skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
For Biomed articles, Pubmed (pubmed.gov) offers free access to articles over a year old as of 2008, and sometimes sooner. Also, I often find it handy to google the full article name or the author, as many times authors may have posted a copy on their webpages.

Some are (PLoS (http://www.plos.org), BioMed Central (http://www.biomedcentral.com/), many small highly specialized journals), but overall many publishers still are similar to magazines.

A few things you may not be aware of in science publishing (at least for my area, biomed):

-The journals argued main role is to peer review research and distribute it. To do so, they engage researchers to act as peer reviewers, who take uncompensated time to do so.

- Journal articles are often noted as "advertisements" because the authors must actually pay for their publication, usually a 1-3K or so. Additional charges for color figures and such. This is not limited to non-profit journals. Some journals have an immediate open access option, which for a higher publication fee, your article can be fully publicly available as soon as its published. Also, NIH grants now allow for some request for publication fees and some universities have programs to aid a research in paying the additional costs of publishing open access immediately.

- With many journals, you must give up your copyright to the material to the journal. So, if you'd like to use a figure you made of your data in another context (grant application, review publication, dissertation, website, book, etc) you have to seek approval from the journal.

- More recently (2008), if you get funding from the NIH, you must deposit a copy of your publication into PubMed Central (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/) within 12 months of publication. Now, 12 months is a ridiculous amount of time in science really, but at least it's progress.

By the way, although universities generally provide "free" access to many journals, they also pay ridiculous amounts of money to offer access to those journals that are not open access.

Science publishing (at least, biomed) is currently going through the same growing pains in the digital era that many paper-based businesses are going through (newspapers, magazines). Their main business is two-fold really, 1) disseminating research and 2) peer-reviewing research. The internet make #1 largely obsolete. They now act primarily as a filter for "interestingness" and as a prestige-meter. There are many arguments that the current model for #2 is highly outdated, but the funding agencies (eg., government) and scientists as whole are generally a pretty conservative crowd that is resistant to change.
I think there should be a couple use cases facebook always protects from, and proves that they aren't going to hurt the person. Here is one:

"Mary is an abused spouse, beaten inches from death once upon a time by her abusive husband. She has since left him and moved to another city entirely, in hiding."

Nothing in the system should allow any information about Mary to leak out. Not pictures of her, not her updates, not her level of participation in the site even. Your tagging is broken if you allow her to be tagged or captions to point her out.
The demand for 6502 assembly programming isn't what it was.
I don't really buy the statement that "there is no talent." The fact of the matter is, some people pick up on a given skill and attain a higher level of competence at it more easily than others. But this doesn't matter all that much, because being "merely" competent rather than "talented" is usually good enough for most things in life.
it would be cool to have some examples of those people.
Not if your aim is to continue your bloodline. Having a child or two to carry on your genes is a luxury for the rich, who can expect at least one child to live on through sexual maturity.

It's not rational, it's biological.
What would you expect to see in crystallography? A different pitch and radius on the helix?

If that is the case, then assuming there is arsenic in the DNA: how did they manage to PCR it? I would expect it to wreck havoc with the polymerase.
Facebook allows you to download all your data, log in via OpenID, and more
"Never mistake a clear view for a short distance." Paul Saffo

Look back 20 years to see what's changed to get an idea of what may happen in the next ten. Look for more innovation to take place in cosmetic surgery, veterinary medicine, and other practices where the patient (broadly defined) pays.

Insurance, while necessary for catastrophic events, has crept into almost every transaction. It distorts incentives and is less concerned with improving outcomes than minimizing and shifting costs. The financial incentives and economic models for medicine have to change before you will substantially alter the pace of innovation.
No one cares that much, but changing something for 500m people will always cause a discussion.
I suspect this reaction is exactly why Wikileaks is metering out the information - each time they reveal some wrongdoing, it will be new wrongdoing and hence newsworthy, whereas each time people scream for Wikileaks's head it will be the same shrill cry.

I think Wikileaks is hoping that over time, the repetitive anger at them becomes boring, whilst the corruption they uncover becomes the more interesting part of the story.

I suspect they are deliberately releasing only mildly embarrassing information at first as a form of innoculation so that when they get to the really damaging stuff Wikileaks itself will be old news and people will focus on the more unpleasant truths.
Talk to a bankruptcy lawyer. Initial consultations are free with almost all lawyers. Bring tax returns, summaries of your income, etc.

I honestly don't know about the other two. I know one of them was pre-2005 law.
It is not censorship to stop hosting someone who is violating several points of your terms of service. Wikileaks only got on Amazon in the first place because Amazon has an automated sign up, which can be abused.
This is a totally opaque interface that hardly works at all as far as I can see. Completely uninformative, dumb, not functional in any real way. What is going on? Why do all these other think it is great? It is not.
Hi Marius, I have a handset and have published an app on the marketplace. Send me an email (in profile) if you need to test on a unit or have any questions.
The site is down for me.

Anyway, I don't think database joins are all that important. They make sense when structuring your schema - only store a unique piece of data once and then connect other data to it. This is a very sound design choice.

But in light of modern key/value stores, I don't think one needs to perform joins on the database anymore. Sure it's theoretically a bit faster than performing the join in your app, but considering all the other implications and quickly you realise you don't need those.

Consider these two options:
Pull data from a db, it's neatly tied together with all its meta-data. But the query takes almost a second and when the DB is always worried about consistency and stuff so writes are kind of slow too.

Pull data from a db. If you need some related data, you make another query based on the key stored in the first piece of data. Each query takes a fraction of a second, together they don't take as long as the full join query ... and you're only joining stuff when you actually need all of the data.

The added benefit is that in this situation the DB doesn't have to worry about almost anything and is thus much faster.

If that made any sense, I'm preparing a seminar on NoSQL so I'd love to hear some input on my understanding of things :)
He is saying that sometimes you are sheep and sometimes a herder. It isn't an exclusive or.

In life, you want to be a craftsman but you sometimes just need to be a tool. Many times, you have to be both to get the job done. For CEOs are tools to their customers, and that's just how it works.
South Africa doesn't receive that much aid in relative terms.
How to always be sure that your connection is secure
This answers my question in a satisfying way, thank you.
Perhaps the most convenient change is that all 4 display ads are now above the scroll line, even on my netbook. Thanks Facebook!
You'd care if Hacker News changed in functionality and layout.
Hudson’s Secret: Kohsuke
I simply love the idea of letting you tag people in the employment history box, and list the projects you've worked on. See http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs1223.snc4/1555...

Give it 3 months before LinkedIn follow suit. fb Keeps morphing ideas into new realities. I have never seen short cycle iterations at this level ever before. They make it extremely difficult for a new player in this space to ever keep up with the level of innovation and change facebook has baked into their culture.

The facebook of last month is too dull and less-relevant than the facebook of next month. Well done, and I salute Zuck for not selling out in the tech world as so many others have.
Google Translate says that it's arabic, and translates the title of the article as "Earn." The two arabic comments posted by alhdhd are, respectively, "Visitors additions Commercial" and "Earn visitors Pak Commercial additions and lots Link." Basically, it's spam.
Get the New Facebook Profile Now
The current trend, as I understand it, is to reduce the independence of doctors. This is happening on 2 fronts:

1.) The FDA is imposing stricter limits on how doctors prescribe.

2.) The insurance companies are imposing limits on what doctors can do.

The trend has been developing for several decades, but it only came into clear focus during the 1990s, when the HMOs first gained prominence. Doctors have lost a great deal of independence compared to what they had 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago.

#1 has at least 2 parts:

a.) The War On Drugs: this has lead to limits on how aggressively doctors can manage pain. Too aggressive and the doctor comes under scrutiny.

b.) The widening powers of the FDA. Over the last 50 years the FDA has become a general clearing house for all new technologies that effect health. Whereas its focus was once on drugs, it now has substantial say over every kind of medial procedure, including such things as pacemakers.

A simple model of the contending forces might include these main actors:

1.) patients

2.) doctors

3.) government

4.) hospitals

5.) patient insurance companies

6.) doctor liability insurance companies

A simple model would simply assert that each of these is trying to lower their risk, partly by moving the risk onto one of the other players. (A more complicated model would have trial lawyers as their own element, but here the trial lawyers are assumed to be part of #1). In a simple model, you could assert:

risk = the power to make decisions

The more each group tries to get rid of its own risk, the more it also loses the power to make its own decisions. This is a simple model, but it clearly has some truth.

What we've also seen in the last few decades is that when risk in the system goes beyond what private sector actors can manage, then the risk, and the decision making, gets taken over by the government. This was a long term trend, but the trend was made very explicit and visible during the crisis of 2008/2009, when lots of private sector actors failed (Lehman, General Motors, etc) and were taken over by the government.

I keep looking for some sign that this trend might abate, but for now, it seems likely to continue, if in modified form.

Conclusions?

You can become a doctor. You will be respected. You will be well paid. You will lack the independence that has been traditionally associated with the role. But despite that, you may enjoy the work.
just for the record, I never need to have snowfall effects on a news site...
I wanted to thank you for this well thought out reply even though the thread is close to dead. I totally agree with you about the kind of corruption that would be more meaningful for them to expose.

Have you considered the possibility that the current leaks are intentionally 'low value', and intended to cause outrage at Wikileaks to be spent early in the game, so that when they release something truly meaningful the story will no longer be about Wikileaks itself?
I still believe enumeration should be reserved for the federal and state governments. If it isn't listed in the constitution, then they should not have control. The problem is that courts have used the commerce clause to give the gov everything.
Do people really believe that, in the Olympics for example, the winners don't have a genetic predisposition (i.e. talent) for the sport they won in?

For one thing, it's obvious that certain sports favor certain body types. This was discussed when Michael Phelps won all those swimming medals - his body structure was particularly well suited for swimming.
Oh, ok, fine. Here's an webapp I wrote, you can use it for free: http://billable.co.za

:P
Google Wi-Fi breach ‘inadvertent’, says Australian police
Whenever I see one of these "boycott Amazon" threads I wonder whether that person would be so brave if FBI agents showed up at their door. Because that's what happened to Amazon here. A very powerful Senator showed up at their door and essentially gave them a choice between dropping WikiLeaks for trying to fend off every possible attack the Government could throw at them. Jeff Bezos was faced with questions like "can the web services business survive if we have to fight the U.S. Government" and "how many people are going to lose their jobs because of the business slow down caused by this"

While on the other side all WikiLeaks has to do is go to bittorrent or the NY Time and they can still get the information out.
Excellent point. Instinctively, I assume everything the government and especially DHS does is a fraud to embezzle money from the public, but it would be handy to have numbers to back it up.

I think to some extent the point holds regardless of the detailed numbers. It's supposed to be bringing in people who are likely to excel, not just any random joe who can manage a two-year IT degree. I'm in favor of letting the latter immigrate just as much as I favor allowing farmworkers to immigrate, but it should be under a program that doesn't require paying a fortune to a school who knows how to work the system.
If I was an attorney, I would read TOS's and help consumers fight them. At least to compare them to brick and mortar stores like Sears, etc. From what I can tell TOS's are just conjured up with loads of crap.
At least for the NIH, they now allow publication costs to be funded in grant applications. Also, many institutions have now set up funds to help offset the open access publication charges.
"As you can see, Mr. Anderson, we've been keeping our eye on you for... some time now" <slides FB profile dossier across table>
Why do you want to be a doctor?
The co-pay is the portion the insured pays. It isn't always small. It isn't even always a small percentage. A procedure my wife recently had, the co-pay was about half the total cost.

Co-pays depend the insurance company, the plan, the health care provider, and the procedure.
It's so easy to find reasons for adding another person to a team, but much more difficult to identify when things like groupthink have become a problem as a result of those additions.
And is incidentally, pretty much the only African nation I would consider visiting...
I guess I was assuming that the product wouldn't be the same as old school publishing, just free; rather I was assuming more like the articles published on arxiv. In this latter case, the layout editing etc is absorbed with the producer and their administrative staff at the university, with the hopes that their article will have a big impact.
I think we'll begin to see an acceleration of drug research. Pharmaceutical trials typically take over a decade to complete, so the drugs available for general use now were devised back in the 1990s. Back then, clinical trials were largely paper-based, and needed to have a relatively large number of subjects to be proven safe.

Nowadays clinical trials are usually managed by web applications, which give a real-time view of how the trial is progressing. We're also beginning to see drug trials targeted at specific generic groups. The idea is that you need a smaller sample size to prove a drug works for a certain genetic subset of the population, so less initial investment is required. If the drug is successful, further trials can expand the number of people that can use it.
The problem is that updates becomes a monster problem if you have lots of connected records, since the same information is duplicated in many places over your data store. Failed updates can easily lead to inconsistencies.
Actually, his stand-up was a play on that conditioned response. His act had no clear punchlines, so there was no clear cue that told the audience "laugh here." This is a great essay about it - and how he got started in comedy in general, and the importance of practicing: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/funny-martin-2008...
Africans are people too.
I believe the thing about innovation in the field of medicine is that it has a lot at stake when trying new things. From theory to wide practice there are a lot of barriers, impeding the development of the things you mention.

But there is something certain, technology will play a enormous role in medicine. You shouldn't be worried about whether or not we will see such things in a 10 year lapse.
Thanks Tim :)

Great to hear someone who's been maintaining the "working in waves" method for longer than me. Not sure I could do it for long though!

You raise some really good points - especially glad you mentioned investments, since I'm starting to think about that now as I am amidst a "work wave" and earning enough to put a portion into investments. Any advice on where to start with this?

#3 is one to remember before the next wave, thanks.
I wonder how much money that "canned text based on two list boxes" saves/makes Blizzard every year.
They'll only care for a few weeks.. like every other time facebook has altered something. I'm personally in favor of the new look, and I think a certain degree of change is healthy now and then.
That'd be the ideal, yes, but I highly doubt the court'll change what they're doing without something on the scale of a constitutional amendment.
Google for 'hackers for charity'.

Last time I checked Johnny was doing some good stuff.
I think that's very unlikely to happen. People who hadn't been abused would use it widely. Facebook, like Google, wants you to spend as much time as possible on Facebook, which means moving as much as your life into Facebook as possible and making things about others public by default, because that translates to more pageviews. Facebook makes money selling ads, so the more pages you view the more ads they sell. This is their principal motivation.

Keeping things locked-down goes against both precedent that Facebook itself has set and the easy way to get more pageviews. There is probably a market for such a locked-down social network for people in witness protection or secret agents, but I don't think Facebook is very interested in the space.
I think that's my point - major reform is almost impossible for politicians to enact without an external force to react to.

If we have structural problems (e.g. widespread corruption) then politicians alone won't fix it.

I can't say that I know whether Wikileaks is going to effective, or that it's going to cause any positive ourcomes, but it seems clear to me that if there is going to be positive action on corruption it's either going to happen as a result of a massive crisis (i.e. the system breaks down), or because a new force shines light on the corruption from outside, forcing politicians to act. Both paths carry a risk of things getting worse rather than better - although so does a slow decline resulting from inaction.

Personally, I'd hate to see any (more?) major breakdowns in society, and the idea of a slow decline is equally tragic. Perhaps wikileaks is doing it wrong, but the idea of a non-government actor exposing corruption - something the media has stopped doing - seems entirely healthy to me.
Actually, there's quite a lot of evidence that mindless repetition greatly benefits learning, at least in terms of the actions being repeated. The problem is that since we tend to enjoy activities we are good at, and we are much more likely to repeat an activity we enjoy, talent in fact guides our learning process: we tend to practice the things we're already good at and shy away from practicing the things for which we lack talent.

If by 'mindful practice' you mean deliberately practicing things we do poorly at (because we don't have natural talent for them), then I agree that proficiency can be developed. But of course given equal effort the one with the greater natural talent will perform better. And in the ordinary course of life, they will also tend to practice their talents more (since they get more gratification from it) and magnify their superiority still further.

The statement 'there is no talent' is nonsense.
CamanJS - manipulating images completely in JS
Failing Smarter
Yes. We need all the symbols we can get.
The article argues that you should do nothing, and allow natural population control mechanisms take care of it.

Of course, "starvation as population control is cruel" is one of the more common defenses for deer hunting from where I grew up... but this line of reasoning is going down a path that should not be trod...
For the rich? For the rich in Western countries where the costs are "prohibitive" and both parents usually "have to" work, or so do many people in reproductive age say. Immmigrants and many minorities however don't mind not having an HD TV or Playstation 3 and it's normal that one of the parents doesn't work, usually the mother. If you look closely at the birth rates in many European countries, they account for a high number of births. In Spain they account for more than half the number of births for this past decade. Which just goes to show that if people are not having children is not because they can't afford it, it's because they don't want.
> Reviewing: Done by volunteers. Free

Hmmm...work on one's own research in order to generate a paper that can get citations and advance one's career, or take time away from that to review other people's papers for free.
You cant read in the dark.
One friend of mine (very reliable source) told me that he met Crunch once and he was an annoying d-bag. Apparently what happened was my friend, who is a smoker, stepped out discreetly for a cig far away outdoors but Draper saw him anyway and raised a whiny fuss, so much so that my friend wanted to slap him into next month despite the respect he had for his past exploits.
To quote Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric#Businesses):

"Since over half of GE's revenue is derived from financial services, it is arguably a financial company with a manufacturing arm."

Even if they are backing out of that, it'll take a long time. And I have to wonder if they're willing to downsize the company by one half....
fresh install of windows 7 is far better IMO than even Ubuntu. There are just way too many apps that Ubuntu installs (most useless) during installation.

Excuse me but I think you are complaining just for the heck of it. You don't have to restart every time if you don't want to. When I plug in new usb stick, it says "installing drivers", how is that confusing? Yeah if you would like to know the name of the drivers as well, then W7 is not for you. You don't like the ribbon? Microsoft is not making w7 for every individual. Most people like it (at least in my cirle) and that's what counts. Microsoft has done more usability studies than you can think of.

I agree with the package manager but with the amount of applications that are available for windows, I am not sure how would they implement it but you are right they should have some appstore kinda thing.

I feel sorry that you had to go through this. But W7 is still a great OS and installation experience is one of the best.