skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Except in this case it was senior prosecutor that dismissed the case initially, after having been in her own words extremely surprised at the unusual manner the police had treated the case in, including a number of irregularities in the interviewing (such as not recording them).

Yes, it is possible that it was "just" public scrutiny, but Occam's Razor is a guideline, not a law of nature - less likely things with more convoluted explanations happens all the time.

It also runs into the question of why this has not happened more regularly, given that Swedish media regularly gives copious attention to outcry over rape cases that don't get pursued.

Sweden has an amazingly high frequency of reported rape cases. It would seem odd if this prosecutor does not have a long string of rape cases with much more serious allegations to look at, rather than stepping in to take over another senior prosecutors case and spend massive amounts of resources on a case that she herself has been conducting in a manner that virtually guarantees that she on her own accord will not be able to move the case forward anytime soon.

If we do accept that it was more public scrutiny that triggered this, how do we explain why she doggedly insists on not questioning Assange, while clinging to the outright lie that she can't question him abroad (as pointed out over and over again: Swedish authorities do this all the time)?
regardless of semantics, it is ignorance--not knowledge--that is the true engine of science
A simple alarm(1) would have sent a patrol car out to investigate.

Sorry, but no. They're covering miles of outdoor perimeter. The problem is that there are very few technologies that can reliably detect things like people, while ignoring things like various animals (or heat from jet engines, etc.).
If anyone else is wondering how the characters are generated:

states = {
// policeman
"0": decodeEntities("&#x1F46E;"),
...
// octopus
"3": decodeEntities("&#x1F419;"),

// explosion
"4": decodeEntities("&#x1F4A5;")
};

From http://www.patrick-wied.at/projects/tough-title-city/game.js
Overkill? Things are proceeding exactly according to plan. Unfortunately, Osama Ben Laden's plan.

Not to imply that the jet skier was a terrorist - he wasn't - but that the action of AlQaeda is in the over-reaction to any "terror threat", real or imagined, by the US.

"All that we have to do is to send two mujahedin to the furthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaeda, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies.

This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the mujahedin, bled Russia for ten years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat... So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy."

From OBL speech, full text at
http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/1964.cfm
He would be charged were this England and the Swedish prosecutors representation is backed up by evidence. In fact, he can be charged in absentia in Sweden if those representations can be backed up by evidence. Yet they keep stalling with their nonsense about not being able to interview him abroad. Which does raise the question of whether they do have sufficient evidence to get him charge in Sweden at all.
Well, "Why don't they just..?" question is not specific to this case. It's a very common question in many other areas of life. In my opinion it's because of general curiosity found in humans. And except mild annoyance it can be a very good way to introspect your position.

For example if others haven't been asking this question we wouldn't got this explanation. And now that I got this explanation of NASA's process I would like to know "Why don't they just make all this process more agile?"

For example why have only one launch in 7 years with expensive hardware? Why not multiple launches with cheaper technology?
With your feedback, I have redesigned the homepage to include the features. It is a simple one screen editor, still I will try to make an explainer video soon. Thank you for testing and your feedback.
Which happens to be the point of this article.
Open Source Software used by Apple
it's all (unicode) boxes, no graphics.

chrome 21.0.1180.79 + ff 14.0.1 on mac os x
Honestly, does it matter? Do I have to always code in "ruby-ish" while coding in ruby. What should take more preference? Solving a problem or maintaining "ruby-ish", "python-ish" idioms. Besides if the author feels that he can maintain his codebase this way then I don't see any problem in it. I also do not like tone of trashing vagrant just because it's code base is 'shitty'. Vagrant has been godsend for our office synchronizing configurations across multiple machines. It may be easy for some geeks to create a development system using seven command. But there are people who aren't bothered or have less time digging very deep into every documentation on earth. They want to quickly find a base solution for their problem which they can tweak to their need. Vagrant solves problems for those people perfectly.
have no title bar in chrome :/
I see what your problem is. You use windows. And iTunes, which is merely a bad piece of software on Mac, is disgusting on Windows. It's years behind the Mac version (which is not a good app by itself).

Every time I have to setup somebody's iPad on Windows I feel sick for hours afterwards. iTunes is slow, syncing with Photos folder and Outlook sucks, and the overall experience is dreadful.

But I disagree that filesystem is better than a database that the app uses to keeps track of stuff for you. But again, if I were a Windows/Linux user I would've said the same thing. Things are much better if you live completely in the Apple platform (Mac/iPhone/iPad). In my opinion, you must have the whole package, or none of them at all. If you're not a Mac user, then an Android tablet might be the better choice (they were absolute shit when the iPad came out, but are pretty decent right now).
When asked how long version 1.0 of Stack Overflow would take to produce, Jeff Atwood famously replied "six to eight weeks" without any sort of serious planning or consideration. It took quite a bit longer. Listeners of the Stack Exchange podcast got to hear Joel Spolsky make fun of Jeff for this many times.
> pure FUD

My relatives and friends are outliers then. Or maybe yours are. But, I don't think it's FUD because I have first-hand experience.
Thank you for your suggestions.
1. adding ability to save as draft on wp is easy. can be done. but I assumed it is not a common use-case
2. adding support for rich-text may be complex (at least for me). will look into it.
Thank you again for your feedback.
This is not unprecedented in animals, green sea slugs are capable of making use of the chloroplasts in the algae they eat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysia_chlorotica
Why is tech so unreliable? Why does testing and building take so long time that tech is outdated?
Bit of a non-sequitor, but why are you using Chef instead of Puppet? I don't usually deal with VM stuff, but I've recently started looking into it and it seemed like Puppet had a clear lead in functionality, or perhaps my mind is just playing tricks on me at this time in the morning.
Biggest Ponzi in the short history of Bitcoin just closed up
> on Android 90% of the apps you'll use everyday are free

They're ad-supported. That's a huge difference. I'd rather (and do) pay for the apps I'm supposed to be using everyday (but, the problem is you can't test-drive apps, so you might end up paying $14 for an app that's pure garbage. That's a valid criticism of App Store.).
To be honest, "OpenSource + Apple" is a huge, meaningless joke and all the downvoting on HN will not change that.
Gidsy is the biggest player in this space, and YC recently funded a competitor called Vayable.
Hmm, my reading of the original blog post is perhaps a bit different than yours.

This post seems to provide evidence that people who do not traditionally write textbooks (not the top hundred faculty members in a field) are being afforded a new opportunity by textbook companies to "write a book", which either means "pick and choose some portions of the standard textbook" (discussed elsewhere in the comments) or "publish a 'course reader'-style collection of readings as a book" (discussed in this blog post).

It seems to me that this new opportunity also represents a new revenue stream for more faculty members than currently receive textbook kickbacks.

I don't mean to suggest that I have any special knowledge of the motives of adjunct professors in particular — basically I just read the Chronicle of Higher Ed like everyone else. This is a well-trod area: see July 2008's "'Custom' Textbooks Raise Money -- and Questions of Ethics" (http://chronicle.com/article/Custom-Textbooks-Raise/41288), February 2010's "Format War Heats Up Among Publishers of Electronic Textbooks" (http://chronicle.com/article/Format-War-Heats-Up-Among/64323...), or October 2010's "As Textbooks Go Digital, Will Professors Build Their Own Books?" (http://chronicle.com/article/As-Textbooks-Go-Digital-Will/12...), to pick a few examples.
> To create guests: virt-install, virt-manager, Boxes, Heat, OpenStack or one of the many other libvirt users. None require XML editing.

All of which adds more complexity to do something I can do trivially without libvirt.

I might just not be the right target for it, given that I have the luxury of being able to use only LXC and OpenVz, and in both cases creating and managing VM's with the tools provided is extremely easy.

> In any case, that's not an issue for the topic here. The Vagrant developers will certainly need to read up some libvirt API documentation, but once they have made the sensible decision to use libvirt, then that will be completely hidden inside Vagrant, and wouldn't affect end users of Vagrant in any way.

Of course as someone using mostly LXC and OpenVz, to me Vagrant also seems totally over-engineered for what it does. It's at least a factor of 10 larger than what we use to build and deploy our entire production clusters. I'm very happy I don't have to deal with that kind of complexity just to get some dev environments set up.
The questions will be dumb. they will repeat again and again. That's because not everybody is an expert on Mars robotics. Everybody has daily tech and they just use these tech as comparison points.

For instance, people have everyday technology in hands and they believe, if the ordinary Jane/John Doe has a multi core processor smart phone costing them 1000$ with manufacturer margin, NASA/ESA/JPL whatever guys with millions of dollars of funding has to use better and faster and fancier hardware. And by being ordinary John/Jane Doe, fancier does not mean "radiation hardened", "autonomous in hostile environment", "updatable on slow and relayed links". Because these are not their daily problem. They do not know about them. Also if Apple/Samsung/Motorola heck even Nokia guys could design and mass manufacture, and distribute any smart phone in a few months to be held on john's or jane's hands, NASA must be a fricking snail fast. How distant could Mars be? I can transport from continent to continent in a few hours?

Don't be harsh on them.

Some of the questions may seem dumb, but may be really good questions if they are worked on. For example, I believe radiation hardening is needed because while transportation to Mars there is massive amounts of radiation to be moved through. If the Curiosity would not be operated in the journey, and Mars radiation levels are not that massive. Could Curiosity use multiple (with spares of course) faster and cheaper ordinary processors with small energy footprint, if the transportation was inside a radiation hardened armor that would be gotten rid off on the Mars surface?
It works on the tab bar in chrome.
I use chrome 21.0.1180.79 on mac os x, and it works fine here.
No.

It is the desire for knowledge.

I loathe semantic games in arguments as much as anyone, but I too often see "ignorance" being given some kind of special place in science, where it doesn't belong.

There's a reason why NASA didn't just dedicate 8 years, $2.5 billion, and a tremendous amount of human effort to land a rover called "Ignorance" on another planet.

Curiosity: in this glorious age of Google, Wikipedia, Wolfram-Alpha, and so many other free and readily available resources, it doesn't start with the words, "Why don't they just..."
When I first started in corporate programming and had to pick up on big projects that someone else had left off, I often found myself saying the same thing a lot. "Man, they did this in such a dumb way. Why didn't they do it this way? They must not have been very smart."

So I would go in and "fix" things... only to find out a month later that the code was the way it was because of some obscure edge case that I had never thought of. It turns out that in my arrogance I was the dummy all along.

After that happened a couple of times, I stopped approaching strange code with that attitude. Programmers are in general pretty clever, and if you see something strange in some code, don't assume it's because they're dumb. At first assume it's because you're dumb, and only change your mind if careful and deliberate analysis--and talking to someone else with history in the organization--proves otherwise.
For me, the main use case would be creating an OS-independent web app for WebM conversion rather than relying on a desktop program. Together with the File Reader API this could be done locally without having to upload a video.
I was under the impression [1] that a message would only be received more than once if the first attempt at processing failed to complete in the lock time - for example if the queue consumer crashed. Is it more complicated than that?

[1] http://aws.amazon.com/sqs/#functionality
Pakistan disabled girl arrested for blasphemy
> it would be nice to see someone pursuing a project to put a set of comms satellites in orbit around Mars to significantly improve this coverage.

Would that really change anything? A higher bandwidth between the rover and Mars's lower orbit will not make the link between Mars and Earth much faster, and that's the true bottleneck.

Not to mention wireless communications are not "free" as any smartphone owner probably knows and the rover's daily energy budget is pretty much fixed, the more the rover stays in contact with Mars's lower orbit, the less energy it has to drive around or fire its lasers.

And finally, for what it's worth, the MRO is already "significant improve[ment of] coverage".
Copyright or creators’ rights?
Some sites produce videos mash-ups (greeting cards sites where you can add your face to the video, for instance). Being able to do it client-side would greatly reduce server load for them.

Of course, the lack of interframe compression makes this less useful for this purpose.
> it hasn't changed substantially since then

I think it was iOS 4 that gave apps a filesystem users could directly (through iTunes) manipulate... I'm not sure how to describe it, so take a look at this picture: http://d.pr/i/PGfr - I can drop PDFs (and other files) in that window and the app would see them. It's fast, sine it's using USB. AND, if you plug the iPad to another computer, they can add PDFs too (no need to sync with that computer).

Also, wireless syncing (or syncing with icloud.com) is a big deal IMO.

And interaction between apps (like opening a PDF that's in ReaddleDocs in Adobe Reader) is easy now. Most apps implement a simple "sharing" button that lets you open a file in all qualifying apps.

And Safari... Safari is finally a decent browser. Specially on iPad.

And the whole iClous thing is just magnificent if you have iPhone, iPad and a Mac.

But still, it lacks some of "advanced" features of Android ("intents", for one), and wouldn't have them for at least 13 months (when iOS 7 comes out).
Not offended at all. The heading implies that the entire article is on the page. So it's a little surprising in the end when you figure out that's not the case.
Care to point us to a link explaining why the code in the article is incorrect? And I am sure it would help many people if you would post the link in a comment under the source article as well. I would love to hear what the author has to say too.
I'm guessing because it's too slow to be practical.
Why, because you say so?
You read this too fast.

No, I assure you that I believe that the physical kyboard is not a crutch, nor is it going away for many users such as myself for a good long time.

And it turned out, oh yes you can (some people reach in the 80+ WPM).

I suppose if you are typing regular text this might be possible with a lot of practice. My main gripe is that a smooth flat rectangle doesn't provide enough positioning feedback for me. Others feel the same way, though I won't try to speak for the majority.

This study[0] shows 43 WPM for touchscreen vs 61 WPM for netbook.

I must first point out that unless you have tiny hands, a netbook has a poor physical keyboard.

You seem to be arguing two different things.

Most people don't know how to touch type, and they'd do just about as well with an iPad.

My response to that is "maybe".

When you make blanket statements like:

My main issue is that I view the physical keyboard as a crutch

Then you are saying on-screen keyboards are fine for everybody. I disagree with that, vehemently.

When typing with a physical keyboard, I'll sometimes feel that I've made a mistake, and I'll start correcting it right away. Without looking and the part of the screen where I'm entering text.

With an on-screen keyboard, my attention must stay focused on where my hands are in relation to it, and on the text entry itself. I can't feel if I've made a mistake (or typed correctly) I can only see if I've made a mistake.

As a long-time touch typist, this lack of feedback bothers me greatly, and slows down my overall process, not just the text entry itself.
Facebook Open Graph API Sucks...
It's ridiculous how their API is designed. In theory, it makes sense, but in practice, it does not care about user experience at all.

Take a look at this: http://developers.facebook.com/bugs/254482947993644

"...this is a deliberate limitation of the API Event invites made this way will still increment the counter in the 'events' bookmark and add the event to the user's events list"

which makes NO sense to me why, if a user is invited to an event, then shouldn't that person know? Where's the user experience standpoint?

and these user initiated apprequests are truly pointless. I get 23 of em a day from Texas Hold'em alone.

am I the only one who's frustrated with their API?
Document-oriented database and migration
Rip Any Blu-ray and DVD movie to the new iPad
Tips for Starting and Succeeding in Your Own Business
Become a passionately curious person
Very interesting study on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myi2sRph69A
The sleep pressure that builds up is mad.
Hacking?

You can buy them, you know. That's the whole point of Bitcoin exchanges.
I work for a company in the Canadian academic publishing industry.

In Canada, it is illegal to require students to pay for their own testing. By law, those textbooks which come with the Access Code for an online quiz are not allowed (if the teacher actually collects the marks for those quizzes). The funny thing is that this law is hardly being enforced! Other posters are right in their encouraging students to make a stand, because the law already backs them up here. With all of the protests in Montreal, I wouldn't be surprised if Quebec were to be the first to fall.

There's a twist to this story, however, and it's analogous to Cold War military spending. During that time, the government was in a position of not knowing how much was enough, so they poured in as much as they could, and that probably lead to a lot of innovation from minds that might not have gotten a chance to do this stuff without the money being there. Granted, it also made a lot of people in American academia pretty fat and happy.

The company I work for is an innovator. We are taking advantage of this high-margin market to fund TONS of desperately-needed R&D in education and provide new kinds of learning products. The axe will come down one day, inevitably, but in the meantime, I at least hope to move the dial on learning methods from 1912 to 2012 and beyond.

Once students do take a stand, the good thing is that they at least won't be getting ripped off directly. Sooner or later though, teachers are going to be demanding their online quiz software back. That'll be a perfect opportunity for a company such as Blackboard to swoop in and add licensing fees to their own embedded quizzing software. This will be easy to digest for school administrators who can see the advantage of the upgrade. But that's when things get back into a stalemate position. Sure, it might be possible to build technology that vastly enhances the understanding of a subject through modelling, etc, but why fund it if either it doesn't change the money coming in to Blackboard or costs the schools too much (would be eating directly into staff salaries, unless you make an argument for the need to hire fewer TA's...).

At that point, I would bet that you might be seeing more innovative models coming from nationally-funded development programs for textbooks (as mentioned in another post), similar to the extremely high innovation that comes out of an organization such as the National Film Board of Canada (http://www.nfb.ca/), clearly run by smart brains. Government orgs aren't generally known for innovation, but it really only takes one country somewhere to do it and others can copy. Otherwise, we will probably have some areas where the model is still predominantly that of selling directly to students, and they would have the funding at least to do this kind of development (though there's probably a 10% chance they would squander what's left of the tits they've been milking for years).
Going Green: Color Connects with Nature
Green is one of the most natural, and neutral, colors you can use in a design project. While green is often linked to money in the United States.
read ignorance as a lack of knowledge - not the voluntarily action to ignore.