skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
DragonDrop (shake the mouse drop stuff in an always on top window, then drag it back out when you find where you want to drop it and it disappears)

Divy (Lay out all your windows on a grid extremely quickly)

Skitch (quickly marking up screenshots, photos, etc)

WeatherHD (Lap warming tool, also renders beautiful full screen weather for what's happening where you are/where you set it to)

Visual JSON (JSON validator, builder)

Crash Plan Pro (a pretty reasonably non-invasive offsite backup program)

1Password (Cross platform/Smartphone password autofill manager)

Camouflage (Hides everything on the desktop when you present)

Caffeine (Keeps the laptop awake while you're presenting)

Daisy Disk (Finds the crap you can delete and clean off the hard drive, quickly beautifully, and makes cleanup a joy)

Screenflow (Excellent videocasting/webcasting/tutorial making software) (Currently on sale at http://www.mupromo.com/ for half off its $99 pricetag with other stuff included)

Screenshots (Fantastic tool for taking a picture of exactly the section of the screen you want, and nothing more).

If you have iOS devices you like/use too, AirDisplay (makes an iPad or iPhone an extension of the mac desktop) and AirServer (makes the mac a mirror of the iOS screen using Airplay).
> It's easy to get a feeling of going somewhere with science, because someone else has done a lot of thinking for you

Any field that is actually advancing builds on itself. That doesn't make future progress easy in an absolute sense; it merely makes it possible.
Pretty sure the ribbon is a brilliant piece of well researched UI work. Definitely a case of people just not wanting to break from the familiar.
It appears that he wants to sue the charity because of the following logic:

1. Indiegogo is incorporated in California.

2. It appears that under Californian state law that to collect money for a charity you must register to do so.

3. The charities were informed of the fundraising efforts, and as no paperwork had been filed they have the authority to shutdown the fundraising efforts.

4. The charities have refused to do so, therefore for some reason they are liable for the campaign.

(Reasoning taken from here: http://www.ramblingbeachcat.com/2012/06/not-backing-down-ram...)

The only thing that I can see that Carreon has got right is that The Oatmeal cannot sue for copyright infringement (however, they still hold copyright) as they didn't file with the copyright office. However, given that you don't have to file with the U.S. Copyright Office to gain copyright on your works, I can't see why Innman couldn't register his copyright and then sue for infringement. The copyright is not in any doubt, just the ability for him to file a lawsuit for infringement.
Art is just like any other type of human creative activity. There are various genres of it and no one is going to like everything.

Saying that you don't like something or don't understand something is cool. No one likes or understands everything.

Most art has a narrative behind it and to really understand what the artist is about you do have to know that narrative. Now a lot of older art, or art designed for a purely visual experience can become disassociated from its narrative and still appreciated. Or we can bring a new narrative to it.

This is not a new thing. It's always been that way in art. A lot of old art is appreciated for aspects that would confuse or even outrage its creators. (Also, a lot of old "junk" or popular art is now appreciated when in its day it was considered throwaway and trivial.)

Most people don't really care about the political situation in France in the mid 19th century. At least not the extent that they pick sides. But we can still appreciate Daumier's satiric political prints because we bring a new narrative to it. We can see ourselves and our current situations in it.

A lot of modern art is about art and the whole process of communication, perception, and expression. As such, the narrative can get pretty self referential and abstract. Recursive to a high degree. (I'll admit, after too many iterations, I start to loose interest myself.)

One way to look at a lot of modern art is to understand that it operates a bit like satire, only the without the joke aspect. Though not always. A lot of it is actually pretty funny if you can follow the conceit. Whether this is interesting to you or worth the effort is a personal choice or preference. Another way to look at some modern art is to approach it like jazz. It is artist riffing on themes and ideas that other artists have done. Again, a knowledge of the works being referenced is usually helpful.

No one said liking art was going to be easy.

But don't automatically assume that because someone else likes it, they aren't sincere or are chumps.

Edit: It just occurred to me that possibly the best way to explain art to the Hacker News crowd is to say that art is like hacking. Hacking perception. Hacking expression. Hacking communication. It doesn't have to have a point, though it might. You do it because you can, because you want to, or because you need to. Or, possibly the most fun, because you shouldn't.
Private may be the next big thing in social networks
How would they deal with support? Note how the article mentions that Microsoft is providing second level support for this.

I don't believe any of the Linux companies have provided desktop support for the masses. And support wouldn't be just for the OS, but the whole experience - printers, scanners, things that plug in in various ways, networking, ISP connections - everything. Note that Microsoft don't have to deal with those things - the burden is on a printer manufacturer to tell the user how to make it work with Windows, but for Linux the burden would be on the distro.

The users would also be new to Linux which would incur a greater support load. Turned around, if you worked for a major Linux distro and Vizio approached you for a desktop support contract, how much would you charge per user and how many staff would you need? Would it be economically viable?
I think he talks about something else. When I installed Win8, and then cygwin, and all other tools that I use - then the Metro screen became full with lots of icons that you can't read the whole names easily, and all of them were the same. I don't even see some of these names in the Start Menu (or maybe i did not check, because I don't go for example to the menu for them).

So the problem is that it flattens out the whole tree structure, and while I think this is good idea (I like the OSX dock), it's good idea only if you have few important things there. If it's get too cluttered easily, then it's not.
Ticketing systems: What You Need to Know
I agree, that is a false dichotomy. Here's an alternative: read a lot of things, including one or two books by the "pickup" people. Glean from their stuff some things that are useful, and toss out the rest. If you're so averse to paying $10 for a paperback copy of The Game (which as a first-person account is also a story with some pretty high entertainment value btw), then borrow it from a library.

No one is advocating buying into their whole philosophy. But as I said in a parallel thread to this one, unfortunately those guys have developed the most accurate and detailed model for modern day social interactions that I've seen. After I knew what to look for in terms of body language, group dynamics, etc. the difference was night and day.
The Ribbon is too big. It often looks stupidly redundant (section titles matching action button titles, like Find/Find and Exit/Exit). Icons are overused; it shouldn't be a sin to let "only" a word be the label for something. Mostly it looks like somebody emptied all the drawers onto the top of my desk, forcing me to stare at a pile of junk all day long even though 90% of the time all I need from the pile is my pen.
Art is like programming. The objective is to abstract the essence of something, and re-represent that in some other medium.

There are different degrees of that - obviously modern art attempts to represent the essence much more abstractly than, say, impressionism. And some artists accomplish this better than others (in fact only a very few do it really well - the 100x engineer theory applies to artists as well). But as with programming, there is a logic to all of it.

In fact, if you look at the history of Art, the progression appears to be from less abstract to more abstract. Probably because it's harder to do well, and takes time and experience for techniques like Cubism to emerge.

But once you start looking at all art from that framework, it starts making a lot more sense.
I'm gonna guess he's talking about ChromeOS.
I LOVE Alfred - it beats Spotlight hands down! The best equivalent I've used for windows is Launchy. Honestly Alfred has changed the way I use my Macbook :)
My main concern with this entire 'non-upgradeable' situation is having to eventually recycle a laptop due to one or two components that could have been replaced or upgraded.

My Dell XPS1640 isn't the best by any stretch, but I know that I can repair the hinges and upgrade the ram when I need to.

I'd rather spend more money upgrading and refurbishing a system than just buying another because it won't run the eventual CS8.

"Shame to let a good toaster go to waste over a frayed cord”
- Proposition Joe, The Wire
Sorry, what is revolting? And why?
I hold myself to the higher standard of trying not to make blanket statements about entire genders because I am rational, not because I am a man. I hope you have some idea how absurdly arrogant your words are.
Abstract Machines, Interpreters and Compilers
Startup University
Which is kind of the point of F#, right? To get good ideas funneling back to the masses?
Not sure who down-voted you, because while I generally disagree, you make a really good point...why the hell haven't browser makers built an integrated payments platform? They're probably better positioned than almost anyone to do so, and it would instantly turn all Safari, Chrome, and IE from weird strategic products into cash machines. And it would free Firefox from relying on the search engines for their revenue.
> I'm not asking people to go days out of their way

But you are. If you've made the design decision to support progressive enhancement, testing a fallback for each individual element being enhanced is a minimum marginal cost. If you've made the decision to simply require JavaScript, many tasks get substantially easier and you eliminate a large fixed cost as well as the small variable cost.

But let's say, for sake of argument, that any site could magically be made to work JavaScript-free by the wave of a wand and 15 minutes passage of time.

You're still too small of a minority to justify 15 minutes for most people. Several years ago, Yahoo generously identified you as approximately 1% of global visitors across all user agents. Now consider that most visitors come from a refer with some context, so you already have some idea about what content you'll be seeing. If you don't care enough to enable JavaScript, your probably unlikely convert. If 2/3 of you turn JavaScript on (also generous) and typical conversion rates are 20% (very generous), you're looking at about 0.1% of total visitors.

Furthermore, as you prove, the category of people who disable JavaScript deeply overlaps with the category of people who haphazardly call other people's hard work "shoddy". These people make annoying customers.

You're simply not worth it.
>> I knew my wife was the woman for me when we visited the Tate Modern on our first date and both walked out after 30 minutes agreeing that it's all garbage.

Appropriately, I remember "trash on floor" being one of the exhibits (second floor, I believe, just prior to the video montage of a gentleman's penis).
No love for Fort Mason?
Traffic makers, online viral marketing, online affiliate marketing
Best Blogs Site. Best Money Making Community Blogs.
> Yes you scan over the screen and it might be hard to find the things you want on day one. That's how it was with our iPhone and Androids too on the first day we got them.

Most of my friends who use Windows haven't even bothered learning how to use a smartphone. Those who like to play around with gadgets have long left Microsoft land.

There certainly are Windows power users out there, but most of this thread seems to skip over the rest: those who use Windows because they grew up on it, or because they've actually attended paid courses on how to use it. There's no way they will do it a second time. I think Windows 7 will become the new XP.
Yet you still cross the street.

I'd ask you if you always wear several blinking reflectors, but I fear that this analogy breaks down very quickly.
>The obvious move was to just fill up their database with crap data, so I hacked together this little bash script and handed it out to a few friends..

Sounds like it will be more than one IP address, but you're right it's probably not many.
If sugar level meter and insulin pen start transmitting data in an open format - would non-technical diabetics be able to use it?
"JS packers to obfuscate their code so that it's only loaded by real browsers"

this is probably not what's happening. more likely, it's obfuscated for other reasons. curl doesn't parse or execute javascript.
Google sees 'alarming' rise in government censorship
Excuse me being blunt: don't they routinely test power going off? This all sound like they have never tested.

At Intel we tested power going off from time to time...
It's not the UI that excited technologists enough to recreate it from scratch. It was the design of the operating system and its API.

BeOS was state-of-the-art when it was written, in the sense that it took the accumulated wisdom and academic research up to that point as its starting point. And in many ways it is still state-of-the-art.
Google reveals 'terrorism video' removals
Really, they use it because that's what they are used to. Or mainly that's what was forced at work.

For example for years we've used Outlook Express, then people moved to Outlook. Everyone uses Excel, Word, etc. - because the company provides it, and people if they want to finish their work at home, would use whatever they learned.

I for example learned so much P4Win (the discontinued Perforce client from years), that even if it's less performant (syncing for example, because it's done by 4096 bytes), I still use it more than P4V (the new client), because I simply know it all, so much that I feel P4V as step-back (it's not, but because of slower redraw it feels that way. P4V is way faster than P4Win, and multithreaded).

So color me stupid, but since then, I'm using P4V for heavy tasks (after carefully, and consciously clicking here and there), and then for day to day things - changelists mainly - I'm with P4Win...

Sorry for dragging into this, but I'm just showing an example. And at home for my projects I don't even consider perforce, never use it. (But if it was like office app, I might've).

So why would I want for my productivity tools (which I don't have much fun, but more work) a change?
The best textbook on modern banking and finance I've ever read.

Which, I realize, is a really damning endorsement of a novel, but I honestly found it fascinating. Once I chewed through enough (roughly half) of the first book to the point that it was engaging.

And yes, its exposition was itself an exploration of the baroque.
Seeking tangible results shouldn't be the goal of philosophy. Philosophy is not about tangible results. At its core, it's about thinking clearly.

It's my opinion that if scientists today had a better grasp of philosophy, then the string theorists and researchers studying dark matter would have come up with tangible results already, either by changing their models to actually make predictions, or dumping their models altogether and study alternatives. They would have tangible results instead of always being surprised that we can't find dark matter or surprised that new particles weren't produced at a given collider. Instead of demanding that larger and larger colliders be built, they would reflect on the models they have and attack the weaknesses. Instead of making increasingly sensitive instruments to find interactions between detectors and dark matter that might not even be there, they would give more serious considerations to alternate theories of gravity.
Samsung's new Galaxy S III is out of this world
That is exactly the reason why we shouldn't allow desperate people to be used as canon fodder for research in nations which are better known for corruption and reverse engineering.

Or are you saying that the poor should feel lucky for the opportunity to sign up for experimentation?
That's not an operator, that's a lambda. The end result is the same, but semantically it's very different. Passing around an operator means you don't need to know the types involved - you can have a function that operates on any two values and applies an operator to them. That's not something you can do with lambdas in C#.
This thread is great modern art
In redislive, the monitoring duration is configurable via command line argument, the idea is to schedule it as a cron job and monitor every 6 hrs for 1-2 minutes, that's enough to build the trend for analytics.
It is in fact stealing, just as "copying" a song is stealing (I know the HN audience won't like that!). "Copying" software is stealing it.

This is incorrect. And you're making the same mistake as the one you point out in your next sentence. Using an euphemism to simplify a complex ethical question (possibly incorrectly).

According to this [1] theft involves a component of denying another person with rightful possession of that property its use. When dealing with ideas (and software, algorithms, math etc., etc.) we're dealing with new ethical questions that we shouldn't hurry up and sweep under the carpet by pigeonholing into our previously inadequate understanding of ethics. Doubly so when it deals with life and death as in the case of drug patents.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft#Elements
Silver Bullets - Interface-Based Programming
Verifying Ages Online Is Daunting Task, Even for Experts
In my experience, if someone says "I hate vegetables", they mean that they will not enjoy vegetables if you serve them. They can be wrong about that.

But your bungled attempt at word games leads me to believe you have been trained in philosophy.
> even if you use the Win-D shortcut, when you double-click on an icon it forgets your previous window configuration, so you have to manually restore everything.

Windows+M to minimize everything, Windows+shift+M to bring everything back. My favorite shortcut since Windows 95 :)
Interesting interview with the lawyer in question:

http://www.ramblingbeachcat.com/2012/06/not-backing-down-ram...

And more analysis here:

http://www.loweringthebar.net/2012/06/the-guy-continues-to-m...
Hi. Amateur writer here. In my opinion, there's no such thing as "getting" art.

Why? There's a lot of differing definitions of art, but the one I like the most is Tolstoy's: art is about creating an emotional connection between the artist and the viewer [1].

Abstract art is made with this minimalist principle in mind - that one does not need to be realistic or even confined within the limitations of conventional artistic styles to develop an emotional connection with a viewer. That is, the viewer doesn't need to "understand" or compare a piece to reality to have an emotion from it.

For the most part, I think that classical art is enjoyed by those without an artistic background because there's at least an appreciation for the time and mastery invested into each piece. However, many people mistakenly believe that this appreciation is "getting" art. After all, you think "wow, that must have taken forever" when you see the Sistine Chapel.

However, that's just one emotion art can give you and it's a mistake to limit art to that. It's this belief that caused pieces that are potted plants on pedestals or red squares on large canvases to be alienating - "dude, I/my five-year-old could have done that!"

So let me put it this way - there's no such thing as "getting" art. Either it made you feel something or it didn't.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Art%3F
You're taking me too literally. I used those words because they're what the parent post used. He was being dismissive of guys who just wanted to have sex with women (and, I suspect, thinking he was taking some kind of moral high ground, probably as part of a rationalization mechanism) while I was pointing out that sometimes women also just wanted to have sex.
So it stands to reason that if you can get people used to paying for individual online services (like they do for HBO on their cable), then it is not required that things be ad supported anymore.

Advertising isn't required; lots of services do fine without it, even some free ones that make money through other methods. I'm just saying that in general people seem to prefer paying with their attention to paying with their cash. If you can somehow shift that balance, then yes, advertising could go away. But I don't think that will ever happen, because people just don't value their attention and time like they do their cash. I think it's a side effect of human nature somehow.
We had slowdowns, graphically, since most of the people moved to 7 it's all good. Not sure exactly what, but it feels better.

7 feels very solid, like XP and 2000. (Man, I still miss Windows 2000).
I think that Guernica transcends it's medium and genre. It still affects me as a political and moral statement more than anything. (I actually like a lot of cubism, but then, I'm an animator.)

My favorite story about Guernica, no idea if it's true or not, concerns the time when Picasso was living in Paris during the German occupation. The Gestapo like to visit his studio and harass him, but he was just a bit too internationally famous for them to just eliminate him.

One visit the SS guy was walking around, berating Picasso about his degenerate art when he came across a postcard of Guernica. (At that time the painting had an international reputation and was being held in America for safe keeping.)

The Gestapo guy picked up the postcard and shook it at Picasso and asked, "Did you do this?"

To which Picasso replied, "Oh no, you did."

I read it on the internet and heard it on TV, so it must be a true story.

Edit: Here's Simon Schama telling the story on a BBC documentary on art: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVycXNUh6YU
If only it were that easy, but in philosophy there are not equations holding your hands the entire way telling you how models are correct. Students have to spend years learning how to think before philosophers start making sense and stop sounding like "lunatics". There is no step-by-step checklist to being a philosopher.
Thanks. BTW, Crocker Galleria also runs a tuesday market during the summer months.
Simpler solutions have been around for years. For less than a dollar, you can buy a keychain that responds to claps or whistles... http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/535558081/clapping_key_fin...
Philosophy does not discuss human problems. Philosophy discusses human thought.
They didn't set out to create something new and wonderful, they wanted the operating system that they loved to have a life after Be. Recreating that OS was a design goal, because if they had decided to create something new and different then they would have had to sit down and figure out what exactly that means and nothing would have ever gotten done.

Haiku has always been about recreating R5, just a bit more modern, because it's a goal everyone can agree on and no major design work was necessary.