skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Some people love working with branches. I don't.

It's down to how you work, who you're working with, and the processes you have in place.

My personal motto is just "don't break the build". It seems messy to me to create a ton of branches with broken stuff on them, having to remember the state of everything, what's been merged, what hasn't. I'd rather just write code to a single trunk. If I need to do big arch changes, I do them in bits that don't break the build.

Time is linear. So is my trunk. I develop linearly. I don't think in branches.

I can totally understand that other people see things a different way, and prefer to work like that. But I cannot. I tried. It was awful, painful and a waste of time.

So enough with the "This is better than this" mentality :)
If you find one I would be interested, as I've also searched for this without success.
So who are the cheapest?
I'm not sure about that. If you pump out a tonne of great research, but use relatively less money, wouldn't that make you look better? Or is the academic world that far removed from the rest of the economy?
They do have to leave their country to pursue their hobby. That may be some evidence of clamping. (they probably have to take to the water for safety reasons, but they seem to go amlot further outthan safety demands.)
... the ecosystem would quickly adapt to open peer review

A reviewer's comments and critiques of a scientific manuscript often say as much, or more, about the reviewer than they do about the work.

The current system should definitely be made more transparent and papers should be more freely available, especially those funded by public money, but there are currently plenty of avenues to openly comment on a piece of work (letters to the editor, blogs, journal website forums, opinion pieces, review articles, conference talks, positive or negative references in future publications, etc.)

Experiments are easy to propose, which makes finding faults and requesting more work from authors quite easy to do for reviewers. That's why, if a paper passes muster with 2-3 qualified reviewers, it should be allowed to be published, and additional criticisms can go through the existing channels I mentioned above. An open peer-review system, if I am imagining it correctly from the above poster's description, could turn into a three-ring circus, and scientists would waste unimaginable amounts of time defending every comment levied against their work instead of working on new projects.

I don't think that the methods of scientific review or discourse are broken. What needs to be fixed are issues of accessibility and transparency.
Losing Weight While Eating Restaurant Food - This is a must read
7 Natural Constipation Remedies
Some quick reactions:

To have a fair discussion, you would have to look at both the problems and benefits of losing physicality. There is a danger of clinging on it to it purely for nostalgia, which I think is largely the case with books.

My hunch is that kids' imagination will actually expand with virtual worlds.

Another advantage is they will be better educated. Like my wife says, "I wish I had Google when I was a child. I wouldn't have to believe all the lies my parents told me to shut me up."

I'm not even sure we will net lose physicality. We will probably just have new types of physical objects.
Investors make $20M bet on MapR to win Hadoop war
Philosophy - they don't need the wastebasket [JOKE]
It's kind of frightening to think of Nedap operating in the healthcare industry. This is the same company responsible for the insecure and unverifiable voting machines that were eventually banned in at least the Netherlands, Ireland and Germany. I really hope they're not processing any privacy sensitive information.
This is not quite right. The NIH does, in fact, maintain a Public Access Policy:

http://publicaccess.nih.gov/policy.htm

which states that all NIH-funded research must be placed in this database ("PubMed Central") within 12 months of publication. I do not know how widely it is obeyed, but I know that the several labs I've been in regularly deposited their papers there.
Doesn't cropping have to be within a certain size, though?

EDIT: Yep, looks like you can only crop it along the DCT block boundaries:

http://www.ben.com/jpeg/
Estate agents in Sheffield
Right, it's definitely surprising that he could decide to outright not take a job that doesn't use Git. Hell, my last job used Source Safe, it was a please to be able to use freaking SVN on side projects in comparison at that point!
You should tell your brother not to do that, very sternly. Your brother is killing people. This is not a joke.
My impression is that the issues people have with branching in Subversion is down to a workflow problem (the people and their actions) more than the software itself.

Yes, Git does branching and merging way better than Subversion. Git branching is easier, lighter weight, and it understands playing back revisions to avoid conflicts very well.

But Subversion isn't a nightmare if you have procedures in place that everyone on the development team uses and if the development team talks to each other on a regular basis about it. This whole procedures and talking to each other thing can be hard for some people and if the mentality of the group isn't good about it when you join, you'll have an experience like the OP.
WikiLeaks encryption key file accidentally leaked online
They do, and it isn't even hiding. Take a look in your cert store and you will see multiple DoD root CAs.
The tool drives the user. Your mom works this way because, as you said, windows 95 is file oriented. If it were app oriented as Mac OS X is, I bet she would have the opposite behavior.
I had to restrain myself from saying that about economists.
There has been one for over a year, http://www.hackermed.com/ , unfortunately no one is using it. I posted an article a couple of months ago, and that is just about its last use.
But doesn't a camera sample pixels at a given rate? So lets say a camera can access image data from the sensor @ 100Hz and you store this over time (exposure time) it doesn't matter how bright areas are. But I can be completely wrong. Maybe I'm confusing frame-rate (video ability) with the sensor burst-rate.
Using ORMs gives developers (and other stakeholders) a way to get through the initial conceptual design and development faster. It helps getting to 'functional' much faster and it makes feedback loops very effective.

However, before pushing to production, you should always have some idea of typical user scenarios. What actions are they taking? With how much data? How often? In what sequence? Then, you load test based on that information. You identify that 20% of the ORM isn't going to work, and you replace it with stored procedures, or in-memory tables, or something.

For someone who grew up pre-ORM with on-staff dba-types who had to redesign their schemas on every little feature change, and thus recreate entire data layers, ORMS are FREAKING AWESOME.

But, you still need someone who knows what they're doing.
Clearly she's a minimalist front-end developer lol

I just don't know why an employer looking for a good front end dev would hire someone based on this, It does not prove any skill and mostly talks about how great she thinks she is, I am confused as to why this is even on the front page?
Not sure what the paragraph about talking to children has to do with the rest. But I've been seated next to children that traveled alone before so perhaps it's just your perception? Often if we feel uncomfortable with something, we make others uncomfortable, too.
"[T]hese companies do nothing for us."

I agree 99%. The one thing they do for us, and the one thing that any alternative system would have to replicate, is provide a signal of quality through their history and prestige. The whole constellation of scientific publications, grant writing, grant reviews, tenure committees, faculty searches, and dissertation committees revolve around publications. But it seems nobody can, or desires, to read all of an individual's publications, synthesize the content of what they've produced, and compare it to the other work in increasingly specialized sub-fields.

Instead, to evaluate the quality of work and the scientists themselves, we rely on the number of articles published multiplied by the journal's impact factor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor), roughly speaking. This we've used as a proxy for scientific quality. And besides lazy, it's insidious, too. Before even sitting down to read an article, I've already absorbed which journal this article appeared in. If a prestigious journal, how can I help being predisposed to think favorably of it?

It's a seductive shortcut. This is why the academic journals are so entrenched. And it shows what any alternative system must replicate. It is relatively easy to create a website that unites authors, peer reviewers, editors, and a publishing/editing system. What is not straight-forward is to create a system with that last 1%: the external quality signal.
Autonomy CEO Says H-P Deal Marks Fundamental Shift in IT
see:
http://www.ideorg.org/OurTechnologies/DripIrrigation.aspx

look at "our technologies" for similar stuff.
Microsoft Improves Windows Explorer with Ribbon UI on Windows 8
The typical use of ORMs that kills the database is where one uses record-based operations to traverse a set: resulting in one query per record.

The blogger's point is quite good: a developer probably doesn't know what SQL is being generated, it may be opaque how small variants in query source can result in radically different SQL based on the translation process. Hence, a profiler should be used to find problematic queries. This is solid advice.

What's not mentioned though is that sometimes what appears to be very ugly SQL actually out-performs pretty, parsimonious, hand-crafted SQL. This, assuming the developer could actually craft correct SQL equivalent.
SlowmoVideo: slow-motion video software from a bachelor thesis
How Much of R (packages) is Written in R...
Not only are you not an Apple power user, you're a clueless Apple user. I think, if anything, you're a unix/linux user that assumes "mac console" = "power user".
Language Lab
Logiciel Software Tech Pvt Ltd is an emerging Software Development Company who are focused in the sector of educational software. LearnSOFT Language Lab is a technological breakthrough by Le Logiciel for imparting high standards in teaching and learning with aid of ICT ("Information and Communications Technology").
Annoying article, it talks more about the (in my opinion very naïve and utopian) ramifications about the technology if implemented on a massive scale, than about the technology itself.

http://news.discovery.com/tech/lens-wind-turbines-magnify-po... is marginally better (and more brief), I'm sure there are further sources.
Wacom Inkling Makes Vector Graphics From Pen & Paper Drawing [video]
Digital Language Lab
The Award Winning facilities and features provided in the LearnSOFT Language Lab Software System offers an exclusive, result oriented, efficient and foolproof means to enrich the spoken language learning process. LearnSOFT language lab Digital Software Solution provides material for students at all levels of spoken language learning - from beginners to the near expert. All students inevitably improve their knowledge of spoken English from the positions that they were in at the start of the course.
No. For takeoff and landing, no power should be applied to any of the electronics. You have to turn the phone off.

(In fact, I just got off a plane, and the announcement is "electronic devices must be off, not in airplane mode. that's for after we're in the air.")
Okay, so once in 1,000 years isn't enough. I'll buy that, especially where an accident's effect can last for up to a century.

So, how about once in 10,000 years? Once in 100,000 years? That's on the level of meteor strikes, and I can't think of any power plant that could withstand those.

I think that "never" is as impractical as "two years from now."
Take the money, equity is just a pipe dream unless you are a founder or very early employee.

This is pretty standard situation though. you basically need to tell them you have offers, but you'd love to stay if they can match. If they can match, they match. If not, you move along.

I'd be interested to hear what in demand skill you have to be getting $200K off the street offers.
Well, first, one of the points of branches is "don't break the build" since you always know that master is an appropriately tested version of the code. Branches give you feature isolation.

Suppose that while developing a feature, you realize that a piece of code is buggy. In your view of the world, where everything is linear, either you drop everything you're doing and fix that bug, or file a bug with the tracker, deferring it until someone has time to fix it.

But morally, the second one is just a branch--time in this case isn't linear. You (or someone else) will have to change contexts at some point and fix the bug. If it's after your feature has been committed, then you have to do it on code which may have churned quite a bit since you filed the bug.

So if you used branches, you would just create branch for the fix. If it gets committed into master before your feature, you could obtain upstream changes. If it gets committed after your feature, you can use rebasing to replay that work on top of the significantly changed code.

If you need to do big arch changes, you still do them in bits such that every build isn't broken. You just do them in a branch, so that nobody else sees them until they are completely ready.

Note also that, with git's powerful tools, you have the option (which is usually taken, these days) to rebase your branches into master, not merge them. So, when you published your changes to the world (git branches are local, nobody else can see them) you could still show the world a linear line of development if you so pleased.

So it may not be a "this is better than this" mentality, but you definitely do lose a significant amount of expressiveness and flexibility for no reason. Branches are painless (in git) and certainly not a waste of time (in that they actually streamline the development process). Can you describe the situation in which you thought that was the case?
I think this is working. I haven't gotten as much spam on Facebook as I did a year ago.
Yes, brand awareness and commercial goodwill are important.
I'm pretty sure all major airlines require a ton of hours on smaller planes, and often large cargo planes, before flying passenger jets--so perhaps experience is not the panacea, or must be more carefully tailored to include the right kinds of crisis situations.
Even though Mac OS X filesystem is not a relational database, it does support a query language that allows you to search for built in or user defined attributes and their values.

This search functionality is available system wide (Spotlight search box), from any file open dialog or from the command line. For example things like this are possible:

Find me all pictures I tool this year and where I used flash, and aperture f4:

kind:image fnumber:4 date:"this year" flash:1

You type this in either spotlight or search box on open file dialog. You can do the same from the command line

mdfind -interpret "kind:image fnumber:4 date:"this year" flash:1"

The nice thing about the mdfind command is that you can restrict the search to a directory of your choice only.

Some people pay good money for photo organizers on Mac OS X, not knowing they already have this functionality built in. And finding what attributes are available is not that hard either:

mdimport -X

prints the entire metadata schema.
Time may be linear for you. But if you have a several people working together on a project, branches make life so much better.
Forecasters Make Hay While the Sun Shines  Yahoo - associatedcontent.com
So why did you say it and direct people to ask researchers what it means, if pretty much no one does?
I think she's done a great thing and gotten some discussion going and some name recognition.

Maybe she's not 'presentable' to a traditional recruiter (piercings, whatever). Maybe she's self-taught (is that really a big deal now?) Maybe she has children in Boston (I have friends who would LOVE to move but family keeps you in one place).

She's probably been working solo or in small teams where she's not exposed to team engineering. It sounds to me as if she's really keen to try this and will give everthing she's got to whoever takes a chance and interviews her.
No, I was referring to this: http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2010/06/british_airw... (see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_sex_discrimination_poli...)

The point of the children paragraph is that many things are leading people to keep children indoors (fear of men, fear of the Sun) and this combined with a virtual world means that they are more and more cut off. At least, that's the hypothesis. Looking for data.
Why replace?

For all I care most phones today are ~identical~. Hell, I think HTC is well-known for putting out nearly identical devices with different operating systems for quite some time.

Offer both versions. Bonus points: Allow me to flash my phone to move from one OS to the other.
Direct link to Facebook's bug bounty program: http://www.facebook.com/whitehat/bounty/

Mozilla (http://www.mozilla.org/security/bug-bounty.html) and Chromium (http://dev.chromium.org/Home/chromium-security/vulnerability...) have bug bounties too and I'm sure many other projects do.
It kind of funny when you think about it: Novell sold DR-DOS to Caldera specifically so Caldera could sue Microsoft (Novell didn't want to do it themselves for PR reasons). Caldera would reach a settlement with MS in 2000 and, later that same year, would use some of those funds to help finance their purchase of SCO.

It seems to me that, in a limited manner, Novell reaped what it sowed.
The Halo Effect is a well-known bias. Important things cost a lot of money, therefore if what you're doing doesn't cost a lot of money, it's not important. This happens in large institutions in the private sector as well, sections of companies building their own fiefdoms.
I think there are some features where SVN is superior to Git (dealing with large binary files?) but I think you could basically use Git in the fashion you describe, and it would be a better experience than SVN. Just being able to quickly checkout old versions without touching the network is awesome.

On the other hand, as soon as you bring a bunch of people working on a project together, isn't the development inherently non-linear, and there's the possibility that you will need to deal with (implicit) branches? I guess if every person committed to the trunk frequently you wouldn't need to.

> So enough with the "This is better than this" mentality

I understand the sentiment, and the desire to avoid flamewars and endless bitching about tools, but no thanks. If I never have to deal with CVS telling me that every single file in my tree has a conflict in it again, I will be very pleased. If no one had a "This is better than this" mentality, we might not even have the choice of Git (or even SVN for that matter).
What is your Grandpa doing with a desktop? Get him an iPad, it's all he'll ever need.
My parents were always worried that I "spent too much time on the computer", but it was always balanced by weekend outdoor pursuits in mountains and rivers. Both did me a lot of good.

I don't want my children to live in a "risk-free" society
with all the restrictions that it would imply.

We live in semi-wild country on the outskirts of a large flat city with lots of manicured lawns and pavements. When children visit from the inner suburbs they trip over a lot because they are not used to running on uneven ground. I think it's a great pity.
You might also be interested in Nicholas Carr's blog, he writes about similar things. I think it is worth following it, if only as a contrast to the tech-utopianism of HN:

http://www.roughtype.com/index.php
If they want to go touch they should be getting rid of the file system, not making it easier to manage. Touch devices are appliances. The reason I left windows in the first place was because I was sick of managing it. I'm certainly not going to pay money for the joy of managing an appliance.
When I first read Sarah's post, I was intrigued by the proposal that she is willing to just come in and start working so somebody could get to know her skills and personality in a real work environment.

However, bringing on a new person, even in that kind of role, consumes resources from the entire team as we get her up to speed. How long does it take to evaluate somebody like that? A few days? A week? I would pay her for her time though.

But why bring in Sarah? Why not somebody else who I have more information about? We often bring on contractors and sometimes end up hiring them. That is essentially a get-to-know-you-first relationship too.

So it would help to see some kind of work history, even if it is non-traditional. When hiring I look as much for self-direction as experience.

The good thing for Sarah and this approach is that she has been noticed, and we are talking about her. If she was located nearby I would just email her and ask for more details.

Let us know how it turns out, Sarah.
I heard Gabe talk at Games For Change in NYC this year, the dude is really really smart.

I don't look at it as money vs quality. I see it more as, more quality more money. So start with quality.

The only way to make money is if people play your games. The perceived value of your games is higher, and the amount of interest is higher when you make good games.

One thing Valve has, probably more than any other game company (besides possibly Zynga) is a ton of data on gamer behavior across all their titles.

They've looked really hard at how players interact on some of their AAA titles like Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead, and more recently on Portal 2. They know how people play, and what they're willing to spend on.

Seriously, they are running EEG brainwave scans and pupil dilation tests on gamers during play testing to understand how their games are effecting their players. That level of customer understanding makes it pretty easy to know where and how to turn the money machine on.
Free Powerpoint Background
Download Free Powerpoint Background on www.freeppttemplate.com. It provide Free Powerpoint Slide, Free Powerpoint Theme etc.
The article itself has almost no information on the actual technology. The embedded video is much more helpful, and explains how the "lens" around the turbines helps to disperse air and create a low pressure zone on one side of the turbine. The relatively higher pressure air on the other side naturally wants to push through, greatly increasing the efficiency of the turbines.
Nice post. Obliquely related, but you may enjoy the PBS Frontline episode Digital Nation -- you can watch it online through the PBS website:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/digitalnation/view/
> Also, in the long run, equity stake > base salary, for obvious reasons

huh? I think you have that backwards. In the long run very few people get the pay day they imagine when it comes to equity.

Here is a guy making $110K less than his market worth. Say he cashes out in a conservative 5 years. That's on average $550K he hasn't made.

Suppose the valuation is 50M that means he would need 1% stake in the company, just to break even!! And I highly doubt he has more than 1% equity from the sounds of the size of the company.
I got the same result. For some reason Chrome trusts intermediate certificate even if the root certificate is marked as untrusted. Screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/qW6V3.png (Chrome 14.0.835.109 beta)

Lock with the warning icon is here because "Unable to check whether the certificate has been revoked."

Maybe their intermediate is signed by some other root CA?
Unfortunately it doesn't. If you hear the words 'efficiency' or 'value for money' being used at a UK university, it usually means they're about to announce a round of redundancies.