skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Whole rolled oats are typically made by having the chaff removed from the groat. Then the groats are parcooked by steaming, rolled flat and sometimes baked. These are your "Old Fashioned Quaker Oats." "Quick-Cooking" varieties are made in a similar way, only the chaff AND the bran have been removed. The bran is the nutritious part.

Around the turn of the century, the US imported most of its oats from Scotland and Canada. These would have been "steel cut oats" with the bran left on them. Rolled oats would have been relatively new in 1914. I have no idea when quick-cooking oats appeared.

So the difference is in what you buy. Think 'pig' versus 'pork' -- to a food scientist, there's a word for the grain in every stage of it's processing. But to us, it's just an oat. It's convenient language for Quaker to put "100% Whole Rolled Oats" on the package, because that's what they are. Are they whole rolled groats with the bran still on them? Or are they whole rolled endosperms, which are mostly the high-calorie starch that the germ uses to become a plant?

BTW, if you love oatmeal as much as I do, you will appreciate slow-cooked oats:

http://www.foodnetwork.com/good-eats/oat-cuisine/index.html
I believe it was this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2028807
All true... But how many of them even have access to the internet, let alone credit cards?
Funny how politicians hotly debate the FCCs authority, but when it comes to DHS seizing domain names nobody says shit.
Favorite quotes from the article:

Students should be taught that failure is a process, not an obstacle.

Luck finds the doers.

Simplicity makes ideas powerful.

What made the article worth it were the real life stories he shared to make a point. Would love to hear some similar stories. Any HNers have any good ones that they'd like to share?
Fastmail.fm, the company that has been bought by Opera ASA to provide Webmail states that "Our main servers are located at NYI in New York City, USA."
A geoip lookup of the hosts in the header of a test e-mail confirms this.
I don't mean to spam, but if anyone is looking to get the M-Audio Fast Track Pro referenced in the article, I have one that works perfectly but unfortunately doesn't get used enough. You can find my email in my profile.
That's really the heart of the issue - no matter how good your social product is, people are only going to make the switch from facebook if a significant number of their "social network" switch as well. I wonder if the next big social site needs to incentivize entire groups to switch rather than just individuals, e.g. promotions that only go into effect after x number of your friends sign up.
Depends on the band. Pick the right one, and it can convey a lot about your personality. I'd strike up a conversation with anyone wearing a K's Choice t-shirt, because I've been to their shows, and I know their fans are generally a self-selected group of wonderful, wonderful people who had remained fans throughout their decade-long hiatus.

It's hard to make similar generalizations about someone wearing a Led Zeppelin or John Lennon or flavor-of-the-month-superstar shirt, but even that implies a probable bit of information about their personality.
Woothemes I definitely know about, but again, I only learned about them through Mixergy.
Which begs the question, WTF does it look like from the inside?
I'm a liberal Democrat and I'm queasy about enforced net neutrality; these are rules that govern what companies can do with their own infrastructure, and rules that could unintentionally retard progress instead of protecting it.

Further, Congress has a legitimate gripe here. We don't elect FCC commissioners. They're appointed. We should be particularly concerned about them overstepping their bounds.
Which a reasonable case can be made for here.

I'm not sure I see what your comment adds to the discussion, other than "the duly elected Republican congress is doing something I disagree with!".
Why some tech companies have expiration dates
Websites don't go to print.
Is there any possible response to this comment that will produce a thread we'd be happy to have on HN?
Found this on dribbble a few days ago. Congrats on the app launch. Can you ask mactyler if he's interested in doing some design work for an app I'm working on? Chase (at) kegstool (dot) com. Thanks!
Two more marginally useful things. 1. not seeing seconds skip - there seems to be a bug. 2. Some sort of audio alarm. If I'm using a timer, I am not looking at it.
I am currently only using about 200 MB for my personal account, so this would be fine for me. I have emails going back ten or so years, but those are thing I purposely kept. I never really bought into Google's assertion that I should never delete anything and just use search to find what I need. I understand that some people have way more than 1 GB of mail, but for me and other email users like me the amount of space opera is offering will last for years to come.
famous case:

http://www.itworld.com/waste-management-sues-sap-080327

"At that meeting, SAP AG executives and engineers represented that the software was a mature solution and conducted a demonstration consisting of what they represented was the actual SAP Waste and Recycling software," the complaint states. The company later discovered that the software was a "mock-up version of that software intended to deceive Waste Management," according to the complaint. SAP has admitted to this in "internal documents," the complaint states.

"From the beginning, SAP assured Waste Management that its software was an 'out-of-the-box' solution that would meet Waste Management's needs without any customization or enhancements," the statement reads. "Unfortunately, Waste Management ultimately learned that these representations were not true."
The FCC's claim of authority in this instance to impose rules from on high is problematic.

Here is what EFF says:

"We’re wholly in favor of net neutrality in practice, but a finding of ancillary jurisdiction here would give the FCC pretty much boundless authority to regulate the Internet for whatever it sees fit. And that kind of unrestrained authority makes us nervous about follow-on initiatives like broadcast flags and indecency campaigns. In general, we think arguments that regulating the Internet is 'ancillary' to some other regulatory authority that the FCC has been granted just don’t have sufficient limitations to stop bad FCC behavior in the future and create the 'Trojan horse' risk we have long warned about." (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/part-i-fcc-ancillary-a...)

I have chimed in on this in a previous HN thread:

"The FCC is way out of its league on this one. Basically, it is a creature of statute. It can do whatever Congress has authorized it to and no more. Nothing in its authorizing statute expressly permits it to impose the rules now known as net neutrality. Therefore, it sought to justify its ability to do so under the doctrine of so-called 'ancillary jurisdiction,' meaning that it had an implied power to do so in aid of its expressly granted powers. Unfortunately, a definitive federal appeals court ruling held that no such ancillary jurisdiction existed, leaving the matter for Congress to decide. Rather than deferring to Congress, the FCC chose to adopt a new rationale for its assertion of this authority. Congress overwhelmingly balked at the idea of any broad assertion of such authority and, in the back and forth, the FCC came up with the toe-in-the water approach just adopted to the satisfaction of almost no one. Even this assertion of jurisdiction will certainly be challenged in the courts in cases that will take years to decide, leaving this whole issue in a pathetic state of uncertainty for all concerned. Nothing good will come of this except for lots of employment for the lawyers who will be litigating whether this or that action is 'reasonable' and whether the internet is really like a public utility or not. All in all, a royal mess." (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2033261)

A short-hand way of summing up the issue: do you want, in the name of a short-term goal such as net neutrality, to cede to unaccountable government regulators a broad, unchecked power to control what happens on the internet? I think this should give pause to all of us, no matter what we think of the net-neutrality issue.
Perhaps related to the nuclear test ban treaty [1], which is not in force? There was a partial test ban treaty [2] in the 60s. I'm not informed at all about nuclear politics, but perhaps some combination of better physics knowledge and/or better computer modeling helping remove the need for detonation to test designs and better knowledge of the effect of fallout made countries slow or stop?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Nuclear-Test-Ban_...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Nuclear_Test_Ban_Treaty

Edit: it would be fascinating, since I can't seem to google the info, if there is an expert here who could share a rough timeline of the state of the art of nuclear explosion modeling
Mac Tyler here, designer of Tea, thanks for all the kind words about the design! I'd be happy to answer questions about the design/process if you have any. I plan on writing some blog posts soon explaining some of the fun stuff like app icon and basic UI. Once again, glad you guys are enjoying it and please help us spread the word all you can!
Funny? No, just boring. "DHS" siezes domain names because DHS was hurriedly created, as a reaction to 9/11, by jamming agencies together like so many insects in the transporter from The Fly. One of those agencies happened to be Immigration and Customs, which has always had IPR enforcement in its portfolio.

Every time people make these conspiracy-theoretic comments about how "Homeland Security" is doing antipiracy raids, they betray either a lack of understanding of how their government is actually structured, or an easygoing willingness to buy into Internet drama, or both. At least, that's what it looks like to me.
As another HN reader who does security for a living, perhaps I can add some specific points. (I know this thread is probably dead given that it is 1 day old, but I access this site via HN Daily now so bear with me.)

* No transport security. As many people mention, at least adding HTTPS would help with this. However, most non-browser SSL clients (wget, curl) don't include any root certs by default so even switching to SSL would not help this method. Firesheep, sslstrip, etc. automatically generate a self-signed cert which would look no different to wget than a real cert.

* No persistence. If you download any installer package once and then reuse it on multiple machines, you get the benefit of knowing that the same code was installed on each machine (good or bad). With this method, users may catch the site in the middle of an update and get multiple versions of the package.

* No authentication. Even with SSL, you only get strong transport security. You would know strongly that ".pow.cx" sent you some code, but not how that code got put on the server. With package-signing, typically done on the developer's end system, you know that it was protected even before it was uploaded to some site.

* Easier to trojan than binaries. Inserting a few extra shell commands in a single HTTP(S) session (say, targeting a single client IP) is much easier than building a custom binary package. Consider how hard it is to even compile Firefox with all the dependencies. Now do that work and insert a trojan and upload a separate 10 MB binary that needs to be stored somewhere on the server while waiting for that one client to visit the site. Compare this to keeping a two-line patch to a shell script (easily done in RAM, maybe even by hotpatch).

* Trains users that all the above is ok since the popularity of this "| sh" install method is relatively new. (Yes, I know about shar scripts in the past but those ended by 1996 or so with the advent of real package managers). It is absolutely impossible to retrofit "| sh" to be secure, whereas it is definitely feasible to add package signature verification support to gem or yum or apt or whatever (in fact, all those already support it).

The fact that many installers aren't signed today is not an ok to drive this process back to the 80's. We should be moving toward the future when package signing is a required part of being a software developer. Too hard? Well build tools to make this easier!
http://whois.arin.net/rest/nets;q=184.106.20.102?showDetails...
I didn't bother to test in anything besides Chrome on Mac. I was going to put in an audio alarm, but then I'd have to put in a button to disable audio, then I'd have to make it look pretty, and find a good alarm sound.

That feature is on my todo list, as well as email notification, persistent countdowns (you go to /23h and it'll redirect you to a permalink for that timer), email/SMS notification. Next time I have an hour to dedicate to this, I'll them done.

I always have a browser open, so being able to see the countdown status in the titlebar was sufficient for my needs. If I really wanted something to alert me, I'd use my phone in case I step away from my computer.

EDIT:
Yeah, looks like Firefox performs awfully with this.

EDIT2: seems to be fixed on FF now.
It does have an interesting psychological effect, though, possibly on both the recipients of orders, and on the general public. Reminds me a bit of the similar accident of jurisdiction that led to 1980s teenage hax0rz being raided by the Secret Service, rather than by more normal-sounding police.
I am curious about how Dan gets such great recordings from his co-hosts, who are remote. I'd have thought they record audio natively then upload him a high quality audio file with time sync, but then I remembered that he does these shows live, so that can't possibly be how it works.
I don't know if this counts as a hack (certainly it took a lot longer than a weekend) but here's my web-based timeline software done mainly in JS: http://www.tiki-toki.com
Are you willing to work with remote devs?

You may find that it offers a larger pool of talent & interesting people to draw on.
I solved the transport piece by installing a TeamCity build agent on my production server (which is kind of wonky, but whatever). The only build project it's capable of running is the powershell script that copies the artifact files and re-points IIS.

Where does it copy the files from? I set up a TeamCity artifacts dependency, so the "push to production" script doesn't run until the latest known good artifacts are downloaded from the TeamCity server.
Speaking of Internet thieves - check this out:

GearSpoke.com
Derekfrye.com
Badrobots.org

Why would anyone copy a website consisting of a single picture? Automated bot scraper?
http://www.stackoverflow.com
http://programmers.stackexchange.com
I could make the exact same argument about any criticism of any random thing, because it does not address the correctness of the criticism at all. If I made this argument against some criticism you fully agree with, you would probably lash out against me for not addressing the issues raised. I haven't even read the article and yet I can safely judge your comment to be completely irrelevant.
Was leaving the domain name that easily identifies the person whose name and other details were censored done intentionally?
> Busses can go wherever needed on existing roads and reconfigure routes easily.

This can be a pro, but also a con; in particular, it means people are unable to assume stable routes when planning things like new developments or where to live/work. Bus routes change all the time, but I can count on the subway station near my apartment probably still being there in 10 years, and probably still running roughly the same line as it does now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Flat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nevada_Test_Site_craters.j...

Yucca Flat has been called "the most irradiated, nuclear-blasted spot on the face of the earth".[2] In March 2009, TIME identified the 1970 Yucca Flat Baneberry Test, where 86 workers were exposed to radiation, as one of the world's worst nuclear disasters.
All incomes combined may not be a zero-sum game, such that income inequality must necessarily indicate the wealthy confiscating money from the middle class. But it seems to me that government spending definitely is: if we need to buy a tank, the money from it is coming from taxpayers. Every dollar for that tank that doesn't come from the wealthy must instead come from someone less wealthy.

Do we need to argue about why this is something we want to avoid as much as possible, or is it self-evident?
Agree vix.
Sure, but I don't think my general idea would suit google (as of their current behaviour). Allow me to elaborate a bit.

Google has 'social' platform already - Gmail. However, what they have tried to do so far is to force 'social' elements into their current offerings, and they have tried to append external turn-key systems like orkut.

You can't force social behavior onto your users, as they have successfully demonstrated. As I see it, only two successful platforms so far, facebook and myspace (which died) had a different start. They started out from human element, which is people started banding together and dragging along their friends into it - onto a central place. Email is social too, but it isn't one central place, but more peer to peer.

What I think Google should do is to do something they have never done before. Humanize Google. Introduce customer support, active engagement with current user base, expand into traditional media, and not only with google ads, but with interactive shows based on google platform, editorialized part of google news, etc... only then will users start to feel google is something they can empathize with and concentrate around it vs only using their services and go away.

tl;dr; humanize google, bring human element to it. Actual humans into their services.
Australia, where metered access (XX GBs per month) rules, may provide some insight into how net non-neutrality plays out on practise. Here, it's not about speed limiting to "non-favoured" sites, but about whether consumption from those sites consume your allocated bandwidth allowance. It is routine for companies to do deals with ISPs to provide "unmetered" access to their services for customers. For example, with my ISP, anything I buy from Apple is unmetered. Other ISPs might, for example, offer free Steam traffic. This is most noticeable, I think, on mobile data plans, which often feature "unlimited Facebook" or "all you can Tweet" or similar.

I can see how this has the potential to entrench existing players but subjectively the effect seems weak at best and does not figure too much in people's purchasing decisions. Personally, I would prefer more general solutions to the problem of "corporate cliques" gaining oligopoly powers. Restrictions on cross-media ownership would seem to be the weapon of choice.
"I don’t make idle threats. I have all kinds of information about this person, and I’m going to be keeping an eye on him, this particular domain, and any other domains run by him or his host that access my servers."

^ Still the wild west indeed.
I agree with your statements, but perhaps the appeal of a github for science isn't the technology, it's the culture that comes with it. You can run your own git servers and submit patches over email, but when you can fork with the click of a button and do a pull request with another click, it encourages that much more sharing.

I've had this discussion with some of my professors, mostly just about open sourcing research code (I'm in Scientific Computing) and some of them wont do it because they want to squeeze a few publications out of one code and don't want anyone 'stealing' their publication. I find it disturbing, but it's ingrained in the culture. Changing it is important to me, but I don't see how yet.
Hum, as far as I know, developing a programming language means burning cash. Except if you can find a way to use it as an advantage to develop something else way more efficiently which, then, generates a revenue (which is really, really hard), you're in for a really fun round of "'
From the article:

"Page wants employees to advocate Google's social networking features to family and friends."

Sounds like the Amway approach.
1. How do you know it is being misused? There could be a legitimate legal complaint here.

2. How does a legal threat indicate that the legal system is broken? People disagree on matters of the law all the time. There is nothing terrifying about that.

3. How expensive is this threat likely to be? Desist from whatever the other person is threatening you over, or else if you have the right to do it spend a few hundred dollars getting a lawyer to write a counter-notice. It's not that big of a deal.

4. This follows an incident where someone who might have done something slightly foolish or contentious surrounding a trademark or copyrighted work. Since I don't tend to do contentious things in this arena, I'm very unlikely to ever be the target of a legal threat like this. Even if I did, how many people do such things and never get threatened? I suspect many. If the cost of getting threatened is low, the odds of getting threatened are even lower. How could I possibly be terrified of something unlikely to ever affect me?

So, yeah, even after your response I still think the use of the word "terrifying" in this context is quite foolish.
An environment is basically a mapping of variables to their values. Its relative to a certain point in time of you program execution. So if you can (legally) reference a variable at some point in your scheme program the it must be part of your environment.

A scope is relative to a variable. (i.e. the variables scope). It is essentially the set of program locations in which that variable is in the environment.

A closure is just an environment plus a lambda. So that when the lambda executes it still has access to the environment in which it was created (aka all that environments variables are still in scope). You can use closures to essentially extend the scope of variables so you can access them later.

A continuation is a little trickier. Basically a continuation is more about control flow than visibility. A continuation is what happens after a lambda returns. In most languages continuations are implictly managed by the program stack (and the return keyword). So you don't even think its anything special. But in scheme there is special support to help reify the continuation concept and make it available to the programmer.

I hope I didn't make things any more confusing.
Is there some controversy about the Secret Service involvement during Sun Devil? Those were interstate crimes, not to mention the fact that no local police force was in any way equipped to deal with the problem.
Here is a nice paper on how to prune the execution tree when using amb: Non-deterministic lisp with dependency-directed backtracking; http://www.aaai.org/Papers/AAAI/1987/AAAI87-011.pdf

I've not played much with amb or Prolog, but it would be cool to try out some alternative strategies for exhausting the search tree, perhaps simulated annealing or something like that.
I dare to disagree. While learning about Cicadas and prime numbers is ok, its application to "enliven backgrounds" seems very futile to me. Hacking means breaking the rules, crack the black box, find new game changing ways to do things that will prove useful for a lot of people. Hacking is not about finding slightly vain design tricks.

In summary, this article is far from what I would upvote. A good indicator of the relative weakness of it is the few interesting comment it triggered.

In fact, some month ago I would come to HN, and read the comments, and find a lot of savoury meat for my curiosity hunger, without even bothering to get check the original article that was only the starting point of high-level exchanges of views on the matter.

PS: Recent articles seem to focus on visual design (pixels and colors), which is very surprising on a website that is so obviously anti-design...