skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
As you say, it seems that the main point of creationists' argument is that historical science isn't valid, because "you haven't seen it happen".

There are so many things wrong with this argument that I don't even know where to begin, but let's play along with this ridiculous line of thought anyway. The obvious question that follows is why is the "historical science" given by the bible any more plausible than the "historical science" of any other creation myth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths) ?

Of course there is a difference between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence, but even if you can't guarantee that your interpretation of the circumstantial evidence is true (something which by the way you can't do with direct evidence either), one should strive to find an interpretation that has the highest probability of being true given all the evidence at a given moment.
OMG, that was painful. Bill Nye began by wasting two of his five minutes of opening statement talking about freakin' bow ties!

Then the first substantive statement out of his mouth was: the question tonight is, does Ken Ham's creation story hold up? Is it viable?

No no no! The question is: what is science? And the answer is, as the late great Richard Feynman put it, science is the proposition that EXPERIMENT is the ultimate arbiter of truth. So as soon as you say, as Ken Ham does, that the Bible is the ultimate arbiter of truth, you are not doing science BY DEFINITION.

Now, Ken Ham contends that secularists have "hijacked" the word "science." No. It is Ken Ham who has hijacked the word, because the definition is not arbitrary. There is a REASON for it. That reason is, as Ken Ham himself admitted, it works. Experimental science has produced all of the world's technological progress.

When Ken Ham claims that the central tenet of science -- that experiment is the ultimate arbiter of truth -- cannot be applied to the past because "we weren't there" he is simply, demonstrably wrong. It can be, and it is.

Now, of course one can choose, as Ken Ham does, not to accept the premise that experiment is the ultimate arbiter of truth. There are certainly areas of human endeavor where that standard is not applicable: art, poetry, music. But it can certainly be applied to the past.

The debate should not be about whether Ken Ham's model of the world is "viable", the debate should be about what is the standard by which truth is decided: experiment, or a holy text. You can choose one or the other, but experiment produces better results.
> Only 6 percent of U.S. tech workers are African American and 7 percent are Latino; 15 percent are Asian American and 71 percent are white, according to 2011 census data

Asians make up 5% of the population, yet account for 15 percent of tech workers according to the article. How come this "bro culture" hasn't kept the Asians out?
Please share your thoughts. I honestly love this subject, and am willing to waste an inordinate amount of time discussing all possibilities.
5.5) Determine how much fuel it still has. Per Wikipedia, "a [2008] status check revealed that all but one of its 13 experiments were still functioning, and it still has enough propellant for 150 m/s of ΔV. ".

I'm guessing that is not much. (Amazing that it still had any at all)!
Beginners Guide to Internet Security and Privacy
With the boost in internet connectivity and free wifi-spots popping up at every nook and corner, the vast world wide web has become your playground. Increased connectivity means that you spend most of your time connected to the internet. But, have you ever wondered how safe you are, especially if you are connected to a public network like a WiFi Hotspot?
Apple has always been hostile to hackers trying to develop for their platform [1] [2]. The iPhone app store has always involved a crapshoot about whether your app will get accepted or stay accepted.

I stay far, far away from the Apple ecosystem because it seems like starting out with underpowered hardware, jacking up the price and crippling it with a ton of lockdowns would be shooting yourself in the foot in a competitive market -- and it would be, for any company that doesn't have Apple's marketing genius.

I personally don't care about marketing at all, so it doesn't work on me.

[1] IMHO, if you're working on any commercial project -- hardware, software, website, whatever -- you want to encourage user-generated innovation as much as possible. Convincing people to build on your product means there are people working to make your product better without you paying them. So it's in your interest to make life as easy as possible for innovators. Maybe this doesn't justify a huge engineering expenditure on features targeted to developers, but it certainly means you shouldn't go out of your way to make life difficult for developers, like Apple's app store approval with its bizarre restrictions and opaque decision process does.

[2] That people put up with Apple's crap and develop for their platform anyway is a testament to the hacker spirit. Or maybe to the number of gullible people in this world willing to pay top dollar for Apple phones that create a market. Or perhaps because the first iPhone was in the right place at the right time, disrupted a market that was ripe for disruption, and then network effects make its dominance stable (especially over the short-to-medium term).
From what I understand it would have very similar characteristics to current register renaming. You just get direct access to the whole register file rather than just a few ISA registers.

I think it would require some instruction scheduling to make optimal use of it, but that means the silicon doesn't need that logic so cores can be smaller and more efficient.
Why is the solution bad, can you explain?

Also never heard of Hiera. I've heard of Zookeeper, Paxos & Raft protocols, also avahi, DNS, LDAP, ansible, saltstack, in other words I am not a total newcomer to system configuration management but am I the only one who hasn't heard of Hiera?
The parent never said smart people couldn't hold completely irrational beliefs. They just did not arrive to their position by reasoning about the issue.

I was reading this article about a vocal Japanese revisionist. Like creationists, or conspiracy theorists, there is nothing rational about these beliefs. When you reach for the conclusion first, and establish it is the absolute truth and then cherry-pick and twist facts and make excuses to support your conclusion, you are actively engaged in a process of denying reality. These people don't need a TV debate, they need a therapy.

On the other hand, you probably have people who have never really examined why they believe in creationism, and do not suffer from the same disease. These people may be convinced, perhaps, but they are not the ones at the frontline of the movement, frothing at the mouth and being engaged in a public debate as if they had any shred of credibility.
Either the company in question is creating some strange implicit exception to the GPL, or proprietary/GPL-incompatible products derived from Capistrano are in violation of the GPL and the company in question simply declines to pursue those violations.

Here's the statement from the folks who wrote the GPL, on this exact point: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLWrapper
There is no gene for religion.

There is a very simple explanation for religion: most people conform to the culture of their surrounding.

That's why most people growing up in Muslim country become Muslims, most people growing up in Mormon area become Mormons, most people growing up in atheist countries are atheist and Germany (yes, I'll go there) had a surge of Natzis-ism.

Cultural norm is a powerful thing.

But hey, I'm open to changing my mind given some evidence.

Why don't you sequence a few deceased atheists and a few deceased religious folks and by way of simple diff isolate the "religion" gene. There might be a Nobel prize in it.
Thanks so much for LMMS :) one of the only free replacements for FL Studio, and runs on everything to boot!
It's also possible that religion is a net negative just not a significant net negative, aka it's a thought virus. Viruses have a lot more pressure to avoid being a huge negative like killing there host quickly than they do helping their host, but as long as they can spread it's ok to be lethal as long as it's not rapidly lethal.

EX: Religions who's priests avoid reproduction are clearly a net negative on the individual level at least from an evolutionary standpoint.
advice is opinion, experience fact
The problem is that religion is a package deal. Members of religious communities see and do a lot of good through the church. They raise money for charity, form close knit social groups and generally spend more time thinking about the good of others than the average person does. But all of this good comes at an ideological price and it could all fall apart easily.

If gradual evolution is true then the book of Genesis must be wrong. If the book of Genesis isn't "true", then the Bible itself is based on a lie. If the Bible is a lie then what's the point of going to church? No one wants to worship a fallacious holy book. And if people stop going to church then they'll lose their sense of community and stop doing all the charity work. The thought is too much to bear. It's better just to believe everything the book says, whole cloth, and defend it against all attacks.

A debate won't change any minds, but a dialogue will. We shouldn't ignore creationists. We should continue to talk to them, even if we spend a lot of time arguing over insignificant details. This kind of argument can't be won with facts and figures, but only through attaining mutual respect. It may not have been a good idea for Bill Nye to accept this debate, but he had the opportunity to change some minds with the the way that he carried himself and presented his beliefs.
I have come to understand the people that don't believe in evolution are either incapable of grasping the concept or they are too afraid to accept it b/c of it's (supposed) implications. My grandmother is one of the former. Whenever we discuss it she always asks why apes are still here if we descended from them. I try to explain about a common ancestor, etc. But it is useless. Perhaps she too just doesn't want to accept the implications, but I have to consider it possible she simply is incapable of grasping the theory. My mother on the other hand is of the later group. It took quite a bit of effort but I think she finally understood the basic idea. However, she is simply too afraid that believing it might mean there is no such place as Heaven. And that, she just cannot bare to accept.

So it is useless really to argue the facts of Evolution vs Creationism. It's the wrong argument. If the person is capable of scientific thinking at all, you still have deal the emotional question of death.
There are plenty of good things few people know about.

It's bad to promote a solution that don't address the problems of real deployments: coordinating change and responding to it. Updating host files or ssh moduli is about all it seems good for. In reality, files have to be changed at just the right time in a series of coordinated changes with everything else. Chef is what I reach for first, because it solves the problem in the most logical and most complete way. Some people prefer Puppet and that works too. But it's several systems together, like TheForeman (not just Foreman) that make for more powerful infrastructure. There are half a dozen or so other systems in addition to some homegrown (nonportable) ones out there but most others fail to meet requirements Chef and Puppet address (security, auditing, scalability, non/determinism).

Hiera is a like a hierarchal property list that puppet chef etc can use to pull its state. Use zk as a backend to keep multiple instance of hiera in sync to scale for large shops. The neat thing is, like OpenLDAP, Hiera has multiple backends to store your single source of truth. It's like if you wanted to run a Heroku, the environment variables for apps would go in there. Zookeeper is solid but hard to use directly. A more concrete example is a MySQL cluster: you'd want to know what are the hostnames and what is the write master. Sure you could write something that talks to zookeeper but it wouldn't be very general purpose. It's for the use case of scaling beyond what Redis can handle and you do want to get tied to any particular technology other than Hiera. If anyone has funding lying around and wants to take infrastructure smarter and farther, talk to R.I. He knows what the opportunities are and where it needs to go.

http://projects.puppetlabs.com/projects/hiera

PS: I'm glad we're past the days when shops' Cfengine would have a permissions battle with itself (chmod 4750 -> 750 -> 4750 -> ... )
> It doesn't coordinate the transition of services to other states.

Can you be more specific? So to co-ordinate transitions what else would it need -- multi-key transactions?

Surely you have good reason to jump in and criticize it so sharply...
Does anyone know of a website or central resource that documents all these vulnerabilities to look out for?
I think ideally the ratings should be done by machine learning instead. Rather than returning an average of previous ratings, return a prediction like "there is a 50% chance you will like this and 10% dislike it (40% chance you don't rate it at all.)

This way a small sample size doesn't distort the rating too much, and predictions can be customized for every individual, and it's somewhat resistant to fake reviews, if they can be picked up on by the computer. It also gives you an incentive to rate and what you actually think.
Start here:

https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2013-Top_10
Exactly, it would be as sucessful as Limbo was.
Since the script is meant for less technical people I would advise to add a guide on how to use the VPN
To be fair, thats like asking you to explain why gravity works. (without saying that it just does) There are a lot of things that seem simple which smart people have only theorized.
I'm an atheist that spent my teenage years at a quasi religious military school in south Texas. There was a school chaplain. There were bullies that assumed that since I didn't believe in god, I must therefore worship satan.

I had a revolver held to my head for this when I was 15. Loaded? Dunno. No reason to think that it wasn't. He did this because he wanted me to renounce my beliefs, which I didn't do before someone pulled him away...

My point being that these are not rational people, they cannot be reasoned with or taught reality. They wallow and take pride in their ignorance with a "god said it I believe it that settles it" conviction.

It won't do them by good in the end, since they will die and release their carbon like the rest of us, but to the extent that they hurt society by their insistence that fairy stories should govern our lives, discourage understanding our universe and preach their bigoted filth, we should give them no truck and no platform. They are worthy of our contempt and scorn and public ridicule, but there is no point in debating them.
> Discovery looks interesting. Can it be used for a client to discover a cluster?
>> It certainly could be extended for that. We haven't done anything with discovery to help with that process yet though.

So what is the current best practice for etcd discovery? Environment variable? mDNS might be nice, too (Though I guess mDNS is kinda, almost an alternative for a subset of what etcd does). http://blogs.gnome.org/danni/2014/02/02/a-libnss-plugin-for-... looks interesting too.

I read the Jumper post thing when it was HN. I need to think about that some more.
Well, waste is waste.

Burning VC money is practically criminal when you think of the "opportunity cost" of what might have been achieved with it.

The saddest was overhearing a (retired) doctor I worked for attempting to mortgage his house.
Quite possibly, though that begets one more question:

Why are certain religions much more successful than others?

@herbig

>Certain religions are more successful than others for the same reason that other organisms are more successful: they adapt more quickly to their environment.

Precisely!

@lutusp

Absolutely. But we have to remember that religious behaviors act through humans. As such, they become just like any other behavior which is selected by evolution through natural selection at the genetic level. Am I correct in assuming that you were thinking of bees and ants, which display behaviors which may not be individually adaptive, but genetically so? If that's the case, you may find this paper [1] interesting.

1. http://www.fasebj.org/content/24/5/1301.long

@pjscott

Perfect, now let's look at every single one of these factors through the eyes of an evolutionary biologist. You will find that almost each one has a direct analogue in evolution, and the behaviors become indistinguishable from those seen across a wide variety of species. They are just much more nuanced versions of the same tactics employed by every living creature.
Man takes photo of computer that appeared in Law and Order
The red tape isnt moving the dish - its getting someone to agree to let them mount a feedhorn for the proper band, and the needed radio hardware.

Moving the dish to me seems like the least difficult part, as it pales in the complexity to mounting the hardware.

For what its worth both Voyager probes feature S-Band Antennas - I have trouble believing we cant talk to those either on S-Band.
Blogging about creating it would be much more interesting.
I wonder if the russians might have something helpful for this task, or have something already fitted out for S-Band.
Rcm, an rc file manager
I'm not sure what problem you think etcd is attempting to solve, but if your solution involvs Puppet or Chef then it isn't surprising you find etcd isn't sufficient for your purposes.

etcd is a highly available configuration store. That's all. It's designed for applications to use to store configuration, so they can be started & stopped without relying on file based storage. Generally speaking these applications have to be coded to use etcd (which is completely different to Chef/Puppet, which are Ops tools). Sure, you could do something to write etcd values to a file, and then have them used by any program, but that misses the point.

Your criticisms are so completely irrelevant they aren't even wrong.
Yes, but I will create a new account to do so.
I don't think celibacy of priests is a good example of this. For one thing, it rarely actually happens, as priests routinely abdicate in order to marry or just father children out of wedlock. For another, if only priests are celibate but everyone else is forbidden from using birth control, numbers will always outweigh the cost of the celibate priests.

Even suicide bombers can, through their zeal and dedication, inspire many others and bring groups and clans closer.

Heaven's Gate though, you can't really argue a net positive for, since they're all gone.

Certain religions are more successful than others for the same reason that other organisms are more successful: they adapt more quickly to their environment.
Oddly enough, Microsoft has always had this for as long as I've worked there (and seemingly far earlier than that).
We should build a list of all the Gimp drawbacks somewhere. I would add for example: why several steps are involved to create a new image with a transparent background? I always create new images like that.
My biggest issue a lot of times with "photoshop killers", is that they rarely tackle non-destructive editing (I believe gimp is included on this, but I haven't touched it for about a year now). Many have masking capabilities, but any lighting adjustments to an image or corrections in general are destructive edits (meaning they alter the underlying pixels of the source image). Non destructive edits are extremely important, especially if a client asks for changes later. It's much easier to change a slider on an adjustment layer than to undo a ton of your work because you can't return the original detail to a picture. When I'm doing a photomanipulation, I'll usually have a minimum of three adjustment layers on a source image, allowing me to fine tune the look I need. In alternatives, I can't do that. Once I apply a curve change, I cant tell Krita, "hey remember that curve adjustment I did 14 steps ago? Instead of that one, can you do a similar adjustment except with less highs in the red channel?" In photoshop I can. That's always been the major difference for me.
> It's gotten better, but is still less consistent than Photoshop.

And that says a lot. Photoshop has a pretty clumsy UI. But it's serviceable and it's well known, so it's passable. GIMP, somehow, manages to be even worse. That's the downside of having a graphics tool designed by systems engineers.
Writing Great Headlines
It would be lovely if it were a surprise addition to the corpus of pre-Spanish meso-American language.

We do have a reasonable Nahuatl corpus, and it remains a (very minor) spoken language, so if it is such, there's a good chance it could be understood. But there's plenty of extinct indigenous languages with very little or no attestation, and if it's one of those, well, hopefully it's related to something we still know.

The orthography remains a problem, but it's quite plausible that some friar somewhere in Mexico came up with this European-derived script to transcribe the local language, and it didn't stick for any number of reasons. There are several non-standardized Latinesque orthographies we know (see Carochi) for Nahuatl, so it's a known phenomenon. (And there's still no standard system!) The hand of the Voynich seems reasonably practiced, so it must've had some use, but it could possibly still have been only one man over a few years. (It's clearly not an indigenous script.)

The friar involved could perhaps be called too clever for his own good; imagine if St Cyril wrote a few books in his script and then died of bad gruel, and some Pope got hold of them. Same sort of thing. If the (theoretical Spanish friar) Voynich author had been less inventive, we'd (if this theory is true) have long since understood it.

Anyway, hopefully a few Meso-American language experts can take a look and decide if there's a possible match.
You should read this. Really read it (like the whole thing):
http://www.discovery.org/a/2834

(warning: Stephen Meyer is several notches up the scale of intellectual acuity than Ham)

In short, any set of criteria you choose to demarcate science from non-science will either simultaneously include or simultaneously exclude both intelligent design and 'descent from common ancestor'. [And, in the case of inclusion will also bring in a lot of other non-sensical theories].
Thanks for GitLab, I've been using it since v3 :)