skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That's splitting hairs in a way that makes you deviate from standard usage of the term. Physicists say things like "the speed of light in water is lower than the speed of light in a vacuum".
Some background on integer overflows:

http://www.fefe.de/intof.html
ps: On an ending note, leave this message about your region -

(What does your region think about Collaborative Consumption?)
i.e I live in <_______> part of the world, people here think this <______> way about sharing X,Y or Z.

This will be an useful thread for all Entrepreneurs working on this Collaboration model -

To know social behaviors of users in other regions(Thinking of launching your idea that best fits in some other niche market).
If you can send data a little into the past, compute something, then send the result back to the beginning, you can do an infinite amount of computation in a finite amount of time, just by reusing the same time over and over again. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Closed_timeli...

edit: OK, this blows my mind (from https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Tachyon#Speed):

It has been argued that we can avoid the notion of tachyons traveling into the past using the Feinberg reinterpretation principle which states that a negative-energy tachyon sent back in time in an attempt to challenge forward temporal causality can always be reinterpreted as a positive-energy tachyon traveling forward in time. This is because observers cannot distinguish between the emission and absorption of tachyons. For a tachyon, there is no distinction between the processes of emission and absorption, because there always exists a sub-light speed reference frame shift that alters the temporal direction of the tachyon's world-line, which is not true for bradyons or luxons. The attempt to detect a tachyon from the future (and challenge forward causality) can actually create the same tachyon and sends it forward in time (which is itself a causal event).
> In case of errors (s)ome functions are returning 0. Some are returning -1.

That's not a feature of the language.

The inconsistency is a natural, expected, unavoidable result of the language forcing, er strongly encouraging, use of an unsuitable error reporting mechanism ("find some value in the range of the function's return type that isn't in the range of the function, and use it to indicate an error"). This wouldn't be an issue with exceptions or tuples / multivalue return like some languages allow.
Well it is not the happiest day of my life. I first had this idea when I was looking at these pics on my hard drive and mobile that were years old and yet I had never shared them anywhere because they were just private bits of my life. That is when I read more about it and laid my hands on "Total Recall" and that gave a whole new dimension to the idea.

I am kind of sad actually when I realise that when in say a month from now I launch the product, people would think it was inspired by FB or is atleast something similar.

That said I think merging apps and everything else out there is a bit tricky since what you end up remembering about your life are moments by people and cherishing the experiences. Not by what song you are listening to, what movies you watched and stuff. Or maybe that is just for the emotionally bent folks like me. So we will see how people respond to what is essentially a very natural way to cherish our lives.
Most of the time ... the scientists keep the data secret

Um, no. There are plenty of data being released, and in even more cases the scientists are happy to give you the data if you ask. It's very dependent on discipline, though. In astronomy, pretty much all data obtained with publicly funded facilities (e.g. including all large space instruments) are accessible by anyone after a proprietary period of 1 year.
Yes, I've looked into that. Much better than the standard walking tours with a (mis)guide dressed up in pre-Industrial garb. It's a very interesting concept for those interested in trying something new, but maybe hard to get over the fear-factor for the average tourist, who mind you, won't hesitate to fork over $32 for a tour in an aging water bus.
You could've cloned the repo and started hacking on it in the time it took you to write that.
Fees not mentioned:

chargeback processing fee?

refund/credit processing fee (or is it $.30/ea)?

If you'd like to answer, that would be great. This is a serious sales lead, even though PayPal has you beat on the percentage.
We're witnessing an increased vibrational rate of photons; it is, for those who are ready, a beginning of a higher density experience.
You will not be disappointed then by what we are cooking up.
This is really awesome.

Reminds me of a game a friend and I back in college for stylus tablets that was essentially Pokemon, but where you had to draw your Pokemon before you could battle with them. This was for a class in pen stroke recognition, so we spent all our time inferring the "skeletons" and "body features" of your Pokemon, and never actually made it to the "game" part. It was cool, though! Once you had the skeleton, you could animate the monsters in fairly cool ways (to simulate attacks, dodging, etc.). You could also infer the "stats" of the monster based on how fat its limbs were, how much armor it had vs. how many spiky bits, etc.

Might be a cool project for someone, now that this kind of thing is possible on the web (and now that touch interfaces are ubiquitous).
Not really. The reason the idea of fixing c as the speed limit is that the number arises naturally as the speed of EM waves from Maxwell's equations. Briefly put, these these equations are valid in all frames, the Galilean speed addition rule has to be wrong and c should be standard in all inertial frames.

So you can't just use c for "the highest speed any particle can have in vacuum".
Only upvoted because I don't understand why people downvoted this comment.

Its one thing to disagree or have different opinion but this guy was not rude, offensive, or ignorant with what he said.

If you don't agree reply with a counterpoint or just don't upvote.
> Because the board in older companies usually consists of people with MBAs from expensive schools who just don't get technology (

Is that true?
here's your chance to get a data point.

Show me which people on HP's board hold MBA's

http://h30261.www3.hp.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=71087&p=irol-g...
The Promise of the Web
Famous people often have to deal with unauthorized biographies.

Unauthorized autobiographies are a little rarer and less excusable.
Spend smartly. Find Compare and Buy
No matter you are a student, working professional or a retired employee, money and time are very important. With the rise in desires and needs, it is very common that we tend to shop a lot and become shopaholic than Workaholic. But the ongoing recession times actually are making you to learn that a buck saved in turn will save your life. Yes, this is the situation in the present era. It is just not just only the big markets that are suffering this blow, also from a common man to children everyone are victims.
But to a lay person that statement does not mean the same thing as for a physicists. To a lay person it sounds as if literally the photons slow down. And I bet that a lot of people repeat this statement thinking that light actually slows down.
Anyone remembers VA Linux around here?
#define int double
Scientists reconstruct movie clips from the mind
AT&T: Sprint has been lying for months about motives for opposing merger
Keep in mind that given that they said a few billionths of a second that the adjustment to c would be on the order of:

(5 nanoseconds) / ((732 km) / c) = 0.000204776269 percent

update:
AP says it's 60 nanoseconds so

(60 nanoseconds) / ((732 km) / c) = 0.00245731523 percent

Also in different units:

((60 nanoseconds) / ((732 km) / c)) * c = 16 479.1646 miles per hour

Interestingly, the earth moves about 60,000 miles per hour in relation to the sun, could this be explained by frame dragging / Gravomagnetism? This is pure speculation only because the numbers are with in the same order of magnitude.
<sarcasm>

I thought that was was google did? Hiring Asbergers (Autistic) programmers is pretty much the norm, no?

</sarcasm>
I just downloaded an html version of facebook profile before deactivating the account. It's got almost all the content you could call yours in it and it's presented in an easy to use way. You don't get everything, but it wasn't nothing.
This is it in a nut shell. While the ramifications are hard to predict at this moment, they are huge. E=mc^2 prob won't effect practical physics that we deal with on a daily basis. but as far theoretical physics the impact is enormous. time space fabric warping, wormholes (existence, creation and artificial stabilization), how fast the universe is speeding apart, our calculations for where things are in our solar system and beyond and a whole host of other things physics relies on the formula to calculate.

what i am most excited for is the possibility to travel faster than the speed of light. conventional theory dictated that the more mass you have the more fuel you would need to break the lightspeed barrier, however the closer you approach the speed of light the more fuel you would need therefore increasing your mass infinitely putting you in a perpetual null loop.
but if that equation changes and we know that there are particles that travel faster than light speed limit we may have to re-examine this theorem. Especially with new power sources being discovered on the atomic and quantum levels. The splitting of those bonds if harnessed yield promising potential. Not to mention the existence of antimatter which releases catastrophic amounts of energy when in contact with matter. We can't seem to find any right now so were limited with how much we can make which is a miniscule amount. Limits the production seem to be on a physics level as opposed to a technological one. But who knows if the speed of light is up for discussion almost anything can be in a table.
Agreed.

https://github.com/cosimo/TicketServer/pulls
No, it's correct. The light actually gets slowed down in material (anything else than a vacuum.) That has nothing to do with observation, it's an actual physical effect. The speed of light in a vacuum is constant and so is the speed of light in any particular pure material (like a pure gas.) It's just that those constant speeds are different.
This is iPhoto events, at least for me. I call it my wayback-machine :)
I agree with this completely. It's one thing for the concept itself to be hard to understand. It's another thing for the concept to be simple, but proper execution to be tough, frustrating, and prone to error.
The Calculus of Remarkability
Has this sort of conglomeration been succeeding in technology? The big example is iTunes but Apple is such an outlier everywhere that I don't know whether it generalizes.
"FB as a utility" can happen only if they maintain their humongous userbase.

Nobody signs up to FB "because I'll have a single-sign-on identity to use somewhere else"; they sign up to interact with their friends/family/peers, play silly games and post pictures of their cats. Zuckerberg has to constantly throw them a bone to keep them sweet while he goes spreading "Like" buttons and SSO apis through the web.

The way he's managed to eat Google's lunch for five years, by coming to the SSO problem from a completely opposite trajectory, is impressive and quite cunning in its own way. I do believe however that in the long run G+ will probably do to them what IE did to Netscape.
If this result is valid then it would mean that neutrinos are capable of traveling .0025% faster than light. There was a supernova that we observed in 1987 (SN 1987) that occurred 168,000 light years away from us. A neutrino burst was observed in 3 different labs about 3 hours before the light was observed. If neutrinos are capable of traveling .0025% faster than the speed of light then why would we observe these neutrinos at a time that is consistent with them traveling at almost exactly the speed of light (slightly less due to their finite mass)? A difference of .0025% would correspond to the neutrinos arriving 4 years earlier! This is the first experimental contradiction to this result that pops into my head but there are probably many more.

Plain and simple, this is most likely due to a systematic error in their experiment that isn't being properly taken into account. The result would tear apart well established theories that have been tested time and time again in thousands of different ways. Of course that doesn't mean that they're absolutely right but it does mean that any contradictory result has to be initially taken with a grain of salt (kudos to the article writer for doing this). It's easy to mess up a calibration in such a complicated system and 60 nanosecond errors could potentially pop up. It will be interesting to see the results from other labs but I would advise against getting your hopes up for any new physics.
I think the notion that a company such as HP could be led by someone who is not irrefutably passionate about technology is flawed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meg_Whitman Nothing about her bio suggests any sincere interest in technology.

I think this line is interesting "She believed the site to be confusing and began by building a new executive team.", and indicative of how she could bring a new level of suck to HP.

"Whitman organized the company by splitting it into twenty-three business categories. She then assigned executives to each, including some 35,000 subcategories." I might short HP.
Yup... our backend allows for that but we haven't built the connection to any foreign platforms just yet.
The risk being that the so-so idea ends up succeeding later.
The Men who Crashed the World - Part 1 [video]
How to Cure Stress Before it Kills You
Google Chrome Blog: A new New Tab page on the Chrome Beta channel
> Light travels slower through gas, water or glass.

There is a good description of what is going on in this Stack Exchange post:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13738/propagation...

It explains why saying "c is the speed of light" makes sense, because when we say light is traveling more "slowly" through a material, we are including the time spent interacting with the material, being absorbed and re-emitted.

I'm bristling a little at your statement that "the speed of light is not constant". Imagine two men walking at the same speed from A to B. But one of them is walking in a straight line, while the other is zig zagging. It would be fair to say that the one walking in a straight line is travelling from A to B faster, even though they are both moving at the same speed. The speed of light is a constant, it is just that light travelling through a medium doesn't necessarily spend all of its time travelling in one direction.
I've seen code that does things like "Foo &foo = * ((Foo * )0);" (possibly split among multiple statements). It seems to work fine, I suppose it's really undefined behavior?
Skype retained its value and even became more valuable, but that doesn't mean it made strategic sense for a marketplace / e-commerce company.
Keeps the idiots away, though
A queue is a queue of things.

On an only vaguely related note, this reminds me of something from college. I was helping a friend of mine who was taking an intro to programming class. It was in C++, and he had been given a class outline for a queue, and was required to fill in the implementation. I was horrified to find that the teacher's class declaration used method names "NQ" and "DQ".

I honestly question whether the instructor even understood the meaning of the word 'queue' and how 'enqueue' and 'dequeue' are derived. It was obvious that this cutesy shorthand completely obliterated any hope of my friend ever making the mental connection between the code and what it conceptually represented.

(Incidentally, they also taught C++ streams for I/O. Apparently, their goal was to prevent new programmers from succeeding)
Do you like the Facebook updates? Vote
Better cd with autojump
paypal used to until around a year ago when Amex forced them to stop. that said i'm a fan of what you guys do
That sounds more usable. I'll have a look into implementing that.

Thanks heaps =)
IMHO, the only problem with teach pointers is that professors try to dress them up. Not understanding a pointer typically means not understanding the basics of the underlying hardware. This touches on one of the common problems today is that software has been split away from the hardware that runs it.

I'm certainly not saying that anyone who writes software needs to know the ins and outs of a modern CPU, but basic knowledge of how a computer works (memory, CPU, DMA, mmio, etc...) is what's often missing when talking about low level programming concepts.
It shows how bold Jobs was even when Apple was on the ropes. This was the same year he needed a $150M investment from Microsoft to keep from running out of cash and he was willing to close the most profitable part of the company because it was not how he wanted to sell to people. The authors big quote is from Jobs in 1997 "Fuck the channel. we don't need the fuckin' channel"

That is exactly how I feel as a B2B customer. Companies that sell through "the channel" have beautiful web pages showing the products and absolutely no way to find out how much something costs. You need to get a call back from a salesperson who wants to figure out who your customer is so he can "add value" right up to the limit of what you will pay. I have begged with these guys to just give me an order of magnitude: "Do you sell for $100, $1000, $10000?"
Zero Emissions Jet by William Brown
Based on the form of the Bar Tailed Godwit, a bird that holds the record for the longest none-stop flight,
I say you are incorrect. Read this: http://physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae509.cfm

Here is a relevant piece:

When light enters a material, photons are absorbed by the atoms in that material, increasing the energy of the atom. The atom will then lose energy after some tiny fraction of time, emitting a photon in the process. This photon, which is identical to the first, travels at the speed of light until it is absorbed by another atom and the process repeats. The delay between the time that the atom absorbs the photon and the excited atom releases as photon causes it to appear that light is slowing down.
>I'd like to see more CEOs put their money where their mouth is and take the majority of their salary in options, and I think the board should require that.

That simply incentivizes CEOs to pump stock prices and not create long term shareholder value; moreover, the market can be unpredictable and if the stock price gets manipulated by dear Mr. Bernanke, why should the CEO be punished?
This is one of the funniest stories I've read in a long time.
Scientist rarely keep the data secret. It's the basis of peer review. There's a reason why open access journals (PLoS One) are getting so popular, scientists want to be known and publish. In my experience, ego is a currency much more valuable than money in academic circles.
Damn you for undermining my snarky comment. Cheers.
Andy Samberg imitates Zuck at F8 (video)
Why does the link title claim that the result is at the LHC? The LHC is not involved in this story at all.

Edit: other than the obvious reason of "linkbait", I mean.
Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. I have no idea how I'd be able to implement that from with in the same rails application though. (But I'm sure it's possible!)

I can see I have a lot of homework to do =)
The result would tear apart well established theories that have been tested time and time again in thousands of different ways.

That's what makes this so exciting!
"Material" is made of smaller things, which I think the GP is getting at. The actual photons that travel from electron to electron and such don't get slowed down; they effectively travel through a vacuum that is the tiny spaces inside molecules and atoms.
Limousine Party Buses in CT
This is not particularly the case. Things with git are initially implemented as shell scripts, as a way of "just getting it done", but are later migrated to C. These days a very large portion of Git is straight C.
So the question is if you want to live your life on Facebook are you also willing to document your life on Facebook?

What comes next? Genealogical charts? Medical records? That's not how I want to use Facebook.
I have my grandmother's family tree research, which I could wax poetic about, but... it's kind of illegible, and only made sense to her.
FBI Arrests two Suspected LulzSec and Anonymous Hackers
_why the lucky stiff has done exactly this all along, and became a legend in the Ruby community. As long as your pseudonym is on par with the image you want to give (e.g. not "RockDeath3000" if you plan to do half-serious work) and your virtual identity is consistent across websites/blog/GitHub so that people can recognize you, I can't see why it would be a problem. :)
I don't think the difficulty stems from an inherent inability to learn a concept. I think the difficulty occurs largely because of two factors: lack of interest and intimidation.

Have you ever had to read something unfamiliar that you found incredibly boring (think reading a patent application)? You end up reading the same page over and over but you absorb very little of the information. Your mind just moves through the words but doesn't make the effort to understand what was being read. This occurs simply because you don't have enough interest in the material at hand.

Seeing how intimidation can factor in this is a bit more difficult. You can usually see this by watching someone try to solve something that they think they can't solve. A lot of times people in this situation make a lot of half hearted a attempts but rarely follow through. I think this is similar to how people struggle when they are put in a situation where they need to make a really open ended decision and get overwhelmed by the options.

Edit: clarity
Well, the LHC is at CERN and this happened at CERN.
Earbits (YC W11) Goes Social with Facebook Music
"Facebook used to be more of a social network for finding people you don't know, and now it's a social network for the people you know."

That's because within the first couple years they figured out that over 90% of their users were primarily using it to connect with people they already knew. (And these were the folks who were both early adopters and college students.)

Also, if you design a social network around meeting new people then that network will cap out relatively quickly and die due to 'triadic implosion'. This is where person A is friends with person B and C. Once person B meets person C, the open triad becomes a closed triad. I forget the exact percent, but once the closed triads are more than a certain percentage the entire social network dies. However, networks that are designed to connect you with your existing friends don't run into this problem.

Also, designing the social network around your existing friends is more conducive to generating lots of new content cheaply and often automatically by using exterior behavioral residue, which is essentially what this new update is all about. Originally Facebook was designed around the existing social science combined with Zuckerberg's intuition, though at this point Facebook is mostly designed around its own proprietary social science that has been created for internal use. In the short run they are maxing out their stickiness before the IPO, though in the long run it wouldn't surprise me if they ultimately undermine their original appeal by straying too far from the basics.
Agree. Announcing abandoning products weeks after release, and selling off its primary business without a buyer, and then this. They show they are running out of ideas. Maybe the board needs to get fired too.
So true; I welcome the addition but I don't expect it to revolutionise Facebook!

Though I disagree that any new feature is a good thing :P
Phase velocity vs group velocity.

Yes, thank you. Why did it take me so many words? :)