skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You have a funny way of disproving me.

"This is just pure bullshit."

Followed by a list of information about the dangerous psychoactive compound in nutmeg.

5-15 grams (on the low end) is not a lot of food item.

A teaspoon = about 4grams.

A tablespoon = about 14 grams.

Here's 64.9 grams for less than $5.
http://www.amazon.com/Simply-Organic-Nutmeg-CERTIFIED-ORGANI...

From
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/INDEX57DE.HTM?objectid=E88175E0-BDB...

"Ingestion of five or more grams of nutmeg causes acute nutmeg poisoning, which includes giddiness, hallucinations, and feelings of depersonalization. Symptoms usually appear three to six hours after ingestion of 1-3 whole nutmegs or 5-15 gm of the grated spice. Recovery usually occurs within 24 hours. Nevertheless, duration of action may extend beyond several days and even include death. /Nutmeg/ [Green RC, Jr; JAMA 171 (10): 1342-4 (1959); Painter JC et al; Clin Toxicol 4 (1): 1-4 (1971)] PEER REVIEWED"

So basically, somebody trying to repeat the cinnamon challenge, but with nutmeg, and ate a heaping tablespoon of the stuff would introduce a lethal dosage of the substance into their body.

So your argument is, because you personally only tap a little on your eggnog once a year, it's suddenly not a lethally toxic psychoactive substance in doses not much above the range that people might use in cooking?

http://homecooking.about.com/library/archive/blspice3.htm (recipes that all use at least 1/4 teaspoon of nutmeg)
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2670272
HN is a sampling of about 0.01% the size of Facebook. There's absolutely no way you can make the argument that they have only 20% the users they claim.
Cheap Panasonic Microwave
I've always felt the potential of the language and community was a missed opportunity because of the refusal to open source it. Languages like rebol thrive when they are set free. It's a shame really.
And he seems to believe it will or has to occur during his lifetime not five or 500 years from now. To me that self-centered arrogance is a sure sign someone is a nut.
The problem is not all tasks are of linear difficulty. If building a 1% more intelligent AI takes 1% more computational power then he might have a point. However if building a 1% more intelligent AI takes 2x the computational power then you don't end up with a singularity because you don't get a strong feedback loop.

Consider starting at the low end of the scale booting windows 7 on a 2KHz CPU is about twice as fast as a 1KHz CPU and all things being equal faster processors let you get more things done but having a 1GHz vs 2GHz CPU has little effect on boot times. We might be able to build a 10x human level intelligence but if that can only build a 11x human intelligence and that can only build a 11.1x human intelligence you quickly hit a wall. Or for a more natural looking progression (10x, 15x, 18.75x, 21.09x, 22.4x). x sub 1 = 10; x(sub n) = x(n-1) * (2^n+1)/ (2^n)
Tourne
www.tourné.it tratta i temi del viaggio, del cinema e del lifestyle. Tourne.it rappresenta la versione online del bimestrale Tourné. La rivista prende spunto dall’idea che turismo e cinema sono volani di sviluppo dell’economia siciliana e rappresentano passioni vive che alimentano la voglia di evasione di ognuno. Promozione e valorizzazione dell’attività cinematografica, del teatro, del turismo naturalistico-culturale e dell’ambiente rappresentano i valori alla base della linea editoriale del magazine online e offline.
Why Athiests Need Church
For your information, the phrase about "digging holes and filling them back up" is probably one of the most distorted quotes in all of economics.

Keynes essentially asked his readers to compare three possible scenarios in a situation where the private sector does not provide enough job opportunities due to a lack of aggregate demand. The scenarios are:
(1) mass unemployment
(2) the state providing employment in work that is considered useful
(3) the state providing employment in "digging holes and filling them back up"

Keynes point was that the order of desirability is: (2) is better than (3), and (3) is better than (1)

He was not in any way advocating in favour of (3), he was merely pointing out that even though (3) looks stupid, it is still better than (1).
Data can be manipulated to confirm biases - hence the flaw of averages and jokes about 3 types of lies. And human intuition has also led to discoveries. Consider that Poincare felt logic was inferior to intuition. Point being just because someone uses data and another uses intuition doesn't inherently make the intuitive wrong. The intuition could be built from a large experiential base with a model whose generative process is much more accurate than a naive application of data.

Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity#Criti...
not really, he may have already been asked about it, it could have just been in his head because it became popular recently.

I think its more nonsensical to get worked up about the fact he wrote it
Sanal Dünyada Yerinizi Alın
Fantastic response, thanks.

You wrote: "monetization ... what does that mean?"

In a nutshell: at the time banks would lend money to people for the purpose of buying stocks and real estate, and as collateral for those loans, they would accept already inflated stocks.

On the one hand you might sanguinely say "oh that's just trading on margin", and in a way you'd be right. But it had gotten to a point where the "collateral" only had value because of the insanity which had gone before. Not to mention that the banks were lending the newly issued money on a fractional reserve basis. I don't oppose fractional reserve in principle, but in this case it amplified the insanity by a factor of 10 or so.

So the investor went off with new "money" from the bank in hand, and hauled off and put it all into Consolidated Gas. Yay, happy days -- that stock kept racing up. In the meantime, the investor had debt service (interest expense) to contend with, and keep in mind that many of these stocks were paying no dividends or miniscule ones at best.

Eventually many investors end up with a cash flow problem, and they are forced to liquidate. This drives down stock prices, and then even more liquidate. After all, there's no sense holding a stock that gives you net negative cash flow and negative capital gains.

Regarding the monetization of war bonds, I quote this: "At the end of the Liberty Loan campaings, our banks held very large amounts of United States bonds and it was their habit thereafter to use these as security for Federal Reserve credit when they wanted it, in preference to rediscounting commercial paper."

And further: "The difficulties in this situation were these: (1) that the United States bonds were not, like the prime commercial paper, due to be liquidated by the natural process of consuming goods and paying for them, and (2) that the United States had agreed to pay in gold on demand [... but could not]"

On this latter point, the financing of war has always been a major driver of monetary inflation, even during periods of an alleged gold standard. World War I was an utter catastrophe in so many ways.

The funny thing about the 1920s boom is, it was ultimately grounded in real productivity gains: principally, technological innovations such as the electrification of manufacturing plants. So it certainly was not all an artificial mania like tulip bulbs. But it became that way with the aid of banks, principally the Fed but also others.
I'd bet that this isn't a move to stop piracy, it's just your typical patent troll shakedown.
The title should be edited to say "Haskell Web Framework", this is not obvious at all.
The 0x10 Best Advanced Questions for C Programmers
I would think the security concerns would be front and foremost. When I hit up google for a list of sites, I want a list of sites. Whether my browser visits them or not is up to me - I don't want it happening automatically.

Now, personally, I can turn this off, I know, and I also understand the speed advantage for end user retention. People might say 300ms doesn't matter to them - maybe not consciously - but it certainly DOES matter when it comes to retention. People like faster sites automatically - it's a subconscious thing - very well proven by good studies. (amazon, etc)
a 300ms savings on page load is a HUGE win from the site owner point of view.

Give the site owners some kind of passive control over this feature (a-la robots.txt for spiders) so those who are really concerned about bandwidth can opt out (though if you are top ranking for a google search term you probably WANT that traffic - that's money down the drain otherwise) and appropriate controls, and it's a good idea.

In fact, it's an inevitable idea. with it's ups and downs. It's going to happen - so let's roll with it.
It varies a lot by discipline. Law reviews universally accept papers that have been submitted elsewhere; CS conferences universally don't (unless they were rejected already, of course). Lots of places, in many disciplines, will publish material in technical reports or dissertations that's already been published elsewhere.
Text cache: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp...
Well, truth of the matter is, once posts hit the front page, additional discussion (number/rate of comments) seems to be the greatest determinant for whether a post will stay up top.

So really the only way to get the stories to fall off is to stop talking about them.
A friend of mine put a $20 bill in his university library's copy of his thesis. AFAIK it's still there.
There is plenty of usage that does not violate anything, and is very useful.
... they're two almost entirely different things and besides... it's not directly got much to do with the users.
Where does this "statistic" come from? What is the basis of your accusation? Do your "facts" include the tens of millions of people that use bittorrent technology for legitimate uses? There are dozens of legal torrent sites, software/OS distros, and even World of Warcraft that use the technology legitimately, you know.
I've been familiar with Kurzweil and his critics since I was in middle school. He's consistently been derided as wildly over-optimistic, but he's been right far more often than not. People originally thought his predictions of world champ-beating chess AIs by the late 90's were insane, but it actually happened about a year before he predicted. Similarly, his support and predictions for the human genome project were the subject of a great deal of ridicule from both the public and many biologists. He was right in that case, too.

I would be very careful about betting against Kurzweil's predictions given his multi-decade track record.
"Kuzweil's crunched the numbers."

From what I have seen only in the most superficial and optimistic sense - long term technological prediction is hardly a recognized scientific field.
To answer your last question, because the purposes are different.

Professors assign homework (including papers) to force students to learn something new. But professors speak at conferences because other professors want to hear about their work.
Critical thinking fail--just because an article quotes an economist doesn't mean that economists in general believe something. A journalist can almost always find a token quote to support a position. Token quotes don't prove anything and you should not be demanding them.
I'm a business guy with a prototype looking for a hacker
Throw away account for privacy.

me:

* I'd consider myself a business guy or a product guy.
* I taught myself just enough Ruby on Rails to create a prototype.
* I'm looking for a hacker to help me iterate to the next level.

you:

* interested in sports (weightlifting, crossfit, olympic lifting, etc.)
* basic design skills (you like simplicity)
* RoR skills
* wants to make $$$ (no ads) by charging for a good SaaS product

Please ask away for other questions, email in the profile. Prototype link will be sent to people interested.
IEEE Spectrum Publishes Special Report: “The Social Web”
This is a good point. It's not just the "used in a court of law" or "national security" instances where this is dangerous. Corporations don't have to follow any formal legal process. If you're using a proxy or they're otherwise monitoring outbound traffic and you have this feature turned on, it will look like you are visiting inappropriate sites.
Most of the problems associated with DVRs are the ties with carriers. Think outside the box guys, think about what a phone was then (hint: just a phone) and what they are now, pocket computers. I believe this is what will happen to DVRs. You will soon forget that they where just tied to specific providers, be it cable or sat. In the future ou will have a DVR thousands of internet streams, apps, downloads, on demands, whatevers (Heck, we are getting close to this now with Boxee, Rokus, etc).

One thing I hope that doesn't change too much is the current discovery model (Streams of curated channels pumped into the box). A lot of what is watched on TV is through channel flipping, and 'discovering' content that you would not other wise watch if it was purely on demand.
When I was a kid, I really was afraid the Bild Zeitung could infect me with stupidity.

I often think about it, though. In Germany we have some newspapers that apparently are internationally famous for their quality. But I think they sell much less copies than the Bild Zeitung.

Now in terms of startups, when would you aim for the smaller audience for the sake of quality? I don't often hear about these aspects when discussing new business models.
Compare with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_postscript pioneered for NeXT; a derivative is used by MacOS X.
The issue with this is that in one way or another, all violent criminals have some sort of problem with their brain. They may not have a tumor or dementia, but something is wrong outside of their control.

You are saying that no healthy human being would ever commit a violent crime -- that nothing involving incentives or circumstances could prompt someone to make a decision to be violent? It seems to believe this you have to assume that in most eras most humans had some problem with their brain.
I understand that. Yes, it was a problem that banks were lending money to people so that those people could trade the stock market. That's described as ONE of the causes of the Great Depression in every standard history. However, this is not called monetization, and it was not a policy of the Fed. The Fed didn't even have the power to regulate this type of loans; it got expanded powers as a result of the Great Depression.

Imagine if someone came here and said: "the problem in the crisis of 2008 was that the big banks RADICALIZED the financial markets, and then UNLEVERAGED government money to make good their losses." People don't disagree with this, once it gets deciphered to something that they understand, but it's going to get a downvote for being not very understandable as phrased.
DSpace at MIT
This is a ridiculous post and I'm surprised it made it to the front page here. The two kids who pitched these ideas were akin to the traditional adult "business types" who pitch an idea with nothing else to really bring to the table. Honestly, who wants to work with an 11 year old on a startup like this, where the kid likely has very little to offer (they certainly can't work full-time startup hours, even if summer is coming) except perhaps the media buzz of a young entrepreneur.

The vague tinge of racism being alleged here (and yes, the author is crafty enough here to set out the components of the charge without setting it out, because it would sound ridiculous were it directly stated) is distasteful.
I doubt Chrome is going to start running the scripts for the pages that it's pre-fetching.
not to mention http://www.reddit.com/r/depthhub
Is there anything observed in the real world that is actually of exponential growth and not in fact logistic - affected by negative feedback effects? In an effectively finite universe continued exponential growth is impossible.
You're making a straw-man argument. GiraffeNecktie isn't asserting that a quote would prove something, just that the headline "What about economists?" would lead the reader to expect the opinion of at least one economist to be referenced in the body.
What I learned from my dad as an entrepreneur
You say you don't mind 300ms in exchange for control over what your browser does. Wearing my technology and privacy conscious security USER hat, I agree completely.

As a webmaster for a site where retention and "stickiness" are critical, I can say without hesitation that those 300ms are potentially HUGE. For the vast majority of the users coming into a site who are unaware of these things, faster page load times make a huge difference in retention and repeat visits. People unconsciously like pages that appear faster. Ask them WHY they like one site over the other, they probably won't say it's the speed, but the stats say otherwise.
I think I have a better way of making the point you're trying to make. You're rebutting the claim that reliance on the gold standard made the depression worse.

However, in the early 1930s, the monetary use of gold was criminalized in the USA. In fact, possession of gold itself was illegal for individuals (with the exception of jewelry) until sometime in the 1970s!

while many people refused to turn the gold in as the government demanded in the 1930s, they instead shipped it overseas, and at any rate you couldn't do contracts in gold or make payments in gold without risk of getting in trouble.

This action effectively invalidated much (maybe most?) of the countries wealth, and so it is no surprise that the result was a great depression, or a prolonged depression.

Further, rather than adhering to a hard money position, as is popular for political economists to posit today, the actual position was inflationary. This position is well argued by Rothbard in his book "America's Great Depression".

The reason the myth of "hard money" prolonging the great depression persists, is because governments want an inflationary monetary policy to allow them to spend without the fiscal restraint that would be imposed by having to raise via taxes and fees, all the money they want to spend.

Your position is absolutely right, and you've been attacked by others for citing someone with the "fallacy of appeal to old foggies". Rothbard's analysis was done in the 1970s, I believe, and is effectively contemporary. (Or at least I'm not aware of any serious attempts to refute it.)

Unfortunately, in popular culture the science of economics does not get much respect, going against the popular political perception of inflation being "good" and I've gotten banned from hacker news for making economic arguments like the one I've just made. Which is why this is the first post from a new account. (It is unfortunate that Hacker News does not tolerate differing opinions. But as anyone can see from this post, the salient fact-- that gold was banned-- is undisputed historical fact that blows the operating theory out of the water... and thus I have contributed to this discussion historical facts that are relevant to it. Should I be praised for that? Or banned for disagreeing with the party line? (or for pointing out that I've been banned in the past? I think the censorious nature of this site is employed to keep hidden its intolerance... so I might get the ban for that... but you never know because there is no warning, you just suddenly get the ax. My last account's karma was about 1,200 acquired over 6 months of contributions.) Consider this warning about the nature of this site the payment I require for going thru the effort of making a new account to contribute this critical historical fact to the discussion.
The often used counter example to countries like Norway is you have a more homogeneous population of people, which leads to less internal social strife. I am not saying your system does not provides benefits over the way we treat criminals in the US. It is just that you have to find a way to control for the different social conditions in both countries before you can make numerical comparisons.
It's Lettvin's hack scaled to the point of meaninglessness. The whole point was to get them physically in his office and talking to him, and I'm pretty sure he was only interested in students to begin with. If he wanted to talk to everyone who had ever read the book, he may as well just put an ad somewhere.
You bring up some good points but you ruined it from the get go by starting out with poisoning the well[1]. Right or wrong, Kurzweil is not doing it for the speaking engagements, he's not doing it for the money. He believes what he says. And where he might be wrong is because he believes it too much; he wants to live forever and for that to happen his predictions have to right.

Kurzweil's arguments about biology are definitely his weakest. He does arbitrarily chart advances as that PZ piece points out. I find that biologists get more enraged about Kurzweil's predictions for this reason, and because biologists tend to have a "my field of study is the most important in the world" attitude in general. It's hilarious that PZ says that Kurzweil's book is terrible because he got the biology wrong, then says he has some points about Moore's Law and AI.... it shows the self-importance PZ places on himself.

The only thing that will decide whether we reach a TS is not how fast medical technology advances. The only thing that matters is reaching strong AI. If we reach strong AI it's game-over for everything else. We'll have all of the bets you place virtually overnight, if our new masters decide to keep us around that is.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
"Actually commonly accepted by modern economists"

This phrase is the anti-science. No science operates based on "commonly accepted". Consider how absurd it would be for any modern economist to claim that a form of money, which was banned in 1933, was the cause of prolonging the great depression.

How could the use of gold as money cause anything when it was banned by executive order, and the citizens were required to turn it in? Are you going to argue there was a massive underground black market. You don't make that argument, and from my studies no such market existed because people feared the repercussions of being caught with this banned substance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

"The circumstances of the case were that a New York attorney, Frederick Barber Campbell, had on deposit at Chase National over 5,000 troy ounces (160 kg) of gold. When Campbell attempted to withdraw the gold Chase refused and Campbell sued Chase. A federal prosecutor then indicted Campbell on the following day (September 27, 1933) for failing to surrender his gold.[4] Ultimately the prosecution of Campbell failed but the authority of federal government to seize gold was upheld."
You wrote: "this is not called monetization".

Monetization is a technical term, and I won't quibble with you over that. However ...

You wrote: "it was not a policy of the Fed."

Yes, the whole phenomenon was baked into Fed policy even at its founding in 1913.

Quote: "We undertook in the Federal Reserve Act (1913), (I) to reduce the reserve requirements of the banks; and (2) to substitute for "gold and other lawful money" as bank reserve, the single item, credit at the Federal Reserve banks, which in turn need be gold-secured only to the extent of 40 percent, which the remaining 60 percent could be commercial paper and United States bonds."

In short, Fed policy allowed banks to operate with less solvency than they had before. This enabled massively speculative loans which would not have been possible otherwise.