skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You pretty much have to implement it that way. Not only because the canvas can later be shown, as halter73 points out, but also because of the getImageData API, which allows one to extract the pixel data from a canvas that's not being shown any time you feel like it.

Also, a hidden canvas can be drawn to other canvases via drawImage, can be serialized to a data: URI at any time and so forth.

So you really do need to be able to produce the right pixel data on demand. That means either doing the drawing when told to draw or buffering up the drawing commands (which can get pretty complicated, because some of them depend on the style of the canvas at the time the draw happened, so you either have to cache a bunch of style information or flush the drawing command buffer when style information changes or ... something). And as halter73 points out, it's very easy to end up with an effective memory leak when doing this sort of buffering.
Copyright infringement, not theft. Artist's property before infringement == Artist's property after infringement.
Copyright is not the only way to financially motivate progress in culture. Public subsidy toward individuals who have enhanced culture is already a working model, and we've also had institutions like this in the past (even in the U.S. government, see Federal Project Number One).

If people create useful original content, others can reward them so as to promote future development. Donating to your favorite artist or an emerging talent should be the nature of our cultural progress, rather than the selfish strive for exuberant compensation. If money is actually necessary to produce better than what you'd call "mediocre" content, we can establish public systems to direct money for those purposes.

I highly doubt money is so necessary anyway, considering audio and video equipment and editing software are easier and easier to attain. There are kids creating music and uploading it to Soundcloud every single day, giving it away, and forming networks to distribute this content with their friends. Some of them can produce some really amazing music with _very_ cheap equipment. I could produce objectively more sophisticated music in thirty minutes with a kaossilator I've had sitting in my garage for five years, than probably any song in the top-100 charts right now -- sans auto tuned vocals.

I know that's "mainstream" hit piece, but it's true. You can't honestly tell me when you think "progress in culture" you imagine that most of our cultural funding should go toward "artists" who do not actually produce their own content, but rather sell their public image. Somebody with barely any experience in music production can produce a pop song similar to most of the popular content out there. It's all being dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, who is then conditioned to expect even dumber content in the future.

How easy is it for actually creative music to be accepted by a wider audience? Not easy, when the distribution channels are owned by the people representing the distributors and producers of the content. Then the Cable companies also are owned by those organizations too, and it becomes a sick and twisted mess.

Further proof is shown in television. BBC and NOVA and NPR and other organizations have far more accurate and superior scientific and culturally educational programming and journalism, but they're publicly funded. Whereas the History channel probably hasn't played a single history program for years, and runs "Modern Marvels" reruns every hour on the weekend until the next primetime spot for "Ice Road Truckers" opens up. The Science and discovery channels almost never produce unique or interesting content.

These organizations and their strangleholds on our legislative process keep the status quo of copyright intact, even despite grave consequences to our personal liberties, knowing full well that their financial benefit has a more immediate and self-perpetuating impact on society. It's disgraceful.

Why can't a more universal public funding system be embraced, considering we have the technology to do it? If we care about personal liberties and advances in communication, we should take innovative steps in that direction.
>It's too hard to protect the interests of artists, fuck 'em.

It's too hard to protect the interests of buggy-whip makers. Let's outlaw automobiles. It's too hard to protect the interests of barges. Let's outlaw trains. It's too hard to protect the interests of ocean liners. Lets outlaw air travel.

No one is entitled to a living. No one should have to rely on the government to protect their business model. If your business model doesn't work in an Internet-enabled world, too fucking bad. We didn't bail out the buggy whip makers for having a business model that couldn't survive in an automobile enabled world. We didn't bail out the barge and steamboat industry when trains came along. Why should we bail out the recording industry because they can't hack it in an Internet-enabled world?

Because that's what this is. A bailout. This a bailout that dwarfs the bank bailout in terms of the harm it can do to our economy and our liberty. And it's not even a bailout for artists. It's a bailout for a parasitic monster that, as far as I can tell only serves to funnel money from consumers to lobbyists.

EDIT: By your logic, even the recording industry itself shouldn't exist. The recording industry killed off the "home-performance" industry and drastically cut sheet music sales by making and distributing recordings of performances. So who's looking out for their interests?
I looked up "first world problems" in the encyclopedia and found this 30 freakout article. Fascinating.
Would your opinion change if you could debug CS natively?
Links Opening In The Same Window Is Crap
Why would you put "owned" in quotes there?

There's one thing that the OP is indisputably correct about: Content creators (should) own the content they create. When Isee someone do something like putting "owned" in quotes, it just immediately strikes me as someone who justifies piracy to themselves by saying that no one owns content.
Recording industry != art & culture. The recording industry is an artifact of a particular distribution medium (e.g. records and radio). The Internet has rendered both of those distribution mechanisms obsolete. Therefore, unless the recording industry can adapt and adopt new methods of distribution, it deserves to die.

Conflating the recording industry with art and culture (or even music) in general is like conflating Amtrak with the concept of 'transportation' in general. Losing the recording industry won't deny us music any more than the loss of Amtrak will deny us transportation.
I'm still waiting for someone to build a popular whack based interface based on this data. I'd love a photo album where I would tap the side of my screen to advance to the next/previous photo.
Ball with cameras captures a 360 degree panorama [video]
If you say so. I'm not willing to get into that argument at the moment, but let's just say that yes, I fall into the camp that believes it does deprive the artists of revenue.

I play guitar, and I know and play with a lot of small / amateur musicians who literally pay their rent with their artistry.

I find it amazing that in the dawn of all the technology we have at our hands, people would honestly advocate that all of an artist's digitally distributed goods should be 'free', whether they intend it that way or not, relegating the artists to only being able to make money by performing in public shows, and I guess hoping against hope that the pirating public doesn't decide that that is too proprietary a way for them to distribute their music.

Hell, the way it's going, I can see people making an argument for holding artists down while we surgically remove their talent from them so that we can stick it up on the Pirate Bay. :-\
If there's a law that says you can call in the police to drag people away if they don't shut up when you tell them to, it certainly is an issue of freedom of speech.
I would argue that there is an external force in control. Case in point: OpenJDK. There's a group of people who have decided for you what is allowed to run on your system. It was okay for the FSF to decide for us that we're not allowed to run Java on our system because why? Because their cause is righteous? There's a whole host of proprietary software we can't run on Linux because someone else is in control. Luckily a bunch of smart people gave us open source alternatives but what happens when a new technology comes out, becomes widely adopted and arguably necessary for day to day computing but we can't get a GPL compliant alternative?

I'm playng devil's advocate again because I'm all for free software but we can't ignore the problems it has just because we're blinded by some allegiance we have to either Stallmam or the greater FSF.

So while we may have a lot more freedom than the alternatives doesn't the requirement to be GPL compliant actually restrict some of our freedoms? Specifically, shouldnt we be free to choose a proprietary technology and not be treated like children?
Meet the 16-year-old whose Summly app notched up 17k downloads in 4 days
Why should you feel that way?

I've never heard a businessman say "I'm disturbed that artists think they're engaged in a business."

There's nothing more noble about one profession or the other, every path has its place. It's not even worth getting into a discussion about "what is art" here (although I do believe that a creation that comes from your soul and expresses something about who you are and how you see the world to be art, no matter what your medium).
Even if your definition of art doesn't include what someone else calls their art, there is no reason at all to be bothered by that. They're not taking anything away from what you do, so focus on loving what you make and don't worry about how others refer to themselves.
How to stop SOPA in one click.
Well, language detection "problem" frustrates me a lot, because :

- Everytime i visit google i have to change language

- I might be don't care and use it in german ( or some other language ) but this time the results are different than "English" Google.( Local pages that i don't care and i can't read comes first etc. )

Google should take an action in case of inconsistency. If my ip region and my browser language doesn't match, google can ask me if i want to view google in my browsers language. It costs only a few lines of js code but brings a big satisfaction.
That is circular logic and represents all that was wrong in the original article. Copyright, as an institution, implies that ownership of data is possible and real, therefore implying that the data can be "stolen".

People who disagree with copyright as an institution would do so conclusively because they do not believe in the ownership of intellectual thought. They believe that there are better, more progressive institutions for cultural progress. They do not agree that somebody owns the content they produce.

The article stubbornly ignores that assessment and then tells people to fuck themselves if they can't subscribe to failed logic.
Chrome 15 overtakes IE 8 for top browser spot
art has nothing to do with money. The only thing you can do, is find what you love. Once you do that, you practice. You practice every day until your hands bleed, but you don't care, because you love it. Loving something is not instantaneous, it is a combination of chance itself, and a decision to make a commitment to being better at what you do than anyone else. Once you have enough practice, inspiration is inevitable. The problem is, if you are focused on money, you are likely to give up on practice for the sake of practice, and you will be too busy trying to make a buck that true inspiration will pass you by.

Inspiration is a subtle force, and retreats in the face of greed.
Fighting Patent Trolls, the open way
You're right -- the erasure of straight male domestic violence survivors is not an example of heterosexism, it's gender essentialism. It involves the assumption that being male means being stereotypically masculine, and being female means being stereotypically feminine. (Heterosexism occurs when domestic violence survivors in same-sex relationships are erased because the relationships don't follow the heteronormative male/female dynamic.)

> The problem is that talking about gender privilege has taken place entirely in a discussion about sexism rather than a discussion about society in general.

I agree. Because the first waves of gender studies were "women's studies", it made it much harder to discuss topics outside the basic men-oppress-women dynamic of sexism. And even as gay and lesbian studies became more prominent, there wasn't nearly as much work being done on gender roles as they apply to heterosexual males. Most of the work I've seen that's really applicable to the problem is being done either (to a lesser degree) in studying masculinity and femininity in the context of butch and femme lesbian roles, or from a trans* point of view. Some trans men, in particular, claim the right to be considered men and still be feminine or androgynous, and they can approach the topic without the stigma attached to either gay or straight cis men when they broach the topic outside of narrow venues like drag performances. Hopefully this will be the precursor to constructively reconsidering the entire topic and a general fight against that stigma.
Translation on Facebook
Awesome Christmas Easter Egg From Google For Holidays
if you're saying that it's cool to just steal the work

From my post:
Of course, people don't have the right to download content without paying for it.

There is no doubt that people deserve compensation for their work, but if the full value of your effort can be represented as a string of 1s and 0s, then you must accept the reality that computers, the most ubiquitous machines on the planet, are all designed with the fundamental purpose of shifting around 1s and 0s. You simply cannot fight the reality that data is cheap and easy to share without setting back progress.
Mass-distribution recorded music has existed for barely more than a century. Are you suggesting that the only music of any value ever created, was created in the last century?

There are even better (as in, economically more efficient) ways of financing culture production with technology. For example, consider a situation where playback devices were (perhaps intermittently) connected to the internet, were able to track audio fingerprints of music they played back, and had a tax on their sale. The proceeds of that tax could be redirected in proportion to the popularity of particular works. You wouldn't have to worry about sharing or lending. Everyone could consume as much as they wanted to, and there would still be the benefits of competition.

But instead, we have anti-free-market approaches that institute monopolies. And companies have massive vested interests in perpetuating those government-granted monopolies. The purpose of copyright is to incentivize the creation of works of art. Extending the copyright term for existing works has no such justification; but that's exactly what corporations were able to convince Congress to do with the Sonny-Bono act.
I echo this. The stuff on there is mostly rock solid as it is and they keep adding new material. They keep you motivated by awarding you badges as you go through the learning process. Pretty sweet team behind it too; attentive and responsive to feedback.
In testing mode
My suggestion was that the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA be weakened so that you only qualify if you've taken reasonable technological steps to identify copyrighted content. You're right that's not a solution to overseas websites.
15 USD ARM Cortex A8 Linux Computer by Rhombus Tech
it would be cool if GMail and other data sensitive web applications used these APIs so that it would log you out of the web service if your computer had a lot of motion (e.g. someone running away with it).
I’m too lazy to be a HTML developer
I'd say rather that they both have their place. There are 2 idioms at play. "What's next" and "what else". "What's next" -> opens in same window. "What else" -> opens new tab.

Lucky we have both. Use target=_blank when appropriate. Making everything open a new tab would be as big a nuisance as nothing. In the end, its a style thing; a personal matter of taste.
People need to adjust to idea that services need to be paid for. Plain and simple, if they aren't paid for, in full, they stop being provided.

I agree, but that doesn't justify copyright or any other draconian law. We should do away with them and people will need to decide if they want to pay and ensure their survival or not.

immoral

Oh, I love this. You can't even comprehend the notion that people may actually not find copyright infringement to be immoral, can you? Tip: many don't.
I get that completely but one of my major points was that because people are writing the software you'll always run into some problem. People by mature have their views which can creep into software. They also make mistakes which could creep in too. And even though a large community submits code to a single project, the project's creator has final say of what makes the final version.

Now, all the points about these issues being mitigated and possibly eradicated are totally right on. What I'm saying though is that this freedom is only truly an advantage if you take advantage of it. Someone who uses free software but doesn't inspect the source, modify it to their liking, and generally just trusts it might as well have gone the proprietary route. That freedom it gives you is essemtially useless unless you're exercising it to your advantage. Granted, I'll give you that you can pretty much trust most major free software but all I'm saying is that you never know, you could have a back door or spyware in the free stuff and won't know it unless you check. Just because it's free doesn't mean it's safe. I'm wondering how many people are using free software to avoid these pitfalls but never look under the hood and just take the developer's word for it that it's secure. "It's FOSS so it must be secure, right?" is how many may think.
If artists can't be allowed to keep the content they produce, then why should Chrysler be allowed to sell the cars they manufacture, or Coke to make a profit off of its drinks?

I understand that there are dissenting arguments from the propagation of natural copyright, and while I agree that our patent system is horribly, horribly broken, I do not believe that artists should not be able to set a price, of their choosing, for the release of the works they produce.
I just wanted to give you a high five for the photo of the Squishable T-Rex that thanked me for requesting a Recap beta invite.

You made my fiancee squeal with joy.
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/ngd5e/i_am_neil_degras...

Impact of finding Higgs at LHC
NDG: To discover something you expect to be there does almost nothing to advance physics.

This is exactly what I have been saying: finding something that we know is there and likely to fill in the last missing piece does almost nothing to advance physics.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3343661
Helen, thanks so much for the time and comments! They all 'feel' right. Your generosity is greatly appreciated.
Ah yes. The old "you wouldn't download, errr, steal a car" logic.

Classic.
i disagree, noonespecia. "what's next" is linear. that's called a book, not the web, imo.
That's the thing, no one is entitled to free music, either.

Your argument is ridiculous because we're talking about a product that everybody still wants. It's not a buggy whip. It's music. If you don't want it enough to pay for it, then you just don't need to have a copy. Is that really such a hard concept for you to grasp?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"

"limited times". Apparently the US Constitution disputes your assertion. Bunch of pirates, those founding fathers.

More on the "ownership" myth. Just one of many sites picked from google. http://c4sif.org/2011/07/the-mythology-of-intellectual-prope...
It's not just "too hard", it's impossible. You need to control every computer, everywhere, perfectly. One failure is all it takes, then its game over for your protection scheme. Technical people have been trying--and failing--to stop the piracy of computer programs. I've watched them do it for pretty much my entire life and I'm over 30. And piracy of computer programs is, in theory, an easier problem than the one faced by music because the programs have to be executed and they can try to check if they're legit or not, while music is just data. Dongles, type the Nth word on page X from the manual, code wheels, code that breaks when run in a debugger... I can relate to you the entire, long, history of failure and tell you why the schemes do not work and cannot be made to work. It's like trying to watch people prove that 2==1, convinced that they could make it work if they could find a bigger one or a maybe a smaller two.

The techs are upset because the new ways people are proposing won't just fail, they'll create all sorts of new problems in addition to failing.

Nobody hates the artists. Why would they? Artists give us great entertainment! Without the artists, we'd have nothing to enjoy. There are solutions, though. The solutions don't require new laws, they require new ways of doing business. Maybe that's not fair, but I can't help you there. No one can help you there. It's like we're trying to convince one of King Canute's advisers that a more strongly-worded rebuke will not, in fact, turn back the tide that's swallowing up their property and they're stubbornly holding their breath, waiting for a proclamation that works. The way forward is more like using the waves to provide power. Use piracy as marketing. Money comes from other things: signed products, live appearances, merchandising.

There are creative ways to solve these problems. You can even get your fans to help, like that guy I pointed to who holds parties with his fans while they help him ship his books. Anyone who is not doing this kind of thing, but instead holding their breath, waiting for techies, lawmakers or even King Canute to solve them is going to suffocate. It's not fair, but that's life for you. If it could be changed, it already would have.
Big and clever - Why large firms are often more inventive than small ones
Building a Turing Machine Simulator With Ruby (Part 1)
The difference between your examples and the music industry is that buggy whip makers lost because they had an inferior product; who would want a horse-driven carriage when they could have a car? But here, people are still TAKING the music, just without paying. That's the problem.

SOPA isn't the right answer. It tramples on too many fundamental rights for it to be. But to simply say that the music industry should die because the Internet makes piracy easy, that's a bold statement. Within a decade, books will be scanned and turned into eBooks at an incredible rate. It's already happening, but the technology is too slow to make digitizing every book right away possible. But when it does get there, will writers still be encouraged to write? Their books could be so easily pirated. Sure, some might still write. But those who write books on obscure subjects might not find the motivation to write anymore books when their book turns up on a torrent site instantly. And what about when 3D printers and 3D scanners get to a state of mass-consumption? Who will buy furniture anymore when they could scan and build it themselves from pirated blueprints?

There's no easy answer. But to just say "too fucking bad" is wrong.