skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>Why is it OK to quote what someone said for a news article, but not use their photo with proper attribution? Because they spent a couple hundred dollars on a camera?

As a professional photographer (and programmer), I can easily answer that: because they are professionals, and they want to get paid for THEIR pictures.

How about someone steals your business' source code (which you didn't release as FOSS)? Why shouldn't he? Because you spent a couple thousand dollars on a laptop? (if I'm allowed to to use your reasoning).

Not to mention: it's not just the camera: it's also their being were they need to take the pictures (which has costs), they risks they went through, years of training etc. And their particular expression (composition, etc).

If you think their pictures are not worth what they ask for, then don't use them. If you think they are worth it, pay for them. It's that simple.

>I've been a professional photographer for over 10 years, and it makes me sick how paranoid others in the industry are.

Well, if you're a wedding photographer, or a fine art photographer that makes his living from selling framed, signed and numbered prints, you don't qualify.

In the article we're talking about people that make their money from selling their pictures for print and online media and such (photojournalists). Though it also applies the same to stock photographers.

>The balance of power is completely wrong, and photographers, musical artists, and other "creatives"

If you want to take their stuff and listen to it or use it on the front page of your newspaper then they are clearly creative -- and the quotation marks around that word are not helping your comment.

>If proper attribution is given to the creator (same as quoting what someone says) then photographs should be shared.

Thanks for pissing all over my profession.

To answer your idea: people in general don't say things as a business to make money. That's why they are quoted for free. Were "quote" also means "a small part of what they said".

Those that do say things to get paid (e.g comedians, writers, journalists etc), don't get their words reprinted for free.
The earliest citation given in the Oxford English Dictionary for any word used as a name for this element is alumium, which British chemist and inventor Humphry Davy employed in 1808 for the metal he was trying to isolate electrolytically from the mineral alumina. The citation is from the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: "Had I been so fortunate as to have obtained more certain evidences on this subject, and to have procured the metallic substances I was in search of, I should have proposed for them the names of silicium, alumium, zirconium, and glucium."[67][68]

Davy settled on aluminum by the time he published his 1812 book Chemical Philosophy

== The main point of context.
Data Packages - a world of frictionless data
How safe is this? It seems difficult to deliver enough force to be realistic without the potential to damage sensitive organs.
>>Who doesn't go into the implementation with the solution worked out?

OOP, as Allan Kay envisioned it, is about making developing software a process of learning about what you are modeling. You are expected to naturally find the solution to your problem as you model it, not to have a worked up a solution you have to put into the code. With real-world sized problem, this approach gives good results. But, obviously, it can fail to find some great solutions. As is the case for the Hanoi problem: you can model it very well without finding the optimal solution to it. But the model still has some added usefulness.
Who did the tagging?
Steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you King.
Try TokuMX. It mongodb with better engineering decisions and has ACID transactions, mvcc, no collection locks, no index fragmentation.
Eh, they think it's fixed now.

The squatting is awful, though.
Internal affairs is probably the reason - each department seems to have a way to investigate their own complaints.

Here's more from the Miami Herald article:

> Saleh added that after he filed the internal affairs complaint in August 2012, one of the officers he complained about, Michael Malone, confronted a customer who was part of the complaint.

> Saleh said that after the officers started harassing him, his employees and customers, he began to doubt that police were conducting an impartial investigation, and he did stop cooperating. He said that should not have stopped them from collecting their own evidence, given the seriousness of the complaint.

> “What about their own video, the videos that officers are supposed to take from their cars?” Saleh asked, contending that each time an officer turns on his lights, the vehicle’s dashboard cam is supposed to activate. Saleh said he requested copies of the police videos corresponding to the arrests he recorded and was told the videos didn’t exist.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/22/3772817/miami-gardens-...
This is the future. I hope this would be a platform where developers could use the API and create more sci fi stuffs. Also, where can i hack on this api?
SWI-Prolog extensions in version 7
On one hand I want to cheer since this is an example of David winning a small scuffle against Goliath.

But on the other hand, the legal tools being employed by David in this case are the same tools that Goliath uses to limit speech on the web today.

Let's not forget that the copyright system is an anachronism that needs to be dismantled/rebuilt to suit the modern world. Just because the result in this case leaves you satisfied doesn't mean that the system in its current form is unacceptable.
I'd imagine that a lot of the need for new engines is driven by new hardware, and it seems that the video hardware has stopped evolving at a rapid pace. nVidia and AMD have been focused more on computation than graphics recently.
How about I steal your web code and designs and undercut you to your potential customers?

We're not talking about stealing some CSS idea on some site...
I assume that they can restart the server at intervals or use load balancing. A few months of developer timer for something like this seems excessive unless he was working on something else as well.
A comercial enitity cannot steal a copyright workd from a 3rd party, generally (#1) and certainly not an intermediary who used the work in a "personal use" (#2) capacity. A company the size of Getty Images in particular is well versed in sending out such legal notices, surely.
It may be, depending on your definition, but the term "money laundering" has a distinctly criminal connotation. Bitcoin mixing is more analogous to paying for something with cash withdrawn from a bank account rather than making a bank transfer directly.
So does this mean that Buzzfeed.com is going to be sued for $1 trillion?
Show HN: Instagram for your terminal
It might become the lottery of the 21th century. ;)
You can't "strip" copyrights, and I don't even think Twitters TOS has any bearing here at all. For a company like AFP to allow its editors to use pictures without information as to their origin and legal status is just a big no-no and business risk (as is evident by the ruling here).
>We don't need the Snowden disclosures to know this; it has for 15 years been the worst kept secret in computer security.

Just 1 year before, people would deny such thing occured and treat you like a conspiracy theorist, including here on HN.

>But it is intellectually dishonest to pretend that people are just now discovering that

A, the "we knew it all along so it's ok" defense -- with the "and furthermore, you should be ashamed for pretending to have learned about it just now" extension...
GitHub shows the file size and SLOC for each file individually. If you want see the SLOC for an entire project, you could clone it and run something like the following from the root of the project directory:

find . -name '*.<ext>' | xargs wc -l
There is a little more about her in her obituary. http://articles.philly.com/2012-12-21/news/35955478_1_televi...
Mindie.co - your everyday music video
http://news.ycombinator.com/newpoll

from

http://ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
True, but once it evaporates, it can no longer be called seawater.

I think you may be reading this in the wrong context. It's a geology story, and geologists study things that have been buried in the ground a long time. The value is in having a sample of prehistoric seawater to study, as if it were a rock formation.
If it was in fact 1-1000 then some nerd would be complaining about muh 1024 convention. Next, the 1MB guy.

I don't see how where the line is drawn (and realistically it has to be drawn somewhere for a public service) necessarily implies anything about whether proper hashing is being done.
If the original claim is true, it means that the maximum numerical separation between primes is 600, meaning primes may sometimes be separated by a smaller gap, but no two primes will be separated by a larger gap, a numerical distance greater than 600. What this means is, if there are no gaps between primes a and b greater than 600 (i.e. |a-b| > 600), if all prime pairs have a smaller gap, then given the size of the set under consideration, it follows that there are an infinite number of pairings {a,b} in which their separation is 600 or less (|a-b| <= 600).

Also, in mathematics, finding an example of a property isn't very difficult. The difficulty lies in proving a theorem that makes a universal statement about that property -- that's the real challenge.

If that answer wasn't clear, don't hesitate to ask a clearer question.
Just because you can use incredibly large text (with an incredibly large header that covers the text even on a 1080p monitor!) and scroll-detect animations doesn't mean you should.

Regardless, from a business perspective, this seems like a very good way to annoy your customers instead of engaging them.
Cars? Let's go deeper: How about clothing with built in cameras (and possibly other sensors) that look up every face one comes across on the internet (facebook/google seem like good data sets to start) to match with an identity and then for actions deemed unseemingly by the individual, they can use their identity and find relatives/friends/children and send a message with the clip and a caption "Here's how your friend/dad/daughter, is conducting themselves admirably today, you should be proud of them."
> How is the author overlooking the most obvious course of action the Chinese government could take?

He didn't overlook it, he addressed it specifically. Read the article.
Your examples are more implausible than they are logical.
Yes, doing this attack after a site is already publicly known is hard because of HSTS (if Github uses it), but slowly caches will expire and browsers will reset themselves, and the amount of http traffic will increase a lot.
Couldn't you also pin a certificate if it was distributed over DNS? DANE would make setting up ssl simpler for operators of small sites while not compromising the ability of big players, like Google, to deploy their own security mechanisms.
That's the entire point of asymmetric crypto, the amount of effort you would need to brute force 2^160 keys is staggering. Even if you made billions of ASIC processors and ran them until the end of time, you probably wouldn't find the funds you were looking for.

This is constantly suggested, and it's always useless. If you could attack keys like this the system would be broken.
> I'm happy to provide citations

I don't believe you. I think you'd be sad to do it. Otherwise you would have already. And having lied about one small thing, why should I believe that you haven't lied about other, bigger things?
> "and furthermore, you should be ashamed for pretending to have learned about it just now"

You are wrong.

People have been saying for as long as email has existed that it is not private and that anyone can read it. People have been warning that if you have something secret you must not put it online, or that you must use sensible encryption carefully if you do so.

Risk assessment has always been part of online security considerations.

Online privacy is not a new thing. Knowing that governments have access to everything is not a new thing. Being annoyed that governments do it is a new thing.

What did you think they were doing with the huge secret budget and more computing power than anywhere else?
>Well, they do. Just like Russia and China.

I seriously doubt that. Russia, for example, could not care less about 99.9% of western citizens (whereas for western spying agencies, those are potential dissidents to be kept on check).

And even if they cared, what exactly would they do with that information? It's not like they are particularly powerful, imperialist or try to play global cop (post USSR). It's also not like they arrange puppet politicians and governments in foreign countries, as western powers are known to do.
But how would they enforce the laws you subscribe to without having people with guns in your general vicinity willing to do violence on your behalf, and what's the value if you're not interacting with people who subscribe to the same?

Perhaps you could say their different agencies come to some sort of an agreement in regards to disputes or conflicts between the laws subscribed to by different people. But where such agreements exist they would be made for the mutual benefit of the corporations and not necessarily their customers. To me the end result still looks a lot like a state, just one in which cartels stand in for governments.
Users of blockchain.info. It's a little obvious, the amounts they transferred are "FBI" when typed on a phone keyboard.
I wish the correct response to that statement (and it's spiritual brother: if you've done nothing wrong, you should have nothing to hide) was as widely known as the statement itself.

As an idea, it should be so thoroughly discredited by now that merely stating it approvingly marks one as either morally deficient, an idiot, or both. Making that statement should be at the same level of social disapproval as, say, suggesting genocide as a reasonable way to deal with undesirable people groups.

As of today, though, regular run-of-the-mill people are unable to formulate why that statement is not just wrong, but ridiculously, appallingly so. I fear learning why will come at a rather significant cost to humanity in general. :(

I guess this is how civilization moves forward. It's not pretty.
One crucial difference:-

One system is an utter pain to actually cash out of if you start pulling in decent revenues.

The other one is...oh.
>I don't think I've seen him defend their actions, just explain them.

Explain them as "business as usual" to take away the outrage.

Might as well have been explaining the actions of the KKK.
I would like to think the point should be whenever they do something provably illegal (that's oversimplified, but you get my drift).

I mean, there'll always be a grey area, but this story seems a little nutty.

I totally agree that catalyst for localized change (if there's even any of that in this case) shouldn't be, "Oh shit, we got caught and now it's on the news."
Given it got broken up into 4000BTC chunks after the box TX, we can assume they are on paper wallets, probably distributed up using secret sharing. That's standard in the Bitcoin world.
reply to the edit - the existence of collective legal representation via a union does not by itself explain why these people feel they can act with impunity. I agree that having access to good lawyers does help a lot in employment cases, however I would say that either the police union is almost superhumanly competent in its legal defense of its members, or it is not the primary reason for police being allowed to behave like this.
If that were the benchmark, Copenhagen is cheap! You can get a six-pack of Tuborg or Heineken for about $7-8, including tax, and any kind of normal local pub will have half-liters at $4-5 (though prices can go up to $10+ at fancy bars). That makes the $20/hr minimum wage look quite nice relative to costs: about three six-packs per hour of work!

However, some other things are expensive, such as housing.
Atlas (Beta) - The new learning environment from O’Reilly
It doesn't seem like an amicable parting. You never want to have a guy like Carmack just leave. He's a giant in your industry, he's popular and highly respected and you gain a lot by having him be associated with your company. So at the very least you give him a honorific title and invite him to all the corporate parties. It didn't seem like this happened here.
The term "money laundering" originally referred to the practice of concealing the movement of funds involved in a crime. Now they've redefined it so that concealing the movement of funds is itself a crime, even if the funds are entirely legitimate and no other crime is involved.
Did you even read the article? Eric talks about how American designed encryption paradigms will eventually introduce free speech that cannot be stopped or surveilled even in places like China.

What Google's search market shares have to do with that concept is beyond me, though.
Bitcoin taxation is not ivory tower crap, it's a mostly straight-forward application of existing laws to a somewhat novel concept. In a nutshell, it's a living demonstration of the evolution of the law that many legal practitioners are excited to be a part of. (Unlike litigation-related legal fields, tax law in general is not exciting. Moreover, tax law usually changes in response to statutory and regulatory changes, so getting to be part of an actual organic change to tax law is a rare experience.)

OTOH, talking about taxing high frequency trading is ivory tower crap, because current law doesn't impose any such taxes. Thus, any discussion would be merely theoretical and academic.
You sure sound like you agree with me here.

If I understand you correctly, you're basically saying that people have decided, based on the information available and the priorities they have, that the government's reaction to terrorism is what they want. They think the tradeoffs in terms of civil liberties and government spending are worthwhile. And I agree, they DO think that!

But that does not translate into "the government has a responsibility to try to prevent mass casualty events". If the people decided that policy for terrorism should be more like policy for cars than policy for threatening foreign powers, then the government should follow suit. There's no implicit responsibility to treat some causes of death differently.

As I said way up in my original comment, the problem here is the people themselves. We must convince the public to take a more rational approach to terrorism, one in which the effort expended in countering it compared to the potential threat it poses is more in line with the ratio dedicated to other threats.

One part where we disagree is where you say that people would "rightfully be pretty agitated" with one Boston bombing a month. Would people be "rightfully agitated" if a similar number of deaths and injuries was happening in Boston every month, but spread out across the entire month? Because I'm pretty sure that's the case, but most people don't get agitated, and we tend to think that those who do get agitated at the daily grind of death and mayhem that makes up life are a bit insane.
I know you're sarcastic, but what the hell.

http://www.policemisconduct.net/

http://www.policemisconduct.net/maps/searchable-map-2009-201...

There are plenty of incidents in Seattle you might be interested in.
I thought LSD.
I'm not sure people are aware/scared enough of possible physical access. People have been kidnapped / banks robbed / etc for far less than $150MM.
Yes. That is true. You are right.
> At some point even the officers need to be held accountable for their actions.

At some point? At every point. And I don't understand the use of "even".

We are all responsible for our actions.
What struck me is the age of the oldest known seawater. That's on the order of 2% of the age of the earth. There are plenty of rocks that are much older. I guess seawater doesn't keep very well.
[PHP] Automatically detect misspellings and suggest alternatives
My argument is you believe you can act with impunity if you don't believe there will be any repercussions for your actions. So if it isn't police/LEO unions protecting officers from dismissal due to gross misconduct, who is it?
I'm with grandparent on this, the point of exporting would be to export the result of the scrapbook composition, layout, etc

On the "who cares" side: it's actually an improvement to be able to say on $socialnetwork "here's my trip, take a look at it" rather than having to sit your friend through a one hour show off :)
I'm usually not a big fan of infographics, but there's been an infographic that displays the differences between the future that Huxley depicted and the future that Orwells depicted surprisingly well [1].

I always found the world in 'A brave new world' to be better designed than the world in 1984. Orwell installed Big Brother and had tight control structures organize society. I.e. people are forced to not misbehave. Huxley, on the other hand, (at least that's how it felt to me) found solutions to all the small issues that make people misbehave, and just implemented a society around it. In his dystopian future, people don't want to misbehave, they're not interested in it. I think both societies have equal chances of survival, but the Huxley society has a higher chance of coming into existence because it installs itself in line with peoples desires, instead of confronting their desires.

[1] http://thesleepymoose.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/huxvor-2.p...
Isn't including your own client and secret API keys not a good idea?
This has never been more relevant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO8EpfyCG2Y
Because... it's not?

Declare a plain getter method:

-(id)foo;

Call it with dot syntax:

id foo = obj.foo;

Works fine. Now declare it as a property:

@property id foo;

Call it without dot syntax:

id foo = [obj foo];

Works fine. They are completely unrelated and just introduced at the same time. You could take dot syntax out of the language without affecting properties in the least. You could take properties out of the language without affecting dot syntax in the least.

(There is one exception to this, and that is the part where dot syntax understands and calls custom getter/setter names for properties. But that is the only place where they even touch, and it certainly doesn't mean they're somehow integrated.)
Against Pinker's Violence
> the ecosystem as it stands now is very dangerous

I do agree that the Paypal number is a load of bullshit - because Paypal transactions are mostly between merchants and consumers, while Bitcoin transactions are often between users and themselves. That one $150 million transaction, which was likely someone moving stuff into their own wallet, nearly doubled the "transaction volume".

However, I really think you're being overly negative.
I can see it on my iPad with no problem.
Ironically enough, a bit if a mediocre post.
Objects of Intense Feeling: The Case of the Twitter API
Those video testimonials...are they real, or Fiverr jobs?
What if people don't want companies outing their mailing list activity?
It looks more usable than scsh, and I like the name.
Proving the absence of something lies in the nether regions of science and mathematics. Consider the problem of proving the absence of Bigfoot -- it can't be done. This is a well-understood logical problem with a storied past:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot