skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I can take a gas cylinder pretty much anywhere I want to, but it's not wise to have one in an enclosed space (if it's leaking, it's going to become explosive when the oxygen gas mixture hits a certain ratio).

As for the metal fork on an airplane restriction, please don't ask anyone to try to explain the TSA's rationale (for that and most of their other policies).
US may be, but reservation in the UK means nature, pretty birds, and not treading on wild flowers. Weird people wearing bobble hats and walking boots armed with binoculars sneak through ticking off things they have seen in little reference books. (Note we in the UK don't shoot them, nature or the weird people). Certainly not some scary nuclear thing at all. In dear old Blighty we call such places: "scary nuclear places".
No, it's entirely reasonable to offer to sell it to them for a non-extortionate price. You should make clear that you registered the domain name in good faith for your company, and will continue to use it if they decide not to buy it (otherwise they could claim that you registered it in bad faith).

(I am not a lawyer.)
> You can't fight tyranny in government with metallic forks and gas cylinders.

or with AR-15's
It's OK, neither was mine it seems judging by its reply.
No other developed nation has a firearms death rate (let alone crime rate) in the top 10 of all countries where reliable data is available! [1]

Even Switzerland, who have half the guns per capita of the US (the highest in the world), have less than a third of deaths. [2]

At minimum, this suggests, at some point, the marginal availability of guns in a society does far more harm than any possible benefit overall.

This does not even cover the social and economic impact of gun-related mass murders or the disproportionate effects in highly unequal societies...

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-re...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_co...
I'm American and the truth is we don't need automatic rifles, but there is a very strong history of firearms in this country and thus a very strong supportive lobbying group behind it fighting to strike down anything which has potential to weaken it financially. The protecting ourselves from 'the government' argument is pure nonsensical bullshit, as 'the government' already has more nefarious means of controlling the masses. Simply put, there are a lot of ignorant people in America supporting ignorant lobbying groups who care more about their money than morality.
I'm not sure I'd agree that it is not ready for production, but there are some kinks (relatively minor I feel) which will become more apparent when it is used more widely than it is currently in production. Just as Ruby (for example) has gone through a trial of fire since becoming popular because of Rails, and has been much improved because of it.
I own a pistol (for fun at the range) and a rifle (I deer hunt) and did not have a background check for either. One was private sale and one was gun show though.
Hm, if I just get a dog, the social weakness in the schedule is solved! Walking the dog at 5am in the park sounds really peaceful.

8pm-4am sounds a lot better. Shifting my schedule later a few hours would be a good compromise. I still get up early, but I don't sacrifice that evening.
I find this wildly at odds with the experience of my friends. Granted they are early adopter type folk but they have taken to tablets extremely intently. They use them for gaming, and browsing, and other miscellaneous activities. Just because they are not great at everything doesn't mean they can't be incredibly useful tools.
all the game consoles have app stores. seriously.
I think perhaps you misunderstand what locks are for.

Locked doors are deterrents. Governments and lock makers do not assume/guarantee that locks are unassailable, they guarantee that they are unassailable for some unit of time.

Active shooter situations are usually counted on the order of minutes, and when you're dealing with minutes, locked doors certainly do matter.
Given the massive mismatch of firepower, training and numbers between the government and the very best armed/trained groups within the civilian population I have trouble believing that anyone can still make this argument at any intellectual level.
The Plastinarium of Dr. von Hagens
"I just want to say as an American, I am so fed up with all these gun stories."

Me too. But it won't end soon.

Currently every shooting in every city is a candidate for promotion to a national media campaign that is focused on gaining additional restrictions on firearms, especially at the federal level (but also state level: Colorado is at this moment passing new highly-restrictive state firearms laws).

Every opportunity to alarm the citizenry about firearms, every chance to get parents' blood-pressure up with false or real reports of gunmen afoot will be invoked by the media. It's both good for their business and it's good for their political agenda.

In essence, this is an orchestrated attempt to use the Newtown shootings and the subsequent heightened public sensitivity as leverage to advance a long-present liberal goal to register and confiscate all firearms.
Is there an argumentative equivalent of "damning with faint praise"? Because if the best you can do to prove that Apple lied is pull out some black and white scan of a 30 year old newspaper ad where they might have taken a bit of license with the very fuzzily-defined term "personal computer", then you actually make it look like Apple is the most scrupulously honest corporation in the history of the world.
Essex Walks – Epping Forest Fallow Deer Upshire Video
Seems like it doesn't scale well from your description. You would have to contact each company yourself and the value for them would be really low until the site blew up.

If there was an automated way to get representatives from a company to take control of an account, it might work better, but I don't know how that would be possible.

It's somewhat akin to companies/universities making facebook pages and youtube channels. The value is definitely there but only after those apps had been around for years.
To everyone who assumes that "tyrannical government" is always read to mean "our" government, here's a primer.

1) Everybody should (and probably already does) know that the United States was essentially formed out of that exact type of rebellion. The arms that won us the war of Independence were all provided by private citizens, just as the cannons were, the ships that formed our navy, etc. If we hadn't had private weapons, we wouldn't have had anywhere remotely enough arms to have won the war.

2) The provision allows us to defend against government tyranny, foreign and domestic. This means that we are allowed the right to bear arms to aid in the nation's defense, just as our framers did, in the event that we are attacked on our own soil. To those that would claim "like anybody's going to target the world's largest military" - who is to say that we'll always have a large military? In 100 years, who is to say that someone isn't elected that dramatically repurposes military spending. Arguments that may not be true now are not necessarily always going to be true.

3) Historically, disarming a populace has in many cases resulted in the unfair abuse of those citizens. History is replete with stories where a population, or a segment of a population was disarmed, and those people were subsequently subject to tyranny, or abuse, or genocide.

Having a right to keep and bear arms isn't our only defense against tyranny -- in reality, a reasonable people should exhaust all civic means of defending against it first. When a persons rights are trampled, we have civic and legal recourses for those. As in DC v Heller and Chicago v McDonald, we learned that despite the state's belief that the 2nd amendment may be restricted in certain ways, there are legal recourses against those restrictions. Nobody in DC (to my knowledge at least) was launching an armed protest of handgun laws there, as they should not have.

That said, in the event that the system does not work, or if in 200 years time, it has been perverted to the effect that it does not respect the rights of its people, the 2nd amendment may be the last defense against tyranny.
I agree, it would become difficult to maintain this schedule as days become longer, and the lack of social interaction is a glaring flaw.

Maybe it'd be better for someone that lived in Alaska.
The Ultimate $50,000 Gaming Chair
It's not the weapon that violates any of that it is the person using the weapon. Some weapons have purposes other than as a weapon but your argument would still imply that your right to life, liberty, and happiness would be violated so we should make forks, knives, bats, pans, cars, everything illegal. Slippery slope? Sure. There's a spectrum and everyone chooses where the line sits for them. I don't want easy access to nuclear weapons but I'm still OK with easy access to guns.
Yes, thank you. After reading a bit more, smoothness is what I'm looking for. One of the _derivatives_ of the smoothstep is discontinuous at the endpoint.
"But what will most certainly be forgotten is there was a generation of students in the 1980s and 1990s who were encouraged to use flow charts, long after the reason for using them had disappeared."

I don't know if I entirely agree with his conclusion. The smartest people I know code with a pen and paper. When they're on the bus or subway. When relaxing, or thinking carefully while away from a computer.

Those who program in the shower and then write it down after before they forget. Analogue programming tools (pan/paper) are great tools.

I thought the article was going to end with him pointing out that he found a great practice that we can all benefit from now. Planning code ahead of time is still better than typing away, we're just not forced to do it anymore.
Non-Invasive Treatments For Sun Damage And Wrinkles
times are tough when people have to pirate a $1 app.
I would just like to point out that people tend to blow the semicolon insertion thing out of proportion. For braces it really only comes up when returning object literals and for other things there are just a couple of features that can bite you (starting lines with parenthesis or array literals and so on)

http://inimino.org/~inimino/blog/javascript_semicolons

Sure, its best to always explicitly use semicolons but its not as dangerous to forget them as most make it sound.
I tough similarly, but now I have found spot for tablet in my life.

It is not my home work tool. Hell no, downgrading from three screens to one small? no.

I use low end Android phone, so I charge it only twice a week, but this means I cant use it for other purposes so well. Tablet is the thing I take with me whenever I leave house or go on a bigger trip. Battery life+ portability. Traveling abroad, maps, internet, hostels, emails, everything. It is perfect for these things, better than laptop. It is nothing I would prefer over real computer inside the house. But I prefer it every time I leave the house.

nexus 7 is my choice.
JavaScript is most certainly not a pure functional language.
The definition of freedom in about a third of those countries is that you have the freedom to surrender your independence to God and the state, and if you step out of line they will kill you in public as an example to everyone else. The definition of freedom in another large chunk of the world is that the single-party state is the sole legitimate representative of the people and has the sole power to decide what freedom is, and people who obey the party line have plenty of freedom but if you step out of line they will seize your property "for the people" and throw you in jail on false charges.

I will take the American definition of freedom, thanks.
The common response is idiotic. Perhaps the people who make it have not been paying attention to the news since 9/11.
Almost. The constitution enumerates certain rights that are specifically off limits to the government to give them extra emphasis - the Bill of Rights , which are the first 10 amendments to the constitution. The 2nd, of course is the right to bear arms.

An interesting side note is that there was a debate as to whether or not to even include the bill of rights lest future leaders attempt to nitpick their language and twist them into restrictions of the people. Or still worse, that they would be perceived as the only rights protected by the constitution. Never were they intended to be justification for restriction of the people. But back to the 2nd Amendment.

The purpose of the Amendment is steeped in American and Anglo culture and history. This is the best summary I know of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_...

The purpose of the amendment is quite certainly military in nature, and comes from a distrust of centralized government and a dangerous world in general. The authors wanted to make it totally crystal clear that the government could not subvert the people's obvious right to arm themselves and form military units, aka "militias".

The nature of the threat to which those militias could respond was pretty much anything - the security of the state. The federalist papers offer context here.

So yes, there is a constitutional basis for all this. But more than that it is a deeply ingrained part of American history and culture. People like to throw around the power of lobbyists, but that's not really it. The American people largely believe at a fundamental level that access to weapons is a strong and necessary counter to the existence of armed units within the government and elsewhere. The power of the gun lobby flows from that, not the other way around.
I've done this once and I think it's a pretty good idea especially if you work a 9 to 5 and are moonlighting. The most productive hours of the day (the hours that you have the most energy because you just woke up) are yours and then the hours that you are more tired are for your 9 to 5.
Android tablet, Window-8 tablet or iPad?
Banning things works great. Just like how we have no drug problems since the war on drugs. Prohibition turned out great too. </sarcasm>
I support reasonable drug legalization in the same way I support reasonable gun ownership. I'm from Utah, where gun owners are far from reasonable. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55649700-78/yorgason-carry... . There was a very vocal percentage of the population that thought this stunt was a good idea and cheered this guy on.
And for many attorneys in safe, democratic, non-tyrannical Western countries, the "right to bear arms" is not one they are aware of.
Afghanistan.

Duh.
Starters guide to MongoDB
Any uprising is likely to include a significant contingent of defecting armed forces.
The Pro-Gun group however pushes for the right to carry weapons on private property as well (stores, bars, schools, etc)
2nd Amendment, actually.

I agree on everything else.
Well, thanks for the depressing truth. I'll have to adjust my assumptions. It's turned into a learning experience.
I've started to view the random gun arguments as a sort of social software crash. I'm personally pretty indifferent to most of the arguments for and against, but it seems impossible to mention guns online without having a mud-slinging match. And I do mean mud-slinging. There is no attempt to reason, it's all about getting angry and calling people names on the internet. And while the argument is going on, ordinary discussion can't function. It's like a kind of spinlock or an epileptic seizure; the only cure is to wait for the participants to burn out, and maybe start a new thread elsewhere.
Down voted since you apparently didn't read the article. The author specifically addresses Xbox Live Indies.

Before I read the article I agreed but turns out there's a pretty solid point in there. It's funny how the consoles are racing towards this whole notion of the physical media doesn't matter when that seems to be precisely where consumers attribute the value.
Serious question: What would the the least of two evils? Overthrowing a government can lead to a lot of misery. Famine is the first one that comes to mind.
I can take a stab at it.

All variables are hoisted to the top of a function, where they are defined as 'undefined'. This is confusing, I know - there is actually a difference between an undefined variable (accessing it will cause a ReferenceError) and a variable defined as 'undefined', which is in many cases identical to null, except in object syntax.

An example you can run in your inspector:

function foo(){
console.log(a);
var a = "string";
}
function bar(){
console.log(a);
}
foo(); // logs 'undefined'
bar(); // throws ReferenceError

Why does this happen?

Well, this is because of the variable hoisting. Before running a function, the interpreter scans for any var definitions and 'hoists' them to the top of the function, where they are set to undefined. This leads to the strange situation where defining a variable after it's been accessed (as in foo()) actually prevents an exception.

The same is true of functions defined with the 'function name(){}' syntax. As opposed to the 'var name = function(){}' syntax, the entire function (including the definition of the function!) is hoisted to the top of the containing function. So this will work:

function foo(){
bar();
function bar(){
console.log("works!");
}
}
foo();

This can be confusing but if used properly can be very helpful in refactoring your code. For instance, there are times when I've easily cleaned up code by just putting them into separate function definitions within the parent function:

// old version
function longFunction(){
// 50 lines of code
// awful, messy
}

function refactoredLongFunction(){
doFirstThing();
doSecondThing();
doThirdThing();

function doFirstThing(){
// ...
}
// other function definitions
}

This prevents a pattern I see in a lot of JS libraries that drives me nuts - defining functions at the top of a closure, then calling them at the bottom. I very much dislike scrolling 100 lines to see the actual action performed by a function. Using the above pattern leads to much more readable code, IMO.

If you'd like to know more about function and variable hoisting, this is a good read: http://www.adequatelygood.com/2010/2/JavaScript-Scoping-and-...
Regarding #2, I highly recommend reading Trevor Burnham's excellent book Async JavaScript. It goes into a great deal of detail explaining how async operations work, and ways of dealing with them.
The strokes look like they'll mess up the kerning something fierce.

Word Art for web indeed.
To be fair, you do have more options available than allowing ownership outright, having a regressive licensing system, and blanket banning. I think it's possible to maintain both the freedom to own arms (at the very least out of intellectual curiosity) and a the requirement that the state provide reasonable level of piece of mind (you don't have to necessarily formulate it as a right, but it is the raison d'etre of government) - it just requires judiciously formulated policy; and agreeing on where the line should be drawn is always the hard - but necessary part.
ECMAScript 6 is hardly more than a few bandaids layered upon the existing stack of bandages applied to the gaping wound that is JavaScript.

It does not get to the core of the problems with JavaScript. It does not make the breaking changes necessary to truly fix the situation. It gives a false sense of improvement, at best.
The tyranny of the Canadian government is so overwhelming. How can I ever live in peace without a gun? Oh yea, I can use words.
"Call unfounded" - I wonder if that means they got a prank call or maybe someone saw some geek costume with fake gun/armor
> In exactly what case does a civilian need an automatic rifle?

Generally, suppression of negative freedoms are argued in terms of "what is the need of the collective to forcibly deny this freedom to citizens" rather than what need the citizen has to use the freedom. What is your exact need for freedom of the press extended to even obscene material? What is your exact need to be allowed to worship even satan? And my favourite: if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

> but let's be honest, if the government wants to be even more/fully totalitarian, an untrained militia carrying rifles won't stop them.

It's probably not going to help much against a slow slide, but it will make revolutions look a lot different.
Who are the next hot mobile networking startups
I unconsiously typed that description of a man, Google found him
Hi HNers,
I was thinking about an old article I've read on the financial crisis, and I started to type "the guy who made a killing from the financial crisis" and google find the exact person I was looking for. Not someone approcaching, needless to say bing wasn't even close. Enjoy!
$1.99 iPhone app saved Oscars film
I remember in 2004, when I was a freshman on campus we had Airsoft guns in the dorm and our cleaning lady actually picked them up for us and put them in a cup so we could reuse them for future dorm wide airsoft wars.

My how things have changed so many short years.
You can fight with AR-15's just as well as you can with AK-47's, which is precisely what the Taliban have been doing for the last decade against the USA, and for another decade against the Soviets in the 70's.
For me it's reading.

This is why I think that things like the Samsung ATIV and the Asus Transformer Book are so neat. For most things I do - writing code, writing emails, posting my inane thoughts on Hacker News, the laptop form factor is pretty ideal.

I really like the book form factor for reading texts. For novels, my Kindle is great, but for textbooks and technical books, with a lot of random access, I much prefer a tablet to a laptop, and to the weight/space requirements of a dead tree book. I have the Kindle DX too, which is a pleasure to read, but the lack of random access is killer.

That said, I never have my tablet when I have my laptop, since it's more stuff to carry around - which is why I think if they were one and the same, it'd be ideal.
They guarantee no such thing. A bump key will open most residential locks almost instantly[1]. A brick through a window works even faster.

You stated that locked doors were a solution to security when they are little more than security theater. They keep out only the people who would passively attempt to enter your home.

[1] http://youtu.be/131j0htYIoU?t=30s
Now that this has been shown to be a false alarm, we can relax with some unintentional humor from the beloved Department of Homeland Security:

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/active_shooter_poster.pdf

This is a real thing.
"In essence, this is an orchestrated attempt to use the Newtown shootings and the subsequent heightened public sensitivity..."

Oh please. Who orchestrated that? The media got together? The government?

There is nothing odd in requiring safety from other people's activities, whether that's their their reckless driving or their gun fetish.
Wow -- this is one of the first write-ups on this dead, beaten horse that makes a considerable amount of sense. I've often done something like this "lite", and had reasonable success.
I won't say that banning guns leads to tyranny in absolutely every instance, but it sure makes it easier.
If guns are not the cause of violence and banning them isn't for the better, why is England a less violent place than America? The gun murder rate in England is 0.1 murders per 100,000 people, in America it's 3.2.

Oh god, stop comparing a huge ass country with states with lot of differing laws to a small european country!
I can't find a single productive use for my TV, but I'd be an idiot if I called it a "short lived fad".
Maybe I communicated my point poorly - I agree. Supply is the driver, not demand. I was just annotating the use of the phrase 'most of the money' comparing the difference in final output (as GDP), and throughput. In the context of this discussion, internally the mechanics of the economy are driven by business spending (which is most likely more than double GDP alone). But if you take final output, consumers do hold the larger portion.