skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
yes, we are trying to estimate the behavior, mass, luminocity, etc... of the objects in the Universe that was several times smaller than it is now, ie. the space itself was much more "dense" (for lack of a better word) and the matter "warmer" - was the Universe behaving like it does today? We know that the fundamental forces behave differently ( at least quantitatively-wise ) when the matter is "hot". So our estimations may be several orders of magnitude wrong, and finds such as this help to adjust our theories and estimates.
I take it you don't use gmail as your email provider then?
Not nearly as much profit as "winner takes all", as long as you are the winner. This is of course what everyone believes in the outset, a bit like the prisoner dilemma really.
i would not say it is impossible. predicting the futuere is so difficult and things are changing so fast. i agree with the author "kurzweil" that we will first enter a hybrid phase between machines and humans. later, machines will surpass humans. the progress of tech evolution is getting faster and faster and i can't see right now what should stop this. i'm not a scientist, but what i can read in the article looks very logic and therefore i agree with kurzweil.
By putting money down I just meant 'confidence' in my point. And my point wasn't that the company is going to do well but that they now have the awareness that they are currently going about things incorrectly.
I will third and fourth Flask for App Engine. For me, it strikes exactly the right balance between light-weight, flexible, and powerful.
They need to unify design and behavior. It looks cleaner, there's less clutter and the things I use have been brought to the forefront.
It seems that the cost of fabbing your own gps chip would be peanuts compared to the cost of even one missile. Given the raw GPS data its pretty trivial to do all location processing in software.
My problem with the change in FCP is that it's following an unpleasant downgrade pattern on their platform. QT 7 was far more useful than QTX. 10.6 & earlier Mail is far more robust than 10.7 will be. And it goes on.

Apple's really pushing a premium consumer biz model, leaving professionals in the uncomfortable position of not having a professional platform.
Very cool, but doesn't seem to work on some pages (I haven't found the common factor yet) - you get a blank white popup.
I agree, it was good for them to respond with something. It shows that they are aware of the many criticisms flying around the press right now, and that they are actually paying attention. Saying nothing would make it seem like they are totally disconnected. Maybe it wasn't the best response in the world, but it wasn't bad either.

In the quick news cycles of today driven by twitter, as a company you have to respond quickly to stuff like this. Otherwise it just snowballs. I'm impressed they drafted a response in the same day as well.
I have to disagree with Kurzweil here. I remember in one of the Kinect videos, the researcher who worked on the mic array explained that the billion neurons allowed such a level of processing that we could extract info from the noise easily.

The amount of computational resources needed to combat information overload on one sense organ is immense. To be able to pull that off with 5 organs, regulate body function, make inferences with ease, apply vast swaths of info to fields completely unrelated to the underlying information is just immense.
Although, I can see a budding brain peripherals market in about 2050+. It is just that we need a lot more than computational resources to emulate the brain.

One interesting quote I took away from a cognition class (the only one I considered legit in our Psych dept.) was that we tend to compare our brain to the most advanced tech of the moment. My gut feeling says that the current computational models we use are not adequate representations of the human mind and potentially a socratic approach also might fall short.
Summary of every post from KurzweilAI.net since it's launch years ago:

"Machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence and a singularity will happen. Why? Technology gets more advanced."

Broken record...
Interesting, I was definitely able to use a different account for my invite link. My original email was also tied to a Google Apps account with a custom domain. I can't seem to find the option to enable profiles in Google Apps, so I ended up registering with an old gmail account.
No More Excuses, The Time Is Now
"In the beginning there was myspace" - not really. In the beginning, there was LiveJournal. And Friendster.
I believe that military GPS units utilize both the L1 band (civilian) and L2 band (military only) to be able to calculate ionosphere delays.
I have to ask. When a newbie goes to the Appstore looking for video editing software and they see the bad rating, who is actually going to buy the software. Plain and simple, I think that Apple just blew this one.
Sums it all up pretty well. The solution for Facebook is probably what Facebook will do anyway. But it won't work. You can't just patch up disruption onto your old technology/business model. You have to start from scratch to compete, and that's something Facebook can do, which is the beauty of all disruptions.

I know Google+ doesn't exactly look like a disruptive innovation at first sight, but more like a direct competitor to Facebook, but if Circles re-defines the game, then that pretty much means it's a disruption and it will take the path of that all disruptive innovations take, which is to replace the incumbent (gradually).
It's very similar to Hacker News but you use your real identity and there are many topics. You subscribe to the topics that you care about and things bubble up based on whether you follow the people who posted them or not.

That way you get content from the people that you care about but you also get content that the crowd cares about as long as it is in a topic that you follow. You get both the socially relevant content and the top crowdsourced content.
There's a persistent myth that Facebook Group is the same as Google+ Circles. They are nowhere near each other. In fact, Google+ does not have the equivalent of Facebook Groups, unless you count in the older Google Groups.

Facebook Group is closer to Google Groups or Yahoo Groups or any one of the dozens of forum-type sites. You create a space in which people join. It creates a venue. Google+ Circles is much closer to Livejournal friend filters. You have overlapping contexts but no single, formal venue that you join. Psychologically and sociologically, it works differently. It takes a lot more engineering work to get circles implemented than it does Facebook Groups (as it is implemented today).

I've been revisiting sending messages to specific groups of people in Facebook, outside the Groups context:

- To send to specific people on Facebook, you specify them directly. There are no pre-defined lists of people. Further, you have to jump extra hoops to do this, by clicking on the tiny lock icon, and then clicking on custom, and then typing in the names of the people you want to send this to. You have to do this for every single post you want to send out on a limited scope. Clearly, the Facebook UX designers want you to send it out to everyone.

- You can do the equivalent of private message to a group of people for an ad-hoc group. The last time I tried that, I hit its biggest limitation. I wanted to add more people into the running thread and it would not allow me to do that. Fortunately, everyone involved are current Livejournal contacts and we moved the conversation over there. Google+ does not allow you to add more people or circles to a running thread, but it does allow you to add more people into the circles which are dynamically computed into existing threads. As it should work.

- Google+ Profiles lets you specify exactly which part of the profile is viewable by which circle + people. You may not want your business phone number available to your drinking buddies, and you may not want your home phone number available to your business contacts.

- Google+ has a tool that lets you view what your stream looks like to other people. Admittedly, this is somewhat buried in the site.

- saurih brings up a very good point, "it doesn't matter how good your security is if people refuse to lift a finger to use it." A large % of the people in my circles are using it as public posts -- either thinking it in terms of Twitter-public, or they don't really care to. One of the people on there twigged on an insight: public posts on Google+ are meant for things that are relavent to everyone. People tend to post publicly and ignore much of the circle functionality; and as such, the interface will feel clunkier because you're not making full use of it.

On the other hand, all my friends who are expats from Livejournal and had been itching to ditch Facebook for something that provides this granularity of social contexts have set up the different streams.

In any case. Google+ scratches an itch I had. I'm glad it is here. It is the right tool for me, whether or not it is the right tool for the vast majority of Facebook users.
It should be noted that there are numerous civilian GPS receivers that do not have the altitude limit or have it much higher than 18km. Many are purpose built for high altitude balloon payloads.
There's not enough contrast between "today" and the rest of the month: if I'm not looking straight on at my screen, I can't tell the difference.

The overall effect of the other changes rubs me up the wrong way, but I'll probably get used to it.
Good catch - people will just pirate FCP7 which Apple won't care at all about (unless FCPX flops).
In at least two of these categories, (search and social networking) today's market leaders started up during low points when nobody thought their was room - or even demand - for another entrant.

Seriously, when Google was founded building yet another search engine was considered slightly less cool and even less lucrative than developing a new word processor for Windows.

Focusing on unoccupied niches or new markets is usually a bad strategy. Businesses are like life; they find a way to occupy every habitable space. There's usually a reason unoccupied niches are unoccupied. Being the first into a new market is almost as bad. The business that establishes the market is usually just providing a free lesson to potential competitors on what to avoid. They tend to grow hidebound just as the market really takes off.
Someone published a hack:

(1) Open up a Yahoo account
(2) Import Facebook contacts into the Yahoo account
(3) In the add people to circles page, import from the Yahoo account.
I'm still holding out hope that an open, federated web is Google's ultimate play. They've demonstrated (Wave, Buzz) that they're willing to sink resources into it. Maybe they think if they can get enough traction, they can force the other social networks to open up.

A guy can dream, can't he?
Seem to be ðe same idea behind Gnome.
Facebook is boring, no time for LinkedIn, too lazy for Twitter = Google+
My Verdict:
- Facebook is boring
- I don't have enough time for LinkedIn
- I am too lazy for Twitter
= Google+ is perfect for me. I can read my news, connect with friends like on Facebook, business network like on LinkedIn, and get similar twitter feeds right in my dashboard.
Does anyone have any real worthwhile info of this entire issue? All I've seen is the few incomprehensible technical arguments and then plenty of over-popularised articles like this one. I think it's obvious that LS can't go ahead if these problems are real, but the whole debate seems to lack much real detail.
Off-topic, but how did you gain your initial users for what was, apparently, a successful local deal?
I'd like that, too, but we probably won't see that until another 7-10 years from now. One of the reasons I'd like a fully decentralized (and anonymized?) network is that it would probably have enormous impact on society all over the world. It might even be the ultimate solution to start a revolution in China. None of the current social networks can help Chinese people the same way they helped other countries revolt.
How so? Seems to me like it could mean any number of things, all of which succeed in securely hashing+salting a password.
Robert Morris, a developer of Unix, dies at 78
Are there ANY 4-letter domains available anymore?
Yes, but that's still a significant amount of friction for something as important as understanding what your social context is. And how many people are really going to understand that that distinction even exists?

I think the real problem is that there's no easy mental model for the way information flows through the system. That's what metaphors are for. A "Circle" is not a metaphor. It's just a brand.
But the wished-for condition is exactly that, or else it wouldn't have to be wished for. Yes, the writer is informal -- but the condition wished for is "not so informal".
gmail doesn't lock you in... so I am not sure what your point is.
It wasn't thieves, was it? It was just a guy who bought bitcoins during the crash and withdrew some. That's perfectly legal, from where I'm standing.

EDIT: It looks like the guy I'm talking about only withdrew 640ish coins, so this must be someone else.
I've chatted with both of them on more than one ocassion in casual settings, Jim is nice but Mike is cool as F!
Reasons .NET Devs Shouldn't Dismiss HTML 5
Flowgram.com Open Source Release
yup. but instead of posting things to TSW i post things to twitter and TSW doesn't really acknowledge that as something I have "shared". even though, you know, I've shared it. Just on twitter, where my friends are and a blogger plugin picks up my posts for republishing on my blog, and not on TSW where.... you guys are :)

similarly, when I go to TSW I have to skip all the stuff that I just read in twitter.
Google Chrome ad features Justin Bieber
Yah - just to follow up on what Kareem said, you could imagine sharing tons of programming links on The Shared Web - and it would never bubble up for all your friends who don't follow programming, but for those of your friends who are interested in it - they would get it.

You as a reader of content also get a wider variety of content - and you're encouraged to post as much as you want, and repost lots of content (as that helps us pick out the good content from the bad), and we have various techniques to avoid duplicate posts at the same time. (A Repost counts like an upvote essentially)

In terms of the cheering section, we did mention to friends that we put this up on HackerNews, and to give a shout out if they like the site. Those people in the comments are all real people, who do actually log in daily, and like the site.

We really just wanted to get the word out to the HN community and to get feedback on what works and what doesn't.
It's definitely reasonable; but we are also not explicitly speaking for a corporation.
Chome is moments away from getting this it seems:

http://peter.sh/2011/06/flexbox-web-sockets-inclusion-of-web...

Great blog btw, I check it each week to see what's cooking under the hood of Chrome :-)
No it did not. You wanna know why? Because I don't have an invite yet. That's why.
The thing I like about google+ is all the things I usually use are built into one 'platform' (gmail, videos, images, google apps) which in the end saves me time and allows me to lazy. I don't know how it will fare with the less technical inclined but for me, I like it.
I'll try it but im not sure about it...
CodeIgniter Sparks: package/repository for CodeIgniter add-ons
I've glanced at the same doc, got a slightly different take from it. The higher precision devices are actually receiving data in LightSquared's licensed band (by having more receive bandwidth, they get better accuracy), on purpose. This is not the GPS devices' band to use, so IMO tough luck on them. (If you like analogies, it's like carving out a block of unassigned IPs for yourself, and then complaining when someone is actually assigned those IPs and wants to use them).

The one band they tested is the one that is further away, and therefore easier for devices to reject. They claim it's not a problem for "over 99% of devices" when they are at full power there. They concede that operation the the higher frequency band (that LightSquared has licensed) would cause trouble for "a significant portion of legacy devices."

The root cause of most of the problem (not the part where ultra-precision receivers use bands that aren't theirs) is that the GPS receivers expected things in neighbouring bands to remain quiet, when there was no guarantee that such would happen. This assumption made for easier and cheaper designs for them, and now all this hardware is out there that is susceptible to the interference.
The funny thing is, it's only on circles like these at HN that it seems the corporation should "take the criticism."

As far as investors/Wall Street/the wider public goes, the non-answer might actually be the better response. Appearing to take the criticism seriously could be more damaging--hopefully internally, they are indeed taking the criticism seriously.
I don't know, I think this is a good thing for everyone. With all the hiring wars going on between Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc., we're bound to see some really cool advancements from these companies in the near future. Plus, to have something pose as a direct competition to Facebook's core mission is exciting; Zuck won't back down, and neither will Page, and hopefully out of that comes innovation.
So, I heard you had a brainwave.
What? What about it is "logically impossible"? I really doubt you have a proof that it is impossible, so why the appeal to "logic"?
I'm pretty sure the opt-in for all Gmail users is what got them in trouble. I don't think anyone cares (despite it being awkward or weird) that the Buzz interface happens to live in Gmail. It's not like Buzz is at all related to your email. Besides, + is pretty darn privacy focused. Everything I type or enter in, even on the mobile apps, I have immediate control over its visibility.
I don't use twitter but I think the facebook + linkedin part is right on! With the built-in privacy stuff and the easy way to manage different "output" of stuff you post, it's easy to have both a personal life and a professional life on Google+ and I love it!
A Second Disease Wiped off The Face of the Earth
> What's to stop one from coming up with novel properties which are unique to these systems?

Interestingness. Usefulness, perhaps, if you have a specific definition of 'useful' in mind.

> Is our commonly used system basically an arbitrary set of conditions?

It's an arbitrary set of conditions with interesting properties, and it's not always obvious which arbitrary conditions will have interesting properties.

> Do you think that some systems correlate better to how nature does things than others, and if so, which ones would they be?

Well, that is an interesting question, which means anyone who claims to know an absolute answer to it is a moron. We do know, for example, that vectors are a very useful tool to model a lot of what happens in physics, and that complex numbers are a compact way to talk about rotation, especially complex exponentiation (taking a real number, such as e, to complex powers).

> Ah, so it's unbounded like how Haskell's lazy evaluation treats infinity.

Yes. For example, a definition (the Peano axioms) of the set of the natural numbers (either the positive or non-negative integers; the set may or may not include zero, as conventions vary) states that the set contains 0 (or 1) and that for every number x it contains, it also contains x+1.
The people that don't notice are the same ones spamming their friends with FarmVille invites and there's limited controls for blocking them without disavowing them entirely within Facebook. They're the people that post drunk pics to Facebook in "Everyone" albums without any consideration.

So what if they use + the same way. Ignore them, move them to a quieter circle. And for their benefit, it defaults to a more protective privacy setting than Facebook, especially for pictures.
Some users have reported that re-clicking the "Learn more about Google+" in the email after some time redirects them to a page which asks them to join it.
I think you misinterpreted the parent post. It's saying not saying that Facebook Groups is the same as Google Circles, it is saying that both Facebook and Google+ have the group functionality (in the sense of Unix groups - ie, grouping users for access restriction purposes).

In Facebook it is called user lists.
Interview: HP says Apple is not TouchPad’s target
Perhaps they mean it's salted by 3 different environments, so an attacker would need to crack the db server and 3 other servers just to get a chance to start cracking the passwords.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a really basic version of Office 365 integrated into Facebook as a response to this. There's already an experiment of sorts at http://docs.com
Great idea, but it doesn't work with multiple account signin (it crashes Chrome).
A preview of Gmail’s new look
That would mean that logins would have to go through 3 different servers. If anything, I would be more worried about security in that case.
Going about your business, or pleasure
My reason why Google+ will fail. No one but the technorati will care.

(this sounds snarky but I'm quite serious)

Everyone seems to think Circles is a game changer, I'm not so sure. While it seems like a considerable improvement over managing lists in Facebook, I really don't believe that people like my mom really care enough for this to combat the network effect that Facebook already has.

Similarly this is the only thing Facebook does. How long will it take them to steal any innovative interface ideas G+ has? Can Google really stay ahead of Facebook in this space?
Right. I might've done a bad job describing my take on the report, because I agree with all that.

It's also worth noting that LightSquared is offering to provide circuitry -- which they claim to have already developed -- to any device manufacturers that want to filter LightSquared's signal.

Regardless, I'm not yet seeing a single thing anywhere in this part of the report that would lead me to conclude that they're proposing something that "defies physics".
I think that the response of pros to FCPX is understandable but also wrong. If FCPX were the first word processor, they're complaining that it doesn't come with liquid paper and two color ribbons.

The way in/out points and compound clips work in FCPX is simply ridiculously awesome -- it's kind of what After Effects tries to do with compound clips implemented in a realtime modeless manner.

Was Apple insensitive (e.g. by halting FC Studio sales the moment it released FCPX)? You bet. Did it bungle the PR? No question. Is FCPX a non-pro tool? Pro tools are tools pros use. I have no doubt some pros will use FCPX and some FCPX users will turn pro. Will a lot of FCP7 users cling to the old ways or switch to Premiere or Avid or whatever? Probably.
it's hard to be frank and honest without having investor confidence and stock prices drop. That's truly who the audience of the letter was.
That is indeed what it sounds like, but what's really worrisome about that is that anyone who thinks the solution to keeping passwords is to triple-salt them really needs to learn some things about keeping passwords safe.

I could quintuple-salt my passwords with 4096 byte salts chosen purely randomly and there would be no perceivable advantage over a single 512 bit salt.