skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The lesson I take from it is that we shouldn't sell off public assets, because their long-term ownership is likely to provide more value to the public than the one-time money from a sale does, especially given the high likelihood that the one-time proceeds will be squandered by politicians. Better to keep the meters, and allow meter revenues to trickle in a little bit every year, rather than receive and waste 99 years of meter money in a lump sum.
Not just the technology's design, but the actual devices were so well made, their function is often still just fine after 30 years, and they're still plugged into recent computers.
>>I've lived in countries where copyright and patents were not enforced

Which countries are not innovating because of weak copyright and patent law enforcement?
You can hide the + portion of a Gmail address behind redirects and forwards, if you feel so inclined. It's a lot of work, but it does let you use the "deliveredto" operator in Gmail to automatically sort and discard spam like that.
You must examine a patent based on the specific claims, not the title. Many people make this mistake and assume the patent is much broader than it actually is.
Author has removed the post.
Could also be a moment of lysdexia. (In acronym, no spell checker hears you scream.)
There are three salient questions: First, is Apple a troll seeking rents or a functioning entity that invests in research and seeks to make money from products? Second, are the patents valid given the current patent system and laws (prior art, obviousness, &c) or not. And third, is the current system broken?

I think there's room to debate the second and third points. But with respect to the first point, Apple is using the patent system exactly as it was intended. Apple has been researching personal computing since it was founded, and invests heavily in figuring out exactly what works to make viable products. If Apple isn't entitled to patent protection for it's discoveries, I'd argue nobody is.

Which is a fine argument to make, but we should leave Apple out of it and say that even when a company uses the system as it was intended to be used, the system is broken. If Apple's victory over HTC is scary, the real conclusion is that all patents are scary, even those that protect companies doing actual research and who sell actual products.

Meanwhile, I think that Google are the actual villains. Do they spend billions dismantling the patent system? No. Do they spend billions protecting their partners from lawsuits? No. What they do is aid and abet other companies to violate patents, and then they shrug their shoulders and sell a few more text ads for Viagra or ambulance chasing lawyers.
You copied entire sentences word for word without quotes or attribution.
Hockey Player Mike Commodore May Wear #64 at urging of Fans (and Commodore USA)
I don't think bigger countries would go for it either; a referendum in France to hand over any sort of sovereignty to the EU would fail by massive margins.
Used azKVcqXuha9uZz69. Thanks!
I tried that course and I was not impressed. The video quality was poor, and while the course was rather comprehensive, it wasn't thorough and even the final projects were less about building your own app than building pieces of apps.

That said, buying books didn't really work for me. The way I learned was buying work from developers, and then hacking it to pieces with the help of online guides, books, and videos from Think Vitamin and PeepCode.

Another trick I used was paying freelancers to build apps, and then as part of the job requirement, asking them to record a video of them writing certain pieces of code, and explaining how I can change things on my own. Worked well.
> Not only big, the biggest one.

Statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_...) would disagree with you.
> If you're just storing non-personal statistics on grades for courses of professors, how can they actually shut you down?

"I created a web app at the request of one of the schools & deans at the University I work for."

The provost has some authority over the deans and schools. Since the application is "owned" by his employer....

Yes, maybe he could continue it "on the side" but he may want to stay employed and if he got the grade information from the school, they can probably shut that down
> Anything that hampers the next wave of innovation is pure evil.

You were on a roll, saying people shouldn't have to innovate, then suddenly you worry about hampering innovation.

Which is it? You want to be able to copy freely instead of innovating, or you want innovation to be protected?

Many comments in these threads seem to think Apple woke up one day in 2007 with the completely obvious idea of an iPhone. That's not how it happened.

Apple had been researching hand held computing since the 80's, bringing the most advanced handheld anyone had ever seen to the market, and iterating the ideas of how the software should work and the usability of that software, in directions quite different from those pursued by others such as Palm or PocketPC focused on limited capabilities more in line with what that era's hardware could actually pull off.

The market wasn't ready for Newton then, but its ideas seeped into engineering consciousness, making its innovations seem "obvious" later. Eventually, physical technology caught up with Apple's ideas, enabling the iPhone and iPod touch.

The Johnny-come-lately copycats are close enough already without their copies having to be "slavish". Whining about this or that feature they can't copy isn't becoming. If inventing's so easy, invent something better that everyone else will complain, after they see it, is obvious.

Or, have the foresight or folly to go spend nearly two decades pouring money and hard work into a product the market isn't ready for, build a huge portfolio of research-driven ideas supporting making the product, finally bring a product to market that for the first time just "feels" to everyman it works exactly the way such a product should work, and then see how you feel about that twenty years of investment being protected.

Arguably, making something feel obvious is an art. What's not obvious is that obviousness can take so much work.
They are abusing the patent system to push competitors out of the market. They used a trivial patent to do this, these things are not valid in Europe.

These things are not a problem for the real innovation guys the USA likes so much. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2729720
Lets shed some light...

1. HTC and Moto were both sued by Apple concerning same two patents. Hence alleged infringement in OS.

2. If alleged infringement is in OS than Google might have a way in to the proceedings to invalidate patents on OHA members behalf..ie not what Apple wants to face.

3. HP by its purchase of Palm has similar patents, hence why Apple never went after Palm or HP.

Considering the way Google is currently shredding Oracle patents in the invalidation processes I have a feeling that Apple may be in for a surprise. why? Why do you think MS has been so careful not provoke any OEM to challenge them to a lawsuit? Its called do not expose patents to the opportunity to have them invalidated or narrowed in claims.
Yes, but at the same time it's only 1/20 of the world market, so getting banned in the US isn't end of the world.
I completely agree. It's crazy to think that Facebook would willingly advertise a major competitor during its launch period!
It's minor ad revenue vs users and I think users win here.
I suspect I got hit by Panda too... we should know what are the basis for their classification or else, we're all in the dark.
Asked here in HN but nobody answered so I'm guessing.
The only clue I have is that after the "Panda hit" I'm on the 4th/5th page on the results on Google but still on top on Bing and Yahoo..
An interesting little project! I often wonder how different neighborhoods would be if people did beneficial things like this routinely without either relying on, or being held back by, civic institutions or businesses.

For example, the UK had a "big freeze" in November and December of last year. I cleared the ice from the sidewalk outside our house and kept it salted. No-one else on the walk into town did and it was a death-trap walk. If everyone else had spent 10 minutes a day doing their bit, walking around would have remained pleasant.
Every patent is different, but the patent system is broken all the same.

Does not mean no patents make sense (although I have yet to see one in software in algorithms; but meaningful hardware patents are not unusual). The system needs to be completely rethought. As of now, the software patent system is not only easily abused, but itself is an abuse of common sense.

[/opinion]
نتيجة الثانوية العامة 2011 برقم الجلوس
نتيجة الثانوية العامة برقم الجلوس والاسم لطلاب المرحلة الاولى والثانية علمى وادبى بجميع المحافظات
So is your argument that patents are ok, and a functional entity suing a patent violator is ok, but this specific patent is not ok? Or that patents are ok, but using them to push competitors violating the patents out of the market is not ok? Or that patents altogether are not ok?
Nice project! Just needs a little bit of design and color?

Color coding the North bound and South bound grids (From what I can see?) would be helpful.
I've recently been talking a lot with a friend about how badly so many people handle 'endings'. In this case, I've been talking about personal relationships and some of the things I did that led to an amicable divorce when my lengthy, troubled marriage finally ended. But in some sense, all relationships are 'personal'.

Some observations, not in any way intended as blaming or attacking:

You indicate they had flexible hours and freedom to work on open source but also indicate that when they left, much was left uncompleted and that he left to go work with a startup that used the open source he contributed to. It sounds to me like the job was structured poorly from the perspective of looking out for the employer's needs. On the one hand, yes, you should be concerned that the work environment be a positive personal experience for the employee. You should do this out of enlightened self interest as it promotes loyalty. But this is not your child. You should not behave like their daddy, helping to pay for hobbies. Was the open source project he contributed to something your company uses? If not, why on earth was he doing it at work instead of at home (or perhaps I misunderstood)? The time, energy, creativity, interest and so on that he put into that project should have been something the company was trying to capture for it's benefit. You allowed him to fritter those valuable personal resources away. He didn't want to be frittering away his time. He wanted it valued. So he went to a company that valued the work he was willing to pour himself into.

Perhaps there needs to be better communication. Perhaps there need to be better policies. Perhaps the corporate culture of trust has room for improvement. I would examine what piece of this is in the hands of the company and use it as a means to better protect the company's interests in the future.

Also, it sounds to me like this post is motivated by feelings of hurt and a vague sense that HN and "the world out there" is part of why this person hurt you. Posts motivated by hurt are usually not very productive. But if you recognize that the culture here on HN potentially has a negative impact on your company by actively promoting the idea of "just quit", one thing you can do is make a point of quietly promoting the view that "yes, quit, but do so honorably". And then provide any evidence you can find that doing so honorably is better for their career, not just for their employer. Just be careful to not be too pushy or come across as "the guy with the bone to pick". And also be understanding that if the employer is an abusive jerk, doing so "honorably" can amount to cutting your own throat. Then work at making damn sure your company is not in the abusive jerk category.

Peace.
Cool! In NYC at many stops this is already there, but I can see how this is useful outside of those places.
| SEO Companies in Wakefield| Professional SEO Companies Wakefield
MS is currently extorting $15 per handset from Samsung for patent licenses, so perhaps they haven't provoked an OEM or challenged them to a lawsuit, but then again, perhaps they have.
Explicit Groups vs Implicit Groups
ICO Report: What price privacy now? ( 2006 )
Entrepreneurs Need to Be Leaders, Not Pushers
No on many counts. Evolution theory is an umbrella term for a number of predictions including common descent, mutation, natural selection which is sufficient in theory and observation to create genetic and then physical changes in a population.

We have observed macro evolution countless times in bacteria and viruses. It's not even difficult.

I'm not sure why you'd call Evolution a loaded term in a scientific domain. It's clearly loaded in politics these days, but it's a very clear and celebrated theory with sharp and validated predictions in scientific domains.

You're somewhat right in the statement that BBT extrapolates from data observable today, but due to the nature of the universe, data observable today provides evidence that is not fully localized in time. We believe that the universe is infinite beyond our light cone because if we make the minimal possible assumptions on the net geometry of the universe you end up with three choices, each having to do with the sum of the angles in a very large triangle. We measured this triangle (see WMAP) and found the angles to be very nearly 180 degrees corresponding to a flat, infinite universe. So long as we have no compelling reason to invent more exotic geometry (which if GR holds would require some rather incredible momentum-energy that we haven't observed --- all possible, but very, very exotic) then this is a safe prediction.

BBT theory doesn't even describe an explosion anywhere. There wasn't something to explode in to. It instead suggests that the invariant metric has been expanding throughout the lifetime of the universe making things grow further and further apart. It's unclear that there wasn't more exotic behavior in there again, but without evidence of it, the best prediction is the simplest prediction.

I could go further into how we KNOW things and why that's not really a great way to think about it, but this is already grown long. But if you want your crazy idea to be meaningful at all, please specify it formally enough so that it predicts something about the shape or behavior of the universe different from current theories and then see if that prediction holds. Without at least claiming a prediction, it's difficult to even begin to understand what a crazy idea might mean.
Can We Ever Digitally Organize Our Friends?
Australia: Coming soon, Travel Card That Tracks Your Moves
I suggest you give the Stanford iPhone Application Development a try and it's free.

Link: http://www.stanford.edu/class/cs193p/.
If you don't like the patent system, I have a sympathetic ear. I have issues with it as well. I've yet to see any proposals for an alternative, though, and an alternative would require amending the constitution.

If you're going to abuse the system to push competitors out of the market, you can do this with every competitor. Apple has not sued RIM, Palm, Microsoft, or any of the feature phones that -- from an abusive, overly broad perspective-- infringe on Apple patents.

Apple has only sued the people who took the iPhone design and replicated it. Apple is going after the cloners, not the competitors.

Before the iPhone was announced, android was an OS for a blackberry type device. It was better than RIM's OS, I believe, but it was the RIM formfactor and UI style. After the iPhone was announced, suddenly android became a touch-screen phone OS, copying the iPhone.

It is important to remember that a touch screen UI was never done before in this way. There were no touch screen phones prior to the iPhone announcement. It isn't like the iPhoen was just another phone... the iPhone was a new kind of phone. It created a new category. Just as the iPad created a new category (despite there being table PCs in the past, going way back, there was no tablet device market prior to the iPad.)

Apple invented the touchscreen UI, and much of the technologies for the modern smartphone. Apple started working on the iPhone and iOS system for the iPad project sometime around 2002-2003. Google started working on the touch version of android in 2007- after the iPhone was announced. If google had decided to compete, and launched a massive R&D effort, and invented a bunch of stuff, then they'd have patents of their own to defend with. They didn't, they just copied the iPhone.

There is no question android is designed to be an iPhone like OS running on touch screens with multi-touch. Apple invented this category of product, Apple has patented it with legitimate, innovative, non-obvious inventions.

Calling this "abuse" communicates to me that you think when it comes to software, people should be able to copy whatever they want.

I think that's bad. I think google should have innovated, and if they aren't willing to do so, then I don't think the should be able to just outsource their R&D to Apple and get the results for free.

The purpose of patents is to open the kimono and let everyone know what you've done. Apple did this, which gave google a heads up for starting their own innovations. This is good for innovation because it means companies don't have to start from scratch. It isn't a license to just copy the patent and not innovate.
Will the Dirty Business of Journalism Survive Hackgate?
Works great for me. I'm on Snow Leopard. Awesome app.
Those comparisons aren't quite appropriate because as far as I can tell, these are individuals advertising their G+ profiles on FB, not Google advertising the entire G+ product.
None of this is surprising given only straight-A students get into college, and only straight-A college students get into graduate school. The days of the "gentleman's C" have long past.
Well done for doing something to make the world around you a little better. If only everyone did little things like this how much better the world would be.

Im very supprised the bus companies dont do tgis though! Here in the UK nearly all bus stops have the schedules displayed, its very common to see route maps though. I would imagine the bus system wpuld be next to useless without them!

Here in brighton we even have electronic signs which show the time to the next bus, theyre pretty useful!
I think it's more nuanced than that. Facebook's reputation and brand equity is perhaps their second most cherished asset (second to their user base). A move like blocking Google advertisements will result in even more bad press when they really need to focus on delivering a better product.

In the end, however, I think Facebook will become obsolete. It's a technology like any other, and I think it has become too big for it to be everything to everyone. Of course, that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong.
Uhm, sorry but that's nonsense. I know PHP and Ruby. The latter one very well. While Ruby is a great language I prefer Perl in most situations. While I consider both of them to be very good the primary reasons for choosing Perl are CPAN and the fact that it is older and therefor they already "fixed" a lot of shortcomings that other scripting languages have.

And yes, I know the benefits of Ruby's OO. I have used Smalltalk, so please don't tell me all the wonderful things you can do. I know them. But using Perl is like using a lot of experience for practical stuff. That's Perl's strength. There is a lot of knowledge in it and it's designed for practical stuff, the real world and not to look good or to be easy to learn. I still recommend Ruby to people who ask me about programming. Simply because it's better to understand a lot of things and I think it's easier if you start out with a programming language like Ruby. But staying with one language is just stupid. You will have a lot experience with a particular, but knowing different approaches to solve problems is even better.

Then there is this TIMTOWTDI dogma it that receives a lot of criticism, but I think it what keeps Perl alive. It makes it very flexible so you can use it like a completely different language. One can use it for small scripts or one-liners and huge applications. Also it's not true that there are no start up. DuckDuckGo is maybe the most popular example.

But this doesn't mean you should all use Perl. People do things in different ways and they think in different ways. It's not about choosing one single language that receives a lot of hype. Just learn and what's more important understand them. And with understanding I mean the philosophy. A lot of C people for example use Perl like it would be C and then say it's bad because it's like C and slower. GitHub is a nice way to find out how people are using a language and receive some inspiration. It's like everyone should at least try Small Talk and a language like LISP or Haskell. And everyone should learn what Assembly is all about. It will make you a better programmer no matter what language you'll be loosing in the end.

Oh, sorry. This is so off topic. I just wanted to know what stuff I might have missed, because it's really been a while since I had a look on other languages. Sorry!
Hotmail Adds 'My friend's been hacked' Feature to Finger Phishers
Reading the comments, this actually looks rather interesting. For example:

http://www.reddit.com/comments/iarao/minimalistic_realtime_b...
And Apple was in a position to make those investments in the first place because they profited handsomely from copying wholesale the fundamental ideas of the Mac UI. Now that the tables are turned they want to change the rules of the game.

Android brings more than enough innovation to the table to justify its existence. If anything Apple is borrowing more from Google now than vice-versa.
You can't have it both ways. Upfront price means the per hour is purposely inflated to deal with the changes the client is going to demand, or an argument about what is and isn't covered by the initial agreement. This happened weekly at my previous company.

Of course there are people that take advantage of an hourly rate, particularly at the bottom of the barrel pricing. If I was on contract and thought that X tech would make the project better, I wouldn't be charging for research time (call it my education bucket). I've saved weeks by using something I'm not as familiar with, but more suited to the problem at hand.
I would be really interested to see some kind of follow-up data on this in terms of did it actually promote bus use. I love this but I wonder if it genuinely accomplished something.

EDIT: Or I would also be interested if someone posted comparison data for places that already have this versus those that don't. I am seeing some anecdotal comments here that some places already do this "officially" rather than as a guerrilla tactic.
These mostly absurd laws are intended to protect consumers not corps. Feeling protected yet? And why is the ITC deciding what devices we can use? Who are these people accountable too?
Salter Sink
Facebook is a damn business, Google+ is competition. The fact that this ad was blocked isn't really news, it's just how business plays out. It's not in Facebook's interest at all to run this.

I routinely find myself astonished at how people think the online world should work. Everything should be free, don't charge for anything, let your competitors advertise in your space, ads are the devil, business plan is to make money through advertising... seriously people, the hell?