skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
From your point of view, I'm actually browser-independent. An amazing value.
I'd add Knuth to the list of "very smart, and yet religious" people.
Exactly this. Also, because their public rationale for this policy is so obviously bullshit. If they're willing to lie to me about this, what else are they willing to do?
I love SVG, my current gripes are:

1. Patchy support. If you stick to the most common parts of the spec its ok, but there is no comprehensive test suite, and only Microsoft seems to be interested in test coverage. Import stuff that Inkscape can render to a browser and you may get issues. Opera is better than Firefox and Webkit.

2. No CSS transitions on SVG properties, so it is back to Javascript for animation.

3. No support in Android 2.x. Or WebOS.

4. Server side rendering of a fallback image (especially if you use css styling) is a pain. Maybe there are good solutions I havent found yet.

5. It is a big spec, I feel that some better learning resources would help.

Do love it though...
Because I see bits of them in myself. An example: my sixth grade teacher math teacher frequently said that good mathematicians were lazy, that the simplest solution to a problem was often best, and that we didn't need to use overly complex techniques to solve problems. That's now at the core of my philosophy as a programmer.
The Atlassian 10 commandments for startups.
He could have done a lot of things to embrace cultural marxism, but he didn't because he's not trying to beat around the bush or avoid hurting the feelings of the easily offended.

It is not Dawkin's job to make you feel good about yourself. His life's work isn't about your, or anyone else's, comfort. It's a search for truth in the hope of a better future.
There is a huge preponderance of "religious" people that have made great scientific discoveries. Dawkins' argument is the same as everyone else who doesn't believe in "God". So what? Dawkins is free to believe in what he wants as is everyone else.
We CakePHP on our flagship product, which is a government level enterprise application.

I used to use codeigniter, but there are too many things that (in my opinion) should be done for you, that you have to do yourself.

Codeigniter is a great first framework also. Much easier to pick up than CakePHP, or Zend.
As a Flash games developer, I don't think I have a real reason to worry about (not that I don't know how to target other platforms, just that currently I use and like Flash). Flash still provides the best experience for browser games (though Unity is damn good too), and now it can target iOS, Android and Blackberry. And from the tests I've done, it runs well in those (granted, a few things that work well in the desktop can't be done without killing the performance in mobile, but nothing vital).
Why desktop computing failed
As a person who works with MS frameworks let me answer you.

First, despite your proclamation I've almost never felt left behind by Microsoft. Even as someone who has done WPF/Silverlight work, I actually find Windows8 and WinRT deeply comforting. It uses the languages I know. The main difference is it adds some new namespaces for me to use. I think people not familiar with WPF/SL think that those who know it now are left with a dead skill set, but the reality is that everything you know about it is still applicable.

There are few technologies that MS has deprecated that I haven't generally been in violent agreement with. In fact, sitting here I can't think of any. There are several that I think they should have never introduced, but I find it hard to be upset with a company that tries things, some of which I think aren't necessarily the best, and moves on.

I'm not sure if this "no plug-ins" idea is the best, from an end user perspective, but as a developer I'm perfectly happy with it. I've already started writing some Silverlight... I mean Xaml WinRT apps for Win8.
have you seen http://www.textasticapp.com/ ?
This may be a bit of a tangent, but personally, I can't understand Dawkins' crusading attitude about religion.

If I believed, as he does, that there is no God, that all wonder and amazement and desire and love are merely chemical reactions, and that all consciousness will die with the universe, I wouldn't bother trying to convince others of it.

"You should believe this because it eliminates all meaning and purpose in life." Hey, great sell! I think I'd just eat, drink, and be merry before I died. Who cares what others believe?

If you're a Christian (as I am), you believe you've got good news to tell others. If you're an atheist, what's good about your news, and what difference does it make to tell anyone?
I use my own domain at $5/year. Their description is a little opaque. I think what they're offering is for them to manage your domain.

I set my mail at my registrar to forward to my fastmail account. I set my client (Thunderbird) to use fastmail's smtp for outgoing, and to identify me as me@mydomain.com in the From: and ReplyTo: fields. Exactly what I did with gmail. Easy Peasy.
HTML5 boilerplate isn't exactly minimal. By design, it includes the "kitchen sink" which developers are expected to customise. There's now a customiser to choose what you need, and also http://www.initializr.com/ formore minimal builds.

Relevant because HTML5 boilerplate has been insanely popular, though I realise what you're talking about is specific libraries.
I know a few young earth creationists (who are much less common in the UK than the US I believe). I wouldn't say any of them were stupid or rationally impaired. Most of them are quite intelligent, but they are often uninformed scientifically about evolution.

The impression I get is that in the US there is quite a lot of anti-evolution 'information' put out by the YEC organisations, some of which /looks/ scientific. To those who are not properly trained in such things it will be hard to tell the difference. Also for most religious people (in the UK at least) it's not a big issue so they have not put any time in to looking in to it.

I work at a biological research institute in the UK, and my former group leader (an atheist) was extremely angry on one occasion about Dawkins. When I asked him why he said it was because Dawkins tries to use science to advance his atheism, leading to religious people feeling that they have to choose between science or religion. While for some they will choose science and become atheists, more often this leads to people rejecting science, and he was annoyed that Dawkins turns so many young people from religious families away from science.

It's clear that religion in general, and Christianity in particular are not obviously incompatible with science (and particularly evolution) given organisations like Bio Logos http://biologos.org/ and the Faraday Institute http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/index.php
I'm not saying this is the case, but I think maybe the difficulty the tech crowd has with these new "easy" interfaces is exactly that, they are easy. If everybody can easily use a computer (tablet, phone etc), never looses their files, never picks up a nasty virus, then they don't need us any more.... We lose our exalted position of power as one of the enlightened who "know".

Don't get me wrong. I regularly drop back to the command prompt, and hate having the flexibility of a full system taken away from me. But I also hate that feeling I get when random relative calls up to ask for help with their latest tech disaster. I hate it that configuring operating systems so that they are reliable, robust and functional is almost impossible. I hate it that the operating systems still get in the way of just doing the job.

We're hackers, hobbyists and enthusiasts, we want the computer to be in our faces, that's what we do. The vast majority of users however, hate it when they have to put up with the crap we think is cool just to read an email, or write a document.

Can't remember who the quote is from but it goes something like this,
Technology goes through three stages,
simple with limited functionality,
complex and unreliable,
simple and reliable....

I have a feeling that we have started to reach the end of the second stage.
It may be that I haven't kept up, but doesn't evolution require a guiding force of some kind? Speaking purely scientifically, of course.
I came from an electronics background when I first started reading algorithms my head was spinning. And I am sure a lot of other novices/laymen from the same problem.

The reason I have seen over the years is simple. Expressing the problems in terms of mathematical equations. Mathematical equations some how denote a way of modifying elements through equations. They tend to build on existing established principles of maths. There fore in order to understand what the other person is saying a person must get into a high learning curve.

When I first read about P Vs NP problem, I really wasn't able to co relate it to anything in the real world. Later on as I read more on puzzles like The Bin packing problem, or the traveling salesman problems. Things began to make sense.

The way to explain people about such things is to give them problems defined in simple English. And then allow them to build their own way of representing objects and elements, and the way they choose to modify them. Like this article does, However while explaining to people start from very small input sizes. Help them work out outputs for large input sizes.

Given the problem at hand, explain them why such large computation time doesn't make sense in the physical world.

Representing the problem in pure math will never help the guy next to your home. Giving him a day to day use case, will force him to think.

So here we go, what all common every day use cases fit into the P Vs NP problem? If we can create such a list, a lot more laymen can think and build on those problems easily!

Is there such a list lurking somewhere?
I for one, agree with arctangent. Unfortunately it seems to be a common trend here at hacker news, assuming that everybody could take a theoretical physics PhD while washing clothes by hand on some swamp in africa or india. I don't know why. Do many believe that they can look intelligent simply by stating that complex things are accessible to anybody?
I'm getting tired of everybody talking about how their four year old kids implemented Lisp. Or how simple is to do things like computer programming.
There are way more important things in life that I want my kids to prioritize at young age than computer programming. But then again, I'm a country boy, so I guess you can call me old fashioned.

On a personal annoyance note: when did 'coding' became cool again? I thought 'programming' was an accurate accepted word. 'Coding' is so 1997.
The Real Preople Myth
The author's claim seems to be simply false; his post explicitly says (quoting Sinofsky):

"In Windows 8, IE 10 is available as a Metro style app and as a desktop app. The desktop app continues to fully support all plug-ins and extensions." (emphasis mine)
Add also Larry Wall.

"Perl [is] a biblical reference to the "pearl of great price" (Matthew 13:46)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Wall#Accomplishments
I don't know what cultural Marxism is, but if Dawkins wants those 40% of Americans to change their beliefs or even just question them then the point of my blog post is that calling them stupid is unlikely to be the right angle to persuade them of a different viewpoint or to even hear what he has to say next.
If you really care about low latency, get a dedicated server. You will even get better specs if you spend the same money. There are amazing deals out there, like this one:

https://robot.your-server.de/order
Steve Jobs on Intelligence [audio]
Hey ban.jo looks great!
That review completely weirds me out. Atheism does not have it's roots in the 9/11 attacks, nor is it 'new' by any definition. Sure, Dawkins wrote 'The God Delusion' chronologically after 9/11. But that doesn't mean his views were much different before then, he's been an outspoken atheist pretty much all his life.

As for the blatant attempt to tie all atheists to Nazism that's a first-order Godwinning right there.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11332515

Ahteists are no more violent than religious people, I think they're people just like all the others, you can expect something of everything.

I hope the book is better than that that review lets on.
Further to this, I've found this excerpt from Richard Feynman's "Is Electricity Fire?" in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!:

And then one day—I guess it was a Saturday—I want to go up in the elevator, and there's a guy standing near the elevator. The elevator comes, I go in, and he goes in with me. I say, "Which floor?" and my hand's ready to push one of the buttons.

"No, no!" he says, "I'm supposed to push the buttons for you."

"What?"

"Yes! The boys here can't push the buttons on Saturday, so I have to do it for them. You see, I'm not Jewish, so it's all right for me to push the buttons. I stand near the elevator, and they tell me what floor, and I push the button for them."

Well, this really bothered me, so I decided to trap the students in a logical discussion. I had been brought up in a Jewish home, so I knew the kind of nitpicking logic to use, and I thought, "Here's fun!"

My plan went like this: I'd start off by asking, "Is the Jewish viewpoint a viewpoint that any man can have? Because if it is not, then it's certainly not something that is truly valuable for humanity... yak, yak, yak." And then they would have to say, "Yes, the Jewish viewpoint is good for any man."

Then I would steer them around a little more by asking, "Is it ethical for a man to hire another man to do something which is unethical for him to do? Would you hire a man to rob for you, for instance?" And I keep working them into the channel, very slowly, and very carefully until I've got them—trapped!

And do you know what happened? They're rabbinical students, right? They were ten times better than I was! As soon as they saw I could put them in a hole, they went twist, turn, twist—I can't remember how—and they were free! I thought I had come up with an original idea—phooey! It had been discussed in the Talmud for ages! So they cleaned me up just as easy as pie—they got right out.
Pricing page is 404.
Cached here, though obscuring the lower end of the price range:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Y7ZEmSC...
Willfully ignorant.

I understand both points here: JGC is correct that stupid is the wrong word for what Dawkins is talking about. Dawkins believes that there are a class of people who have shown themselves to be incorrigibly ignorant.

Someone who is stupid would be incapable of learning the facts involved. They should not be treated with disdain; it's not their fault.

Someone who is ignorant, doesn't know the facts involved. They should also not be treated with disdain; they don't know any better.

Someone who, despite repeated exposure to factual, repeatable knowledge chooses to remain ignorant… that's who Dawkins is disdainful of, and I don't blame him. And while I happen to agree with his view on the willful ignorance of Creationists, it is important to note that those selfsame folks would consider him willfully ignorant of the glorious truth of their god.

Ideally, Dawkins would leave out the name-calling altogether, but it's an awfully convenient shorthand to say that someone who is willfully and incorrigibly ignorant is, in fact, stupid. It just happens to be unnecessarily inflammatory and too much of a shortcut.
Maybe you could start a spreadsheet on Google Docs. :)
His treatment is indeed shallow, and he knows it. This is demonstrated by his unreasonable reasons for not debating William Lane Craig on this very issue:

William Lane Craig, Richard Dawkins and the Empty Chair:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1ldYmg0lpE

Edit: Digestible summary of the issue: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Daw...
Thanks for your input!

From the get-go, we've targeted users with serious compute-intensive needs. These users from both academia and industry generally do what we call "scientific computing." A couple examples are oil companies doing immense amounts of geophysics simulations, and bioinformatics laboratories in universities doing comparative genomics; we'll be posting a guest blog entry in the next week on successfully reducing the time of sequence alignment from 20-25 hours to less than an hour. Other examples include neuroscience, astronomy, seismology, weather analysis, and protein folding.

As time has gone on, we have noticed two sizable class of users who we consider to be non-scientific. The first are the risk analysis divisions of financial firms who run Monte Carlo simulations in their never-ending endeavors to determine their portfolio's risk profile. The second are web companies doing all sorts of background processing: video encoding, feed aggregation, social data scraping, and analytics of all sorts.

The REST feature is an experiment on many levels. In the short term, it helps our existing users utilize PiCloud without Python, which is very important in companies with large polyglot codebases (read: Java). In the medium term, we want to see whether there's adequate interest from web and mobile companies who require serious scalability, and thus are interested by how we entirely divorce their algorithms from their servers. In the long term, we want to see how far we can take the idea of "publishing" a function; there are many users out there who would love to share their algorithms in working form but lack the programming know how and computing hardware to do it.

To answer your other questions: We're releasing a BigData a la MapReduce solution for our users in the coming months. Also, Python has a strong scientific computing community primarily because it interoperates very well with existing C/C++/Fortran code via extensions. In most of our use cases, Python is being used as a wrapper for C code, which is doing the heavy lifting. PiCloud, unlike many of the other background processing services, allows users to deploy more than just Python or Ruby code. We used to allow this through a "package upload" system, but we've recently just replaced it (in beta) with the ability to fully customize a file system environment (apt-get away!).

Our users are able to access their databases, often times without any code modifications, from PiCloud, which means their Django models work just fine. If their database resides on EC2 us-east, then the performance hit is minimal.

We just did a quick non-scientific check of our enqueue time from an EC2 us-east server to PiCloud. A cold start (first job) takes 900ms (It could take longer depending on what needs to get transferred), but once the connection has been made, enqueue takes around 86ms, and as the system heats up it reduces to 50ms.
I'd argue that F# is especially well-suited for a system with tons of components talking to each other. You have things like async workflows and message-passing built-in, along with the ability to do everything C# can do. I've been using F# to write such a system and I prefer it greatly to C#.

The only .NET thing I would recommend C# over F# for is UI.
So you think religion does no harm at all?
Although I understand what your are trying to say here.

But the problems you tend to describe never exist in the real world either. What I mean to say is, you can never be Boolean sure about anything in the real world as you can never control all the parameters yourself.

Which in case you are always going to measure things in percentages like x% safer or y% safer.

I guess that's what the parent poster tends to imply.
Could HTC Succeed with its Own Open Source Mobile OS?
Google suddenly blocks paying developers from accessing AdWords API
Seems an unnecessary clarification to me since it doesn’t add anything. I’ll admit, however, that I am particularly fond of his boldness because it’s a good way to create awareness - which I think is his intention.
Bhutan Tour Packages
Your good news is that atheists are going to burn in hell for eternity.

My beliefs don't eliminate all meaning and purpose in my life -- that's just silly to think about atheists. I am trying to make a difference with my life, not because I expect some reward in the afterlife, but because of personal drive to make the world better.

When I see a person suffering, I don't think, "It's ok, because when they die, God will take care of them" -- I think: "Holy shit, we need to do something about this right now!"
What a delightfully simple and useful app. I could use this all day long.

Thanks for making this.

Edit: I keep getting the test site asking me to skip. Maybe you should remove it?
Because Atheism is not a lack of ethics. My dad is an atheist and I'm a Christian but we're both concerned with the truth. Many atheists grew up in homes where the parents enforced a very strick household so they are trying to end what they see as a form of oppression.

Either way, I wish these types of discussions would stay off HN.
That's not inherent to Flash, it's just an idiosyncrasy of Flash developers. It can and probably will change.
Installing Windows 8 on a MacBook Air
Great question.

When Facebook started, Real Name policies weren't needed because the purpose was social networking on a college campus. A few "joke" profiles were created but, in general, non-RN profiles were ignored and therefore harmless. By the time Facebook officially set a Real Name policy in place, it had established momentum and a (somewhat negative) reputation.

The reason for the moral double standard is that people love Google and hate Facebook. Google's motto is "Don't Be Evil" and the company has done an admirable job of following that policy. Facebook is expected to be "evil" (in the Microsoft sense, not the Pol Pot sense, of the word) so a heavy-handed RN policy might disappoint people, but it's not a surprise.

What's actually behind a Real Name policy isn't "evil" so much as a bizarre and unenforceable mandate: You Must Use This Utility As A Social Networking Site. It's a very mandarin attempt to impose culture from the top down, when we know from experience that culture is emergent and can't be imposed on people without pissing them off.
The Pay-It-Forward Culture
Good point. It is quite typical for atheists to argue logically about whether its rational to believe in the existence of God given current evidence and so on. But for most religions people, the attraction of religion is the social context, traditions and rituals and the feeling that things happen for a reason and there is a fundamental purpose for everything.

Some atheists seem to believe that people follow religions because of their belief in some of the religions dogmas - so if you can argue that the dogma is wrong or irrational, people will realize their folly and stop following the religions. But it is the other way around. People believe the dogmas because it is part of their religion.
Jacauna moveis
Se você quer entrar em contato com a Jacauna pode também pelo site fazer isto pelo atendimento online, outro diferencial da jacauna moveis.
I'd wait to 2012 for pure SVG solutions, considering it's not in Firefox 3.6 (or IE8).

Having just upgraded to 6.0, I respect the wishes of anyone needing to stick with 3.6.x for awhile longer.

Although, there is this http://code.google.com/p/svgweb/ ( http://codinginparadise.org/projects/svgweb/samples/demo.htm... )
Except for the fact that Islam does NOT advocate violence against non-believers, neither does Christianity, and I highly doubt Hinduism does either, but I'm less knowledgeable about that one. The Arab leadership, and the Muslim extremists are perverting the Koran to "prove" their ideals much in the same way the American Republican Party is perverting the Bible to prove theirs.

Where there's power to be taken, nothing is sacred. As long as we give these extremists even the time of day, they are winning.
Steve Jobs once said that Apple and Microsoft are 100% of the PC market and if they agree on something it becomes a standard. These days we need to consider Google too. Anyway, it looks like HTML5 just became the "official" standard.