skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I would guess that the truncation of the ordinary zip is not because it is useful in that context, but because it makes the zip function total.

If you wanted truncation and had no type-level knowledge about a relationship between the list lengths, you would explicitly compose list truncation of the longer list with the zipping.

But if you have some sort of known relationship between the lengths of the lists, not just equality of the lengths (as specified above), you can avoid the check.

For example:

zipTruncate :: List (1+ N) a -> List N b -> List N (a, b)
zipTruncate _ [] = []
zipTruncate (x:xs) (y:ys) = (x, y) : zipTruncate xs ys

This also has just one check, and is verified safe by the compiler, and truncates the single extra element from the first given list.

With dependent types, you can even say something like:

zipTruncate :: List (someFunc N) a -> List N -> List N (a, b)

But I am no expert on dependent types, and do not know what can/cannot be done with application of functions at the type-level.
This latest patent that caused an uproar was filed in 1992, when the idea was definitely innovative.

It just further goes to show that the 17 year span, at least, is too long for software.
This definitely fails the HN commenting guidelines. I agree that the OP is wrong on this point, but calling him an idiot doesn't add anything to this discussion. If you felt so strongly against his point, you should illustrate why he is so wrong with your comment. Don't just insult him.
With this type of support for abolishing software patents from the people who write the software; it seems we must be able to organize some sort of strike to just put an end to it immediately.
It is true that the pre-processor can create a lot of confusion, however it is easy to generate a -E version of the file that shows all substitutions. It is not even close to the confusion created by templates, for example.
Thanks - testing and looking in to this now!

Edit: In our server setup we use a completely seperate server to handle file upload and serving - which does not run on php-fpm so thankfully this does not affect us - however still going to make appropriate changes and a note that this is a possible issue.
I wrote this site to combine Markdown documents and executable <script> sections.

http://wiki.pageforest.com
This patent describes a system for interactively polling users of a system about their preferences and/or opinions regarding that system's features. The stated intent is to enable users to provide feedback to potentially inform the creator of the system in making decisions on feature enhancements.

As with all of these stupid software patents, once you read the details (i.e. beyond the summary), it becomes more apparent that the patented "invention" has a distinctly specific application.

This Lodsys letter of solicitation for cash is not much different than a 419 email.
It's a good video and an interesting graphical representation of the problem I hadn't seen before. It also helps explain why so many startups work on small issues rather than large ones. Thanks for sharing it!

Unfortunately, what it doesn't explain is the hidden cost that such an approach has, when repeated indefinitely, on the greater context of the Valley's infrastructure and incentive structure. Investors today simply are not rewarding risk.
Disruption is a fundamental change of the business model, economics and user experience.
Attention Anonymous: a new target for your roving DDoS has made itself available. Get to work.
hey Sarah-Jane, the reply above was from me heri from @mtw
I really like the approach of "Contract-to-hire" developers but I've often found it to be difficult in markets where most good developers have multiple offers at any given time.

Also it's tough to do this when you're boot strapping and literally every pair of available hands can make or break your first big deal that helps keep the lights on.
There's another solution to this, besides the ones mentioned by others in this thread, which someone can probably do themselves. Just look at the design of the teleprompter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Teleprompter_schematic.svg

Errol M0rris used a device with a similar design, called the "Interrotron", so that when he interviewed people, they'd have direct eye contact both with him and the viewers: http://www.errolmorris.com/content/eyecontact/interrotron.ht...

Picture of it here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jkottke/1526404040/

This should really make the design clear: http://www.whiterabbitdesigncompany.com/Miscellaneous/images...

All you need besides a screen and webcam is a half-silvered mirror, good lighting and an encasing so that the webcam is in the dark, besides light from straight ahead through the mirror. I've been meaning to make this myself, since I spend hours everyday on video chat, but haven't gotten to it yet.
How do you decide who you're going to court?
This is listed on their list of common pitfalls. Apparently there are a huge number of incorrect configurations posted online, with many of these errors in them.

http://wiki.nginx.org/Pitfalls
The confusion over the term "lisp" goes both ways, i have spent an infinite amount of time explaining to people that common lisp is not the small subset of a subset of scheme your CS professor tortured you with.
you interview them?...oh, I see what you did there
A technicality: Supermarine Spitfire was by no means a from-scratch project. The team already had long experience with cutting-edge-performance, low-wing, all-metal monoplanes: the Supermarine S.4, S.5, S.6 and S.6B [1] planes that raced in the Shneider Trophy [2]. Also, certain key components (engine -- RR Merlin, propeller, avionics, weaponry, sight) and theory (the wing profile from NACA) were CotS (if highest-end).

It's main opponent -- the Bf109 -- had racing heritage as well, in form of Bf108.

Supermarine's racing planes were built on contracts from Royal government, so the company had experience in working for this kind of customer.

Curiously enough, one weak point of the Spitfire -- the narrow undercarriage -- was something with which the team had less experience, as the S.4, .5, .6, .6B were all floatplanes.

So yes, innovation all the way, but built upon solid experience (cue the proverbial shoulders of giants ;-) )

----

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_S.6B

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schneider_Trophy
Rumor: Microsoft To Buy Nokia For $30 Billion
Colin, please don't pose this kind of stuff. I love emacs but this is article doesn't deserver to be here.
Let the Programing Proletariat unite :).
Ok, fine, the insult was not necessary, but I flagged the post for being a piece of trash that I hope never to see the like of on HN.

The OP is not deserving of a reply on the basis of this post. It is uninformed tripe that belongs on the reddit/r/teabaggers forum or some such lowly place.

How this kind of trash gets 24 points is beyond me. Who are the people upvoting this?

I will also add that the account which submitted this is only 2 hours old, obviously created just to submit this piece of crap.

Smells like spam to me.
My block has an expires line in there for caching:

if (-f $request_filename) {
expires 30d;
break;
}

Where would it go in this new scenario?
I said abolish, but really I think we could have a workable solution by either giving the PTO the funding it needs to do a good job, or eliminating the presumption of validity. The big problem we have now is that the law assumes that all patents are properly examined when the PTO doesn't have the resources to do a proper examination.
You did not make any point. You also assumed I am an iPhone user. Anyway I was not trying to grill you, I was genuinely curious. Nice to know you are enjoying your android phone.
I like vim because my primary user interface is 6 rows of approximately a dozen buttons each. Vim lets me use them efficiently and to maximum effect, without getting my fingers tangled in a game of keyboard Twister (sorry, emacs).
Buscapé is far away from being a startup these days. The founder sold the company a few years ago to Naspers a south african media company.

EDIT: not a few months, a few years.
my experience has been that the very best developers often prefer this.

I've had a few top-notch developer friends request recently that a startup allow them to work as 1099 contractors for a month first. They see their time as by far their most valuable asset and they want to learn more about a startup before committing.

In reality, with work-for-hire employee contracts, anyone can leave and anyone can fire for whatever reason. And that's what Paul English does. Contract-to-hire just takes all the expectations and paperwork and emotions out of it.
It's HN + LifeHacker.

Working with hosting company to resolve...
was some criticism that a "productivity expert" not being
able to ship is quite paradoxical.

Not any more paradoxical than a [sport] coach that can't themselves win at [sport].

Doing, and teaching others to do are very different skill sets.
If I may take the conversation up to an academic level here, I always like Conway's Law:

"organizations which design systems ... are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations." (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conways_Law)

Most software is built in institutional organizations (banks, universities) or by commercial software vendors or otherwise hierarchical, departmental organizations. Therefore, almost all investment in software practice result in software designs and control structures that support hierarchical, departmental organizations.

Emacs and TeX are very different human organizations. Decentralized, ad hoc, stigmergic [1], meritocratic. Very few projects are organized this way and so very few people look at software design patterns that support these kinds of projects.

[1] Stigmergy is self-organized coordination and collaboration managed indirectly through the object being worked on. cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmergy

The most popular discussions of this I've seen are Eric Raymond's Cathedral and the Bazaar (http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/homesteading/cathedral-baz...) and Coase's Penguin (http://www.benkler.org/CoasesPenguin.html).
Unfortunately most hackers won't have the ability to pay for filing patents in the first place. If you could get some patent lawyers working pro bono it might work.
"This Account Has Been Suspended"?
Erlang in Haskell
Anecdotal from April 2011...

http://www.yasmara.web.id/2011/04/keyword-advertising/keywor...
I like the idea, but as a developer there is little chance I'll do contract work before getting a job when I'm looking for a "real" job. Right now, finding a job is easy enough that I don't think a lot of people will jump through a lot of hoops before getting the job.
I see no reason why an invention should be unpatentable simply because it involves software.

That said, it's obvious that the current system is broken; there are many patents which do not seem to do anything new, and simultaneously the cost of applying for patents deters the group for whom they are most important -- small innovators who are unable to commercialize their inventions.

The system needs to be fixed, not thrown out.
Getting a patent is annoying enough (> 5 years of waiting and prodding a cube worker) and expensive enough (tens of $k) to kill most altruistic patent seeking. People are motivated to get them by a return on their investment, not the happy notion that the world is marginally less bad.
The rotor on top has been done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-22_Osprey
If the attack gives Amazon a black eye, imagine what it does to Turing and his universal computing machine.
Am I missing something, or do the last three paragraphs in that article, which refer to Marvel superheroes, have nothing to do with the rest of it about Mark Pincus?
It's about layers of abstraction. The Bitcoin architecture provides an abstract, lower-level interface for higher-level functionality to be built upon [1].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction_layer
It seems like by doing the following, they get priority for any obviousness and prior art arguments back to 1992, but a filing date of 2003.

"This application is a continuation application of and claims priority to U.S. application Ser. No. 09/370,663, filed on Aug. 6, 1999, now abandoned which is a continuation of Ser. No. 08/934,457, filed Sep. 19, 1997, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,999,908, which is a continuation of Ser. No. 08/243,63 8, filed May 16, 1994, now abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 07/926,333, filed Aug. 6, 1992, now abandoned, the contents of each of which are incorporated by reference in their entireties. "
Microsoft will enter negotiations to buy Nokia's mobile division next week?
I've spent the last few years working on a new approach to developing software. I've spent a lot of my own money (at least $40,000 USD) on research to perfect it. Currently, from the research I've done, I've found no prior art.

Should I be able to patent this technology? Should I just release it? If I just release it, wouldn't a large company patent aspects of it and sue me for infringement (it costs $ to prove prior art).

At the very least, wouldn't a patent give me the option to open source the technology without the risk of aforementioned large company coming after me? And if said company does come after me, would it not give me a chance to buddy up with another "large" company?
If you can clarify why this post is a "piece of trash", it would help me understand how to write better articles. I already changed my post from "zero" value to "arbitrary" value to make it more clear. I also linked to the Rolling Stone article for people that want to dive deeper into the topic. And yes, I shouldn't have generalized an entire industry and refer actually to a specific piece. It's also my opinion, which a lot of people may agree/disagree with it.
I wrote a article about software patents a few years ago: http://paulbiggar.com/research/article.txt.

The issue seems to pop up every couple of years. Each time, abolition of software patents seems closer and closer, but never quite gets there.
Recommendation engines are getting pretty good at this. It's always going to be hit or miss no matter what method you invoke. Friends, browsing, engines... nothing will always be perfect.
So I want to either abolish them or make software patents legal for only 2 year maximum.

My reason for this is because unlike hardware patents, it does not take a factory and malicious intent to get a clone for a software patent. A 2 year lead on the competitor is extreme in the tech world. Look what happened with the iPhone, it dominated the market in 2 years, and then Android same story. The speed of information and technology today we MUST have a shorter timeframe for patents.

The problem with software patents is that since they are non-physical, they are really just mathematical solutions. And the problem with those is that 10 programmers will come up with 10 completely ways to solve the same problem, but due to patents the first to paten a solution can use the other 9 (-John Carmack) and this problem is very much true.
I agree. All companies should dream big and then break it down into actionable and realistic steps.
I'm simply not convinced that the concept of an update button acting on the Internet was innovative - not when I could have sat down in high school and worked it out in a day, and when the very concept of an Internet makes it obvious. And yes, I was doing software in 1992 (finished college in '88), so I think I understand pretty damn well what was innovative at the time.

[Edit on re-reading: I couldn't have sat down in high school and done this in a day because I had never heard of the Internet in 1980-1984, but I could have made it work against Compuserve.]

This, like every other "patent on three hours' work", is nothing more than parasitic rent-seeking behavior, and it is anathema to the vitality of our economy. Lodsys should be deeply ashamed of trying to present this as a "solution" when they clearly simply want to profit from the work of others.
I think you missed my point. What you're saying actually supports my opinion on this issue.
I think it's really on Apple to step in and protect their developers here. There are many problems with working in a walled garden, which have been discussed at length here. But there should be, at least, one benefit: the garden's curator has your back.
Disruption needs to be driven from industry knowledge. Certainly technology will be the major enabler of disruption, and may be the catalyst to disruptive ideas, but it industry insiders know where to make the changes and how to achieve acceptance.

So raising your hand and offering to build the tech is not the hard part. The hard part is finding those insiders who know every detail of the industry, but do not buy into the status quo.
Personally I handle that with Varnish in front of nginx so not really sure.
I think the software field is so fast moving that the current time period for a patent is not justifiable. But I do think that someone who invents something should be able to get some advantage out of it, rather than having a Google just waiting to take the invention and make it big.

So I say make the patent expiration period 30 months. This gives you substantial lead time, yet prevents issues like people fearing Apple's multitouch patents years after they've gotten the patent.

Plus it really takes patent trolls off the table, since these patents will have likely expired before they can get them. And it also takes off the table acquiring companies for IP.
If you just release it, it becomes prior art. And if you're not selling licenses, there's nothing to sue you over.
My vote would be "Yes, if the Patent office approved only real innovative things". For example if I come up with some revolutionary face recognition technology, that seems novel enough to be patented. But if I just make a form with a submit button (Google's Patented home page), or Amazon's one click purchasing those are just ridiculous as a patents.
I think the worst practical thing about software patents is that they create uncertainty. If there is one thing that is universally abhorred in the business world, it is uncertainty.

There needs to be a fast, cheap, reliable method by which small businesses can determine whether they are affected by anyone else's patent rights, and if so, by whose and to what extent. This way they can enter useful negotiations and adjust or abandon their plans as appropriate if patents are involved, or they can build their business free of unknown liability otherwise.

Given that I can see no viable means of ever constructing such a system, I don't see how patents or any similar legal tools will ever be anything but a tool for those with vast resources to crush competitors with few resources through means other than fair competition in the market.
Which is exactly the way it should be.
I can't stand the idea that I might be at my computer, working with code, and develop something independently which later causes me to get sued. Abolish all software patents.

edited to add "software".
I appreciate his sentiment and especially his motivation, but I'm not entirely sure everyone who is setting out to build an app must make the strict distinction between changing the world and not changing it. This borders on being an either/or fallacy - who's to say that you can't just build something for personal enjoyment and THEN watch it grow bigger and change the world?
Should I be able to patent this technology? Should I just release it? If I just release it, wouldn't a large company patent aspects of it and sue me for infringement (it costs $ to prove prior art).

If you publish your code, it becomes prior art. It doesn't cost much to stand up in court and say "uh, look guys, this code you're suing me over was published before you applied for your patent", and the case would be thrown out immediately.

In practice I doubt it would ever get that far: If there's one thing patent lawyers pay attention to, it's dates, and lawyers hate looking like idiots.
I've flagged this post, mainly because the entire "article" contains absolutely nothing of substance. It is a fluff blog post that doesn't have anything new to say, doesn't provide anything for hackers to think about.
I like this approach of really testing out the waters before committing.

I find there is also a divide between HR/recruiting and the lead developers. Once I had two interviews at a company. The first one from HR and a second one from the lead developers.

The attitude of the developers made me think they didn't have much say into the whole process. They did ask the best (read hardest) questions. This interview order seems fine, though questions like:

how many lines of codes did you write in language X?
If we ask you to build Y, could you, and how would you go about it?
If there is a problem in the weekend, and we call you, would you come over to fix it?

Could perfectly be asked in the first round of the interviews. And if you really want to be sure that a person will come to the office, if need be, then maybe plan the contract meeting at midnight on a saturday :)

One thing I noticed while last searching for jobs is the apparent inconsistencies in job listings.

Pre-requisites like: PHP and Ruby, Web standards and Flash, thorough understanding of javascript (jQuery plug-ins), Photoshop or Illustrator and version control, familiar with Linux and .net.

At first I ascribed these pre's to unskilled job listers, but maybe this is the start of the negotiation process?
- "I do know X, but have to work on Y"
- "That is fine, have you thought about salary yet?"

Is this really a thing in recruiting, or am I seeing things?
Vim.

I'm used to it (20+ years including vi).

Finger memory. Sometimes I don't know how I do things, they just get done when I think about it. When I show someone something in Vim I sometimes have to slow down and show myself first.

There's always something new to learn. That keeps it fun.

Emacs and Vim can do the same things, differently. Long use is what makes a good editor, or IDE.
Max Levchin's Early PayPal Photos
No one is suggesting that old books be thrown away. When you take into account the shear number of books being published each year (and the number is growing) it's physically impossible to have even a single copy of every book ever published available, even via a network of libraries.

Then take into account that not every book that get published has a digital copy, and every digital copy doesn't have a physical copy the situation gets even more complicated.

Not to mention VHS movie, DVD's, CD's, books on tape, books on CD, the list is endless.

When we stop looking at the library as a warehouse and more as a resource for more than just physical copies of things, the options increase exponentially.
in my experiences, xfs is still faster than ext4.

in particular, if you are appending to a file.

especially with ext4, consider calling fallocate() to preallocate the size of the file you are appending to and keeping track of the offset yourself, i've seen that help performance immensely.
Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo...)
Perhaps you haven't been involved with as much legal action as I have, but I was about half way through before I realised that it wasn't real. Of course I feel like I have to go to court at least once a week for something or other (sued ~= suing). In fact I have to go start legal action against someone today.