skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If the function returns a useful value and an error then you'll have to assign to error to "_" to ignore it, which is a pretty big hint to the reviewer that it's being suppressed. So in cases where you want to "force" error checking, returning multiple values is probably good enough.
How much money they have is irrelevant. They're not a charity. I'm sure they have enough data from OSX Lion upgrades and periodic software update checks to know that the cost of supporting old 32-bit systems was more than they would make from upgrade purchases.
Everyone blows this so far out of proportion.

My three year old laptop is still running 10.5.8, and has never had a kernel panic or a single application crash in 3 years of heavy use.

It runs the latest version of every app I need without problem.

Why anyone would describe it as EOL simply because I have not updated the OS in a few years is beyond me. The thing still works perfectly.
I'm surprised the Mac grew at all given how late in the quarter they updated the notebooks plus no desktop updates at all. I guess it just proves how little people really care about spec sheets anymore -- or maybe they made it all up at the end of the quarter with the new notebooks?
Yep, you just reiterated my point.
did you read this?

"One caveat. You should never put the opening brace of a control structure (if, for, switch, or select) on the next line. If you do, a semicolon will be inserted before the brace, which could cause unwanted effects. Write them like this "

For me that means that the compiler will insert some characters and then complain about them, or, even worse, not complain about them. How about just compiling what I write?
1) There IS a technical reason. The iPad 1 has a larger screen and as such requires more RAM than the iPod 4G. Also as for the iPod 3G "almost" identical makes a difference.

2) Apple releases a lot less products than the Android OEMs. So not sure compared to whom Apple is wasteful.

3) Personally I fail to see how autolayout is a particular attractive feature. And I haven't found it that hard to mix match SDKs/targets on iOS.
Questions for those more versed in Go's GC than I:

1) Let's say you want to do everything you can to avoid generating garbage. What would some those techniques be?

2) There is no delete function is there (for memory deallocation, not hashmap key removal)?

3) Is it possible to eliminate all garbage, and if so could you prevent the GC from starting up at all?

Possible existing answers that are a bit above my understanding (C# and Python spoil me):

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4231048

http://blog.golang.org/2011/06/profiling-go-programs.html

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=fr&fromgroups#!topic...
>"Why hasn't some other solution come onto the market to fix the problems of craigslist?"

Monopoly power.
Obama Was Right: The Government Invented the Internet
The Rebirth of Brazzaville | Cheap Calls to Congo | Sho Help
The Open Source Promise
There is an awful lot of useless chatter going on here so to straighten out some facts:

- the 0 is not padding

- this will be harder to pull off with alcohol, electrical items or anything else that requires a checkout assistant to approve as they will likely spot the scam

- a list of barcodes for items can be found online, and these stickers can be printed off at home and then applied in store under the cover of shelves

- the reduced item barcodes are only stored until around 3am the next day, meaning it is easy to pull off this scam without getting caught

So to go over the numbers again...

971 - means the item is discounted

5000221503354 - is the original barcode for the item (if you pass a 14 digit number to the checkout this causes a buffer overflow)

6 - this is the reason for why the item is discounted (damaged, out of date, end of line, etc)

000070 - the price you want to pay in pence (000070 = 7p, 000170 = 17p, 001170 = £1.17, etc)

8 - the checksum
Why do you pick meaning #3? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/appropriate (emphasis added):

1 : to take *exclusive* possession of

Also: why are you calling copying 'taking'? If I sit down at the Mona Lisa, paint a copy, and take that home, do I steal it?
Well we should expect that to happen. we should expect companies to have their own standards which are superior to the mandated minimums.

Apple are doing this with sourcing.

The big mining firms, like BHP Billiton, often apply much higher environmental and safety standards than the local laws. I saw this in a plant in Mozambique, several in South Africa and Australia and one in Colombia. Australia had the toughest laws, but even there the imposed corporate standards were higher than the minimum. It's the right thing to do, but it's also just good business to treat your staff and environment well.
This is nice, simple experiment design. However, I'm really surprised they only ran this once - or indicate trial counts and indicate range/distribution. I'd be curious if video transcoding is so consistent that a single measurement is enough to draw a conclusion; certainly network/storage transfer is not. Sure, time and bandwidth are not free...
So, Showw.me gives me a page that aggregates all my posts from various social media networks? ie. all my Facebook status updates, my Tweets, my new Instagram photos. And through that I'm able to get a bird's eye view of the interaction/traction/engagement I'm seeing across platforms.

Is that right?
Yeah man. Tests take forever to develop. It's a lot easier to test manually, upon release. Sure, something is usually broken, but the time saved on rigorous testing is worth it.
How do you know that animals have emotions, or feelings? How do you know that they have something similar, or nothing like that?

Just because you use your knowledge of human emotions on your dog's behaviour doesn't mean that your dog is capable of fear (it's likely, but absolutely impossible to prove).
@brianmckenzie -- you can change the mortgage and/or downpayment on the home-affordability page (or any other page, clicking the "Edit" button in the Home Value box on the left sidebar). Feel free to ping us on Olark chat (on the site) if you have any issues.

Also, please do let us know why/where you think the tax and rent/own calculations are screwed up. thanks!
No. Obviously, a libertarian would say, "instead of changing the law to further enhance state control over the Internet, we should enact different laws to deregulate local last-mile telecom".
You still seem confused. What you have is not a converging series, period. You just have a list of successively-closer ratios. A series (in math) is the sum of the terms in a sequence (which itself is a discrete function). You don't have a discrete function, and you definitely don't have the sum of anything.
It doesn't have classes or inheritance.
i mean all weve accomplished is connecting over a billion people and letting you see the person you want to talk to in real time on a device smaller than a hotpocket

yeah i guess industry isnt really accomplishing much these days

(How are your examples actually useful?)
Small comment: you are using faux bolds on your headers (Bestsellers, Recent in Fiction, Recent in non-Fiction in dark gray along the top.) This is hurting readability, especially since the font is already bold. Essentially, you are applying a low-quality bold (generated by the browser or text rendering layer) to the high-quality bold that was designed by the typographer. This isn't just font wankery, it makes it hard to read the headings.

The easiest way to fix this is remove the bold declaration from your CSS. The text will still be bold, because you are using a bold font.

The other way to fix it is to go into your @font-face declarations for droid sans bold, and change the declared font-weight to be bold. This tells the browser that the font is already bold, and not to make it more bold.

Here's a before and after in FF (latest) on OS X. Faux bold: http://cl.ly/image/3R0B0z1s0A3g. Real bold: http://cl.ly/image/2A1N3w083h47.
I don't get this. The whole point of university research is that it is too risky (or benefits will be too far in the future) to make it profitable for companies to pursue. I don't see how anything could be too risky for the university, but not too risky for a business.

I get it. I recall specifically posing a promising, if not clear-cut, research topic to my grad school advisor and his response "that's high risk".

Academia is more concerned with the volume of publications rather than impact and unique ideas. There are tremendous disincentives in the system for innovation.
How are they trying to squash competition? Padmapper isn't free to have users submit their listings to their own website?
That's cool. I am curious to see what Grubwithus is going long-term. Right now it's dining with strangers, but maybe in a few years it could be like flash-mob; hangout with strangers!
I'm not sure it's more funding, as much as the way it's doled out. The idea with the way funding has shifted was indeed (in part) to make academia more "real-world" and competitive. Instead of a university getting a big block grant from the NSF, or researchers getting unrestricted funding directly from their university's budget, as used to be common, individual researchers apply for competitive 3-year grants to fund an individual project. In addition, researchers are increasingly expected to fund their students and student expenses (e.g. travel), whereas a larger percentage of that used to be funded by universities. Some of that (particularly at state universities) is outright decreases in funding for research, but some of it is just a change in how it's administered.

The idea, which was plausible, is that projects can then be judged on their merits, instead of one big slush fund that who knows what comes out of. But the unintended, if not unforeseeable side effect is that it adds a huge amount of extra overhead, and incentives to target only "fundable", aka "sellable" research. With NSF funding rates for projects currently running at 5-10% of proposals, and typical large research universities expecting you to have 1-3 of these 3-year grants going at any given time, you need to be submitting 10+ grant proposals a year! And ideally also working your networks to see if you can attract some corporate funding. That's a huge amount of overhead, and it also sucks a lot of the appeal from academia, since rather than the university setting giving you freedom, you're in some sense closer to an independent firm that has to bring in its own funding, constantly chasing the next round of financing lest your lab implode and students go hungry.

There are likely people who will thrive in that environment, but I think it's increasingly going to be people who are skilled at research management and sales. The #1 job is attracting external financing, and the #2 job is heading up a successful mini enterprise with that financing, ensuring the lab is operating well. This is becoming pretty close to explicit. One university I've been at now sends around an internal newsletter ranking faculty by number of dollars brought in so far this year! If that's what you're going to be judged on, why even be in academia?
great job! I liked the previous logo though...this one is too... colorful.
Which part? Expected return on savings or expected inflation? Relevant to inflation expectations: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/is-our-economist...
If you have over ~1,000 followers then you are a de facto marketer and you could pay per tweet per active follower.

So, so wrong. I'm not far off that, and while I tweet now and then about work stuff, it's all from a point of view of "this is what I'm doing", not "this is what I want people to see". If I changed job to a completely different industry tomorrow, I'd tweet the same stuff about the new work, regardless of whether it fits my followers.

I like twitter enough that I'd pay for a premium service if there was one and its benefits were slightly interesting, but I wouldn't pay just because I breached some arbitrary line in my account.
I'm curious if you have used panic/recover to see if it fills the perceived void. (I'm not saying they do, I don't know)

https://code.google.com/p/go-wiki/wiki/PanicAndRecover

http://blog.golang.org/2010/08/defer-panic-and-recover.html

http://dave.cheney.net/why-go-gets-exceptions-right
@ianferrel -- thanks for pointing that out (I'll check what's happening in year 30 of the model).

As for the interest rates on non-home investments, right now we are making an assumption (that cannot be changed). However, that will be configurable (at a fixed rate, or against a curve) very shortly.

Please let me know if you have any other issues or comments/suggestions.

thanks,
Phil.
That's a given. The only way they'd have authorization by the owners of the data would be to e-mail the poster of every CL listing and ask for it. We know they don't do that. The key point is whether there's copyright infringement at all, not whether it was authorized.
Try this:

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB...
What's a "reasonable price"?

A penny taken off the monthly cost of Internet access by fiat is a penny subsidy granted to Internet service customers.

In a competitive market for Internet service, providers can't gouge customers because they'd lose to competitors that didn't.

You are making a stronger argument against local service cable, copper loop and RF monopolies than you are against the libertarian opposition to net neutrality.
Thanks! I have a soft spot in my heart for isometric adventure games.
1) Facetime seems to be vulnerable to MITM wiretaps, but none of Google's services are transmitted in the clear anymore. Skype, afaik, is encrypted, as well.

2) Wikipedia says that "from 2003 to 2006 the bureau issued 192,499 national security letter requests". That's a long shot from the mass surveillance affecting "millions of Americans" (from this article), or the NSA having "a dossier on every citizen" (recently here, as well).

3) Good point.
Unfortunately the saber rattling and sabotage by USA and Israel only helps entrench the mullahs.
Hey, great site. Looks like you and me were thinking along the same lines.

http://www.noexcuselist.com
Ignoring the "stealing" vs. "infringement" red herring, you're still misrepresenting patents.

The motivation behind patents was to get inventors to reveal their inventions. Prior to patent law, inventors just kept everything a secret. This meant that inventions would get lost and had to be rediscovered later on. So in exchange for revealing their "secret sauce" to the state, inventors get a temporary monopoly on their invention.

As for the idea that you could never, ever tell whether somebody invented the same thing independently from another, I don't understand why you'd think so. In the extreme case, if it's the 16th century and two people living on different continents invent the same thing days apart, you can be pretty darn sure that neither copied the other. Information didn't travel that fast. But this doesn't matter in patent law, because its purpose it not to prevent the "stealing" of inventions. Its purpose is to encourage disclosure by awarding a temporary monopoly on an invention.

This is in contrast to copyright, where it is a valid defense to say you created your work independently.
The purpose of patents has nothing to do with theft or personal property rights. They are a voluntary grant of special protection to the inventor by rest of society; society promises to grant the inventor exclusionary protections for a period of time, after which the idea ceases to be exclusive. That is the reward that society is willing to pay for those of us who use the advantages which society provides to create new things.

At no time does the patented idea become property, and therefore, by definition, it cannot be stolen; every patent holder owes his/her/their patent to society, not the other way around.
Ian, we'll take a look at your specific financial profile. I can say, that in each year, calculating your net wealth is the sum of over 90 line items (ie not simply income + home equity - expenses etc). In the future you'll be able to change the performance of non-home investments to match your view.
nice idea, nicely implemented
To call Apple a hardware or a software company is to miss the point entirely. Is Ford a wheel company or an engine company?
These are just hints to similar behaviour, _no definite proof_ is available and impossible to obtain.

Which is why behavioural biologists don't even go down that path of "humanizing" animals - all they do is link certain behaviour to certain actions (famous example: anal-sniffing as sexual behaviour in guinea-pigs or dogs). Looking at animals through the "human glass" can lead to some insights, but can certainly lead to terribly wrong results, too:

It's like overfitting a statistical model, you'll get noise where you expect results.
If this is an App store gold rush, then Parse is truly positioning themselves to sell the shovels
Right.. Should have though of that. It's the same with other kernels.

Perhaps a simpler workaround would be to run Mountain Lion under VMWare. I believe it supports graphic acceleration and there should be no problem running a 64-bit OS on a 32-bit host with hardware visualization. It might just work.
> and it's obvious that person lives hand-to-mouth

Or maybe he just has better things to do than hounding clients to comply with net 30 or net 90 terms?

I think the disinclination to contract would be mutual in your cases. And that's just fine.
Satellites see Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Melt
smtp server one liner :

$ sudo python -m smtpd -n -c DebuggingServer localhost:25
Ha. They need to sue Google and other search engines that provide caches. Good luck with that.

Second, it's not infromation that's protectable by copyright (at least not in the US). It's like the telephone book as others have said.

There's heaps of websites that mistakenly believe they have some copyrights to assert against users that harvest data. But it's not just websites. A longstanding, classic example of this sort of silly argument is WHOIS. The registries can't stand the thought of others getting the data. They claim bandwidth is an issue. Yet they won't provide (mirrored) bulk data, which would easily resolve any such bandwidth claims. They purport to "license" the right to do things with the data, yet they have no rights to grant to begin with. It is public data.

Then there's the "spam issue". As if email is somehow different from direct mail, and from telemarketing. Why don't we outlaw those practices?

Anyhow, again, it's public data: addresses and phone numbers. We call it the telephone book. If, e.g., a brokerage wants to have its summer interns do cold calling to solicit new institutional investors, the interns do not need a "license to use the telephone book". If someone listed in the phone directory does not want to be called, there's no law that says they have to be listed; they can use a nonlisted phone number.

People who list with CL presumably want their information to be found and to be presented in an appealing way. Maybe not exclusively on CL. Maybe CL should ask them what they would prefer.
The human genome sequencing didn't really get going until they had to start competing with Celera. In the end, the HGP ended up adopting the same techniques to keep up.

So, that probably isn't the best example to use.

The LHC on the other hand is one example of what the original post was worried about - the trend towards more consolidation, towards funding bigger projects (with fewer people), at the expense of many smaller labs.
I like the concept. But the content is crap. I read a lot of fantasy and scifi. When I went into the list of top rated books in that genre, so many of them are pulp garbage that look like Twilight fan fiction and the like.
Awesome feedback, definitely feels like the direction we're heading (greater user flexibility) is one that resonates with you and others. The only note I'd make is that you can currently change the home value on the buy vs rent tab (it is beneath the other data entry tabs on the left of the page - clicking on that or on the button that says 'change' underneath the home value should get you going).
I agree. This new logo looks like a lot of the more generic designs I've seen submitted in 99design contests.
Great. 16%. Yes, I'm colorblind.
If You Don’t Think You Need It, You Haven’t Seen Greatness
@kevinpet -- totally understand where you're coming from, and we've received several similar comments today. To date, we've been trying to "mask" a lot of the complexity as well as the numerous variables that go into the model.

However, clearly a number of users want to see more details, along with an explanation of assumptions being made, and the ability to tweak and change these assumptions.

We hope to add these to SmartAsset.com very shortly.
> spending my time on engineering and research of my own..

In some fields, this is very easy. It's easy to buy a bunch of cluster time on Amazon EC2 or something and run lots of machine learning/other research applications. This is awesome and is one of the great things moving the field forwards.

It is much more difficult in the physical and life sciences where starting out costs are extreme. Many great ideas do not become reality because of how expensive starting a company in those fields are and how difficult it is to raise money in those fields. Lots of VCs are cutting funding in these areas because of the comparatively high risk and pharmaceuticals are slashing R&D budgets in order to pick up smaller companies and secure rights to compounds, etc. Funding is very difficult in these fields and the framework of academia is sometimes the only reasonable way to carry out original research.
I'm in that boat - I'd love to see a showcase of apps built with trigger.io, however informal
That is why in a "perfect world" thought experiment, resources are not finite.
Nobody's owed anything "at a reasonable price to the user". The right to free speech isn't conditional on books/newspapers/pamphlets being cheap. The kind of meddling that's most dangerous is government meddling. Simply keeping FCC rules out of the Internet delivers that "no meddling" benefit, for free.

And if things are a little expensive, a little limited by private contracts, a little abused by current providers? The march of consumer demand and technology will fix that in a few years.

I've been a Time-Warner customer, and Comcast, and AT&T, and RCN, and Sonic.net. I've hit throttling -- typically for peak total usage, rather than specific applications. But so what? A regulation from the FCC can't make more bandwidth. It can't keep up with even a year or two's needs in flexible new policies to handle changing traffic/application mixes. A competitive market with differentiated services, new technology, and new entrants can keep up.

Way too much defeatism is inherent in the idea that the cable-DSL duopoly is all we'll ever have. That defeatism can be a self-fulfilling prophesy: encumber the industry with national pricing & transit regulations, tell everyone "we've made it so these two safe government-approved choices are all you'll ever need", and you might make that so -- just as the FCC stagnated things for decades with its power-concentrating telephony and broadcast industry regulations.

Twenty years ago, we didn't have a broadband duopoly. We had a zero-opoly. So even a duopoly is an improvement. And it won't last. It's too easy to incrementally string more wires or deploy new wireless technologies, to precisely those customers who chafe under any current limits.

The same competition that got us this far is still working, and doesn't require a bossy Washington DC agency staffed by censors and political-party hack lawyers to save us from ourselves.