skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Depends on what you mean by "works". If you want it to have any effect whatsoever, you have to follow through and actually turn off the game. And you'll have to do so until the lesson sinks in. And you'll have to deal with the kids that are crying and idle in the mean time. And they'll probably resent you for that rule because they aren't able to identify with it.

None of the above is a bad thing or an insurmountable obstacle, but there's nothing seriously wrong with making the computer take the blame either. In my opinion, it ends up teaching the kids to be considerate to others (even if it's just a computer), with less suffering all around. YMMV, etc.
Watch a paranoid melodrama slighting the product before I consider it? Why not just reasonably consider its possible significance in your life?
This. I think in all the years of talking to folks in the rails community, only 2 people were decent. Literally hundreds of arrogant assholes otherwise.
I still don't understand why nobody is talking about the legal and social issues around the video recording capabilities of the Google Glasses. Which so far looks like its only real use case.

It is illegal to record someone without permission in particular on private property. It is illegal to record children. There are major implications if illegal activity is recorded. Are you responsible if you don't notify police about a crime. Then there are the myriad of social concerns. If you record me and for privacy reasons I want the video erased how can I do so ? Or am I forced to remove the glasses from your head and destroy them?

Just like smartphones are required to make a noise when taking a photo I wonder whether there should be a red LED light to indicate when recording is occurring or a button to erase the last 5 minutes of video.
Stripe is also available in Canada: https://stripe.com/blog/stripe-in-canada
Actually they're getting crushed by lousy spending and monetary policy, and regulations that dampen local competition. The next leg down for Japan will, however, be demographic, as retirees turn the nation's savings rate negative and the bills for the past 20 years come due.
"a lot of the type of people who read HN somewhat worship the Steve Jobs keynotes"

I don't. I'm not sure why so many people in this readership should love them. Most probably just don't care.
It's not about what I do or don't have against GTK. It's that GTK, or the rest of GNOME for that matter, doesn't seem like a good fit for GNU.

I wouldn't have them in charge of my preferred window manager either.
Thank you for having a "add to pocket" option.
Er, I'm sure this is true, and I'm no Rails fanboy (indeed I've never even used Rails, and haven't written more than 10 lines of Ruby in my life), but the grand-parent poster really does come off as a troll or someone with an axe to grind.

He's vague and inflammatory, and avoids technical details in favor of generically insulting language ("the 'IT security' team describes ruby culture as immature"), apparently more aimed at denigrating a particular community than clarifying any issues or solutions. Much of what he writes is borderline absurd ["Rewriting in python and PHP"... really? PHP is their choice for a better-"engineered" replacement?!]

Everybody sometimes writes vague and snarky posts, but doing so repeatedly is a warning sign...
Are the paintingss absurd? or the price? The author seems to be suggesting that the paintings sold for more than their value, but the market sets the value, not the percieved effort in the creation of the art.

It isn't much different in many other industries. The buyer /market sets the value, not those who aren't in the market.
>SAP feels kinda clunky. Whats the appeal?

It generally works and at a very, very large scale.
Maybe if people like Ric Richardson see consequences for being a part of the patent trolling machine, they'll be less likely to do it again in the future. It's hilarious to me that he wants to simultaneously claim credit for 'inventing' this patent and founding the company responsible for this patent trolling while avoiding any of the responsibility for the damage the company creates.

"Oh, I'm not a principle at the company anymore" yeah, sure. If you're really not involved, why are you calling their victims thieves in news articles? I bet you sold all your shares, right?
What if someone could get a patent on "a method of starting a business whose sole purpose is acquiring many patents and then suing large companies"? Could they destroy all patent trolls?
I haven't really publicized it yet (low traffic), so I can't do a/b testing or anything like that yet. I'm still looking/reading into how I should go about launching the site.
Ummmm you could sell your "3 year old nephew's" art for $100,000 but for some reason you haven't? Right....

I do get tired of the old insult to art that "I could do better" but for some reason that person has 'chosen' not to make millions and be famous.

People need to stop fearing things they don't or can't understand.
Usually it involves customizing what data is captured, what workflows are in place and the reports that ultimately get generated.

Given that SAP is quirky (to say the least) it typically requires some real world experience.
Meh, any piece of art in this price range is typically being bought mainly for the right to own "the original" of a piece that had some kind of historically important role. Sure, you can copy lots of things, which is true of older art, too. For rather less than the price of a Picasso you can get a very nice, extremely accurate copy that requires forensic methods to distinguish from the original (though some artists are easier to duplicate precisely than others). But it'd be a copy, and some people are willing to pay millions to "own a piece of history". There's no real reason that'd be different just because the piece of history is 20th-century art history, and/or you don't like the piece or the artistic movement it was part of.

Heck, one of the points of Warhol's art was mass-producing screen prints, and people still pay a lot for an original, rather than a screenprinted reproduction.
I think the iPod is the spark of the Apple that we know today, and as such is momentous.

Given that Apple's stock was ~$9 when the iPod was announced and Apple is now the most valuable company, this really was the first step - and further - we pretty much know the rest of the history after that.

It would not necessarily make sense to skip the iPod and jump to the iPhone as it was an iterative revolution that made them what they are now.

Some of those steps in the iterations were obvious, some predictable, others surprising but all were mind-blowingly successful.
You'd spend more money suing the patent troll organizations than you'd ever recover, because they could just close up shop and move on, being non-practicing entities with no real assets or holdings.
Just like smartphones are required to make a noise when taking a photo

I'm pretty sure that just about every smartphone allows you to mute the shutter sound.
I didn't see a link to donate. Wouldn't it be better for the FSF to create a generic fund that agressively went after these trolls? I'd give a couple hundred dollars a year.
AFAIK there is one project that tries to remove all "unnecessary" bits, although it's just a model: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tEw_mlUh7g&feature=playe...

Just a kite tied to a "water kite"
Great insight on XKCD, however I think that besides the content, it's shorter than "xipne" and is much clearer how to pronounce. Those characteristics still fall under best practices.
Very good points. Good discussion, thanks.

Interesting to think about. And you're right, phishing, breaches of the MFA database, and session jacking (via breaching the session database) are all big problems still.

But it's significantly more difficult to compromise certain accounts with another channel of authentication. Whether it's the initial attack vector (trying to crack some random employee's password) or secondary attack vectors (once access is gained, trying to go up a security level or compromise servers upstream, etc.), if each of those authentications require (after initial setup) a secondary device, it's just so much harder to crack.

Anyway, I think there's got to be a way to design a security system that partitions secure information. MFA secure cookies (or whatever we want to call long-term session ids associated with authenticated secondary channels), I would hope could slow down access to individual accounts.

Ideally, secure cookies get more sophisticated in the future and truly lend a 'distributed' quality to the architecture (i.e., are just one-time RSA private keys, maybe?). Thus making it very difficult to login without actual access to the device that the user setup MFA with.
More detailed look at the patent:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=K7MoAAAAEBAJ&printsec=a...

If you want to check a unique serial number securely, either over the phone or net you are violating this patent.

Seems a little broad.
Google has completely jumped the shark and is now being controlled by mindless business drones that will drive the company into the ground in just a few years. For your consideration:

They allow a patent troll to potentially set a legal precedent for what constitutes a big part of their app infrastructure. They probably figured that its cheaper to build around the patent and let this one developer eat shit.

They are killing net neutrality by saying mobile networks are somehow special and don't need it, a very obvious move to bolster Android and their telco relationships. They are now apparently paying Orange in France for mobile traffic related to services like YouTube [1], again trading short term business sense for eventually losing the net neutrality fight and turning the whole internet into many walled gardens at the hands of ISPs.

They have settled with news websites in France [2] to avert legal repercussions by a government that is essentially being blackmailed by press. 60 millions is pocket change for them, but the precedent this sets will endanger their business in many countries where press is dying and abusing their power to force governments to pass laws that will benefit their old business models very much to the detriment of Google. They are facing the same thing in Germany right now. News websites by the old printing press garde are the antithesis to the web. They do not understand hyperlinks, they do not understand the importance of giving access to raw material in a Wikileaks era. This move by Google perpetuates their dying business model and damages its own products like News or YouTube, which is thriving as an alternative to the old publisher model in media and music.

They let media companies patrol their data (and search rankings) and remove content by automatically generated requests, no questions asked, at exponentially growing scale [3]. They pretend to be under legal obligations to do so, but intentionally muddle the process to the point where if your content is contended, they give you no recourse under DMCA [4].

Sorry, I'm somewhat consumed by rage after reading the comments of the UniLoc persona non grata.

1: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ipkAQJJNg...

2: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ipwetvKBf...

3: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/

4: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/youtube-universal-m...

Universal said Google’s private system doesn’t count as an
official takedown notice under the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act, and thus it was immune from legal liability.
There's a typo in the link, the one that works for me is: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/why-police-...
Link is broken for me. But it should be obvious...the reason cops do anything that is illegal is that they are not subject to any consequences.
there are two footages

1. the one shown up and close in pics (model)
2. the real plane flying for few seconds and only doing 1 maneuver (flip)
I'm thinking possibly analytics? I know a bunch of people who do that.
Your link is broken. Here is a corrected one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/why-police-...
Not on iOS IIRC.

And it definitely is a law that ALL smartphones make that sound in many countries e.g. Japan, South Korea.
"A lot" of people can still like them if you don't. Jobs was, undeniably, a master of presentation, so even if you don't like him, or apple at all, there are still a lot of reasons to respect his stage presence.
Even worse: By revenue of the companies on Truffle's Top 100 list, apparently.

I have no idea how tail-heavy the landscape of European software companies is.

BTW, could you supply some examples of the "fantastic software" from Europe you grew up using? Just curious.
VoIP Apps to make Free Calls on Your Smartphone
I'd donate at least a couple hundred a year if the FSF/EFF did this exactly.
>(assuming SL stopped to be supported when ML was released)

Which they backed off from. You can probably thank Flashback for that.
That is an excellent comment and I am particularly amused at the legal definition of science, which I had not heard of before.

Keep in mind that my definition is a simplification of the framework. Everything you said is necessary for generating the most accurate model, but - and correct me if I am wrong here - they are all there to support that final goal.

Note also that this is not how I would describe science to a layperson, or at least not without spending another hour or so going into greater detail of all of the necessary side effects and dangerous pitfalls, but like you are presenting.
The moral of the story is don't develop software unless you have the resources to fight patent lawsuits. I haven't, so I don't.
When social security triples (due to number of dependants), which it will do in less than 20 years, it will require a 100% tax rate.

After that, costs will increase further.
What's there to understand?
Gabe Newell LBJ School Talk on Video Game Industry
Bummer. Is there any way to go back and edit a submitted link? HN won't let me resubmit the corrected link.
> Wouldn't it be better for the FSF to create a generic fund that agressively went after these trolls?

No, that only treats the symptoms. It would be much better to cure the disease -- the broken patent system.
It's not "for all intensive purposes", it's "for all intents and purposes"

http://grammarist.com/eggcorns/for-all-intensive-purposes/
I wouldn't be surprised if the $100 award wasn't necessary -- there are a lot of would-be Schemers out there who would jump at a chance to implement or re-implement something in Scheme, either as an exercise or for the honor and glory.
There was also Oliver Cromwell (~1650)
One of the things I added to Hacker News Padreader was to mark what's been read. Give it a shot: http://itunes.apple.com/app/hacker-news-padreader/id42833141...
This is close: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/08/01/157743897/can-you-...

(In 2007 IBM and Haliburton filed for patents on being patent troll.)
Is it merely a historical artifact that the US has so many creationists?

Perhaps. I think it's basically a product of separation of church and state. If everybody is free to practice whatever religion they choose, a fair number will choose religions that have nutty beliefs.

I don't think institutions like schools have fostered these kinds of divisions; if anything they have reduced them, by putting everyone through the same indoctrination. As much as the US seems politically divided now, it was more so in the 19th century, before compulsory public education.
From later in the email thread:

> The point is to croudsource a HOWTO collection.

Seems like a cool idea to me :)

Link to the quote, for context :
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2013-01/msg001...
9 Easy Questions You Should Ask About Any Job Before You Take It
Risk is simply a probability, so it's inappropriate to treat a risk with a probability of approximately epsilon the same as a level of risk that could actually be seen on a pie chart.

You're saying that because the risk of hitting the maximum sentence is not actually zero, that the defendant is exposed to an exceptional amount of risk, but this doesn't even make logical sense.

Either way, whatever else defense attorneys might say to the prosecutors, judges, and the public, they know how the risks translate for their client even better than you or I do and have a professional responsibility to inform their client of the same.

So there's no reason for a defendant to freak out about a theoretical maximum sentence, they should only be worried about the one the judge might actually assign after all the arguments and motions are made.

> If the defendant was facing a more reasonable maximum penalty such as, say, a year or two in prison he would likely be far more emboldened to take it to trial and have his day in court.

The maximum should be whatever is most effective for the interests of justice overall, not just whatever is most convenient for whoever happens to be sitting in the defendant's seat that day.

I have a First Amendment right to say and speak my mind, but that doesn't mean I would go picketing funerals with hateful messages like WBC. I have a Second Amendment right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean I would stand near a school carrying a Bushmaster. And I would certainly never expect the government to provide me a Bushmaster and have me stand outside a school just to demonstrate that they care deeply about my rights.

So yes, by all means, take your day in court if it comes to it, but it's not the government's job to ensure that is the only course available to you the defendant, it's the government's job to secure the blessings of liberty for all of the people.
Not if productivity also triples. The mistake is having a separate payroll tax earmarked for social security. If the government just eats the liability, drops payroll taxes, and raises income taxes to compensate, it'll be fine. Alternatively they could just supplement payroll tax out of the general fund. It's not nearly as dire as the doomsayers make it sound.
Tz.js:   A library for working with timezones in JavaScript.
http://www.x-plane.com/x-world/lawsuit/
This is pretty disappointing, treading over the same old ground - "my daughter could paint that". I was particularly disappointed with the inclusion of the Miro and the Rothko. Those Rothkos are incredibly subtle, and arresting, and enormous, and have dozens and dozens of layers of paint put together in really complex ways that we are still trying to understand. The Tate Modern put on a Rothko show a few years ago and exhibited a cross section of a Rothko (cut out of one of his canvasses that I believe was ruined some other way) and you could see this complexity. These paintings are often very compelling in person, even if they "boring" on the screen of your iPhone or laptop.
Reposting an old comment. The art world obeys supply and demand - where demand has no relation to the real world:

If you are more curious about the contemporary art world market and why $29M is not that expensive[1], I recommend "The $12 Million Stuffed Shark: The Curious Economics of Contemporary Art".

In general, brand (in this case Christie's and Sotheby's) ranks supreme above all else. Once you are branded, you can pretty much sell anything as expensive art.

Also, an interesting factoid - when we hear of Far East/Middle East buyers bidding tens of millions (or more) for a painting, we naturally tend to think - who buys that without seeing it - but as the book points out - the painting has most likely gone to see the buyer already (e.g. Dubai/Hong Kong pre-auction private tour).

Excerpts from the book:

"Money itself has little meaning in the upper echelons of the art world -- everyone has it. What impresses is ownership of a rare and treasured work such as Jasper Johns' 1958 White Flag. The person who owns it (currently Michael Ovitz in Los Angeles) is above the art crowd, untouchable. What the rich seem to want to acquire is what economists call positional good; things that prove to the rest of the world that they really are rich."

Jasper Johns' White Flag

http://michaelovitz.blogspot.com/2011/04/weve-featured-this-...

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/1998.329

Estimates on the artist economy:

"40k artists resident in London (about same number in NYC)

For London and NYC each:

75 superstar artists (>$1M/yr income)

300 mature, successful artists (>$100k/yr income)

5,000 part time artists (need to supplement their income)"

http://www.amazon.com/The-Million-Stuffed-Shark-Contemporary...

[1] "If a great apartment costs $30 million, than a Rothko [big deal famous contemporary artist] that hangs in the featured spot in the living room can also be worth $30 million - as much as the value of the apartment. But no one could envision a $72.8 million apartment to use for comparison..."
>>Recruiters are a fairly sure sign that the standards for the job will be low.

Some companies cover all their bases with inside and outside HR recruiting. I often see the same jobs on craigslist offered by the employer and recruiters. indeed.com too.
That's what I thought.

You're a troll.

You haven't said anything. No content, not even an anecdote. You just spat out a couple of emotional, condescending quips, likely in hopes of teasing out another abstract argument [1].

1: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5156930
AT&T are scum and this sort of stuff is standard practice with them. You shouldn't be giving them your money if you can avoid it.

If you've got a GSM phone with the right radio bands, I suggest taking a look at the $30 plans here:
http://prepaid-phones.t-mobile.com/monthly-4g-plans

For CDMA I believe Sprint and Verizon offer prepaid plans without contracts at around $50 for talk/data.

The key is that IMO, a prepaid plan makes the terms of the arrangement clear, and if the carrier decides to try and overstep their boundaries, you can cut them off. They don't have the ability to take you to collections or withdraw from your account or increase your bill behind your back.

Of course, if T-Mobile tries to screw with you as a prepaid customer, they've got some leverage since your only alternative is AT&T. Not so great. Still, better than nothing...
I never knew that. Fixed. Thanks.
On a historic note, Stalin's first, bloodiest purges were also governed by quotas and the heads of various departments of the secret police (NKVD) trying to one up each other, exerting pressure on their subordinates, and in the absence of judicial oversight. Stalin ended up replacing over-enthusiastic NKVD chiefs twice, and the last one, the one we remember the most and whose name, Beria, we come to associate with the oppressive force, was actually less brutal then the previous two (Yagoda and Ezhov).
So we agree unlimited vacation really means "vacation at the mercy of your manager."

Vacation is always at the mercy of your manager, regardless if it's unlimited or not.

So ok, you clearly are flat-out cynical about all this stuff so... don't work for a company with unlimited vacation. It works just fine for some of us, who work for reasonable companies. That's a fact, regardless of your feelings on the matter.