skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Galileo was a first-rate philosopher of science as well as a scientist. He was a contemporary and co-belligerent with Bacon in laying the foundation of modern science. His role as a serious philosopher is often overlooked.
the Streisand effect doesn't just apply to someone attempting to silence another, It applies to any attempt to remove information (although it does usually need to be information of some interest in order to apply).
It's not randomness it's "your thoughts on paper". That's not random, that starting with you.

I am not sure why you think logic is so central here. Of course you need logic, but it will only work if your premise is correct and IMHO if you are trying to solve a problem then most of the time it's your premise that's wrong not the logical reasoning that springs from it.
Re: the Peacock story. The student has missed some of the particular issues concerning highly specialist medical research. Frequently done with n<20 (due to lack of realistic subjects) and heavily invested in an ethical framework, it is common for medical research in specialist areas to be conducted in the form of case studies. Controls in these cases aren't "people that weren't treated" but "responses prior to treatment" - the student asking the question has a simplistic grasp of the peculiar issues surrounding medical research.

Remember that science is about rigorously reporting what is observed. It is possible to do good science without having to slavishly demand a control group - for example, where is the control group or the null hypothesis in the field of taxonomy?

The student in the anecdote does ask 'why' and I'm all for that, but I would have preferred the anecdote to answer his question rather than just leave it as a joke.
Well, according to this table, it changes in grad school, where they seem to come in in 9th place:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070104093613/http://www.econphd...
Thanks for pointing that out, it's a reasonable concern. That is indeed the US Attorney's argument.

Just to clarify, it is not necessary to be on a recognized archeological site to be illegal, intending to collect artifacts on federal land is a crime whether a recognized archeological site or not.

But in this case they were in camping in "Salmon River Canyon, near the mouth of Graves Creek, which is in Idaho County" on land "administered by the Bureau of Land Management".

Photos of Graves Creek: http://www.nww.usace.army.mil/dpn/f616a.htm

It's not a recognized archaeological site beyond the interpretation that every location in the US is an archaeological site.

To be sure, there are arrowheads and/or evidence of human habitation on nearly every square mile of this continent. Just having the possibility of arrowheads doesn't make something a real archaeological site unless we bend the definition so far as to not have any meaning.

-- UPDATE --

To save time, I'll now provide a rebuttal to my own argument. Here's the BLM site on archaeological research in the area: http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/fo/cottonwood/lower_salmon_river...

They cited that page to justify the claim it was an archaeological site in the article about the prosecution: http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/info/newsroom/2009/june/archaeol...

Eh, OK, I agree with you!
I found it very disturbing that the subtext of his article was "philosophy is kind've useful, but do we really want our judiciary and administration doubting themselves?"
It hasn't always been the case, but Facebook has a setting called "Who can see photos and videos I'm tagged in". There's also "Let friends of people tagged in my photos and posts see them."
agree, just build something and get it out. The problem is you can spend months learning something or figuring out a new language and in the end it fails miserably. So what did you spend all that time for. Build it on .NET, and then when you have real usage figure out the details then.
The other people left footing the bill are all the inventions which don't get invented (inventors and end users), startups which need to raise extra VC or avoid being put out of business, etc.

The external costs of this is why the system itself should be changed.
Five years ago, cool hunting was something that was for interns at advertising agencies to do when it was slow. Now companies like Google look on cool hunting as a way to track down the next big pay day. Some other nice cool hunting resources:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/etc/hunti...
http://trendpeek.com
http://thecoolhunter.net
> "And government IT - the least efficient kind! - has managed to solve this. Why can't the mighty Google?"

Because government has really one use for your name: the proper identification of a person for the purposes of the provision and execution of government responsibilities and services.

Google has a larger mandate, one where enforcing "official passport names" is not only inconvenient, but would also drive away adoption.

Not to mention, I have an English name, and a Chinese name. Only one of these appears on my passport, but depending on who I am interacting with I would very much like to (justifiably so) use my "unofficial" name. What is wrong with this? This is actually somewhat annoying for Facebook - I have relatively in Asia who don't speak English at all, and I'd like for them to be able to find me on FB... but there is only one canonical name on an account.

Google is developing a social system - a social system by the very nature of human identity cannot just have "passport names".
Roscoe Howard, the former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, argues that the system "isn't broken."

The US, the "Land of the Free", has a per capita prison population that it 5-10 times greater than any of it's first-world colleagues. The system is broken.
The problem with "We need to eat to live a healthy life" is that it opens up all sorts of questions.

What do we need to eat? What is a healthy life? Who are we? etc.

It's not really about relativism it's about asking those questions.

Anyway, way to far from OT.
Correct. It makes for an interesting product-design case study -- the manufacturer probably thought they were being clever by making an intelligent peripheral look and behave like a 'cable', but the work went unappreciated ("This is just a stupid USB cable. Why are they charging $40 for it?")
Likely because Apple has other stuff they can make money on, while Best Buy, having won the race to the bottom, really doesn't.
You're right, market values dramatically declined.. but you have to include other variables such as 9/11. The market was its worst in 2002 and one would have to think that without the repercussions on the market from 9/11, things wouldn't have been nearly as bad. The market went on to rebound and soar very high for the next 5 or so years and then our current situation began.

Case and point, the dot.com era experienced a decline in product life cycle growth as it transitioned from its growth to maturity stage (and of course, the events that took place on September 11th didn't help either).
Werkzeug 0.7 released
I store most of my albums by date and not necessarily by context. So if you were to go through an album I would have to explain the context of each three or four pictures. I'm very particular about whom I share photos with so having a conference photo tagged and shared doesn't bother me. Having a family photo shared because I tagged the conference photo and they were in the same date based album is a deal breaker.
I use find for one thing and one thing only--listing all the files under the current directory. du works, but I prefer find.

find | while read i; do grep 'foo' $i; done
The way that ACH transfers is broken and a check contains all of the information you need to generate fake checks and/or initiate ACH transfers.
How is this similar to node.js? This looks just like a MVC framework that happens to be in Obj-C.
Actually, before Google+ existed Picasa supported the ability to tag people in photos, and manage albums with limited/restricted sharing. So this is a fundamental change to functionality.
That just seems like a disadvantage of real life that Google+ can improve upon!
This, in my opinion, is where Google+ is failing: sharing makes it very easy to make private posts visible to an audience larger than the author intended.

In addition to G+ reminding users when resharing a limited post that it was intended for a smaller audience and to be mindful of that, the original poster can also disable resharing entirely.
FWIW, in the privacy settings of Google+ you can configure it so that people simply can't tag you without your permission.
Practicality is dependent on one's objective. What if my objective is to live a contemplative life? Sure seems like a reasonable major.
if you want a dir-specific one, you could specify

export ACKRC=./.ackrc.local

as an env variable, and then create that file where-ever you
need to override default behaviour, otherwise it'll use

~/.ackrc

The downside to doing it this way is that you only get one or the other, you can't (afaik) load ~/.ackrc, and then only override certain aspects of it locally. Also, you're constrained to running it from the basedir of your project.
(You might be able to overcome this with a hack based on PROMPT_COMMAND (for bash), or a precmd/preexec function for zsh), which redefines ACKRC appropriately.

Regarding the 'gitability' of it, there's no reason why you can't have a ~/.dotfiles/ackrc, with a symlink to ~
That's how I manage my dotfiles anyway, along with a makefile to create any missing symlinks.

Something like http://kitenet.net/~joey/code/etckeeper/ might work out even better, although I've never really found time to play with it.
Intellectual Vultures claim they invest in invention when in actuality they are simply scavenging on the carrion of inventors. Not a single technology from their lab has made it into commercial use. Instead they have created a culture of litigation and fear within the software industry.

30 percent of U.S. patents are essentially on things that have already been invented. Almost anyone trying to start a business on the Internet is guilty of infringement. Once you have enough success to become visible in the public eye you immediately become a target of patent trolls. Precious resources (time and money) are wasted defending lawsuits or getting sued out of existence.

Large companies are also wasting resources amassing defensive arsenals of patents. Apple and a consortium of other tech companies recently purchased Nortel's portfolio for $4.5 billion dollars in the largest patent auction in history. Unfortunately this is not to use these technologies. Rather it is saying, "If you sue me, I'll sue you."

This cycle is not creating value it is destroying it. It gets in the way of new ideas and products and wastes resources on litigation instead of innovation.
"It sounds like you're advocating slipping your children some drug without their knowledge, in order to prevent them from doing cocaine."

That appears to be what the original person you were responding to was suggesting. I share your concern.
I think you're taking it for granted that we know we need to eat to live a healthy life.

If this fact were debatable, it would be a different story.
Yes, Europe is not superior in every way. I just think that while all banks, even French and German ones, were getting away with murder, it was UK and US govts who were really asleep or involved. France and Germany has had bailouts, but nothing like as bad. Canada, Australia and Sweden needed none.

Monarchies are pretty ridiculous. The British one takes in more money from stupid Japanese tourists than it costs. So there it stands.

Yes, probing, as you call it is eventually boring. But I never mentioned it. I go way beyond probing. Those other activities are (though)-- irrelevant to fitbit, because it'd never be able to identify them. They'res hundreds -Maybe you should start here: http://www.londonfetishscene.com/wipi/index.php/Category:BDS...

I'm more interesting than the people I was at school with are now. I don't mind demonstrating that via the net. In fact, I was more interesting when I was at school too, had I realised it. But Intelligence Equals Isolation. Most of them weren't worth the effort of trying to be popular.
> find does print to stdout by default. Perhaps -print was

> added later to distinguish the default mode from -print0,

> which is common when pairing with xargs.

find ... -print0 | xargs -0 $cmd

is essential if you don't want all sorts of terrible things happening because a filename happens to contain a space or some sort of shell metachar.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xargs#The_separator_problem for the details.

Personally, I use

find ... -exec $cmd '{}' \; # calls $cmd once for each match

find ... -exec $cmd '{}' + # calls $cmd with as matches as possible - minimising number of invocations of $cmd.

I think this is either reasonably new, or not entirely standard, since I've used versions that don't have it.

-ok $cmd \;

is also pretty neat - same as exec, but asks for confirmation first.
Marco Armeni has a podcast!
Where Orwellian phenomena are seen (even if it requires a little squinting), they mustn't be ignored.
I could listen to Feynman forever.

He always leave me humble and exited at the same time.

His way of thinking about things are so rare even among the contemporary "great thinkers".
He treats everything as an experiment and show what it really mean to be a careful thinker.
Weeds Season 7 Episode 5 
Weeds Season 7 Episode 5
The intro video on your website made Chrome warn me of an insecure script. Just thought you should know, since security warnings arn't the best thing to show on a payments website.
No, they're still called Radio Shack. Not that they bear much resemblance nowadays. I saw (and programmed) my first TRS-80 there. Ah, halcyon days - now they're a phone store and the bookstore in the same mall - the bookstore where I bought Gödel, Escher, Bach and I Will Fear No Evil on the same day - is dead.

We need new cool stuff. The old stuff's all sad.
Wow, you can tell where Apple got their current marketing touch. Anybody selling anything would do well to read that and compare and contrast to Apple's currnet marketing. I read that, and I want to buy a NextStation now complete with a blazing fast 68040 CPU. :-)
I saw a post on here just the other day with a similar headline to this one. When I clicked on this one, I was honestly expecting it to be a repost of the previous article. The tool talked about in the previous post was based on Jekyll and actually caught my attention.
Your statement that Apple is the only company still using WO has no basis in fact. There is even an annual conference[1] for WO developers, in which Apple has zero involvement.

[1] http://www.wocommunity.org/wowodc11/
gecko,

Our design was not modeled on any existing library's approach to configuration. It was designed based on what we perceived the needs of the application to be.

I think making claims that the configuration is "ridiculous" isn't constructive conversation, especially when you haven't really backed up why you consider it to be so. After three lines of wiring, a caller creates a self-managing client instance via:

var client = cluster.CreateClient();

I don't see how this can be considered ridiculous.

A simple comparison to one line of code (which, I might add, doesn't explain where the `configuration` variable comes from) is not really thorough. I'd be keen to see what it takes to get the configuration loaded and what extra boilerplate is required to handle and manage the MemcachedClient.

Thanks for the comment.
The album is only relevant if you create your albums based on context. I don't take that many pictures any more and so most of my albums are based on dates. For example I have an album that contains all pictures from January 2011, there's about 15 pictures in it and they are from 3 different events. Having access to the album does't provide any additional benefit to the people in the pictures because only two or three of the other 14 pictures would be relevant to them in the first place.
Wire. I buy wire at Radio Shack.
I'm thinking about the fact that neither JavaScript on V8, nor Cocoa are equipped with HTTP networking. So the framework supplies that part. A big part of node, when used for a web app, is that it supplies an HTTP server. Same with this.
C0t0d0s0 goes down
One of the best solaris blogs went offline a couple of days ago.
RIP c0t0d0s0...
I get the whole "I would never join a country club that would have me as a member" exclusivity B.S. but they are really being silly now. Is it time to boycott Google+ ???
How would you distinguish your approach from, say, StumbleUpon?
Seems like these days, ownership of an idea is based on who has more money to pay lawyers.
I don't disagree with what you wrote, but I too got tripped up on "cash in on guilt". I read it twice before deciding it doesn't mean cashing in on a person's inner turmoil, but rather exploiting the fact that the person is legally guilty.

The quote is much more sensible under that interpretation.
Why make it a unique number?

As Google+ has realized with circles, we have different associations we make in life.

Some of those are widely separate identities.

I see no reason why any identity I have on one site should be associated with one I have on another, if I deem that it not be.

For some purposes (voting, financial transactions, long-lived financial accounts such as SSI or a life insurance policy), you'd want to tie one identity to another. Beyond that, it's simply a control and surveillance front.

Even in the cases I've mentioned, weak authentication has long been the rule. Strong authentication in voting is often tied to poll taxes and other means of restricting the electorate. Public corporations (literally "anonymous societies" in French) are highly psuedonymous. Cash (and digital equivalents) are untraceable. And numbered bank accounts are the stuff of legend in both finance and noir literature.

Identity is a very, very deep, and frought, question. Curiously, G+ is turning into quite the discussion of it, from circles to gender to names to multiple identities.

One of the most classic instances of pseudonymity is among revolutionaries. It played a large role in the American Revolution, particularly among pamphleteers (the 18th century analog of bloggers): http://www.magic-city-news.com/Editor_s_Desk_34/A_Climate_of...

What of Mark Twain, Lewis Carroll, George Eliot, George Sand, Ellery Queen, Frank Dixon, and Carolyn Keene?

A particular usage is among revolutionaries: Lenin, Stalin, Golda Neir, Moshe Dayan, Subcomandante Marcos, Carlos the Jackal.

Or stage names: Madonna, Lady Gaga, Huey Louis, John Wayne, Marilyn Monroe, Bono, Cat Stevens, Yusuf Islam.

You're making an extraordinary proposal. Support your position.
If I take a photo in public it may contain people that I don't even know. I have no obligation to give those people a copy of the photo nor do I have any obligation to tell them they were in my photo. This happens a LOT in popular public places and tourist attractions.

If I don't know them I'm not going to tag them because I have no idea who they are, but I may want to share the event with people that I do know. Now with auto tagging these people I don't know are tagged in my photos and I have to share not only my photo of them with them, but the entire album? That seems to be really over reaching. Auto tagging and automatic sharing seems like the worst possible option to me.
But it isn't irrelevant, I have a vested interest in the picture from the fact that I'm in the picture. Photos of me are extremely valuable to me and I would think most people have that opinion but maybe I'm wrong. This 'force sharing' leads to a Pareto improvement in both the google+ network and society. I honestly do not understand the situation where sharing a picture of me with me makes it less valuable for you.

In the case of physical photos, no I dont think you need to give everyone a copy because that would take effort on your part. Sharing on google+ is costless.
A web designer with an attitude (he did his site while drunk)
I don't see how this will ever be useful. The state "echo boo()[1];" assumes you're only ever going to need that one value from the array. The rest of the array is lost. What if the next line in the code needs index 3 from the array? Now you have to run the function again.

I also don't agree that PHP needs constructors to return $this for the same reason. You need to assign the object to a variable so you can reuse it.

$a = new Foo()->bar();

In this case if I later want to call another method on the Foo instance I have recreate it.
That's definitely the hardest part. I figure that if people have gone to the effort of getting around that limitation when I've pretty clearly asked them not to, then it's not someone I need to be sharing with again in the future. I have at least one family member I no longer give pictures of my son to for this reason.
Cocoa (and CoreFoundation) actually make it pretty trivial to write HTTP servers already. I was completely surprised by how painless it was when I did it recently. Not quite as easy as Node.js, but on the same order of magnitude, IMHO.

(Edit) Here's an article that describes the basics: http://macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/2006/11/14/how-to-write-a-...
How do you subscribe?

Also, what's with the weird search box (click on the magnifying glass at bottom left)
Agree with that, and this is part of the whole discussion regarding intellectual property laws. The problem is that, unless technology finds a way to bypass them, we need even more lawyers to solve these problems.
I hope someone creates another site from the perspective of the engineer who has to implement his outlandish designs. The first sentence: "If it were as simple to do on a website as it is in Photoshop, I would have done it". Followed by: "I'm paying you so do what the fuck I want."
There could be other interpretations to that, besides "we are less free!"

Could one not argue that an increase in prison inmates is the unavoidable consequence of increasing freedoms? It seems counter intuitive, but perhaps the more freedoms one has, the more readily one encroaches on freedoms one does not have?
The other big gotcha that took a while to sink in was

find -name "foo*" -or -name "*bar" -print

which should actually be

find \( -name "foo*" -or -name "*bar" \) -print

to do what you might expect (print things matching beginning with foo or ending with bar)

Without the parens, it gets interpreted as

-name "foo*" -or ( -name "*bar" -and -print ),

and hence only prints things that match the latter predicate.
Thanks for digging that up, that is a good source. Combined with spindrift's reference he dug up from 2010 (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/12/verbal-vs-mat...), they show a much fuller and more accurate picture than I portrayed. Philosophy students are the best at verbal and writing on the GRE, but are only at the top of the humanities in math ranking, and are below the levels of STEM subject applicants.
It's actually funnier when non-Google people try to give the Google interview, but can't articulate the questions well enough to elicit clever solutions...
i'd have answered:

1) i would generally not implement that myself -- i like ruby-land's nokigiri for this -- but

2) i can think of some ways how to implement that if i had (time+incentive) to do so:

2a) - i could use regexps (easy to code)

2b) - i could write a litte parser (potentially much faster)

3) in case you want me to write the algorithm i will pick the regexps for sake of brevity
Are there established limits? For example, I believe there is always alcohol in your bloodstream (or at least there is if you use products on your skin containing alcohol) but that is not a crime unless you exceed the BAC threshold.
It really does depend on your standard of comparison. Cosmology? Yeah, I guess you're right. Philosophy (or for that matter any humanities department)? Guess who gets more "serves them right" jeers if a a university decides to close down the department