skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That does sound like an interesting model. Producers would, I suppose, initially have to establish their reputations by releasing things for free. The dynamics of choosing prices would be completely different, more like selling equity.

One thing that would worry me: a lot of people would have to be involved in getting a piece to a point where it could be sold. How would it be protected while all these people are looking at it and working on it?

Also, if you work out one of these deals with a publisher, and transmit it over the Internet, are you legally protected against people stealing it en route?
Title says it ALL
Are there instances of that occurring in history, short of revolution? I know I'm not ready to start one, even though I'm highly uncomfortable with the current state of the US Government.
When I was still in college, the BEST general-purpose training I ever received was in my ACM International Collegiate Programming Contest (ICPC) training, and the contests that followed. Topcoder was one of the methods we used to train for the contests, among Usaco, old ICPC contests, Project Euler, UVa (another set of contest problems). Some people used SPOJ and other such places.

From the years I was on the team, if I improved at anything, it was the ability to look at a problem, and solve it. I've gotten to use little bits of it in the year and a half I've been working, but it was more the experience I found profitable and would encourage anyone to do the same.

Disclaimer: I was on the UCF programming team for 5 years.
There is no wikipedia article on the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon for some reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baader-Meinhof_(disambiguation)

Does anyone know enough on the subject to create one? I had to read up on it here

http://www.damninteresting.com/the-baader-meinhof-phenomenon...

But not sure how reliable the article is.
I don't know anything about the German bomb program, except that it was pretty unsuccessful. (To be fair, they had people bombing their scientists the whole war.) The heavy water reactors I referred to were from the Manhattan Project. (They did have graphite moderated too, but they weren't as successful I understand.)

You're right that Pb is only the coolant. I got typing too fast.
Several files were added to the .rsrc/BIN folder. See the second screenshot here.

http://16s.us/TCHunt/discrepancy/Screenshot2.png
I'm pretty sure he's the best determinant of whether the search results are relevant to him, and he says they aren't.

We all know what causes this problem, but it's still a problem.
I love these Show HN's: This is fantastic, please put a flattr button up! And also include some links to Amazon! It was pretty accurate to my interests too!
You would just have to include the URL where the client should POST the vote to (like with <form src=... in HTML pages) and it would be perfectly RESTful, imho.

Of course, it would be better if there was a Standard Poll Format to avoid the proliferation of custom formats that reduce code reuse, but alas, I don't think there is.
Stuff like this makes me think of Ignaz Semmelweis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_reaction_to_Ignaz_...

Many of his contemporary obstetricians heard his criticisms of their practices, including his accusations that current obstetric practices amounted to mass murder, said, "seriously, I don’t need to hear that crap," ignored him, and went on murdering their patients by the hundreds of thousands for decades. Carl Levy published a paper on how Semmelweis's theory of infection was implausible. Semmelweis died in an asylum.

When you're giving criticism, it is of course of paramount importance to deliver it in a polite fashion, because most people will disregard the second sentence of this paragraph, and you don't want to be Semmelweis. When you're receiving criticism, it is of paramount importance to entirely ignore whether it is polite or not, because most people will disregard the first sentence of this paragraph, and you don't want to be Levy.

But if you had to be one or the other, it would be much better to be Semmelweis the jerk than Levy the defender of incompetence.
Stuxnet Source Code Released Online
A tax on internet connectivity to fund creators of intellectual goods sounds like an awful idea to me. Who qualifies as a "creator of intellectual goods"? Do you have to register for that? Can you have another job as well? How is popularity measured, especially where multiple works by the same person are involved? Multiple contributors to the same work, with varying degrees of input? You can assume that the number of "creators of intellectual goods" will be inflated. Is there really going to be enough money from a Internet connectivity tax to supply the living of all the artists who "deserve" it?

It sounds like a nightmare to implement, which means it would almost certainly be implemented horribly. That alone, disregarding any theoretical merits, should rule it out as a viable idea.
Wow, that is some serious price gouging. As a biologist, I can tell you gel boxes are not complicated devices. Waterproof tank, reservoir on each end, removable tray for gel, electrodes. Done. I could probably build one in a weekend using $20 of plexiglass and some steel electrodes scrounged up somewhere.

They quote gel boxes as retailing "probably about $2000 in a lab". There are BioRad gelboxes for sale on ebay for $60.

The expensive part would be the power supply, which they don't even sell with the kit.
Two things.

Shitty queries give shitty results. Shocker! His argument is totally lame and I'm the first to pile on with Google's mediocrity as it matures. So that's saying something.

At the same time, "think like a computer" is a terrible standard for a piece of consumer software. The money today exists in building elaborate do-what-I-mean machines precisely because thinking like a computer sucks and people don't like to do that.

Luckily, the standard isn't for just computers — it's anyone. If you told me "PDF" I wouldn't know wtf to do either. The need for context exists until we invent mind reading machines.
Just use CANDU reactors, it will burn raw uranium, and can use the waste product from PWR reactors, just leave the thorium in the raw uranium. It's been working for years, no Yucca mountain, Yucca mountain is a purely US phenomena, it doesn't exist in Canada or France. It's not a new technology, it's 60 years old. All you need is a little heavy water, and in event of a meltdown you just flood the tank with regular water and voila no reactions.

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

Here's the fuel cycle for a CANDU reactor which will support the thorium cycle as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CANDU_fuel_cycles.jpg
> If you spend a year in production and spending a large amount of money in the process. You should be the owner of the product, or anyone could just make a copy and sell it at a heavy discount with no associated costs of production.

You're still assuming a world where copyright exists. Are you unable to think outside of those bounds? Do you not see that perhaps you wouldn't even attempt to do this in a world without copyright because you'd know up front you can't make money selling it?

> The interesting thing is that the same argument can in fact be made for property.

No it can't. Property is physical, if I steal your car, you no longer have it. If I copy your novel, you don't even know it happened. Physical property and intellectual property aren't at all the same.

> It's related to labor, having spent x amount of time working to buy something.

No, it really isn't.
Also:
> Great leaders are like surfers riding a big wave.
> It's easy to get distracted by the surfer and forget that the wave is really the important part.

Erm.. no.. The same wave rolls in for everyone. It's the skilled, hardworking (sometimes lucky) surfer who makes it a world class ride..
>he says version numbers in the url are bad but doesn't say why.

Because according to the spec, each resource is named by a single URL, so two URLs name two different resources. But if you put version numbers in the URL, you might end up with http://example.org/v1/rubyrescue and http://example.org/v2/rubyrescue, which according to the spec are two different users but in reality they're the same.

>also a v1 user really might not be the same as a v2 user

In what cases should the users be tied to the API version? I can't think of any.
I agree, it's redundant.
Q: is this preferable than using the built-in blowfish? What is the advantage?

http://golang.org/pkg/crypto/blowfish/
topcoder doesnt mean much its just a mind game

TC is a place to learn and practice algorithm development skills, which is MUCH more than just a game.

It's not necessary in any programming job, but there are places where this kind of knowledge is really needed - from what I know, Google is one of the examples.

So if you like maths/algorithms, TC is a very useful place.
Last year I've been working on an unconventional idea of mine:
After a project at which I was the project manager, I get into a project managed by someone else, as a team member. This has several advantages:
-It gives me perspective: manager is a function, not a position or a personality obsession.
-I get to see things from the other side regularly: sometimes I find that in the previous project I was managing I have been unreasonable.
-I lead by example: people become very motivated when they see me coding or testing ( as a bonus, I get to keep my coding skills sharp :-)

Of course, this is Japan and one can still get the credit for doing work behind the scene but I think it is an interesting idea to hack the "soft boss-hard boss" paradigm
I doubt in 50 years anyone will know who Zuck is; he's really not that relevant historically. Steve Jobs will be known, Zuck, not from anything he's done yet. Facebook is not original or world changing, it's simply popular. It wasn't the first nor will it be the last social network.
Well that's not fair, its not simply foolish. He prefaced his comment with "Or" meaning that its a possible business model. I think it would be fantastic to speak to my favorite writers and I know their time is valuable so I would pay to. But I am not stating that it is the perfect path. Though it would be nice if people considered it as a possibility.
Space station lights up Fourth of July skies
Space travel. 1961 was a hot year. Yuri went to space, for example.
Spain's Music Rights Group SGAE Offices Raided, Executives Detained
I think what he is proposing is to accept it as a premise because it makes intuitive sense, and stop making it so complicated. Really, where do all these ideas about liberty and harm come from? Our intuition, or rather, our conscience. If you want to go really fundamental, why does harm to human beings matter at all?

What was said below about IP ethically being about attribution was pretty close to the mark, in my opinion. It just makes sense for people to have a right to control what they make, physical or otherwise, and to go too far beyond that seems to me to be dangerously over-thinking the issue.
I think the most fun way to get into TopCoder is to just start competing in live events, which (for the algorithm matches) usually occur three times a month (though some might be at impractical times).

You'll probably screw up the first few times you participate; that's pretty normal, so don't let that get you down!

Of course you can do the archived problems for practice, but starting with live matches is much more exciting.
I've had this discussion about hundred times now. REST "standards" are as important and significant as brace indentation "standards". A big problem with REST is that it is NOT a canonical (or even important) standard, but rather a useful pattern than can be used to make things exposed via HTTP more intuitive. The evil side effect of this is that a metric crapton of architects/engineers are wasting fifty bajillion programming-hours arguing irrelevant details about who's doing it "right" instead of building useful software. You cannot do REST "wrong" and more than you can do software "wrong"... Folks who argue about the "right" way of doing software are usually "wrong" because they are focused on writing software instead of solving problems.

We need to keep our priorities straight.
Thanks for that deep insight into how all tech companies work.
Too bad his last match is so long ago that his solutions aren't available any more. I would have liked to see what kind of code he wrote!
Zuckerberg Surprised That People Are Surprised He’s On Google+
"Each resource is a representation of internal data. You can have multiple representations under different URLs even though they're powered by the same internal data structure."

False. Each resource is a resource. The representation and the resource are completely independent.
You wouldn't need to force - you could just give the author the right to demand that or not.

>Lastly, a GPL license wouldn't be possible to enforce without copyright, or the concept of a copyright owner.

Yes for the GPL, no for copyleft. The GPL was simply a mechanism that Stallman et all found to enable copyleft without having the power to rewrite the law.

If you did have the power to rewrite the law - and if you were to eliminate copyright, you would - it'd be perfectly possible to add a 'copyleft right' without relying on copyright.

The problem is that in Common law all those rights are based to the Copyright concept, and that blinds people to assume that must be.
Here in Europe, we have 'authorship rights' - such as attribution - and they are not based on copyright; copyright is just one of them. You could take it out without affecting other authorship rights.
This library is a golang wrapper modeled after py-bcrypt, http://www.mindrot.org/projects/py-bcrypt/

This system hashes passwords using a version of Bruce Schneier's Blowfish block cipher with modifications designed to raise the cost of off-line password cracking and frustrate fast hardware implementation. The computation cost of the algorithm is parametised, so it can be increased as computers get faster. The intent is to make a compromise of a password database less likely to result in an attacker gaining knowledge of the plaintext passwords (e.g. using John the Ripper).
Exactly: garbage in, garbage out.
That's a really well designed app!
Thanks, I took code #4.

A suggestion: turn up the volume when sounding an alarm. Currently an alarm might go off, but if the volume is set to 0, nothing will be heard.
Algorithms are very useful to know, both for interviews and for real life coding, but a lot of the projects that you'd pursue for fun wouldn't have a lot of algorithmic content. Problems from this sort of contests force you to focus on tasks which make you learn about algorithmics instead of spending your time on ancillary issues.
for example, record an mp3 where you sing the 1's and 0's that comprise the encrypted data.
C's scheme is much easier for me than objective-C's, mainly because of autorelease.
"Some people are peeved that Google+ discourages you from participating pseudonymously. I don■t think a social network that wants to target the mainstream and wants to capture real-world relationships has any real choice about this."

I'm not going to argue for full-on bullet-proof pseudonyms, because I'm sure that would just be a matter of creating multiple accounts. The issue I have (and a wide variety of the "privacy conscious early adopters" using the system, I'm sure) is smaller: there's people I've been hanging out with online for the better part of a decade, and I know them by their pseudonyms. Google+ gives me a list of names I only barely recognise, instead of the familiar handles I've come to associate with these faces. Likewise, it would be nice if my user tile could show up in my parent's Circles with my given name, and my online friends' circles with my handle.

As another example, I have some friends of Chinese descent who have a "Chinese name" given to them by their parents, and an "English name" they use in non-Chinese-speaking contexts for the benefit of people who are inexperienced at pronouncing Chinese words. Their real-world relationships use very different names, but G+ forces them to pick only one.

A long-standing HN favourite post is patio11's "List of wrong assumptions programmers make about names", and one of the items on that list is "A person has exactly one name that they go by". This is exactly the assumption that Google+ makes, and it's just as wrong as ever. Circles is a great model for real human networks, but it doesn't go far enough: a single person can quite legitimately be known by different names in different social contexts.

As for myself, I've changed my Google Profile's "name" field to reflect my usual psuedonym, because more than half of my current G+ contacts know me that way. But I'll keep complaining about it, because I think it's an important part of human society that is being overlooked.
I realize I implied "every table or model", and I would always argue for composition the way you describe it.

But ... there are good reasons to decompose and expose these things in your API. While maybe not for Public consumption but certainly for Private.

It's my opinion that the way REST beats SOAP in the enterprise is that in almost all cases it's much quicker to build decomposed services. And then likewise composition of said services is also much easier.
I found this more compelling and succinct:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/andrewlilico/100010332/...
Actually there is Labor mobility between the States of the EU.
You are being deprived of something you never had. If someone says they'll gift me a car, and then they don't, have they stole from me? No, because I never had the car in the first place.

And who's to say you are being deprived of such income? For all you know, you could have received the exact same amount even if the pirate publisher had never sold it - maybe he did all the marketing work that enabled those sales.

More: for all you know, maybe the marketing work that the pirate went through has helped sell more of your publisher's copies that it would had the pirate never copied it at all.

It's simply impossible to tell if you were deprived of any 'potential income' or not.
Why not use a command-line browser then?
Thanks, I used #3. Counting on it to wake me up tomorrow.
I agree that it reeks of BS, but I had never heard of this. Thanks for the link.
I've been using "sleep 28000; mplayer whatever.ogg" as an alarm clock (without any special app) for a few months now. Less polished, but it works. :-)
I think Google can be proud that a broad query with only 8 out of 10 results relevant is a newsworthy occurrence.
more succinct, yes, but it imparts the reader with much less background information, which makes it much less useful to anyone who is not already informed about the situation.
My mother is an excellent actress, yet inferior actresses get cast more frequently. Should we make that illegal?

Unfairness is not reason enough to justify copyright.
I believe you've confused something. Almost all plutonium from the Manhattan project (e.g. 'Fat Man') was from graphite-moderated, light-water cooled reactors at Hanford site in Washington, starting with the 'B reactor'.

Plutonium: The First 50 Years (chapter 9)

http://www.doeal.gov/SWEIS/DOEDocuments/004%20DOE-DP-0137%20...

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

The US did not build a heavy-water plutonium production reactor before those at the Savannah River Site (South Carolina), which did not start until 1953. These are all the plutonium production reactors the US has built (ref. DoE): 9 graphite-moderated light-water cooled reactors at Hanford, and 5 heavy-water moderated/heavy-water cooled reactors at Savannah River.

In the Manhattan project, there were also tiny amounts of plutonium sourced from the X-10 reactor at Oak Ridge (also graphite-moderated):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-10_Graphite_Reactor

Separately, there was highly-enriched uranium produced at Oak Ridge (Tennessee), which was used in 'Little Boy'.

And, CP-3 was a research heavy-water reactor (Chicago), built in 1944, which was not used for breeding plutonium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile_3

Hope this clears things up...
good point, but the point of a restful resource is that the url represents a resource, but then w/accept header versioning, i now need two pieces of data, one of which isn't visible, to properly represent and retrieve a resource.

I guess my point is that if i have to pick, i'd rather occasionally have two request urls with a minor version difference that are actually the same resource than two urls that appear to be the same resource but are not because one was requested with a header that affects the returned data.
"It's not the despair, Laura. I can handle the despair. It's the hope I can't stand." (No apologies at all to John Cleese or to anybody else.)
Splitterbug (YC S11) private beta: track expenses with friends from your phone
This is not nearly as interesting as I hoped. Allow me to sum it up for you:

"History" is defined as "person-years lived."
Therefore, the more people there are alive (and the longer they live), the more history is being made.
There are currently more people alive than ever before at a given time.
Therefore, we are currently making the most history.

Mind-blowing, right?
Samsung Electronics to Drop Patent-Infringement Suit Against Apple in U.S.
Is Responsive Web Design a Game Changer?
"Because according to the spec, each resource is named by a single URL, so two URLs name two different resources."

I don't think this is technically correct. For instance, you might have a blog with a post at /blog/2011/07/03/why-i-love-rest and you might have /blog/current represent the same resource until you post something new. This seems like a valid case in which two different URIs name the same resource.

If you are versioning the resources themselves I think the version in the URI is perfectly fine. In reality this is almost never the case and people mainly use the version in the URI to designate different versions of the representation. This is bad since it ties the URI to the representation which is a big no-no.
Inside a torus
You're confusing resource with representation. An URL is a resource, but if the representation of that is a JSON document or a picture of him/her, that's up to the server. Just because an header affects the representation of a resource, doesn't mean they're different resources.
What do you mean by visible? Visible in the URL bar of a browser? The headers are all there in the request, for all to see.
Ask HN: Have any good flash card decks to share?
Was just listening to this great Mixergy interview with Derek Sivers. http://mixergy.com/derek-sivers-blog-interview/

He mentioned the idea of using flash cards and the Spaced Interval technique to learn business books like The Personal MBA and wished someone would turn that book into a flash card deck.

Got me thinking, are any of the good people of HN doing this? Have any good business and programming related decks to share?
You can copy my car if you want, if you steal my novel I don't have it anymore. But seriously, why do you think that physical things costs money at all? Is this an inherent property of something being physical, or is the cost related to salaries payed for processing and production? If everyone worked for free, nothing would cost money. Are you unable to think outside of those bounds? I'm not arguing for this mind you, but the decision to protect property or the notion of property as such, is arbitrary and a human convention at the core.
"The Interrogator:" A CIA insider's crisis of conscience
(defun botsbuildbots () (botsbuildbots)) track name from Portal 2 soundtrack