skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Adding archiving to the address book requires two things: A mechanism for archiving a contact, and an input for switching between two separate views of the contacts list: the filtered view (archived contacts hidden), and the full list of all contacts.

I suspect that adding an "Archive" button to the contact info view (to go along with the 'Share Contact' button) would probably suffice for the former.

For the latter, I'd probably use the 'Recents' page in the Phone app as reference. That view has a two-way button at the top to choose between "All" and "Missed" calls. Something similar for "Primary" and "All" contacts (though 'primary' isn't the best word choice) at the top of the contacts view might function well.

Interestingly, there already is support for one other view of the contacts list built into the phone: the Favorites list. The Favorites view forgoes the All Contacts view's A-Z# list, but ignoring that, Favorites is like the white-list version of Archiving's black-list. If every contact started as a Favorite when added, and "archiving" removed its favorite status, you'd have pretty similar results (though that's a pretty poor way to do it).

Those are my initial ideas for it. It would be interesting to see whether archiving could be sufficiently abstracted so as to be easily added to iOS's other default layouts (and whether there would be use in those cases).
Pandora from the command line
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1867943
I find arrow keys quite inconvenient on my happy hacking pro keyboard, which I would imagine to be a popular choice around here.
Deskotron
Yes, if you ignore the first 3 real reasons.
Consumers driving business Windows 7 adoption; XP is on the way out at last
Oh, it's the presentation I read 4 months ago.

Facebook Groups and Friends Lists are a step in the right direction but they haven't been implemented well in other aspects of Facebook.

If Google Me ever became a reality (and not in the limited "only existing product enhancements" fashion) this would be an interesting discussion. Facebook's model isn't friendly to the privacy oriented sharing schemes.
New visa will boost UK high-tech sector
This seems to be an American behaviour I don't really understand; the inability to separate the things someone's said/written, from the person. If someone writes something you disagree with, why does that invalidate everything else they say?

Michael Moore seems to exemplify this perfectly. He holds strong opinions on a wide variety of (often orthogonal) topics, yet Americans seem to feel the need to either embrace everything he says as good, or be vehemently opposed to him on the basis of their disagreeing with him on one topic. Is it too hard to say "I agree on this" and "I disagree on that"?
Pick any religious, political, or philosophical position. Chances are, most holders of that position make similar statements about it most of the time, and detractors give pretty similar critical responses. It would be trivial to write a chat bot, either pro or con, for a lot of topics.

Replacing yourself with a chat bot is just like arguing in person, except that it doesn't try your patience or waste your time, only the other guy's, and it doesn't give you any opportunity to learn or be exposed to novel ideas.
This is not about fuckin you and me.
I was just in DC for the first time last weekend and thought Pizzeria Paradiso in Dupont Circle was, all things considered, pretty tasty. I don't think it's as good as Via Tribunali here in Seattle, but I certainly enjoyed it.
> My biggest issue with webkit is that there was a perfectly fine rendering engine to begin with

Yes, KHTML. Ooops.

> with that both Safari and Chrome could've simply built a new UI around

Chrome is a new UI and JS engine tacked to webkit, they didn't create a new rendering engine.

> Instead they gave us yet another OS to support.

What?

> Web developers complain all the time about supporting multiple browsers, yet support web kit?

Web developers complain all the time about supporting shitty browsers, not multiple browsers. Since ~Safari 3, webkit-based browsers have been very, very good browsers, often superior to Gecko in terms of rendering quality and JS quality (and perfs). Furthermore, it got very fine dev tools by now, more than on-par with Firebug's in most arenas, to the point where a number of developers have switched to webkit as their main development platform and relegated Firefox to "also checked".

Not to mention, webkit-based browsers are the one offering the most new and interesting features for Making Cool Shit Easily (multiple backgrounds for instance). That's something web developers tend to dig.

> Right now though (ruling out IE6), > 50% of my web dev cross browser issues are dealing with web kit, not IE7+, and for a much less significant audience (ie: expensive).

You are doing it very, very wrong. This simply isn't something I observe. Quite the opposite in fact.

A year ago I got into a codebase which had been developed solely on and for Firefox for more than a year (crappers gonna crap), getting it into a useable form for Webkit took a few days, it's still barely useable for IE8 and entirely broken for IE7.

> So you're right, it's not a "fail," but I think how great the response is to it is really disproportional.

It's not.

> I REALLY want to love chrome etc but I just can't - it's not ready yet.

Whatever.
I wish I had time to write a longer reply because this sort of question has been on my mind lately and I have a lot to say about it. I teach logic at the university level. Given my experiences I've come to think that it's difficult to justify even at that level.

At the very least, I think we have to come up with more sophisticated arguments to convince students of its relevance (for those who aren't going on to study computer science). Year after year, I've seen our institution (and this applies to my own contribution) - fail to present that argument in a way that is convincing to students. I've come to believe that this is not a result of superficial engagement with the concepts by the students. Even my best students remain skeptical as to the relevance of logic. Rather I think they are reacting to a genuine concern about the usefulness of logic given it's actual nature.

To explain fully why would take some time - and I've got half a large blog post waiting to be finished on the matter. But for example - students get jaded when we logicians tell them that:

This apple is green.
Therefore, it is not red.

Is NOT a logically valid argument. But hang on they argue - you told us that a logically valid argument is one where the truth of the premises necessitates the truth of the conclusion. How does this argument fail to qualify?

They become even more jaded when we tell them that the logical form of English indicative conditionals such as:

If the moon is made of cheese, then Sarah Palin is the president of the United States.

are best represented by the material conditional. We present detailed and sophisticated arguments for this conclusion. But no matter how clearly we present the case, students remain frustrated over the fact that if that is a material conditional then it's true - even though we suppose that there is no connection between the moon being cheese and Sarah Palin being president.

There are countless other examples. The point though is that you can't just dismiss student frustration. Because no matter how tight your argument for the material conditional as being the logical form of that English sentence, you just can't deploy that knowledge in any normal context of dispute. If any argument in the real world hinged on the truth of an indicative conditional - trying to convince them that it is indeed true because it's a material conditional with a false antecedent is simply absurd - and the students know it.

As it happens, I do have an argument for the importance of understanding logic. But it's involved and subtle - and still it leaves logic as something that you can't really deploy in a day to day context. It's certainly not something that to which you'd want to subject elementary students. Other than that, the only clear use for the knowledge of logic is in the technology sector and philosophy. This is a path of specialisation that shouldn't be imposed on children at such a young age.

Just my two cents...
Not once have I seen a global warming proponent who was willing to debate it on a scientific basis,

Science is not done by debate. The issues are too complex to be conveyable in the cut and thrust of a discussion. There is a reason that the gold standard of scientific research is the peer review journal and not debates.

Until you understand this point, you aren't able to understand how wrong you are on this subject. The reason no one knowledgeable will engage in a debate is that they know how long it will take to explain to you all of the experiments that have been done that lead them to the conclusion that human-caused global warming is real. By explaining the experiments, I mean explaining in detail the methodology, the results, and the mathematical analysis. It is literally years of work. But here's the thing. Scientists themselves have done that work. Each experiments methodology and analysis is reviewed thoroughly by knowledgeable people before the result is accepted by the community.

Once you have educated yourself on this huge body of work, you too will understand the futility of engaging in a "debate" with someone too ignorant to know what they don't know. You will also understand just how strong the evidence for GW is.
First off, you've confused me with codefisher. Codefisher made his point by providing a link to support his argument, which you said couldn't be done because you said there was no science supporting his argument. Now you're changing the subject, and attacking me, including engaging in name calling, and dishonesty, trying to force me to defend a position that I have never taken.

And even so, you are easily defeated because you have provided no evidence supporting your position. You're taking some date, and asserting that it says something without considering the nature of that data and what it is actually measuring.

The thing that has tripped you up is that you think you're referring to science when you're actually referring to propaganda. People have massaged the numbers to support a hypothesis, and you link to it, thinking it is factual. It isn't. (otherwise there is no way the rural and urban areas would show the same warming, unless there was no such thing as a heat island effect, a position I presume you are not taking.)

Thus you have jumped the gun, insulted me, and made erronous arguments while ignoring, multiple times, it being pointed out that you're doing so, because you won't pay close enough attention to notice that you're attacking a person who didn't make the claim you erronously assumed.
What Tech Wants
Commissaries on U.S. military bases use a one line multi-cashier setup, yet each cashier has a bunch of novelty items near their section. I seem to remember that setup be a little bit faster too, though it's not immediately apparent when standing in line.
You link to a place where you confused me with someone else, as justification for making personal attacks?

See also:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1867917

So, you refuse to respond to arguments, you admit it, and you demand that people make arguments to someone else, and then you lie about me to accuse me of being evasive, and then you link to an argument you made where you confused me with someone else (after ignoring my previous arguments) to support the claim that I'm ignoring your arguments?

In short, you have attacked me, lied about me, ignored my argumments, not provided any arguments of your own, and instead linked to someone else's blog and demanded that your opponents debate them.

I think I'm done. You can continue to be evasive or make personal attacks. I can't stop you. But there is no point in wasting any more time on you.

You have, by the way, proven my point, by once again being a supporter of AGW who:
1. Is not familiar with the science.
2. Is unwilling or unable to make arguments.
3. Is unequipped to respond to scientific arguments.
4. Who rests their advocacy on the claims of others that tehy assert are "Scientists"
5. Engages in personal attack.
6. Engages in dishonest statements.
7. Rejects the scientific method.

You have demonstrated all of these, and this forces me to remain convinced in my belief that advocates of AGW are anti-science religious zealots.
This is exactly why I left Minneapolis for Seattle as soon as I had my degree. That, and the sushi is generally bad.
yes. Clone probably isn't the right word either, but I don't know what is.

The idea was to match, as closely as possible, the output and behaviour of a Vic20, but not the internals. I want it to be Basic compatible, and that includes making most of the memory locations behave properly, but not machine code compatible
UpdateStar - Simplify your software life
Cheap Ugg Boot BaiChocley Button
You have yet to provide any arguments. Snide and snotty counterfactual statements are what you have provided.
FTA: "First and foremost, advocates must emphasize that in a free society, the burden of proof should be on prohibitionists to justify the interference with liberty that results from outlawing marijuana, a burden the prohibitionists have never met. Any calm assessment of marijuana versus alcohol, for example, shows that alcohol is the substance with the greater potential for harm."
A big part of the reason that many of the biggest sites websites on the net now are made in Php, is because it was the most viable and popular option 5 years ago. In that time both Ruby and Python have made leaps of advances in using their technology for web development. Now both languages are faster than Php, and in general the popular frameworks in this languages also preach better practices.

I worked with Php for a couple of years and I can tell you that I absolutely thought the language was a melting pot of some great ideas with a huge bunch of WTF form the very beginning. In my opinion Php as a language is archaic and the only reason to use it now is because it makes sense for your team (because that's what your team has experience with). That being said, a good developer gets great stuff out the door regardless of what language they use to do so. Hell one of best developers I know is a Php junkie - with whom I always ended up having a slight language war with. The funny thing is that even tough he was the strongest Php advocate I know, he is now using Python for everything and agrees that it's a much better language.

Now I work almost exclusively with Ruby for webdevelopment (and also for a big part of my server scripts now that I mention it) because it just makes sense. The code is a lot more maintainable and scalable, though this is because it's generally the case that out of a batch of Ruby developers you will probably get more 'good' developers than out of a batch of Php developers with the same amount of people. It's my experience that its easy to get 50 Php developers, out of which only a couple are actually good ones, while if you get 10 Ruby devs, at least half are competent.

This rant is getting long so I'll just leave you with a thought. If the only developers you can get right now are Php devs, it makes sense to do your project in Php; however, if it's possible for you to get your hands on some Ruby or Python developers, you really can't go wrong by choosing either over Php, specially since doing so will generally have the benefits of a faster, better, and more maintainable codebase.
Try Pete's in Columbia Heights. Been living in DC for a few years now, probably the best I found by far.
You mean this page? http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

My reading of it is that the original Mann analysis stands up, ie. Mann 1999 is largely correct, and that McIntyre's analysis is flawed. The Wahl 2007 paper contains some "interesting" language:

"Altogether new reconstructions over 1400–1980 are developed in both the indirect and direct analyses, which demonstrate that the Mann et al. reconstruction is robust against the proxy-based criticisms addressed. ... Also, recent “corrections” to the Mann et al. reconstruction that suggest 15th century temperatures could have been as high as those of the late-20th century are shown to be without statistical and climatological merit. Our examination ... leaves entirely unaltered the primary conclusion of Mann et al. (as well as many other reconstructions) that both the 20th century upward trend and high late-20th century hemispheric surface temperatures are anomalous."

"without statistical and climatological merit" - heh. Them's scientific fighting words.
> Not that it really matters for the sake of the argument, because my point was that gecko was widely used already

then maybe you should have said that

> whereas KHTML was not and so they should've used it instead

That's not really relevant, and Gecko's size and complexity make it a hard sell when you have long-term goals of appliances and embedded. Furthermore entrenched projects and interests means Apple would have had low if any say about the project's orientation, giving up heaps of control. So it made sense for technical, future-proof and business reasons to go with a KHTML fork rather than Gecko.

> but gecko was also around before KHTML.

That's not even correct.
Meta-flex: Your new brand for invisibility clothing
How 'bout Rapture? (cf. Bioshock)
New Zealand Smoke Free By 2025
A Smart Invoicing Solution for Freelance Facebook Application Developers
We all know how important are the reviews for readers and how they help them to choose the right software for their purposes. I highly recommend a very solid web-based SaaS invoicing solution which should be part of any Facebook Developer business called Invoicera.
I would think they almost certainly don't use this internally given that they don't run Apache for any of their user-facing applications.
We almost sold Gridspy
> The least they could do is have the q tag render with smart quotes

Fuck no. I will decide on the fucking quotes I want around my quotes, unless you decide to cleanly and perfectly support all international quote style guides[0], you do not touch the content I create and you do not start changing my quotes.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark,_non-English_usa...
Your last paragraph very aptly describes your own mode of arguing. Your're not doing your cause any good that way.
Scroogle is Down
I used to live in Washington and I thought it was a great place for a semi-foodie like myself. There are certainly some great "uber-expensive" restaurants there, but there are a lot that don't break the bank. Matchbox, Heritage India, Jaleo, Luigi's, Old Glory...

I loved the pizza at Armand's (Chicago-style) and 2 Amys (Neapolitan).

Northern Virginia dining could be hit-or-miss, but the Great American Restaurants chain was my absolute favorite. The food and the service at all of their restaurants is top-notch. Have you been to Coastal Flats/Sweetwater Tavern/etc.?
Yes, when you model the past, that makes sense. What AGW proponents use are models to project the future. But they are inconsistent with the data of the past. They don't fit it.

They are simply fantasies to try and lend "scientific" justification to a political movement.
Yes but getting hold of those mails is another matter entirely.
Bypass iTunes with AppDrop by AppMakr for Easy And Painless App Testing
>> If your privacy practices aren't transparent, then you introduce doubt. Doubt leads to lower usage.

So true. Too many apps and services don't understand that as users, when we see "Connect to Facebook/Twitter", our minds are immediately filled with doubt and mistrust. Why? Because we want control over what our friends see about us, and we suspect your app doesn't give a shit and will shamelessly promote itself at our expense. So be clear. If you're going to write on my wall, say you will. And if you're not, then say you won't. Don't leave me guessing.
I've run server ops (and do development) for significantly loaded RoR and PHP applications (and still do), and I can say that there is more quality information available for RoR than there is PHP for setting up high scale and stable setups.

When setting up a RoR stack, all the information I needed was available, the infrastructure was pretty stable and was easy to debug problems. PHP on the other hand, had close to no information on dealing with high load. The optcache libraries are poorly documented, nobody is really talking about it, and running anything but Apache (for performance, of course) under fcgi was horrifically problematic.

In the end we had to write our own monitoring tools to deal with all the oddities we discovered with the standard fcgi spawner (there were many), and when trying to mitigate memory leaks we discover that there are 'many known leaks in the PHP stdlib, but that's OK because everyone runs short-lived processes and restarts them regularly so we don't need to fix them'. My idea of a robust (fcgi) server would be that it doesn't require constant restarts, but that's just me.

RoR is only one framework in the vast number of Ruby libraries. I have worked in both technologies and there are more well designed, useful and current libraries and tools surrounding Ruby than there are PHP.

Quite honestly I'm sick of people apologising for it and pointing to the 'big players in web' as proof that PHP is OK. In my opinion it really needs to go away. In the years I worked with it, it taught me nothing but bad habits. I'm not the only one.

EDIT: Two Ruby libraries I used recently that were very high quality were Nokogiri (HTML/XML parsing) and Typhoeus (HTTP library wrapping libcurl). I don't recall ever seeing anything like those in PHP that had such intuitive APIs. Can anyone provide any counterpoints of better libraries in PHP that don't exist in Ruby? P.S. Wordpress is not an answer.
This might at least light a fire under the US government to do the same.
I lived in LA for 22 years. It grew on me. But LA takes practice. And I never felt as at-home there as I do in the SF Bay area after just four months living up here.

SF traffic is NOTHING compared to LA. Traffic in LA can be truly nightmarish, especially on the West Side. An hour to go five miles is not uncommon on certain routes during the rush hour.

The entertainment industry dominates the culture. Phoniness is the norm. On the other hand, if you like peeling back the curtain and seeing the gritty reality behind the glitz and glamour there is no place like it. And because LA is crawling with highly talented out-of-work actors, there's really great theatre at very reasonable prices.
Startup Poker tonight at SOMAcentral
You're being snide, but you're actually correct. Governments have spent billions upon billions to rationalize this political movement. Energy companies are not the only ones under attack, but they are some of the few with enough money to actually do research. Of course most of their money goes into exploration... but they have done science on this topic.

Have you noticed how, when they do so, AGW proponents reject the results out of hand? It is as if you believe politicians would never lie or cheat in order to gain power.
I made the move from DC/NoVA to SF and couldn't be happier. I've done some job hoping in both places and can say that the work culture in SF is more lose, fun and creative.
I doubt it will "crush innovation" - we've been metered since the dawn of broadband in the UK but I don't think we've done too badly in terms of fresh ideas.
There's no such thing as a Google killer