skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> What shows market value is the desire for that product.

I disagree with this completely. There's a tremendous desire for oxygen. Literally every human being needs it nearly every second of their life. However, it has no market value because it's freely available wherever you go. You're basically saying that price should be determined solely by demand, regardless of supply. You're ignoring fully half of economic theory.

Yes, there is a huge demand for digital copies of music and video, but there's also an infinite supply of them.
Yeah, you apparently don't need to have a ferrous core, and you can hook them over something instead of needing a full circle core.

So, like, a little arm with a clamp could totally do this.

EDIT: Looks like the output is something like an impulse train... would need some kind of passive integrator circuit to make something a power supply could use for charging, I'd bet.

Possibly a full-wave rectifier, followed by a passive integrator, followed by your charging circuit?
Awesome stuff.

Which brings us to another important point: SpaceBase is built to scale. It scales gracefully across CPUs and across a computing grid. It scales so well that it allows building large shardless MMO games. In-fact, shardless MMO games and virtual worlds were one of the use-cases SpaceBase was specifically built to handle. (Distributed SpaceBase, or SpaceBase-on-a-grid is currently in the advanced stages of testing, and will be available for evaluation and purchase within a couple of months. The single-node, multi- and many- core deployment is available for evaluation right now!)
Blurtt Launches to Wave of Press
As the father of a talented 3 year old: yes it does.
I feel that awareness will be difficult.

I think the people who pay attention to things like your blog post are the people who are already sympathetic.

It's like if you wrote a guide about "How To Not Be An Asshole", assholes would probably not read it.
Similarly, an even greater majority of American drivers will disobey road safety laws (most commonly the speed limit) which are statistically shown to mitigate traffic fatalities. In other words, they will buy a ticket to a lottery of potentially killing other human beings solely to increase the perception that they're getting to their destination faster. And why? Mostly, because it's easy and there's rarely consequences.

But stealing a car always has consequences: someone has one car less. Saying that people would steal cars if the stolen cars didn't disappear from their owners is illogical.

On the other hand, disobeying road safety laws doesn't in fact have consequences most of the time: people rarely get hurt. And it has been demonstrated that people are terrible at evaluating odds. So the situation is far from analogous.

"Everyone does it, so it shouldn't be illegal" is --- and this is so obvious I don't even have to provide the most vivid examples --- historically a very dumb argument.

It's not my argument. I was just questioning parent's claim about stealing cars.
I think it has to be immediate and public. That doesn't mean severe or disrespectful. Everyone has to do it, but it certainly should be set up from the top down that this is unacceptable and will stop.

I take a page from the Results Only Work Environment:
http://www.rowe.iambestbuy.com/sludge_busting.html
The whole text of all articles from wikipedia english (then filtered those with more the 1k views last month)
The free market is meant to make prices as low as possible, not as high as possible. That is why we have laws against monopolies and encourage competition. The argument that things should cost as much as people will pay for them is a pleasant fallacy of a businessman.
SendHub (YC W12) Lets You Send Mass SMS to Students, Clients
is it really "less taxing"? An app page that polls every few seconds to get back an empty JSON block is going to be eating up the network radio on a smartphone constantly, vs just getting back 120k HTML page, and a few CSS/image requests one time over, that may then sit there and be read (or a form filled out) for the next few minutes.
if this is just half as good as the first one (coffee script), it's worth it already.
I love reading Brooks; a thoughtful, intellectual conservative is a real treat. However, this is not about politics; another treat.

Like everyone else, I've had my share of fantasies---mostly about getting rich & famous, but, yes, sometimes homicidal fantasies. Living with depression, I've also had fantasies of self harm. The key with these type of situations you'd normally like to avoid is to never put yourself in a situation where you can fulfill them, because humans are creatures of extraordinary every insanity. We can delude ourselves into thinking the strangest things are normal.

In the case of the serial killer, he deluded himself into thinking that it was alright---perhaps even good---to do what he did. Unfortunately, he was also in a position to carry out his fantasy. More and more, when thinking about war, I've come to the conclusion that it destroys soldiers. People should not be subject to the kinds of stresses that soldiers deal with daily, and if we must go to war, we should not continually subject the same people to year after year of the frontline, the way people are today.
> All I'm saying is that if you can't accept that there is "another way" of making stuff, even hugely important stuff, then you simply have not been paying attention.

I have done open source development for over 10 years (I was developer #3 on one of the open-source projects you mentioned), have used Linux for about 15 years, and use it every day at my job working at the company that develops the Android code that you mention. That you would question my open source credential is... amusing.

I believe in open source too (and have spent a significant portion of my life developing it). That doesn't mean that I'm naive enough to think that you can take away the licensing-based revenue from the for-pay software industry and continue to get just as much software.
I didn't notice the 'kudos' button, but went to look at it, and accidentally sent one. Makes me wonder how many of them were accidentally sent by people hovering to see what it was... Aside from the hover-state triggering irreversible action, it's a nice little interaction.
Not that I disagree, but I wonder if having a reserved personality has more to do with being disrespected than the gender. I know lots of women who I wouldn't dare make jabs at. Similarly, many of my submissive male friends get pushed around more so than my female ones.

Thoughts?
> Yes, but how many large magnetic fields does one gets stuck into while unconscious that _aren't_ MRIs?

If by "unconscious" you mean asleep, not many.

If by "unconscious" you mean unaware, plenty. Try walking past these in a lab:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2PDAnKEu9M

FYI: Neodymium magnet strength is of order 1T, same as MRI.
Fair enough. Is the place large enough to have a separate HR department? It's one thing to joke around, but another to make unwanted sexist comments. I've never known any HR folks who put up with the smallest bit of it. It's their job to get righteously pissed off at that kind of behavior.
Do you think reaching some critical mass of female developers (say 20%) will help prevent the problem? Perhaps an industry goal of reaching 20% female developers would be worthwhile (who would set such a goal?)

These problems also exist in the boardroom and some have pointed out that it takes 3 women at the table in order for the rest of the room to treat them fairly. If it's just one, she's sidelined. If it's two, then they're seen as just teaming up with each other, but three makes them legitimate in the eyes of the rest of the group. Perhaps larger groups of developers can make sure to have at least 3 women on the team to help eliminate issues.
>No, the plot of Inception really is very complicated, unless you're a computer programmer

Or a carpenter.

Or a secretary.

... chef, janitor, burgerflipper, librarian, bassist, cop.
Hang in there. The norms are always transitioning, so someone is always getting "the shaft" (hopefully that won't come across as sexist :) And unfortunately, when you can't change everyone's "natural" behavior, the next healthiest choice is to grow thicker skin.

EDIT>> I'm not saying that it's ok she's treated like this, but you can't change everyones behavior. It takes lifetimes. In the meantime, if you want to have a healthy mind and continue to be around that kind of behavior, you have to grow a thicker skin.
> I'd love to hear more about how you think people justify copyright infringement.

People don't justify anything. By saying that something needs to be justified, you are suggesting that this is a moral issue? It's wrong for me to copy patterns of bytes? If so, then I've been a sinner since I was 10. Remember those 5 1/4 floppies, BBSes, IRC, etc? Yeah.

Copyright law was designed with businesses in mind, not individuals. Fair use should be expanded to encompass all personal use of patented or copyrighted material. Restrictions should only apply to commercial application.

Speaking of business ...

Did I mention I create digital works every day? That's what I do. I create software. My work can easily be copied ... and if it was, I wouldn't blame anyone but myself. Actually, I wouldn't even blame myself. Because my rampant "piracy" as a kid made me realize something. There is no value in software. There is only value in service. The software I write is merely a tool that I use to render a service and even if you copied it, you would only be left with a tool. I'm the final part of the equation and I can't be copied. That's the right way to do software.

What people don't mention is that the software industry was first. Before music, before movies, before books, before any of that ... the software industry was forced to change, more than that, it was born changed, because digital "piracy" was born with the software industry.
This is just a matter of it being hard for us to weigh the relative values of probabilities. I mean, just getting in a car creates a measurable likelihood that you'll kill someone, but it doesn't bring it to a level that most people would consider worryingly high. Ditto for, say, ironing clothes — you increase the chance that somebody around you will die (e.g. from a fire), but not by enough to ping anyone's conscience. Most people view speeding the same way.

This is not at all the same thing as being willing to steal somebody else's car just because you know you won't get caught. In that case, you know that you are creating immediate harm to that person. People weigh that differently from a vague chance of killing an abstract person.
Distribution, feature set, and lack of DRM?

We recently gave up casual TV and movies cold-turkey. Frankly, the studios and networks just couldn't figure out how to target us properly. I'm not going to pay $120 / mo. to get my favorite channels (eg. Science and NatGeo) just because ESPN has Comcast by the balls. Similar arguments for movies.

FWIW, I don't use TPB either. But I can imagine the appeal of choice, freedom, and having archival copies of the bits locally.
If you don't know how to avoid crossing the line you shouldn't be joking around. The onus is on you, the joke maker, to have a basic understanding of your audience as well as your privileges in society.
I would say it's because of consequence and anonymity, people do it because they won't be fined or arrested and no one knows about it.

People will do all sorts of crazy things if the system allows them to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
Don't leave out where, in the end, Ms Ewen ends up owing money to the record labels.
A really cool idea, but as others have mentioned a tiny bit impractical with only a few dozen minutes of flight time. However, there are actually serious attempts to adress these issues: Cellphone providers are looking into blimps as antennas; A guy I know is working on a autonomous airplane, that can keep itself in air more or less forever (Their goal is acutally to go to mars with this):

"The goal of this project is to design and build a solar powered micro airplane for autonomous exploration. This system, named Sky-Sailor, is fully autonomous in navigation and power generation. Equipped with solar cells covering its wing, it retrieves energy from the sun in order to supply power to the propulsion system and the control electronics, and charge the battery with the surplus of energy. During the night, the only energy available comes from the battery, which discharges slowly until the next morning when a new cycle starts."

http://www.sky-sailor.ethz.ch/
Well said.

I'm seriously considering leaving the field of software because I'm tired of working with 25 - 35 year old manchildren.
Banter should be mutual. This extends to males as well. If your "witty remarks" aren't reciprocated, stop.
Man Gets His Head Shaved By a Robot
Unlock iPhone 4S Baseband 2.0.10 Running On iOS 5.1 Firmware With R-SIM III  
How To Unlock iPhone 4S Baseband 2.0.10 Running On iOS 5.1 Firmware With R-SIM III
This is post-rationalization if I've ever seen it.
The claim in the article isn't that nobody would write and perform music without copyright, but that there would be less of it, and that it would be of lower quality. My claim is that labels, publishers, and music producers will exploit artists if copyright does not exist. I'm not trying to defend the business model of big music labels, so the example of Jade Ewen is neither here nor there. I'm defending the idea of limited intellectual property rights, because without them artists would be at an even greater disadvantage.

It's easier to see the problem in publishing or the game industry than in music, since musicians can make money from performances. Taking your example of Mendelssohn, he made his money from holding concerts and getting stipends from German monarchs. Authors and game designers can't hold performances, so the only way they can make money is by actually selling copies of their work, which requires intellectual property rights, or by hoping to attract a rich sponsor. If Amazon could sell books without having to give any royalties to the copyright holders, they would.

The idea that copyright only benefits the select few in the music industry isn't true, either. Labels often get caught plagiarizing songs that were written by small artists and handing them to big-name artists that they have under contract. With copyright, the smaller artists have an uphill battle. Without copyright, they have no weapons whatsoever.
You're relying two different services to run your business, which can be gone away in a moment.

- If you're not in US, your goverment can shut down Gmail ( for ex. because google is trying to evade tax. )

- Streak can be sold to anycompany which just want to push their services.

Streak should actually be something like Thunderbird extension with RDBMS running in background
Ah, thanks for the explanation and link.
So since I got a iPhone 4S for "free" am I the second type of user?
The way apple works in the US is not the same as the rest of the world!! The iPhone is available (since launch) on every carrier in Australia. For $0 upfront. Does that make it 2nd rate?
Skynet vs. Mad Max Battle for the Future
Do you think there's a conflict between sexism and fun? As in, "Well, I'd like to stop making sexist jokes, but then it would be so boring here."

I would rather work in an office where the jokes are of the funny sort, rather than the makes-one-person-feel-miserable sort. I really don't think there's any overlap between funny jokes and sexist jokes.
Funny you mention django and python -- I've wanted to learn it but didn't want to invest the time with python :-) Lesson reciprocated!
If clever children are the main argument against not requiring password confirmation, it sounds like "always require password on purchase" could be a great Parental Controls toggle.
Because... Mark my words closely... When you steal my car, you deprive me of my car. When you take a picture of my picture of a lamborghini, you deprive me of nothing except for the artificial right to charge you for the right to take a picture of my picture of a car.

The moral consequences differ because the consequences differ.
Immediate and public is certainly the best approach, although it might depend on the environment, who is present, etc. Sometimes a conversation in private might be better.

You are exactly correct in regards to top down. A leader, manager, boss, etc. should immediately send the message that inappropriate behavior is not tolerated.
No, I'm using the Catalyst driver, to use 3D. I even play games, on Linux; go figure :)
I watched only once, will rewatch now!
It is another iteration of that cycle, only this time we have something to lose, namely the web. We are regressing to client/server with a bunch of ever-changing single-site APIs and shoddy client code third parties can't readily fix, and these are destroying the world-wide web of repurposable content in open formats at stable addresses.
"because I don't want to deal with their installer or give away my billing info"

Of course - because once they have your billing info, they can actually bill you and your bank account will decrease by the cost of the CD.

So you pretty much proved his point - you just don't want to pay for something you can steal.
You are what you code! If someone criticizes or changes your code, they want to change a trace of your soul or of your mind. If you accept their criticism it means you were wrong. And if you were wrong once, that means you can be wrong more in your new programming. If you once made a mistake, how can you not make more? And how can someone else or you, can trust yourself if they know you made a mistake and they caught you red handed? And if you accept any critic, that means noone will have confidence at your code (or at you, because you are what you code). If you welcome critics, and change your code, your personality will change again and again; instead of a respectable, rigid person, you will end up being the soft guy everyone will push anywhere.

What you said is not at all true, my parent commenters; it is my critic at you, and of course if you accept it.

ps: this is just a satire, and i fully agree with my parent commenter s.
The stealing bit is a red herring. Copying is not stealing. I'm pretty sure I can now borrow a car and, if someone was willing to lend me a fully equipped workshop for free, build an exact replica of it without cost (in money). So in that sense, a car and a music file are the same. It's just that it's practical to do it with a music file, and not (yet) with a car.
So, female participation in the tech industry is at or near 50% in your country? No women steer clear of the industry because of sexism (real or perceived)? I would like to know which country this is, so I can find out what you're doing right.
Another vote for Metafilter. It seems to be entirely populated with quirky, positive people. It's like the anti-Reddit.

HN is just about perfect for my technical news, since other sites become a rabbit hole of useless tech consumption.
http://lambda-the-ultimate.org
Rails is overkill for an api, I think grape https://github.com/intridea/grape has a lot of potential here.

Put node.js in front of something like grape and you have the best of both worlds.
The Island President Movie Details
The Island President Movie Details
A portrait of President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives a man confronting a problem greater than any other world leader has ever faced
Currently, musicians and distributors get paid mostly via rent-seeking activities - they forego advance payment for their labor in exchange for the possibility of rents on the products of it.

This has a few advantages - the utility of music is generally unknown at the time of its production. Popularity, especially, adds utility to a piece of music and is very difficult to predict in advance. In fact, I think popularity dominates the utility that many content consumers derive from music. Sometimes auteurs manage to produce something that defies your expectations and gives you much more utility than you thought it would have.

If you retain the right to seek rents on content you've produced, you're able to charge what's appropriate to the utility that consumers currently derive from your music, rather than what they'd have expected to when you made it (nothing, if they'd never heard of you!). If you can't seek rent on the products of your labor, then you have to get compensated for it directly. Currently, musicians do this mostly via live performance, but I suppose holding content for ransom via some sort of kickstarter-analogue might be a viable way forward.

If I had to guess, I'd guess that there's less money in that sort of thing than rent-seeking, but I'm certainly not an expert. If there's less money in it, then there will be less high-quality content. I've thought about it, and I think I'm okay with that. If the market for recorded music contracts due to digital sharing, I think I'll live, and I'd prefer digital sharing to remain possible.

It's unfortunate for musicians, but I guess I'm just a callous soul.
I feel the comment contributes to an all-male, boys-club atmosphere. I don't see anything that pokes fun at that atmosphere.
The Startup Roller Coaster
"Shadow Superpower" is perhaps misleading. To me, a Superpower can project concerted military or economic power over an extended period of time, and has considerable resistance to the tried and true tactics of "divide and conquer."

Then again, perhaps it's not. Is the US so resistant to "divide and conquer?" Can we still project concerted military or economic power over an extended period of time?
Perhaps, but if we can continue to make it known that inappropriate behavior is unacceptable, it will be impossible for them to miss the signs.

Women shouldn't have be the only ones calling out their peers for making othering comments - everyone can do that.
This comment makes you sound like you're 12 years old. The goal is not to get back at people. The onus isn't on her. She's the victim, not the problem.
They'll just use dollars and Euros. Why wouldn't they?
It's nice for someone to actually say so, thanks. I'm getting tired of all the reflexive, unexplained downvotes. HN is an unfriendly and cold place, these days.

Meanwhile, sure, it's easy to understand that Inception is a cake. I'll concede that. But: it's not so easy to frost all three layers of the cake at the same time. The part where Inception gets tricky for me is where they start intercutting from layer to layer, and taking actions on one layer that have ramifications on the others.
Very cynical view. If this is what's happening across companies, than the market system wasn't efficient enough or was impeded to make a change.

We all know that the local cable or telephone companies aren't trying their damn hardest and we are not pleased with the services we're getting. However, we can't do anything about it.

To me, it's incomprehensible that we can sit on our hand and not make things better. Instead of being a big bully in the market, why not aim to make our lives better? Why all the politicking when it's quite urgent that medical progress need to be made now?

After all, a million dollars or three won't make much a difference in respect to making a billion dollars on a monopoly. With the billion dollars in hand, the future of you, and everyone else is worse off, because you focused too much on marketing rather than on groundbreaking research.

Do pharmaceutical CEOs only care about their short term bottom line and not the future of their health, their family, and their friends?

Do AT & T corporate board really only care about what they made each day rather than the future of the internet? By expanding and making the infrastructure cheaper, they will benefit from the numerous services of future internet.

Expand pie, and don't focus too much on getting a larger portion of the pie. Don't compromise the size of the pie.