skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Thank you for the response! I was quite disappointed with the downvotes.

The examples you give do not convince me that my statement, "this only works because it is novel", is not correct. People obey traffic signals out of habit and / or fear that there may in fact be someone around (and even if they didn't, it would be out of concern for safety, nothing to do with this give-some-get-some principle); the "pay what you want" restaurant in London was a month-long promotion (and it now charges again), and many other incarnations struggle (see this NY Times article for information on several failed versions of the scheme: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/us/21free.html); the vast majority of church funding (millions of dollars!) does not come from collection plates, and, even if it did, collection plates are dissimilar to this example because everybody watches what you do with the plate -- the social cost of stealing is far more obvious and pronounced (and, unlike Jonathan's Card, taking from a collection plate is unequivocally stealing, making the example even less relevant); and, finally, if there are musicians who make "a decent living" out of selling free music (as opposed to a profitable sideline) then I don't know of any. One counter example is Radiohead's "In Rainbows", where 62% of the people downloading paid nothing at all (see: http://www.globalnerdy.com/2008/10/16/radioheads-in-rainbows...). The album still made money, due to Radiohead's brand power, but they have not continued the experiment with new albums.

There are no good examples of a Jonathan's Card-type scheme working for any length of time in the real world.

The problem with the response in general, and I think your response in particular as well, is this quote from you:

> If the idea isn't strangled in its crib by a wise-ass.

The very fact that the idea was strangled in its crib by a wise-ass, coupled with the dearth of similar ideas out there in the real world, seems to demonstrate fairly well that this is not a good idea.

You then give a bunch of examples of expensive technology which eventually became cheap technology (stockings, the Internet, cars, etc). This is a completely unrelated to Jonathan's card -- nobody is going to deny that expensive technologies become cheaper and, in doing so, benefit more people! However, Jonathan's card doesn't rely on expensive technology -- it relies on all participants being altruistic. And in the real world, given a sufficiently large number of participants, not all of them will be altruistic. Jonathan's Card is particularly bad in this respect because one "wise-ass" can take so much value from the system -- contrast this with a hypothetical successful musician putting her album online, where the worst that a single defector can do is take the album for free.
The number of Americans who even know what Das Kapital is or who Nietzsche was is exceedingly small.

The number of times Shakespeare is mentioned in American films (especially featuring teens) is also minuscule.

If a significant number of Americans were even pretending to appear intellectual, I would view it as a vast improvement over the anti-intellectual attitude that's all too common here.
Open Source CNC machine on Kickstarter
The solution is quite simple: Offer the private carriers the rights to carry ordinary mail, on the condition that they do the same kind of cross-subsidization. You don't necessarily need a monopoly, just regulation.
> it feels natural to me to explain first, reason about my actions and end with an apology

Apologies that start with an explanation are very often more of a personal justification (coping mechanism) than a real apology. It frames the conversation in a way so as to reduce the cognitive dissonance between your actions and the social norm you violated (reason for apology), as well as reducing the discomfort in the act of apology.

It also makes people think you are apologizing to appease, instead of expressing genuine regret.
To be clear, my apology is intended to be complete, sincere, and unqualified. I'm sorry

Sorry enough to make a new card, and fill it with the money you lifted?
It's all in perspective - "100,000 Facebook friends in Israel is equivalent to over 5,000,000 Facebook friends in America"
How about organizing a summit to disrupt the USPS?

I got involved in the question of the future of postal, oddly, because of my book, What Would Google Do? [sorry for the plug], when postal execs asked what the USPS would be if Google ran it. Hmmm. You guys could help answer that.

A consultant in the industry organized an event in DC, PostalVision 2020, and we had Vint Cerf come keynote. I'd like the next phase to focus on how to disrupt postal entirely.

First class will die and with it its subsidy for media and other mail. Parcels will take off but the private sector can handle that. (If we need to guarantee universal service, that can be done with subsidies -- a la, phones -- better than by owning the infrastructure). There are entrepreneurial ventures such as Manilla aiming to disrupt physical bill delivery..... It's an area ripe for innovation and investment.

A few of my earlier posts:
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2011/05/18/why-do-we-need-a-posta...
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2010/03/23/post-postal/
طبخات بالصور
طبخات بالصور يوتيوب اون لاين
His example has an error. He forgot to return newObject at the end of the fromPrototype function. The fromPrototype function returns an instance (an object) that inherits from the given prototype and with the same properties you passed in with the object.
It is not true that you have to combine things as a novel compound word (as with 'craigslist' and many other tech firms) in order to obtain trademark protection. Common names and plain words/phrases can be protected too, within a well-identified field of use, by either formal registration or force-of-use-over-time.

"Craig's List", in the field of an online listings site and community, is just as protectable as the smushed-together version. And, by risk of confusion with 'craigslist', the two-word version is now just as excluded from others' use as if 'craigslist' itself were named "Craig's List".

Even if your name is 'McDonald', you won't be able to open a "McDonald's" hamburger chain. If you wanted to sell cash registers worldwide, you couldn't start an "International Business Machines". You couldn't even get away with "Jonathan's International Business Machines".
Hah, thanks :)
"the post office is one of the most unpleasant retail locations anyone could imagine -- filthy counters, grudging employees, and long lines."

i'm within a post office that is about 5 years old and clean. just because your post office is crap doesn't mean that every post office is.
Video Game Snobbery Started a Long Time Ago
That depends on the cancer and depends on the approach (structural, genetic, or immunological).

The difficulty in cancer treatment is that you're dealing with a natural biological process gone awry. It's not like viral or bacterial infections, where you're fighting something off. You're dealing with aggregations of unwanted mutations and cellular proliferation (over simplification warning).

Chemotherapy is less trying to alter a process than it is dropping a bomb in the body and hoping that you kill the cancer before killing the patient. There are some incredibly effective chemotherapy agents that will never make it to market because they are just too toxic.

Gene therapy approaches are making promising moves, but it is very early.

There are some pretty cool structural approaches, such as protein conjugated nanotubes that lyse cancer cells under infrared light (Stanford and Oklahoma researchers), but these too are early, and for only specific tumor types.

Cancer is a huge problem that takes a multifaceted, case-by-case approach. Lots of tools in the tool shed, and it's growing every year. I feel in my heart that one day in the future, cancer will be called "the biggest problem of the last generation." But there is much work to be done.
That's cool, although most of the time when I use tar, it's in a command line like

curl http://example.com/foo.tar.gz | tar zxf -
One quibble with the article, though: the author does not connect the dots that focusing on (more or less) luxury consumer items is a risky proposition (especially during a recession).

I also followed my dream and owned a coffee shop. We focused on absolute excellence and did pretty well. I thought I knew what I was doing on the business side.

But then 2008 arrived and suddenly all that discretionary money just evaporated (in our market, anyway). It was humbling. We were not prepared, we didn't really understand our business model nor our market. What we thought was business savvy and prosperity was actually just dumb luck and it ran out.

In the years afterward, I discovered books like "The Four Steps to the Epiphany" and feel much better positioned. I feel for (and fear for) the people in the article who are starting "nice to have" consumer / luxury businesses (but I wish them the best of luck).
Am I the only one who finds this article to be somewhat inchoate? It starts out by talking about the Pentagon's refocusing on the Pacific rim and why such a refocusing is necessary. It says that Beijing identifies the US as a threat, rather than a partner. Right after that, however, the article contradicts itself. It says that Beijing is not a threat; Beijing's pronouncements regarding the South China Sea have been misinterpreted and in reality they mean us no harm.

So which is it? Is Beijing a real threat to the freedom of the seas in the South China Sea? Or is Washington overreacting to innocuous statements? The author seems to indicate the latter, but the conclusion isn't nearly as explicit as it should be.
Step 1) Create first version of your site.

Step 2) Get some (more) people to use it. Get their feedback.

Step 3) Improve product based on feedback.

Step 4) Go to Step 2.
مشاهدة مباراة برشلونة وريال مدريد بث مباشر
مدونة يلا جول الرياضية تقوم ببث واذاعة مباراة برشلونة وريال مدريد بث مباشر فى مباراة الذهاب فى نهائى كأس السوبر الأسباني اليوم الحد ( الاحد ) 14/8/2011 وموعدها 22:00 بتوقيت القاهرة لو بدك او عايز تتفرج على الماتش ادخل و وشاهد المباراة على النت بدون تقطيع اون لاين
برشلونة vs ريال مدريد
College or UnCollege?
Efficient for whom?

Most grocery stores I frequent have replaced several lanes of "efficient" cashiers with the much slower (for shoppers) self-checkout systems. Yes, the lines may be shorter, and the store needs fewer checkers (one can cover multiple self-check lanes), so the store is saving money. But I feel a loss in service quality and am not convinced my checkout time (waiting + service) has been shortened.

So, yes, it's more efficient for the _store_, but not for _me_ as a customer.

Maybe that's what you're saying—there are two sides to efficiency. Corporations maximize it for themselves, sometimes at the expense of customers. Every once in a while one is enlightened enough to realized that improved customer efficiency is a long-term win.
Nigerian Yoruba Movies | Nigerian Movies Online
The distinction I'm making is being hypotheses that involve new objects and hypotheses that involve new properties for old objects.

For instance, consider planetary motion before Newton. You could have hypothesized a "dark" force that moved the planets. Or you could hypothesize that a force you already know exists (gravity near the Earth's surface) also exists for each body of the solar system, has unlimited range, and follows an inverse square law.
MBT Womens Chapa Heather
I'm starting to wonder what's wrong with mice. Whenever a new treatment is tested in mice it seems to work wonders.

Mice are tiny and short lived. They have had no need to evolve a whole host of cancer and disease defense mechanism, which we as very long lived and large animals have.

In fact, many cancer cures in mice are simply applications of things which humans are born with.

Elephants and whales probably would be a better way to study diseases. For example, humans have one copy of an ant-tumor gene, elephants have a dozen: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2011/02/28/the-mere-e...

But mice are A LOT easier to study in the lab than large long lived animals would be.

Also, spectacular sounding cure + non-specialized mass publication like Time = Do not believe.
$379 for the DX vs $139 for the regular Kindle.

That's nearly 3x the price.
I would rather they report the news while staying on the correct side of copyright law.

If the author of the original post was a professional photo journalist who happened to post some of his photos to twitter would it be fine for the BBC to use that photo?

Similarly, if you wrote a script which was then used verbatim in a commercial product outside of the any license you had granted because they had to get the product out the door would that be fine?
Typekit hand-hinted fonts
What if lots of critical cells (e.g. bone stem cells, brain cells) are infected? Wouldn't it be better for the body to fight the virus rather than killing those cells?
>No, but such a process would be compatible with a far more aggressive/creative approach at facilitating the widespread cooperation (among public and private entities) needed to solve the problem.

That's pretty much what happens now in the environmental process. The problems tend to come because of political, engineering, legal and/or financial issues that get in the way.

It's not as though the government says "this road shall be built here!" and then does it. A problem is identified ("we need to move people from here to here"), several options are created ("we could build a transit line, expand an existing road, build a new highway, build a bridge, etc"), and then opinions from the community are sought as part of the Draft EIR/EIS.

One area that does need improvement is more consideration of projects on a regional basis (the effect on neighboring states for example rather than just looking at the immediate project area), but public and private entities are most certainly in the loop for current projects. If they weren't, these entities would just tie the project up in court.
You can take the idea of non-coercion and private property pretty far, without even considering the role of charity. See Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty(1) for ideas of how it might work.

Also people are naturally motivated by more than commercial self-interest. This is why charities exist.

1-http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp
What difference does it make that you're playing against different people? People engage and justify behavior based on types of action.

One punishes a cheater that one will never encounter again partly on the presumption that other people also do this to cheaters they encounter. Thus one engages in a behavior that, if performed universally, will reduce the likelihood that one will encounter a cheater.

This is almost exactly the same as iterated games where you play the same person over and over and thus confront the other player's action as an instance of a type of decision (a strategy). The fact that it isn't the same person doesn't mean you won't think in terms of types.

Yeah, you can try to free ride and just hope that other people punish cheaters for you and that you'll benefit without ever having to do it yourself (since punishing incurs a cost). But if the choice is between no one punishing cheaters and everyone punishing cheaters, then you choose the latter. If you're thinking in terms of types, those are the two choices. Even if it doesn't totally make sense in a particular context to do this, people habitually think this way.

Human beings think in terms of types and systems of actions, and choose actions at least partly based on what types and systems of actions they are endorsing. These game scenarios rely on that in the same that iterated games do. It's tit-for-tat all over again, just one level more abstract.
I agree completely.

I'm surprised that nobody has asked the question in this thread yet--why is the government still in the mail business?

Pure libertarians would say the government should only exist to protect citizens from each other and external threats. I see a somewhat wider role: government is where we pool our money to accomplish projects that are beyond the scope of any private institution, like building an interstate highway system.

But mail? The USPS is fairly unique among government entities in that it competes directly with industry: FedEx, UPS, etc. It might have been legitimate a hundred years ago, when delivering mail nationwide was an epic undertaking that no private organization could do, but today, the USPS is obsolete.
Found via Quora (http://www.quora.com/Typekit/What-are-the-best-Typekit-fonts...) that "all of the fonts tagged with "paragraph" have been hand-hinted to perform well, even in the most unforgiving environment (cough Win XP cough)" as said by Mandy Brown, Community Manager at Typekit.

This is very useful because these fonts look really awesome in Windows (which is still the vast majority of users for most sites).
1: radical ideas break the patterns of your thoughts.

2: patterns are the least resistant way to think -- they are habits.

3: breaking habits is uncomfortable.

So: radical ideas are uncomfortable.
Ah right: https://github.com/atmos/camo
Very nice. I would like to see somebody do a cannonball now.
you'd have to be eating an all-beef diet to offset the environmental benefits of walking or bicycling.

well that's just swell, my paleo diet is bad for the environment.
Your welcome. Hope this keeps going as well.
Its successor, Io, simplifies things even further
Non-physorg link?
Yes you're right, that part is probably manual. I misunderstood the question, I thought he meant the amount shown from the card. My mistake.
We discussed this study previously on HN - an extremely preliminary study based on cell culture and a small number of mice. The first author of the paper is the drug patent holder.
And with efficient search, sometimes as simple as find in a text file, memorization should not be a priority.
If a) you're borrowing $10 billion from taxpayers, b) you are telling future retirees that you're going to give them gold-plated pensions, and c) you claim to be profitable, you are lying. My heuristic as to who is being lied to is simple: you guys actually get a check every month and I don't? Drats, you're lying to me.
>McDonnell says that while there is no police training specific to determining whether a photographer's subject has "apparent esthetic value," officers make such judgments "based on their overall training and experience" and will generally approach photographers not engaging in "regular tourist behavior."

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. -- Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart
Of course it is, why would it be otherwise? Meat is just an inefficient middle stage in terms of nutrient acquisition. Of course, that doesn't mean I'm a vegetarian, just that I'm aware that my diet is not as energy efficient as it could be.
Income disparity is a characteristic of this economy, that means that the top 1% (i.e., not you and I) are benefiting at the expense of the bottom 99%. In a world in which that is the case, finding products that appeal to that top 1% is eminently sensible.
ToutApp.com: An innovative approach to email templates
Installing Cherokee With PHP5 And MySQL Support On Ubuntu 11.04
Turn your LinkedIn profile into an infographic
It seems that fromPrototype is missing a line:

return newObject;

'man' and 'jeremy' are objects, not functions.
I have to say, the most impressive part about this is the fact that my macbook doesn't even rev up like a jet engine like it would if I was..say...watching a flash video.

Awesome.
There's a huge flaw in this article. You start off in the black, because I'm sure a car takes a lot more to produce than a bike.
I'm going to go ahead and contribute that line of the article to "creative, non-factual journalism."

Keep up the paleo. :)
PerlisLanguage(Prolog).
You can get close by turning on gravity by pressing 'G', then dragging the ball into the air and dropping it.

Unfortunately can't get it to splash since it's just a height-field simulation.
"saves my bacon? right thing to do"
I would be shocked if any of those you mentioned would say "There doesn't necessarily have to be anything more after this" when asked what was next for their company. All mentioned were probably concerned with the current projects at their company during the early times, but all were also probably looking towards expanding their company as well. Oh, and I'd be shocked if any of them would be interviewed with a red 'frat' cup in their hand or with their co-founders doing keg stands as well.
Don't forget to press "G".
Cool stuff. Great for learning Forth. I'm thinking of programming a custom forth for a particular microcontroller I got my hands on.
A great set of languages. It's true that languages should be mind-expanding, and for that reason I wish C would be included on principle --- everyone should understand pointers --- but I suppose most people have already seen that (the assembler included may make up for it, too).

I'm rather happy that many of these are "modern" languages: Qi, Oz, Kernel, and similar raise my hopes for the field showing that in the interceding 50 years, we have improved upon Lisp, ML, Prolog, and the like.
Steve Jobs presents Apple’s new Campus to the Cupertino City Council (6/7/11)
I would put $0 in the pot and if my opponent put in more than me, I would pay him until we were even. This beats the game because it sets a cooperative standard while being fair immediately and also protects me. However, if my opponent put in more and could punish me before I could even it out, I imagine I would find it hard to "turn the other cheek." I also don't think that putting in the full amount would create the culture I would want to exist because such an action would be indiatinguishable from naïveté, and other than asking for my money back and getting it I would have no power to do good once the game ended
First Friend - by Edinaldo Santo
Win with roulette
There is no way you can seriously believe this would still be going on had it not been for Sam. There would have been someone else siphoning off funds. This thing obviously didn't scale well. The naïveté is astounding.
For something like an image hosting or pastebin site, isn't that possible a privacy concern?

I'm curious, what is the standard practice for the storage of static media - where are the static files (text/images) stored on the server, and how are the appropriate config files that concern that media set up?