skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>There is a view that the US actions are unfair and unjust. >The delivery method is not terrorism but the end result is indistinguishable in terms of justness or fairness. For example, torturing a man not found guilty of any crimes.

How is the delivery method not terrorism? If a guy named Muhammad kills 12 ordinary civilians he is a terrorist but if a guy named Andy/Joe/Steve kills 12 / 112 people in Iraq / Afghanistan by going on a shooting spree / dropping a bomb on a civilian home / aspirin factory / wedding and its not terrorism? There was a Muslimy-named guy who killed American soldiers (not civilians) at Fort Hood and he was labelled a terrorist. The guy named James who has killed 12 civilians is not a terrorist, he is a "suspect".

1998 Clinton knowingly bombed the aspirin factory that provided cheap medicines to millions of Africans:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2...

Edit:

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/7/28/national_exclusive_hez...

<BEGIN QUOTE>
In 1985, when I was the Deputy Director of the Reagan White House Task Force on Terrorism, they asked us—this is a Cabinet Task Force on Terrorism; I was the Deputy Director of the working group—they asked us to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government. We produced about six, and each and every case, they were rejected, because careful reading would indicate that our own country had been involved in some of those activities.

After the task force concluded its work, Congress got into it, and you can google into U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2331, and read the U.S. definition of terrorism. And one of them in here says—one of the terms, "international terrorism," means "activities that," I quote, "appear to be intended to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping."

Yes, well, certainly, you can think of a number of countries that have been involved in such activities. Ours is one of them. Israel is another. And so, the terrorist, of course, is in the eye of the beholder.

<END QUOTE>
I'm seeing a lot of replies about Apple not having a majority market share in devices, so therefor they can't be considered a monopoly.

I'm curious about if Apple did have a majority market share, would they then be classified as monopolistic?

I understand Apple's point in terms of securing the OS, but allowing mobile safari to have higher access privileges over 3rd party browsers seems unfair, no?
It does to the extent that criminals are demonstrably perfectly able to acquire firearms despite firearms regulations. You could of course claim it would be even worse in the absence of strong firearms laws, but there are plenty of cases which contradict this position, also. Switzerland jumps to mind.
MSFT apologises after programmer hides phrase 'BIG BOOBS' in company software
That's probably from drinking too many cups of tea after 11pm. Ummm, word?
> Yet somehow we end up with people who cannot solve fizzbuzz.

Remember that those people (most likely) won't get hired. But they will keep fiddling with their resume/CV until they get called. So they'll keep showing up at interviews and be over represented. The talented folk will interview just a few times years apart so they are far less likely to be seen by interviewers.

If you do end up interviewing someone who can't solve fizzbuzz then it is a very good indicator that the hiring process is broken. The usual solution is to keep adding extra requirements in an attempt to weed them out, but that also weeds out the talented people too since they are less likely to have the exact required set of acronyms.

Hiring is hard - simple solutions like adding acronyms doesn't make it easier.
Agreed- as long as every day isn't a party, and people aren't spending money they don't have, I don't see the problem letting off steam now and then. Living out here and running a company is not exactly a low stress lifestyle.
Honestly, their findings are what I would have assumed in the first place. It makes more sense to me that people would use Zipcar because it's more convenient than buying your own car and paying insurance on it. The social and environmental factors seem to me more like an "oh by the way", rather than primary motivators.
An argument being tiresome doesn't speak to it being wrong, though. One big issue I see here is that, what if Twitter stopped being mean to developers? Eek. What if they also make ads less obtrusive ... Game over?
"I know a billionaire that drove an old Honda until recently, for example."

Who knows if this is even true but I can believe there are a few millionaires who drive older cars. What I don't understand is why they would do this since newer cars are much safer with advanced safety systems.

It doesn't have to be a flashy new car either, a new Ford or Handa would have so many safety advantages over an older car.
Instead of any sort of useful statement about the article, what's this? A thinly-veiled appeal to authority, simultaneously claiming that I am the weak link in this thread? Yes please...
There is an obscene amount of money here. But it’s the only place in the world where most rich people don’t really flaunt it. I know a billionaire that drove an old Honda until recently, for example. Another that lived in a small apartment so he didn’t have to bother with the hassle of a home.

Well sure, that does happen, but I think this is painting a picture that's a bit unrealistically towards the opposite direction now. There are some people who live a sort of rich-ascetic lifestyle, and there are some old Hondas, but it's not really the norm. There are so many high-end cars that what might cause people in other parts of the country to do a double-take barely raises eyebrows in SV (oh, another Porsche). And there really are a lot of quite fancy houses in the Valley; driving through Palo Alto and vicinity (Atherton, Woodside, ...) doesn't give you the impression of a humble, down-to-earth neighborhood. And, at bars, it is super-common to hear people discussing money and deals and "acquihires" and IPOs and valuations (even people who aren't doing any of that themselves, but are just caught up in the whole scene/idea/fantasy).

I find it weird that Arrington of all people would claim that the conversations are all about ideas, not money, when so much of TechCrunch's reporting was always about valuations and financing and exits. Is he arguing that his journalism is completely unrepresentative of the Valley?

Though you can find corners that exude more of a non-biz-oriented hacker ethos, like Noisebridge. My brief impressions of SuperHappyDevHouse (have gone 3 times) were sort of in that direction also, with the feeling that a lot of money was probably in the vicinity (random stuff would seemingly get paid for magically, e.g. some VC sponsoring beer), but people didn't talk about it much. They even have a comic about that vs. "other Silicon Valley parties": http://www.flickr.com/photos/progrium/2126533900/
This article was completely unfair. Here's the last third of the Times article:

"But there is another side to the Valley. One where people are building truly innovative companies. Where founders aren’t driven by seeing their name on tech blogs or tweeting a picture of themselves with their new investors, M.C. Hammer or Ashton Kutcher.

There are truly excited inventors, designers and programmers here, some of the brightest people in the United States, who are trying to build something that will fix a problem in the world. This is why I love working in Silicon Valley.

Where else in the world would people try to make a better and more efficient taxi service, thermostat or tool for revolt? Where else would they reinvent education, the Boy Scouts and even government? And there are those who are helping the economy, creating services that enable people to find new forms of income.

Once you are able to navigate through the sludge of pandering and ostentation, you can see there is truly magical work taking place.

Luckily for people who live outside the bubble of Silicon Valley, there is a wonderful group of creators here who believe that everything is broken and that technology, creativity and guts can actually fix it."
I actually think that first chart is the bad one. Inconsistent mixture of US/global, best/average. And inconsistent presentation -- why the single dot on "best wind farms/global average: 21%"?. The data should be visually grouped by energy type. Range bars are important, for example to show the enormous latitude/climate variation for solar PV (10-25%).

You could squeeze far more data into this graphic, and more clearly.
I am not an enterprise thinker, but I have developed enterprise salary expectations. One of my current areas of interest is helping slow old large businesses be more effective by using e.g. Lean startup ideas.

To be honest though I am not a natural entrepreneur. Or at least I may have been while younger but I have become soft over the years. I only really started thinking about startups etc maybe 3 or 4 years ago and it's hard to break out of the comfortable employee lifestyle.

I am from an English speaking country with German ancestors, but I don't know if that background makes me more or less startup material. There seem to be roughly the same distribution if entrepreneurs here as in my home country.

But I am focused now on being founder rather than employee. Already CTO of a non-profit r&d team with my wife as CEO.
Actually they wouldn't change much, the best solution is still for each individual to see where he is most likely to find employment, with less priority given to areas where breaking in is more difficult and more to do what he is good at.

So why have this debate?
Those aren't analogies, they're examples, and software patents are almost exactly patents on ideas, not inventions.

"Although the invention has been described by way of examples of preferred embodiments, it is to be understood that various other adaptations and modifications can be made within the spirit and scope of the invention."

Good luck with that when the only invention actually described is a "system" that embodies the ideas described in the claims.
> NASA scientists also thought we'd be going to Mars by 2025. What does that prove?

We don't _have_ to go to Mars tomorrow. We _do_ need energy right now. Panel prices have fallen through the floor, but panels are only one component in the PV energy production cycle. He cites that residential PV production cost per kW/h hasn't changed significantly since the 2000's. (~¢30 sunny and ~¢60 cloudy areas) traditional production means average 11 to ¢12 kW/h.

>A number of U.S. states are seeing immediate local benefits from supplying > 10% of their electricity through wind power.

That's definitely a positive outcome, but an investment in anything will bring jobs (tearing up roads and repaving). I think he's trying to find out it it makes economic sense to invest in wind power versus something else. I think it's debatable, at least. He might be proven wrong, but so might others.

>I'm not quite sure why "% of global electricity consumption" is the only salient metric

I think it's because his main point is about trying to prevent going over the 450ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere --which isn't regionally manifested but globally manifested.
multiple file uploads. :)
The NYT writer must have visited one of those brogrammers startup. Either that or he just plain made it up. It really sounds like a description that came straight out of The Hangover.
Some people fetishize scrimping. You see it a lot on HN actually.
Let me guess, because Forbes needed some click-bait?
Methinks Arrington doth protest too much.
I think the hardest part about this, is like Jason here a lot of people think it's ok for people to own guns, but not get crazy about it.

Unfortunately there isn't great qualifications for defining what an assault rifle is. You can do specific models, which then require lots of updated and political maneuvering to keep updated. Length, speed, etc all end up catch too many other guns.

We could do federally what california has done, and prevent magazines over 10 rounds, or do like Illinois and require a permit to buy ammunition, unfortunately incidents still happen, and legitimate owners get upset over what they perceive as draconian rule.

Ultimately I think banning something like semi-automatic weapons would be the best in theory. But with 300+ million guns out there, with many of those being semi-automatic, it might be kind of an issue. If you grandfather them in, then you just drive the price up for these weapons. If you make it illegal 'overnight' you may make felons out a lot of people unknowingly.

One of things that has been going around, mostly because of Ebert bringing it up. Is the idea that gun rights advocates say that these incidents can be prevented by concealed carry, but Ebert points out none of the people in the cinema shot back. Unfortunately the argument, and for the situation, that specific theater specifically does not allow concealed weapons. Unfairly, and I believe incorrectly gun rights advocates say that it happened there because he knew everyone would be unarmed.

It's a very tricky situation. I think ultimately we need a better algorithm to detect and flag situations like this. Which would also require massive databases and registrations which people seem very against.

If these guns were illegal to obtain, it would also mean that he would have had to actively be doing something illegal, unfortunately as it stands, if he would have been stopped on the way to the theater, he would have been found suspicious, but ultimately legal (assuming his guns were cased and such).
Well I've heard about underhand technique and read about the science behind it. And I assume the player you refer to is Rick Barry, although he doesn't hold the NBA career record for FT % anymore.

I also watched this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4eJSjwlD5o

One thing to keep in mind is that even though Rick Barry achieved a 90% percentage, who's to say that others could achieve the same? The 90% number gets touted a lot but the number is from a sample size of 1, and from a great player to boot. Shaq could have improved his free throw percentage, maybe by 10 to 20% but I doubt he'd ever get to 90%.

Anyways, I agree that any free throw shooter in the 40-60% range should adopt the technique if at least to try it out. It'll probably take years to perfect however.
I never said I thought the current policies that exist are sufficient. Quite the contrary. I completely agree that intermittent power is very hard to work with and I don't know what I said that made it seem otherwise. However, maybe we will have to live with it? Just because it sucks doesn't mean it isn't our best option since we can do a lot to match power demand to irregular power production and make it suck slightly less. I would call modern fission power "clean" energy also in that it doesn't emit loads of carbon. I would support any plan that stops releasing greenhouse gasses and can actually be implemented if enough people support it. Such a plan can include fission, solar, wind, whatever, as long as it meets most of our energy needs, it is possible to build it, and doesn't depend on inventing something new that doesn't exist. Maybe this plan would require us to drastically change how we use electrical power and only let us use "luxury" power when solar power production is high. Who knows. Anything that adds up!
Most of Australia has had what are called 'FiT' or 'Feed in Tariff'. This was a price above and beyond the retail price of electricity that was paid for solar panel owners.

It varies state to state, but was up to 44c kwh.

However, because of the fact that these schemes blew out in cost (original estimates in NSW were about $1.6b in total, but ended up something like $6b per year) - principally because of the same analysis as the parent comment - 'hey ! free money!' - the schemes are being wound back agressively and closed to new entrants. In most cases, they have been trimmed back to pay the wholesale cost of electricity if your house is a net producer.

The perverse incentives meant that many people would turn everything off during the day, and then switch it all on again as soon as the solar panels stopped producing power. So daytime usage would end up exporting maximum power to the grid, while nighttime usage would climb as homeowners used power-hungry appliances like clothes dryers after dark.

The end result is that a lot of small businesses that started up will now close in a classic boom-bust cycle that could have been prevented.

In case it's not clear, I have a very real moral problem with subsidised solar power. Nobody would float the idea of a law that meant bus prices were increased to pay rebates to owners of a Mercedes, but effectively that is what solar FIT regimes do. They increase the cost of energy for people who cannot afford a solar panel install (those in rented accomodation, or in multi-unit dwellings) to benefit those who have their own house and the spare capital to spend on solar panels.
They Can List, but They Can’t Hide
I have a hammer, but I have no clue how to get from driving nails into boards to building houses. I don't know what the road map should even look like, or what skills I would end up needing, or how to evaluate them along the way.

Thus why software engineers often get a degree, buy books, pay for classes, and so forth.

The self-education threshold tends to be even higher at the beginning. Most people have no clue how to get from owning a computer to Hello World, to FizzBuzz, to simple scripts, to a well-designed and documented program.

The real failure is when people turn to university (etc.) to learn a skill, get a "QC Okay" stamp at the end - and then still can't FizzBuzz.

You need shorter feedback cycles which focus on finding and correcting errors, not monolithic course grades and monolithic degree pass/fail stickers. You wouldn't expect it to end well if you tried code a major project that way. Why would it work any better as an education plan?
I know this has been asked thousands times before, but I want to know with this latest release, should I switch from Bash to Zsh now? What features do Zsh offer which are not in Bash?

Currently I'm thinking about the Fish-style syntax highlighting. Fish is really nice, but it's not very compatible with the rest of the shell environment. So I'm back on Bash, but really miss the syntax highlighting. I need some good reasons to switch again...
Search best soy candles on net.
Our soy candles are made from Soy Wax, which is hydrogenated Soybean oil and one of the most famous benefits of soy candles is how clean they burn. For more info visit http://www.artflodesigns.com.au/
It's a Warren Buffet thing.
I think I agree with you. The more I look at it, I just don't see it. When I first heard about it, I had this feeling I really wanted it to succeed but then I didn't know what really way. Then I found out it is like this Twitter alternative, but I don't like Twitter. I don't like the concept of Twitter, I don't like its effect on society, on language, on communication. So, whatever, but I don't know if I would like this. Nevertheless, it could be, if it worked, a good step in a particular direction for social networking. However, again, I agree, I don't see how it could work.

But you know, it might be good to have an example of someone actually trying this and failing, so we don't have to just hypothesize that it will fail?
I include fission power when I say clean energy.
I think no first party client is incredibly confusing for people.
Dude, you must drive only in long, lonely stretches of road.

In any urban driving condition, looking at your instruments long enough to gauge your acceleration by them is a good way to crash into something.

Knowing to the 50 meter increment where the next turn is isn't so helpful when there are multiple branching exits right next to each other. Being able to visually see at a glance where a turn is in relation to where your car presently is makes shit so much easier. No matter how good the audio is, it's not going to be easier than just seeing where you're supposed to go.
Yes you're right about Ad Hominem but that's not exactly what this is. This is "Classification". And classifying someone is just one of the many things a person uses in judging weather or not someone else is biased or open minded, weather their statements are more likely to be evidence or agenda based. And weather or not to further research their evidence and argue with them or just write them off as close minded, unchangeable, stubborn, and not worth dealing with. When someone tells us a statement, we don't immediately go out and start researching it to see if it's substantiated or not. If they seem like an open minded person and their statement seems well thought out and backed up by evidence, we accept what they say as truth and move forward with the conversation. If they come off as one sided from the perspective of [conservative, liberal, religious, atheist] without taking into consideration other view points or universal truths then why not call them what they are?

I know in politics classification is used to easily and cheaply attack someone unfairly but I can't help but think that in it's own way, it is a valid criticism.

When we say things like: "Of course you'd want to regulate everything, you're a liberal" and "Of course you'd want to deregulate everything, you're a conservative". What we're really doing is telling the person, "I think you're biased and you're not thinking outside of your own point of view". Is that not a valid criticism?

If a Christian extremist says to me "You're going to hell because you haven't accepted Jesus Christ as your savoir" and I reply with "of course you'd say that, you're a Christian extremist." Is that not a perfectly valid criticism and a very true statement?

It's not the best way to engage in a debate but not everyone has 2 and a half hours to argue with others. Sometimes you just need to remind someone that they're lost in their own lala land quickly and effectively. Nothing accomplishes that better than classification.
I switched solely for the reason Zsh has command substring search. It's a huge timesaver for some who spends more than 50% of time on the terminal.
"And unlike New York, LA or Washington DC, the conversations here are rarely about money. They’re usually about ideas."

It appears as though the author is trying counter stupid/unfair generalizations with more of the same.
The hagiography of Phil Fish
My City Eats
Know about the best seafood available at Orlando through My City Eats Including complete review on food items such as one at the winterpark fishco.
If you play on a server that you control, it is trivial to 'give' resources to anyone in the game. You type 'give <username> <item_id> <quantity>' and that resource will drop in front of the desired player.

I find that this instant gratification quickly spoils survival mode. You can give yourself thousands of diamonds without the thrill and danger of mining them the real way. Inevitably I just give myself tons of TNT and blow up the world.

Similarly, if you play chess against a stupid computer, it gets boring.
>And unlike New York, LA or Washington DC, the conversations here are rarely about money. They’re usually about ideas.

I work on Wall Street and visit my family in the Silicon Valley regularly. If this is true then traders and investment bankers rarely talk about money, they talk about trades and deals.

I've identified with both Silicon Valley and Wall Street at various points and can state with a fair amount of confidence that the cultures are highly similar, right down to the more-virtuous-than-thou strain that runs deep through both.