skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
FastSpring supports multi-language and multi-currency in order pages and includes the gateway and merchant account as part of the service.
These opposing pistons seem to be located in the same cylinder. It's two opposed cylinders with four pistons total. A Porsche flat six has six opposing cylinders and six pistons (one in each cylinder) in comparison.
"Science" really just means "the body of knowledge able to be derived, ultimately, by statistical induction from our sensory experience." There's nothing in there that disallows science to answer "why" questions. It might be that there are scientific observations we can use to provide Bayesian evidence for certain philosophies over others (say, that if the transition frequency of the Higgs boson is a rational number the parts of which correspond to our index in a model of a Tegmark multiverse, then a Tegmark multiverse model is strongly likely, and so on.)
Pre 2.7, you can just give the dict constructor a generator of tuples:

>>> dict((s, len(s)) for s in ["one", "two", "three"])
{'three': 5, 'two': 3, 'one': 3}
I still don't get it, I was under the impression that moving blogs around was a standard feature of blog engines. Certainly few blog engines would not have a "import from Wordpress" feature?
If a girl says somthing like: “Remember, as you walk home through the night, be bold,” there are problems afoot. Condescending poetry is a death knell.

As an aside -- I've always preferred superficial girls to bad poets. At least the terms are more clearly defined.
Those are nice and all, but i'm going with the primary factor being the vision of Steve Jobs. His character, his etiquette, his leadership, his mind and soul.
The possibilities are endless when someone like him is paired with investor money and enough decision making power to create things. You will find a lot of similarities between Jobs and James Dyson.

Both are obsessive, borderline compulsive personalities because they focus on one thing, and one thing only: building something that exceeds your expectation.

Everything listed in the article is a by-product of that, not the reason for.
though it's never good to compare to the worst :)
FU money is an extremely relative term. It depends on who you are saying FU to and on what terms, how easily you can make money, what the normal length of contract in that industry is, whether it's normally time-limited or ongoing, etc.

If you live (relatively speaking) from hand to mouth, and you walk into a negotiation for a small amount of work, it doesn't take much money to be able to say No and mean it; enough money to last a week may be FU money.
Nothing. So why do they keep changing it? That's the point.
That's an amazing observation, and explains (or justifies) why, when I'm organizing social events, I'm reluctant to try to set up rules and such, until there is some notable problem that some clear, enforced rule might solve.

I'm a big fan of setting up situations and seeing where people want to go and helping to give it form. The trick is to choose some initial basic constraints while not being an impediment to some more interesting spontaneous behavior.
Because Duff's device involves a switch outside a while with cases inside, syntax that is not allowed by JavaScript (which carefully defines a switch to consist of case clauses, each of which posessing a statement list). That said, you could still do something at least reasomably similar inside of the while (with an offset that you reset in the loop increment expression).
I almost feel like a good amount of the discussion being had missed the point, or perhaps most of the commenters stopped reading when the conversation shifted from the PUA community to the life and works of Stendhal.

To me, the articles clearly had three acts. First, was the explanation of the PUA method and the argument for it. This has accounted for nearly all the discussions I've read thus far. Second, was the case of passionate love as made through the works of Stendhal and his characters. In the third "act" is where the true point of the article comes to life. The author tries his best to merry the practices of seduction with natural love as played out through the characters he has introduced. Ultimately this leads to a discussion of which way is the best way to acquire the lover you seek.

This is the conversation I sought when I clicked the comments button; so I suppose I'll just ask the question outright: Which of the scenarios do you prefer, or do you believe is best?

Letting love naturally occur, all the while you are yourself and your beloved sees you for that?

Seduction through the art of 'the game' to acquire the target of your love in spite of the reality that you must "not love her for her to love you"?

Or perhaps you prefer the authors idea of balance through the withholding of the expressions of love, both verbally and through eroticism until the timing is proper?

Hell, maybe you've even got your own idea of middle ground? Let's hear it.
I don't particularly view it as empty, I just think it lies outside the framework of practicality.

It's like asking about the nature of hobbits. (Actually, this does have practical provenance in certain circles, but let's try to overlook that for a bit.) Hobbit qualities can be essentially whatever we want them to be, so their precise nature only matters insofar as they reflect our desires. We desire to hold true to Tolkien's vision, so we accept his details as truth and might extrapolate a bit here and there.

That doesn't mean the question has any bearing on reality.

Similarly, I could ask, why isn't there a force that could destroy our reality retroactively, eating through space and time a la the Nothing of the Never-Ending Story?

And the answer is more or less, if it happened, we would know (or rather, not know anymore) by now. The question assumes that there could be such a thing.

I suppose I view "Why doesn't the universe not exist?" in the same light.
Life is full of trade offs and I'm happy to compromise if it gets me a powerful self-hosting OO & meta-circular MOP.
Now they can add $15,609,000 to their "money lost due to piracy" figure.
I think that in the current state we have pretty robust protection against these attacks. If we see people bypassing it, we'll have to change our tactics :-).

Both of your suggestions are good, but require us being able to run javascript on the embedding (parent) page. (To have a floating dialog, we need more than a small iframe, and both this and a full pop-out go against the 1-click nature of things.)

While we could do the sort of elementAtXY trickery you suggest in the case of sites running our javascript, it's also possible to use the like widget just as an iframe, which breaks anything that requires that the parent site is running our js.

Even assuming we have parent-page js running, we'd also have to avoid anything that requires a (high-latency) roundtrip to fb servers just to verify if a click can happen, as this makes for a very bad user experience for those on slower connections. I think that could be avoided by generating and sending the user-url key to the fb javascript in the parent page as you describe, and communicating that to the like button iframe when it's being clicked (after determining that it's not hidden) by setting it in a fragment on the iframe, having the iframe grab it from that fragment, and pass it along for verification on the server. Though I don't know how the parent frame would be able to know when a click was happening in the iframe, since only the iframe contents would receive the onclick, not anything the parent page's dom... Regardless, it's a moot point because the bare iframe can't be protected this way.
How to build companies without politics
Two element finite field.
Rackspace? GoDaddy?
i live there, expect 1500-1800 a month per person on rent for a 2bd room in one of the high rises. The apartments are all new, though with W/D in unit and other good amenities.
Al-Qarawiyyin University, since 859AD:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_madrasahs_in_con...

No one was allowed to practice medicine unless they passed an exit exam, also first university to take attendance.
Three things: This will not result in less piracy, pirates spend more money on music than non-pirates, and frequently-pirated music makes more money than less-pirated music.

Since January, there has already been one album that I have literally only bought because of piracy (I never would have heard of the band were it not for piracy). Last year I bought 2 or 3 albums which I never would have bought were it not for piracy. How many albums do "normal" non-pirating consumer buy a year?
I don't like debt, I never did and I'd rather be completely debt free, but the
business comes first, private life second. I have a pretty thick wall between
the two and most of the money stays on the business side.

I can't stress enough how this is a good business advice.

Never mix up business money and your money.

You'll eventually be able to pay yourself well when business does well. Don't take too much from it at the beginning. Cash flow is paramount to success.
I think if they forced students to actually work on meaningful problems they'd get around a lot of this.
> This will not result in less piracy, pirates spend more money on music than non-pirates, and frequently-pirated music makes more money than less-pirated music.

B and C do not follow from A. Even though pirates spend more money than non-pirates, who's to say they wouldn't spend even more if they couldn't pirate. And, frequently pirated music makes money than less-pirated music because music that is popular is more likely to be pirated.
"freedom from fearing we'll go hungry and relief from risk averse behavior like holding on to an unfulfilling job" By that definition being on unemployment in one of the friendly european social security states qualifies. Also makes me wonder why not more startups try to bootstrap it at the expense of father state, could work in Europe at least.
My take: the author has a conflation of data and models; a conflation which serves to totally hide the question at hand: the value and interpretation of this body of work we call Science.

I'd think most follow epistemologies that allow for the value of data: things you see, touch, taste, measure, or otherwise experience have an informative effect upon you and are (so far in human history, I hope and, in absence of omniscience, believe) consistent.

Science is not data though. It goes one step further and seeks to compress observation via generation of models. Or to take the other side of the debate, it seeks to unearth the generating rules of our universe. It thus is a process of turning informative data into — well — something not too different from belief. In any case, it seems strongly motivated (to our pattern seeking minds anyway) by that aforementioned consistency: something seems to be afoot. Here's how we can find what that is. Then the question is "what does it mean?".

Though, by Popperian philosophy you're safe right here, right? So long as your models provide verisimilitude to your experience (ie. accurately predict it) then they have value — lets not take it any further, now. The question is avoided by taking an interpretation where it doesn't even exist.

When someone says they believe in science, they're probably coming from a a certain class of interpretation. They may believe that science is a viable process to generate verisimilitudinous statements. They may believe that science is capable of fully divulging the rules which, axiomatically, created our reality. They may believe that science is the careful interpretation of the will of Some Kind of Divinity.

And, who knows, perhaps all three of those interpretations are equally valid, deeply identical, or too blurred by our imprecise understanding and language (Wittgenstein stood here, I think). I feel a great deal of desire to side with this philosophical point of view; and so I'm spending the most energy being skeptical with it.

---

Anyway, a lot of really smart people have spent a lot of energy trying to settle their minds with this question if not answer it. I hardly think you can do science without somehow coming to peace with that. The author doesn't seem to want to go there though, and that's fair when battling someone who's really disagreeing all the way back on the consistency of the world bit. Without that, you can't even have the reductionism that science depends on.

I'm curious to pore through Popper, Hoffstaedter, Gauss (Jaynes too I suppose), Wittgenstein, and Peirce hoping to see what they all thought about it, though.
Python -m SimpleHTTPServer 8080
What Python oneliners do you use regularly?
Yeah, but if you're going to believe the whole "ultimately we're just dust on the wind" point then everything is meaningless and you may as well kill yourself now.

The better alternative is to find what pleasure and satisfaction you can while you're here.
It's also possible (common?) for there to literally be no difference (to the cardholder). My credit union's debit card is the credit/debit card like you describe, but there is no actual credit whatsoever. I can only spend the money in my account. For some reason, I always choose to run it as a credit card (mostly because I don't know my pin), which is kind of a dick move since it costs the sellers.
Is there any prepackaged LDC binary for OS X?

It's annoying having to download DMD (Digital Mars compiler) just to compile LDC.
Mr. Jobs' vision aside the biggest thing that they have going for them is that they don't try to succeed like someone else. Google has unique strengths and weaknesses inherent to its culture and leadership. Microsoft is exactly the same. So is any startup. However, for some reason people talk about success in a prescription sort of way. It is true that common strains will exist between companies who have achieved some measurable amount of success, but what works for one of them will not necessarily work for the other.

The interesting thing about Microsoft is that they fail whenever they walk outside of their strengths. Moreover they loose resources, time and mind share each time they do something like that. Some may call it a lack of focus, but they seem to aim at mimicking other people's success, and the saddest bit is that they aren't alone.

I read about people who want to be Steve Jobs and companies that want to be like Apple. I wish I could explain to them that you can't do that. You simply can't. Apple was unique. Steve Jobs is unique and so are you. So, why don't you focus on what makes you unique?

People fall down more often when they are pretending to be someone else. I don't know why but in the lure of the siren of success they kill the very bits of them that ensure their success.

What I am trying to say is that perhaps we spend too much time reading into other people's success than to see what is in ourselves. Perhaps that just sets us up for inevitable failure down the road. I can't base my life on the question; "what would Steve Jobs do?". I can't base a company on that either.

P.S. - Awesome article.
Droid 2 shows up in Verizon Summer catalog
The example they show also includes price per count, but the article presumes that customers won't look at the fine print. I have no sympathy for an uncaring customer getting ripped off; it's caveat emptor as far as I'm concerned.
Rolex Watches, Replica Rolex Swiss Watch Online, Free Shipping Replica watches
Wide selection of Swiss Watches are povide here. Rolex watches are popularly regarded as status symbols. All these delicate Replica Watches are well made at great discounts with free shipment.
Another thing is that most programming resources that I've come across assume a unix-like system.

Windows 7 is an excellent operating system but I do all my dev work on ubuntu.
Max 95 Satin Finished Black and Blue
I tried to use MS adcenter (https://adcenter.microsoft.com) to buy some more advertising.

Using the latest Chrome dev channel:

"The current browser is not supported. To see a list of supported browsers, see About System Requirements."

MS, I hate you. You obviously don't want to take my money.

Agree, these graphs are awful. It's a lot easier to double your search traffic if you start off with hardly any.
The sky is not the limit
Windows for most of my coding/work, Mac for personal projects and evening socializing.
"Pirates spend more money on music than non-pirates"

Without taking a position on the accuracy of the claim I will say the study that determined that was deeply flawed. Let me quote the first article that comes up on Google...

The Norwegian study looked at almost 2,000 online music users, all over the age of 15. Researchers found that those who downloaded "free" music – whether from lawful or seedy sources – were also 10 times more likely to pay for music. This would make music pirates the industry's largest audience for digital sales.

This is flawed because people who are actively seeking music can reasonably be called "music enthusiasts" who would normally buy more music than their counterparts who don't actively seek out new music. Note the study says the ones who were categorized as "not pirates" didn't even use free sources to listen to new music.

So in order to get an accurate answer as to how piracy impacts sales you'd have to compare enthusiasts who pirate to those who don't.
Don't forget Hacker News and Arc. He's still working on them.
Squarespace gets $38M to compete with WordPress and Six Apart
I was under the impression that some of the Anti-YC posts were killed for real (not even visible with showdead anymore), but maybe my memory fails me.
Thank you very much! Lack of simple dict-building had been bothering me.
After using svcadm, use svcs (or functions in libscf) to find out what's going on.
Http://www.officialbay.com/mens-nike-air-max-1-shoes-beigeyellow-p-27247.html
It's not a browser plugin. It is a web component that Gmail hosts in an IFrame (or caja wrapper?). Your domain administrator must grant API access to the plugin provider's API key.
Total Recall Or Total Bull? Some Perspective On The iPhone 4 Antenna Frenzy
And dependencies, configurable restarting based on failures in other services, delegation of administrative privileges to other users, configuration of managed services through arbitrary properties, integration into OS fault reporting, reliable management of server processes using Solaris Contracts.

You're right, the XML config is a bit nasty.
Ask HN: What mind hacks do you use to do a non-fulfilling job well?
Interested in hearing from HNers who have a full-time job who don't find it fulfilling, and have no intention of climbing the management ladder: What mind hacks do you use to motivate yourself to get out of bed, get to your job, and do a good day's work?

(This is all assuming you can't quit your job, so no quit-your-job comments please).
I actually commend him for taking on that risk. One of the things that saddens me about society today is that we have become totally risk-averse.
Your friends are not your market
I sincerly doubt that machine learning is CPU bound. Many things related to numerical computing are memory bound
Now they need to address the rendering performance.
I think everyone knows that you don't sue random torrenters on the internet hoping to make a profit.

This was really part of a huge marketing campaign, where your audience reads in all the big papers that some college student is being sued for $50,000 dollars and then are dissuaded from illegally downloading music... that's the intent anyways....
You're probably right. It's easiest just to investigate any alarmingly high impressions:liking ratio and see if something phishy is happening.

Then again... the fact that I could unwillingly goatse all of my contacts (even if you prevent it from happening to too many people afterwards) makes me not want to stay signed in, at least until I can opt out of "liking" things.

It's late and I'm going to sleep... I'll reply in full tomorrow. Specifically, I think requiring javascript might not be that much of a detriment, especially if it alleviates any possibility and concern of fb getting embarrassed by a surge of clickjacking attacks.

As per the user experience concerns... the js solution wouldn't result in any worse UX for slow users than the iframe currently does. Either way, it's 1 round trip request needed to display the button, and 1 round trip request to ensure the button click goes through. In your case it's a round trip to load the iframe, a round trip once it's clicked. In my case, 1 round trip to get the JS, which displays the button, and 1 round trip to send the click event (the changing of the button can be client side and appear instant).

The main concern with a non-iframe solution is that the host page can really try to screw with your button.. you'd need to make it an image and ensure it's being displayed correctly (correct size, correct src, etc). But, again, I think it's entirely possible with not-too-much code.

Alright, I'm going to sleep for real.
BBC News new design is live
You are not Apple. Adopting some superficial Apple-like guidelines will not make you succeed like Apple.
Even that wouldn't be fully free of confounding variables, because you don't know if enthusiasts who pirate vs those who don't have the same quality of enthusiasm.
See previous discussion here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1506388
Compare with the Junkers Jumo 20x design -(one of?) the only succesful aircraft diesel engines:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Jumo_205

Also, this led to the development of the Napier Deltic which avoided having twice as many crankshafts as cylinders by arranging three cylinders in a triangle with a crankshaft at each corner:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napier_Deltic

These had extremely good power to weight ratios - eventually eclipsed by gas turbines.
Cheating goes away in large percentages when the environment promotes people having faith in themselves.

It's harder to teach people to have faith in themselves in harder, sharper, less forgiving economic times.
This may have something to do with Chinese businesses having a nasty habit of screwing foreign investors. E.g., you, as a foreign investor, come into the office one day and discover that your jointly owned company is now entirely under the ownership of the Chinese partner.
Wow. Well that's definitely not sustainable, so it will have to end sometime.
I actually switched from Google to Bing about two weeks ago. And, to be honest, I can't really tell the difference.
I see it as a battle between "the browser is a reliable tool for reading and navigating documents on the web" and "the browser is just another UI toolkit for trusted desktop applications". It can't be both, because any seamless UI will always be powerful enough for untrustworthy code to find other malicious tricks like this.
There's better information about the engine here:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/03/ecomotors-20100310.h...