skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
A crucial part about "closing"... don't allow them to give you an open ended "thanks we'll run this by our boss" type response. People usually just want to end the sales process, but do not want to reject you outright. You should always get concrete next steps. If they have to "ask their boss", then setup a call the next week to find out the bosses answer. It's much better to wiggle a firm "no" out of a prospect then to get a definite "maybe". "Maybe" ties up the sales funnel with junk leads.
Kobold2D - Cocos2D on Steroids
I'm fired up by Mark's idea, to much more deeply engage with our local leaders (Amazon, Microsoft, Starbucks, Costco, etc) -- think every geography has these, and presenting it how Mark does makes it so much more compelling. Everyone benefits from these relationships, and really, the Bay Area has crushed it in this area (think growth of Zynga and others on Facebook... the wave of startup involvement with iPhone/iPad Apps store launches...) -- I look forward to helping make that happen, more quickly
That's why you should use HTML5 autofocus attribute (perhaps with a JS fallback).

http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/...
Yes, piss off the judge by deliberately misconstruing rules. That's the ticket.
>unless you play stupid accounting games

What games would those be? What I did was: a) exclude principal repayments (they are not a cost, they are an investment. They are also entirely optional - any house buyer can take an interest only mortgage). b) factor in the tax advantage (which is actual money in my pocket, either by paying less withholding, or by getting a check from the IRS at the end of the year).
You could get around this by first checking if another field has input.
I've been wondering when this generation's Commodore 64 or Atari 800 would show up. It seems like it is the smartphone / iPod touch, but those just don't seem to do the trick for this type of stuff.

I do wonder what could be built while keeping the price under £60 / $100.
I still say it's pretty much over for Google. http://nerdr.com/facebook-eats-googles-lunch-by-2012/

They're being out played on their primary revenue stream and facebook isn't even breaking a sweat.
2011 Harvard Business School CompStudy Now Open
I predict Linode is going to make a mint off this.
Someone's being overly idealistic:

"Do you know who’s watching you, do you know who’s looking into your emails or possibly could?. Do you trust your service provider not to filter your data, or not to look at what you’re sending and receiving?

"What I’m proposing or trying to do, is to move on."

[...]

"Imagine you’re on your cell phone. Today, if you want to connect to anybody else you need to go to your provider. But imagine your cell phone has a wi-fi chip, and most of them have it anyway, it creates a local network. Imagine that network is an ad hoc network and can immediately connect with other networks. So all the cell phones we have create their own small networks and become interconnected with each other. That gives you a whole range of possibilities, and because you need no infrastructure externally, you make it by yourself. You have a cell phone, someone else has a cell phone, you just create it; you can have free network access."

Let me see if I got that straight: we don't trust a handful of highly-visible, high-profile entities to behave honorably (i.e. not snoop on us, not filter our stuff, etc.), so we'll just crowdsource it? Right now we have a handful of suspects who have to walk on eggshells because everyone's itching to find something to blame on them. It's far from ideal, but I don't think handing over my communications to my neighbors or, even worse, arbitrary strangers is a step in the right direction.
Maybe after they get a time machine and go back to around 2006, when plaintiffs were winning more than defendants there, as opposed to now where it isn't even in the top 5.
Last.fm and Betfair
Well, this didn't seem to bother investors since they've just raised $10m. They've got enough cash to figure out what'll come next if Facebook comments gain too much market share.
To the right of the video are MP4 versions of the video optimized for iOS devices
The set of all possible inputs is infinite: Halting Problem.
Imagine that your data has to hop through dozens of cheap consumer routers with unreliable links to reach its destination. You could easily end up with multi-second latencies, making the network useless for most applications.

Then you would try to fix that by putting some high-performance traffic exchange nodes with longer distance links in your network. Perhaps arrange them into hierarchies... Wait, that's how the internet already works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering#Modern_peering
I hate being forced to login with my email address. My username is the same or similar for most sites I use but I use a site specific email (with gmails + feature) for almost every sign up.
Applying AI to a decompilation problem is just like applying AI to a compilation problem. You're taking a potentially nondeterministic approach to a problem that should be formalized and deterministic. I think AI applied to compilers is something to avoid, in general.
Because it's easier to correct something that's almost correct than to start over, and because it would help you determine if the username or the password was at fault.
> As described in Surely You're Joking, Dick Feynman

So if Feynman didn't want the prize for valid or invalid reasons, he becomes a dick?

Even if the reasons were invalid, how does it make him a dick - he didn't do anything untoward to anyone - he was just following his personal ideology.
Each point in the 2D space represents a person's position on two issues, one for each axis. The only independent inputs are the candidates' positions. Different voting methods have different ballots, but the idea is pretty much the same: the voters rank the candidates by proximity. So the voter would say "My first choice is the candidate closest to me, my second favorite is the next-closest, and the last one is my least favorite." So the various algorithms take those votes and choose a winner for the election.
The Python stdlib is full of examples of CamelCase, under_score and alltogether.

In Ruby just looking at the methods for strings is enough to find this like: "instance_variable_defined?", "rindex", "tr_s", "casecmp", "equal?", "eql?" and more. Yes, it is all lower case, but consistent it is certainly not.
Just as information wants to be free[1], I think information wants to be stored. Forever. I have disk images to old computers that themselves have tarballs from servers and disk images from yet older computers. And I've rarely been very good at backing stuff up…

Part of wisdom is knowing what you can't change, and I'm starting to believe that more and more, we're going to be living in a post-privacy world. I also suspect, however, that this very-mixed blessing is tempered by the reality that we're all going to be Waldos lost in a sea of people.

In my own life, there's more material that I've lost that I wish that had been saved than there is material that's been saved that I wish had disappeared.

Instead of trying to stop what seems inevitable—the collection and archiving of information about us—I think we should focus on regulating how all the material that's available about all of us can be used e.g. what's permissible to consider when credit scoring, making insurance coverage decisions, doing background checks, and during the job application process.

The reality is that we'll never be free of this. I've been asked if I was married and had kids during job interviews. (I answered—and then volunteered that I'm straight and an atheist, which made the point to the guy that he was way out of bounds asking those questions.) But in any event, the key is to get the issue of information usage (iPhone UDIDs, anyone?) out there so companies need to define policies which we can then, using the same panopticon they have access to, hold companies to those policies.

[1] FYI: Just before saying this to Steve Wozniak, Stewart Brand, the originator of this phrase also said, "Information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable."
Why, exactly? I'm about 100x more likely to sign up for your site if you let me press a button and log in with my Google account. It's also really easy to implement with Django middleware.

Google turns up a Quora thing which, frankly, is full of handwaving bullshit.

Are there actual technical reasons why OpenID is bad?
Can I ask what the deal is with the downvotes on my parent post? I made the claim that strong AI can solve the decompilation problem, noting that humans - an example of strong AI (well, except we're not artificial...) - can and do decompile successfully, giving geohots (a pre-eminent cracker) as an example. What more do people want???
I’m sorry, but this is just sad and pathetic...
Note from reading carefully and per comments on the post, the "3" may be a typo because the timetable involves reducing the claims from 3 to 20 to 10 or somesuch.

In essence, it's clear that the judge wants to pare down the case to the strongest elements from each side using a triage process on both sides. Seems reasonable and not necessarily an indication that the judge is leaning one way or another.
Wow, um, not sure now if you're trolling. The example you give is a non-sequitor not an ad-hominem. An ad-hominem is a name-calling attack. A non-sequitor is where the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

But none of this addresses the issue of my previous response, it's a distraction. If you wish to proceed further, kindly address the previous points: "Is it your assertion that scientists are not motivated by something other than the pursuit of truth?"
No client-side method can ever work against a sufficiently motivated spammer.

For example... 1) Start capturing packets via wireshark. 2) Fill out the form. 3) Replay the captured packets, altering the username.

Presto, now you can sign up as fast as you want.
It's impressive, but keep in mind that most of our parents and grandparents had a job for life decades ago. Times are much different now. Things change so much faster. Companies die faster. We have many more job options, entrepreneurship, and so on.
Debt Settlement Programs
Offers services to reduce debt through debt settlement and debt
negotiation, a better alternative to bankruptcy and credit counseling
services.
Does this mean that it is no longer the Theory of Relativity, but now the Law of Relativity?
I don't think investors would be scared off by such a post alone BUT for the record the post was made AFTER they raised $10m dollars so your point isn't really valid.

My point was simply to say "this type of post is meant to reassure people of the company's stability and, at least in the case of me, it has the opposite effect because it's so often used by companies who are perceived as desperate. So maybe it's a strategy that should be reevaluated."

Finally I don't really consider a $10m investment as validation one way or the other. In my mind, and again this is my opinion, an $80m investment means "we think this company will succeed". A $10m investment is more like "we think these are smart people who could beat the odds but we don't want to commit to many resources to this"
In what way? Moving their mouse cursor over to it, clicking and dragging?

I don't know.

A lot?
Debt Settlement Programs
Offers services to reduce debt through debt settlement and debt negotiation, a better alternative to bankruptcy and credit counseling
services.
"Why do people say that they trust scientists in general but part company with them on specific issues?"

I don't think that's necessarily the case. The cited study only suggests that people trust scientists more than leaders of business or government. That might not be a very high level of trust.

I would rather suppose that people do not trust anybody very much unless they know them personally. To really convince a person of the contrary, he must grasp or experience it for himself.

The problem with scientific publications is that a lot of prior knowledge, preparation and work is required to really understand the reasoning behind the findings. Only that way, one can confidently reject or approve the scientific statement. Alas, most people are untrained and too disconnected from the subject.
No.

http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/random-number-generator

The RNG pool is used for creating: the master key (for encrypting the data in the volume), temporary secondary key (for generating a pseudorandom stream to initially overwrite a volume's empty space), salt (for passphrase hashing, using pbkdf2), and (optionally) a keyfile.

That is all limited to the process of setting up a volume, and so the RNG pool is not used for typical operations on a volume after that volume is created.
Dd vs cat or how to use cat when you would normally use dd
First platform to sell ruby gems?
Fair point about unverifiable numbers, but in Disqus' case I don't think it is running scared - just celebrating the traction that they've achieved and announcing that they just raised a big round.

That said, I'm a huge Disqus fan, and hate FB comments, so I may be biased :)
What was the reason to do that ? Apart from rendering your own code completely unreadable ?
It depends on what you want from decompilation. Decompilation by its basic nature is just as decideable as compilation is. It's a translation from one language to another in addition to semantics-preserving translations. Now what a lot of people seem to want from a decompiler that makes them intractable is a guarantee that the output source will look just like the source used to compile the source program for the decompiler.

Program1 -> Compiler -> BinProg1 (compilation)

BinProg1 -> Decompiler -> Program2 (decompilation)

Even if the source language of the Compiler and the target language of the decompiler are the same, you're usually still screwed because the compiler is going to manipulate your program to optimize it or fit it onto your target architecture. The result is going to be a program that looks way more general case than your original program.

Is this undecideable? No way.
Not a great example to support your argument I'm afraid since Northern Rock was already back in profit over 8 months ago - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10848374
It's because of how the industry's risk assessment and fraud protection systems are structured.

If a merchant processes a fraudulent transaction their processor/merchant bank gets charged for the entire transaction, which they in turn charge the merchant.

More precisely the transaction doesn't have to be fraudulent. The buyer just has to be unhappy enough that they call their bank and issue a charge-back.

So to reduce the chances of that the processors have a risk assessment department that determines the probability of these kinds of transactions occurring. If the probability is high, they just won't work with that merchant.

Now let's say the merchant wants to take money from Party A and give it to Party B. In this case Party B is probably the merchant as they're getting paid for something. But Party B didn't go through the processor's risk assessment process and they may have a much higher probability of causing charge-backs. This basically moves control from the processor/merchant bank to the merchant opening up a possibility for money to siphon out of the processor/bank and potentially never be recovered.

That's why it's very difficult to get approved for something like this. For more info read up on Third Party Payment Aggregation.
Yeah, but the judge says all other claims have to be dropped forever, so Oracle never gets to try them.

So if someone infringes a lot of your patents, you only ever get to enforce a small subset? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Reasons to like go:

gofmt - no need to argue over coding style since it is enforced by this tool.

gofix - as the language evolves, the go team provide fixes that you can run across your old source code automatically.
Generally speaking, lawyers will throw everything they have at the wall and see what sticks. I believe this is basically taught as official strategy.

However, it is pretty obvious that some of what they are throwing has a reasonable chance of sticking, and some things are just being thrown because why not? It isn't that hard for the parties to sort their arguments by likelihood of success and present just the best, and if you think about how to model that, you'll see that for a vanishing fraction of the work you basically end up with a high probability of getting the same result the hypothetical full trial would have.

Now, combine that with the fact that trials aren't free and the taxpayers are a party in the suit in the sense that they are paying the judge, infrastructure, etc, and also the general fact that if there was an injustice committed by Google every day that Oracle goes without renumeration is itself a further injustice, and you can see that there is a compelling interest in completing the trial sooner rather than later, and in the balance of things if that means jettisoning a series of arguments unlikely to succeed anyhow, this is a net win. "It will take too long to try them all" is a valid concern for everybody; what's the point of the trial if the expenses the trial incurs to Oracle, Google, and the taxpayers are larger than any possible judgment's time-value-of-money could possibly be, to take one limit case?

Also, this will apparently go to a jury. You can't stuff arbitrary amounts of information at a jury and expect results. I would argue that the bound on what you can expect a jury to understand is itself a critical (and underappreciated) component of our system. If 12 laymen can't understand it after several months of targeted instruction, the law is too vague to apply in the first place.
Absolutely love this post. I'm an open source developer myself, and I can sympathize with the ayttm folks. Many bug reports are brief, don't explain much, and (occasionally) seem standoffish. This was a really great read, and I think it's absolutely great that there are users out there like this.
A story has it that in 1940 Alan Turing buried hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of silver bullion, but then forgot the exact place and couldn't find it. Not sure if the money would have helped him much when they came for him.
This would be ridiculously awesome. Gumstix sell similar form-factor ARM boards for $130. You can get cheaper ARM boards (pico-SAM9G45 for $70: http://www.mini-box.com/pico-SAM9G45-X) but they are much larger. This is only somewhat larger than a Teensy++ (http://www.pjrc.com/teensy/), which is $24 but is powered by a diminutive AVR chip.
Jquery1.6 - attr(“checked”) no longer works
Last year several people moved to Boulder after visiting Boulder Startup Week.
And how do you know if someone was playing around with usernames or genuinely trying to login? I agree with 'dvdhsu' comment that if its a public service where others can see username its fine to load error form with username but if its a service where other users couldn't see your username its not a good idea to load error form with username irrespective of whether it was right or wrong.
Do you hate it because you end up having to type a longer username than you'd prefer? Or what?
Once something reaches a level of maturity that approximates perfection, any significant changes to it will clearly make the thing worse.
This isn't a problem if you have the discipline to simply not make changes, but unfortunately this is what GUI designers are paid to do (and it's also more fun than being a maintenance programmer).
I may be wrong about this, but I sense that Seattle's startup scene is definitely lacking something important. I can't put my finger on it, but I think it's there.

In my opinion, people here seem pretty risk-averse (ie few want to jump and do a startup, especially people in their twenties).

It kind of seems like people lack the drive to "change the world". Instead, people seem pretty laid back here. It's almost as if they get too comfortable here.
Not enough meat to cover the legal, accounting, and other costs. Hey, lifestyle businesses can be fun and good to the developer. If it isn't fun then there are some hidden costs and hassles that would make it even less attractive. Maybe someone could bundle a bunch of these and sell it like mortgages ;>}
Haha, yeah, they'll be photocopying at a wide range of different companies. Reality check, ask people who have actually done this stuff, all the ones I knew the work was dull but partying continued like it was uni because they're with a bunch of other graduates.

Most large companies don't let the noobs anywhere near the clients. They're pyramids, the longer you stay the more interesting work you get to do. This competes with the better the job you can get elsewhere, which causes gradual attrition in the ranks. It's all about who can stick it out the longest.

Ground zero is very, very dull work. Like photocopying while being charged out at hundreds of pounds an hour.

Remember, these are graduates, they're totally useless in the real world at the start.
Excited to be hosting people again. All events are at plancast.com/boulderstartupweek and 95% of them are free and open.
The set of all possible inputs for a compiler is infinite, too. Does that mean that compilers are all harangued by the halting problem as well? Nope. Having an infinite number of possible inputs (infinite input set size) does not prevent you from showing that a program can actually halt. I think most compilers are written in a way that can be shown to halt, as well.

The Halting Problem does apply in the general case, but if you carve up your programs and reason about them, you can still show that you can have a halter. The Halting Problem just states that there does not exist a method that will take an arbitrary program and show it to be a halter.
I always embedded the focus javascript immediately after the username, so that as soon as that part of the DOM is loaded, the user's input is focused there.
Total security
Easy Quick Profits
Easy Quick Profits Review
How on earth did you read my comment as my legal advice to them, it was obviously in the spirit of humour.
I also find myself wishing that Ruby's destructive (!) and boolean (?) suffixes were either enforced somehow or not used at all.

The idea itself is cool, communicating extra context about what the method does or its intended usage, but they're used so inconsistently (even withing the Ruby stdlib) that A) They're unreliable and you need to check the source to find out the behavior anyway and B) It's less predictable whether the method exists with the suffix or without, so you need to either run it and modify your method call if there's an error or check the lib/API docs. This is the sort of thing that makes having an IDE handy for completing method names, which is unfortunate because Ruby is generally very usable without any IDE crutches.
I feel that asking a user for the right username after they sign up wastes even more time when they can settle it all at once at the sign up page... The tips mostly reduce hassle and why cause them more trouble by alerting them that their username is already taken when they felt they're already set to use the site.
Peregrine - An amazing security/cage class for PHP5
Peregrine is a data filtering/superglobal security class that's being released as open source. After a year of development and testing it hit 1.0 in 12/2010 and just received a small update.
Isn't it Cellular Automata? I very much wanted to change it in my submission title, but ultimately decided not to editorialize.