skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Especially in an industry like ours where even fair to decent coders can essentially write their own ticket.

That's just not true. There are plenty of places that do pay fairly (and a few that do interesting work), but the places that are truly "engineering-driven" (as opposed to driven by product management or marketing) are a few in between. These kinds of places (select few groups at Google, Palantir, places like Jane Street capital) are also enormously picky about who they hire (since engineers are responsible for a lot more than implementing a PRD with commercial/open-source components).
I'm not sure if you missed it, but this article is actually written by sonic. You know, the people providing 20+mbps without any cap.
When I was in high school, I topped my class. Some of my classmates started to call me about questions in their quizzes. I could remember the exact descriptions of the quiz questions back in few months. So when they asked me about certain question, I didn't need my exam papers. They told me the number of a question, I could give both the question and the answer. I didn't remember the question on purpose, I simply did because I took the quizzes. I lived in an Asian country, where daily quizzes were more than 1 hour long,

My classmates admired my ability of remembering things. I enjoyed that feeling quite a bit. Yet, I couldn't take any intelligence test.I was afraid that the result of my test might look bad.

I often hear about Gene scientist saying that they have discovered certain gene that defines certain "ability" of people, for example, "good-looking gene", "criminal gene". It seems that everything is deterministic (to some extend) by genes.

It sounds like at certain time in the future, they can discover a "loser gene" such that a child can be tagged in his young age.

Gene technology is making Determinism more true than ever before. And that is a very horrible fact. If I knew that I would be a loser, I would have given up my life.

I was afraid of IQ tests, I still am. I want to try different things in my life, no matter if I am inherently good, or bad at it. IQ tests are evil. They are the ruthless lifetime sentence against endeavor.
Nuclear Meltdown - not as deadly as we feared.
> You may not even make the poor richer, but you will make the rich poorer. Good.

"Unneeded, unspent money" is none of your business. It's not your money.
How good is Mint in filling the role of these softwares. I would naively guess that someone could better accommodate these people.
Hi mark, thank you for your comment. The product is definitely more geared to smaller shops, level 3 and 4 as you said. However, I'm beginning to think that maybe looking into PCI compliance wouldn't be a bad idea.

Thanks again.
Thanks for the advice, Warren.

Can we have our Goldman bailout money back now?

Yours,

The U.S. Taxpayers
WriteRoom uses a standard Mac OS X text field IIRC, and as such uses Mac OS X's built-in auto correction and spell check...
> Do you actually know anybody at the bottom?

yummyfajitas lives in Pune, India. Read through his comment history for comparisons of the rich in India to the poor in the US; it's eye-opening.
Looks like they support importing from Quicken Essentials for the Mac [1]-- might be a good alternative for the author.

[1] http://moneydance.com/blog/archives/434
You should do your research before making statements like "especially since he's stayed away from wall street's games and made extraordinary efforts to keep things above board for decades."

Buffett didn't sit idly by while his holdings were threatened. He lobbied for, and supported, bailouts.

Not content with bailouts of companies he owned large stakes in, he made sweetheart deals to invest in Goldman Sachs and GE knowing what was going to happen. Have you ever explored those?

If his GS and GE investments aren't convincing enough, here are a few choice examples of the Oracle of Omaha's hypocrisy:

1. While he promotes higher tax rates for high-earning individuals, he lobbied against a tax that would have sought to recoup TARP losses from bailed-out banks (see http://abcnews.go.com/Business/buffett-bank-tax-higher-rich-...).

2. Buffett once famously warned that derivatives were deadly, but when it came time to put his money where his mouth was, he lobbied against proposed derivatives regulations that would have cost Berkshire billions (see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/buffett-lobb...).

3. In 2010, Buffett once defended the ratings agencies (see http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2010/jun/03/buffett-d...), but apparently he's only willing to defend them so long as they agree with him (see http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/08/05/buffett-to-fbn...).

Bottom line: whatever one may have once thought about Warren Buffett, his actions over the past several years make it clear he is no investor, he is a corporatist. And quite a successful one at that.
It's not necessary (or even wise) to decentralize government in order to remove the influence of money on politics.

One relatively easy change that would almost completely remove the quid pro quo bribery effect of campaign contributions is to anonymize contributions so that candidates never know who their contributions are coming from. That way there would be no payback possible, and influence peddling through campaign contributions would become a thing of the past.
Ask yourself how much you need to make in order to live comfortably, and feel "rich enough". Maybe $100,000/year would do it in most parts of the country? And probably a lot less.

Now suppose you had a million dollars (and just a million, ignoring these billionaires for the moment). That mean you could risk, without really blinking an eye, $900,000 on any investment; even if you lost every penny, you'd still be left with enough to live "well" and feel pretty "rich". At no point would you fear missing your next meal or losing the roof over your head, and you probably wouldn't care if you had a job. Of course, the odds of losing all $900,000 are slim; you'd probably see some payoff, and never really approach that unfortunate low.

Rich people will always have opportunities to make money that the poor will never have. Even if you tax a millionaire or billionaire at a very high rate, they'll have enough money left over to take many risks and very likely end up richer anyway. At the very least, they won't miss the money that went to taxes.

Now suppose you only make $15,000/year. Not only would it take years to reach the above "rich" $100,000 level, but you'd be insane to risk much of that low income on any investment: failure means you come out with zero and miss your next meal and lose your house. If they're lucky, these people may have a handful of investment opportunities and ways to become richer; if they screw up, most of those opportunities go away forever. Taxes at the bottom won't fix anything at all.
Similar but more detailed & technical version:
http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/46716/what-sh...

My abridged version of it:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jJGUFN6CxQUXQX49mRsJYv1H...
Your customer won’t take a bullet for you
You're confusing deficit and debt.
asciidoc http://www.methods.co.nz/asciidoc/

very little markup (high signal to "tag" ratio)

can produce all sorts of output (HTML and PDF, for example)

I use the asciidoc -> docbook -> latex -> pdf chain for the most part.

Very flexible -- you can tweak things at the docbook or latex level if you really want to, but mostly it just works. Good stuff.
If everything collapsed, everybody would have suffered.

Citation needed.

There would still be demand that needed supplying, no? Some non-criminal companies would have happily stepped up to fill that void.
I started getting annoyed with Word when it couldn't even force the caret to black when typing. Watch your caret, it's flashing, now type and it stays black.

If a "Word Processor" can't even manage such a basic thing, it's lost the plot. I think this was likely Word 6.0 that did this, and was also about where they brought the Mac and PC code-bases into alignment, though others may know better.

Word 2.0 on Windows is for sure my favorite PC version, after the 'just right' Word 5.1 on the Mac.
I can't help but wonder what the hell you are doing on a venture capital firm's website.
That might have worked in the 1910s when the vast majority of people worked up to the day that they died. In the 2010s we have a concept of "retirement"; and in order for people to practice it, they need to save money while they're working.
Hi Pierre, thanks a lot for your comment, you raise some very valid concerns about the application that I will have to take into consideration, and will definitely hit you up via email in the next couple of days.

I guess I should start considering some options so the shops can have an offline app, or some sort of offline synchronization options at least.
Note, the Register is not 'high' journalism. However, I didn't find a link to the NRC report directly. But in another thread I was pointing out that estimates of latent cancer deaths from events like Chernobyl turned out to over estimate the impact in part because there isn't a lot of data to populate a model with. Adding in data from Fukushima (as folks are followed over time) and the data from Chernobyl the model is refined. This latest adjustment reduced the estimated latent cancer impact of a meltdown by 24x (so if before they predicted a million latent cancer deaths now they would predict 416 thousand.

Nobody wants to under prepare, so over estimating the impact is the rule rather than the exception. Useful to keep that in mind.
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet." - Benjamin Franklin
Get away with it? Heck, it's now a dependable feature of the US economy. A guarantee.
From Where You Can Find Home Security Systems?
Are you looking for Home Security Systems? If yes then you can contact Home Security Systems Group for a customized solution for your home safety
A couple of recent quotes of his: "I could end the deficit in five minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for reelection."

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/07/warren-buffett-i-could-...

Also, he's against having a debt ceiling. "All it does is slow down a process and divert people’s energy, causes people to posture. It doesn’t really make any sense,"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59335.html#ixzz1V4...
Most of it has been paid back or is on track to be paid back: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program
Great to hear, and thank you! Please feel free to hit me up with any feedback you might ever have. My email address is on CC's about page.
This is one reason why Buffett suggests that we keep the 2% deduction in the payroll tax that President Obama proposed (and Congress passed) last year.
This assumes low to middle income people are single issue voters and that issue happens to be the effective tax rate of billionaires. What's dumbfounding is that there are people who believe that wealth is zero-sum, and that by taking from the rich and giving to the poor, "justice" would be done, never taking into account what produces wealth or the fact that living standards have improved despite the rich getting richer. 99.9% of us will never become billionaires, but so what? If my neighbor has a nicer car than me, should I try to get the government to raise his taxes and decrease mine? Why not? Here's a possible reason: The conditions that permit my neighbor to drive a nice car are the same conditions that produce billionaires.

Just because I want Warren Buffet to be able to keep most of what he produces doesn't mean I believe I will be in his shoes one day, it just means that I don't trust people who are trying to take more of his money in order to improve my life. Warren may trust those people, but his life really doesn't need much improvement now, does it?
Free To Choose - Milton Friedman
Why would social status be a zero-sum game? My brain only has room for a few hundred celebrity factoids. Some are good, some are bad. If I see a lot of headlines about Mel Gibson being a nutcase, my opinion of celebrities (and the world in general) tends to be lowered.

Social pecking order is zero-sum, but social status isn't. In some places (New York?), everyone has a low opinion of most other people. In other places (Canada? Some parts of California?), people generally treat each other with respect.
Stop spreading lies - it's incomplete data! Do you work at FOX News or something?

It’s true that the top 1 percent of wage earners paid 38 percent of the federal income taxes in 2008. But people forget that the income tax is less than half of federal taxes and only one-fifth of taxes at all levels of government.

Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance taxes (known as payroll taxes) are paid mostly by the bottom 90 percent of wage earners. That’s because, once you reach $106,800 of income, you pay no more for Social Security, though the much smaller Medicare tax applies to all wages. Warren Buffett pays the exact same amount of Social Security taxes as someone who earns $106,800.
I only had time to skim the first article (getting late here), but I agree with Buffett's reasoning on the TARP issue. If the banks DID pay back their debt, then why should they be the ones taxed? He's not saying that industries shouldn't be taxed to cover losses, he's saying that the government should go after specific industries (like the auto industry) that aren't performing as well as they should be. Chase, if I remember correctly, was very good about repaying their loans on time. Now why should they be punished for that?

Oh, and Warren Buffett plans on donating the vast majority of his wealth away upon his death, so I usually give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that his suggestions are intended to improve the economy as a whole rather than build up wealth. What's it matter to him if he makes or loses another billion when he's giving it away in the end? Nah, I think he's a good guy.
It is a logical fallacy to equate the statement "I believe the rich should be obligated to pay more in taxes" to "I believe I alone should pay more in taxes."
You know what I find "simply disgusting on moral grounds"? Shortening the school year by a week because we can't find enough money to pay teachers to teach a full school year. This is happening in our school district and in districts all over the country. The reason is because nobody can make a correlation between the taxes we pay and the benefits we receive.
Why do you think leaving this unpublished would have made the data any more private?
Wifi Honey: Test your wifi Skills
Buffet is talking about "Taxable Income" meaning a small business or family farm would have to be making 1 Million in profits for it's owners before they would actually be effected by such an increase in rates.

Consumption tax would likely put an undue burden on the poor because where as the rich invest and save a large portion of their income the poor spend close to 100% of what they make on things like food and housing.
Here's one, of many work arounds.

Candidates expresses their opinion on X; those with a vested interest in X pour tons of money into his campaign so that the candidate that they agree with is selected. And since that candidate already shares the position with them, when he needs backing from industry that's who he'll meet with.
> Our deficit is $14.6 trillion.

Just in the interest of precision: it's actually our national debt which is approximately 14.6 trillion. Our deficit this year will be closer to 1.5T.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12039

Not that they aren't both mind-boggling numbers
I've done my research about Buffet. I've read 2 biographies, a compilation of his annual letters, some of his early partnership letters, and most of his op-eds and TV interviews. The people who criticize Buffett usually don't know much about him and it shows in how they paint him in the stereotypical tycoon brush.

I sincerely believe that he was in favor of the bailouts because he thought that it was the least bad option at the time. Without more liquidity in the system, things could have turned out much worse than they did.

Sweetheart deals in GS and GE? Buffett had lots of cash and they needed it, so he made deals that were very profitable to BErkshire and they took it because they didn't have a choice. I'm sure he expected the government to step in because it was obvious to him that they didn't have a choice, but I don't think he had inside information.

Buffett has explained his derivative investments in recent annual letters, and his explanation made perfect sense. I'm sure you can find it, it was probably in the 2009 one ±1 year.

Both Buffett and Munger have been very critical of rating agencies and accountants, but I'm sure they've also defended both against criticism that they think is unfair. It's not because you're wrong that you're wrong in all ways, always in bad faith, and about everything.
Drug Development from Binary to Gradient Model via Genomics
It's hard to definitively describe or measure intelligence.

But it seems beyond dispute that for any given task requiring it, different people will perform measurably better or worse.

And some people will become highly proficient at a wide variety of such tasks quicker than others.
Since the data was relatively unsecured, why do you think that only now, after being published, it'll be used with bad intentions?
I don't know why you got down voted. This is actually a very relevant comment despite it's character.

Anyone working on big projects with a client can testify to this.
I live in Australia, I'm in my late 20's, I've got a pretty good software dev job and I pay about 25% income tax (which includes 37% above $80k). I don't know what the real tax rate would be after factoring in all of the other taxes I pay.

For such a high amount of tax, I enjoy a very high standard of living. A four year software engineering degree cost me about $18k due to our sane education system, and I've never had to worry about whether I can afford decent healthcare or factored health insurance into career decisions.

Our high tax rate is offset by lower costs for universal services, and people generally have more freedom with their life decisions. As such, a substantially lower tax rate or major cut in social services would be disgusting on moral grounds to me, and I feel that your government is screwing its citizens by doing just that.
And they call it stable?
I suspect that forcing donations to be anonymous would come into conflict with the first amendment.
How on earth does consumption tax have anything to do with "shared sacrifice"? Consumption tax wrecks the purchasing power of the poor (who spend pretty much 100% of their income on taxed goods) and doesn't have any effect on the purchasing power of the super rich (who typically only spend a minor portion of their income on consumer goods).
TARP is a rounding error all right--compared to the $16 trillion the Federal Reserve has provided to private banks behind the scenes. TARP was just political theater.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/21/audit-fed-gave-16-tril...
That all sounds very good, but I'm sorry to say that without a banking system, everything in our society stops working, and the small guy would get hurt a lot more than billionaires.
Thanks for your answers

Indeed, I used the word drill in precisely that meaning.

I think I might have been biased by wired's piece. Maybe it's just me or maybe they failed to render correctly what your org really is.
Yeah, fair enough. Caffeine does tend to get off relatively easily, although I would argue there is good reason for that, when you compare it to alcohol and nicotine for instance...
The actual event referenced by the article was the opening of the Symphony season, which is an event available to anyone who wishes to purchase a ticket. No actual red carpet was in evidence in the photos. Those who attend and wear clothes by top designers are more likely than others to get their photo in the society page. It's not really about tech people being respected in the bay area in this example, it's about tech people who happen to be interested in the arts and who also wear clothes that cost a few thousands of dollars.
Purported MacBook Pro prototype with built-in 3G appears on eBay
Buffett is working for his shareholders to increase the value of their investment in Berkshire Hathaway in the best possible way.

Personally though, he already gave away most of his wealth to philanthropy via Gates Foundation.
Citation needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression#Demand-driven
I don't think you understand how everything is plugged into the credit markets and banking systems. I suggest you read Sorkin's book a as starting point.
The combined wealth of American's billionaires is only $1.5 trillion. [1] If we taxed them 100%, it would only pay off our budget deficit for one year. We still have around 54 trillion total debt to pay down. Not to mention 115 trillion unfunded liabilities.

And which entrepreneurs would be stupid enough to work 14 hours a day and hire workers, knowing that the government will tax them 90%? They would all flee the country.

We have too much debt, period. From military, medicare, and social security spending. Problem is, if we reduce any one of these, either our soldiers returns home broke and angry, or the seniors die of starvation/disease. (35% of Americans already over the age of 65 rely almost entirely on Social Security payments alone. Median retirement savings of households over the age of 65 is less than $45,000).

Tough choice. But it looks like the current politicians aren't going to make a decision, but let Bernanke print dollars until hyperinflation arrives.

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/03/10/140943.html
When to work on technical debt
99%+ of his wealth is in Berkshire, though, so the better Berkshire does, the more billions will go to Gates and a few other foundations (mostly run by his kids).
None of the positions you linked are inherently contradictory. Especially in the derivatives trading I have the feeling you have no idea what you're talking about. Going back and requiring existing derivatives contracts could cost a huge amount of money and time that wasn't taken into account when they were first bought. Applying the regulation to future contracts is a perfectly reasonable suggestion (especially since the vast majority of derivatives contracts are short term).
Lexia 3 pp2000
Only by a small portion of the psychiatric community. The vast majority believe that the causation runs the opposite direction, that it's self-medication. This has been discussed for years for just about every serious mental illness, in fact. There's no real consensus either way, but most mental health professionals I know agree with this.

(I grew up in a house of mental health professionals, so I've had no dearth of opinions on the matter, to say the least.)
Not sure of the market you are targeting. It has been my past experience developing and selling stock/sales system in India that it's very hard to break in with a browser based remote model (vs. FoxPro, curses) based interaction model. The main reason being adoption. Some of these adoption issues are.

- Hot keys

- Popups (like FoxPro) and selections.

- Local vs remote (availability) vs sync later. Syncing has to be automatic with extremely good fail over mechanism.

- Install once and forget about it. What I mean here is that retailers (at POS) are not thirsty for new features/functions.

- Forgiving.

My2Cents worth.