skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Painting Anwar al-Awlaki's death as the short step away from extrajudicial executions of U.S. Citizens on U.S. soil is nothing more than handwaving. Al Awlaki was not protected by the U.S. Constitution not because he was labeled an "Enemy Combatant" and thus magically stripped of Constitutional protections, but because he was a fugitive actively fighting against the U.S., on foreign soil, and evading every attempt to bring him to justice.

The U.S. has never required a judicial verdict when killing fugitives in the course of battle is concerned. There were some American Citizens who served in the army of Nazi Germany. Some of those were killed by allied forces. No judicial determination was necessary. The same thing happened with British Citizens defecting to Germany.

Even in more (relatively) mundane situations, U.S. Citizens can be killed by the government with no judicial authorization. If you're in a building holding hostages at gunpoint, you might very well be taken out with a police sniper's bullet, and there is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about it. The sniper does not have to go get some sort of judicial authorization to take the shot.

You can bring up the "slippery slope" fallacy all you want, but you think it was different at the founding of the republic? Less than a decade into it's existence, the U.S. sent federal troops to suppress an armed insurrection against whiskey taxes. Nobody got a court order to kill the insurgents: http://44363370.nhd.weebly.com/battle-of-bower-hill.html. You think the U.S. government circa 1789 would've done anything different with al-Awlaki?
It's a "platform". One where manufacturers segment into marketing and selling tactical to "tacti-cool", restricted only by the state to state regulations.
This article is amazing. I haven't finished reading it completely but as a person who spend significant parts of my childhood in multiple countries, there are parts of it which chime with me so well.

E.g.
> Recent research has shown that people in “tight” cultures, those with strong norms and low tolerance for deviant behavior (think India, Malaysia, and Pakistan), develop higher impulse control and more self-monitoring abilities than those from other places.

I remember living in India as a teenager and being confused by how rarely if ever kids in my school would display emotion on the spot when something happened. The response would come up later and it was as immature as teenagers everywhere but on the spot responses were polite.
And if some employees don't want their salary to be shared?
Personal experience doesn't really help with understanding something like this, so the fact that no one you know has said anything in support of this idea doesn't mean that it's not widely believed.

At the time of the war, as many as 70% (!) of Americans believed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, and since then the number has slowly declined to the mid-20s (with a weird period where the number increased around 2007). For a falsehood that, as you say, is ridiculously unsupported.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-po...

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Poll_41_of_Americans_believe_S...

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-501863_162-3253552.html

http://themoderatevoice.com/121921/ten-years-later-belief-in...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_lin...

The ridiculousness degree to which the American public grasped onto this false belief eventually led to the meme that 20% of Americans will believe any old thing. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/24/one-in-five-america...
And of course: http://www.theonion.com/articles/poll-1-in-5-americans-belie...
That would be highly dependent on the quality of the company culture. For example, the following is good random interaction:

"Hey did you know there's this cool company that's planning to mine asteroids?"

"Check out the new strategy for expansion"

"Look at this cool new library"

The following is stuff I just don't care for:

"She got to where she is by sleeping around"

"Why haven't they promoted me yet? I've been here x years"

You can argue that the former is useful to know, but I don't have ambitions of going the managerial route. I just want to build cool stuff.
>ASP to PHP compiler

O_o
Gamification of games? You know it makes sense.
I gotta say, the way it works opens a much more complete set of gestures options, and the fact that you don't have to stand in front/on top of something for it to work is pretty great. This is pretty cool.
I think the key word there is episodic; i.e., that the work wasn't consistent, and thus the "few days' wages" were possibly more valuable.

But I haven't read the study, so I could be wrong.
Thanks for bringing to light an unfortunate end. Though I realize the journey itself has its upsides, a lot of times when I see little tinkery things I feel like the end will be something like this, and it all seems too futile to bear.
oh my god is this satire, i can't stop laughing
I mostly agree. The most interesting thing about it is the Evidence Base Scheduling idea [1] but I have no idea if that actually works in practise. I would like to see more project management and tracking tools implement something like this.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_Scheduling
Uninstall any extensions you have running in Chrome to get it feeling fresh again. In my personal experience (strictly subjective, not benchmarked), a clean chrome install runs faster than a clean Safari install.
Why Android is ahead of iOS contextually
The Quirk: Doing It Right
Don't think of an elephant.
Ever wanted to give your computer the middle finger? With MYO armband, now you can
NASA will test laser data transmission from ISS in October
Are you talking about me? I didn't change my post in any way.
NPR.org itself has a great JSONP API that makes apps like the one in this article possible. Here's a site I put together that uses it and HTML5 audio for a very quick and minimal NPR listening experience (best viewed on iOS safari):

http://npr.io

It's a Jekyll app mostly written in CoffeeScript, deployed to S3 with CloudFront CDN'ing.

Here's a lengthier introduction for anyone interested:
http://nickmerwin.com/2012/02/25/npr-io/
The poster above indicates that institutional IRB approval would cover things, but that can actually be a bit tricky depending on the regulatory board and the specific situation. For example, I am a member of our IBC (Institutional Biosafety Committee). We approve all scientific research done on our campus for safety reasons (chemical and biological). However, the legalities behind this are a bit unclear. The NIH and institution require this board, and you can't do research if you don't get our approval, but what is unclear is what would happen if something unfortunate occurred? Right now, we have legal backing from the institution which should cover all scenarios, but in speaking with said legal council, we are actually all personally liable for consequences from approvals we sign off on. Board members at other institutions have been personally sued, so there is precedent for this happening. However, with the backing of the University legal team it is much easier to swallow. It is difficult to see how Microryza will be able to replicate this without documenting full legal support.

I am not trying to be a Debbie Downer here, and I really like the concept. For most of your research topics this will not be an issue, but I would hate to hear how the entire organization got burned to the ground over some regulatory law suit, and I certainly would not like to see someone get harmed. Particularly since all of the hard work has already been done for you by other organizations. You just need to take advantage of it.

If handled correctly, this could actually be a marketing point for your organization over others. You would need to balance the headache of implementing these regulations against the real and perceived benefits, but I think folks would be much more confident in the process from an investigator or potential investor perspective if you implemented a transparent but rigorous system.
A minimum-wage ($7.25/hr) American worker would earn $100 in under 14 hours (before taxes.)

Imagine yourself playing the game but with $1,000 (or more) on offer. Would you refuse $300 to punish your partner for keeping $700? Now change the amount to $10. Would you refuse $3 to punish your partner for keeping $7? Now switch it around: how much of the money, $1,000 and $10 offers, would you give to your partner?
However reasonable the idea, it still is one of the prominent themes in the whole debacle: "half a mile is an issue to an EV" - particularly given the massively changing ranges throughout the story. It adds the the air of mystery and unreliability.

Personally I'm surprised that more wasn't made of the incredibly long time it takes to 'fuel' the car. Long trips are simply not an option if you've got to sit for an hour for them to rechange - at a 'supercharger', no less. And if the supercharger is in use, that becomes two hours. With such long wait periods, it is entirely normal for a person to think "well... maybe 45 minutes will do... or perhaps 30"
Actually, most non-FMJ bullets who's targets include animals including humans aren't designed to fragment on impact, but to expand, and therefore transfer more of their energy to the target once they get inside. The useful fragmenting of the latter half of M16 FMJ ammo was unknown until Martin Fackler conclusively demonstrated it in the '80s, a couple of decades after its design. And we've switched bullets since then (see below), although the new one is thought to have the same wounding mechanism.

It's "useful" because all that, the breaking in half and possibly fragmenting, provides much more stopping power to an otherwise not very effective round. If that doesn't happen, the effect is more like getting stuck with a pencil, except that the bullet will turn 180 degrees and likely exit back first; the M16 is infamous for inconsistent stopping power.

Note that according to the Hague Convention, our military isn't allowed to design bullets to do this....

Fragmentation is very much not a desired feature for creating any type of structural damage; there you want all energy possible to be transmitted to the target. Even expansion is undesired, because the physical work done to deform the bullet is not available to penetrate the structure and then do further damage once past it.

This often gets into the realm of armor piercing (AP) ammo, which has steel or harder metals inside the bullet, sometimes comprising almost all of it, sometimes as a smaller penetrator, like the steel rod inside the .30-06 ammo that I've read became the standard for the US towards the end of WWII (although that was in part because steel was cheaper than lead), or the steel pellet that's in the 5.56 NATO SS109, M855 green tip for the US, design bullet (which is really machine gun ammo/designed to satisfy a silly requirement of piercing a metal helmet at a very long distance, it's not really good ammo for rifles for a whole bunch of reasons).

With the exception of 5.56 NATO AP, there should be no differences in wounding capability, larger caliber bullets don't depend on deformation for wounding. Our M995 black tip ammo ... well, look at this picture: http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=16&t=56...

I assume the bullet is not as likely to break at the cannelure, that the aluminum boot in which it sits is no more likely to cause damage ... but that would have to be tested. Certainly gunners would try to avoid wasting ammo by using AP on humans....

Then we get to exotic stuff that includes an explosive payload, normally 20 mm ammo and above, generally intended for aircraft until we get into serious anti-armored vehicle ammo. You're really not supposed to use that on humans, but of course that's not so well observed in wars. And there's this exotic and inherently expensive .50 BMG round that's intended to provide the destructive power of a 20 mm shell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raufoss_Mk_211 ; see the Legality section on expected effects on humans.
Want to find a good engineer? Look at their hands.
When I was working for a large enterprise the only way to get around it was to work on an illegal server someone had built. They had it sitting under their desk and only let a few people have access to the box to ensure that word didn't get out that a 'rogue' box had been set up on the network.
Slightly off topic, but heck.

I was lucky enough to have David Huffman as an instructor at UC Santa Cruz. Very engaging and smart guy. He got a little tired about being asked about "Huffman Coding" all the time, given it was so long in the past and he had done a number of other things.

One of the things he enjoyed talking about during office hours (if help wasn't needed) was his paper folding:

http://www.graficaobscura.com/huffman/

Gives a good example.
"Compared to Yucatec Maya communities in Mexico, however, Western urban children appear to be developmentally delayed in this regard. Children who grow up constantly interacting with the natural world are much less likely to anthropomorphize other living things into late childhood."

I didn't find the word "anthropomorphize" in the other document; and the section I found in the original document didn't seem to go into what was said in the associated article. It's a rather long article, and I'll need to read it when I get home; however, the above section doesn't connect with me.

What does "anthropomorphize" mean in this context? I understand the term to mean "to give perceptually human characteristics to". There are only two routes I can follow with this:

1) they mean a human thinking that a smiling animal is a happy animal. And that animals laugh, and grin; and have all the same facial expressions as humans, like one would see in Disney movies.

2) they're suggesting that people in the United States believe that animals continue to have emotions that they can express and other sentient thought, have a sense of desire for certain outcomes to be had, and for genuine fear and happiness.

The second possibility isn't something that only people from the US do, at all. Long before the United States was the apparent urban environment with lost connection with nature (alluded to in the article in some places), Native Americans ascribed many emotions and intentions and ideas to the animals around them, even calling coyotes tricksters; and in Biblical times, calling someone a "fox" had a particular meaning.

In short, where is this article getting the idea that humans don't anthropomorphize animals at all stages of life? That word is VERY confusing to me in this sentence; and to claim that they're using a very limited definition of anthropomorphize, where it's just human facial expressions is to be unfair to the word itself.
I have done my own tests a while ago (with Firefox and Chromium) and have concluded that for the sites that I frequent Firefox performs much better and uses less RAM.
Every now and then I repeat that experiment... So far always with the same outcome.
The notion that Chrome is faster is mostly measured by benchmarks; for my browsing behavior that does not translate to real real life performance.
Did you ever try to translate one language into another? Usually it's just generating the AST that is the hard part, then you can just spit out code and let the compiler for the target language do the hard stuff.
That's not my question, exactly. Inevitably, as the company grows, the probability of someone not joining because we're "socialist assholes" goes up. I want to know what's wrong other than sentiment.
That's a good insight of how the income is perceived. If I knew I received a few days income all year long my perceived value of receiving income in the experiment is lower than what the locals would perceive since it is more variable and the risk that a long time passes before gaining income again.
I've worked extensively with sensored gloves in my job, both designing the gloves, and developing software to do cool things with them. By far the most difficult thing to do is make a compelling application that effectively utilizes the capabilities of the hardware. This is a very cool piece of hardware, but it's success is going to be defined on whether or not they are able to make it better than existing input devices, which tend to be quite good already.
I'm a TSLA stockholder and the article and this entire brohaha don't particularly bother me. The Model S is the best luxury sedan on the market, orders are backed up for most of this year's capacity, and 100s of orders are coming in every month.

Furthermore, the factory they run to build the entire thing is just incredible (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvPosSzUGVI).

I used the recent 10% drop to significantly add to my TSLA position. Please - continue doubting TSLA, shorting it and selling the stock - you're doing me, and other TSLA investors a great favour.

I always hate it when prices on stocks I want go up - it means I can't buy anymore :(
I'm not sure what your point is. What is the image, and what is the actual object?
I had to do some Googling, but the PPRA treaty would appear to explain the valve cover inspections: http://dtirp.dtra.mil/tic/synopses/ppra.aspx

Still looking for what would apply to the Navy reactors.
haha SODD, thats so me!
I don't think it's so bad as long as it's doing some ajax refresh, fetching more content. Doing a full page refresh because I accidentally scrolled over the top is, well, a bit over the top.
Already made the front page this morning at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5280484
What happens if you wear Google Glasses to a McDonalds in France? I've been wondering this ever since I read about the assault on Steven Mann:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2175062/EyeTap-augme...
That's very true, but both ultimately have the same end effect: "Lost range". But can be mitigated by caring for them differently.

In the case of the EV, it's leaving it plugged in and in the case of ice, it's adding de-icer to the fuel. You just care for it differently. Arguably the EV still is a slight advantage since traditional engines still need to be warmed first whereas the EV can just start and go as long as it was plugged in overnight since the heater pads on the batteries will make sure it won't drain too quickly. Can't keep a fossile fuel engine running all night like that.
I am not taking sides in terms of the Tesla vs. NYT issue.

I will say that anyone who cancels an order for a bleeding-edge car based on an article like this is a moron. You, more than likely, don't want such a person as a customer. They'll bitch and complain about anything and everything and be nothing but collective pains in the ass.

I've been in complex hardware manufacturing before and I can say that, almost without fail, the customers who would flip on you based on forum posts, hearsay or such articles/reviews are a total waste of your time. They were just looking for a reason not to buy and found it. Good riddance.

How can an article that is NOT the result of a rigorous scientific evaluation process be used for anything other than entertainment is beyond me. At best one could call it a potentially interesting "unverified data point" and move on.
According to the article the participates remain anonymous to each other.
Apparently nobody mentioned it yet but TFA talks about the "timeline" and ends up saying that, two days before publicly reporting, Google did change something (after all, after saying for 6 months that the exploit was an expected behavior):

"2013/02/21: Fix is pushed by Google to prevent ASP-initiated sessions from accessing sensitive account interfaces."

So is that one particular hole describe in the article / blog fixed or not!?
I wonder if Nokia's decision to go Windows Phone instead of Android is looking smarter now than it did then? <:)
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the pharmaceutical and health-care-product industries, combined with organizations representing doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, health services and HMOs, have spent $5.36 billion since 1998 on lobbying in Washington. That dwarfs the $1.53 billion spent by the defense and aerospace industries and the $1.3 billion spent by oil and gas interests over the same period. That’s right: the health-care-industrial complex spends more than three times what the military-industrial complex spends in Washington.

So, the same root cause as many other problems in this country. As soon as we get the government into purchasing e.g. video games, closet organizers, computer security, vacuum cleaners, etc. we'll have the same problems with those industries we have now with healthcare, education, law enforcement, etc.
I don't see how the fact that Chrome was secret prior to its 9/2/08 launch matters much here. It's existed publicly for ~4.5 years at http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/ and all of the code is pretty actively developed [1] & [2]. Chromium has now been public much longer than it existed privately, and for any particular file in Chromium, the odds are good that it's substantially different from launch day.

[1] http://svnsearch.org/svnsearch/repos/CHROMIUM/search
[2] http://build.chromium.org
After a couple of hours doing online research, I've found very little supporting evidence for the claim, made by others, and myself, that there were indeed M16A1 select fire rifles which carried the "Mattel" brand name, which, on the ones I've seen, had the logo stamped into the lower receiver group, specifically, on the magazine well.

It was early November, 1982 when I graduated OSUT at Ft Benning, GA, USA (1st Platoon, Echo Company, 7th Battalion, 1st Infantry Training Brigade, AKA "Sand Hill,") and I distinctly remember being quite disappointed that the rifle I first checked out of the Armory had a "Mattel" logo on it. We quickly compared our rifles, and there were some with the Mattel logo, and some with other markings, but we all had a good laugh about "toy" rifles.

Back in '82, in OSUT (One Station Unit Training)all weapons were kept in the Armory, under lock and key, and we'd check a rifle out of the Armory for target practice, do some shooting, then clean our assigned weapons before checking them back into the Armorers, who would raise holy-hell if you had not thoroughly cleaned the aforementioned rifle.

For those who doubt my (and other's) assertion(s) regarding the "Mattel" logo, I had no camera while going through boot camp, and doubt that any of the other recruits had carried a camera while training.
Our company Commander was Captain G. Tronsrue, a West Point graduate, as well as an Airborne Ranger.
He's on Facebook, and I've conversed with him there. He said that he remembers my name, and that only a few other "Echo Outlaws" had contacted him via FB.

What a walk down memory lane!
"I don't think working remotely scales."

Funny, I feel it's almost the opposite. Remote work can be very difficult for a small business or startup, especially for the early team. Generally speaking, you want everyone within earshot and available for ad hoc ideation sessions, discussions, debates, or projects.

The larger the company, the more likely it'll be organized into discrete functions, work scope, teams, deadlines, and so forth. And hence, each employee will have a clearer sense of what he or she is accountable for on each day, with less moment-to-moment variance. This situation makes remote working easier and more scalable.
The criminal code is for maintaining civil order in areas under our jurisdiction. When the Constitution says that people have the right to due process of law, it presupposes that you're talking about a context where process exists (i.e. it is possible to bring someone to trial because you have police power over the area and functioning courts). It's non-sensical in a military context (and there need not be a declaration of war to have a valid military intervention--also a tradition as old as the republic).