skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Frozen mice cloned; wooly mammoths on horizon
As some people have said to me (I'm Canadian) - no, that's when the lawsuits start.
Which is why, of course, most parties spend most of their time preaching to the choir: turnout decides most elections.
Thinking about it a bit more, that a mathematical model created by humans on a mathematical framework created by humans comes out with weird results sometimes - that fact is not even slightly weird or difficult to believe.

That such a human model can be as accurate and precise as quantum mechanics is, now that's hard to believe!
The point is that your vote adds a (very small) incremental value; the sole value is not that it might decide the election.
This is just an honest question.

If you aren't a fan of the political system, why do you affiliate yourself with a political party?
I just picked that as an example to illustrate the point; feel free to substitute "old people and young people" for any two groups of people, and "social security" for any other issue.
But also realize one of the great things about living in a free country, even with all of America's faults, is the ability to exercise your right _not_ to vote.
uh, yeah, he's a member of the CCC (or was, before they were outed). KKK reborn (but non-violent). I try to stay out of political discussions here, but he's a very bad man. Casting a protest vote for him is like casting one for that old jerk from W. VA (can't recall his name, former Imperial Wizard for the Klan that supports the "remote viewing" funding of the CIA--he's a Dem).

Pick someone else for your protest vote, please.
+1

Just wanted to add some more to this, as I recently had a debate about this with someone who was very pro-voting.

Abstaining from religion is no longer dismissed, yet politics, as you say, remains a sticking point. In the 1500s, religious adherence was the norm in the West. In the 2000s, adherence to democracy as a political system is the norm (I have no doubt this will change in centuries to come).

Consider voting within a democratic system to be equivalent to choosing a religion. If you are not religious, ideally you would not choose a religion. Likewise, if you do not believe in the democratic system, ideally you would not vote.

Democracy is a system that many people take for granted, but is only one of many options. Voting in the democratic system implicitly means you support democracy. If you do not support democracy, therefore, it would be quite rightly against your principles to vote.
"the netbooks are going to shrink to phone size. [...] And each will cost $99 with a service plan"

A netbook the size of a phone is actually quite expensive at the moment.

http://www.oqo.com/
Markets, whether sports gambling/tickets/stocks/politrix are not efficient.

I'm just glad I get to make money from them.
People do not vote out of self-interest. People vote because of how it makes them feel about themselves. Its not unlike going to church.

While this may sound like an OK thing, in reality it is disastrous. We elect leaders who make us feel great about ourselves by promising to fix the world. They then churn out giant bureaucracies to actually implement the world saving policies. But by then, no one is paying attention to whether the feel good policy actually works. The bureaucracy ends up being very effective at looking out for its own self interest, and incredibly ineffective at actually solving problems.

Thus the result of a Red-state voter wanting to feel like a bad ass warrior is the creation of the giant military bureaucracy that creates threats in order to justify its own existence. The result a Blue-state voters desire to end poverty is a welfare state that in many ways has made inner city poverty much worse than it was in 1900 ( which is hard to do, considering the incredible improvements in technology).
Sure, if you are a member of the two parties that make up the US political system.

If you are not a member of those two parties, your vote holds no worth within the political system. The two major parties normally dismiss or deride issues made by the green or libertarian parties. In some cases, it is possible that my vote outside the two party system can cause the person I least prefer to be elected. Yay!

Until the US abolishes the electoral college and institutes a more representative election system such as an approval or preferential system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting), I will continue to be dissatisfied with voting for the president.
Voting is one of the few things the system asks you do to around here.

Says it all.
I'd like to come but I work in Burnaby, so could only do weekends/evenings. I'll send you a mail anyway...
And to all the non-Americans on HN -- myself among them -- please don't forget to post a reminder to your fellow countrymen/women on HN to vote if your country is having an election. I'm sure all the people who upvoted this post will be super-pumped to see that at the top of the homepage! Some other TellHN topics that I'd like to see in the future:

- Just say no to drungs
- Don't drink and drive
- Have your pets spayed and neutered

I'm Canadian, and I'm just giving you guys a hard time ;-)

Actually, I think most Canadians are a bit jealous because we just had an election that was a huge waste of money and didn't mean a damn thing. I have to admin, yours is way more interesting.
Howard Dean doesn't count?
firebug +webdev embody the functionality of all but 3 of those. stick with those two to keep your browser lean.
Screw it, maybe I'll just write in Ron Paul, even though write-in votes allegedly aren't counted. As I said, my vote doesn't matter anyway.
You know people have it good when they're siphoning money into virtual space where it's virtually worthless.
Although I was a trader at a hedge fund for just over a year, I'm not rich. I probably will be, in the future. The Republican argument is that liberal economics are worst not for the already rich, but for the middle-class people who are trying to get rich. Well, I'm one of those: middle-class background, likely to be wealthy one day on account of my talent and work ethic. I'm also liberal, and will vote for Obama tomorrow, and although I suspect he's center-left, I secretly hope he is somewhat of the socialist his detractors accuse him of being.

Why? I want a fair society, and a stable one. I don't want high levels of crime and unreliable health coverage. Nor do I want to feel guilty about enjoying my relative level of privilege. I don't want to be destroyed in the off chance that I'm unable to work due to illness or injury. I definitely don't want to see a violent revolution (much more probable than anyone wants to admit; given 20 more years of the 1980-2009(?) neofeudalism, I'd lay even odds on that one).

Frankly, whether the upper tax bracket is 35 or 39.6 percent is of little interest to me, given the much larger issues at stake. I'll gladly pay a few more percent in taxes, contingent upon positive fortune on my part, in order to live in a better, fairer, and safer society.

Also, here's why redistributive taxation fundamentally makes sense. Poor and middle-class people, in general, spend the bulk of their income on commodities-- food, clothing, consumer goods-- whose prices are set by material supply and demand. Doubling the incomes of the poor is going to enable them to purchase more of these commodities. The growth factor isn't 100%, since there will also be an increase the prices of these commodities (inflation) but it's fairly close-- no worse than 50%, I'd bet. So the poor peoples' standards of living increase if their incomes are doubled. Likewise, a 50% reduction in income will destroy many of them.

On the other hand, wealthy people tend to purchase status goods, such as jewelry, rare (usually shitty, but that's beside the point) art, and trophy real estate. If the wealthy are suddenly made twice as rich, the prices of all the Manhattan apartments and paint-factory-vomit "modern art" works would instantly double. The same would be true if their income were halved. As long as these individuals' relative rankings were unchanged, their standards of living would change only slightly. One exception might be for those who wish to purchase a rivate jet, since a major expenditure in that pursuit is oil, a commodity. So private jets might become less affordable. Boo-hoo. The truth is that you could increase the tax rates on the very rich ($2.5 million+ per year) to 80 percent and, although they would feel intense pain due to the numerical changes and perceived loss of status, their lifestyles wouldn't change substantially, due to price reductions for most of the things they care about.
Ironically, when Windows changes anything, people are up in arms.

I remember people being up in arms about the XP control panel redesign. And the Vista control panel redesign. And with Windows 7, people are saying "it's about time!"

UI is a fickle fickle mistress.
Dean was the first one to realize the Internet could be used. But Obama built up an incredibly powerful campaign force in part by using the Internet to coordinate vast amounts of people.
Although I intend on voting tomorrow, I don't agree that it's a "duty" to vote. In fact, I usually don't vote in local elections if I don't have substantial knowledge about the candidates, and given that I've moved about 10 times in the last 6 years, that's often. (The top few Google hits do not amount to "substantial knowledge".) The purpose of voting is value discovery (analogous to "price discovery" in financial markets) but if I'm not able to evaluate the candidates, I'm not really assisting in that process; I'm just adding noise. I think that a major reason the two-party system exists is that a significant number of people vote based on party "brand name" without evaluating the individual candidates.
Out of fear of being murdered, yes. Honestly, this may sound like an exaggeration to prove a point, but I honestly pay taxes to save myself from certain death. But I am glad you asked because I am interested in not paying federal taxes next year. Instead of simply keeping the money for myself, however, I want to calculate what the federal government would like to rob from my wages and giving it away to charity. If you're interested in doing something like this with me let me know.
FriendFeed hones the ‘Post to Twitter’ echo to the source
Little Known Ways to Ruby Mastery by Guy Naor
Scacchi Clay Stop Motion
Salesforce.com on Microsoft: “They hate everybody”
In your scenario, if I don't pass along my brick, then the chain is broken (or, others at least have to do more work). However, in an election, if I don't vote, then no one has to pick up my slack. We'll still elect a president tomorrow.

What is the negative externality that I'm imposing on others by not voting? If anything, I see it as a (very small) positive externality, because I'm letting everyone else decide who they want as president.
AltSearchEngines and last100 Go Indie
They said the same thing about CD players and video games (Penny Arcade: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/10/30/ )

I'm not surprised by this in the least. I always thought the "no cell phones/video games/CD players" was about getting people used to following arbitrary directions for bad or no reasons.
The best reason to vote is not that your vote will change the election, its that the process of voting will change you.

It causes you to consider the problems in your society and be aware of proposed solutions. Sounding your voice is just as important as being heard.
Ask YC: Startups and Obama
Sole Proprietorships: Taxes raised from 35% to 50% (accounting for payroll, medicaid taxes)

S-Corporations: Taxes raised from 34% to 40%

Obama Healthcare: Paid for by repealing Bush tax cuts

Taxes in general: Raised during a recession.
Last president to do so: Herbert Hoover (Hawley Smoot Tariff)

Discuss.
Actually, most accurate election forecast: www.fivethirtyeight.com
If you think the American government is coercive, then imagine what would transpire in its absence. Regardless, voting reduces the coercive power of the state by affording citizens the right to change government.
Murdered? Certain death?

Maybe you know something I don't, but I don't think they impose the death penalty for not paying taxes.

In any case, paying taxes and not voting seems to be an ineffective strategy. What's your end game?
Dear Texas, THANKS FOR NOT SENDING MY ABSENTEE BALLOT! I don't know how many forms I filled out, but you never sent me a ballot. I have my voter registration card here and everything. Short of an 800 mile roadtrip or standby flight home, looks like I'll be sitting this one out. :-/
Would be more impressive if the pagination worked too.

Do you test any of this?
Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families:

That's interesting, actually. A similar prospect was laughed out of British parliament not too long ago - a parliament far to the left of US tastes.
I met my cofounder at a Startup Weekend event here in Atlanta.
Are you a compulsive reiterator?
I would like to live in peace with my neighbors. The only justifiable way to achieve this goal is through non-violent noncompliance against the coercive state.

Also the post I linked to in my first comment explains why any illegitimate power must resort to murder to assert its power over others.
In Australia we have compulsory voting. Everybody has to get off their arse and do it (or at least go to a polling place, take a ballot sheet and stick it in a box, you can leave it blank or draw a penis on it if you want).

Personally I see both upside and downsides to it. On one hand it's a violation of my right not to vote, but on the other hand that's one of the more minor violations which the government by necessity commits anyway. The upside is that it leads to more moderate politics -- there's no need for the parties to appease the "base", so they always wind up fighting in the centre.
Ah, I'm sure we'll try and do more than one meetup so hopefully we can schedule one then.
Sorry, my statement was poorly written, a weird agglomeration of the two thoughts running through my head at the time I wrote it. My bad. Let me fix:

>Not going to vote tomorrow, though. My feeling is that more voters gives the winner legitimacy and a mandate, and since I hate the winner, I don't want to do that.

Anyway, I affiliate myself with the republicans because I agree with a many of their (old school, not Bush-era) positions. I also tend to vote republican in local races since NY/NJ democrats are hopelessly corrupt. However, since I now live in Harlem, even voting in local races is pointless.
Ask HN: Ideas for my startup (www.prosepoint.org)
Hi, I'm previously a lurker on HN, and this is my first post, so please be lenient :)

I'd like to get comments, constructive criticism, suggestions, flames etc. for my startup ProsePoint (www.prosepoint.org).

It's not anything fancy, just yet another CMS, but one that's very narrowly targeted at a vertical market niche. It's also not anything bleeding edge either. No fancy web 2.0 stuff, just solid but mundane software for a conservative market.

I'd also like ideas on how best to monetise it. I obviously have some ideas of my own, but I won't mention them (yet) so as not to bias the discussion.

Thank you, and have a good day.
Not voting.

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- H. L. Mencken
Please don't forget to include hedonic and psychic utility in your economic models. In other words, even economists realize that people often act for non-monetary reasons.
Yea, I couldn't find the link fast enough. Thanks.

Anyway, I think it belongs in the flow of this discussion as well.
no, people don't generally have honest differences. an honest differences is when both sides are clearly identified, and there is mutual respect for differing conclusions based on the same data. policies in america are not based on anything in reality, but on what sells well.

imagine a marketing company that is run by the people it markets to. given such a feedback loop extreme results are not surprising.
Discount sunglasses at big saving
Discount sunglasses, Designer sunglasses, Gucci sunglasses, Sunglasses, Prada sunglasses, Polarized Sunglasses, Ray Ban sunglasses,
I have this all the time lately when i'm battery'ed up. I imagine I can turn that option off, but it seems useful enough to keep on for now. I'm glad they at least have the ambient light sensor on the iSight camera as opposed to somewhere down by the keyboard or something. The Macbook pro used to dim all the time when I blocked the light to the keyboard with my head and I can't imagine it would have happened if they used the camera.
I think you need to get more than 8 total votes to count. Dean and Ron Paul were both web fads, but Obama used it as an organizational tool and got results from it. Even if he doesn't win, he's forever changed the way campaigns will be run.
The best part about the elections is that voters GET an education about the issues by hearing the candidates. The education may be biased or somewhat untruthful, but elections actually let everyone know about the issues facing the country. I say that they make the populace much more informed!
Not always, no. Government rationing during WWII, for instance. You might want to broaden your horizons a bit, economically speaking. A capitalist with socialist leanings is nowhere near a Marxist, and you make yourself sound ridiculous by claiming otherwise.
Ron Paul was the first. Obama copied much of what he was doing and brought it off line.
You wouldn't like Australia then. Voting is compulsory. You would risk a $20 fine (or having to come up with a good excuse) if you don't vote. Orwellian maybe, but they do have sausage sizzles and cake stalls which most people seem to like.
The brick example was used to shed light upon the difference between individual and group activities. It's does not match the activity of voting, I know. However...

Your use of the phrase "imposing on others" is telling. It implies you are separate from the others who vote, but in a democracy, during voting, you are not. You are all part of one system, and you all work towards the democratic task.

When you choose not to vote, you exclude yourself from that system. One single absence will indeed not damage the system significantly enough to destroy it. But, as I said, this system replies on human behavior, and more specifically socialization.

When you post articles on the New York Times website, when you post here and when you chat to friends about the futility of voting and when you tell them you have not voted you affect them; you influence them.

Human behavior is incredible herd-like. Your choice not to vote affects others, others affect others, and that affects, in this case detrimentally, the democratic system.

And this, again, goes back to the fallacy of composition. It was rational for you not to vote. Yet, because you live in society, that decision affects others, and when it affects enough people that newly formed decision becomes highly irrational.
Again, with the completely asinine logic.

1. Charity is not a pissing contest and you know that.

2. The McCain's sit on a $100 million company. They have some money to throw around. Ask his wife to release her tax returns from the last few years, and then we can talk about "charity".

3. The amount of money given to a charity does not translate into number of problems fixed or alleviated and you know that.

4. A selfish pussy is a cheapskate that would rather watch a person starve than spend one penny on food to feed him. While extreme, this is essentially a selfish pussy.
What value does your single vote add?

In regards to this argument, a single vote has no value because the outcome of a single mandate election of this scale is never determined by 1 single vote. The outcome would remain the same with or without your vote. That is the point.

You bring up issues and demographics. Same rule applies. The attention given to your demographic is never affected by 1 single vote unless it is the single vote that causes the politician to focus attention or turn his/her back. This is obviously a gray area that can't be measured.
I played around with it for a bit, seems like an interesting mod to Drupal. I did find the interface a bit convoluted though, as the options presented in the menu may be a bit complex and overwhelming for a typical newspaper/magazine editor trying to add and place content on the site.

I'd advise sticking closely with KISS for your target audience. A drag-and-drop feature for the front page layout would be sweet as well. I could really use something like this for a project I'm working on right now (I'm leaning towards WP at the moment).
Faster, more flexible web scraping with Nokigiri
The problem isn't that the project lost sight of its original goals. It sounds more like the goal of this project wasn't clear between groups.

Stallman stated that "the plans aimed for low cost, enabling many children to use the machines, and free software, so they would have freedom while using them." From what I understood, the goal of the project was to get computers into the hands of children in third-world countries, so they could simply get experience with computers -- period. It was my belief that the fact that free software was used was simply out of convenience; since free software was also free (as in beer), it was another step in cutting the costs of the laptop.

When Microsoft stepped in and "offered up" its OS at the extremely cut costs, Negroponte decided that would be a more useful option; I don't think his intention is to force-feed proprietary software to children. Either he believes Windows is a better option, or he is an economically self-serving individual. Regardless, I sense that the ultimate purpose of this project was unclear to certain people.

On a less direct note, I can't stand Stallman's zealotry. It's great that he is able to stand so firm on one particular point, but it is also a terrible trait, considering that he isn't willing to even give a moments consideration to alternative options on a scope/level _outside_ his "cause."
It's time for a change?
Would you like to get shot in the head, or stabbed in the back?

This is what I think of when I hear "don't vote, don't complain."
It doesn't. I'm just bitter as a conservative who is dissatisfied with palin.

yeah I deserve to be downmodded.
Ask YC: Mass. question to eliminate state tax: good or bad for startups?
Since YCombinator has an office in Massachusetts and Boston is the second biggest technology startup hub (after Silicon Valley), what do you guys think about this question?
The per-title ($3000) and per-player (not sure) licensing fees add up, as do the fees just to put a "blu-ray" label on the disc. As does the cost of building a player that has to be powerful enough to decode not just the HD content (what the consumer wants) but to treat the user like a criminal (what the studios want). Chips are not free.
What did Ron Paul do that was at all comparable to Obama's my.barackobama.com?