skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
In the comment section of the travelogue, one of the authors of this post wrote the following in response to another's remark saying that what they had done was very risky:

First of all, I know that our trip was a risky experiment and in some way egoistic.
However, if you have a difficult aim, you just must not think so much about the
risks involved and about failing. A mountain climber also must not think about what
might happen if he makes a wrong step and falls down. He has to concentrate his
thoughts on how he can achieve his aim, otherwise he has already lost before
starting. Adventures don't happen if you're too afraid.

I think this summarizes what type of person the author is pretty well.
Hah. Good to know. I guess I'm your 'enemy' then since if there was a label for me it'd probably be blackhatter. Though my 'spam' tends to be of much greater quality than what most of the stuff BHW sort of people produce (I have some original content written and excluding my bottom of the barrel sites, the others have their automated parts like scraping edited/checked by a hired person).
The problem is not so much bulk sending of mail, but sending of unwanted mail from one user to another. Amazon might shut you down if you have a large number of recipients marking these unwanted messages as spam. Perhaps you should record enough information about sender (ip address, unique cookie) so that you can bulk delete and blacklist a problem sender. You can identify problem senders from the unsubscribe link that should be included in the messages.
> If the source code is distributed then the user would have to download it in order to be able to see the copyright statement. In this case the title of the software will probably be reason enough to make it hard for you to argue that but technically you could claim you thought this was a source distribution and only after you downloaded it you found out that it was copyrighted and not meant for release.

The Netherlands has been a signatory of the Berne Convention since 1912. Under Berne, copyright must be automatic, so saying you had to download it to check if it was copyrighted is probably not going to get you very far.
This is pretty disingenuous. I've held low-wage jobs, and so have most of the members of my immediate family, and taxes took a serious bite out our paychecks. You are referring to the federal income tax, as many people do in debates like this, but lower-middle class people pay a much greater percentage of their income in payroll taxes than do wealthy people; the "income tax" debate is misleading.
I wonder if they're going to offer domain name registration services to help me with my impulse startup ideas.
The US Government could give out badges for every $1m in taxes you pay... then the rich could level up every April 15th.
"504 Gateway Time-out"

Edit: It's a popular link right now, understandably. Sometimes it's working, sometimes it isn't.
This is usually pretty easy: if you are paying anything, chances are your employer's cost basis is 2x what you're paying.
Google Cracks Down on Spammers and Scrapers
"I spent some time working in the television industry, and I learned a technique that writers use. It's called "the bad version." When you feel that a plot solution exists, but you can't yet imagine it, you describe instead a bad version that has no purpose other than stimulating the other writers to imagine a better version."

"With that technique in mind, I will describe some bad versions of how society might go about the job of convincing the rich to accept higher taxes on themselves. But first I need to address the illusion of fairness."

That is in fact the premise^ of the article.

^"The premise of a film or screenplay is the fundamental concept that drives the plot.", or in this case, the fundamental concept that drives the article.
As Egypt Erupts, Al Jazeera Offers Its News for Free to Other Networks
That's the whole point of the article. Taxing the rich doesn't work because they always find a way to subvert the taxes. So we have to give them something they can "buy" rather than taxing them in order to get their money without them fighting us on it.
Since I don't use SF these days, I'm not resetting my password. If they can't properly protect my password, I'm not giving them a new one.
I always thought that institutionalized speeding would be very successful both in terms of additional revenues and time saved. Right now highway speed limits are set to a sort of common denominator: safest for the worst car and driver on the road. But if you're driving a modern, well-maintained car and are adequately trained, there's no evidence that you'd be unsafe driving 20 mph over the speed limit. So, why not for an extra, non-nominal, fee, raise speed limits on interstate highways to qualified drivers? Of course they'd have to take additional driving lessons, pass extra driving tests to extend their privilege every year, and drive only approved cars, i.e. no 1996 Ford Explorers need apply.
Very interesting. I work for a competitor of Jane Street and I have to say I am surprised that they are not using C++
The Rise of the Mobile Music App
That’s disclaimer to protect himself from any and all attacks on his positions.
I like the idea of taxing all income at a fixed and flat rate, no exceptions, no exemptions, credits, deferrals, whatever.

It's a terrible idea, but it is also, by definition, perfectly equitable.
are there game mechanics? do you have group buying? do you use LBS-based viral loops?
You don't really have to squint very hard at all. Unless you have more than 10 or so employees it's almost impossible to get a group health plan. Young people don't worry about this as much as perhaps they should, but once you get to the age where most people you know have families, it becomes a huge barrier to starting a company.
thefounder001@gmail.com
In future, cars might decide if driver is drunk
Given "Too Far" = Offensive to X% of People #or similar

The goal should be to reduce what causes this "offense" to zero. The only reason people are offended is because of their personal insecurity it seems. Not passing judgment - just stating this.

For example:

- Religious people are offended when their Gods' are questioned because they don't have definitive proofs for them.

- Fat people who are sensitive about their very public bad-habit / health problem.

- Ethnicities are offended by racist humor (as opposed to real threats) because they've perhaps internalized societies' stereotypes.

I'd say that we should make these matters public as much as possible and in a rational way:

-Religion isn't a belief system above criticism, and people should challenge their assumptions.

-Being fat isn't good for your health, and you should seek help.

-Being X race may have real societal / genetic issues, but is by no means a final sentence and should be reconciled as a goal - though this may be very hard.
The key bit was 'and not meant for release'.

Of course it is copyrighted, it is copyrighted upon creation. So is every open source package that is not placed in the public domain.

The distribution of copyrighted software per-se is not illegal.

Distributing software that you have no license to redistribute is illegal.
After Egypt, Will U.S. Get 'Internet Kill Switch'?
My "bad" thought: The rich work hard because they're running out of time. The poor work less because they have too much time to waste.
You don't have to squint even a little bit to see that. Almost any reasonable guaranteed issue health insurance plan would drastically assist entrepreneurship.

I say this every time this issue comes up on HN: in the first couple years of Matasano, one of the top 3 reasons candidates declined to work with us was health insurance.

There's even a term for this among the muggles in the mainstream media: "job-lock". It's very real. If you have a family, job lock is one of the major things keeping you from starting a company, or become a freelancer (a good first step towards entrepreneurship).
Genetic Algorithm Car Physics (Updated)
Before Matasano got group coverage in '06, that's how we handled it; Erin took a job in a school system. Erin works with us now, which is a much better state of affairs.
There are several authors:

Using JRuby: Bringing Ruby to Java
by Charles O Nutter, Thomas Enebo, Nick Sieger, Ola Bini, and Ian Dees
Environmental effects in video games
MIND MELD: The Future Of Publishing
But Congressmen and the executive honestly think that they're listening to "the smart people" right now, for the most part. When they consider copyright issues, they listen to the smart people who run record companies and movie studios. When they consider energy policy, they listen to the smart people who run oil companies. (Big oil was in charge of the Gulf oil spill cleanup because the government genuinely didn't have the expertise.) When they consider finance, they listen to the smart people who run the banks. And so forth. Or so they say --- and you can call it rationalization for cashing their lobbyists' large checks, but I think they honestly believe it regardless. After all, these folks do have a record of achievement in their fields, and how else is a Congressman to judge?

What we need is a better answer to that question, which has measures for expertise other than "they made a lot of money at it." Unfortunately, it's hard to see anything like Adams's proposal, of explicit preferential treatment for the rich, as being a step in that direction.
By skipping the lines at amusement parks, those who don't pay extra have to wait even longer for their turn than they would if that system wasn't in place. So in effect, those who pay more benefit and simultaneously penalise those who do not.
Is it just me that sees a very messed up formatting for these WSJ links in Chrome?
HSA's are a good thing, but when your COBRA plan expires, no matter how much you've banked in your HSA, they don't matter: a collapsed lung, complicated childbirth, or long-term illness will bankrupt you.
Disclaimer: I am poor.
The position is not that interesting (as I understand it): He bet that the world was over-levered beyond reason. That was not a terribly uncommon thought in '05-'08 (anyone paying attention knew the math didn't add up). The interesting part is the enormous size of the bets he made, that he was able to make them, and that he got the timing right. Don't know that anyone will write that article, though...
"The hole is too big to plug with cost cutting or economic growth alone."

Say's who? Take a look at the 2011 budget:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html

The biggest pieces of the pie are things we are UNWILLING to cut (not incapable of cutting)! Its time for us to make some difficult decisions about what cuts we should make instead of relying on other peoples' money to solve other peoples' problems.
Hey, I have some questions assuming you're a Google employee.

- In the selection process, how important is pedigree on the resume as bane mentioned? I graduated at the top of my class but from a mediocre university and with a B.S. in IT (not CS), and I've wondered if this has hurt me in the selection process. I've interviewed twice at Google, performed very well, but got rejected in the end both times. Last time I actually got rejected, then offered another position, and then rejected a second time, lol.

- Does a recommendation from an existing employee give you a boost in the selection process? Google claims the process is 100% anonymous but I've wondered about that. I made a contact with one of the interviewers last time and I'm wondering if it'd be smart or even kosher to ask the guy for a plug.
Might improve user experience a bit, but your password hashing scheme needs to take much longer if an attacker knows he can rule out lower-case letters.

For example, 8-character alphanumeric passwords:

((26*2)+10)^8 / (26+10)^8 = 77.4

You have 77 times fewer passwords of length 8 (probably worse than that, most people skew more towards letters than numbers), so it should take 77 times longer to test one.
Newport beach houses oc real estate promotion seo contest
Content Farms: Rethinking my Contribution
First steps - maybe, but does it really have to be full aristocracy? What if the ideas were just a really simple separate ideas not affecting others in more than 2% of some arbitrary measure for each of them?

If we could offer packages that would be available to everyone but easy to buy at the same time, wouldn't it be good for everyone? For example you can pay $X for the "lexus lane", $X for another privilege, etc. - this way if someone actually wanted the privilege, but wasn't "really rich", they could still get it - not a total aristocracy and noone is forced to do anything.

Private companies have been doing this for a really long time as small benefits. Think about airport/travel if you pay extra: you can get express checkin on the airport, no security queue, better comfort of travel (business class), better quality food, pick-up service on arrival, luggage transport taken care of, complete booking / planning from a third-party. I have never heard of people complaining about "visible aristocracy" when travelling though. Could the taxes work as a payment gateway for small luxury services?

Meanwhile - it doesn't prevent anyone of us from getting the same. Want a better place on the plane? You can still get it without going for the whole "rich person package".
You realize that many of the exemptions, credits and deductions disproportionately benefit well off people, right? I mean, something like the home mortgage interested deduction is off no use to many homeowners because they don't earn enough to itemize deductions. Plus the deduction saves you more money the bigger and more expensive your house is....
Communism sucks, so there's no alternative to the 0.1% (winner) takes all (80%) system that we've got.

Of course we have a "vampire squid on our face" (GS) but it seems to be necessary to allow technological progress and the industrialisation of the rest of the world

We have scarcity now, but it won't last. Money will be abolished. The question is how do we spend money now to bring about the end of scarcity sooner. Well conspicuous consumption and luxuries are probably no help.
His idea about a 10% cut across the board is so common-sense - I've heard it before - yet we never ever hear this from anyone in Washington (not that I've heard, anyway). Why not?

10% may seem extreme - fair enough - but why not 2%? Could we try one year where every federal department has 2% less to spend than they did the year before? 2% isn't a lot, and would go a long way toward each dept rooting out their own 'waste/fraud/abuse', instead of making govt larger by adding oversight processes and staff.

And I do not mean "2% less than what we'd projected to increase our budget by next year". I mean if your department had a budget of $1,000,000, you only get a budget of $980,000 this year. Shaving 2% off a 3.5 trillion budget would be - what? - 70 billion? While that doesn't quite get us out of the mess we're in, it's a good start.
The ultra wealthy have done a great job of engineering the system to control how much they pay in - so why do we think incentivizing them would work? It may take time, but every perk that could potentially be offered at a premium would be just one more race to the bottom.
Best Android Apps 2011 For Google | InfoMov.Com
If you're healthy and single it's pretty easy. You just need a high-deductible plan for emergencies, which I found to be easy to get and not unreasonably expensive in my state (PA). A friend with a pregnant wife on the other hand had a lot more trouble; presumably the potential for childbirth catastrophe throws a wrench into insurability.
They should just shut it down. SF has been way over its expiry date long before this incident.
Some of these already exist

1. Time: e.g There are already carpool lanes where you can ride by paying an extra fee. Even otherwise, if you are rich enough, you can just pay the fine, which would be the added tax.

5. Power: Rich people already have power by having access to lobbyists or to the appropriate media. If you are rich enough, you can fund a movement on your own.

Others don't make sense in a democracy where everyone is presumably equal, e.g. writing thank you notes to richer people for being kind enough to participate in the functioning of the country. As another comment said, this is like moving toward a visible aristocracy.

Also, it is mostly not true that the country doesn't go to war unless the middle class majority is on board.
After 3161 days I decided to purchase WinRAR
Maybe that's not the right word choice. But it's a journalist saying "I don't like this story because it changes the narrative/ starving founder myth we're trying to create" doesn't feel right.
The problem is that it's hard to create a high status item. Say you invent the "US Govt. Certified Top 0.1% Badge" - do you really think Peter Thiel, John Paulson or Alex Rodriguez will really give a crap?

Taxing existing luxury status symbols could work, and is very likely a good idea. Creating new status symbols is likely to fail horribly.

Also, the tax on certain neighborhoods neglects the very large non-status reason why those neighborhoods are valuable: proximity to something cool. Manhattan is expensive not just because it raises your status to live there, but also because if you work at Goldman Sachs, you are willing to pay $3000/month rent + ridiculous NYC income taxes to avoid a 1 hour commute.

I suppose we could also bring back the Sumptuary laws:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumptuary_law
I think the best solution would be to get rid of income taxes and just have sales and property taxes.

Taxing the rich a higher rate is always going to seem unfair to them because the only way those taxes can be lessened is by making less money. Taxing $2 million house at a special rate is a different story, it seems fair because if you don't want to pay the tax you live in a more modest house. Luxury cars, fur coats, yachts, etc. can all have different sales tax rates and they still become a status symbol many of the rich are willing to pay for but not being forced to pay for.
As I was reading the article, I actually had the thought that establishing a House of Lords would be in line with his "extra vote" power incentive. I don't think I'd advocate it (it's really another Bad Idea), but it's interesting to try to predict how the chips would fall on that one. :)
Eliminate all federal taxes and print the money needed for government operations. Effectively this becomes an inflation tax. Automatically it affects the wealthy in direct proportion to their wealth as opposed to their most recent earnings. No loopholes, no games, no misallocation of resources for tax breaks.
I didn't think the author was whining at all--quite the opposite. Whiners endlessly complain about what's wrong and never posit a solution. Mr. Dilbert has quite a few solutions here that are "bad" albeit, but productive thoughts nonetheless. That's progress if you ask me.
Creating A Mobile Touch Slide Panel With JQuery
The trouble with the "oh st I have cancer" insurance that only costs $100/mo with $5000 deductible is that it is for 6 mo at a time and then you get another policy for another 6 mo. When you try to collect on anything big, they recind the insurance retroactively (for some reason) or say it is a pre-existing condition. BTDT.
Examples:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Health/story?id=7911195&p...

http://law.freeadvice.com/insurance_law/insurers_bad_faith/f...
I don't think you need to squint that hard.
What mechanism are you talking about? The main mechanism for Vitamin D that I know of is to limit creation from sunlight. But if one takes supplements without any caution as you seem to suggest then one is bypassing it.

Supplementing vitamin D is a great idea (I do it), but it is dangerous for those that are naive about it and think there is no risk.
Don't we already have this? If you have lawyers, accountants and possibly lobbyists, you have an entirely different relationship with the gov't than normal people.
Does introducing chaff into your traffic help against timing attacks? I was using TOR for 100% of my traffic for a few months a few years ago, as part of a feasibility experiment. I read of these timing/correlation attacks, so I wrote a few crude scripts that would crawl/mirror random pages constantly in the background, my theory being that having traffic all the time would (at the least) not notify "them" when I was browsing and at best reduce/eliminate the ability to see exactly what I was truly browsing.
IPhone Users Are About to Be Screwed Over
TSA halts private screening program
--- Master Computer Guru ---
I'm not sure how this protects users? SF was already compromised. If someone gained access to the passwords in their database, they're already out in the wild. Changing your password now has zero benefit to the user outside of protecting access to SF itself.
For small percentages, I'd say that's actually the most common budget-cutting proposal. Politicians want to save money, but don't want to propose any actual services or programs be cut, so they tend to instead propose that every department should "find waste" equal to 1-3% or something. See: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22percent+across+the...
Way to side-step the substance of the discussion... If you're going to make outrageous claims like "Distributing it is illegal where I live, but downloading it is not." and "This is not 'pirated software', it's leaked source code. That makes distribution copyright infringement and downloading in good faith legal.", either stand by them and defend them in an intellectually honest way, or refine or explain your statements if I/other readers misunderstood them, or abandon your position all together. All you're doing now is arguing a straw man to not have to do any of those.

Besides, what, in your opinion, does you posting this link show? That it is factually possible to trick people into downloading copyright-protected works without the author of that work's consent? Please, you think I or anyone here needed convincing of that?
sounds like she's starting to regret it already..

"here are certainly days when I wish I had access to the plethora of knowledge at Google. And there are days (or maybe every day) when I wish I could pop into a massage room for a 15 minute chair massage with my favorite massage therapist at Google. The food is undeniably delicious, and I really miss the heated toilet seats."
>On the surface, YCombinator IS giving a shitty deal. 6% for a few thousand dollars? That's highway robbery.

I think for most startups that haven't executed much, that's an incredible deal. Your idea that your two buddies just threw together, and maybe a prototype, is worth $250,000. Really?

(I know that some more mature companies have come to Ycombinator, companies likely worth more, but there are ycombinator companies that came fresh; so my assumption would be that the more mature companies would get a somewhat better deal than the brand-new companies. If that isn't the case, then it's possible that those more mature companies are getting the poor deal you are suggesting. But certainly for a fresh company, the ycombinator valuation, I think, is quite generous.)

Maybe it's just because I'm in a more traditional market, where people value you based on revenue, or maybe it's because I'm not that good, but it's taken me years of work to reach that kind of a valuation.

(on the upside, the valuations are somewhat, ah, less volatile in my industry. Assuming that my costs/revenues don't change sharply, the valuation of my company isn't going to change sharply. )
out of a million people trying to time the market exactly, statistically there will always be 1 or 2 that hits it.. and they will be in the media.. that happens to be Paulson.