skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
500 Million. That's Your Competition
launch.nexxr.com
We haven't launched yet but we'll be live early June. Be first to join Nexxr and sign up to our email list and we'll let you know as soon as we're up and running.
Yes. There are 500 million active websites on the planet. Well that's what they say, in actual fact the figure is estimated anywhere between 400-700 million. Imagine that. The web's like an open world which means you compete with almost everybody and anybody. So let's take 500 million, essentially you're competing with 1 in every 12 people in the world. Almost impossible, don't you think?
So how do you as a beginner, a small website just starting out make yourself known in this overpopulated world wide web. Now's the time I tell you about my startup. Before we get there, their is something I'd like to point out. The intention of this article is not solely to introduce you to my startup but to introduce to you the future of what it can become.
It's advertising platform for those of us who don't have a seven figure advertising budget. It's a combination of the concept of link exchange and traditional advertising. Something we like to call "ad sharing". It's a startup, so ultimately the goal is to become a business but the idea does have a hint of purpose, at least we think so.
The idea is simple, you display users ads on your website and other users will do the same for you. Imagine if we could connect millions of websites together, a unified web. Where we all keep in touch with each others websites, like a social news platform on the move that goes wherever you go. Constantly be in the loop of what's the latest and greatest on the web: new deals, trending stories, news, articles, games, everything. Ads can become interactive and can learn your interests as you browse the internet. The possibilities run far
That's our dream, to change the way we advertise online. Turning advertising into something that doesn't have to be complicated or insanely expensive. As we grow we hope to move forward with our mission and make it happen.
Follow us on Twitter @nexxr or contact us via email, start@nexxr.com
Make sure you take a look at our video, tell us what you think.

http://vimeo.com/42783210
Terrorist victims in 2001: 3,000

That's not entirely true. There were ~3000 terrorism-related deaths, but the point of terrorism is that it victimizes an entire society by creating a culture of fear and uncertainty. That's what differentiates terrorism from (conventional) murder.
Here is a video of the effects in an anechoic chamber : http://channel9.msdn.com/Series/CampusTours/Microsoft-Campus...
See eztv.it when you create account you can register which series you are interested in and then you will have a personal page on which you can get directo torrents for new/unwatched episodes
> Sigh, it is illegal to target. In a war, civilians will die. My point was that some sides do try to avoid civilan casualities. You didn't argue against my point, you made a spin.

You place a lot of emphasis on intentionality. While it's an aspect worth considering, I don't find it as nearly as persuasive as you seem to. Many military actions are undertaken knowing full well the result with be civilian causalities, often many, and they are done anyway. Like I said earlier, I don't think your distinction means much to the victims whether they were intentional targets or not.

> The nuclear bombs over Japan was 1: a long time ago,

Uh, not really. It's still within living memory for many. And I think highly pertinent when discussing current issues of nuclear weapons/proliferation.

> 2: a complex choice (e.g. military production in cities, different standards in WWII, the target selection process, etc, etc). You condemn without discussing that.

I didn't get into those aspects in the interest of brevity, and because it veers a bit too off topic. I have considered them all at length, and ultimately find them unconvincing from a moral standpoint. Also notice how any actions taken by our society, or those representing it, immediately become complex and a hundred shades of grey. I'm sure those supporting acts of terrorism make similar rationales. No one buys it in that case, and I think we should be highly skeptical when our leaders seek to justify it in ours.

> I am sorry, but I must say that you write simplified propaganda. Please increase quality, I want a better HN. :-(

I'm not sure how to respond to such hyperbole. Everything I've stated is factually true. You can disagree with my interpretation, or the implicit conclusions I've drawn, but labeling it as simplified propaganda is just silly.
Is the bin that says "recycle" free?
I agree with others that this sounds a bit like a slippery slope fallacy. However, thought of a bit differently, that practicing on the smaller things helps you on the larger, makes more sense to me.

That said, I'm not sure if there's data to support that. Does being meticulous in your speech and not telling white lies make you less likely to cheat on your wife, say?
Social Delegation
Learning for these kind of tests was always the most pointless tasks in school. It is just the same extreme-memorization, braindumping, completely forgetting about it pattern. But of cause this structure makes any kind of course super scalable.
Here's hoping your current position as comment #1 means you're not the only one who cares. You certainly aren't! But this kind of stuff has become religion here: I'm seeing perfectly valid comments being downvoted if they take the side that these things are unethical, and admittedly I get pretty hot when I hear the roar of "piracy is a-ok!" that now seems to drown out any contradiction.

I think the MPAA and groups like it bear the brunt of the responsibility for the creation of this mentality, though. I don't think they really understand how many enemies they made due to SOPA and things like it, or the level of bad will they're generating by consistently refusing to embrace better distribution models, or how much they undercut their own arguments by refusing to behave in an ethical manner while they demand ethics of others. And the worse it gets, the more they dig in to absurd positions.

Their behavior seems to have led many to conclude--fairly--that they're simply a mafioso organization and that there is no validity to any of their concerns. And so copyright ceases to exist, and it's hard to discuss, even here, without being accused of being an MPAA shill. But it started with the copyright organizations: they started calling fans thieves and demanding they all be put in jail or fined into bankruptcy, and then they started demanding that the Internet be locked down and controlled without due process, and now people are firing back with equal vitriol, and often an equivlaent unwillingness to listen to the other side. Sad indeed.
Perhaps, but it's still useful as a distinct term because it refers to the body of argument used to justify it.
Was Facebook clever to let users vote on privacy changes?
Or just test the resource handles you opened, and only close them if they're valid. That way, you don't have to worry about doing a goto to the wrong label, or messing up the order of cleanup.

BOOL do_stuff_with_resources()
{
int success = FALSE;

char *memBuf = (char *) malloc(256 * 1024);
if (NULL == memBuf) goto cleanup;

if (randBomb()) goto cleanup;

FILE *fp = fopen("dummy-file.txt", "w");
if (NULL == fp) goto cleanup;

if (randBomb()) goto cleanup;

int sock = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, 0);
if (-1 == sock) goto cleanup;

if (randBomb()) goto cleanup;

int shmId = shmget(0x1234ABCD, 256*1024, IPC_CREAT);
if (-1 == shmId) goto cleanup;

shmRegion = (char *) shmat(shmId, NULL, 0);
if ((char *) -1 == shmRegion) goto cleanup;

if (randBomb()) goto cleanup;

sem_t st = -1;
if (-1 == sem_init(&st, 0, 1)) goto cleanup;

if (randBomb()) goto cleanup;

// TODO: Do stuff

success = TRUE;

cleanup:
if(-1 != st)
{
sem_destroy(&st);
}
if(-1 != shmId)
{
shmctl(shmId, IPC_RMID, NULL);
}
if(-1 != sock)
{
close(sock);
}
if(NULL != fp)
{
fclose(fp);
}
if(NULL != memBuf)
{
free(memBuf);
}

return success;
}
Mine must be broken. Besides, a 60% confidence rate is not encouraging to ask out strangers.
Man I remember those good times. 14400..meh....but 33.6!!! Whoo! 56k modems were a pipe dream. We have it good these days.
(Wishing I could edit this and put in some paragraphs and do a few copy edits...)

(Wishing I could cut the comic sans typeface out of your website...)
I'm wondering, why they don't link to rottentomatoes ? AFAIR it has API that they could use for this.
A torrent site is not morally or legally equivalent to "distributing that movie", however.

It may seem like a nit-picking distinction or technicality, but the law is made up of such technicalities.

With magnet links, the indirection is even greater.
Show HN: (my first webapp) An HTML5 platform game stage design community
You clearly lack perspective: try to reverse the point of view and apply the same logic.

An employer wants others to live for his sake, does that make him a parasite? No. (The analogy fails to go any further, but your point is nonetheless invalid.)

Plus, if you had some intuition, you'd realized that 1) we too, have worked really hard on movies.io (and still are), and 2) we would love to work towards a legal solution. Discussing with people right now, will press release if/when that happens. But our requirements are pretty steep, cf. http://www.dontmakemesteal.com/
Part of the charm of a tiny team of guys making a clever product is the unique voice they bring to the game. They'll will absolutely need to polish up that image to move too much farther into the enterprise world, but you don't really bootstrap your way into the enterprise so there are plenty of other things they'll need to 'fix' first.

Meanwhile, would be nice if their system could handle whatever traffic load it's under now due to HN linking.
I love browserling. We share accounts for our business development team and lite web testing at Pulse. Glad to be one of the 100 paying customers. Keep rocking little guy!
> Unfortunately while our nation recognized the need to develop our black ops capabilities early on, we are a bit late to the party when it comes to cyber-warfare.

Out of curiosity, what makes you say this?
Okay, so you can precisely identify all objects pointed-to by roots on the stack or in registers, but you can't identify all such roots so you can update them. From what you describe, mostly-copying collection is perfect for your use-case.

Basically, mostly-copying collection allows you to perform copying collection in a situation where certain objects cannot be moved. The original use case was for conservative stack scanning. In that situation, you cannot move objects pointed-to by an ambiguous root because you cannot ensure it is an actual root. So while you're scanning the root set, you're "promoting" the target objects to to-space instead of copying them into to-space. But the mechanism is more general than just conservative root scanning. E.g. I'm using it because I need to keep potentially global objects from being moved during a local collection.

In your case, you would walk the stack/register roots precisely using maps, but promote target objects to-space rather than copying them, so derived pointers would not have to be updated. Then you could copy the remaining objects.

EDIT: David Detlef's PhD thesis contains a pretty good description of the algorithm (starting on pg. 16): http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.38....
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4054638
Just a silly example. Real I/O code should have lots of checks and balances.
I'm confused, wasn't this what pg meant with 'Disrupt Hollywood'? /srcsm
I would like to put out there that morals and ethics are two different things. Ethics has to do with what you _think_ is right or wrong, regardless of the actions that you take. Specifically, ethics is the philosophy/study of morals, not their application.
>That I seem to be one of the few that cares.

Clearly many do care, but arguing is like facing an onslaught of Orcs.
Deafness is only a lack of something if you had hearing and lost it.

If you can never remember hearing then deafness is not a lack.

You cannot see in infra-red: are you disabled? Are you visually impaired? You have a hearing range very roughly from 20 Hz to 20 kHz. Are you hearing impaired because you can't hear sub-sonics or super-sonics?

Can you speak ASL? Can you read braille? You can see that you might miss out if you can't, but would you consider yourself crippled for not being able to?

Do you have a Synesthesia? Do you consider yourself impaired, disabled, crippled, lesser because you can't smell the colour orange or taste the word Tuesday?
I want one to meditate in each morning.
Right or wrong, moral/ethical or not: I like the site. It works well, looks nice, and provides a clean interface to the information one would look for using such a service.
I can't believe they (devs) chose python over ruby or java or scala or ANYTHING but python.
Thank you for that link. No doubt "Area Man" doesn't have a Facebook page or a Twitter account either. :-)
The code of the banana man
And [ugly car du jour] is aesthetic pollution.
Sure they do, you can make technical decisions that ruin a company and that causes lawsuits (as many business deaths seem to). You can make technical decisions that get you sued for copyright, patent stuff, privacy violations, indecency laws, on and on. We all make legal decisions every day without having to consult a lawyer all the time.
>What is so bad about honestly getting permission to watch things you want to watch?

Because the terms are offensive and anti-consumer.

Let us count the ways:

1. Overpriced

2. DRM encumbered

3. Bad UX (by way of 2)

4. Platform lock-in (by way of 2)

5. Geograhphy lock-in (again, by way of 2)

So basically, if I live in Europe, I can pay downright extortionate rates to access content in a format which goes out of its way to make my life difficult, (IF i can access it at all)

Or,

I can key in a random torrent site, search for what I want, it will be available in multiple, DRM-free formats, and I can click a button and have it on my local machine in less than an hour.

Which sounds like a better value proposition to you?

I'd rather cut a check to the artist directly and know that I'm not supporting N middlemen who actively campaign against my interests.
Lawyers being officers of the court have to act in ethical ways. And most importantly they have something to loose which is their law license. That's a powerful motivator to not take any chances.

A layman on the other hand can engage in different types of manipulation that an attorney can't do even if they had the same idea.
Taboo? Do you have a reference for that? I was always under the impression that the initial resistance to SO was from traditional generals in the pentagon who came up through the infantry and armored ranks...
> I would say it's clearly ethical, even required, to share knowledge and information with other people. That's pretty much the highest impulse a human has, right up there with "protect your offspring".

I don't think you can assert this without providing some backup. It's certainly the case that sharing certain information with certain parties is a high impulse, but the idea that we have a strong impulse for all information to be shared freely is highly unintuitive to me, merely based on my experiences.

Furthermore, that something is an impulse does not make it ethical. We have many impulses (sex, food, violence), and acting on them unquestioningly would lead to many unethical things. We also do not categorically say that all of these impulses must be fulfilled in an ethical society. For example, most people would not agree that I have a certain right to act violently at times, because of my violent impulses.

> As Rick Falkvinge is so eloquent in saying, this is our culture, and permitting monopolies on it is just disastrously bad policy.

That's not what a monopoly is. A monopoly would be if only company could “create” culture. (Or if it was group, it'd be an oligopoly, but I'd still understand your point.) But we're not in that situation. Especially with the internet, we're not in that situation. Anyone can create culture, and they have the ability to choose how exclusive it is. I would guess, though I can't back this up, that at this point in history we have more free culture than ever before. We have the opposite of a monopoly on our culture.

> Copyright is a subsidy to distributors, not artists. And the distributors know it. There's no need to protect the business model of content distributors in a world that has the Internet.

It's both, and why shouldn't it be? The studio executives behind making Game of Thrones play their part just as George RR Martin and Aidan Gillen do. There is an argument to be had that perhaps the compensation for these roles is skewed relative to their importance, but I don't believe that argument would lead to “therefore, no one has any right to make money on Game of Thrones.”
Kiva Systems is hiring in North Reading, MA.
A great place to work, a transformative technology, robotic excellence in concept and execution. Full time positions.
See the web site http://www.kivasystems.com/about-us-the-kiva-approach/career...
And what's wrong with Python?
In Poland it's also completely legal if you don't distribute (seed) it.
Legal for movies and music, illegal for programs/games.
Writing Quality Third Party JS (part 3)
>Is it a 'human right' to make money off of Game of Thrones or Batman Begins?

Is it a right to make money off of Game of Thrones? No. Is it their right to charge for content they've created? In my opinion, yes.

I am a huge advocate of open source software. I'm not an advocate of taking other peoples' software and forcing it to be free, against the creators' wishes.

Sharing a book, or facts from a library or notes from a university lecture is one thing. Downloading a copy of a movie, a video game, or software is another.

Let's say you made a startup that, rather than SaaS, actually wrote a thick client. They're cool, so let's make it easy and say it's DRM-free. Let's say it's a cool, new IDE.

You spent the last year of your life working on this IDE, and you see that it's up on The Pirate Bay. Sure, at first you'll probably be flattered. Then you realize, wait a minute, this is getting 1000x the downloads my actual product is getting. Maybe your sales increase as a result of the "free marketing," but that is the best case scenario.

If sales don't increase, you've worked hard and not been compensated. Do I think that most movies (especially in theatres) are overpriced and a rip off? Hell yeah I do, which is why I spend my money on Netflix which seems more sanely priced.

You don't have a right to all the software you want without paying the people who made it; you don't have a right to watch the latest movies and TV shows without paying the people who created them; you don't have a right to listen to that new CD in the store without paying the artists.

I think that big business/media generally rips off consumers. I don't think that pirates are evil; I think that they're desperate and that business needs to adjust to their needs. Have I ever pirated computer games? Sure. But when Valve's Steam became more convenient to use than a badly cracked torrent, that became my number one resource for games.

I used to pirate movies because renting or buying them was such a pain in the ass. With iTunes rentals and Netflix, that problem has been solved too.

If you want to make a stand, maybe against DRM with which you disagree, do so by purchasing from people who are making a stand too; for example, I hope you bought Louis C.K.'s $5 DRM-free show a couple of months ago.

>Copyright is a monopoly granted by congress' interpretation of the constitution's directive to promote progress of science and the useful arts. I think it's time to reinterpret.

How do you suggest we reinterpret? Should everyone get everything they want for free? Should all the tech startups that we read about on Hacker News and root for have no business model, because charging for software or media is so wrong? We live in a capitalist society, and in order to "reinterpret" science and arts as free-for-all, we'd need to completely reorganize our economic system.

I'm not saying that we've got it down perfectly (in fact, I'd say the opposite), so I'm open to your suggestions and ideas.
I hate to be negative about this, but it sounds like you've had a successful product for 2 years. Why are you still working on it if you're sacrificing time, sleep, and a social life to 'break even'? At some point (and I would think well before 400,000 users), why didn't you go out, seek $1.25m for yourself, and win your market over with a better quality product? I do think what is happening is wrong, but why are you so intent on fighting this if you've spent 2 years just to be breaking even, even with a half million users?
it already doesn't blow up centrifuges when it's not on the target network

I can verify that. None of my centrifuges have been blown up.
I don't know.. there is a saying in German that "you earn your face" - and it's obvious that hormonal balance, face muscle tone and predominant facial expressions influence our face's appearance in the long term. 60% accuracy does not sound SO obvious to me, I bet it's easier to distinguish between religious extremists (ascetics) and non-extremists.
This is the second time in two days I've seen really great advice from a lawyer on HN. I would really like a way to a do virtual "ask a lawyer" office hours on HN.

Edit: even better - do a virtual legal clinic.
I'm thinking that terrorists would have to do enough damage to warrant full replacement of a number (n = ?) of turbines at a number (m = ?) of plants to do significant, lasting damage in an area (you won't necessarily have a 'back-up turbine' lying around).
Help me understand how your comment doesn't imply that all ethics are situational and relative?
"LibreOffice Has Found its Rhythm"
"... of new downloads for Apache OpenOffice"

Are there 2 names for this product?
What Every Developer Must Know About PHP 5.4
I think that the crowd here is growing more pro-piracy of late. I've been in a number of lengthy arguments here about this issue in the past year arguing the 'morality' of piracy or how 'justified' it is because of whatever, whereas earlier discussions I've had on HN were all more academic in nature -- "If Hollywood can't figure out digital distribution, of course there will be more users who pirate."

Even worse, the entitlement is much greater, and nobody seems to care that it's wrong, so I end up getting drawn into a million "can't copy a car" type of arguments and "I can't legally purchase" rebuttals.

Worse than that, I've felt like I'm in the minority on how I feel about piracy and as such, have pretty much quit rehashing the same old arguments.

So, while I hate that you're going through the same nonsense I did, at least you can save yourself some frustration by not being baited into the same frustrating arguments that deliberately "miss the point".
If I understand correctly, no client-attorney relationship is established just by sharing your opinion of legal matters with someone.[1]

(edit: The rules are different if you are an attorney.)

(2nd edit: This debate seems to be about whether one can be held legally accountable if someone acts on your naive legal opinions and whether it's a good idea to share your legal opinions when--admit it--you really have no idea what you're talking about.[2] Then again, is it a good idea to follow free legal advice provided by a non-lawyer?)

[1] http://meta.answers.onstartups.com/questions/113/do-i-
need-to-add-a-disclaimer-when-i-answer-a-question-on-this-site

[2]http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/293/A...
Not bad for your first web app.

I'd recommend that you work on making it easier for the user to play the game right away. Every click the user makes will result in a dropoff in conversion rate. Otherwise this is pretty interesting!

Keep at it!