skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Don't get me wrong, I love podcasts but they are completely different. The creators of podcasts decide what I will be listening to as well as the sequence. With this app I'm essentially queuing articles as I would songs and choosing not only the "genre" but also the order in which I listen to them. Certainly the offerings are somewhat sparse but I expect that to change. Pandora is considered a noninteractive stream so that means a podcast or radio broadcast is even less interactive. They really are not interactive in the slightest. Umano is an interactive stream like Spotify.
>It would likely have already happened if there was any single group or person that could be arrested to shut it down.

Exactly.
Burpple app releases v1.2, growth surpassed 150,000 'food moments'
Extract Images from Presentation & Create PDF File from These Images
Don't do anything beyond talking before money is on your account.

If you suspect that client might be opposed to paying all of the money up front double the price and take 50% up front. You can give discount afterwards if everything goes well. I noticed it improves relations with the client.

If your project is large and can be split into stages then do that and take all the money for each stage before starting it.
> Duck Duck Go has a TM application filed on April 2, 2008. Google acquired duck.com's owner in 2010.

For any sort of mark dispute, you shouldn't go by when Google acquired On2, you have to go by when On2 acquired the name. I assume this was closer to the domain creation date of 1995 (or the On2.com creation date of 1999).
chrome://plugins
I use Spectacle. It's not necessary to be that complicated.
Although if that's Google's standard practice with domains, DDG really doesn't have a complaint.
Those aren't actually website results. Those are links to entries for the single word on other sites, then followed by bing results.

How often do you do single word searches in the realworld?
Just for kicks I searched for 'search engine' on Google - once on Chrome(logged into my Google account), and once on Firefox(not logged in). Didn't get Google on the first page on either searche, did get google custom search engine though(which is a completely different thing). Duck Duck Go was in the first page both the times, as were Bing, Yahoo, some engine called Dogpile(never heard of 'em but it was #2 on Chrome), the Wikipedia article for Web search engine and a few other links. There was a list of popular search engines at the bottom of the page in Chrome, DDG wasn't there, but lots other were, and it was compiled from other sources.

Don't see much discrimination there. Especially when they don't even list their search engine on the first page

Chrome search screenie - http://goo.gl/HffYt
Firefox search screenie - http://goo.gl/nUe7t
My dayjob is as a business process consultant, specialising in the Atlassian application stack among other things.

Almost every single hour of my time working with an enterprise customer involves dealing with AD or related Microsoft products in some fashion.

In the enterprise, I almost always deploy to windows products, over the preferred linux+postgres+apache stack, because the business has already invested in resources to manage Windows Server, Microsoft SQL Server, and IIS, in conjunction with AD. Configuration tends to be more platform agnostic, as the applications are Java based, however the number of gotchas that seem to crop up around the Microsoft products make it a big enough pain.

It's unfortunate that the link to AD so often blossoms out to the entire infrastructure stack, as the products are in many ways inferior to their open source relatives, but the momentum, support and resources are already there and it doesn't look like changing anytime soon.
Blekko has a 4 billion page crawl and index, and we've only raised $55 million so far.
Laggy scrolling on galaxy nexus cm10

But I don't blame you, its probably just chrome 18 being ancient.
Maybe DDG should get around to actually competing in the search market by, you know, building its own search engine. Let's see if Weinberg has any real engineering chops, or if all he can do is complain.

Until DDG bothers to step into the real search arena and compete, they get no interest from me.
I agree. Especially when I got to this part:

In an interview on Wednesday, Weinberg said it is difficult to make his
DuckDuckGo the default search site in Google's Chrome web browser.

I just hit ⌘+' on my keyboard and selected duckduckgo.com from a drop down. I didn't even have to hit save and it starts working with DDG immediately. How is that difficult?
In case it's not obvious: [2] links to a chan style discussion board, with chan style culture. The first thing I read (because it's in big red letters) was "I WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT CP IS NOT TOLERATED AND MUST BE REPORTED".
Copyright violation lawsuits will soon follow. I don't think you can just read someone else's articles without getting prior approval first.

It's hard enough producing the audio for this but having to get copyright permission for each article is going to make this a tough project to get off the ground.
You realize that in your example, "somebody" would be several Rails Core team members, right?

It's easy to armchair quarterback… especially if you're not hampered by actually reading the very brief bit of content you're speculating about.
Looks like a clone of FML...?
I think that Seattle would be a great place to have your first office - you get access to local talent from companies like Amazon, Microsoft and Valve. But also, when it comes time to set up your second office, you can do that in Vancouver. Then you can hire international employees and take advantage of Canada's more friendly immigration policies to relocate them to Vancouver. And then when you need to have in-person contact, Vancouver is just a 2.5 hour drive from Seattle, and all the American citizens working in Seattle can easily hop the border for any such meetings.
AD is probably much more entrenched though. Office is a tool; AD is an infrastructure.
What is wrong with people using Google's product and Google showing preference to their products first then others? I mean after all, you are using THEIR software running on THEIR system. Don't like it? Go use something else. No one is forcing you to use Chrome, etc...
Yes, "Amy" is a historically male name.
Is it PR bullshit? It probably is, but are their claims entirely wrong. If you see my comments, they are not entirely baseless.

Let's not kid ourselves, Google is a good company but they have to defend their position. Not just DuckDuckGo, but even your supposed billion dollar search engine will face same issues mentioned in the article. So this is not about the DuckDuckGo as a company but about monopolistic practices. Let's talk about that.
The real discussion is here (~40 messages): https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.apps.fir...

The poster asked that people follow up in a different newsgroup.
Show HN: Watch how users browse your website
Ah now that is an interesting engine.

Checking to see if it's hit any of our sites.

3k pages, not bad. Data is kinda stale though.
First of all, in my opinion, executing a frighteningly ambitious idea[1] is like performing inception. You need the simplest version of the idea for it to be "planted" in the user's mind.

People aren't using DDG much not because of any difficulties in the browser, because they don't want to. This is a very lame excuse. Google never won its users because they were able to convince users to set their Search Engine as default in their browsers.

As for DDG, the problem starts their name - "DuckDuckGo". You don't need to be an analyst with years of experience to say that this won't work because even their name is not something that is a)Catchy b)Easily rememberable c)Simple. Contrast this with Google. That's just one quick, easy to remember word. Now compare, Duck+Duck+Go. That's three words and it seems long. It looks like they didn't put much thought into this. This is not to say that DDG didn't do their homework properly, but just that it seems a little immature, given their name and their strategy. It looks more like they just read PG's essay[1] and started something out of the quick inspiration.

To kill a huge competitor like Google, you need to provide more value. Google is very hard to kill right now because, 1)Their search is vastly superior 2)a lot of people are locked into their ecosystem 3)They have created a valuable brand. No, by locked, I don't mean it's a bad thing. For example, I use Gmail, Google Contacts, Calendar, Blogger, Google Apps for my domains and a lot of other stuff because I want to. A single sign-in into their Eco-system lets me use all these services. And now, the best part is there's Android which seems to integrate all these things so easily like a snap that makes my life just a breeze.

So, first you need to understand that Google is now more than a search engine. Because if it was, Bing would have overtook it long back. You need to analyze the reasons why people still use Google. It's not just a search engine that they're using it for. Google has taken years and years to build the trust factor into their users. It has taken them years to make all these users "fit" into their eco-system and create a tremendously valuable brand . It's not like that they did it in just one day. So, just starting a new search-engine and expecting people to join on board is not going to happen. Despite so many "Ad" controversies, Google is still the king here because of the trust factor that no one else in the industry is able to provide. The trust factor that they will remain here, unlike the rest is the most important value that they provide to their users.

If you want to kill Google at this instant, you are going to do a lot more hardwork than you thought you should do, you need a brand of similar magnitude and the important essence here is the time and trust factor which everyone seems to ignore.

[1]http://paulgraham.com/ambitious.html
Tell HN: HN Search isn't indexing anything newer than 5 days old
Not much to say really but for all popular keywords I've just tried the newest item is 5 days old. And none of the current front page items seem to be visible either.

For example, there are posts about Ruby almost every day, but..

http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/submissions&q=ruby&sortby=create_ts+desc&start=0
Reminds me of Scott McNealy complaining about Microsoft instead of beating them with products in the market, while his company was busy imploding and becoming irrelevant. That's DDG's future if they go the route of whining instead of competing.

Linux, Google, Apple, Oracle, Intuit, (and countless open source software like Apache) et al. demonstrated time and time again that Microsoft could be trounced. Yet there was McNealy whining like a baby to the trust busters, while his own company was melting down.

Weinberg = McNealy
DDG is really only displaying definitions, aside from hacker.org. Given that this is a dictionary "word", I'm not sure how much of this query is really due to indexing and how much is due to identification of it as a singular word. Because there is so much query specific customization with search engines, (context-dependent results), it's hard to identify what results would have been returned from their raw indexes.

If you adjust the term to "hacker movie", you get more similar results between DDG and Bing. But, overall, it does seem like DDG is returning more differing results now than in the past.
Excellent PR?

It sounds like a bunch of lame whining to me. I didn't use DDG before, but I at least respected their work. This is just weak. Google has done great things for the tech world by building chrome and android and releasing them as free and open source, to attempt to bring them down because you think it takes too many clicks to change the default search engine is shameful. Yegg, if you don't like it build your own browser and mobile operating system.
Its easy. To explore space, all you need is a ship that can withstand pressures between 0 and 1 atmosphere. The ocean, on the other hand...

That said, spacecraft seem to get lousy fuel economy compared to submersibles.
I have to wonder if the average user of a light-on-dark color scheme simply has their monitor's brightness turned up too high.

I have my brightness turned down pretty low on every display I own, to the point that even a pure white screen can bearably be looked at. I prefer dark-on-light color schemes because I can turn my monitor's brightness down even lower with them, and I don't have to adjust my eyes or monitor when visiting web sites (most of which are dark-on-light). Why bother fighting the entire web with custom CSS to match your text editor when you can make the defaults comfortable to look at?
They definitely use Bing as their backbone as Gabriel has said somewhere before.
Sorry, I guess I wasn't paying attention to the name and defaulted to male when I wrote the comment. I'll try not to do that again.
Amazingly most people do pay (eventually) and the worst thing you can do is obsess about the ones that didn't pay.

When people owe you money it makes strange things to your brain. People may keep you hostage by withholding your money from you. You'll feel terrible. Best thing you can do is chalk up the ones that didn't pay as a cost of doing business and paid learning experience that tunes up your anti-asshole filter. My sanity immensely once I understood that sometimes you get screwed on your investments, it's impossible to avoid that in all cases and it's ok.
It seems that the only people who need 64 bit browsers are those who have very many tabs open.

I don't understand that use case. I don't understand how someone can work with 500 tabs open. Why do you run a browser with very many tabs open?

Or do you need 64 bit for some other reason?

EDIT for the silent downvoters: I'm not criticising people who have very many tabs open. Nor am I saying that's the only reason to have 64 bit browser.
Just click on the Google "G" (or whatever you have as your default search engine) when you are at the site and "Add DuckDuckGo" shows up as an option.
Starting Your Own Business Revolution
You're attacking a strawman. Nobody claimed Bridge 1 is always the wrong choice.
Although you might be right about DuckDuckGo and similar search engines, the article is not claiming that DuckDuckGo is best search engine in the world since it is subjective. It is up to user to make that choice, and given the network effects, that won't happen unless user can easily switch to it. It is about making it even harder for a supposedly better search engine than Google to acquire users.
Hi, this is Gabriel Weinberg, the guy mentioned in the article.

The main issue I have is with duck.com. A lot of people remember that we are a search engine "duck something" and so naturally try duck.com. As a result, there is a lot of confusion, e.g.:

"I was telling someone about DuckDuckGo and they thought it was Duck.com and they went to Google. Is Google using this to find people who make the mistake to Duck.com instead of DuckDuckGo?"

"Can't you do something about this? I keep going to Duck.com when meaning to visit DuckDuckGo.com They are using the DuckDuckGo name to get people to search Google."

This only started happening after I asked about the domain name. It used to point to a history page about Duck Corporation (previous name of On2 -- http://web.archive.org/web/20100802014055/http://duck.com/), similar to http://www.on2.com/, which was acquired by Google in the same acquisition.

Google should legitimately not sell it to me, though it would have been of course nice to do so when I first asked in 2010. I think an appropriate remedy would be to either point it nowhere, point it to the original page it had been pointed to for many years, or point it to the acquisition page (as http://on2.com still does) -- all things they do in other cases if you look at past acquisitions.

Just to be clear, it is only anti-competitive because it causes confusion, and relates to their core search product. The facts of the situation (that it switched shortly after I asked, and only seemingly that one domain) make it appear to be deliberate. And if it were not deliberate, I've brought this up many times and there has been ample time (including now!) to correct the situation.

With regards to being easy to add search engines to Chrome, see http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/blog/2011/02/usability-issues.... I've written up the differences extensively, with screenshots and explanatory notes.
This keeps showing up on HN for some reason!

Some previous discussions and articles for those interested:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4316895

http://publicdomainreview.org/2012/06/30/france-in-the-year-...

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2271197

http://www.paleofuture.com/blog/2010/5/2/jean-marc-cotes-vis...

http://www.paleofuture.com/blog/2007/9/10/french-prints-show...

http://acidcow.com/pics/17678-futur-imagined-23-pics.html
I asked the Octoparts.
Oatmeal Studios on Oatmeal Lawsuit: “We Are Simply Trying To Protect Our Name”
Beyond Google Apps, Office faces major "competition" just from less of what people do with computers being about Office-like documents and more about less formally structured web activity.
No offense, but I don't what a website to be able to add themselves (or anyone else) to my browser settings with a javascript call. While it may not be a strict security issue, you could imagine an unscrupulous person registering a very similarly sounding name (b1ng.com, or something unicode-y) that could cause confusion. This is especially true when talking about changing your default search engine.

If you really want to tell people how to add your site as their default, then detect Chrome users and tell them how to do it in Chrome. There is no need to blame Google for this - they aren't treating you differently than anyone else, aside from Bing and Yahoo (who are added to the default list).

While I appreciate that other sites are doing this by default without user interaction, this is just ripe for a phishing attack. So, I would assume this will go away soon.
I disagree. From personal experience, I suffer absolutely zero lock in to Google's search engine due to their ecosystem. I use their docs, I have an Android phone, I use Gmail, and I use their search engine completely separate from any of those (regardless of any back-end tie-ins that Google performs to supposedly optimize my search experience).

I specifically go to google.com to search, ditto on my phone. Nothing in their ecosystem prods me to do so, and nothing in their ecosystem prevents me from using a competitor.

I use Google because it's vastly superior to any other search offering. Period.
I stand corrected, I was basing it on the out of process plugins page that they used to keep updated: http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/64-bit-opera-and-out-of-p...

Opera does have a Snapshot Win x64 build available which they describe as "Cutting edge, alpha quality, incomplete, and often contain critical bugs". This does sound a lot like the now-discontinued Firefox Win x64 nightlies (aka nowhere near stable).

(PS - You get an upvote from me. Not sure why someone downvoted you.)
Well, sad he act in such a fool'ish way here, raging are often resulting in that people rather trust the counter-arguments. I would acted just like that myself though, and I agree that some of the counter arguments was wrong. I highly wish RMS and the whole FSF community was more respected.
Fact is, sometimes people downvote you simply because they don't like what you have to say, not because it is wrong or even questionable.
Thanks, I did e-mail and tweet the @HNSearch account as well but thought it'd probably do better here.. :-)
> Just to be clear, it is only anti-competitive because it causes confusion, and the facts of the situation make it appear to be deliberate. And if it were not deliberate, I've brought this up many times and there has been ample time (including now!) to correct the situation.

So if Google changes it they admit that they may have harmed you and you get a legal remedy. If Google doesn't change it you claim there's no reason not to and you get a moral argument.

Sounds like you're trying to construct a situation where you win and Google loses no matter what. How about just deal with the fact that it's not your domain? I quite like camping.com, doesn't mean I have the right to it.
White on black is very hard to see in a brightly lit room. Many programming talks like that color scheme and it just doesn't work with crappy projectors.
That would depend on the specific nature of the startup. Although on a meta level I would say that having a high quality colleges and universities improves the success rates of a geographic location.
Articles Sid Roth
Sid Roth supernatural videos the first time I went, I have gone twice, Sid Roth its supernatural the first time I went Jesus took me to one section and he pulled this suction sealed pack together of all the parts I was missing and it had my name on it and he called some angels over and he said take it to shipping so it’s on it’s way. Articles Sid Roth
Did Google win because users were able to easily switch the default search engine in IE to Google? No.

I remember the first times I used Google. It was like magic compared to AltaVista, Yahoo (Inktomi), etc.

DDG has no edge to offer, no 'magic.'
I'm being a little tongue in cheek because we do have the structures, it's just that the modern sort of VC we call 'investors' in these parts have a limited range, as you imply.

is there a path to victory as a non-bootstrapped startup that doesn't include IPO or acquisition. How would you structure things to where investors and employees are confident they would share in the ongoing rewards of a non-public company.

This question probably does make sense in the context of HN and the modern tech VC scene but the reason I was being tongue in cheek, again, was because across other industries and in most of the world for the past X hundred years, taking shares in businesses and then taking a cut of the dividends has been a main (though not only) way of making investments in smaller companies.

It seems like the modern tech scene is almost an aberration in this sense.
Changing it now isn't a legal admission of anything.

In any case, there would still be no useful legal remedy available to us. We don't make much money, so what would the damages be?

The last thing a startup wants to do is take a big company to court. You're just asking to be bled dry.
Wanted: Black Friday Drive Farmers
I Consult, Therefore I Am - Freakonomics Radio
The iPhone version is called http://Voxer.com :)
Author here, thank's for pointing that out. I just put my blog online yesterday morning, and this was an article that I had written back in the summer in HTML markup. Seems like there were some conversion errors to Markdown that I didn't notice.

Erroneous: Research shows that consumers with a utilitarian motivation find a low-arousal environment more pleasuraigh-arousal one.

Fixed: Research shows that consumers with a utilitarian motivation find a low-arousal environment more pleasurable than a high-arousal one.
"how many different groups of the government would have to be involved to pull something like that off?"

Why does everyone say this? You create 'terrorists'; have them hi-jack a plane, and crash it. It really takes what, 50 people MAX, including the terrorists. One Mission Planner, however many terrorists...a few benefactors, some intelligence guru's; and that's pretty much it. Maybe a guy or two planted to interfere with birds going up to shoot down the planes but even that is a bit questionable as to 'needing'.

Everyone wants to say that oh the NYPD would have had to have been involved and the fire department would have known...noooo...they reacted as they normally would.

Not saying I really believe it was an act by my own government...or fine, part of my own government; but I just wanted to point out that not everyone and there mother would have been involved...really just a few guys and gals in the grand scheme of things.