skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
So maybe to clarify few things. This is just sensationalism - numba is not a python compiler. It's a compiler of some restricted subset of python into LLVM. I don't think the subset is very well defined by now, but I would expect it to be at some point in the future. It's just that you can choose what to compile and what not, which is very convinient for a lot of numerics.

The whole approach might be viable and it definitely has use cases, however the sensational headline makes it so bad :/ Hackernews - you let me down.
I think Steve said it best himself:

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2011/11/230bfc...

Companies have an obligation to their shareholders and their staff to protect themselves. A lot of big companies have come out against the current Patent Laws, but at the same time are fighting tooth and nail to protect themselves because that is the current legal environment that they are operating in right now.

PS. Jacques, the "freemium" and "consulting" links on your personal website are dead links
Free Online Real-Time HTML Editors
Thus like HTML instant, the real time HTML editor is one of the best desktop alternatives to HTML editors that can be used to edit and create codes of HTML.
this is not a python compiler. it's a subset of python compiler (this exercise has been done already quite a few times)
Because that is what patent law is focused on. And yes - that's exactly why is ISNT applied consistently because only things worth patenting are filed. If you think you have a billion dollar idea (and you may have) - and no one has thought of it - are you suggesting you simply tell the world and expect everyone to play nice ? The only way to prove something is unique is if nothing is available in the public domain or nothing is filed before hand. I'm in no way suggesting the patent system is great (read above) - but removing it entirely like this article suggests is also wrong.
Right. They managed to get a licence from Xerox to the astonishment of many of the guys working in Xerox PARC.

What´s your take on the morals of this?
ミズノサッカースパイク
I'm sorry, but science is neither "we measure the things" nor is it "we look for the cause." Yes, those are things which scientists do, but no, that is not the essence of science.

There is no attempt being made to come to any wholesome understanding. That is, a scientist is trying to model nature, and this consists in two parts: (a) develop a model, (b) test it against nature. Seth Roberts has perhaps hit upon a way to develop models, but he doesn't seem to test them. That is, cum hoc, ergo propter hoc -- "with this, therefore because of this" -- is not actually a test for causation, but merely a guess for causation.

To do a proper test, you need variable isolation, and the stability of test results is no guarantee that it is an isolated variable. A good example of an isolated variable is a simple light switch. A terrible example of an isolated variable would be your time of waking up, because that time cannot be isolated from your own thoughts and beliefs -- that is, many people, especially if they're not sleep-deprived, can wake up earlier simply by telling themselves "I'm going to wake up early tomorrow." (I myself usually wake up before my alarm clock goes off.)

Humans in general are not light switches. As has been documented repeatedly in medicine, dual effects of placebo and hypochondria plague us; things we expect to be medicinal often placate us even when they have no medicinal content and you can suddenly feel the symptoms of a malady soon after reading about it on Wikipedia.

So even if you want to say "for himself, these conclusions are very scientific," you're going to have to account for the problem that he is probably going to confirm whatever he already expects. That is, any "follow up" tests after the first guess are already tainted by the fact that Seth knows what's being tested.
I think so. I'm trying to decide what's best for my customers. Since I don't plan to update them anymore I think it's best if I stop selling them.

However, I do want to make sure that I get at least one more update out there to take care of any issues that might arise from the iOS 6 transition so I'll probably wait until I'm sure there's nothing serious there.
It's not a technicality. It was violating the GPL. I wouldn't want a GPL project I'd contributed to released that way either.
If that's real, that's really just an example of the asinine (and petty) side of Steve Jobs I choose to forget now that he's dead.

Imagine Gabe Newell's version of that email.
I wish I could back in time and convince Steve Jobs not to do the iPhone and (Butterfly Effect style) return to present day and see what phones were like.

I'm guessing we'd be viewing the web scrolling up and down on a Blackberry's nipple :D
Apple-Samsung Verdict - A breakdown of patent and their rulings
How about simply having shorter tech patents? I feel having a patent length of 5 years would absolve these problems quickly. The tech industry moves too fast for 14 or 20 year patents...
Numba versus Cython (Benchmarking)
Actually a company I worked for had prior art on that and had working implementations in the field but as it was the defense industry, they aren't that fussed.
Bypass proactive protection in Kaspersky Anti-Virus. Video demonstration.
Original Post in Russian:
http://habrahabr.ru/post/150206/
Why would the company be worth $600b? I haven't seen them do anything that I can't buy from another company cheaper, or in some cases, years before Apple "invented" it (ex: the iPad was a decade late to the tablet market).

I'm not trying to be snarky here, but what is it that Apple can actually sell me that no one else can?
I think there's a big difference between how [my generation and] I (19 y.o.) use Facebook, and how older generations do.

For me, it is 80% keeping up with my current friends and 20% older friends. I think these ratios are perhaps flipped after a certain point, perhaps the people for whom their FB graph wasn't created organically from the age of 14/15 but rather, had to go and create it posthumously.

Yes, there are people I'm friends with who I'm not friends with anymore. But, if you use Groups + Lists (which all my non-techy friends use too), this isn't really an issue.

Anyway, I just see a lot of commentary on things FB is doing wrong by people > 25/30 y.o. But, for people below that age bracket (who tend not to be commenting in the media) it has (from my observations) replaced texting/phone/skype/letters/etc.
You're talking about the US. The patent was never granted in the first place here in the EU. So yes, I can state that it WAS obvious - at least in Europe.
You mentioned the difference between big and small company.

When Apple had clearly stolen the look and feel of Delicious Library to make iBook. The author was a "small company". He even show some happiness that his work was used by Apple.

The point is, he couldn't have sued Apple. Simply because, actually, a small company could certainly not win over a big one. The big one will use a lot of money to keep the trial as long as possible while continue to steal your stuff. Even if won, it would have last too long to save your business. And you had lost a lot of energy. This remember me the medieval justice were the richer always win.

Actual patent system only give an advantage to big companies.
What if big player start to sue small startups because they used the double-click, the swipe, a wood texture that looks like a library?
It would alredy be much better. But it's never going to happen imho.
Software patents don't make sense, but copying something bit by bit also makes no sense. It is one thing use good ideas as inspiration and another thing to just copy something recklessly.
You mean this ?

http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/wuthrich/teaching/...
It's harder to accidentally kill people with my cell phone than with a car. Regulation leads to standardization.
I really don't understand how 'pinch to zoom' can be patentable.

Imagine showing a touch-screen tablet to a group of people who had never seen one before. If you said, "Look, here's how to pan an image. How would you zoom?" then surely a significant percentage would give you the 'pinch' answer within 10 seconds. Wouldn't that clearly demonstrate that the 'invention' was too obvious to be patented?
That's the magic of investment! It may not be worth that much to you, personally, but the shareholders beg to differ.
Holy fuck is your healthcare system stupid.
"If this continues we're going to spend the next decade tiptoeing around every trivial implementation detail of mobile UI instead of boldly exploring new ideas."

But wouldn't this then spark greater innovation? Innovation doesn't come from slavishly imitating what came before. Revolutionary new designs and UI will come from those bold enough to seek vision that has no chance of infringing upon previous patents.
Yes, but so what if I have a "billion dollar" idea? An idea is merely a thought inside the mind. Just because an idea can be used to make money shouldn't give me (or anyone else) the right to own it. If you don't want others having access to your idea, then keep it to yourself. Thomas Jefferson put it far better than I ever could:

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than
all others of exclusive property, it is the action of
the thinking power called an idea, which an individual
may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to
himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself
into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot
dispossess himself of it.

That ideas should freely spread from one to another over
the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man,
and improvement of his condition, seems to have been
peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she
made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without
lessening their density in any point, and like the air in
which we breathe, move, and have our physical being,
incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.
Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

I like to think of it like this: At some point in the past, two ancient humans were sitting in the rain. One of them -- let's call him CavemanA -- was smart enough to construct a shelter. That certainly would have been a unique and valuable idea at the time. But do you really think that CavemanA should then have the power to tell CavemanB that he's not allowed to build a shelter?

Ideas are not property. Allowing people to own them is extremely harmful, and should only be done to prevent even more harmful situations from arising. We certainly shouldn't give someone ownership of an idea for no other reason than to reward them for having it first.
"Pinch to zoom" is an innovation?

Motorola recently sued Apple, and one of the patents covers siri's audible voice prompt, so Apple will have to innovate around that. Also, media playback resume among several devices is Google's innovation. Apple will have to innovate around that. And that's just the beginning. None of them are FRAND, which means higher penalties and bans.

I agree, companies have a responsibility to defend their innovations.
Yeah but in the UK, we go to our GP for such things and it reduces the load on A&E
I should also add that this is just the last straw for me. I've been feeling increasingly uncomfortable about Apple's policies since they (temporarily) banned all languages but Obj-C from their platform.

I've just had enough of their controlling, paternalistic attitude. It was one thing when they were the scrappy underdog but the idea that I need the OK of the richest company in the world to install software on my (mobile) computer just suddenly seems equally laughable and creepy to me.
I can't help but think if you're willing to go this far for performance, then you'd simply choose another language over PHP (or even HipHop).

With this you loose the flexibility and transparency of having the framework in PHP. There have been many times when I've had to go routing through Zend framework to really understand how or why to do something a certain way.
While many of the OP's claims seem genuinely true, it saddens me to see how mad he becomes halfway through, after rightfully assessing facts, like the obvious flaws behind some the Apple patents.

But what started as a well presented and valid argument essentially became an unresortfull, self righteous Apple-Bashing that culmulates in "But as proud as you [Tim Cook] are, as disgusted I am. [...] Today, values have won and I hope the whole world listens. Your values have won, mine have lost, [...]"
I prefer Adobe's Color Designer (http://kuler.adobe.com)

You should really check it out!
HTML5 Fullscreen video crossbrowser
1. Opened http://docs.phalconphp.com/en/latest/reference/tutorial.html

2. Saw lots and lots of static method calls

3. Closed page again.

This way of judging frameworks has never failed me.
I´m personally quite conflicted in this case:

Apple has a point that Samsung was copying them. Pure, simple, stupid copying, not using elements of it and turning it into something new and great.

On the other side, the ways of protection with patents of tiny bits of it is silly and broken. They are trivial and regard the overall design and should not be allowed.

Famously the Mac itself is based upon the work of Xerox Parc. To the credit of Apple and Steve Jobs they put in a lot of work, made many concepts useable and re-developed the mouse to actually make a consumer product out of it.

For me the morale right or wrong is the following:

* make it your own:
While heavily using concepts existing prior, you´ll re-combine them into something way better than the thing you copy: That´s ok for me, it has creative value.

* copy:
You simply dumbly copy things line-by-line without even understanding the basic concepts of why something is great and throw it on the market at a lower prive: That´s wrong and ripping of the creative work of others.
Samsung to me falls quite clearly into the copy category. I doubt that they have a deep understanding of UX design and the subtleties what actually made the iPhone great and delighted the users.

It´s essentially all in the mostly miss-understood Picasso phrase "Good artists copy, great artists steal.". Although the phrase confusing most people more than it helps.

* moral compass of creatives

It´s got the basics though that has guided the moral compass of creatives:
If you take inspiration from me and turn it into something mind-blowing, it´s ok. I´m flattered to be a part of it.
If you just plain copy my stuff to make money with it, it´s not ok.

* Legal System

The Jury system in the US is actually well suited deciding complex moral questions and too much fine print hinders more than it heps, which was evident in this case.

To me, instead of a patent office there should be a central online register to archive jury-understandable photos and descriptions or ideally videos of the stuff you do simply to have a validated reference of when you thought of it.

And then patent/IP Law may simply should read soething like this:
It is ok to base any creative work on the work of others as long as the result is something new and great in it´s own right.

It´s not ok to copy the work of others without significantly improving it simply for making money.

Done. Plain Language.

Everything else, the moral right or wrong would be left to a Jury with guidance from a Judge.

Which they basically did in the Apple case. All that patent BS aside, I guess they descided on the basic morale question and started the paperwork.

(That guess is based on the time it took them to come to the verdict. When actually reading all the paperwork produced they would have been there years.)

What´s your take?
Rooting. As in rooting around. Like for roots or tubers.

Routing is something Netgear and Cisco do.
Pay by name just requires the barista to be able to pick your name out of a list, which shouldn't be a problem.
Of course Apple wants to protect their revenue. But they focus their litigation efforts on companies that, in Apple's view, try to sell devices by making the look and feel imitate that of the ios. Microsoft also competes with the iPhone, but I doubt Apple will sue them as vigarous as Samsung, because Microsoft developed, again in Apple's view, an original take on the smartphone concept.
What the New Spotify Numbers Really Mean
I didn't see it on the front page when I was submitting, and HN link checker didn't catch it since the url is different.
Would you be able to share it? I've been reading as much book as you for a few years and it's a pain remembering what I read, what I did not like in a specific book (to avoid buying same author if it was the writing), etc. And I happen to read a book I've already read sometimes and remember only in the middle of it "oh that reminds me something".

Right now I've moved so I made a list of all my books in a small spreadsheet but it's not enough!
Russ Cox on technical discussions
What a nice looking website. There's a bit too much random whitespace above the article, but it's all very nice and clean. The width is just right. Thoughts?

Also, 2008 should definitely be in the title.
No, it won't. It will hurt innovation because every damn thing is going to have to go through a committee of lawyers before being approved, and it will hurt innovation because the idea that innovation always involves making something brand-new and from whole cloth is fucking retarded.

Also the idea of a patent for pinch-and-zoom makes about as much sense as a patent for 'a vehicle powered by steam'. Patents are about implementation, not ideas.
It seems Apple is using available means to build a moat that is proven quite formidable.

You can disagree all you want, Apple does not live in your world. Fortunately you do not have to live in Apple's either.
Pinch to zoom was unheard of on any device (mobile or not) at the time of iPhone's launch. Not surprising considering no one had multi-touch screens either.
Yeah, Gehry made I.M. Pei look practical and user-driven, which is probably his greatest achievement to date.

(Some of the Pei buildings were decent, but really none of the newer MIT buildings were all that great. Building 20 actually exceeded most of the new buildings in functionality, and it was a wooden shack. Even the "core" buildings around the IC are kind of defective in a lot of ways. Sad for a university with an architecture school.)
And as a result Europe produces the Samwer brothers - who just copy everything from the United States and open it in Europe. I'm not arguing that patent law is perfect (per my first post) but rather that it does have a function and the original article conveys the view its entirely pointless. EU patent law has its problems as well and its a long post to discuss it - but without any protection you just get outright copies (Airbnb, Stripe and so on and so on) and that does nothing for innovation.
> the iPad was a decade late to the tablet market

I'm sorry but you just flipped your own bozo bit.
Conversation-Driven Development
It's interesting to consider what it might take for an actual war to occur.

Samsung makes up a non-trivial share of the entire South Korean economy, one fifth of the country's exports and employing roughly one of every thirty people - if overnight they were barred from selling products internationally, at what point does the state intervene?
Or, possibly, they just focus on suing companies that are successfully competing with them?

By the way, I have no problem with Apple suing to defend the look and feel that characterize their brand. It's the obvious patents that worry me.
The Norman Foster buildings I've been in have been pretty good. Apple made the right choice.

I wonder if there will be some amazing Chinese architects in the next decades, given their pace of construction.
I did spend the past hour reading through the documentation. Looks like a well-thought framework and has a couple of 'fully blown' examples. Which is good cause I hate it when I start using a library/framework only to find out hours later that its half baked.

To be honest though I'd be more inclined to use PhalconPHP for its straight-forward no-bullshit documentation and real world examples rather than the fact that its written in C.
Good to know - will work on that
I tried this out just now. While the tech is very impressive and I could see why this is a great keyboard for the blind, I've honed my iOS tapping to a point where the stock keyboard is a bit faster. What slows me down is the swiping for space. Hitting the spacebar is much quicker in my experience. Still, very cool app.
how's having a lot of static calls making it a bad framework?
So its fine for Samsung to copy Apple? But when Samwer Bros copy - there is a huge uproar.

You guys should know how it feels when your products are copied.
To answer your question: a sturdy, forged aluminum computer with a powerful unix-like OS with the most polished interfaces around and the greatest collection of software of all systems? With a 200dpi+ display? With wireless, seamless, video/audio streaming to other devices? Bluetooth 4? The best multitouch trackpad? The only decent power cord on earth?
Wow $50,000?!

This is an advice: I think with this kind of money they can fly somewhere else and do the operation and pay all costs associated with money to spare.

I think they can even try that in Canada
Is there any reason they can't do this with the Android app, too? Or does it already have this functionality?
NSA Domestic Spying Whistleblower Doc
Ridiculous fandroid carping by Jaques. Samsung copied Apple feature for feature, the only difference they added was inferior workmanship. If all Samsung wanted to do was copy Apple then they should have licensed Apple's patents.
Well, or downvote, the cowardly little brother of negative feedback ^^

But to pad everything with sucking up to a total stranger? Nah. At least not when talking about general or bigger stuff, as opposed to personal suggestions or projects. I show people I care; just not necessarily about them. They kinda have to earn that, first.