skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
"For example, I'm looking now at the front page of 960gs, which I didn't know, and I want to cry. I have zero idea what I should or could do with that."

I've been using 960gs quite a bit. It fairly simple (or at least it seems so now).

The basic ideas:

* Grid layouts are a Good Thing (see http://www.thegridsystem.org)

* Grids work best when used with proper proportions and ratios

* If you start with a fixed width of 960 pixels, you can get even divisions of 12 or 16 columns, with suitable margins between columns

* You can use CSS to set the width and margins of div elements

* 960gs defines CSS selectors to do just that, with styles for all combinations of column widths

* You can nest grids; 960gs has container styles (to contain stuff, natch) and grid styles.

* The 960.gs site has a number of example sites to glom ideas from

For example

<div class='container_12'>
<div class='grid_6 alpha'>Foo</div>
<div class='grid_4 '>Bar</div>
<div class='grid_2 omega'>Baz</div>
</div>

splits the page into three sections, divvied up into different sizes. (The alpha and omega class values are used
to trim margins on edge columns.)

And that's pretty much it. Work out a layout based of 12 or 16 evenly-sized base columns, and use that to assign the CSS class values.

Anyway, my E-mail is in my profile if you have questions. I'm no 960gs expert, but have been playing around with for a bit at least.

Edit: Just re-discovered this page

http://www.mostinspired.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/rip...

A nice demo page of using 960gs with JQuery.
Interesting that http://apple.com/hypercard gets redirected to wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperCard).
I'd say probably most modern philosophers don't think that's the case. Daniel Dennett is a particularly strong proponent of the notion that free will is perfectly compatible with physical causation, and doesn't require agents to somehow magically be able to create gaps in it (and his view doesn't care much whether the causation is deterministic or has randomness in it).

Overview of the position: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/
I speak 9 languages by now, and it's definitely true. I cannot talk well about feelings in other languages than Portuguese, explaining technical stuff and counting I do best in Esperanto (it has a very intuitive regular number system and the agglutinative grammar makes it very convenient to explain the finer details of complicated stuff), when I'm tired I answer casual stuff in my native Dutch, philosophy is a lot easier with toki pona and to be short and clear, English is very useful as it's words generally are very short.

Pro-tip: if you want a quick way to get more control over your language usage, and a way to escape your national language habits, try to learn Esperanto. It definitely helped me.

And as I know this stuff out of experience for quite some time, you can probably imagine why I don't like Chomsky that much (and for similar reasons, Richard Dawkins... Populistic science sucks :(.)
Doesn't Apple realize they'd hit another big Home Run if they brought HyperCard back for the iPad, iPhone, & iTouch. It would a huge hit. Well, at least with me :-)
United States can't compete
What do you think we should improve in the US?

Here are the things I see wrong:

Immigration: On a daily basis I see the tragedy of our immigration policy not designed to fit our current employment system. It's a mismatch between business and government policy where able and willing individuals can't get a job because of their status. Businesses are unwilling to go through the hassle of hiring people with strange statuses because of the paperwork involved or they simply think it's too complex to handle. Let them work! Why in the world would you let a business fail to grow in the United States? We need the tech sector to be strong and who knows, the next Google might start here.

Infrastructure: Maybe it's California but I see our infrastructure crumbling. Investment in this area has been diverted and it's a shame to see our public spaces in such disorder. It's embarrassing to drive visitors from out of town or country saying it's been like this for years. They see crumbling roads, missing dividers on freeways, poor lighting on streets, sewer problems, 10-year construction projects for a single lane, etc. We should consider our infrastructure as a national treasure. This is what made our country strong that gave indirect benefits to thousands of people in the form of an efficient and reliable system. I don't see this benefit continuing on forever especially for our future generation as we're not improving infrastructure but simply "patching" the current infrastructure.

Education: Teach kids some actual life skills. I feel kids today are less resourceful than previous generations. We should be teaching them in areas that interest them instead of a cookie cutter approach that brings mediocrity. If they want to learn arts, teach them arts. If they want to be a doctor, teach them everything they need to know for that. If they want to learn how to start a business, get them to intern at businesses, start a business plan, do case competitions, etc. I don't see this. I understand the need to learn the basics but you can do this in an accelerated time-frame and teach them in a condensed format in the early ages. Kids should learn more about the internet, how to invest, how to save, how to fix a car, how to build things with their hands, etc.
(Disclaimer: I'm the author of the OP).

Yes, but the person you are replying to is right to note the competitive aspects of research. A lot of people might say "well, this project is on-going, and I don't want people scooping/stealing it from me." It's a sad thing, but most research labs are in a a competitive relationship with other ones, and a citation is less useful in those oh-so-important tenure reviews than a publication. I wish it was more the "standing on the shoulders of giants"!

That's partly why I didn't call on academics themselves to release code, but for some sort of authoritative institution instead, to level the field for everyone. That should remove the competitive aspects (I understand "that should" is a very naïve outlook ;) )
Unfortunately arguments about free will frequently become thickly tangled webs of sloppy language use and poor word choice decisions. I'm more of the Wittgensteinian school (and that of Schopenhauer, for that matter) that simply examines the common language use cases of "free" and "free will." Thinking about this deeply, you may find that most people use "free" in cases in which they mean, "not restricted," as in, "free as a bird," "free to speak my mind," etc..., in which case we aren't speaking of "freedom to," but rather "freedom from." And here we can think of all sorts of instances in which society is actively trying to shed restrictions on freedom rather than thinking of new ways to create freedoms (and even then, creating freedom is typically loosening certain identified constraints, but only after those constraints are identified).

If we examine the "freedom to" case, we get confused by running into an infinitely regressing causal nexus: "Sure, I can do what I will, but can I WILL what I will?" and so on. A blind alley that doesn't have an answer or practical purpose in answering.

Hopefully it is plain as day that our actions aren't stochastically random and are ostensibly NOT anything like the results of a random number generator. At the same time the dichotomy in our everyday actions between determined and fully-undetermined also seems off the mark. At best we can say that we live in a world filled with complex relationships between what restricts us and what allows us to do what we desire, and that those desires themselves change based on a number of mutating social and natural factors.

Now, if we turn to mathematics and accept its limitations and presumptions, then I challenge anybody to find a better logical or mathematical formulation for "proving" free will than the negative definition "not determined by prior events." It seems anyway that the negative definition "freedom from" jives better with our intuition than its baffling positive brother "freedom to."
Those of us who routinely program in significantly different languages know that some languages better suit some tasks. Pure imperative as fundamentally different from pure OO or pure functional. "Thinking in" one langauge colors the way one views/creates solutions and algorithms.

I was wondering how programming languages shape the way programmers think about the world.

For example, does it affect the ways we write?
I miss what Glaceau made before they were bought by CC - they had a series, Fruit Water, that was much less sugary and just had a hint of flavor - it was subtle. So, yeah - thanks for trying to kill us with sugar.

As usual, the legal claims are a bit contrived and ridiculous however.
I don't think I can upvote this comment enough (only once sadly), especially China law blog (it's really good). Yes Chinese is an interesting language (I love it's lack of or minimalistic grammar), and the character system though difficult is flexible enough to become the writing system of any spoken language in the world.

But knowing Chinese is not much of an ecomomic advantage, it's better than knowing nothing but it's not worth the effort. I'm learning out of nessisty, osmossis if you will. Living here and my wife being Chinese(although that made no difference, she speaks English to me all the time and hasn't got the patience to help me learn) I kind of have to.

When I leave (and for most people that's a certainty) I'll be able to appear a little snobbish, "oh you can speak Chinese, how wonderful".
Nope, I was just comparing the magnitude of the changes, not really the structure.
In response to the above replies, there are good and bad ways to write to-do lists:

http://www.43folders.com/2005/09/12/building-a-smarter-to-do...

http://www.43folders.com/2005/09/13/building-a-smarter-to-do...

http://lifehacker.com/270404/the-art-of-the-doable-to+do-lis...

and my personal spin:

http://vmi.posterous.com/epic-to-dos
My experience in the services realm is that there are way more bad PMs than good PMs.

I've seen way too many PMs too afraid to push back on the customer with respect to scope changes who also have no idea how the technical staff think and therefore have no idea how to communicate with them.

I've also found that PMs with more certifications tended to have less of a clue in terms of how to run a project, but that's just my experience.
This is possible, however, if it were the case the law would be formulated differently to ban all short term visitors who don't pay for a hotel. For the past three years I have stayed in the city for many visits for free with friend - no hotel taxes.

Clearly this practice and "couchsurfing" would have to be banned as well if it was purely to recoup these taxes.

If short term visitors outside of the scope of taxation (i.e. me) were putting a strain on the system because of insufficient collection of hotel taxes, then the city has a number of possible outlets. In Europe, for example, many EU citizens of certain age classes pay far less than non-EU tourists for museums - the same could be done with NY residents vs. non-resident.

This is really to say that if there was an issue, visitors should pay for their costs directly rather than obtusely. If in the process of using a short term rental they consume well above and beyond what the property owner would normally consumer on their own (power, water, gas, services), then the property owner should see a rise in costs and pass these costs back onto renters.
I don't do this, but I know many medium-experience users who keep literally 100s of tabs open at a time. It's like they use it instead of bookmarks. That sort of person would love this.
Let me know if you want an extra opinion on your brochure. My email address eric.bernhard@gmail.com
For sure. Functional programming helps to separate a problem in small elements and to think of all kinds of creative ways to combine those elements.
I basically came from imperative to functional straight away, so I cannot tell a lot about OO programming, but I definitely see the consequences of OO thinking in a lot of code.
Clojure was a great way for me to simplify programming in my mind. Although it's a very capable programming language, the concepts are so simple that it puts your mind into creative thinking :).
Clickable: http://notarycrm.com
I think this quote is a nice wake-up call to any potential heir who thinks he/she is entitled to a large inheritance:

“If my children are competent, they don’t need my money,” Mr. Yu explained. “If they’re not, leaving them a lot of money is only doing them harm.”
Not leaving the polish for the last. I've noticed that it's bugfixes and the final polishing that are the most tedious (everything's done and most of it works).

I now polish, test and debug every bit of the project as I go along. It's very tempting to pinch all the fun parts out of the project right away (the core functionality) and leave the little stuff to the end, but this is gonna leave you with heck of a lot of little things to do after the project's ready.

But once you're already trapped in the little things, it's the todo lists: dividing it all up into as little pieces as possible and going at them one by one. This also forces you to measure how much of it is still to be done - otherwise you feel like every one of those last bits is going to be the last one. And when it isn't, it's going to feel like puke. .. and fixing bugs like this is also prone to create other bugs.
My guess on why they came up with the title they did is that they know a lot about physics, but spent very little time thinking about free will, and so picked a catchy if somewhat inaccurate title for PR reasons, and didn't bother to research it much. That seems in evidence from how little the paper discusses free will (it doesn't even acknowledge that there's controversy over its definition, and that their definition is not a particularly common one).

Seems sort of sloppy on the whole, and I really dislike those moves in science, since there's no scientifically good reason for it. Just pick the more precise, accurate title; there's no benefit to physics from attaching a loaded term like "free will" to something that has a clearer, more precise term for it, especially if you attach it inaccurately.

In my own papers, I try to do that, and then if I really want to note the connection to a philosophical concept, I note it as a possible connection in a future-work or possible-implications type of section: "if we take free will to be related to 'the stuff discussed in this paper', as some philosophers do (cite), our theorem may have implications for the existence of free will". But obviously that, while more honest, isn't as good PR as naming your thing the Free Will Theorem.
I’m also not sure how that solves the problem. It could be that in any such situation our brain runs a little algorithm that takes into account past experiences (there is your causal link to the outside) or our brain maybe decides at random. Most probably it does a little of both. One is deterministic, the other is random, no free will (as defined before) there.

Do proponents of free will (as defined before) claim that there is some entity somewhere, decoupled from the rest of the brain, that makes those decisions? That’s maybe unlikely but, yeah, it is possible. It’s just that I think that such a entity would have to blind to the outside world. If it would base its decisions on information about the outside world it would be just as deterministic as the little algorithm the brain could also run to make decisions. It would essentially be the same and no free will (as defined before). I also don’t see how such a blind entity could make meaningful decisions if there is no information there to base those decisions on. It could easily make random decisions but that's also no free will.

(Thinking through the consequences of such a blind entity leads to some quite absurd results: You couldn’t give this entity the names of the alternatives since that would create a causal link to the outside world. I’m not even sure whether you could tell it the number of possible alternatives without creating a causal link to outside world.)

(Oh, and if you are wondering why I’m writing ‘as defined before’ whenever I write free will: I do think free will is a useful concept. It’s just that you need determinism for it to work.)
Yes. If Apple are in the right, a refusal to re-investigate the issue by Consumer Reports would make them look silly and the review contrived.
Why not make a UofReddit course out of it? Rope in a mentor for what you want to learn. Make a four/five week study plan and do social learning. While that would somewhat give you the credentials and openness that you want, it will take away some of the flexibility.
Consumer Reports originally recommended the iPhone4. They retracted the recommendation when they heard about the death grip. They confirmed the problem on the iPhone4, but apparently they didn't check other phones the same way.
The article states that this makes him the first Chinese citizen to donate more than $1 billion to charity.
360 Health: Acne Boils on the Face
Tried homevalueprotect.com Got back:

ABCpdf6.Doc.1 error '80004005'

Unable to render HTML. Unable to load page.

/index.asp, line 135
So you think about separating problems in small elements in non-programming contexts?
It's not a genuine question. You've already assumed your obvious conclusion by turning "threatened to arrest" into "make an enquiry". Those are not the same, and anyone with the slightest professionalism can easily do the one without the other.
I find "reverse innovation" a bit condescending, why not call it just innovation.
Excellent stats. Thanks for posting this. The picture is pretty bleak. According to CIA's World Book, 1 in 8 Americans live at or below the poverty level. Only 6.24% of the working population older than 25 make $100k+. The average income for the same demographic is around $32k. So, yes, all the data says the same thing: there is a massive economic polarisation going on in the US.
I've tried that but found that it's best to polish at the end. Nothing wastes more time than throwing away polished code. I don't fine tune anything until I'm sure I'm going to use that code in production.
YouTube still uses Python extensively.
Tunguska event
Kozinski has a history of striking down overzealous Mattel IP claims.

"If this were a sci-fi melodrama, it might be called Speech- Zilla meets Trademark Kong."

http://notabug.com/kozinski/mattel_v_mca
philanthropic donations are only ever patronizing. it shouldn't be possible to accumulate that much wealth to begin with.
Well I don't think an UG DIY degree would be a good idea. The UG degree has more courses than the PG (as they should be, so you have atleast a basic survey of the key topics in CS). This increases the workload on the student. Further more, the UG degree is not only about getting the knowledge. Its an essential part of social life one must go through. Joining clubs, games, groups build your character. This is likewise true for Masters courses. Its not only about the knowledge, its also about the exposure you get out of the Uni. campus.
I want to stress that the following will work, but get you in trouble. Javascript does not support associative arrays.

var myData = new Array;

myData['key1'] = 'value1';
myData['key2'] = 'value2';
myData['key3'] = 'value3';

myData.length; //0
I'd love to see a fork of adder that used Ring+Enlive+Moustache.
Academics in some fields build up entire careers worth of work that all builds upon their "special sauce" super-secret dataset or software, which they've built up over many years, and while there might be enough information in principle in their papers to reproduce the data or results, it would be a thesis level project to actually do so.

There's a story (unfortunately I forget where, perhaps someone else can jog my memory?) about a string theory PhD student who, after getting annoyed wasting months on a set of hundreds of straightforward but tedious and time consuming calculations, decided to just do it all once and for all and spend the time to put together a table of results for all of them. Of course, this helped his future work immensely.

When he went to his PhD advisor to ask what he thought about publishing that table, the guy looked at him like he was crazy. Again, I don't remember the quote, but it was along the lines of "What you have there will give you a 1000% speed advantage pushing out papers in this field compared to your peers - you'd have to be crazy to share that sort of competitive advantage with everyone else when you could keep it to yourself, this is your golden ticket!"

There is also the issue of preventing competitor (other researchers here) to get a free ride on your work - getting data, preparing them is a huge part of the researcher's work in some fields.

Which brings to light very clearly the source of the problem - the ideal of academia is to advance the overall state of knowledge as fast as possible, but once you start using the word "competitor" in a serious way that actually has bearing on whether you publish something useful or not, that ideal has been perverted.

Obviously it's the "publish or perish" mindset that causes this, and I absolutely understand why people would be tempted to see their supposed colleagues as competitors instead of collaborators (in the general sense, when they're not actively collaborating on a paper); it's one of the main reasons I decided not to go into academia, in fact, I saw too much political bullshit spewing about even in the harder fields like physics and math. I have no idea how to solve any of this, but it's a serious breakdown in the system, and I suspect it (publish-or-perish, not just information hiding) hinders the long term progression of academic knowledge in some of these fields by a large amount, not in the least because it rewards herd-like behavior and punishes exploration. That's another can of worms for another day, though...
I did my own design on my apps (for both myself and clients) for a long time. Hell, RateMyStudentRental still has my old design (I've since had it professionally redesigned but not yet implemented the new design).

One thing I can say is that the quality of my sites, and my pride and satisfaction in my work, has increased dramatically since I've started to contract out the design to professional web designers. Not just because they look better, but because I believe in their potential enough to spend money to make them better.

That being said, here's a specific suggestion. You need screenshots. I can't tell a thing about how the app actually works or what it does (other than simply taking your word for it), and I can't visualize any part of the app without signing up. I'm not a notary, so I'm probably not going to sign up.
There is a REPL in the WebKit inspector as well as in Firebug.
The Internet Explorer Developer Toolbar may even have one. I'm not sure that an extra website is strictly required.
I seriously doubt that they would get it right. HyperCard was raw, simple, and intuitive, and applications just aren't like that anymore. Applications concentrate now on being "shiny", with special effects and such.

Like BeOS and other gone-before-their-time technologies, HyperCard just isn't coming back.
On one side, I applaud the higher court's findings.

On the other side, I wish the Bratz dolls would just go away. If I had a daughter, I wouldn't want her to play with Bratz (or Barbie for that matter).
I got a blank pdf for www.engageinteractive.co.uk
Bit of a logical play, the dilemmic fallacy to be precise, but, alternatively:

If they're competent, leaving them a lot of money won't do them any harm. If they're not, they need his money.

[edit] here's the classical example of this change in perspective: http://divisbyzero.com/2008/11/30/euathlus-and-protagoras/