skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is why geeks have such a hard time dealing with the real world. Schmidt tells it like it is, and then he gets made fun of for not lying to his customers and shareholders.

The reality is that Google+ can't provide strong anonymity because of all the laws it is subject to. Rather than entice someone into a false sense of security, they are flat out saying, "don't use our service if you require anonymity". It's not a pleasant message, but it's the truth, and that has value.

Even if you're using a pseudonym for something the government doesn't care about (like _why was), it can still be upsetting when someone finds out who you really are. _why dropped off the face of the Internet when some kids decided to make it their life's work to figure out his "real name". Google wants to avoid being a tool for this sort of disruption to life and communities.
Oh, yeah, I bet you are right. Thanks for the reminder. I had forgotten about that one.
I really wonder how something like this got leaked! Thanks for posting.
Mosquitoes 'disappearing' in some parts of Africa
The Wright Brothers were up against all sorts of commercial and even military competition. Everyone was throwing huge amounts of money and resources at the problem. The Wrights were perceived as amateur-hour kooks playing with toys in a field. The military was downright rude when describing how their success was a forgone conclusion and that the Wrights weren't worth paying attention to.

The other point is that while orgs like Amazon, eBay, PayPal and Craigslist ran with their first mover advantage, lots of other first-movers totally dropped the ball. See Friendster/Facebook for my favourite example. LiveJournal/WordPress/Tumblr is another set of hard lessons.
No, it's easy to get a valid "fake" ID. All you need is a birth certificate, which is a paper document with no authentication features, and a utility bill, which is a paper document with no authentication features. Government-issued IDs are as worthless as anything else the government produces. The only value they have is that you'll have to pay a fine if they catch you with the fake birth certificate. Which is highly unlikely.
Read it again :P
There's a certain degree of arrogance built into the idea that the person best suited to run the world's most successful company is the one whose skills we can best appreciate.

There's a connection, but one I can't well articulate, between that point and the success of the iPad. I know I'm not the only one who occasionally scratches his head at the popularity of a device that's too big to pocket and too small to compete with a laptop. But it's Apple's execution in the mass market that matters, not what the geekerati think.
I wouldn't say there's a lot of scar tissue. It's basically just skin. There are two types of prosthetic eyes. The one I have, the more "traditional" prosthesis, is two parts. There's a clear sphere made of medical grade plastic implanted in the back of my eye socket and then there is skin and muscle over top of that. The prosthesis sits in the eye on top of this sphere. The newer variety has a post that attaches to this to allow for more eye movement.

If you're not one to be easily bothered by such things, I've upload a couple of (somewhat blurry, my apologies) pictures.

The eye socket: http://i.imgur.com/DogTz.jpg

The Prosthesis: http://i.imgur.com/JyQOL.jpg

I assume it's not made from softer materials because they would be more porous and therefore more prone to irritation and infection.

I know some people who take their eye out at night and I've heard different opinions from different doctors, but the general consensus from both my eye doctor and my ocularist is that unless there's irritation to leave it in and leave it alone. Occasionally, during allergy season, I'll need to take it out and rinse it off, but for the most part, I just leave it be and it's fairly self-cleaning. I get it professionally polished once a year and the prosthetic itself needs to be replaced every 5-10yrs.

Bruising isn't a huge issue, but it's the most frequent "complication" I have and is something I probably end up doing every few months. I can be a bit of a restless sleeper, though. :)
Other professions have professional organizations which try to look out for the interests of their members.

The AMA (American Medical Association) is a very powerful lobby in Washington, and has a lot of influence on the profession.

People in IT often belong to organizations like the IEEE, which (though not a fraction as powerful as the AMA) also try to look out for the interests of their members.

In America, most lawyers belong to the American Bar Association, which serves a similar function to the AMA and IEEE.

As for airline pilots, you might have heard of the Virgin Atlantic strike that was in the news lately. It was initiated by the Balpa pilot union.

Many other professions, from electricians, to engineers, to construction workers, to architects, to nurses, firefighters, police, etc have unions and professional organizations which strive to look out for their members interests.

This is a good thing.. as is collective bargaining. They are a valuable check on the ridiculous amount of power employers in the US have over their employees, and a way to attempt to prevent a race to the bottom in terms of employee wages, benefits, job safety, quality, and satisfaction.

To say that teachers belonging to unions somehow makes them "unprofessional" is disingenuous. If anything, it's the other way around.

Furthermore, it's ridiculous to claim that teachers unions want to keep bad teachers at work. They don't. And there are procedures in place for firing them.

Finally, as to "the best interests of the students", what are those exactly? And who gets to decide what they are? The parents? The teachers? School administrators? Congress? The students themselves? Do any of them really know what is in "the best interests of the students"? This is a complicated issue, and the "one size fits all" approach of standardized syllabuses, standardized tests, and bumper sticker rhetoric does very little to address it.
Because google cannot make as much money off of an account named LispNerd3k vs your real name.

From an advertising pov G+ wants to have as much information about you as possible to best target ads. This is basically a good thing as you see more of what you want and they get more clickthrough and can sell ads for more. When you type something into google search, google can make an educated guess about who you are based on your query, geo information and past searches. A primary goal of G+ is to associate the G+ information you are voluntarily filling out (real name, address, hobbies, etc) with the rest of googles ad network making it leaps better.

That is why google thinks social networking is important, and why g+ doesn't need to "win" vs facebook for it to have a net positive effect on google. Even mild G+ adoption makes googles whole network of ads much more intelligent.

I am not a business strategy person but this explanation makes sense to me so take it as a guess/opinion.
I'd be very interested to know more details about the structure of the RAM units. (Neither the original article nor the IBM press release at http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/35251.wss talk much about it. The videos on the SyNAPSE website are also pretty distilled.) A biological synapse does, in a sense, serve as one of thousands tiny memory units on a neuron. But they are more capable than a single bit. A packet of neurotransmitter released into the synaptic cleft does activate the synapse, but the synapse itself (technically, the post-synaptic group of neurotransmitter receptors) responds in a graded (i.e., a non-binary) manner, strongly dependent on a) its recent history of activation, b) other synaptic activations in the vicinity, and c) and the local biophysical environment. I think I'd want at least 8 bits for the signal amplitude plus a few more to store some associated state variables.

I'd guess that the IBM team would have to replicate a lot of that "hardware" to get the emergent behavior of a piece of cortex. I do know that computational neuroscientists have struggled for the last 15 years or so get reduced neuron models (i.e., point neurons with a small number of rudimentary synapses) to even crudely mimic full-featured neurons. It looks like this group recognizes this issue in that they are already starting with many hundreds of synapses.

Another thing to keep in mind is that a processor inspired by brain hardware will be most likely very efficient in the tasks a mammalian brain is good at (pattern recognition, pattern completion, pattern separation, etc.), but will concomitantly be worse at things that a standard serial instruction processor excels at. I'd bet that the IBM folks are looking to merge a cognitive processor and a classical processor into a single unit.

Also, I know very little about compilers, assembly language, and other close-to-the-metal issues, but it appears that this processor would be very different to program.
My solution so far has been to utterly ignore Google+ even though I usually like what Google does.

If enough people do that, they'll either change or scrap the service.
Down, here is the Google cache:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:WTgUnz...

Here is the project page on launchpad:
https://launchpad.net/emailgraph

Beware, the source archive is a tarbomb.
It doesn't matter which is more likely, only that there is some positive probability of the second option.
Don't use Facebook either then.
No it isn't: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20096313-264/what-happens-...
Someone will come along like sevenmachines and create a PPA with a "sun-java6-installer" to mirror the "flashplugin64-installer" that downloads the pack of binaries and installs them from Oracle's servers.
Kinda off-topic, but does anyone know how many registers the P-III and later have? I've read the P-II has 40, so I assume later chips have many more.

Register allocation is one of the more expensive phases in a compiler, and register allocation on the Intel instruction set is particularly hard because it has some few registers. It's kinda ironic that internally modern chips have zillions of registers. There's a fat chunk of software that squeezes a program in 8 registers and then a fat chunk of silicon that expands into however many registers the chip has. Not only is this wasted effort, the extra silicon costs Intel in terms of power consumption and it one reason at ARM are pWning them on low power platforms.
That’s true; I was exaggerating. I’m on G+ using a highly conventional nickname for my given name, on the order of Meg for Megan.

The problem here is that many people have legitimate reasons to, for example, go by more than one name. Always having to use your most popular name is simply not good enough in many cases.

I think most people are fine with Google trying to discourage lightweight throwaways on their service. What upsets people is what seems like an inflexibility that isn’t in Google’s own interests. Advertising to me under an “alternate” name is not significantly less efective than under my most popular name. If I’m willing to use a name to socially network, clearly I have some significant commitment to it; functionally, it is a real name.

I don’t want to rehash all the arguments here, though. I just wanted to point out that requiring “real” names is not necessary or sufficient to prevent G+ from being 4chan, and shouldn’t be conflated with that.
I found Peter Sestoft's "Programming Language Concepts for Software Developers" an enjoyable read. The book incrementally builds two compilers - one for Micro-ML and one for Micro-C. The implementation language is F#.

http://www.itu.dk/courses/BPRD/E2010/plcsd-0_50.pdf
http://channel9.msdn.com/Blogs/martinesmann/Teaching-program...
I tried ZFS dedup but there was something like a 20x slowdown to write files compared to ZFS without dedup, and this was on under ten gigabytes of files. I don't know if I somehow had the cache settings wrong or what the problem was, but I didn't manage to fix it, even trying both FUSE and kernel versions. (On ubuntu 11.4)
Thanks -- i'll try it out Flairbuilder and I do like omnigraffle as well.
I think Tim Cook knows as well as anyone that Apple needs an executive tastemaker and is willing to give that person all the support they need.
Not a bad article, but does not add any new info or interesting analysis.
I agree. The problem is the line between them is so thin that from a rules/enforcement perspective they may as well be the same thing. How are they to tell the difference between a long-used pseudonym and a throw-away account?
There is thousands of people on facebook who are using pseudonyms since a long time now... maybe Google is more focused in erasing those accounts.
These racists probably wouldn't post their racist coward attacks if they couldn't post them anonymously. Whether you argue with them using your real name or not won't change their opinion and won't change the fact that anonymity allowed them to spew their racists comments in the first place, you're wasting your time. Oh, and if you know who they are and know they attack people violently, you should call the police.
Context, please. I know it was an Q&A, hence there may not be a relation between what he said before and after answering this question. However the internet is very quick at taking one statement and turning it into something else.
At a certain point your choice is give up privacy or give up participation in society. Right now giving up G+ is not giving up email, or giving up having a cell phone, or giving up driving, but at a certain point it will be exactly like that.

This is the argument that needs to be raised more frequently in these discussions. Until there is a unified architecture for social interaction across different networks, it is very important which networks you can access. If we don't have a unifying protocol that links all social networks, then in the end, there can be only one.

Arguing that pseudonymous users should find a different service is equivalent to arguing that they should be entirely excluded from social interaction with the broader society.
Man utd vs Arsenal live stream online -28 August 2011
Arsenal vs Manchester united live streaming Premier league online August 28,2011.Man utd vs Arsenal live.Arsenal vs Man united live streaming.Watch this English Premier league football highlights, Manchester united vs Arsenal on your Pc 28.8.2011.Don`t Miss this Exciting football Match of Manchester united and Arsenal
This analysis is astonishingly shoddy, for all the reasons that tabbyjabby pointed out and more. But worse, it doesn’t even get close to the root-cause for why Apple may decline in the post-Steve Jobs’ era.

Steve Jobs' greatest accomplishments are not Apple I, Apple II, Mac, iPod, iTunes, iPhone or iPad. It's Apple, itself.

Depending on how one tallies, Apple has been through three successful major technology and business transitions, combined with three minor ones within the Mac family, and two minor ones within the iOS family: Apple II > Mac [Mac (68K) > Mac (PowerPC) > Mac (OS X)] > Mac (Intel)] > handhelds [iPod > iTouch(iOS) > iPhone (iOS) > iPad (iOS)]. Combine that with the development of new business/sales platforms (virtual Apple Store, physical Apple Stores, iTunes, App Store, etc.) that enhance the consumers’ Apple experience. Each one of these required the insight to recognize a particular opportunity (and the discipline to ignore others), the investment of resources to develop those opportunities, and wherewithal to follow through on the execution, even if that means cannibalizing from the sales of incumbent products. Without these pivots, Apple would not be in dominating position it is in today.

Consider that companies with longevity are able to execute strategic pivots when required. IBM is an example of a tech company that has done so at least four times over its long, 100+ year old history. Apple has done three within 30 years.

What is the one link between the major initiatives? They all occurred while Steve Jobs was in a position where he could significantly influence Apple. It is interesting to note that two significant new Apple tech platforms that failed - the Apple III and Newton - and the one significant new Apple business platform that failed - licensing Mac clones - were not initiatives that Jobs was affiliated with. (Before moving on, let’s acknowledge that the Lisa failed under Jobs’ purview, and that the 68K > PowerPC transition was successful carried out during his absence,)

We see how Apple's success if predicated on an ability to pivot to address new opportunities in the market, even if those opportunities cannibalize an existing profit center. Jobs’ value to Apple extends beyond being a visionary, design auteur, or talented business negotiator. None of those things would have meaning if he didn’t also have the force of personality and strength of credibility to compel dramatic changes within Apple.

So, then, the question becomes, who can fill in for Jobs in this capacity? If no one can, Apple is very likely to decline, much as Sony has in the post-Morita era.
Ha I remember them. Horrid things slapped on the end of the card. Sort of worked.
Nice, but not as cool as base-jumping from an university library window - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PT5hsgi2Ss
Ask Slashdot: Could We Deal With the End of Time Zones?
So, a classical theoretical model tailored to exactly match known results is validated. And a brand-spankin-new theoretical model based on a different approach is invalidated.

This means all assumptions of the classical model are correct and all those of the new model are incorrect? Doesn't sound right to me.

These tests are validating / invalidating the predictive power of specific models, not testing their underlying assumptions. Issues of supervenience will not be worked out for certain until we have models of which we are more confident.
I don't see how it is an "evil concept", I think what he means by identity service is a platform on which they can build social apps, it's same as social network.

And I'm quite annoyed by claims that associate a real identity requirement with selling data or ad targeting and such, they can target well enough using interests, not sure your name improves much on it.

Also instead of speculating read the service's privacy policy and be certain about it.
I disagree on "Installing new software can be incredibly tedious and error-prone" with centralised package management, I much prefer installing something on linux than in windows, all it takes is "pacman -S" whatever, or alias that to something shorter, it also means searching for software is easy. In windows I have to go and search for it on the net etc.
An older discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2486231
The policy is temporary. They will roll out support for brand names and other potentially trademark-infringing names eventually. Just for the field trial, they want to make sure that everyone is using their real names because it's less hassle.

To downvoters: straight from the horse's mouth https://plus.google.com/u/0/110295984969329522620/posts/ExKJ... and http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2391461,00.asp and https://plus.google.com/105923173045049725307/posts/E3mVj6ns...
Depends on what you mean by "better". MATLAB and python+numpy will almost certainly run faster than R in almost all situations, they are also far more pleasant to program in (in my opinion).

However R has the advantage that it will have support for every obscure statistical analysis routine you can ever think of. It also has better support for reading in data from all kinds of sources and handling things like missing and invalid data. So if your goal is to quickly read in a bunch of data sets (that are small enough that performance isn't a critical issue) from arbitrary sources, run a bunch of statistical functions on that data and turn those results into pretty graphs, then R is pretty great.
During the earthquake, cell phone service was out but landline worked like a charm :) And that's why we have one
Best all around free IDE for mac
What would be a good free ide for jquery, javascript, and php?
It's also quite duplicitous. It was represented as a social networking service, not as an identity service. Moreover people assumed (yeah, I know) that since privacy control was Facebook's Achilles' heel, that Google would do better than that, and they seemed to be going one step forward with the Circles thing. Ever since then, it has been two steps back.

It's easy to say "Hey, if you want to be pseudonymous go elsewhere". I have no desire to be pseudonymous, but I certainly want to socialise with people who are. I can't be the only one.

HN good news: the field is still wide open for someone who wants to do it right.
See https://duckduckgo.com/ .
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this has nothing to do with the real name vs. pseudonyms issue, right?

If Google knows you as LispNerd3k, living in Philadelphia, about 30yo, geeky, white, male, past searches "xorg issue fedora 15" and "sicp", that's more than enough to give you targeted ads. As long as your pseudonym is consistent across websites (or Google services at least), there's no need for your real name.
Here is their rational:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5sRC67s9fg#t=26m25s
You know, I don't necessarily agree 100% with Schmidt's conclusions, but I wouldn't mind so much if he were advocating something he sincerely believed.

But the fact that Lawrence Page and Vivek Gundotra are allowed to keep their pseudonymous "Larry" and "Vic" accounts makes it clear that Schmidt is lying through his teeth about real names being essential to identity. (I agree that these nicknames are better choices for the account than their real names — but that fact runs contrary to Schmidt's position, so either he's unaware of his CEO's real name or he's being disingenuous.)
A lot of it is about brand. First impressions matter.

I'm old enough to remember when Facebook launched with an actual emphasis on privacy. You couldn't even join Facebook as a random person from off the street -- you had to be a Harvard student, then a college student, then a student of some kind. It took some time for the service to open up to the general public at all. Then even at that point (as far as I can tell; I was never much of a Facebook user) your content was more restricted to your immediate circle of friends than it is today. And, of course, friend lists were naturally smaller in those days. When Facebook changed their privacy defaults, it tended to happen gradually, without much fanfare except for revolts among the relatively small number of cognoscenti who knew about the obscure settings screens that most users never even visit.

In other words, Facebook successfully seduced people into trusting them, by starting out smaller and more constrained than they are today, and by almost always speaking with a human voice -- generally, the voice of your good friend who has just invited you to Facebook.

Google, on the other hand, started out as the friendly-but-distinctly-nonhuman omniscient robot who has read everything and indexed everything and can answer any question about anything. Then it watched all our YouTube videos and scanned all our books and memorized all our maps, and it helpfully filed all our email for us, and it got some spy satellites and photographed all of our backyards, and it grew eyes and drove around the city capturing pictures of our buildings (along with the occasional embarrassed passerby).

And only then, after it had established a very strong reputation as the super-powerful arbiter of all world knowledge, including knowledge of every one of us, did the Googlebot throw a party, invite us, and ask us all -- using a voice carefully designed by a team of top-notch professionals -- to be its friend. And to speak clearly into the microphones, so that the after-party analysis team can get a clear transcript of everything we say.

It's all in the delivery.
I wish I could agree with you but for so many people this isn't an issue. It will probably do fine regardless of how us geeks feel about it.