skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If comparing browsers is the purpose, then the author should not put WebM and H264 in the title.
From the article:

>>U.S. to maintain two carrier strike groups in the Gulf region, where they can support battle operations in Afghanistan, anti-piracy efforts and other missions in the area.<<
We've had clean, green, safe, carbon-neutral energy for nearly 60 years. Too bad people have been misled into being afraid of it.

It's called nuclear power.
Don't laugh. He's right.

With the right setting (no fancy costumes, no fancy sets, no tough-to-reach locations), the right setup (digital HD camera and ~$2000 computer to edit and render SFX if any), and unknown actors you can make a film that would be indistinguishable from Hollywood quality (without any famous faces however) for low tens of thousands of dollars.

Also, there is plenty of great talent that hasn't "made it" in Hollywood, and that talent is probably artificially cheap.
The BSA is a lobby for the shrink-wrapped software industry, which is even more in competition with the internet services industry than the movie industry is.
WRONG! Clean Tech and Green Tech are not scams, they are investments in our future. Just like any other technology the US has invested in. Like any investment some are good and some go south.

If you want to complain about our government "wasting" money and trillion dollar money grabs look no further then the Department of Defense: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/03/13/opinion/13opcha... (note the numbers in this graph are in billions, not millions)

Solyndra was a rounding error in what the US Government wastes on defense.

VCs are like the government, they only win when companies win. Just like the government VCs loose many, but win big on a few. Government wins when the companies they "invest" in create American jobs. I am not even going to go into you putting "simple" and "tax" next to each other in the same sentence.
Font.js
Who said anything about communism?

The French revolution was ultimately a huge success that robbed countless monarchies of their power.

Instead of requiring teachers to slave away on wall street before they teach, we should just pay them for every pupil who goes to them.

Let's organize society based on simple scientific observations instead of having faith in the superrich masters of the world. Your faith in the superrich reminds me of an evangelical Christian having faith in their god regardless of how bankrupt that god has shown himself to be.

It's time society arranged itself according to the wisdom of the scientists instead of the authoritarian superrich and their evangelical slaves.
I couldn't agree less. User's are ultimately responsible for managing their own expectations. The real lesson is about boundaries and that is what David Pollak is establishing in his blog post.
Hollywood controls the distribution pipeline (Theater,TV,DVD,etc) and the timing of each (the release). Hollywood advertises each to build up demand. So you can also beat Hollywood by solving the "advertising to build up demand" over the internet part of the equation. Right now it's
Facebook?
Scientists Use Ion Beams To Detect Forged Paintings
Is it unequivocally good?

Technology has certainly already disrupted a lot of industries and increased the marginal revenue product of labor (and lowering the number of people employed), and I think we are just getting started. At some point, if we aren't there already, we are going to be in a situation where our long-term labor needs are substantially less than the supply.

In a sense, this is a good thing for our society overall (and very good for the capital-owning segment of society), but what about those whose labor isn't needed? We're not too keen on paying people to not work.

I'm certainly not advocating a Luddite inspired revolt against technology or remaining inefficient for the sake of keeping people employed, but those who argue that the reduced need for labor is all rainbows and unicorns often fail to account for the human element of the labor equation.
It'd be interesting if the law had some sort of "activation" clause, where the copyright would only start to tick toward expiry once a single cent of royalties had been made. That way, things that immediately start to make money (like music and movies) would immediately start to count down, while things that can take years to be licensed (like stock photos) will only start their countdown when someone actually payed for them.
Heidi klum and seal divorce
A Brazilian worker earning the minimum wage[1] every month, and considering that there's a whole set of taxes that an employer has to pay for every employee in Brazil, mainly for social security, that probably will turn every Brazilian employee worth almost 2 to 3 Chinese doing the same job.

So that's probably not the case for Foxconn as well.

[1]: Which according to Wikipedia is more in US dollars than what a typical Chinese worker in Shenzen earns in a month, US$ 390.93 versus US$ 208.32
A similar thing has already been shown by Steve Keen. First, he shows that if firms optimize by attempting to set the total derivative of profits to zero, they behave like monopolies. Second, he uses a simple model in which firms randomly raise or lower prices, then revert if they lost money, and shows they converge to behaving like monopolies.

He also points out that many fundamental economic principles are flawed, and have been proven to be flawed for years, but economists lack rigor, and would rather live in their "supply meets demand, actors are rational, and the market is in equilibrium" fantasy-land.

Oh, and in about 2006, he warned that there'd be a recession caused by a debt-deflation, just like in 1929. He warned that the government would continually underestimate its impact. He also thinks that the best way to "reset" the system is with a "modern jubilee" - the government engage in massive quantitative easing (which they won't, because they don't realise what's causing the crisis, and how bad it is), and should hand out the free money to tax-payers rather than giving it to banks, as the banks have lost their appetite for risk and won't create new money even if you feed them.

But mainstream economists only study basic calculus, linear algebra, and statistics, not ODEs, and don't believe anything they don't understand. A 50 year old professor (or central banker) isn't going to go back to school and sit in a class with sophomore engineers, just to be able to understand what "complexity theorists" and "econophysists" are talking about, so they just pretend that it doesn't exist. There's no conspiracy, they just don't read or teach anything more mathematically advanced than IS-LM (which is stone age). Their journals don't accept non-mainstream papers for "methodological reasons" (they don't understand basic differential equations), or because it "doesn't sit well with the current theory" (it proves them wrong) and since there's tens of thousands of them they tend to dominate the field.
At least when I watch a movie in the cinema, I don't have 'contextual' ads popping up on the screen. Do we really want a 'YouTube future'?
Ask HN: What do you do when you feel bored with work?
Also, how do you avoid getting completely lazy?
Merit Badges For The Job Market
Indeed, get someone like MIT to do an OpenJournal to complement the rest of their OpenX initiatives and you might start getting buy-in.

The problem is that the system is broken - publish n papers => you're better than before (ignoring the content of the papers of course). Academics are encouraged to publish (and re-publish older stuff with a slight tweak) to meet publishing 'targets' handed down by government.

This model feeds into the Elsiver etc closed publishing as academics are forced to compete to earn their stripes - so now we have a model that encourages re-publishing crap and then locking it behind a paywall, but when I ask PhDs if they think this is fine, they don't see the problem :(
Why was rdouble's original post deleted? At least he was honest even if he was being racist.
The two centuries mentioned are the 20th and 21st.
Why ? Because, as the article states:

Companies have closed major facilities in the United States to reopen in China. By way of explanation, executives say they are competing with Apple for shareholders. If they cannot rival Apple’s growth and profit margins, they won’t survive.

They don't care about workers, they care about shareholders. If Apple says to its shareholder "We'll earn 30% less next quarter, but we'll create 30000 new jobs in the US!" how do you think the market would react ? They'd sell like crazy! The share price would plummet. No one wants to loose money.
Try http://montreal.kijiji.ca/f-immobilier-appartements-condos-W...
Let's be sure to stick to things that are plausible and would represent an actual improvement if implemented.

* Copyright reform would be great, but seems like a lot of it is international treaty.

* Real net neutrality

* More and better broadband.

* Support for net security (DNSSEC) and anonymity (e.g. Tor), maybe IPv6.

* In defense of the first-sale doctrine and promote compatibility - eliminate the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA

* Truth in labeling - all systems using DRM have to be fully described on the outside of the box and all advertising materials

Ideally we'd want regulations on the other guy more than on the yourself. But just because Hollywood doesn't want it doesn't mean it we would. For example Hollywood would fight tooth and nail against something like "Free trade for DVDs - End region locking" but it would probably only help them in the long run.
Total abolition of the copyright and patent systems. That's a start.
It doesn't matter. They can't change the price on existing contracts, and when those contracts are up, customers have the option of picking a new seller.
Nearly every single American green energy program, from the 1970s to today, has failed, or is in the process of failing. Some, like massive ethanol tax subsidies and mandates, have significantly damaged the environment. Battery cars are a passing fad that are also bad for the environment-- they rely on coal-fired plants for electricity, and much of that power is wasted in transmission. And the batteries are hazardous.

The fact that DoD is a bigger waste of money is not a defense of Clean Tech.

The real solution is getting the big incentives correct-- tax pollution, and get the government out of the business of picking technology and playing venture capitalist.
A friend of mine had a genius idea. We pay everyone in congress like $1mm a year for the rest of their life, but we don't allow them to ever work for money again.

If they want to work, fine, but it's free. I bet they'd spend less time lobbying and more time working on noble pursuits.
how can you tell requests to a site with the intention to DoS it and the regular ones if they were promoting in-browser tools for regular people?
Such BULLSHIT.

This is a meme that comes up every few years like clockwork. Unfortunately, this one, like others before it, just shows how little people know about Hollywood. I guess it doesn't matter, as it makes for great link-bait. So maybe they know more than they let on, but dumb it down to "mean" people and "dying" industry. Yet, if that were the case, no one would want to take it over. The industry is, however, closer to a zero sum game than not. Offers to be a "partner" are offers to "take" some of the revenue.

There are two "modes" of entertainment (I am not counting learning or socializing, which are separate): "games" and "story-telling". I've pitched ideas on a cross-over between the two (over ten years ago), but really the two are very different, right down to how the brain behaves in each mode. Music is interesting because it doesn't take our full attention -- it would interesting to see other entertainment that had that same quality.

But anyhow, that doesn't mean that there aren't opportunities in the space, or opportunities for other ways to spend our time.

Take music, for example. Drive a brand that curates indie music, and let people invest in the bands (real money), drive that band to their friends, and eventually take a token of their success some day (a 360 deal, not just records, but everything including merchandizing, live performances, etc -- that way each band can determine the best mix, which may be all album sales or free music distribution). Early fans have skin in the game, bands that pick up fans get money to accelerate their reach, and everyone can have fun in the process since they are all partners.

And as far as time, think of teenagers and college students (and 20 somethings), hormonally driven to socialize. It was a huge catalyst for AOL (chat rooms), Friendster/MySpace/HotOrNot/Facebook, etc. Later in life there are children, and the need for everything to be all about them, understand them, get away from them. But competition for time is such an open thing, that it seems out of scope unless it is a form of entertainment, even if it is entertaining, like sex.

It would be nice to get people to vote on movie selections so a theatre could get it and show it knowing that there is an audience. I'd love to see "Go!" again. There is a business idea for you.

So instead of "killing Hollywood", I'm going to see Rocky Horror Picture Show in PacHeights next weekend. It is not an iSomething, it is not virtual, it means real warm bodies and a preset schedule. See ya there!
WEST COAST SEED MILL SUPPLY COMPANY
West Coast Seed Mill Supply Company offers many types of seed cleaning equipment, from a bucket elevator to Vac-Boss products.
Western Europe was destroyed by the bombing campaigns of World War II, yet sprung back to wealth within 20 years.

China was devastated by Japan, by civil war, and by ruinously stupid communist policies. The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution were directly imposed by the CCP with Mao as the leading figure.

It is not a "trick" to point out the objectively verifiable consequences of the decisions made.
Because of your background, maybe you can answer a question for me. Why is it that Iranians living abroad choose to keep returning to their homeland when they know that it could lead to false imprisonment/execution? Is it due to family members who still remain in Iran or is it because you feel that the risk to your own personal safety is relatively low?

The reason I ask is because most of the people who have been getting arrested seem to be people of Iranian descent who chose to move to another country. Recently a former U.S. Soldier of Iranian descent was also sentenced to die; all he did was return home to visit his grandmother.
I just left this comment over on Fred Wilson's blog (http://disq.us/536i4t). I hope that the message I'm attempting to convey is meaningful to the "Kill Hollywood" crowd on HN as well...

There are a lot of comments on this post, but I'm going to attempt to chime in from the EVIL Hollywood perspective.

First, let me make it known that I am 100% anti-SOPA/PIPA (I called my representatives six times), but the armchair punditry and belligerent "Kill Hollywood" explosion I've witnessed over the last few days has infuriated me to no end. When I left Paramount to do a software startup, at least I knew what the hell I was taking about.

Regarding Nat Torkington's rant: It's true that the tech industry "gave" us many things, HOWEVER, MP3's are meaningless without audio content, MP4 is meaningless without video content, Netflix is meaningless without movie content, iTunes is meaningless without music content... you get the point. In fact, between bittorrent and Netflix, it appears that half of the Internet (if not more) is used to share CONTENT. So yes, thank you for the pipes, but for the love of all that's holy, try and keep in mind what people are ACTUALLY paying for here! Hint: it's not 3G, wifi, iPads, or iPhones, those are merely the vessels to what is actually valuable to the user: the content! What do you think is the driving force behind the evolution of technology? Sheesh! I'm asking that all of you engineers take a breather and try to gain some damn perspective.

Yes, the film industry's organizational structure appears to be outdated. Yes, the theatrical distribution model seems counterintuitive. Yes, yes, yes! But... Record revenues (or close to it) continue year after year. Revenue from theaters still represents $30 billion of the ~$90 billion dollars the industry rakes in each year. Growth in China is almost 40% annually. The film industry isn't exactly in a hurry to abandon the scarcity model.

Bottom line, there are a lot of elements at play here. Please, please, please get some perspective before you go off extolling the virtues of your newest "platform." There are ways to disrupt Hollywood, both in a Schumpeterian way, and in a collaborative way, but I have yet to see anything that truly encapsulates the content industry's needs in a meaningful way.

Thanks for listening to my rant!

P.S.Crowd funding is to killing Hollywood, as Kickstarter is to killing Apple.
30 Black and White Landscape Photography Examples for Inspiration
Black and white photography has the unique ability to create a stunning image but leaves room for imagination at the same time.
Catalog for scala libraries
You only need to look at the most recent problems in Japan to see that nuclear power is never quite as simple as its proponents suggest.

All things considered, it's probably still a much better bet than fossil fuels, and probably still a worse bet than renewables like solar and wind.
Research archive JStor moves toward open access
Are DDOS attacks after a political victory a threat?
I noticed tonight that Newt Gingrich kept mentioning his website. Without explicitly saying it, I assumed it was to get people to go there and donate. Could a DDOS over the period of time after a political victory shut down the ability to make donations, or is it not practicable. I'm certainly not endorsing the idea, but is there a way for political candidates protect against this type of attack overnight?
Which of those answers do you prefer? Accepted one seems a bit far fetched and simplistic. As Tatiana notes: "SharePoint is .NET, and it's half of Office.". Also see Larry's comment.
A modest proposal for Joel:

Ten years as a period for copyright? How about you go first.

Since the tech industry understands copyright so much better than everyone else it might be good for them to set an example and show all the 'old' dodo-like industries how it's done.

After ten years all code should be made open-source. Google has made plenty of money - and I think it's time that they release their algorithm so other innovative and disruptive companies can make better use of it. I mean, how many Google bikes can one ride behind?

Fogcreek has had a nice run too - surely some open-sourced FogBugz would be of great value in second and third world countries that have emergent tech sectors but can't possibly afford the cost of the real service? Certainly, even 10-year-old Fogbugz is going to help society a lot more than license-free copies of My Big Fat Greek Wedding [2002] or Stuart Little 2 [2002].

Anyway, since many of these places exchange rates means they could never purchase software in the first place, it's not like there would be any lost sales, right?

Oh another thing: very important:: a short term of copyright like a few years would be the biggest boon to Hollywood ever as they could simply sit and wait for works to drop into the public domain before turning around and producing them without paying the creators a penny. There would be tons of creators strung along via a studio option - just long enough till the work dropped into the public domain. It would harder than ever for individuals to profit from their creative work and easier than ever for Hollywood to make money off of it.

So - sorry to say - I'm a bit disappointed! But that's just my fault - assuming that people who knew so well the cure for the ills of the content industry would actually have an idea about how that world works. My bad.
I used to be a label executive and you pretty much nailed it. And nailed why I left.

I worked with a group of really great people who strove for innovation. However the tendency is still to mine the past for as much as its worth until there is nothing left to mine.

Try this thought experiment: take the earnings from any of the labels and see how much is from catalog vs new signings, and how much was spent to market catalog vs new signings.

Basically wmg would be in a better place to just shut everything down except Rhino and Chappell and ride out their mechanical and publishing contracts to end.
I have no idea what your problem is, but feel free to completely ignore what I have written and write down your ramblings instead. The net is big enough for everybody, right?
> Legally, they can't give money directly to candidates or even coordinate with them. Only traditional PACs can do that.

Pretty sure I covered that point.

> Giving ad time or ad space directly to candidates, as Joel proposes

He didn't actually say that. He said giving ad space to a 'political campaign'. Spolsky also, and quite rightly I think, steers clear of the idea of tech companies directly spruiking friendly candidates. But you could have a PAC whose sole function was to allocate ad inventory evenly between a disparate field of candidates, for example. Google could even run it algorithmically off their own system.

There are lots of ways to do it and, as demonstrated, no real regulatory barriers. The only thing missing is political commitment on the part of internet companies. I agree with Spolsky that there is huge untapped power in this idea. I'm just not sure that it would be beneficial to society over the long term to have it unleashed.
Yeah. It should be something like "any sufficiently strong theory". But that's still a justifiable simplification. Other parts of the explanation are totally incomprehensible to someone who doesn't already know what's he talking about.
By contrast, when sellers react quickest, they are quick to copy others offering poor value for money. This reduces the number of sellers offering good value for money in a vicious cycle that drives prices as high as possible.

There are two conditions, high number of cycles, and company's reacting faster than customers. As I said there is a high number of cycles because company's can change their price for new contracts every day or hour etc. The second condition that customers reactor slower which does not mean they can't renew at the end of their term just that they don't react as fast to changing prices as companies do.

Personally, I have gone though several cycles of renewing my contract and I must say I don't price shop on the day I sign the new contract. Do you?
There are two calls on hold for you, one from a place called Fukushima and the other Chernobyl. ;)
Has there ever been a study on large scale wind farms and their affect on weather? I cannot help but think that taking that much energy out of the system might change some things.
That's exactly what I'm trying to say. He is leaving his Lift community to do something new and doesn't intend to do the hosting work anymore. That's completely acceptable.

What makes me confused is his determination to prevent anyone else from taking over the service he doesn't want to do anymore and basically forces everyone to rewrite massive amounts of documentation, package names, source code, maven xml files, build files, etc. for no real gain.
Ask HN: was Stripe written in Common Lisp?
From https://stripe.com/about:

"Andreas has hacked on everything from packaging systems to graph databases in Common Lisp. He used to help Patrick and Saikat with their Lisp woes in #lisp back in the day."

Is that means that Stripe was completely build with Common Lisp?
I don't see how "used by multiple computers at the same time" makes any sense in your interpretation but I was trying to be diplomatic.
100% agree. Irrational fear, scientifically illiterate populace, petro industry lobbying and fud have set us back decades here.

We really only have two choices: cut back energy consumption (willingly or not) or explore modern nuclear power options.