skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
.NET VM is light-years ahead of anything that
anyone else is doing

No it isn't. Instead I would say that the JVM, which took ages to release version 7 (and we'll probably wait another 2 years for version 8), is light-years ahead of .NET

I'm comparing it to the JVM here mostly because it is oranges to oranges. And as yet another orange, .NET leaves much to be desired.

they're investing in dynamic languages

Not anymore. They've dropped IronPython/IronRuby, while the DLR is somewhere in limbo.

And IronRuby could never match JRuby in completeness or performance. Maybe that's because the JRuby developers are awesome, I don't know -- but there's no denying that the Iron* languages are a half-ass effort.

Even C# rescues ex-Java people by giving them
lambda expressions and local type inference

I wasn't aware that Java developers need rescuing, but those are really old compiler tricks that you can implement by yourself easily on top of anything, including the JVM.

Scala does have such things, and personally I'm happy that people finally discovered technology from the 80-ties.

I do like what they've done with expression trees and Linq2DB, but its performance is not something to brag about (and this is a PITA since the biggest reason why I still use less-dynamic-than-Python languages is for performance reasons).

Java's garbage collection of yesteryear

Btw, speaking of Java's garbage collector, it's so kick ass that no other VM comes close.

And they build stuff like F#, which is awesome

Personally, I consider it a lot more awesome when some dude I never heard of appears from nowhere with a usable LISP implementation (Clojure).

Or when some other guy invents a usable web framework that people actually like, and then all of a sudden people start making clones, Microsoft included (Rails).

I actually like both C# and F# btw.

It's still a bureaucratic language, just like Java, but I like the low-level access that it provides. P/Invoke is a lot better than Java JNI -- but that's the only thing that really bothers me about Java.

And F# is barely usable on top of Mono, speaking of which ...

I am a Linux guy

That you had to mention that, such that we won't confuse you with a .NET developer, says a lot about .NET

The fact that .NET is only usable on Windows has been its major flaw since for me ever since I heard about it. It might as well be the most awesome technology in the world (although that would be a stretch of imagination), but it's completely useless if I can't run it wherever I want.
no flash, no silverlight, NO USEFUL
Out of curiosity, why would you not recommend F# for UI?
I think your example is unfortunate because it involves intelligent decision makers, which could indeed be interpreted as a guiding force.

There are of course forces in nature, namely the laws of physics.
It seems perfect. It's small, usable and looks good. It would definitely would be useful for startups.
first I thought he's serious, and decided to write a comment that I don't think he is right. Now I got the Idea
Food Lovers
Gourmet Free is the only place online you can get free gourmet gift cards, good at your favorite gourmet retailers such as Dean and Deluca, igourmet, Williams Sonoma, Zabar\\\'s, Stonewall Kitchen and more
The easiest way to think about it is this: if evolution has a guiding force, in which direction is it guiding? And before answering that question, think about where most of the biomass of the Earth is found (hint, it's not in us humans).
There's something rational about looking at historical events and asking if it's unlikely, likely, or strongly likely that they happened at all.

For example, I have heard of a handful of Germans today who for one reason or another say the Holocaust never happened. In light of the thousands of eye witness accounts, is it sensible to say that?

Another example, there are atheists today who for one reason or another say the Resurrection never happened, and not necessarily because they have ever looked into the historical primary and secondary sources.

In light of the hundreds of people who died at Roman hands in the 1st century, refusing to recant that they had seen the risen Lord, is it sensible to label their testimony a delusion, or inherited from their parents, without any thorough investigation at all?

As for those who had seen Christ themselves:

"I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles. Last of all, as though I had been born at the wrong time, I also saw him. For I am the least of all the apostles. In fact, I'm not even worthy to be called an apostle after the way I persecuted God's church."

"And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead."

"But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep."

Are the New Testament sources primary, accurate, unbiased, trustworthy? When were they written? Have they been corrupted or do we read them as they wrote them? How many sources are there inside and outside of the New Testament? Are they independent? Are they coherent?

Here are some people who have tried to address these questions:

Paul Barnett, "Is the New Testament history?" (http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-History-Paul-Barnett/dp/...)

FF Bruce, "New Testament Documents" (http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Documents-They-Reliable/...)
37signals.com - Evolution of a homepage
This is absolutely right. For any movement, there are those that take an uncompromising extreme view. This is not to appeal to the other side, but to move the goal posts as far in their direction as possible. Think Stallman, Nader, Ron Paul.

They serve a purpose to the movement -- providing arguments that can be crafted by those that seek to convert and making others seem less extreme by comparison. One attribute that they must have to perform this effectively is to never compromise, and instead to keep pushing the envelope.
You can use it for a while, maybe a long while, without the source code.

But if you have the source, you can keep it going forever, rebuild a community of committers, add bug fixes, security fixes, new features.

Move to new architectures, add new abstractions, build your business on it without worrying that someone will arbitrarily try to kill it off...
While it's true that it'll never work against you, it could fail to work -for- you. In that case, it has technically worked against you because you failed to realize the potential of the meeting because of it.

It all comes down to knowing yourself, your business, your clients, and your clients' businesses.

If you can't tell when to wear a suit or not, wear a suit. If you can tell, you don't need this advice.
You might want to mention P VS NP is similar to the following scenario: people feel they can identify a piece of art (say a painting) as being of merit very quickly just by seeing it; but won't be able to come up with any piece of equal merit even if they had all the time in the world.
Show HN: Teledraw.com, a web-based drawing game
http://www.teledraw.com/

Hey guys, we've been working on Teledraw.com for the past 5 months, and when Doodle.no.de came out, we pushed hard to show you our take on the telephone drawing game as well. Let us know if you have any questions or feedback.
Why not believe his statement that he has no desire to support Mr Craigs self promotion?

It just goes to show that the issue won't be resolved by logic (arguing logically about religion, which is the epitome of irrationality, seems doomed from the start anyway).

My main gripe with Dawkins has actually always been that he spends too much time arguing with senseless counterarguments. I wish the evolutionary biologists would rather invest more energy into developing more insights, rather than arguing the same old tired arguments of their enemies again and again.

Edit: for what it's worth, I would actually be interested in what arguments Mr Craig would like to present. I checked his web site, but an article about "The God Delusion" that I found was behind a paywall (or at least "become a member wall").
:'( There's nothing that precludes us from exposing a SOAP interface.
http://feedbackroulette.com already does something very similar.
Intel announced new chips for incredible battery life
Does Tux Like to Move House? (case study)
Open source fits "pay it forward" very well. I'm a little surprised that it wasn't mentioned.
I fail to see how receiving 70 cents per e-book sold is a radically worse proposition than seeing $2 for every on-dead-treebook sold.

You know what you call an author's principle source of income? A day job. This is true for the overwhelming majority of authors and has been since time immemorial. A change in market power from publishers to Amazon will not wipe out the stunningly lucrative career option that being a midlist author was.
Ignoring Dawkins for a moment, I think those here naming Christian scientists as examples of how science and religion are compatible are missing the point. Science isn't about the people who practice it and it's not about beliefs. It's about the scientific method - theory tested by and derived from repeatable experimentation. And there are no Christian scientists who apply the scientific method to their own religious beliefs, for obvious reasons.
Of course not. But it does show that there intelligent rational people who are at the top of their field (science) do not believe them to be incompatible.
Unexpected, but not without precedent. XNA on Xbox/Windows Phone 7/Windows, Unity3D across its range of supported platforms; it'll be interesting to see with Sony come up with.
Clickable: http://www.teledraw.com/
> Does the violence against blacks [...] not serve as an example of a "mainstream movement violently opposed to human rights and democracy" within the Christian faith?

I think so, yes. Have I given you reason to believe I would have liked to exclude that? I apologize if I didn't express myself clearly enough. My point was not to single out Islam and/or to absolve any other religion. For the record, I don't have a stake in any of them, either.

> I honestly have no idea how the tenants of that religion affect, say, caste violence in India.

Neither do I. I think we're on the same page here, just maybe looking at it from different angles. The majority of my post could have been expressed as "what does mainstream mean, anyway?" I did express a belief that violent preachings and principles do have an influence on the behavior of the majority of believers, however. The way I see it from the outside, "moderate" Islam is still pretty radical because it is still in opposition to the principles of a free society. But it's wrong to assume that I wouldn't apply the same reasoning to, say, the Old Testament or whatever. It's not a zero-sum game, one religion's horror does not automatically make the other ones better. And of course, even a peaceful religion can breed violent fanatics.

Coming back to the article itself, I think that the FBI would do good to look at the content that is being preached at individual mosques, because I do believe there is a correlation from this to violence perpetrated (not only terrorism per se, but also things like domestic violence) - and to reserve judgement based on some definition of what's mainstream. And yes, I would suggest the same scrutiny for the Westboro Baptist Church.
Java Concurrency Tutorial – Semaphores
+1 for this one: <cite>The process of designing a responsive site is a lot different than what we might be used to. It really needs the iterative approach and live prototypes to work with. I think this type of design puts a definitive end to the “should designers know how to code?” debate. If you don’t know how it works at its core, there’s no way you can make something good.</cite>
http://www.chem.gla.ac.uk/research/groups/protein/pert/safir...
Sure, the fundamental issue then maybe is, should humans be made to function according to some system? I seem to have some fundamental aversion against that, which makes me reject religion as much as communism.

I mean at least if said humans don't reflect on what they are doing. If they have come rationally to the conclusion that some action is the best, sure, go for it. But religion puts some authorities in charge of programming other people.

For instance, why not just drug everyone and make them docile slaves? I am sure such a society would function very well, so why not do it?

Nature of course doesn't care - a society running on religion is just another ant colony (mindless agents acting out a system). Maybe the system prevails, maybe it doesn't.

The harm I see is that religion prevents adaption and evaluation of new strategies, which might lead to peril in a lot of circumstances.
Looks great - really good idea, thanks for making it.

Not sure if it's just me, but it doesn't display the full page when showing me someones site to review - it shows the top third and then just grey space (using the latest version of Chrome on a Mac).
Atheism doesn't necessarily remove all meaning and purpose in life. It just removes any divine purpose(s) in the process of removing God.

That said, I've never been impressed by reductionism. It seems presumptuous to assume you can use one form of intelligence (logic) to understand absolutely everything else about the world. You can describe the aesthetic sense via chemical reactions that take place in the brain, but that doesn't take you any closer in understanding it. In other words, we don't expect experts in processor microcode to tell us anything novel about functional programming, do we? Of course not: FP's concepts are implemented via the microcode, enabling FP to concern itself with much higher-level abstractions. And the things that FP 'thinks' about are quite different than that of a processor.

The other thing that bugs me is often the new atheists are so angry on the Internet. Angry about how everyone won't change. Angry about how much religion has done. And it is justified anger, sometimes. But if we use their line of thinking, there's only one life to live -- why waste it in anger? Why try to convince everyone? You've already admitted they're all stupid, right? It seems like there's this reluctance to just let go of that which cannot be changed.

I've been angry for a good deal of my life, and I'm just writing this as a cautionary note. Be very careful. Humans don't seem to tolerate anger for very long without side effects.
"They were the beginning of the Pay-It-Forward culture, the unspoken Valley culture that believes "I was helped when I started out and now it’s my turn to help others."

That's not how I interpret "pay it forward". I understood that to mean "I have done a good deed to you, now you do a good deed for someone else". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_it_forward

The examples given are about mentoring and cooperation. Different, but heart warming nonetheless.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979... Those quotes are pretty telling.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071221015548AA... And the Bible, for good measure.
I just can't get vim's modes - I'm constantly unintentionally entering keystrokes in the wrong mode, especially when I'm concentrating on what I'm doing. Of course emacs also has annoying modes, e.g. if you change your mind half way through a key combination, you are stuck in a mode. Ctrl+G gets you out of it with the result that I'm constantly pressing Ctrl+G in emacs before I do anything to avoid the sting of keystrokes being thrown away.

I'm still waiting for Jef Raskin's modeless editor (there was a project called Archy which is now abandoned).
+1. I can't draw a smiley face. Plain old graph paper has had a huge impact on my ability to put together satisfactory mockups. I have a pile of it sitting right next to me in fact. :-)
This.

Most people don't realize that the vast majority of authors -- even your J.K. Rowlings, Stephen Kings, and John Grishams -- make their money over a big volume of works, rather than on any individual work. Amanda Hocking, with her much-storied, self-published millions, is no different. She didn't get rich off a single book; she got rich because she cranked out 20 bajillion books at once.

If anything, the new economics of publishing will push things further in this direction. The pressures of this market will favor prolific authors over one-hit-wonders. It's debatable whether that's a good thing or a bad thing for authors and, ultimately, readers. You could certainly describe it as the fast foodization of the book world. But the new dynamics would simply represent an acceleration of an existing model. After all, the John Grishams of the world were already massively richer than the modern-day James Joyces of the world before Amazon showed up. That's not a new or particularly startling phenomenon.
Right, and they can gauge interest easily and anonymously without requiring me to tell them specifically that I am interested in it.

I value my privacy and find it silly that I have to log in. They offer no information as to why I must log in, I am just hit with a log in page. If this were under an NDA or something and it was an agreement into which I entered willingly, I would not be so opposed. As it is, they are simply farming my data and I don't like giving that up freely.

I think there is the growing problem that most people are increasingly willing to divulge their personal information, specifically online, and then have a backlash at anyone who doesn't feel comfortable doing so. It's trivial you say, just as it would be trivial for me to be forced to show identification whenever I get on a bus, but that doesn't mean I am going to be alright with doing so. Like the argument that only people who have anything to hide advocate for privacy. This example may sound a bit extreme but it is essentially the same argument.

Anyway, you're entitled to your own opinion, but I don't think it's going too far to be perturbed at giving up some of my privacy to look at an API.
Whether or not javascript is analagous to assembly language, I find 'compile to javascript' frameworks such as GWT, GWT-Ext, Vaadin and Thinwire very compelling to use and allow for a consistent and cohesive presentation layer in rich web apps. Unfortunately all of these great platforms are Java based and I would really like to see the same approach adopted for other languages.

Some people just don't like writing plain javascript, myself included. But then I do generally develop UIs which more or less behave like desktop applications, so the value of being able to plug in a few preset components is much more attractive, if I wanted a very customised feel to the components I used I guess it would have to be native javascript.
Dear Google Plus, Facebook has Struck Back. It May Be Over
I think that is because the introduction is set in the past, when open source wasn't on the horizon yet.
And what happens when .Net4 needs changes in order to evolve with the current ecosystem of products and platforms? Or just to run at all? That's right, you're shit out of luck. You go and learn a new tool and hope it doesn't happen again.

With Open Source you can always modify it to fit your needs, long after the original creators stop maintaining it.

I suggest you actually learn the difference between proprietary and open source projects before attempting to continue in this discussion.
Taking logic to absurd extremes doesn't prove it is wrong in general, it just proves it is wrong at the extremes.

Look at games on the iOS App store. Would anyone sell a polished game for $1 back in the day? No way! A game is worth $20-30. Yet developers are making a killing selling them for $1, the minimum allowed price. And yes, this does hurt the people who think they need to charge $10 for their game, because they think there is only a small market. But that doesn't mean the people charging $1 are wrong.
That's rather interesting actually - nice bit of reading - thanks :)

I did kind of passively think that more syntax was not the way to solve these problems but shrugged it off. I've been slightly worried about the complexity of C# after some awful decisions (nullable types for examples).
Hi, the author here. I think the last sentence you wrote sums it all up in a nutshell. However, most people just take the risk and show up like cowboys in first time meetings.
You can't continue to evolve Windows 95 by yourself.

Nor can most organizations continue to evolve open source project X.

try running your .NET 1.0 installer on an ARM-based Windows 8 machine and tell me if it works.

Same is true for OpenOffice or whatever.

The fact is that the vast majority of uses are not capable of contributing to open source code, let alone a complete, regression-tested port to another platform. For practical purposes, there is precious little difference between FOSS and proprietary software for most users: either what is currently available works for them, or it doesn't.
Those are the same things no? If you were helped out then someone did a good deed to you, now you repay the favor by doing a good deed to someone else.

It's just 'out of phase' with respect to the starting point but otherwise perfectly equivalent. Like a co-sine wave looks just like a sine wave...
True, but surely the reason is not that there are no religious believers who have applied rational processes to the question of whether there is a God (or gods) and have concluded that there is - but rather that the scientific method is a method that is only suitable in certain domains.

It's easy to equate 'the scientific method' with any sort of 'rational' evidence based approach, but the term has a specific meaning.

We don't apply the scientific method to solve murder investigations for instance, or to solve math equations. Similarly historians don't use the scientific method to determine what happened in history.

It's not that the choices are the scientific method or ignorance -- it's that the scientific method is not applicable in many of the domains that intellectual religious people have mined to conclude that theism is more likely than atheism. Many Christians point to the historical evidence for Jesus for instance, see (former Prof) Richard Bauchman's 'Jesus and the eyewitnesses' http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-... or Prof Licona's http://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Jesus-New-Historiographic... 'The resurrection of Jesus - a new historiographical approach' or they have considered philosophical arguments (see what Alvin Plantinga has written for example).

This is not to argue that science and religion are Non-Overlapping MagesteriA (NOMA) as Gould argued, clearly there are overlaps (whether the first humans came in to existence along with the universe 6,000 years ago is a pretty clear example of overlap), but many of the arguments intellectual theists give for thinking theism is more likely are rational, just not scientific.
I think it's because VS UI visual designer generates only C# code and doesn't work with other languages. Anyway you can build UI in C# and the rest in any .Net language you prefer.
Tomar agua para bajar de peso
Apparently no-one knows how to do this for NTFS - I got no response in ServerFault.

If one moves a step further, and compares how ZFS handles bad sectors (checksums, auto-healing, etc) with how the black-box of NTFS works... Yikes.
Raise Your Hand If You’re Still Using Google+
华夏模具加工网