skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The javascript does all the parallax motion of the shadow and adjusts the box and text shadow blur based on distance of "light source" from content. So the CSS and JS are rather intimately linked for the full effect. This is just the web nerd in my jabbering away. ;)
Thank you for making sure the site is readable even though javascript is disabled (I mean this sincerely).

Edit: I would also like to point out that disabling javascript on wikipedia's page does not display the blackout and lets you continue to use the site (apologies if this was mentioned before)
What do you mean? Burn Notice typically has two plots running at once (the plot that advances the overall story arc, and then the per-episode plot where they help someone), and they like to switch back and forth between the plots frequently, but they never show them at the same time.
It's the same with Photoshop. If Photoshop had perfect DRM (or if users would selflessly follow EULAs), then I am sure we wouldn't be stuck with Adobe's terrible monopoly and insulting usability.

I see why it won't happen: Many pirates can't wait until a 99% feature-compatible competitor emerges. People who don't want to buy Windows or Photoshop can also not just throw money in a Kickstarter pot instead (imagine how much $$$ that would be?!) - I can't see a good competitor emerging without iterative market forces.

A tragedy - I would love to work full-time on a killer product pitted against either of them, but I just can't see how it fits into the scheme of the market. :(
The difference being that using someone using your identity fraudulently legitimately has a real, tangible impact.

..You could also make the case that it deprives you of the ability to use your own reputation.

If I copy something of yours, the impact to you is zero.
There are also these other ways to get around it:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_SOPA_blacko...
I'll sidestep the tired but true arguments about why copyright infringement isn't stealing, and take a more pragmatic approach:

First off, even if your assumption is true, it would only mean there would be no more movies created in the way Hollywood creates movies today. There would still be movies created by passionate filmmakers. Secondly, I think your assumption is wrong anyway. Hollywood could make movies that would get people in theaters. It would require better movies and probably better theaters. Pirates will have a hard time competing with a good theater experience.

Remember, home video was not an original part of Hollywood's business model. Cinemas were. In fact, they have fought every new form of home media, heralding it as the end of their business, and then eventually adapting and making tons of money from that new media. It takes time, and they haven't quite managed to pull it off yet with today's new home media: high speed Internet access.
We are hosting a discussion about #SOPA tonight at TooTchat. Come and join us. http://bit.ly/AiomgP
I've been pretty happy with T-Mobile and lucky that I get good coverage.
This is great. Very happy that he found a perfect donor. Hope all the operations go well.

Kudos to his friends and other people for helping him find the match!!
Perhaps the threat will dissipate over time, despite the electorates limited attention span, since the electorate is continually voting with its eyeballs and brain space?

Murdoch (and ilk) are terrified of the Internet, as it dilutes their influence. Once their influence dilutes past a certain point, people and politicians will stop listening to them. Is SOPA the beginning of the end, a final effort at shoring up their power base before reaching the point of no return to influence?
ArsTechnica: Lobbying for the 99% (disclaimer: I helped build this site)
I did that just for you in particular. I did it so you would call your congress members and tell them you oppose SOPA. And you made those calls for me, right? :p
If your goal is to defeat SOPA like legislation, please consider researching the Libertarian party and its candidates.
There was an actual real-life crime episode involving that, look up Andrei Chikatilo, the police and a real trouble catching him because of mismatching blood types.

I'd give you a wikipedia link, but apparently I can't use google cache.
SOPA: Obama could pay for decision in Hollywood cash
Hmm, I guess when I think about composite keys I think of ways to indicate a specific field/column as being part of the key. Data duplication along with string concatenation aren't really an elegant way to do it. If I remember right you also can't update the key values once the record has been saved. This is coming from a big SQL guy though :)
Even if you're right and SOPA doesn't apply to youtube (that I doubt) The most important take away message is that it doesn't matter if the site is illegal It is sufficient that some copyright-holder thinks it is illegal.

Of cause large corporations will make deals behind the scene or battle in court and their sites will continue to operate. It is similar to software patent situation.

Effectively SOPA is a tool to shutdown any site with a user-generated content at any time. Companies can use it to crush their competitors; government -- to stifle political dissent.
A lot of people who believe in God, can credit human discovery and science to the God given ability to learn things.

This isn't a place for this discussion so I am not going to go further into this. We should all be happy for Amit and anyone who finds a 10/10 match. I know I was thankful for my donor.
> Think about artists that tried pay-what-you-want model. A lot of people pay $0. Some pay $0.10. But a lot pay $0.

FWIW, the only album I've paid for in years was a pay-what-you-want deal. I paid something like $3. Which was all that was left in my bank account after I paid my rent and bought groceries for that month - I'm a college student.
Sure, the case you're looking for is Dowling v. United States. I'd give you a Wiki link, but..

The general gist of the case is that a man made a business out of pressing and selling Elvis records without distribution rights. Because of this, he was indicted for (among other things) distribution of stolen property and conspiracy of the same.

The supreme court struck down all of the stealing charges, with an opinion that (and I'm paraphrasing from memory here): "Copyright implies a more complex set of property interests than simple theft".
Civil engineering as a practice is at least 4000 years old; as a professional degree, about 200 years. Lots of dams failed before we became good enough at building them to license people and place liability on them for failing.

The first software engineering BS degree in the US was offered 16 years ago (at RIT, if you're curious). The most senior web developers in the world are within 20 years of the most junior.

I won't argue for a lawless internet, but I also don't think locking things down to the same level as other professions is a good idea. It will stifle the growth and change the field must go through.

If you want a model for what regulation of online security does to a nation, look no further than South Korea. 10 years after the government required using a certain encryption mechanism for banking and commerce, 99.9% of users are still forced to use Microsoft Windows and Internet Explorer -- because the only way to meet the regulatory requirement is an ActiveX control.

http://blog.mozilla.com/gen/2007/02/27/the-cost-of-monocultu...
I wonder how the world would look like if everything had a copyright limit of 15 years instead.

Would we be better off, or worse?
> but isn't it just common sense that some proportion of those people who download content for free would have purchased that content had they not been able to download it for free?

Probably some portion very close to 0%. It's a hard problem to define without having unfiltered access to everyone's mind. Regardless of what measurement you use, I suspect things like DRM, slow download speeds, slow shipping, bad cinema experiences, etc. have caused more loss in revenue than piracy. I also suspect that for many forms of media (particularly music and software), piracy has been a significant contributor to many producers' success.
Anand reviews the Galaxy Nexus && ICS
That's why you need new models to promote and monetize movies. Piracy without compensation is of course not viable, but so is not the current "overcharge for zero-cost-digital copy so we can pay exorbitant promotions for mediocre movies" (e.g. avatar's 1/3 of the cost was promotion)
The DMCA obviously hasn't killed the internet, but it is having some subtle and (IMO) pernicious effects on our culture. I wrote about some of them in this post on the Atlantic Tech Blog: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/the-st...

Here's the relevant excerpt:

An interesting example, as Ben Fino-Radin reports, is YouTube's removal of a video that incorporates spammy metadata into its conception as artwork.

> The video, likely known to most readers, features Cortright mundanely clicking through the stock effects of a $20 webcam, gazing bored into the screen of her computer, trance playing in the background. Far from offensive content. The violation lies in Cortright's use of keywords. The video description contained 733 keywords, ranging from "tits, vagina, sex, nude, boobs" to "san francisco, diego, jose, puto, taco bell, border patrol, mcdonalds, KFC, kentucky fried chicken, trans fat".

Andy Baio investigates another vector on which emerging art and culture are colliding headlong with proprietary services and broad legislation. YouTube's necessarily automated and algorithmic enforcement of copyright simply cannot make distinctions about fair use, and as a consequence is in some sense destroying the notion altogether. Mashups, remixes, and cover songs are routinely taken down with very little recourse for users.

Here's another interesting Andy Baio piece about someone who put up the movie Pulp Fiction in its entirety in chronological order:

A couple things struck me about this video.

First, I'm surprised that a full-length, 2.5-hour very slight remix of a popular film can survive on YouTube for over six weeks without getting removed. Now that it's on Kottke and Buzzfeed, I'm guessing it won't be around for much longer.

But I was just as amused by the video description:

> "The legendary movie itself placed into chronological order. If you'd like me to put the full movie itself up, let me know and I'll be glad to oblige. Please no copyright infringement. I only put this up as a project."

These "no copyright infringement intended" messages are everywhere on YouTube, and about as effective as a drug dealer asking if you're a cop. It's like a little voodoo charm that people post on their videos to ward off evil spirits.

http://waxy.org/2011/12/no_copyright_intended/

Or there's the recent incident in which Universal issued DMCA takedowns of a youtube video that they had absolutely no rights to: http://searchengine.tvo.org/blog/search-engine-blog/audio-po...

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111209/14234917026/univer...
> I want daily backups of my wiki data. Can I do that with this?

Yes. We back up hourly, and we give you a way to get a full html zip dump with a single http request.

> Similarly, where's the source? / Where's the install for private wikis, such as a company's private internal wiki?

Hackpad is not open-source but would a jar or VM you can run internally do the trick?

> Plugins?
Nothing yet - we hope to make something

> What is preventing wiki spammers?
Private instances are invite-only (or can be setup to automatically let people with certain email domains in), there's also revision history etc.

>Themes?
Not yet.

>I see that groups are 'private' based on my invitations to them, but how can I be sure this isn't easily compromised?

Hackpad always runs on https and we take security seriously. Outside of that as I said - if there's interest we may offer a jar/vm you can run inside the firewall.

Thanks for the feedback / questions!
Uhm, a 95% re-election rate is not a 5% chance of getting fired ever. The chance of being re-elected N times is (1-0.05)^N, so the chance of not being re-elected N times is 1 - (1 - 0.05)^N. For N = 10 (a nice twenty year run in the House), that's only ~ 60% chance of being re-elected each time. For N = 15, it drops to 46%. I think that's actually pretty reasonable, you've got enough security at the beginning to allow you some latitude but not so much that you stop caring.
Ssh. Private. ;-)
There is a great deal of what functional languages can do that isn't (yet) being absorbed—especially from the statically typed areas, where you can statically verify things like the length of lists using GADTs or other impressively strong compile-time guarantees—but the bits that have been absorbed are useful enough and general enough that those elements of functional languages are already conferring huge benefits to 'mainstream' programming. I suspect that, by the very nature of 'mainstream' programming, it tends to absorb some but not all features of other paradigms, leaving things that are strongly esoteric aside but still grabbing useful features. This happened before with object-oriented programming, where the Java/C++ world incorporated somewhat watered-down elements of Smalltalk. We still don't see full-blown message-passing OOP in most mainstream languages, but we see enough useful features of OOP to make a difference.

I don't know, in general, that they're the "most useful" if utility is defined as conferring the ability to write better programs more quickly, more understandably, &c. But they are "most useful" in the sense that they confer such benefits with a minimum learning curve and with little deviation from the already understood mainstream programming paradigm. For example, monads are an incredibly useful feature, but the (perceived) barriers to understanding are high enough that no mainstream language will feature them as centrally as Haskell does.

I don't mean this as a sleight against anyone, at all—merely as a description. There are a lot of useful things which are outside the purview of the mainstream, and there's no reason to expect that nonetheless useful features of fp will necessarily make it into the mainstream. (And there are certainly cases where functional programming as a whole, and not just cribbed features, is desirable and advantageous, as in Jane Street's case, so I do hope that more non-academics come to see it as a valid paradigm for certain tasks.)
My family got by for a long time on a legal XP + MS Works. They then had to pirate the real MS Office because teachers at school only accept PPT files, and OpenOffice's export was too broken.

I buy all my software but I still can't really blame them.
At the low end 40$ a month * 12 month/ 40$ a show / year = 12 shows. I don't know about you, but I don't think many people watch that much TV excluding reruns. But, I do know plenty of people that pay 100$ a month for cable.
A farmer has successfully been prosecuted under the -Interstate Commerce Clause- for growing his own wheat on his own land for his own use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

It never left a state, it never left his farm, it was not for sale, it is definitely not interstate commerce, yet he violated the interstate commerce clause (reasoning was that if he had not grown his own wheat, he would have had to buy some, which would affect the market, which would affect interstate commerce.)

It's because of things like this that cause people to interpret legal language in the worst possible imaginable light - 'very difficult' has happened many times.

So I think it's quite reasonable to assume that at some point Youtube and Facebook will be found to be "...marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in offering goods or services in a manner that facilitates [illegal things]"

One ad that says "Post comments without logging in!" would be sufficient to meet the letter of that language. You really think this is a 'hyperbolic threat'?
Well seeing as we have different degrees of murder maybe we should have a sliding scale for stealing. While stealing physical content deprives the seller and the creator digital theft only impacts one party. Also since the majority of an items physical value comes from inflation from middle men the "value" of a digital item is probably considerably less as well.
I currently have this problem with a Windows 7 machine I bought from eBay. I can't activate it and I have a black desktop (sorta annoying) and two or three different things that pop up periodically to yell at me (incredibly annoyingly, especially the one that makes an obnoxious error noise). This situation is definitely my fault - there are a few possibilities for where I went wrong:

1) maybe the guy I bought it from was not legit - I asked him lots of questions before going through with the purchase but that's about as much as I could (or would be willing to) do,

2) Using what I believed to be the correct, legal process, I created an install disk and looked up the key for my existing OEM install, which I used to reinstall a fresh instance without any of the HP nonsense the machine came with,

3) For a couple days I had an install using the same key on a VM to test something with IE9.

Any one of those things could be the problem and they were decisions I made, Microsoft didn't force or manipulate me. But here's the thing, at the end of the day what I have is a really obnoxious machine and if I had just bought a Mac (off of eBay even!) or installed Linux instead, I wouldn't have to deal with any of this. You're right that the Microsoft experience isn't so bad, if you follow the rules you're probably going to have a bare minimum of hassle, but it is still so much worse than the competition on this front.
This article is a bit sensationalist, I would definitely enjoy having such a feature if I was driving through an unfamiliar city... from what I can tell it simply rates areas based on crime stats. However, I can appreciate the point that if this sort of application becomes widespread it could potentially perpetuate crime/poverty etc. in already struggling areas.
The argument of efficiency is stupid. Of course I can do a better job distributing hot dogs than the hot dog guy if I just put out a massive table of hot dogs I got for free and let people run up and grab one without paying for it. But that model doesn't work if I have to pay for my hot dogs.

If you invest millions of dollars in movies or a music album, you have to charge money to make it back. As we can see from Spotify and others, ad supported models do not pay enough to cover the high costs of creating expensive products. But of course alternative revenue is enough to pay for the costs of selling something that doesn't belong to you and costs nothing for you to distribute. And once you have to charge, of course people will prefer to get it where they don't have to pay. It has little to do with convenience. The number one thing that will impact the conversion rate on a shopping cart funnel (besides SSN) is asking for a credit card, regardless of how few seconds it takes to fill it out. People are wary of putting their card in online, they're lazy, and they're cheap. You're not more efficient, you're just catering to the lowest common denominator of people.

There is virtually no reason why companies could not distribute products the way TPB does, except that they'd still have to charge money for those products. The minute you do that, someone who gives away hot dogs they didn't pay for wins. To pretend like it's some noble effort is a joke. You earn your livings off the backs of people who make things people want. Try charging your users for the things you offer and see how long your "more efficient" platform does well.

Sure, people will go on and on about how they get higher quality files, whole discographies in one click, and blah blah blah. Most people do not do that and they still pirate things. Taking things you didn't pay for and selling them cheaper than someone who did is not more efficient. Just start calling a spade a spade so we can move on and talk like adults.
He lost the election in 2010, but his term ended in 2011. He became CEO of the MPAA two months later.
Dean Baker Gives Senator Leahy an Economics Lesson in IP Theft
Creative Commons have a pretty good piece on this under their CC0 info at http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0.

I'd be very interested if anyone knows of a genuine situation in which one can't disclaim the IP rights one is offering up in a CC0 license (some aspect of moral rights?). I'm thinking of the possibility of problems with heirs-in-title, or somesuch, choosing to assert a right that their successor (the work's creator) wished to give up ... but really I can't see why an heir should be allowed such a right.

?
That's a really interesting take on it - thanks so much for responding. I never thought about how all of the issues with trying to stop piracy could have decreased revenues as well.

Really wish we could get some numbers on this to see if your arguent has backing.
I was using the definition on wikipedia. Quoting from that page;

> Examples of club goods include private golf courses, cinemas, cable television, access to copyrighted works, and the services provided by social or religious clubs to their members.

Also this definition on econport.org;

> Club Goods: Goods that are excludable but non-rival, or non-subtractable. This means that while certain people can be excluded from the consumption of a good, one person's consumption of it does not diminish another person's.

The point is; people say copyright violation is stealing, is isn't stealing, and arguments occur. To have a good conversation about it, it's useful to distinguish club good from private goods, because then we can talk about the difference between "unauthorised access to a club good" (piracy) and "unauthorised posession of a private good" (theft).
Here are the senators seeking re-election this year. Asterisks indicate those who are newly opposed to PIPA.

Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Tom Carper (D-DE)
Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Ben Cardin (D-MD) *
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
Jon Tester (D-MT)
Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Bob Casey, Jr. (D-PA)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Joe Manchin (D-WV)
Richard Lugar (R-IN)
Olympia Snowe (R-ME) *
Scott Brown (R-MA) *
Roger Wicker (R-MS)
Dean Heller (R-NV)
Bob Corker (R-TN)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT) *
John Barrasso (R-WY)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
This is a fine and very important point that has gotten too little coverage. It seems all the arguments here come down to a philosophical argument about how much control over others (the consumers) should we, as a society, agree to exert?
I would normally leave this as is, but adding the C-m at the end is non-trivial so I wanted to give a more proper example. You're right, it should be:

!tmux send-keys -t right 'rspec %' C-m

Notice the C-m is not quoted.

Definitely want to give a big +1, but it's really cool/useful to know what's going on under the hood.
John Carmack mentioned OCaml and Haskell at the last QuakeCon (on the topics of game scripting and static analysis), citing performance and hiring issues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zgYG-_ha28 (1:10ish)

I'm not sure about the performance issue. If it stays within a reasonable (low single-digit) factor I think the hit is worth the quality guarantees you can get out of it. The hiring/education issue is probably the #1 reason so few attempts are made in this direction.