowing Paulson to get the short they desire. I find it extremely unlikely that somehow, they didn't figure out that Paulson was short during this process.
Baseball Bat Salesman Hits Home Run With Well-Positioned Custom Metal Sign
There's a fine line between being tough and taking an unnecessary risk. If you're not in a position where you can walk into your job to find it doesn't exist anymore, it is your obligation to yourself and your family to manage that. If you can take the risks to stay, why couldn't you also take the risks to change jobs often?

If you're looking only for people who can put themselves in that position, then I'd bet you'd find a good number of them to be job-hoppers.
This is an excellent summary of what happened. This is also an excellent example of the Randian philosophy that is so rampant on Wall Street. To wit: "I'm smart, you're dumb, so I win, you loose." Matt Taibbi had a nice summary of this recently: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/24/will-goldman-...

Of course, the problem with this attitude is that it actively works against the establishment of a Pareto efficient system, and I think we're seeing the results of that with the most recent economic downturn. I don't know enough about the laws to say whether your assertion that no laws were broken is true or not. All I can say is that I hope some laws were broken. If not, then this does not speak well of the US's ability to regulate itself in such a way that benefits the nation, rather than benefitting a select few.
See also: http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0424/seattle-cartoonist-promotes...
I think the point of both sides of the argument is this: Don't look for a job, go start your own damn company.
The Facebook F8 Story No one is writing: Nothing works.
That last clause is quite clear, isn't it? "...unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

- It says "invasion." This doesn't mean just an attack, even if it is a successful terrorist attack by nineteen people. Wikipedia has a good definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion Thus, except in cases of rebellion or invasion, Habeas Corpus may not be suspended. As far as I know this country has not suffered a rebellion since 1865 and has never been invaded.

- The constitution also says "...the public Safety may require it." Thus even if there were an invasion or rebellion, it's not automatic.
Reconstructing Users' Web Histories From Personalized Search Results
Hydroponic Edible Gardens for Urban Windows