skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You're very welcome.

Gaston was a family friend - my grandparents ( Carl Moebius and Janet Moebius) are mentioned because they helped write the book.
Is there anything that Xserve does that would be difficult to do on a Linux box? Could they, perhaps, lend assistance to the netatalk project to assure present and future compatibility with the AFP protocol? Same for Bonjour? And the open-source HFS+ driver?
I think going overboard with forum subcategories when setting up is part mimicry, part wishful thinking about member numbers, and part the overly taxonomical mindset of the classic webmaster.

It definitely happens a lot with these vBulletin/phpBB type sites, though I wouldn't define overboard as >1
Do I need to list all the harm people do to themselves and their environment every second of every day? Humans most certainly do not always do what is best for them, and we have a lot more cultural support these days than dolphins do to help us make the right choices. If dolphins had technology, maybe they'd look at us and say, "Look how many of these dumb beasts intentionally inhale poisonous smoke."
Thanks for the comments. It seems like Lisp is one of those languages everyone should learn at some point, and it's likely past that time for me. I don't really have a specific idea for GUI apps, and am already heavily invested in Cocoa for those anyway, so I'd probably be looking at it to build a custom static site generator idea that's been floating around for a while.
I always wonder if they wouldn't be hated if they just charged the venues requiring it to be absorbed into ticket sans label. Instead of being listed as a "surcharge." Nobody hates mastercard or visa (outside of the payments industry).
I checked with Bing and unfortunately there is no way for someone to bid unless you attend the auction. If you want to bid, you should designate someone else to attend for you and get a reservation/bidder number.
You're trying to wrap all this up in justifications of what he did this "in the name of".

How someone justifies something like this is irrelevant. The basic rule for material, absent an explicit other license, is copyright. Shaw is generous enough to offer a less restrictive license, but that license is clear on its terms. To ignore the license given on a work, whether it's copyright, some CC non-commercial variant, GPL, or whatever is indeed a classless act.

And if you want to linger on "providing something useful", Zed has pointed out and Martin acknowledged that this approach is not useful for advancing Ruby education. (For that matter, it was a dead project.) Shaw has now provided a guide on how to make a book of this style at http://sheddingbikes.com/posts/1288945508.html

Also, it's "make fart noises", not "fart". As in deliberately make a noise considered rude. Copying and pasting a book and putting it in a public repository isn't a semi-voluntary bodily function.
Science now includes morality.

Yes, but only in a descriptive fashion. Science can now explain why homo sapiens has evolved specific moral feelings and customs.

Science is now about how things work and how we should act.

This "science as a moral authority" is a different concept altogether. I'm all for including scientists in public debate, but let's not go too far.
Wow. There are people who will steal* and then have the guts to argue they are right.

I did not read LPTHW before this.

Now I read it and it's indeed hard work.

Wow.
> Shall we forbid Dawkins from advocating evolution?

Yes, please, I'm begging you. Dawkins has made himself the WORST person to be advocating evolution because he's turned it from a rational scientific argument into the moron-capades by arguing about the existence of god.

To put it simply, he's trying to get his finger out of a Chinese-finger-trap by pulling, which makes him a moron because every 5-year old will tell you to give up and push your fingers together because its... you guessed it... POINTLESS, just like arguing about an unresolvable argument like whether god does or doesn't exist.

Does a tree falling in the forest make a noise? Yes, it's called science lets invite Dawkins to talk about it again.

Why shouldn't a doctor treat themselves? Because it's very hard to do open heart surgery on yourself!

Edit: > Should we forbid programmers from advocating software patent reform because "it's a topic they are deeply attached to"?

I thought the conventional wisdom with copyright reform was that the MPAA, RIAA, etc. should be forbidden from advocating because "it's a topic they are deeply attached to" ... you know all those hundred-dollar bills don't roll themselves up into big fat wads and slip into Congressmen's pockets for nothing.
Yep, MIDI Out. And then a lot of controllers sync with the DAW and so they have MIDI In as well. I.e. let's say I have a fader on my controller mapped to channel A's volume if I change the volume on either the DAW or on the controller they will sync so that they both display the correct volume level automatically. If I change the volume through the controller then it's sending MIDI Out to the DAW if I change the volume on the DAW directly with my mouse say then it's going to send MIDI In to my controller.

Basically you're cutting out the need for a middle-man.

And thanks. :D
I've tried quite a few of these, yours is nicely done. I was surprised at some of the beautiful domain names it generated. Now I just have to control my urge to register even more domain names I'll never actually complete the project for...
So, What about Mac OS X Server?
I absolutely agree that emotional processing is an important component of intelligence. But I'm still not convinced that it's a good way of ascribing rights.

Regarding your examples: we certainly do act in the interests of the insane, mentally disabled and children. But that is not because they have fewer rights or have less personhood. We act for them because and in defense of their rights. We do this because they are unable to protect themselves and need guardians to defend them from abuses to their dignity, bodily integrity, etc.
Global anger swells at Fed actions
Great idea! Love the critiques :-D
Find Photos For Your Blog In Three Easy Steps
I call bullshit. Text can be perfectly expressive, in fact often more expressive than other media. You just need to be able to write well - and e-mail has exposed us on a daily basis to the fact that most people haven't figured out how to write and communicate very well.

Obligatory plug - I wrote about this recently: http://blog.tommorris.org/post/1307196373/im-getting-absolut...
While I agree that science shouldn't try to give us declarations about what is and isn't moral, I disagree that researchers are necessarily unqualified to advocate with respect to their fields. You seem to have jumped to the conclusion that researchers are emotionally attached to their field in a way that prevents them from being objective. I don't see why this should be the case. If anything, competent researchers need to be able to be objective about their research. If a person can't be objective about dolphins, not only should that person not be in a discussion about whether dolphins are people, that person should not be doing research on dolphins.

But the input from objective, rational experts, including dolphin researchers, is certainly valuable in a discussion on whether dolphins are people -- as is input from philosophers, animal psychology researchers, and potentially legal scholars. Similarly, I would have a hard time accepting a claim that doctors shouldn't be in a discussion on right-to-die legislation because they must be too emotionally attached to their patients, or that civil rights activists and scholars shouldn't be part of discussions surrounding rights of US held detainees at Guantanamo/Bagram/etc because surely those activists are too emotionally attached to an outcome to be rational.
By inference, business people should not be allowed to advertise or argue for their own products... Or should the public already know not to trust business people?
I use this for my 5 accounts.
Worth telling because Emacs is a kickass IDE for Lisp and most people use it, but it's kind of scary to beginners.
It's a malformed version of a genuine research principle. Attachment to research objects is often cited as a deficiency of a publication. But it's not disqualifying by itself, and has nothing to do with advocacy.
She was actually violating a law and hence your quote doesn't make any sense (Apart from adding sensationalism) in this story.
What would happen if we made it unconstitutional to change the budget in a such a way that expenses were greater than income?
In that detail, it may not be the classical form of plagiarism and just piracy. However, if we are sticklers for the point of attribution, we have to acknowledge that "homage" doesn't involve ignoring licenses or copy-and-pasting the original content, now don't we?
Honestly I think the best way is to just come out here if you are able to. Grab a room from AirBNB and stay for a month or two. Figure out what you like to do, then find the companies that do that and tell them you are really interested in working for them.

Show up for hack days, tech talks, meetups, user group meetings and all the various things that are happening all the time. Talk to others at these events and ask them if they know someone at one of the companies you are interested in.
I'm with you on that "that's an interesting argument" train of thought, but you ruin the argument if you pull it down to this level.

Most people react _very_ emotional (and - for the most part - this is probably a really good thing) if you bring in arguments about sexual abuse (bonus points for minors).

Let's try to stop these comparisons. They are kind of like Godwin's law, killing the discussion in the process.

In fact - did already someone name this fact before? Can I claim? ;)
> Shall we forbid Economists (it's a science!) from advocating economic policy?

Yes!
I would be totally with you if lowglow's question was:

"what about a long division test?" or something similarly snarky.

but art is an interesting cultural phenomenon that very likely occurs in some form in many animals. Alan's supposition that there was some bad intent in posing the question is absurd here, in my opinion.
From the experience I've had with running Parallels and the like, I disable any sharing of drives. I dont need drag and drop files from and to each one. After disabling that, I see better performance.

Disabling options like Application sharing, Drive sharing, video card 3D support, and the like will help. If you dont need it, turn it off.
No problem!

All you have to do is to amend the Constitution to remove this pesky bit:

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech"

(Note that this has been incorporated on the states through the 14th Amendment so you can't do an end run through them.)
Unfortunately, you can't bid unless you attend the event (or have someone attend in your place).
We are hiring right now- I'd love to chat. I'm also an SF native so can give you some general perspective on the bay area as well. Feel free to email me any time. joe@answerly.com
How Hoffman’s Moral Code Impacts His Investment Decisions (Video)
While dolphins lack the communication methods available to humans, I believe that they have the same methods available to them that whales possess. Whales have a pretty sophisticated "culture" that is encapsulated in the variying songs of different species and among the various geographic and tribal groupings within a particular species.
> what would it be like to see from two sets of eyes?!

Obviously, this is pure speculation but in the same way that we can fuse the signals from two eyes into one coherent image, I don't see why, in principle, the brain couldn't fuse the signals from four eyes into one image.
Was I the only one who seriously expected a generator that appended "-ify" to the end of the word?

I do like this, though. I'll be using it in the future. Good job.
While I agree with the gist of your argument, I'd make the following point:

It was science that disproved notions of human racial inferiority, phrenology, witchcraft, and other social conventions that led to conditions of horrible oppression.

So while one might argue that the scientist should only reason about facts and not about morality, there are cases when someone acting in any professional capacity might choose to speak out about a moral issue that their professional activities have given them insight into. For what constitutes a moral judgment on a complex issue but an average moral judgment applied to advanced knowledge of a subject?

The key difference (in my opinion) is not in the area of moral judgment but that some humans have the courage to apply moral judgment to issues that they are uniquely able to understand and others do not (I recall we debated wikileaks here a few months ago :)

So unlike your conclusion that moral activism is outside the professional boundaries of science and should thus be left to professional moralizers (clergy? politicians? the general public?) I'd argue that anyone who discovers a moral outrage in the course of his/her professional work should speak out about it, but should not overstretch his/her claim to authority, since that authority is narrow to his/her field and often the moral question is broader, etc.
Sane Namespacing and Object-Oriented Development with Javascript
http://www.urbaninfluence.com/brand-blog/nate/sane-namespacing-and-object-oriented-development-javascript
Blue Box Group is hiring an entry-mid level developer
I'm all for the humane treatment of animals. Humans are animals. But doesn't "person" imply "human"? Does a human need to be intelligent to be a person? what about someone with extensive brain damage, wouldn't (s)he still be a person? Why muddle definitions?
I'm sorry, but no, Microsoft, and the world for that matter, do not work that way. Stifling open-source innovation in one small, small chunk of their bottom-line (and their gaming division is really small when compared to the behemoth that is the rest of MS) isn't even going to be on the agenda for discussion. They're stifling it because they want to control the content running on the platform (see any Apple product for why). Whether that is an acceptably smart/evil thing for MS to do is up to you, but let's not pretend it's part of the insidious crusade by the man to keep us hackers down, eh?
Microsoft's legal threat.
Here is the real problem with moral statements by scientists as scientists. The task of science is, roughly, explaining observation in reference to proximate causes and systematizing those causes as completely and minimally as possible.

There is a divide between this task of explaining what is and proclaiming what should be. There is no way to make the leap with the tools of science (measuring, hypothesizing, testing, theorizing). Put another way, science does not have the meta makeup to look outside itself and say, "what is science good for?"

So when scientists make moral claims as scientists, they are dressing up a lay moral opinion in their lab jacket. Like Freud talking about linguistics or economists talking about love, we should only trust them as far as the limits of their expertise. And we should recognize that when scientists say that science proves an ought, they are committing a category error.
It isn't just open source. If I was to hack a driver for it, but not release the code and only do some sort of daemon server and documented API replicating anything it can already do, it would be the same idea.

The problem comes because the reverse engineer hackers don't have a business model to protect. It doesn't matter if that month long project doesn't return any money, because it was damn cool to do. Compare that to Microsoft who requires people to pay them money for the privilege to write code that takes advantage of it. I don't have any numbers, but a large group of small to medium game companies buy SDKs and Development tools for platforms they don't actually produce titles for. This is a significant number of people they don't want "trying" before they buy.
It just means that the usual arms race between defenders and attackers isn't as clear-cut as it is when both the peripheral and the host are sitting in your living room or lab.
This subject is the topic of Giorgio Agamben's "The Open" (2003), which is a short (though dense) volume. Definitely worth a read if you are interested in the subject!

http://www.amazon.com/Open-Man-Animal-Giorgio-Agamben/dp/080...
Its probably less about the handicapped person and more about everyone else. "Less handicapped" might factor out to smarter, stronger, male-er ... whiter... it gets ugly fast.

Its comforting to know that human rights are a binary function and not a sliding scale, even if you'd end up on the top end.
That's not merging - that's just killing Pylons.

Ughh... The lesson for the future: when it comes to tech, stick with the leader. I didn't go Django route because it felt clunky and bloated compared to more elegant and flexible Pylons, but I guess it was a huge mistake. Pylons decided to "collapse" itself in favor of even more (!) elegance (like someone needed that), and a year worth of work is now based on something "in maintenance mode", while Django is still around.

Tip: looking for a Python web framework? Django. Why? It will be there tomorrow.
It has a PixelQi display. Realistically it isn't the Adam being hyped, it's the display. Most people don't cares about Notion Ink per se. they're excited about concept of actually getting their hands on a PixelQi tablet and Notion Ink seems to be the first company to actually deliver.

Is the software going to be buggy and incomplete? Probably. Is it going to be a serious threat to the iPad? Not a chance. But as long as the hardware does what it claims to do, that's good enough for me.
Interesting and had not thought about OSX server. I agree though that the future of that particular OS may be uncertain at this point.
" how we should treat dolphins is not a scientific question but an ethical and moral one."

How did you decide that science and the scientific process should be excluded from ethics and morality?
I must say I was shocked when I learnt that people in the USA don't generally have kettles (or was I misled?).
Perhaps it would be best for those who do these studies to stick to the facts and let others do the advocacy. It would give them a higher degree of credibility as scientists if they separated these roles.

That's a good point, but on the other hand, there are many issues that are unsexy, from which activists shy away. There's a passage in Russell and Norvig's AI book that relates how the US government once asked researchers to evaluate if we should ban a toxic paint component from being used in classrooms. The researchers did a proper utility calculation; they assigned a value (say 80000$) to a child's life, then evaluated the cost vs benefit (how many children lives could be saved vs. the cost of using another paint). It turned out that banning the paint component would be beneficial. The government was outraged, "How can you assign a monetary value to a child's life???"

So they rejected the report, and didn't ban the paint.

The moral was that "Refusing to assign a value to a human life leads to its being frequently undervalued"

There's no way that any activist group will ever march to support assigning value to children's lives. Yet, it may be the right thing to do, and it could happen if we had more scientific advocacy.
I like the idea. As many others have already said, I think approx. $10-15 per meal would be ideal.

Just a suggestion: I think you should really market this service to businesses and office-crowds for breakfasts, lunches, and dinners. My last office was in an affluent area where the walkable lunch and dinner options were Subway and 20 or so high-end sit-down restaurants. Killing an hour and spending $40 on lunch wasn't a viable option and Subway got old after about three weeks. I often worked from 7am-9pm and would have gladly paid $30-40 per day to have a breakfast, lunch, and dinner prepared and delivered to me to avoid the monotony of Subway, the price of "creative French fusion" cafes, or the time-commitment of a Steakhouse lunch - and I know I wasn't the only person in that situation.
I'm an entrepreneur. I work in a field notorious for generating a feeling of entitlement among laypeople.

So, I have a hard time sympathizing with arguments that boil down to "if company X makes cool peripheral Y, I am entitled to use it in way Z that is contrary to X's business interests".

My unfounded suspicion is that if the tables were turned, and Microsoft focused its (considerable!) systems research capabilities on, say, disrupting Wattvision's business model, Hacker News wouldn't be leaping to the defense of forced interoperability.
I'm not an expert on it, but that position's sometimes called "compatibilism", if you're looking for a keyword. This Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article's a decent starting point, if a bit academic: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

The really short answer is that it boils down to a disagreement over what "free will" means. Compatibilists dispute the claim that free will is definitionally equivalent to something like a videogame with multiple endings, where your actions can change which endings you get (the "garden of forking paths" model of free will).

It's actually usually taken as an alternative to dualism, because if humans are 100% made of physical matter that's bound by the usual laws of physics, and we think something called "free will" is meaningful to talk about, then they must somehow be compatible. The alternatives are: 1. dualism, claim that some part of human thought/action takes place outside of the laws of physics; 2. deny that free will exists; or maybe 3. somehow deny that the laws of physics exist, or at least claim they exist in some different way than usually understood.

Daniel Dennett is probably the best-known-among-the-general-public proponent of compatibilism.
Happiness is a state of mind, you can't successfully induce it with external sources.
I know that I'm in the minority, but I hoped that your site worked with scripting turned off.

> This is one of those crazy web2.0 things, so you'll need to enable javascript. Sorry
Corruption as a barrier to entry
Nice way to promote your own blog.

Quote: "Do the people who propose these theories not get letters in the post? Do they not send each other Christmas cards?:

See - that's the part that shows that you fail to understand the problem. At all. I can send my mum, my SO or my brother short notices - and they will get what I mean. Because they already know me. They know my style of talking, my sense of humor and my way to argue. I'm not going to send you a christmas card over the internet, without previous encounters.

See - if you present this text of yours here, I'm lost. Are you _serious_ about that "bullshit"? I'm not sure. I don't know you and it doesn't make much sense to me. Either you are serious and we have to disagree a lot and I just don't (so far) get what your problem with my position is, or you just make a joke. Maybe you are chuckling in your chair and just want to spread some HN link love. Maybe you actually DO believe that emotions and intents are clearly visible in text.

If the last point is true I wonder if you had any classes/lessons where you were told to determine the authors intention - and if you have enough confidence to claim that yes, you knew _exactly_ what Mark Twain was trying to tell you in each of his books.

Er - I guess that was a long way to say: I call bullshit on both your argumentation and your motives. Feel free to read this with the image of me being amused, bewildered, confused, angry, annoyed or just neutral. Have fun.
http://help.github.com/dmca/

For some reason can't edit my original comment. So replied to myself.