skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It is a real shame that such an horrific event has become simply a football concerning the merits of Free Speech
Like the glove compartment? At least on some cars it is very warm in there.
This is the right decision by Facebook. I don't agree with that group, but you can't just go around bowing to everyone X group that's offended/insulted by Y topic.

If they do, when do you draw the line? If a group of "A" people say that the "B" religion groups are offensive/insulting/wrong, and how they committed crimes in ages before, do you ban "A"'s groups? What about the other side, you ban "B"'s group since the other side is wrong/insulted/offended?

Free speech is there for a reason, to protect those with unpopular views. The views may be wrong/insulting/offensive/whatever, but their still their views. The holocaust denial group is indeed in the wrong and I don't agree with them, but they still have the right to express their views.
Books? You have time to read books? (I jest - 'tis nearing the top of a very long list...)
How exactly did you determine that?
IBM CoScripter: Automate Web Processes
Anyone know why they built this rather than use Hive or Pig? One thing that drives me nuts is that all of these MR tools are very slow because they don't take advantage of indexes and use inefficient storage (e.g. in this case, plain text files), both of which would likely improve query performance considerably.
The only time I really hear about these groups is when there is a controversy over censoring them. Seems to be by far the best way for them to get their message out.
We forgive those that utter uninformed statements, 'for they know not what they do'. When they are informed of what they do and insist on repeating the statement, it becomes a lie.

The phrase "when they are informed" skips the step where they are somehow convinced of the truth of the information. Do you think that they "really know" the Holocaust happened and are actually lying, or do you think they're actually mistaken? If there's any significant chance of the latter (and if you think that Holocaust deniers are a serious problem, which I don't necessarily agree with), then figuring out what evidence would be convincing is important.
Norwegian ISP: dig your own fiber trench, save $400
"No, the problem is that Holocaust deniers make their arguments for one simple purpose - they want to finish what was started and wipe Jews off the planet."

This is far from true. "Holocaust deniers" very often turn out to be "The holocaust was more than just killing Jews, so stop making it just about them. A lot of the figures about those killed are inflated. The Holocaust needs to be stop being used a trump card for getting everything from Hate Speech Laws codified to a free pass for Israel to wall in the Palestinians and bomb densely populated areas."

Now I tacitly accept the figures for those killed in the Holocaust (6 million Jews, 5 million gypsies, gays and others) because it isn't an important issue for me.

But trying to call holocaust deniers closeted genocidal maniacs is pretty absurd.
You're right that he did "wrong" things from the perspective of trying to please the interviewer.

Personally I would have walked out if I got a negative vibe from the interviewer during this. Questions like this are deliberately obnoxious bullcrap pulled by recruiters and interviewers who don't understand what they're actually after in a candidate.

Everything that you want from a good software engineer (requirement refinement, minimal-effort-maximum-payout planning, awareness of a large variety of domains relevant to your company's business) was expressed by this person's response. You want these things in a candidate because they are the hardest things to find in a good candidate. But the interviewer didn't actually want real-world skills and a real problem solution, they wanted some arbitrary, bullcrap pseudocode up on the whiteboard. This kind of bullcrap pseudocode doesn't actually tell you if the person can or can't code, so it's utterly pointless.

I've walked out of interviews and refused job offers for less egregious examples of this kind of nonsense. It doesn't bode well for the company when they're so scatterbrained and insecure that they can't handle someone who actually takes your question seriously.
An unbalanced opinion, based on a soundbite that is repeated over and over again by people that should first think through what it would mean if put into practice. You would not defend my right to publically, repeatedly, defamate you or your products, would you? For that exact reason there are laws against that. If I repeated over and over again you were a pedophile and spread false evidence to that effect, don't you think I would be able to convince people? And don't I need to convince only a few 'right' people to make your life hell?
Because everyone on the internet is capable of making a rational judgment about the lies these groups are spreading.

Young, impressionable minds (kids) can't form their own opinions and deduct logical conclusions based upon presented facts; they will simply believe what they read, and they shouldn't be reading that.
What if what I want to say is: "Guards, shoot him now." ?

This is a contrived example, of course, but it demonstrates a simple idea: (some) words kill.

Facebook is a private company. They have no duty to uphold free speech. However, they do have a duty to do what's in their own self-interest. Being seen as a haven for hate speech is probably not it.
37 Signals' products: http://www.37signals.com/
But i'm not sure if free versions support 6-7 people.
Is FB more like the NYT or the ATT telephone network? I think it's a stretch to claim that FB is "saying" the things that users post on walls. Perhaps a better offline metaphor would be a mall tossing out someone for wearing an objectionable t-shirt or handing out pamphlets.
I did not mean to imply that private censorship is forbidden by the first amendment. Freedom of speech is more than a legal right. It is an ideal that many of us support in all contexts.
If you do not support a person's right to express an opinion that you abhor you do not support free speech at all.

I support their right to express it. I also support Facebook's right to remove them from the virtual, private premises for expressing it. I also support their right to complain that Facebook deleted their account because they were expressing hate-speech. I also support our collective right to side with Facebook on this one.
Another shout for redmine. It is mostly oriented around issue management but there are tons of plugins which add functionality
Please review Numbrosia puzzle iPhone/iPod touch app (it is free for a limited time)
Not sure what I can improve:

http://www.numbrosia.com

http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=312424712&mt=8&uo=6
So, are there any in-browser lisps that, you know, do something? Maybe one that plays in the Pipes space, letting you work with feeds of various sorts?
It looks gross, but these places are ALWAYS packed. I'm sure part of it is the wait-staff as well.
The right to free speech does not equate to the right to free facebook accounts.

Facebook is not the government. They can ban any users they want for saying things they don't like, without impinging on our right to free speech.
Restricting the spread of information is not the act of those who think that truth is on their side. Those against such restrictions aren't "afraid to do the right thing", they're for doing the right thing, which is allowing those who disagree to speak.
Ditto, funnily enough, but the defensiveness portrayed differentiates my experience from that of the OA.
Going against the holocaust crazy and Jewish haters will hurt Facebook more than just allowing free speech.

These fools are just seeking the opportunity of using censorship from Facebook to their advantage.

Good call Facebook, let the haters roar in their little hole, no more free PR.
What are "Hellmeier-type questions"?
You're supporting it in the sense that "Someone who wants to broadcast a message in a particular medium has the right to decide how that medium is used." Plenty of bad examples -- Pepsi doesn't have the right to push their products in Coke's newsletter.
Sweet. It appears to have proper tail recursion.

(define (fib n)
(fib-help n (lambda (fn fn-1) fn)))

(define (fib-help n k)
(if (<= n 1)
(k 1 1)
(fib-help (- n 1)
(lambda (fn-1 fn-2)
(k (+ fn-1 fn-2) fn-1)))))

(fib 1000)
At what point did you hear about Holocaust denial? Did you immediately agree with it?
Yes, hackers are pre-disposed towards Objectivism.

Those that are not are:
* unaware of Objectivism
* or are unwilling to learn about it because of something they heard about from leftist cynics
* or aren't really hackers in the first place
I'm not sure why a link to drop.io is used, when you can read online or download this book for free from Simon Peyton Jones' site (http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/papers...).
The issue really is weakening of free speech rather than holocaust denial. Distorting facts should never be a justification to suppress speech. This is exactly the justification the Catholic church used for a long time, and they even have a word for it: heresy. Free speech really is our only tool to get out of situations where a bad idea or 'fact' is widely accepted and supported by those in power.

The irony here is that if Germans hadn't lost their freedom of expression under the Nazis, the holocaust might not have happened at the scale it did.
Oh, certainly Facebook has the right to turn the Holocaust-deniers away. But that implies that they do not support free speech -- at least not enough to support it materially. That's the call that's being made -- whether Facebook supports free speech on Facebook. I wouldn't have hard time with this call.
Hey, thanks! I wrote that. I went here to post it, and it was already here.
Ah, the inevitable descent into a flamewar.

I would expect such indulgence for our primal trollish instincts from reddit. But HN?

Let us debate emacs vs vi, or the failure of the Boost library, or rakudo vs parrot!

Hell, let us fight to the death over Star Wars vs. Star Trek.
After the Jewish haters, Facebook will have to deal with the Black haters, the neo Nazis, the anti abortion, the anti gays, the anti government, the fascists, the socialists, the chicken haters, the fast food advocates ...

The list is endless, you can just run around and shut down all non straight opinion makers and by the way Facebook is not NYT.
I support Facebook's right to censor them as well. I would not agree with their decision to do so, but it is their decision to make.

I write this not because I agree with Holocaust deniers. What if the issue were a 9/11 conspiracy theorist group? A group that discusses differences in intelligence between ethnic groups?
One reason is that drop.io provides an inline viewer also.
-m
Think of the children!

Sorry, but when his excuse comes out the debate is over. The children will be fine, just like they have been fine for all of human history. They survived as slaves, through depression and wars, and every other thing history has thrown at them. A random group on facebook posting about a revisionist stance that almost 99.99% of people know to be insane isn't going to hurt "kids". I'm glad facebook is allowing free speech on their platform. As many have stated, this is a private entity and it is within its rights to pull the content. I'm glad they are not. I would prefer my child to see this and see how horrible these people are then pretend they don't exist.
If your team knows Emacs, you may want to try org-mode (sync-ed by, say, git). I am not kidding. The notes-centric approach, instead of the usual task-centric approach, will completely change the way you work and collaborate for the better.

I can't stress this enough.
not at all: but flagging a point to death when I already made clear what you said registered with me is an instant turn off.

His blog post seems to suggest he barely spent much thought on the solution to the actual problem (which we cant deny is important).

The data-set is not real world, that is obvious to everyone, but the solution IS.
What if the issue were a 9/11 conspiracy theorist group?

Then I would not support their removal. I don't have any credible evidence that 9/11 truthers are rooting for mass murder on a global scale, so I believe they're harmless.
Ask HN: Thoughts on my new local ad program?
Happiness? Quite Simple. Practice Altruism.
A scribd thing embedded in a drop.io thing? This is the most idiotic link I've ever clicked on HN.

The actual page on Simon Peyton Jones' website where you can read it online or download it:

http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/papers...
This is a huge deal. If your company has an acceptable use policy then you could be convicted of a felony for something as benign as checking Facebook or Twittering. That is insane.

You might say "my company has no official policy, so it can't happen to me." Wrong. Accroding to this ruling, you are a felon for doing anything on any computer, unless you were expressly authorized to perform that action on that computer. From the article:

'He added that the city had never actually disseminated a policy regarding internet usage to tell workers what was inappropriate.

'"They had crafted one but they hadn’t published it," he said. "So there was in effect no policy and no protections on the computer--no password protection or filtering of any kind--so basically anybody could access anything on the internet through the city’s computer."'
Who can forget this: http://exold.com/article/stupid-interview-questions

Either you love it and want to hire the guy in a moment, or you think he's an unbearable smartass.
Defamation is not free speech, defending the right to free speech should be anyone duty.
Unrelated except for the impression it forms in me: This story reminds me of encountering one of the chief officers of a small/midsize electric power company in Iowa, back in the 1980's. They were actively working with Amory Lovins, of the Rocky Mountain Institute, on energy conservation because they recognized that the resultant leveling of peak generation demands made them more profitable. They sold less power, but their margins improved enough to more than compensate. Everyone won.

It's always impressive to find a company willing to think outside of the established "box", and to work with their customers. To my mind, it represents a generalized form of hacking. It's not just about technology, per se, it's about finding a better way -- and, when speaking of commerce, making a business out of it.

Kudos.
I'm sorry, but this isn't about free speech. These people are calling for violence and murder against an entire class of people. You're okay with a " Facebook group ... twitter hashtag ... IRC channel" dedicated to promoting murder and genocide?

Or look at this another way: if someone started a "Kill thenduks" Facebook group dedicated to justifying why killing you would be a good idea, and good for the world... how'd you feel about that?
Interesting idea. It's probably worth explicitly thinking of first it as a distributed hash table, rather than a link forwarder, though.

Incidentally, using google as a rainbow table sometimes works, though only for people who have really weak passwords and no salting.
I'm sure Facebook has been letting them roar in their little hole for some time. It's techcrunch that's reopening the issue, which I don't quite understand. Facebook is a rather small snapshot of the real world - a real world where hundreds of thousands of Holocaust deniers exist. Removing this insignificant subset from Facebook wouldn't do anything. I think Mike needs to just settle with the realization that people with these opinions exist, and will always exist, and have always existed.
I realized that this wasn't a good example after reading your comment a second time. I added an additional example moments later.

Facebook is free to shape their community in any manner they see fit. If their goal is simply to have the largest audience possible then perhaps being overly political correct serves their purposes well. I happen to believe that a community is much more interesting when distasteful views are not censored. I'd much rather give users the option to suppress groups that they do not wish to see.
When it comes to living in a society, I believe in degrees of free speech rather than absolute free speech. Sometimes tempered opinions lead to improved social harmony. I don't see a problem in this case though, especially considering the dozens of "hate" groups on Facebook.
"He doesn't cover the case of a group that is not anti-semitic, but does deny the Holocaust."

Mental masturbation: Applying logic in a theoretical realm without regard to the real world or the human condition.

Elephant in the room: By definition, the outlier you cite cannot exist, since the sole purpose of "Holocaust denial" is to rub salt into Jewish wounds.

I have been on this forum forever, have discussed many issues with many of you, and never comment on these types of threads, which frankly do not belong on hn. But since you turned this into a logic play, I took the bait (for which I'm already sorry.)

I also see that the ho-hums have arrived and have started to vote me down without providing comments, a perfectly expected outcome.

You are churning logic which, based upon my axioms, is illogical. I understand that you may not agree with my axioms, rendering your treatment of the logic as plasible.

Please understand that, either way, it doesn't matter. Saying that "Holocaust denial" != "anti-semitism" is not a speed bump; it's a show stopper. For many sensible people, you have effectively disqualified yourself from further logical discussion.

I look forward to discussing business & programming with you and all the others in future threads. This is my last posting in this thread (and hopefully all others like it).
HP DV6T laptop Review Specifications
I think the most impressive thing was how they lined up support _before_ deploying the network. That seems like a win for everyone involved, as they don't have to make huge speculative capital outlays... they already know they will have customers. Presumably the customers reap the cost savings in the form of lower bills.
> I would expect such indulgence for our primal trollish instincts from reddit. But HN?

I resisted the reddit comparison but I'm glad someone else mentioned it. Furthermore, I'm unconvinced that this is the type of submission that should be appearing on HN's front page.
Hate speech is not "information".
Webdesign news
Helpful RSS feed for design resources.
The problem is not real world. The data is not real world. The solution is not real world. The entire dialogue is a fantasy. So why even engage in it? Were you expecting something real-world from it?

It was an interview. You're being unreasonable to put someone under an already high-stress situation and then saying, "Now we're going to conduct an extremely difficult experiment where you try to come up with the solution to a difficult problem in one fell swoop without any of the usual access to reference and the opinions of your peers."

It is bullshit, plain an simple. A bizarre artifact of a world where people have extreme difficulty evaluating software engineering skills. It bears no resemblance to how people in the real world write code or engineer solutions.

If you wanted real world examples why not put a pre-requisite to the interview to bring in working code that does what something relevant, and then discuss it in the interview? That's a far more realistic scenario with far more useful data than this little play-acting show that you're describing.

When I operate as the interviewer, I look for responses like the one the blogger gave at the beginning, where they start to really analyze the problem domain. People like this save millions of dollars in software engineering costs because they can look at the scope of a request and start to refine it (or outright reject it if it is unreasonable and they can cogently explain why it is so). To say these qualities are a "turn off" blows my mind. This kind of attitude is nearly as bad as the attitudes expressed in the reviled modern-google-interview, and competent software engineers who are not desperate for a job would do well to refuse to tolerate it.

After all, an interview is as much for the interviewee as it is for the interviewer. Most of the time, getting to an interview like this means that the company in question thinks you might be a good hire, and they're hiring to fill a void in their ranks. The interviewee is far from powerless.
I commend you for how you'd handle the situation with your child, however every situation will not unfold with a caring parents explaining to their kids how wrong these "bad men" are.

It's not just kids who shouldn't be reading this material, it's all kinds of impressionable people who don't compare facts before forming opinions. It's hard to argue that this kind of hate speech will benefit more people than it will hurt.
The attitude was actually quite bad considering this was an interview and not a lazy chat between two colleagues. This guy plainly failed to demonstrate that he can understand the context of the question, which was not an offer to ramble about the question not making much practical sense.
By your reasoning, it should be illegal to deny that the moon landing ever happened, or to deny that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin of JFK, or even to deny that human beings are the product of biological evolution. It's not the role of government, or of Facebook, to officially designate one version of past events as "true" and prohibit all consideration of any contrary version.

The Holocaust happened. It is sufficient to fully show the evidence of what happened and leave it at that. Prohibiting anyone from making claims to the contrary is no defense of the truth. Only liars need that defense.
Obviously you don't like Objectivist political conclusions.

But Objectivism is not a political movement any more than the National Organization of Women or the National Rifle Association are philosophical movements. To properly attack Objectivist political conclusions, you have to go deeper and explain what you disagree with in the philosophy itself and why your philosophical stance is relevant to the political conclusion you take offense to.
Why work hard when government easily steals your labor via printing press
Fed to buy up to $1.3 trillion debt; up lending
http://www.moneycontrol.com/india/news/economy/fed-to-buyto-3613-trillion-debtlending-/389429

US red ink rising even higher, to $1.8T
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/White-House-Budget-deficit-to-apf-15199183.html?.v=8
It's not about me and people like me. People with fewer advantages are less likely to grasp the scope of such a conspiracy as a denial of the holocaust and are more likely to entertain the idea.
I used Prism for a bit, but I have dropped it. For apps like Gmail or Google Apps, I've found its easier to use Chrome instead, as the main goal is keeping Firefox's inevitable crashes from interrupting their function.

For Songza and Pandora, for which I was also using Prism, I've found Xenocode's Virtual Apps to be much better:

http://www.xenocode.com/Music/

I use their Pandora app on a daily basis.