skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's been a while but I believe when using the "Send mail as" feature in gmail it puts your preferred address in the from: field but keeps your gmail address in the sender: field.

That's probably fine in most cases but I was getting inconsistent results when people replied to my emails. Some were addressed to my domain and others to my gmail address.

I was also concerned that this might give me a slightly higher perceived risk in some SPAM filters.

Like I said earlier, none of this was a huge deal. It was just one of those inconsistencies that led me to routing all my mail to Google Apps.
Get a new domain (second-level, that you actually own this time) and accurately 301 all your URLs to the new domain. You cannot "regain" your Google traffic. You'll need to rebuild, but 301s will at least help put your inbound links back on solid footing.
"Error establishing a database connection"

I knew it. My dreams of hacking with a beautiful girl have once again been dashed on the rocks of virtual reality.

//After reading actual article.

Why was I right? :(
Is this high school debate class? Ad hominem might get you docked points in a competition but purposely blinding yourself to someone's motivations is retarded. The author took the time to type up some scarcely camouflaged ad copy and I think asking Why is legitimate and it should certainly color the interpretation of the information he is presenting.
Think about this for a moment. You're saying that Apple has no iPods in inventory, and when I order one online, they manufacture it for me? Really?
What you're describing is not PageRank, but the extra information that Google's current and secret algorithm uses. The PageRank algorithm doesn't involve domains, and no amount of downvoting is going to change that -- check your facts.
What I learned today: Never apply for a job
The OS X keyboard technically still has a Caps Lock key; but you're free to remap it to any of the other modifier keys (or none of them) in the keyboard prefs. Being a Vim user I don't use Control much, so I put it to ⌘ to call up Alfred more easily.
P!=NP?
Likely it will be a little worse than break-even, because there are always some people out there willing to attempt to generate coins even if what they are doing doesn't financially make sense, breaking the market.

I'd guess that the percentage of miners and speculators in the BTC market who are economically irrational in their activities is a lot higher than most of us think it is. Ergo, I don't place too much faith in any models, theories, or projections about this market that lean heavily on assumptions of rational actors.

Following from this logic, I can't justify taking a significant position in this market. The risk is enormous, and as risk goes, it's not incredibly attractive compared to alternative investment vehicles or strategies.
> can't separate the wheat from the chaff at /co.cc/.

The wheat is a lie.
It was proven on the last jailbreak-via-web - it was amazing to see it work the first time and you really understood the severity of a simple bug. I think it's news now for many people (perhaps not a large bunch of HNers) because the first time was "huh - pretty crazy! But I'm sure it won't happen again" and now it's "holy shit, there IS no security!"
Problem is the wrong word. It's different.

In central planning, the dynamics are different. Whomever influences the planners ultimately makes the decisions. The quality of those decisions depends on your perspective and the motivation of the influencers.

In a pure capitalist model, you follow the money. Whomever has money influences the decisions.

There's no right or wrong answer. Oftentimes valuable things appear as unintended consequences of government or commercial projects.

It's hard to declare the internet to not be an example of central planning -- it was built to connect Federally funded labs at universities with Federal dollars. The labs existed to provide (indirectly or directly) research to serve defense and space (which i consider to be a subset of defense) interests.

The difference between the French thing and the Internet is that key stakeholders in the government and academia saw the potential of computer networks as a driver of commerce at an opportune time. If that conclusion was made in 1978, we'd have the French thing on a terminal leased from AT&T or a baby bell.

Equating a telecom system to a railroad, bridge, road, etc from a government POV was a big leap -- but the timing was probably more important and less obvious.
I thought this was some productivity spiel.
Lessons from a rewrite
Well maybe this is why she is looking for a technical cofounder.
Then they would revoke the PowerVR license then in that case, right? Or at the very least modify the terms?
This has an excellent chance of contaminating the new domain. Consider Big Daddy G's view of the world: they've just declared *.co.cc persona non grata. 301 redirecting is designed to tell them that foo.co.cc is now doing business at example.net. I would not do that to a domain I didn't want to lose.
Google needs to find an algorithmic way to block spammers and malware websites. This is bound to happen over and over, and Google will waste time chasing these doamins around, while accidentally removing a few non-malicious websites from its index.
I wonder if 301s would help, as in: Do deindexed sites still get crawled and have other impacts on search results (like feeding link juice to other sites)?
I replied to every email I received for 7 straight days
Whoops, you were collateral damage.

Yeah, google does not care about you. Sorry.
For the 2 people that downvoted I would love to know what you consider a takeover. I'm pretty sure that in financial term takeover means change of ownership.

BTW, I'm quit, HN is just becoming a place where Steve Jobs and Rails must not be criticized, even when they must be. I will put some random string as my password and never return here, it was a good time but I think the community lost something in these years.
JQuery 1.6.2 syntax error? You may be the victim of SEO.
Central planning is how humans organize cooperation. It’s everywhere. To argue that it never works is ridiculous on its face.

Central planning probably gets harder the more humans want to cooperate and market mechanisms are very likely superior in those situations but that doesn’t mean that central planning doesn’t work.
Enjoyable article, probably true for many; making me further happy I just picked up a stack of James Hillman & other Archetypal Psychologies & symbol books.
All these companies getting harassed by Microsoft should pool their patents together for defensive purposes.
We actually had a Minitel service in Houston which in its way was a successful gaming platform. The social aspect never really took off.
I hate these links to nothing.
The hope is that miners will still make money off of transaction fees (a "tip" to the miner which verifies the transaction). Each new block assigns 50 BTC to the miner that found it, plus the accumulated fees of all transactions included in that block. The idea is that as mining new bitcoins becomes unprofitable, the transaction fees (set by the initiator of the transaction) will make up the difference.

That theory has yet to be tested, though.
"a simple massage of the URL works well"

As does prefixing your search with "!g".
A working remote code exploit highlights how vulnerable users of the software containing the remote code exploit are?

How...insightful?
CoralCDN mirror: http://www.williammalone.com.nyud.net/articles/create-html5-...

Edit: nevermind, it doesn't cache the javascript so the example doesn't actually work
Is that information available though? My understanding is that when Microsoft threatens companies (Amazon, for example) that they don't reveal the specific patents that Linux infringes on. If that information were public then the open source community would make an effort to rectify the situation and Microsoft would lose their hand. It makes sense but it feels so wrong that it makes me cringe.

EDIT: JamieEi has a post with a list of the patents. I think that I'm right about the Linux patents being kept secret though.
Search term in domain name should not have as much value as it currently does. Along similar lines, I think link anchor text is way overweighted as it's fairly easy to game for commercial searches and not at all common for the type of "editorial link" model pagerank assumed.

As it stands, link buying is rampant: as risky as black hat techniques are for real businesses, if you're building diverse spam web properties through a scalable model, it's not really risky at all. it's not like google can give you a permaban.
When I scanned the frontpage and saw "termite" and "distributed" in the title I thought it would be about Termite the distributed Scheme. See http://code.google.com/p/termite/

It's been around for quite some time.
It doesn't work on my iPhone on 4.3.3 with that 4.10.01 baseband. The cydia icon comes up, but when the icon changes to "Installing..." it just disappears.
Just don't start suing people for using the word "Startup" like some other entrepreneur(ial) magazine.
The one problem I have with G+ is that sometimes there is gold in the junkstream. Sometimes someone does post something interesting and they would not normally share it with me.

How can we balance over-granulated sharing with under-granulated sharing?
There's nothing inherently contradictory about an unknowable truth. Disagree: it's merely trite, not incorrect, and in spite of being trite it still brings a grin to my lips.
We need a debugger or a disassmbler like IDA Pro to make reverse engineering of that code
You can appeal through the Google Webmaster Tools (GWT) http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools but I wouldn't bother in your case. They are not likely to make an exception. I would recommend getting a new domain.

On possible way that an appeal might work is if you 301 redirected all content to the new domain and then go into GWT and do an appeal to be re-included stating the case that you were collateral damage from the .co.cc ban.

I would only do this if your site is without a doubt a legitimate site (if it seems even slightly fishy, I don't think they'll help and you're better off starting fresh) and doesn't have even a hint of shady SEOing.
Instead of responding to your parent directly, i'll just add that this is exactly why I prefaced my post with "I believe".

That said, I'm not implying we have built in instructions to go create a townhous. Simply that there is possibly a driving force that compels us to create, then a reward for doing so.
Have you contacted Google with you question yet? I would imagine if enough people ask them about this, they would have to come up with a solution somehow. Perhaps you might start a campaign requesting Google to provide a tool for legitimate businesses and companies to "migrate" their .cc traffic to a new domain name. Again, it wouldn't happen if you don't ask and if you don't ask, it would never happen. If there are enough people asking --> publicity --> Google will answer. But sometimes, all it takes for things to change is one person. That person can be you :)
Google can't take this extreme position as competitors could do this to your site as well. While I would personally not 301 to the new site, technically the benefit should outweigh the possible negatives. See paid links and directories for past reference on this subject. If getting a site down-ranked was as easy as linking TO them from a bad neighborhood, black-hat SEO would be all over it and would abuse the technique enough to make Google adjust (which most likely has happened many times)
I doubt you could ban the type of spam we're talking about. Sure, it's already illegal to send spam emails. But that's because email can reasonably be defined.

Not so for spam sites. What makes a site "spammy?" As reflected in this thread, a site is spammy if it a) ranks better than it should in search, b) fails to provide useful content, and c) is commercial.

Which of these can be turned into an objective test? Just (c), I would venture. And that's clearly unworkable. (a) and
(b) are far too subjective and vague to be codified.

Also, I think any effective ban would run far afoul of the 1st Amendment. Even if you could carve out a narrow 1st Amendment exception for certain kinds well-defined spammy conduct, spammers would inevitably just skirt around the edges of that. They'd adapt just like they always do.
I would argue that the opening up of HPGary's emails was most definitely in the public interest even though not legal. We learned that private, unaccountable security firms were being contracted by the government and corporations to circumvent the checks and balances to power that the US Constitution and Bill of Rights provide us as citizens. Also, it showed that HPGary was willing to try to intimidate journalists into disown their positions and not defending organizations they felt a moral responsibility to protect: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/02/11... .

More generally we are in a time of unprecedented attacks on the ability of the media to perform its role as a check to Power of all sorts:

(Guy who exposed waste/corruption in NSA getting constantly harassed)
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_...

(NYT writer subpoenaed before grand jury to give up source)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/rep...

(ATF agent fired for exposing that the ATF was actually selling Druglords guns)
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/06/the-obam...

(bit from The Corporation about Fox news bowing to Monsanto's desire to cover up the dangers of rGBH in milk)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL1pKlnhvg0

The more the government and Power in general tries to cut citizens off from the information we need to make informed decisions the more activists are going to try to get this info by extrajudicial means. The farther we slide into a world where Corporate power and Government power no longer act as checks to one another and form a united front against anyone who challenges their blanket of unchecked power the more important it will be for some force(s) to stand up to them on behalf of the people's rights, including their right to information.

I'm not justifying what News of the World did, there is no moral basis for playing with the emotions of the family of that poor girl in order to get an edge on more moral news gathering organizations. Hacking is a tool just like leaking is a tool. Both are used for good and bad. The problem is when both are used solely by the people in power to control to hurt the little guy.
Evasiveness: the number-one corporate value
I can only imagine how many links facebook login has across the web from their widgets. Don't think we have to worry about them falling out of the top spot for that query, in fact if they did google would likely get a visit from the DOJ soon after...
I don't think of Sony when I think of "the cloud".

However - Microsoft, Google, and Amazon are major players and most people do think of these guys when it comes to cloud storage. Amazon is of course the gold standard and Google is trusted. Microsoft is kinda sort there.
Buzz - Small & Powerful Javascript HTML5 Audio library
JailbreakMe 3 for iOS 4.3.3 Hits the Web
Again, you're making this point based on heresay. Of all the Dropbox competitors and cloud storage solutions, I'd tend to trust Microsoft the most because they will likely have the security experts employed to audit their products. Or simply that because they are Microsoft, 3rd-party security firms will investigate the security of Live Mesh.
How is this different than anywhere else, including Facebook and twitter? It's a perennial problem.
I love this idea, but who decides what "spam" is? There's a lot of spam I get that I don't like, but isn't much different than other marketing efforts. It's not all V1agr4 emails and 419 scams.

IMHO this is akin to the "pornography" issue. What is "pornography"? "I know it when I see it".
Apple Turns to ITC for Samsung Import Block
Russian lawyer was probably beaten to death in jail, says Kremlin council
Already working on that ;) I have a working prototype of a "bitcoin" client that replaces the hash generating function with completing a workunit of a BOINC project (the various @home stuff). It required some modification to the bitcoin protocol as the two tasks are not exactly analogous, and there are some different security implications.

Watch for it on HN soon...
FPGAs and ASICs are in use by a few people/companies. They have the opposite cost structure of GPUs. The two main measures are MegaHash per $ and MegaHash per Watt, roughly analogous to fixed expenses and operating expenses though the MH/Watt also influences investment in power and cooling infrastructure. GPUs have a high MH/$, but a rather poor MH/W.

I own 2 Radeon 5830s, $110 each, that still spit out about $5 a day at current prices making for a rather impressive rate of return in spite of high power requirements. From what I have read, FPGAs require about an order of magnitude higher capital investment with the benefit of a drastically reduced power consumption. Last I checked about 6 weeks ago, a decent GPU rig could pay for itself in a month or two, while an FPGA setup could pay for itself in about a year. The tradeoff is that the GPU rig's payout may dip below power costs before it pays itself out (likely the case for any rigs purchased in the past month) essentially betting on the short term difficulty increases, while FPGAs are betting on the long term health of the bitcoin system itself.

FWIW, the newer ATI GPUs aren't as good for mining as the older 5800 series.

I was a PoliSci/CompSci/Econ mega-nerd in Uni, so Bitcoin is my fantasy come true.
Compelling Casey Anthony Thoughts
Yes, I have, but Google makes it especially difficult to direct a message to an actual person as opposed to a message board. I figured it was more likely they would catch wind of the complaint if it was here.
LAN syncing and multiple folder support is fairly compelling. 25 GB web storage sounds pretty good too considering it's free. Although personally I wouldn't use the web storage and would stick to the 5 GB.
I used Live Mesh from launch up until about a year ago and had similar experiences. Lots of sync errors, lots of pain upgrading when MS decided to shuffle Live Mesh over to the Windows Live team.

On the other hand, Dropbox has been incredibly reliable and easy to use, plus it works on Android and Linux.
nir-shavit's book "The Art of Multiprocessor Programming" is also very very good (imho).
Why is Twitter wounded? Twitter is essentially friction free in use, and has a lot of momentum as a single-purpose destination.

On the other hand, Facebook has felt increasingly intrusive, facial recognition etc., and I already gave up on it, even before I knew G+ was coming out.
I want to state for the record that I am meticulous about keeping my blog updated and thus hack-free, I do not use it for any kind of nefarious SEO purposes, and I don't even run advertising. It's just my blog.

In that case, would 301 redirects help or hurt? Am I better off just starting fresh, and hoping that anybody who cares enough about my content just updates their links?
Damn, your reply and the other four pointing out that they're Ruby VMs reflects very poorly on the intelligence of HN commenters. Did you guys even RTFA? I know these are Ruby VMs, but the article is about the C code that's used within them. That's the only place where "volatile" has any meaning at all. Maybe "volatile" really is unknown among Ruby programmers, but among the people who implement interpreters for Ruby or any other language I can assure you it's pretty common knowledge.

I confess, I just don't know how to deal with such epic stupidity more gracefully than this. Sheesh.
Would they? Windows still seems to get lots of free penetration testing...
I believe it's the one from this story http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1016515

Hopefully at least the people who were responsible won't be able to do it again.
How Likely Is a Hard Landing in China?
Nice try troll. Philosophy plays a larger role in the lives of mathematicians than in the lives of natural scientists. Many mathematicians have domain expertise in philosophy. Your "philosopher" is a straw-man by comparison.
It is certainly possible to burn a new domain by pointing a penalized domain at it. If domain #2 contains the same content as domain #1 pre-burning, and domain #1 301s to domain #2, that's almost proof-positive that they're under the same control. Google's standard of proof isn't neaaaaaaaaaaarly that high.
A great comment on the chart points out that 6 days prior, the Business Insider CHART OF THE DAY shows Android growth stalling.

http://www.businessinsider.com/android-growth-flattens-2011-...
That's what you'd think, but people are mostly using 2009 vintage GPUs because the newer ones are not more efficient.
PragPub July issue is out (Pragmatic Bookshelf magazine)
Signing up for anything google feels more like a commitment compared to creating a twitter account. Google wants to integrate more and more of your data into their system, linking it with your other google accounts whether you like it or not. G+ seems, like FB, more like an experience than a simple service. Not that it cant provide the same function as twitter, but providing only that function is still valuable, I think.
Show HN: Sphela, real time public groups for Twitter
It starts with an arbitrary premise ("the brain wants to process symbols"). Since the premise is arbitrary, it doesn't help me at all.

I think you are far off the mark. Want may well be tangential.

The brain is a symbol processor; that's all it knows how to do. If there aren't positive feedbacks in place to encourage it to do what it does, this sole ability will atrophy and decay. Here's is your much vaunted evolution, in 36 words. The philosopher in me would much rather interrogate the implications and dynamics that this situation creates, and accept apriori what I see as self evident facts of creation.
Did you know what you could also embed a flash file, 3D, and more into a PDF?

Watch Julia Wolf's talk "OMG WTF PDF" to learn more. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54XYqsf4JEY
Every successful case is a special case
However the police also check for unusual heat signatures coming out of buildings at night, that could also have been what happened.

Uh, wtf, since when? They're allowed to do this without a warrant? They just randomly drive along the streets and check heat signatures?

Looking forward to the future when Bitcoin gets banned, and we see documentaries with police officers breaking down makeshift barricades to gain entry to innocuous looking barns way out in the countryside, pulling back layers of plastic sheeting to find a state of the art datacenter inside, with racks of clustered GPUs, and one very dishevelled looking vietnamese nerd sleeping on a bare mattress.

That'll happen soon and it won't be just for BitCoin, it'll be for any p2p network or any encrypted network since the governments of the world are all going censorship crazy at the moment.
hai google+ its a good attempt
The Hardest Part of Starting a Business is Actually Starting
notice that the guy in the pair stood in one of the girl's shots to show that a bit of AR was going on.

Nevertheless, its probably going to be an app to discover what content was filmed around where you are.
Initially it was the foundation and currently let’s just admit that neither of us knows.
Show HN: Diamond, MIDI arpeggiator in Ruby
10 essential tips on creating online videos
Do a search for RezVera. I research digestive health news & this has been coming up a lot over the last few weeks. Either copycat sites or PR sites that link back to another site with an iframe containing a short form promo offering the supplement for $60 bucks. Blah.