skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Christian Louboutin Boots sale, Discount Christian Louboutin Boots on sale
Facebook Cleans Up Birthday Wall Posting
US engineer sold military secrets to China
>"I'm going to the convenience store to buy a joke."

What a great meta-punchline. :)
Free Gift with Purchase "Cigar, Accessories"
"Bonus" Keep an eye out for this icon. Free Gift with Purchase. - http://tiny.cc/dmoz3
According to the article, Apple got exclusive rights to electronics usage only, so while Apple may be doing harm to hamper new electronics usage of it, most of the stuff you mentioned should still be open to be licensed by other companies.
Released c++ facebook graph api client as open source 
Hello all
i released my code that is implementation of facebook graph API in c++ using Qt 4.6.1
its free to use/learn.
Note its only MOCAP/prototype not real application , the real thing here is the c++ client implementation with the facebook graph api

check it out here :
http://code.google.com/p/facebook-cpp-graph-api/

Enjoy!
But there's one important question: will it blend?
Ask HN: What is the best tax-haven to start a start-up?
What is the best tax-haven to start a start-up?
Yeah, you're probably right, and it is a pretty ugly page.
In American history it's been far easier to deregulate than it has been to regulate. The telecoms themselves have seen massive deregulation in the past few decades.

I also fail to see how packet parity can be bad.
while(1){ $('input#entry').val('hahaha'); $('input#entry-btn').click();}
How Important Is The Right Back Pain Diagnosis?
Meet the Class of Twitter HQ [hiring video]
Now, that's just unreasonable. Crazy figures like $200,000 are accounted for by the nightmarish public-private kleptocracy we have here. I challenge you to find someone who pays those kinds of princely sums, even for emergencies and very sophisticated procedures, in one of the numerous countries that has neither a socialised healthcare system, nor the catastrophe we have here in the US. In those places, people just go to the doctor and pay a basically affordable sum out of pocket.
Would one possible explanation for a country to have a very high suicide rate but also a high happiness index be survivorship bias? The winter depression might be so harsh that it pushes the unhappy off the edge, and the remaining population consists of those who are just so happy that it doesn't bother them. I suspect though that someone with more knowledge would find this argument a bit vapid.
I started disagreeing with this immediately, since I take walks all the time. But it occurs to me that I do it a lot more now that I've moved to Europe.

It's just a lot more walkable here. In Pamplona I could walk out my front door and be blasted with the fact that I was in a medieval walled city with cobbled streets and narrow alleyways. Any direction I went had some guaranteed Cool Stuff to pass by and probably would end me up perched on some 600 year old military fortification looking out over the farms.

Contrast that to living in a typical LA suburb with no sidewalks and nothing to see apart from apartment complexes and possibly a Starbucks if you press on far enough. It sorta sucks the fun out of the experience.

I've definitely done my share of walking in the 'states too, but then I've made a point of living in some pretty walkable places. NW Portland and Venice spring to mind as places I spent a ton of time simply wandering around.

Other places I've lived... San Gabriel, Tigard, Gresham... Not much walking.

I think maybe it has more to do with where you are than who you are.
Suing Google
I read a couple of paragraphs. Is one thing to do a study on rats then to do a study in humans. This doesn't disprove my claim.

Edit: Also, it seems that you are implying that the differences are so huge that we should have a lot of retarded people walking around us. The proof that the gaps in intelligence are small should be obvious by simply looking at your environment. There are people getting phd's from all corners of the world. China, Japan, USA, Mexico, Europe, Africa, Australia. How did those same genes that enable people to get phd's get to places so far away as China or Japan which have been isolated for so long? Even for thousands of years? The thing is that those genes have been there all along for thousands of years.

I think I already agree that there are differences but I do not agree that the differences are huge. Otherwise some of these groups of people, like china or japan who have been isolated for thousands of years, would have serious intelligence differences as the rest of us.

Another example is the Mayans, also isolated for thousands of years from Europe. Independently invented the zero and developed a Mayan calendar unequal on precision until recently. Many of their descendants have gone on to get PHD's. If there were really large differences then some groups of people would not even be able to get PHD's.

Again, the there are differences but they are tiny. Yes, there are studies saying that there are huge differences between groups of people but frankly many of these studies are questionable and sometimes they almost seem to carry a hidden agenda.
Linkbait Generator
I have a feeling if you spoke to some artists/draftsmen you'd hear about the "Mont Blanc" of pencils.

Also, you might find such a thing here: http://www.penciltalk.org/
Perhaps due to my incessant optimism about people's reasonableness, the way I understood the argument seems to me to be primarily about the regressive character of the tax system. $59k/$44k just isn't that much anymore, especially in a relatively high-cost area, and especially considering the sources of cost inflation he identified.

But okay, $59k/44k is one thing. You want to talk about regressive taxes, tell me why I have to pay nearly $2k to employ a part-time person who nets just a little shy of ~$1400 (roughly ~$22k annual gross), and that's without any benefits. Talk about a disincentive for job creation! I'd much rather pay my part-time employee more of that ~$2k, and if I could, I would.

If I give him a $300 bonus one month, he's going to see about $180 of it if it's run through the normal payroll withholding mechanisms. At that level of income, that really is ridiculous.
A lot of them eat egg whites only because egg yolks contain a little less than half of the protein but all of the fat and cholesterol. Some say that the cholesterol in yolks actually has a small impact on, and even reduces your blood cholesterol, but I haven't seen a definitive study.
> You think a person is smart only if he goes to school.

I have never said this. It is a well-established fact that schooling is not just correlated with IQ, but actually causes an increase (Husén & Tuijnman 1991).

> A person from 2000 years ago has the same potential to get a phd as anybody as in our time.

...and you ignore my environmental arguments entirely.

And yes, I've read Hamming's lecture several times. Hamming was a great scientist. However, he was both not a social scientist, and he was addressing a room full of scientists at Bell Labs, one of the most effective research institutes in the 20th century. No one mentioned IQ because everyone there already had all the IQ they needed! Bell Labs was one of the brainiest places around! It was on par with MIT, where even the secretaries used and programmed early Emacs!

It'd be like discussing how to become a great programmer, and mentioning that you need to be alive. It's a prerequisite that's already met; discussing it is an utter waste of time and balmy.

Nowhere does Hamming say, 'and btw it doesn't matter if you score a 60 on an IQ test and can barely dress yourself in the morning, you just need to follow my suggestions and you have a shot at the Nobel!' Because that would be idiotic. Rather, Hamming at the very beginning states:

> "I saw quite a few very capable people. I became very interested in the difference between those who do and those who might have done."

He assumes from the beginning that he is discussing 'very capable' people and why some accomplish great things and some don't.

> Go on believing that only a selected few chosen by God were given the gift of being smart.

Hey, why give up? Doesn't Hard Work Conquer All?
I'm not interested in proposed solutions, I just want more power and authority! aaaand something about the consumers.
In video game, tackling the complexities of protein folding
Your comparison with Google is flawed, google does not ship the core software to third parties for integration in to their product, it's purely a service. So google not shipping their core as open source has a different impact on their users than NOLOH releasing the source of their core would have on theirs.
" It's faster and more enjoyable to write notes in the notebook than in my iPhone"

I'm increasingly writing things down on paper then snapping a pic with my G1.

It's just a handy way to capture stuff that is less likely to get lost.
2 DIN 7 Inch Touch Screen Car DVD Player with Bluetooth + GPS
Ask HN:What are your thoughts on an open database for social data?
An open database where companies can POST any sort of structured data (social data), and other companies can QUERY this data.

Right now, social data is scattered around. Your tweets, check-ins, reviews, wall-posts are on different services. Imagine if they were centralized, and the application AND the user could control who gets to query this data.

Applications can query on the user, query on the venue, query on anything--in a very structured way--and the database would return the results.

Of course, the applications who post the data would get something in return--whether it's money, users, or whatever value.

Is there a market for this "open database?" Will this idea work?

Please let me know your thoughts on the opportunity and value of this idea!
Yep, you're right.

The real problem is that for roughly the same tax burden, you don't get a fraction of what Western European or Canadian counterparts get. No socialised healthcare, no government-subsidised education, a pitiful two weeks of paid vacation at best, joke unemployment benefits, etc.

I'm not necessarily arguing that any of that should be the government's job or that all aspects of it are fundamentally fiscally sustainable. I'm just pointing out that you get quite a bit less for your money; an alarming preponderance of your income tax goes to prosecuting pointless wars, Wall Street bailouts, and other suitably kleptocratic endeavours. Local and state government operations are substantially funded by sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, and other taxes not even accounted for by your 45% figure; the income taxes do not yield many practical, down-on-the-ground results apart from the relatively small portion of the federal budget that goes to state-bound block grants.
There are few things more relaxing than coming home on a Friday afternoon, mixing a nice cocktail, and cranking some truly embarrassing music from your youth on the stereo, at full volume through big speakers.

To pull that off, you need thick skin or thick walls.
The one part that annoyed me is when it asserted that an omnipotent god must be able to do things that don't make any sense, which is not what I thought the earlier question was asking. It doesn't do any good to point out an inconsistency that's caused by a poorly worded question.
Was going well. However, one of my 'misses' had a logical flaw in it. I previously responded that it is ok to believe something spiritually based on a firm inner conviction, without external evidence. It then posed that a person raped someone because an inner voice told them it was ok. I responded that this was not ok. It said that I had now some logical conflict. This is not the case. I said it was ok to believe in something without external evidence, I did not say it was ok to act on those beliefs without external evidence. Huge massive difference here.

Logical Fail Here:
"Earlier you said that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But now you do not accept that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the rapist has exposed that you do not in fact agree that any belief is justified just because one is convinced of its truth. So you need to revise your opinion here. The intellectual sniper has scored a bull's-eye!"
Tickets To Scorpions 
If you want to be singing along and tapping to the beats soon, you may want to grab some TICKETS TO SCORPIONS and get ready to lose yourself in the best music. All you need to do isyou’re your friends or family together and TicketsMate will do the rest for you with some great deals on your TICKETS TO SCORPIONS.
I like taking walks and listening to pod casts, the problem is the opposite; I'm laughing and muttering to myself as I walk along, unnerving all those elderly immigrants.

However it is a good idea to walk without ipods/mp3 players as much as you can bear, walking helps your mind wander or meditate without having to 'learn how to breathe'.
"The coolest thing about this all is watching the Internet doing what it was built for."

And that would be commenting on a paper before anyone has finished reading it?

Just kidding.
This sounds like a todo list for a non-technical co-founder.
Mens Nike Air Max 2009 Shoes Black/White
Yeah, and employees in Italy and Scandinavian countries get a metric butt-ton more government services for their money.

Not to turn this into an argument about what government should be doing; don't care, irrelevant. The point is simply that you do get a lot for giving up ~50%+ of your paycheck in those countries. Here, you just give up whatever you give up (your figure doesn't take into account sales taxes, excise taxes, use taxes, property taxes, etc.)
interesting to know, thanks. I just got into Moleskine a year ago or so. i haven't experienced any bleedthrough with the Pentel ballpoint point I pimped in another comment in this discussion. I think B&N has a store brand they promote too but I haven't tried it yet.
the hosting company is the only one /able/ to respond, (well, depending on the attack type. the nastier attack types fill your pipe and/or overwhelm your router's pps capacity... your upstream is the only one who /can/ address that.)

however, standard practice in the hosting industry is to disconnect the target, temporarily or permanently.

the thing is, cleaning up this shit gets expensive fast. And there is plenty of 'splash damage' to your fellow customers.

I was taken out a few months back by a DDos. Fourteen thousand dollars in SLA credits I paid out. The customer? was paying me one hundred fifty a month, and this was the second time he got hit with a major attack. I asked him to leave or help me pay for the damage. Obviously, he picked the former option.

but yeah. my upstreams wanted me to get rid of the guy after the first attack. 'finishing the job' really is standard practice, if the attack is sufficiently large.

Personally, I think this fact is one of the reasons why the problem isn't going away. Service providers, the only people who /can/ do anything about it, well, they can spend a whole lot of time and effort tracking down the source (being as most DDos traffic is spoofed, this is quite difficult) or alternately, we can just take the target offline.

the economics of the situation are all wrong... but I don't know how to fix it.
Hacky Sack works great for this too. Better still if you can grab the whole team and sack out in front of the building.

I suspect Smoking works the same way.
That's exactly right. We don't get even a tiny fraction of what you get for your ~50%+, or would get for ~35%.
For the record I think a lot of people who run hot dog stands are a great deal smarter than a lot of Ph.D.'s. Formal education and intellectual training are not the same thing.

Very few people have the inclination or desire to accomplish intellectual greatness, though, and that's enough to keep most people out regardless of ability. When you only look at people who have that inclination and desire, many people openly admit to lacking ability compared to others.

The idea that all humans have the same potential to do anything is, frankly, something people tell their children as an encouragement to work hard, but is not really true, or honestly believed by adults. Not everyone is talented enough to be a professional athlete or a tenured physicist. Everyone who's tried to teach has noticed that some people pick things up better than others. I'm not talking about the people who aren't interested or don't care or don't work hard enough--even among the motivated students, some do better than others. And no matter how hard you work to pick up the people who are behind, they can't quite catch up. And if you invest just as much effort in the better students they only get further ahead.

Consider the evidence. How likely is it, really, that there exists some undiscovered, magical way of evening the divide?
Call me an elitist asshole, but I find your tone infuriating.

Clean it up. Learn some respect.
I have not taken any direct hits, but three bullets. Which means (slightly paraphrased): Your beliefs are consistent, but people may find them strange (sometimes). I'm still trying to analyze if this is a problem.
This is top-notch standup material. If I werent so afraid of the repercussions, I'd say you pretty much hacked comedy.
"Elitist" is a funny word. The anti-elitists you describe certainly don't believe in an official society elite delineated by academic degrees, but a natural elite of talented individuals, wherever they may come from, is a different matter.
If you are walking around and getting caught up in judging to what extent other people are not taking a walk so that you can later write a blog post about it, then you are not taking a walk.
Actually not, probably because games do not require you to read a lot and because the resolution is quite low. I don't feel that it looks bad.
What about the everyday meaning of "proof" and "irrevocable proof" as "strong evidence" and "stronger evidence" respectively?

If I saw someone leaving the house of a woman (not his wife) with lipstick on his face and messed up clothes, I think I'm justified in calling that proof of an affair. It's not "irrevocable proof" though.

"Irrevocable proof" would then be actually seeing him in the act. Logically, though, it's not - maybe I was hallucinating? Maybe he has a twin? Etc. - the point is, language is rarely definite in everyday use.

I got tripped up on a few of these as well. I said that evolution is correct despite not being fully "proven", yet it was foolish to believe in God without irrevocable proof of his existence. My intent was to say that believing in a God would require a huge amount of proof, not that it could be "proven absolutely", whatever that means. The game decided that I was arguing that God needed to be literally proven in order to prefer the God theory.

I don't even know what would constitute "irrevocable proof" in any area bar "I think therefore I am" - and I believe even that has been shown to not necessarily hold!

--
Ayjay on Fedang/philosophy
No hits. My two bullets:

##

You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof. So You've got a choice: (a) Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution. (b) Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.

You chose to bite the bullet.

##

You've just bitten a bullet! In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.
GitHub Jobs
How to Recover Lost MS Excel Password easily?
The all-in-one guide is for you on how to recover the Excel 2007 password. With the complexity and confidentiality of data statistics, it is important to master the way of recovering the Excel password when forgot or lost it.
Ask HN: What Vim Plugins do you use?
I have switched to vim a little more than a week ago and would love to see what plugins/extensions others are using.

What plugins do you use and what is your favorite plugin and why?
Node.js explained
I did something similar. I gave Moleskines as gifts to two people I know. One said it was the best notebook he's ever had. I'm trying to infect people. I want these things to stay in production this time.
Would it be that feasible to detect anonymized and encrypted GNUnet traffic? The packets would be largely scrambled, no? Unless you knew that sending/receiving nodes were in fact GNUnet endpoints - you could infer what the traffic is, based on that - otherwise they shouldn't be able to reliably determine whether it is an encrypted SSL browser session or an encrypted GNUnet transmission (I may be missing a crucial piece of information here, please fill me in if so!).

I would imagine that coming out and clearly supporting it would be a difficult PR move to swallow. The extreme of net neutrality ensures that the internet remains open regardless of what is being transmitted; this includes everything from illegal content, socially taboo content, legal content, and liberal expression of thought/idea/opinion. While many critical thinkers would correctly say that "supporting an open internet maintains innovation and the free exchange of ideas and that it is often a self-regulating entity that should not be stifled" they also forget that many many people do not see it that way. There is quite a bit of archaic thinking that qualifies an "open internet" as a harmful medium because that openness allows for the unregulated transmission of thought dangerous to the state, child pornography, and other illicit materials and subjects. Those same people that believe it must be regulated are locked in a state of believing it is people they must control rather than themselves (I know that sounds unnecessarily philosophical, but, it really is the truth).

Is this worth fighting? Are we making headway? Maybe a little. But the establishment is established while the progressive roots of free thinkers is protean (it is necessarily so, otherwise we wouldn't be progressive). The goal should be to keep pushing, slowly, persistently, and steadily while exploring mediums and clever ways of circumventing the silliness of people that believe regulating something as transformative as the internet will actually work.

Hell, it's all a bunch of old people coming up with these policies! In 20 or 30 years, people in political power will be those young people that were born with the internet and were witness to it - the internet already made its impact and the momentum is far too great for anyone power to stop it. It may be muffled for a bit (if even that), but it won't be stopped.
It's all the little touches. Apple Mac is to Windows PC's a bit like Moleskine is to regular blah notebooks. The former is for those seeking a quality experience. The latter the cheapest experience.
Moleskine + Pentel for the win. same here.
Lesson learned - have an opinion and be controversial

Ive often wondered how I would feel if I wrote a post that p*d the hell out of a lot of people. Looking at the marketing result I'd say I'd be smug happy as hell.