skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Actually, Apple licensed Xerox's UI and compensated them with pre-IPO options.
I'm working on Crowd - It's a music service that offers free music streaming powered by Youtube - http://crowd.im
Does anyone know where I can download the latest Linux binary that support 2 factor authentication? I tried downloading the linux version, but it keeps on saying "this account uses two-step verification. To link to it, please download the latest version of Dropbox from www.dropbox.com/download". Maybe there is no new linux client, not sure.
Is Elon that bad of a human being?
> Writing with a pencil or stylus isn't called touching.

Yes it is. The user is touching the screen with the stylus.

This definition specifically includes pen and pencil:
(http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/touch)

The wikipedia article has a variety of touch screens which respond to objects, or fingers, or both:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchscreen#History)

Apple refined existing concepts.
That depends on the application.
Amex is the Apple of the payment world -- they control and brand the whole thing end to end, and own the high end, charging a slight premium for some things when the market will bear it (and were both far larger premiums and lower volumes in the past).

With Visa/MC, it's a card association (until recently, a non-profit), and an issuing bank. The issuing bank may have a bunch of banking relationships with you (so you're unlikely to walk over a credit card), or only a credit card (so you're not that valuable to them anyway), and doesn't have as much incentive to protect the card association brand. End user consumers almost never contact the card association itself.
> This is why the best programmers are in startups

Oh, come on. Show your work.

For that matter, define "best." [1]

[1] My definition includes people skills.
> Because they ultimately failed in the market

They floundered for a while, but the iPod Touch is very successful today.
Apple started it - Google is defending both Samsung and it's Android product from the litigiousness of the new Apple.
Looking back, ok but what about going forward? Tech is obviating the economic "function" of legacy music biz. The only thing proping them up is gov't monopoly rights. At some stage (of remediable innefficiency), it makes more sense to have an "art tax" and pay the artists directly. why should society pay functionaly usesless intermediaries 80 cents on the dollar? to duplicate files and send them over the intenet? Cmon. If an alternative (irs) can do this via taxes and NP foundations for 20 cents overhead, without reducing the artist production incentive? There dies the public policy argument supporting "recording" industry. It goes without saying that artists make all their money performing live and through sales of T-shirts. This would continue...Society is better off...No? Whats not to love. Spotify and soundcloud and you-tube et al could still have a role (they pre-suppose the existence of product in any event).
>"Microsoft developed the "old" Surface .. at the same time Apple was working on the iPhone. Both were released in very early 2007... had multitouch UIs of the type you seem to think are so innovative. "
>"Both arrived at these solutions at the same time because the wide availability of capacitive touchscreens"

There are many errors in this claim.

Capacitive Touchscreens were not widely available at that time at all, which is why the early iPhone ripoffs used resistive screens.

This is also why the Microsoft PixelSense used CAMERAS.

Quoting from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_PixelSense
"It is a 30 in (76 cm) 4:3 rear projection display (1024x768) with integrated PC and five near-infrared (IR) cameras that can see fingers and objects placed on the display."

For emphasis:
"and five near-infrared (IR) cameras"

>"For someone who seems to have so little grasp on the real history behind all this stuff you should be careful about calling other HN readers out as you do in a post below this one."

I think its hilarious that people would accuse me of having "so little grasp on the real history" when you just claimed that the Microsoft PixelSense used "widely available" "capacitive touchscreens".

So, which is it, did you know that it actually used cameras and thought you could lie and get it by me? Or were you genuinely ignorant of the "history behind this stuff" and just repeating what you'd heard from someone else because it fits your ideology and you live in the Reality Distortion Field where Apple never invented anything?

Seriously. 9/10 of the "rebuttals" I see on Hacker News are of the quality of the one you just posted... and not only were you blatantly and obviously wrong in a way that you wouldn't have been if you'd ever bothered to research any of this, but you accused me of not knowing my history based on a made up claim of your own.

The bottom line is you're following an ideology, and because that ideology has supplanted reasoning for you, you believe-- with the conviction of a religious zealot-- what you hear that fits your reality distortion field. And thus it is inconceivable to you that I might actually know what I am talking about.

IF you'd just said "Didn't the microsoft surface use a capacitive touch screen?" that would be very excusable. But even then-- and even if it HAD-- it wouldn't support the claim that Apple never invented anything, or specifically never invented a UI for iOS.

Unless you're also claiming that somehow the iOS UI is the same as the microsoft one... which would again be absurd and easily disproven.

See the thing is, you aren't even arguing on the topic-- you're just throwing out (false) claims to try and create cover!

If you were the outlier it would be one thing, but on any of these threads you can find hundreds of people posting this kind of easily disproven nonsense that doesn't even address the issue.

This level of discourse is just terrible. Please make arguments, please make them to the actual point. Even if you'd been factually right, you wouldn't have been addressing my point at all.
what can gitlab give you to get yout o switch?
I like how the end of that statement contains both a winking crooked-smile smiley next to black-eyed frown smiley.
Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.

-Calvin Coolidge
When I look at Google Chrome I am impressed about the excellent decisions related to API organizatoin. Google Chromes extensions can't do a lot of things that Firefox extension can but it is a more controlled environment.
Assuming that leaders of companies always have the best interest of the company in mind is dangerous. The type of personality that tends to succeed in the business world is probably also the type of person that is willing to shut down a company if it makes financial sense to do so, despite large job losses.
A poster previously in the thread has said that touch screens did not exist before Apple used them; then when presented with a bunch of touch screen devices has said that touch must only be fingers.

But to address your point: multi touch OS

iPhone - 2007

Minority Report - 2004 (design ideas, not working implementation)
It is one thing to interpret events, it's another entirely to suggest they are biased and therefore unreliable in their reporting or interpretation.
You seem like you'd be appreciative of this service: http://getsecretsync.com/ss/
Android 2.2 & 2.3 still had more features that iOS.

It was just ugly as hell.
The feature seems to have been released to forum users, then submitted here by a third party. I agree, though, there should have at least been a notification when the feature was enabled to read the forum post.
Right, given the flammability of wood, fire was an obvious next step.

This is nonsense. It is just rejecting innovation out of hand by claiming that it was obvious.

Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc fallacy.
Maybe. Many nonprofits are good at delivering human services, and less good at writing proposals, and the skills do not necessarily co-occur. Sufficiently large nonprofits will usually have a grant writer on staff, but smaller ones may not, and a really good grant writer will probably cost at least $70,000 per year in salary, and probably much more, which helps explain why relatively few small- to mid-sized organizations have one.

This is a specific instance of a more generalizable question about whether one should hire a consultant, learn a skill, hire an employee, or not have it performed, and we've written about that issue too: http://blog.seliger.com/2009/09/12/consultants-employees-and , which recurs in the business world.
The very next line of the guidelines reads:

> "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
I purchased this book and read it today. I think it's a nice collection of advice for the budding freelancer. It's a little light on the legal aspects such as business structure, taxes and contracts. I would consider it a beginner's book on freelancing.

For a little more depth on the business side of freelancing, I strongly recommend the following book: Working for Yourself: Law & Taxes for Independent Contractors, Freelancers & Consultants, by Stephen Fishman J.D.
How about if the central photograph at a Churchill monument was a photograph of Stalin taken by Churchill taken at Yalta?

Surely, that would only be a slight detail.
> At most startups, you will have unlimited opportunities to push your skills as far as you can. With ambitious plans and small teams, you can often set the direction of the design, development, support, or marketing of the product. You will have the opportunity to decide which problems to solve and how to solve them.

You can do that at BigCo too - just not crappy ones. GE does this all the time, and so does Google, Facebook, Sony, Samsung and many other decent multinationals - start-ups don't own cool (as much as you want it too).

Also - I'm very sceptical of the learning opportunities that are shown by most start-ups. The vast majority of startups make a product that never gets traction, is not technically difficult to implmement and generally adds no value to the world (it may even actively subtract value - Zynga/failed start-ups/lost years of productive life).

Conversely - say I work at GE, I might increase the fuel efficiency of diesel engines by 3-4%. Multiply that out, and I've just saved the world an insane amount of fuel, CO2 emissions and costs.

Oh and I get paid a lot more by the way, with a ton of benefits, future opportunities and way more impact.

Or I could build an app for hipsters.
Here's a small article to get you going:
http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.as...

Here's a brief excerpt:

"Design patent secures for their owner a fourteen-year right to exclude others from making, using, selling or importing the claimed product and, thus, allows time to build up secondary meaning necessary to acquire product design trade dress protection. Trade dress protection can last for as long as product design trade dress remains in use and continues to identify the source of goods to consumers. "

And other one on infringement:

"Infringement of the design patent is found when an ordinary observer, giving the attention of a purchaser, perceives the patented and the accused designs as substantially the same, in light of the prior art."

In the court opinions on Gorham v White (1871):

"It is not essential to identity of design that the appearance should be the same to the eye of an expert. If, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same -- if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer and sufficient to induce him to purchase one supposing it to be the other -- the one first patented is infringed by the other."

This is why if Samsung creates a product whose design is substantially similar to Apple's, then infringement may occur. This is why the jury consists of "ordinary" people who are the right people to make the judgement call. Too many HN readers are complaining that the jurors should be technically minded because they are thinking of utility patents, and not design patents. You also fall in the same boat, but I'm guessing most HN readers don't even realize there is such thing as "design patents" and "trade dress protection". This is why lawyers are paid to do the arguing, while we sit back and yell from the sidelines.
Right and Graham invented the telephone so there was no inventions going into making the cellphone.
The opportunity cost of liquidating wealthy countries is enormous. The United States as a source of aid is much more valuable over the long term if it keeps improving its culture, the same culture that was driven to create technology and resources in the first place.
No, it's not that far from the worst offense. The hardest code I have ever had to read has always been code with ten+ levels of nesting in a big function, where I had to keep a big mental stack of what was necessarily true to be in the branch I was looking at. There is no situation on Earth where four levels of nesting couldn't be broken up into something more understandable; the only reason not to might be for the purposes of microoptimization.

As far as I know, the only worse offenses to readability are jumps or formatting your program like an IOCCC entry.

Do you actually disagree, or are you just going on? If the former, then please give an example of the right "circumstances."
I think that you and jasonlotito are talking past one another. Lets assume that the following are the questions:

1. Looking at prior art, did Apple create original Patents X, Y, Z?
2. Did Samsung violate Patent X, Y, Z?
3. Which phones violate the patent?
4. How much money should Apple get for each violation?

If you instead answer the questions as follows:

1. Samsung violated Patents Y and Z
2. Phones X, Y, Z violate patents Y and Z
3. Apple should get $X, $Y, and $Z for each phone.
4. The prior art does indicate that Apple did not create an original product.

The ordering of those answers leaves out important information for the decision on previous questions. In this case most importantly: that the prior art has a bearing on whether or not Samsung actually violated Apples patents.

>"In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down." ... "Once you determine that Samsung violated the patents," Ilagan said, "it's easy to just go down those different [Samsung] products because it was all the same

This is the evidence to support that conclusion. From: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390
IE9 doesn't run on Windows XP. IE10 won't run on Windows Vista. So it's safe to say that even with silent updates (which still won't automatically run on corporate machines with corporate IT policies that control the updates), IE8 and IE9 usage won't rapidly drop into low single digits.
Both require it. Its just a marketing ploy to improve the aesthetics of Vanilla JS.
"One person's consumer feedback doesn't really add much to the dicussion."

I read the comments sections on sites to know about individual's opinions. Don't you?
Yes, and the telephone existed before cellphones, but that doesn't mean the cellphone wasn't innovative. Your argument doesn't address the point, and is a bullshit rationalization for a claim you can't support. I refuse to believe you are so stupid as to think that is a rebuttal.
Stem Cell Fraud: A 60 Minutes investigation
I was a bit disturbed that he seemed so surprised by this. It seems so obvious. I work in consulting and we have a very diverse set of clients, which theoretically provides some protection against the actions of any one client. Even then we put a lot of effort in to maintaining good relationships with our larger clients, as loosing one of them is the difference between a really good year and a really bad year.
Practice CTF list
> I believe the most logically consistent scenario was that most of the panel simply followed where the "expert" led.

You have no evidence of this what so ever. And the other logically consistent scenario is that the jury didn't follow where the expert led.

And it is not a complicated matter IMHO. Once the document was produced detailing Samsung intentionally trying to copy the iPhone UI and the warning from Google then it was pretty obvious which way this was all going.
You've said ad nausium that the market wasn't ready, yet obviously the market was ready when the first iPhone launched since it became a big success.

By saying the market wasn't ready for capacitive touchscreens due to price, you're implying that this was the main thing keeping an iPhone-like device from reaching the market. Looking at the response from the competition after the iPhone launched, I don't think that's realistic at all.

I haven't seen any evidence that large capacitive touch screens were too expensive before 2007 and suddenly became cheap enough after that.

I also have seen zero evidence that any of the competitors were working on pure finger-touch based user interfaces before 2007. Which would be the case if the market was just waiting for capacitive touchscreen prices to come down.

I do agree that Apple shouldn't have a monopoly on touchscreen phones, and they don't, not even after this verdict. I don't like software patents either, but Samsung could have licensed the patents if they wanted to.
What do you do when your most determined best effort is still inadequate?
Funny how anyone posting on here who doesn't take a stridently anti-Apple position is accused of being "biased" (even when making ideologically neutral comments, I saw the other day)... yet pointing out that an agenda driven site, which has presented distorted and, frankly, dishonest, reporting of the situation is "biased" is somehow beyond the pale.

The reason you feel this way is because you're biased.

It's ok, I'm biased too.

The problem is, you guys seem to think that you can accuse anyone of being "biased" as if it were a counter argument that excuses you from the need to defend your points.

Here you're derailing the discussion because someone hat the temerity to speak the truth: Groklaw is biased. In fact, "biased" is being generous. They're driven by ideology to the point of being dishonest.

This article is a good example with their selective quoting and their lies about what was done.

For instance, the claim that the jurors had only 2 days to consider the evidence is a lie. They had the whole trial.
Maybe all the people with slam-dunk morning after arguments should have sent them to Samsung's large, professional, highly paid and presumably competent legal staff.

Or maybe these arguments are all bullshit. Would the jury really have found these to infringe the iphone design (assume they were released later)? I'm going to say, clearly, no. Right off the bat none of them have black faces with equally rounded corners. That sort of gives away the game right there. But let's imagine any one of those devices in this exhibit:

http://www-bgr-com.vimg.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/087-e...

http://www-bgr-com.vimg.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/677-e...
If I purchased the note over the iPad, it would be mainly for the digitizer. I am pretty sure though that everything else would work just fine.

The retail price of a ThinkPad may be kind of high, but normally x220s and x230s are on sale for 700-800, and they are awesome machines.
Earlier discussion on the same topic: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4433142
I suspect the benchmark is flawed, and charging jQuery for one-time penalties for every function. i.e., if you make a page that has nothing but a getElementById call, vs. loading jQuery and executing the query on the DOM, it's obviously going to be a lot slower. Even if that's not the case, "fast enough" is fast enough...and jQuery has proven itself to be fast enough for a lot of stuff. And, most developers working in JavaScript and building their own helper libraries and such are extremely likely to make worse libraries than jQuery. So, it's probably smarter to use a library that's getting a lot of vetting by really smart people. Whether it's jQuery or something else, I'm not gonna go back to hand-written JavaScript (I'm in the midst of converting an app to use jQuery from handwritten functions, and the new version is either faster or similarly fast, and maintenance of the frontend is getting vastly simpler with every element that gets converted from the handwritten functions to jQuery+Bootstrap...hell, sometimes, I'm able to just use markup with no JavaScript on the page at all...and that's like magic).
What do you know, you're right. I am impressed; I was under the impression that because of the encryption, Dropbox couldn't reliably determine what pieces changed.
The main benefit is jurisdictional arbitrage - you get to pick whatever flag imposes the least restrictions on whatever use is most important to you. Unlike on land, on a ship if your assigned "country" becomes too oppressive you are free to change it without changing where you live/work. Since flagging countries get paid a small amount (and gain a small amount of status) by virtue of their flagged vessels and have no physical territorial claim over them, flagging countries have more incentive to be generally agreeable than do territorial governments.

So simply "sailing under a flag" gets you quite a lot of the potential benefit of seasteading. Sailing without a flag is something to think about in the far distant future but not really worth worrying about for now.

There are oodles of business models that could make use of this today. Right now, the only one that's really been tried is "day gambling cruise" - sail out of a port where gambling is illegal, gamble once outside the relevant imaginary lines, sail back into port. But there's lots of other business-space to explore, like medical cruises.

Currently many Americans fly to Germany to get medical operations that aren't yet approved here or fly to India to get medical care that is far less expensive than here. Those who live near a port city might save money and time accomplishing the same end - cheaper, more flexible care - by shuttling out to an offshore floating hospital.
Then you should support them when you make them.

But extrapolating all of this from one single statement is irrational, ridiculous and frankly delusional.
I am an engineer at Google. No, we don't read through patents to figure out how to do something. We are not idiots. If I wanted to implement a pinch/zoom system, I would just do it. It's not rocket science. In fact, I believe I did do it, before I worked at Google. I was writing code for an iPhone app on a version of IOS that did not have the gesture recognizers available in the public API. It's not that hard to recognize two points moving away from each other.
so if you love C# and know how Objective-C works, this is a great framework, lame I'm not truly a fan of C#.. So i guess it won't be a time saver for me.
> Two-Factor authentication sucks. It's too hard for users.

It must be easier to build a startup on the assumption that your users are incompetent mouthbreathers. Respecting your users is hard work :-/
Sorry for the confusion, this was a forum release. Linux build is here:

https://forums.dropbox.com/topic.php?id=66910
Get Boxcryptor.
>What Apple owns is "pinch to zoom" in the context of a device containing a combination of all the other features.

That's completely incorrect--read the patent. Apple owns pinch to zoom on a touchscreen, so long as that pinch to zoom allows you to pinch multiple times to continue to zoom.

Again apple owns an individual utility patent on what we consider pinch to zoom on touchscreens. If you use just that one feature you are infringing on their patent, and every android phone is infringing on that patent.