skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
As a side note, it has always been possible (on UFS at least) to link directories. It just gets a bit messy at fsck time, and older shells get a bit confused with 'cd ..'

Apple's implementation could have avoided linking directories - by creating new directories each time but always linking the files inside them - though I suspect that they decided it would be far quicker to replicate entire trees if you knew nothing in them had changed.
Interesting, I was not familiar with them. I read the web site and it doesn't really highlight if/how they bring in other entrepreneurs. I will have to get in touch with them, or perhaps check out their next event. Thanks for the link!
What an ass clown.

So firstly, it's free as in freedom. We don't mean free as in cost.

But secondly, if someone pays for some software to be developed and it solves their problem and then they give it away then it's truly free as in cost too. They paid money equivalent to the value they got from it, everyone else rides for free.

And thirdly: ass clown.
It's too mainstream for me. 3 million rss subscribers means there's a lot stuff they won't publish because they are trying to please all those subscribers at once, most of the time.

I also wonder about its balance: are there sites, categories and companies that are excluded so as not to jeopardise the IN crowd?
Okay, I really don't understand this part:
while (q) {G;}
If p is true before the loop, then it must be true after the loop unless your loop has a break.

What if the condition p is that var_p == 1. And in the loop you decrement var_p. If the condition was true before the loop, it certainly is not if the loop ever runs.
Please go find a copy of Hackers by Steven Levy at the local library and read it. Yes, all of the core stuff done in the 60s through the 80s that most of us rely upon as the fundamental underpinnings of our craft were developed either at universities as (D)ARPA projects, or by a small handful of corporations like Ma Bell, DEC, Xerox, etc. By the mid to late 80s you could also add some government funded work out of European universities and labs (like this little thing called the world wide web that was created at CERN...)
"There is no such thing as free software."

This isn't true. It's just exaggerating to make a point.

As a counterexample, http://pysolar.org. I wrote the code for free, because I wanted the experience. You can have it for $0 under the GPL. That's free software.

The truth is more like: "Free software is often subsidized by governments or companies." But so what? So is proprietary software. With that revision, I don't see more than a poorly written rant.
pcof's point still stands. Freedom is about lowering barriers, barriers which cost money to otherwise bypass. FOSS provides off-the-shelf parts for software engineers. Even Microsoft has used FOSS code in Windows.
I'll refute you by asking a simple question. If you sell software that you originally designed for your own use, does it not have a value?
http://prgmr.com/xen/ is cheap and in the US.

On another note: Sad to see another great country go that way.
One of the points Taubes makes in his GCBC book (which is phenomenal, by the way), is that obesity is a dysfunction of excess adipose tissue (fat), not merely a problem of excess weight.

As you suggest, using only weight as the variable means that a dieter who loses 10 lbs of lean muscle tissue is considered as successful as a dieter who loses 10 lbs of adipose tissue.
requires administrator privileges at startup. Once launched with admin privileges, fails with following error:
Failed to load shared library comctl32.dll (error 126: the specified module could not found)

Note that there's a comctl32.dll on windows\system32.

Edit: Never mind, I left it at compatibility mode. Reverted back to native run mode and it's working fine now except that at upon exit, it complains about not being able to open log file because of privilege issues.
That's actually a really interesting model. Here's the Wikipedia entry on the subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_pledge_system (redirect from ransom model)

It's not free as in beer though.
Chinese-born stand-up comic Joe Wong on David Letterman
No he isn't.

If Company X gains $1,000,000 savings due to investing $700,000 in developing a piece of software, they have earned $300,000. Then, they open source the software, and improvements to it by outside contributors result in them saving another $500,000.

Then, Company Y adopts the software and uses it to save $2,000,000. They improve it as well, which results in them saving another $500,000 and Company X saving another $300,000.

Total profit: $3.8m

Compare this to the alternative:

Company X gains $1,000,000 savings due to investing $700,000 in developing a piece of software, they have earned $300,000. Then, they keep the software closed. No contributions are made by outside users.

Then, Company Y writes their own version of the software for $700,000 and uses it to save $1,500,000, less because they don't have the improvements made by outside contributors. They don't have the logic from Company X to combine with theirs, so they don't improve it, and they don't save any extra money. Company X doesn't save money either, since they don't get anything back.

Total profit: $1.1m

Everyone involved made more money in the first situation than the second, despite Company X giving up their source code to be used by other companies as well. This works completely fine under existing systems and requires nobody to arbitrarily throw money at open source for no potential gain.

Open source is the free-market solution to the problem of inefficiency due to competition--everyone implementing their own versions of software and in the end generating a worse result than if they had worked together.
He seems to be suggesting that the only economic model for software development is to sell it as a product. That might make sense if your business is selling software. The rest of us are in the business of designing websites, running universities and large enterprises, selling widgets etc. In other words, our business is making other kinds of stuff or just in providing services. In the course of running that business we need to use software. If there's free stuff (especially stuff that can be freely customized to fit my business) then great. If we improve it, we might give it back to the community and everyone benefits. Well, everyone, except that poor sap who's trying to sell the commercial software that doesn't benefit from the stream of incremental improvements that come from the community. Or maybe they've still got a better solution than the FOSS product. That's excellent and if they make money, more power to them! But there's nothing broken or wrong with the FOSS model and the writer doesn't offer much evidence to support his argument other than an anecdote about how Ubuntu from four years ago (!) didn't work for him. Sheesh.
You panicked and started a migration because you didn't have the patience to wait a few days to see what happens?
Actually I would have imagined "jQuery thru PHP to SQL" and "good developer" to be disjoint sets :)
http://stainlessapp.com/

Process-per-tab with vanilla WebKit instead of Chrome's V8 hybrid.
You should have access to the source of the software you use, according to FOSS advocates.
Another alternative is that a nimble startup creates a piece of software to solve the problem and sells it to 1000 companies at $10.000 a pop. This way the companies get their software even cheaper, and another beautiful startup is born.

With a contrived example you can prove anything :-)
Sounds sorta like obvious corp, except they didn't need to consult due to being comfortable already. Get smart people together, build some cashflows, and work on cool side ideas. See what sticks and what doesn't.

Also reminds me of Virgance.
What about the opportunity cost? You paid for this code with your time, which otherwise, if you felt like it, you presumably could have used to earn money. If your time is worthless, then indeed the code costs nothing; is it? That's the point the author's making.
Not what you're looking for, but Tor is free:

http://tor.eff.org

So is SilenceIsDefeat (not actually free, but just a small donation):

http://www.silenceisdefeat.com/
Silicon Valley's Jobless Unplug From Tech
HTML is object code
Before commenting I spent a few minutes browsing the TechCrunch Archives. In doing so, I realized that many headlines seem on target/appropriate - so that is one data point in TC's favor.

That said, TechCrunch has still chosen to publish many sloppy or sensational articles - essentially thumbing their nose at journalistic integrity. I have trouble viewing TC in a positive light after reading through these:

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards

@jkincaid most of these HN comments aren't ignorant/ridiculous bashing but are piecing together some constructive feedback for TC:

Be Truthful

Be Accurate

Be Accountable

You could garner more readership and respect...
Hi,

Cool project.

The only issue I found with it so far is that unlike the old logo, the borders of the 'world' aren't circular. That means that if you type 'go(500)' from the opening position, the turtle disappears.

But it's a minor issue, really. My kid is 4 and I'm going to show it to him tomorrow, see how he likes it.
Vanish: Self-Destructing Data in the Cloud using a DHT
You don't need access to the source. If you don't like how the software works, you have two options: (1) Don't buy the software, or (2) write new software.

My point was that many people feel they have a right to the source code. It's not a right at all, no matter what Stallman says.
What you've proven is that if I choose whatever numbers I want, and add and multiply them together in whatever order I choose, I can get whatever answer I please.

Also, if you read the article, he doesn't argue that source code should be closed - he argues that it should be paid for.
Free NEVER refers to value. Free refers to price. Also, free does not refer to cost - everything has a cost, even if only the opportunity cost of the time used making or acquiring the free software (or anything else free). Actually, the time acquiring and learning to use the software is why I still use MS software for a lot of things that aren't worth my time fiddling with.
What they didn't mention is that the bloat made them 1/4 inch thick.
The Essence of the "About Us" Page
Jason, it's probably not worth your time defending yourself here. The anti-TC people are marginalized by PG's attitude on the matter. In short, Techcrunch has problems, but they write stories about startups. Often, good stories.
If it takes a link bait title to get this message across, then I'm all for it. This diet is essentially Primal, similar to the Paleo Diet (http://www.thepaleodiet.com/ ). I've been doing it for a while now, and have nothing but good things to say about eating this way.

An introductory link: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/definitive-guide-primal-bluep...

An index into most of the content: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/primal-blueprint-101/

FAQ, and comparisons to other diets:
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-book/references/questions...
I don't think so. Sorry! They're VERY good with correspondence though.
I've tinkered with it, but I'm actually back to Gnome. xmonad did not exist when I was dealing with the issues. I mostly used Ion (I think version 2). I spent some time with wmii, as well, in the beginning but had stability problems. This was several years ago, though. Memory fades. I've been back to Gnome for maybe three years. This is why I think the solution was mostly a good chair and better work habits.
Gotcha, thanks. No milk?
It's been a long week. Normally, I would have busted someone's chops for the exact thing I did.
I agree, it's a bit annoying that it continues into infinity; I considered having a "spherical" world, but the problem is that the window size may change, and I don't know how I could keep it consistent when it happens. If you got an idea on how to solve that I'll consider it.
This article is difficult to understand because it is written as a flamebait rather than an objective critique.

Here is what I understand so far. His primary point is that for a FOSS project it is not easy to have it economically self-sustainable. I believe he is almost correct on this point and counter arguments exist elsewhere in this thread and on the internet. As for whether FOSS is useful or not or how to solve the problem described, he gives no suggestion. However, he does take many cheap shots at RMS and FOSS supporters.

Anyhow, my counterpoint, which I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, is the contribution of FOSS is beyond direct monetary compensation. For organizations FOSS provides cheap, commoditized off-the-shelf parts for internal software projects. For consumers, FOSS allows independence from software producers and system lock-ins. These benefits are real in economic terms and can not simply be waved away.
Right, I saw that log file thing on Vista too, I'll look into that. But as long as it works, that's good enough. Thanks to you I don't have to start downloading Windows 7 :)
I am reminded of the saying in the military: Freedom isn't free. (I think Heinlein said it was paid for with the blood of patriots.) The article says his time is worth something, and that is a big part of his point: To get all this "free" stuff, you have to have some intelligent, capable person giving away skills and knowledge they could be making money for.

I spent a lot of time giving away information. The information was valued but I wasn't making a cent. (In fact, I was paying for the privilege because of web hosting costs and domain names.) I've seen a number of websites that started with giving stuff away and when they became popular enough they turned into commercial ventures and you could no longer get free stuff from them. The websites basically became advertisements for the skills and products they were offering. I also know some very idealistic webmasters who basically are resentful of the time and energy they have spent on their projects and the fact that they aren't making much money, aren't getting the kind of recognition they crave, etc. At some point I decided I did not want that to be me -- and could no longer afford to follow in the footsteps of people like that.

I still want to give information away for free but these days I also want to figure out how to make money at it. Since I am mainly looking to give information away, I think some of the traditional ways of monetizing that should work, such as advertising. I haven't (yet) spent any time pondering how one would make money from open source software. But it seems to me this is an issue that needs a good solution. As I see it, code is basically information and that's always been a tricky thing to effectively commodify.
Firefox extensions (http://www.proginosko.com/leechblock.html) that seem similar

Greasemonkey extension for the same thing:

http://lifehacker.com/software/greasemonkey/invisibility-clo...
I like your creative approach. My biggest concern is that any business you'd start would probably be service business. I suspect what you really want is a product business. You'd have to find a way to convert your service business into a product business to scale. Good luck. That part won't be easy.
Avoid Using FFA Pages to Increase Link Popularity | TechJaws
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=733446
ok. Playing around with xmonad right now, it seems pretty cool but I have a hard time convincing it to use both xinerama screens. EDIT: figured it out...

thanks for the hint though, really. I try to spend a couple of hours every week on improving my work environment and over the years that has definitely paid off. I was aware tiled window managers existed but never thought of trying one in order to combat the mouse use.
Of course large, important projects require a certain amount of funding to succeed. I'm not sure where this is really disputed, I don't see the actual argument the author is railing against. Fedora Linux may not generate revenue directly, but it is an important component to the development of RHEL, which is the core component of Red Hat's highly successful business model.

There are many, many, many organizations of all types all over the world that use different economic models to fund various different interests. I sing in a choir. We're a non-profit organization and raise money in a variety of ways to pay for music, a professional director, various instrument ensembles, venues to perform in, and people to record the concerts. The choir itself is auditioned, but all volunteer. We spend a few hours per week for fun because it enriches our lives, and as a result people get to come enjoy our concerts. Last spring we performed Mendelssohn's Elijah at Sanders Theater in Harvard Square. Unlikely to happen, but in theory the recording of that concert could become popular, and for a trivial cost via file sharing networks that performance could be listened to by 1 million people all over the world. Demand for those digital copies on that scale might average $0.001/per copy. Not worth it to try and charge for it anyway.

But we aren't a business. There are a few people associated with the choir who are compensated for their work. They are highly trained and skilled and put in more than the typical 3 hours per week. The rest of us are not paid and in fact pay dues. Is it really that different from the way an OSS project might work? 2-3 key maintainers and a hundred other contributors averaging 3-ish hours per week?

According to their website, WCVB-TV supports 484 non-profit organizations in the Boston area. http://cf.thebostonchannel.com/bos/sh/charity/front_charity....

There are many valid ways to fund software projects. Some of those projects turn out to be extremely successful and popular, and in many cases the Open Source nature of the product actually adds real value to end-users. Sure, there is some bad software, but I've used lots of bad software in my life, both free and not-free. The fact that people might be working without the compensation they might deserve in a perfectly balanced economic world is not really a big concern. That's life. It doesn't just apply to software, and the reverse is also true. It is most assuredly the case that some large companies are paying some programmers far more than they theoretically deserve for the software that company sells.
I read GCBC about two months ago; although I've been interested in health & nutrition for several years now, it's amazing that I never understood how badly science has been mistreated by nutritionists & health experts.

Moreover, because this advice runs so contrary to conventional dietary wisdom, many in the community are fascinated by reviewing studies for strengths & flaws (in the similar spirit of code-reviews); consequently, I've learned more about both human physiology and the scientific process in the past few months than my entire life (which is beneficial regardless of whether or not I continue down the low-carb path).

For example, compare the quality of minds at work in the following post (it takes off in the comments):
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/diet-myths-are-the-inui...

Here's another example:
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/saturated-fat/abcs-big-me...
SVD also has an interesting application in image compression. Here's a fairly good example.

http://online.redwoods.cc.ca.us/instruct/darnold/LAPROJ/Fall...
You do have a right to the source code if it's free software. Your argument is analogous to saying that the right to vote is not a right at all, because it only applies to democratic countries. There are no universal rights, yet there are rights.
Tennis has very strange scoring.
It's complicated to explain, but here goes:

The first person to get 6 games wins the set.*

The first person to win 4 rallies in a game wins that game.*

During a game, if you have one point your score is "15," two points is "30" and three points is "40." When you get four points or win by two, then you win the game.

*One must win by two.
THE FABLE OF THE KEYS*
S. J. LIEBOWITZ and STEPHEN E. MARGOLIS http://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html

Paper on the supposed benefits of Dvorak vs qwerty. Also, if you google on authors names and dvorak, there are several arguments against the paper, I don't think they are particularly convincing, but they are interesting.

The much enlarged version is the book "Winners, Losers, and Microsoft: Competition and Antitrust in High Technology"
http://www.amazon.com/Winners-Losers-Microsoft-Competition-I...
Presentation of UI development behind Office 2007 (100 min. video)
"I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me"
But what kind of point is that? If it was really paid for by the taxpayers, it should be free (free as in free beer and free as in free speech) because it was funded by taxpayers. How is arguing that it should not be free any kind of solution to this (imagined) problem?
I wasn't talking about just open source software several posts up the chain. I intended the comment to mean that FOSS seems to be giving people the idea that ALL software should have viewable source.
Of course, but most of the time when software is created for an internal use, the company doesn't want to be in the business of selling said product.
But you are manufacturing a problem. If you don't think free software works for you, don't write it. Not everyone's a capitalist fanatic and feel like they must be "paid" for (in money) for everything they do. Like you say, plenty of people do volunteer work without any expectation of return apart from feeling like they've helped someone. How can you argue that this "needs a good solution"?
If he otherwise would have used the time to smoke dope and watch TV then arguably that tranche of time had 0 financial value associated with it. This assumes that he's equally recuperated by coding and so the coding doesn't impact the hours in which he is gainfully employed.

Presumably you think that having a crap at a free public toilet is not free because it takes you time to do it.
Why Google wishes Steve and Carol a happy marriage
I agree there is a good amount of stylish that sells the laptop, but there are several other factors:

- The apple hardware runs OS X. Looking to have OS X, but without buying new hardware this is a very well known route. Not only that, but OS X runs pretty well on yesterdays hardware. Can't say the same about Vista.
- The apple hardware is pretty well known. If I am selling a macbook you can easily look it up to see if that model supports X, or can be upgraded to Y. Can't do that as much with random Windows laptops
- People don't go looking on ebay for a lenevo T61, they do search for macbook. More buyers, better price.
- The mac hardware is usually pretty good which helps at resale time. gig networking, wifi, cd/dvd burner etc have all been in every laptop I have sold.
- And of course, factor X which is the fact that people actually want to have a Mac laptop, be it because it is cool or the fact that it just works for so many things.

I am probably missing other factors, but I can tell you this: This spring I sold my G4 667 laptop (from 2002!) and still got $350 dollars for it. I don't know if I could get over $50 for a Windows one.
The key is "if you felt like it". He didn't, not because he felt his time is worthless but because he wrote it for himself and if it helps anyone else, well that's just making him happy for having helped someone.

It's not arguing that it didn't cost anything. It's arguing that it's his choice whether he wants to cover his costs or give it away for free.

If someone was forced to license their software under the GPL, then the author would have a point. But he doesn't.
Vim's :help is extensive. Try :help quickref.

vimtutor is good for getting started too.
What's Qi, I assumed it was the UK TV program.