skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
IPython and Plotly: Interactive Gapminder Bubbles and NumPy boxes
I agree that the website looks awful, but it always baffles me when people blame open standards for the fact that their devices don't support them.

It's like blaming USB for the fact that a micro-usb plug doesn't fit into a lightning socket.

You can't watch the video because your device is incompatible with a well-known format that many people use to record video. As rakoo states, Apple famously and deliberately refused to support flv, which was the most common web video format when iPads were first released.

There is no technical reason why you can't watch the video on your iPad. There is no legal reason why you haven't got an Ogg player on your iPad. There are no legal or technical reasons why iPads don't ship with an Apple-authored Ogg player.

In fact, both libvorbis and libtheora are permissive, rather than copyleft, so there wouldn't even be a problem building an iPad app upon them.
While we're here, I don't suppose someone who knows the scene could recommend an article or post that demos how to hook up a basic ios7 app to a general API (likely REST)?

A goto post would be really useful.
Since when a "tiny bit of Googling", not to mention the query is (supposedly) in English, is a reliable source? Hopefully you obtained enough data (preferably in Vietnamese) about distribution of wealth, net worth and sources of income (which people normally don't want to (and sometimes can't) disclose), etc.

I'm not saying that my sentence is absolutely correct. It's my personal experience, based on what I know and observe everyday. I just don't buy your "tiny bit of Googling".

And please, don't rely on common sense. Things that are so called "common sense" are often agreed within a community and not universally correct, regarding to other communities.

That's said, what I was trying to tell is that earning lots of money doesn't automatically make you a huge target. Yes, Vietnam is a poor/developing country. But it's actually quite safe and peaceful, as long as you use "common sense" (our common sense, if that matters). Money is not everything people care about. And for people that really want your money, at least they don't have gun :) (no offense).
Are iWatch and the New Apple TV Just One Product?
I think this is because dogs are friendlier and more willing to learn from us, whereas cats are very selfish :)

Either way, people claiming that either dogs or cats aren't very inteligent haven't lived with one. It is true that it is not human intelligence, but personally I feel that the only piece missing is natural language, which if you think about it is the only distinctive trait separating us from primates.

And this will be the ultimate test for AI, the ability of a computer to have a meaningful conversation with a human.
Normal FUD.

It's doesn't answer the fundamental point everyone brings up about how we just keep refine what AI is, the interview just avoids it with fluff.

Who says Watson doesn't understand? Why can't it have some sort of conciseness albeit at a very very low level.

Do we really need the singularity to happen for true AI.
That's a good little installation document. I'm going to give that a go with a raspberry pi when I get home.

How up to date are the instructions?
Most ipv6 enabled home routers have firewalls with a "block all incoming connections except for listed exceptions" feature. This effectively gives you the same security as NAT but without the port mangling (can run multiple machines on the same port).
Problem with your description is that given if you take a human from jungle and leave it in New York, if he understands language he'll be able to function on at least some level.

In same manner, if you take Watson and for example change format of questions (they are still asked in plain English, just rephrased) and way Daily bonus prize functions, he won't be able to function without some human coming in and tweaking it.

You generally don't have to open head of a human, rewire their brains and then send them to do another task. They adapt. Autonomously. It's like if software could auto investigate sites for weather API and adapt to it, instead of having a human come and rewire API adapters.
A computer recently designed a published board game called Yavalath, by deciding whether randomly generated games are interesting or not. That algorithm wouldn't be difficult to integrate into Google if they decided to do it. As you add more and more capabilities to Google at a more abstract level (design something "fun" like here), it's closer and closer to general purpose AI. It's not just that, see also http://www.gamesbyangelina.org/ .
Kenyan Masai warrior learns macarena to raise money for well VIDEO
Ethereum revealed [video]
I was thinking the same thing. In a way it might even extend the lifetime of the fad, instead of starting to die out this being spread over the news gives a fresh impulse to make people show the game to others.
The 24 hour window adds another element to talk about. People telling eachother "You can only get it the next few hours". Followed by people checking if it is really gone, and (hopefully) playing the game again, or lending their phones to others who didn't get it.

If he really wanted it all to stop he could just update it to remove the ads en delete it after. Without announcing it on twitter.

Not that I blame him, he got lucky and if these are all marketing moves, well, good job :)
OS X Gatekeeper Fundamentals
"without physical robots who need to display survival instinct and skills in order to keep on working."

That's "situated cognition" - the idea that knowing and doing are intrinsically linked:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situated_cognition
I doubt it is encoded much other than a set of few needs you need to fulfill. Keep in mind kittens pretty much suck at walking, balancing, but learn it eventually.

They are not pre-programmed to fight no more they are pre-programmed to open doors.

As for roomba, depends if you caught it fighting or mating with other roomba's ;)
I am very pro EU. The original purpose was to avoid wars, long teem. That goal is still relevant. Free trade and free movement were both considered tools. I consider them (especially the often neglected free movement) ends themselves.

That said, the EU has issues. Lots of political traditions and very few basic principles to guide how things should be done. What EU is and isn't responsible for isn't clear. There has been lots of recent pieces of legislation and precedents created in a panicky environment as a response to the banking crisis.

Personally I believe that is possible and preferable to maintain free movement and trade without that being translated into centrally insured and regulated banking, just like it should apply to local drug policy. I also think that's the only way it will work.
Nisp: A Lisp that compiles to Nothing

the perfect zen...
As someone who does nothing but hack GTFS all day, your book brought a smile to my face :) Amazing how far GTFS has come.
At one point, Google used to have a page speed test - it was here:

http://www.google.com/get/videoqualityreport/

Now, that "page" is just a commercial/education as far as I can tell. The "Your results" part, for me at least, is grayed out and says "Your results are not available" when I mouse over.

Interestingly enough, they have a bunch of gobbledegook at the bottom of this page about being a "HD Verified ISP" -

http://www.google.com/get/videoqualityreport/#methodology

No actual data though, at least I don't see it. It claims to have "ratings" but I see nothing but text.
Going on the defensive and posting snarky replies purely because your device of choice opted not to support the format - despite being free to do so - is neither big, nor clever. The person you're replying to is completely correct, you make a great case as to why free and open software is a good thing, because your ability to experience this content is hindered by a walled garden of an OS.
Yes, you are in the tiny minority :) So your actions are pretty inconsequential to most companies
"Microsoft's actions in the past over aggressive maybe hindering the progress of open source and stuff like that"

Take your pick from:

1) Why do you think Bill Gates cares about open source given that he made his fortune from closed source software?

2) Sure it hindered the progress of open source, that was the whole point, open source was a potentially significant competitor to the corporation Bill Gates was running and he'd have been negligent in his role as CEO if he'd not looked to undermine and damage it at any opportunity.

You may not like those positions or agree with them but it would be somewhat odd to think that they weren't relatively close to what Bill Gates was thinking at the time and still thinks.

Neither of those would be what he'd say of course, he'd almost certainly point out that MS do embrace FOSS far more these days and also that while Windows may have been closed, by becoming a defacto standard for desktop computing it did an enormous amount for standardisation (in a practical, that is what people are actually using, rather than an open standards sense) and spreading computing to the masses.

Ultimately it might be an interesting subject, but it's not one you can expect to get an honest answer on. Even if he weren't involved in MS day to day and a major shareholder still, he's very unlikely to perform an about turn that says "I was basically wrong about my entire career".
I am sure basic algorithmic techniques like knowing how to sort an array are likely to be very useful when building an AI, or at least some forms of AI, but an array sorting algorithm is not itself a general purpose artificial intelligence and neither are Deep Blue, etc.

As Hofstadter explains in the article, far better than I could, these applications are not contributing to progress in developing software that understands the data it is manipulating. I recommend reading the article, or even better GEB itself, it's very illuminating.
Show HN: imgsea – image sharing made beautiful.
Hey guys!

My friend, Abhishek and I (Arjit) have been working on our new image sharing service "imgsea" we have worked on imgsea for about 3 months now and have coded the site from ground up, we use the popular CSS framework Bootstrap for our website's UI.

Currently we have the following features enabled :

1. Ability to upload images (YAY!)

2. Ability to create a custom album out of your uploaded images

3. Ability for users to comment on your images

4. Timeline like image display layout (TimeFlow)

5. Share picture on social networks (Facebook etc)

6. Passwords hashed with Crypt

7. Multiple image upload at once

What's coming ?

1. Social networking functions like Private messaging, chat, friend list and a wall like feature.

2. Ability to download all your pictures in 1 go (.zip)

3. SSL/HTTPS secured login (top priority at the moment)

4. Multiple image serving VPSes to serve images from multiple locations to ease off the load on the main host and serve images faster as well.

5. Drag & Drop upload

So what's the current limits?

Currently the only limits are each image is limited to a max of 20 MB.

What we would like ?

Report any and every bug you find :) at
https://bitbucket.org/arjitc/imgsea-v2/issues?status=new&status=open

We're open to suggestions/feedback/criticism and feature requests as well.

Finally the link to imgsea,
http://imgsea.com

Thanks :D
Good to know. Though thinking it thru, any unsupervised learning would have to have some reference points, be them hard codeded into the core system to ina form of supervised learnings. Otherwise the AI could recognise a cat but would know it by a completely different name and unless it had been given a good description of a cat to associate with such image forms or a picture with a label. Then it would never know what a cat was in the way we know them. Which may be a good or a bad thing. But if the AI referers to cats as 478912's then we would not know what it was on about and whilst it may be intellegent, it would be in a way that we would be unable to understand and relate too. Ironicly i suspect if you had a top end AI system and asked it what defined AI it may very well come back with the answer 42, which many would even understand, though no comprehend.

Fun feild of work still, I bet.
As you can read from the article it's still ILLEGAL but allowed; not 'still legal' as in the link description.

It makes clarifying a confusing matter more confusing.
It's sad that as most of the world is moving towards legalization, we're suddenly moving backwards.
In my opinion, it's not. Natural intelligence is another way of saying that dynamics and interactions of millions of neurons in our brain is too complicated for us to understand. Our brain is just a complex machine, and the complexity at the level of its individual components is based on very fundamental laws of physics and chemistry.

In that sense, you bring up an excellent question. I don't think there exists any unique "natural intelligence" which Hofstadter in the linked article is referring to. Watson is only different from "natural intelligence" in terms of complexity.

Conway's Game of Life can perhaps be used as an analogy here. The uninitiated is likely to assume a very complex source code upon observing setups like 'spaceships' and 'glider guns'. However, it all is based on some very simple rules which can be easily implemented by a high school computer science student.

I'd to extrapolate this logic towards the concept of 'life' itself. I feel that what we call life is just collective of natural processes too complicated for us to comprehend completely. Scientific research has allowed us to understand biological processes to some extend, but not enough to us to deduce the state of a living entity at t+1 by observing the state at t=0. The common assumption is that there is some independent/supernatural force (consciousness) which allows the living entity to 'chose' the new state at t+1 (free will).

Watson appears to be "intelligently" making a chess move, but as Hofstadter points out, Watson is simply following a set of rules. We can independently calculate Watson's move since we know it's source code.

My conjecture is that if we are theoretically able to capture the complete state of your brain cells at t=0, and understand how they work, I can theoretically calculate your chess play before you make it.

For example, check out this White Blood Cell chasing and killing bacteria:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnlULOjUhSQ

WBC appears to be a living entity, acting out of free will. But the reality is that, molecular composition of WBC is merely attracted to the chemical trail left behind the bacteria, which in turn is repelled by WBC.

We do not consider a piece of rock rolling down the hill to be a living entity, because our understanding of physics allows us to calculate the state of a rock at t+1, given it's position a t=0.
State law vs federal law: is weed legal in Colorado?
Well if we spent 60 years failing to fly we probably would be looking at recreating what a bird does pretty closely.
Ah, thanks. I didn't see that. It's crazy that they can charge that much though just because it's used in gambling. I mean, the software is the same, right?
Thing is though by giving a encyclopedia you are feeding in a bias thru a form of base reference. Thinking it thru a system could learn by itelf what a cat was, but it would not know it by that name. With that the creation of AI could be truly artifical and intellegent, but in a form we do not comprehend or even understand, yet it could be in its own right intellegent.
Look at how far we've climbed this tree, we'll make it to the moon soon.
From a practical standpoint, the IPyton Notebook [1] seems to be a good starting place to enable sharing of software and reproducing results.

[1] http://ipython.org/notebook.html
AltaVista/Yahoo Babelfish was based on SYSTRAN, as were earlier Google Translate versions! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SYSTRAN

SYSTRAN at that time was a rule-based machine translation and was comparable for european languages.

Where as Google's newer Translate and Microsoft Translator are statistical machine translators. (both trained with UN and EU documents that are available in several languages).

The future is probably a hybrid system (combination of rule-based and statistical) like the most recent SYSTRAN version.
Avocat Balan Marian Braila
Daca sunteti implicat intr-un raport juridic apelati cu mare incredere la serviciile unui avocat Braila. Acesta va trata problema cu profesionalism prin studierea temeinica a cazului.
The Top Science Jokes Told by Stephen Hawking
Hmmm... [emotive action] "Verb" [emotive avatar] "Noun".

I'm sure there's a formula here: Angry Birds, Flappy Bird, Crazy Frog, Stupid Long-horses.1

Some stretches... Gangnam (flappy) Style (horsey Korean pop-star), and Kony 2012 was flappy bullshit activist. Mario? Plucky plumber... etc

1. http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/8aqjh/awww_this_is_jus...
I don't think they are marketing moves...
The "our Father" part (in English) is the problem. The consensus is that the Aramaic word used in the original (whether or not one believes that the original ever issued from the mouth of a particular person; this is linguistic rather than religious) would have been abba (transliterated, of course), which is more like "Papa" or "Dad" than "Father", at least in relatively modern usage. A familiar form of address, in other words. (Not so familiar that a little bit of flattery wouldn't be in order before asking for your allowance, etc.) How that relationship translates into pronouns varies by culture; some would maintain the more formal or respectful form even within the intimacy of the household.
People against universal healthcare are just good people who are confused and/or deluded. Their arguments will never really add up because it's only about corporations making profits and to that end people will need to be deluded and manipulated into believing that we shouldn't implement a proper system. Just remember this when you say you don't get it: it's just the political power of traitors speaking through humans via propaganda.
Did the algorithm decide what the characteristics of an interesting game are, or were they hard-coded? Could is analyze the interestingness of games generally? Could it analyze why some people like some games and other people don't?

If it couldn't do these things, then it was in no way intelligent, because it was not analyzing at a conceptual level. Programs that simply optimize data towards a set of target characteristics are clever, but not intelligent. Hofstadter goes into this in the article.

You're making exactly the same mistake those over-optimistic AI researchers made back in the 60s. They created some whiz-bang optimisation algorithms and thought general purpose AI must be just around the corner, but it turns out that actual conceptual analysis and reasoning is a completely different and fundamentally unrelated problem.
Where are you from? I live in a poor country and we used to have such setups (high school). In some classes each student can have his own setup and play with it.

It's not quite amazing, though.
I think dogs are more intelligent BECAUSE they are social animals. Social animals need to do everything a solitary animal does + ability to know what his peers are thinking or about to do in order to coordinate.

Dogs can fake emotion (ever been bitten by a dog that waggles his tail?), know what appeals to humans(sending cutest or most wounded pup to beg for food), understand how subway works, etc. Cats have greater independence, but overall aren't as clever.

Crows and killer whales, now those fuckers are intelligent.

The only thing exceptional about human mind is the ability to be EXTREME in every aspects of our mind. Most creatures can do same as we, but we do it to a higher degree.
Ages ago, there used to be a python-lisp hybrid called e7. I wonder if that provided any inspiration.
Tech support and CS degree?!? It might just be me but I cant really see a person with a bachelor or masters in CS work in tech support.
Except this move has the opposite effect on most people. The best move would have been to do absolutely nothing (except monetize).
Is there a Scheme implementation that compiles to Go?
Why we shouldn't fear the rise of the machines
It is interesting to note that the European Union officially establishes the Principle of Subsidiarity in the 1992 Treaty of Maastricht. So theoretically we should never have EU regulations which breach this principle. In practice, things might be different!
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17413001/disable-all-caps...
> Ketamine is exceptionally safe and relatively non-addictive

Ketamine may be physically non-addictive, but it's definitely not psychologically non-addictive. I'm aware of a few people in my wider social circle who are clearly problem users. It's also becoming clear that long term regular use can lead to serious bladder damage.
Seems to me you are defining AI as a generalized categorization algorithm. This sounds very narrow as it doesn't take into account any actual intelligent behavior. For example, I believe constructing tools in order to accomplish a specific goal (eg, constructing a net in order to catch fish) to be intelligent behavior. The categorization AI you describe would be incapable of this. Though it does sound like it would be a necessary prerequisite.
Hey mkl,

So they'll be a shorter version of this on the main site soon, but I can spell it out at greater length and more informally here. (I'm EFF's International Director, btw)

The short answer is that you're signing your support for a set of 13 principles on the application of human rights to communications surveillance ( see https://necessaryandproportionate.net/ ), that were worked out last year (pre-Snowden, actually) by a coalition of technologists, privacy activists, and legal scholars.

The long answer: We've been using this language to push the idea in international venues and among key lawmakers in various countries that mass surveillance (as well as a bunch of other practices conducted by the NSA and other spooks, including corruption of crypto standards and backdoors) is a violation of existing human rights standards.

This is important internationally because if the NSA gets away with its current behaviour, it'll establish a norm that such surveillance is okay for any government to conduct. We need to push back against that norm.

To do so, diplomats, policymakers and others need language and arguments to back that up.

The Principles give them that language in a familiar context (and we're working together to provide more detailed arguments and other legal guides). It has found favor among politicians, experts and other influential people I think partly because the smarter ones are genuinely worried that pervasive surveillance really could undermine their own societies -- they recognise what it could do in the wrong hands as much as anyone else.

In providing that leverage, it helps to convey that it's not just a bunch of domain experts that think forbidding mass surveillance is a bad idea, but that an increasingly large number of citizens find it abhorrent. That's what the signatures will do. It really makes a difference in this arena, because so few obscure technical documents have hundreds of thousands of supporters :)

I'd encourage anyone who wants to understand better how we're trying to get all governments, not just the US, to craft better surveillance legislation to read the full text of the principles at https://necessaryandproportionate.net/text You can also ask me questions at danny@eff.org . It's a long haul project, and we're conducting it alongside legal actions in the US and abroad, shoring up and disseminating crypto tools, and other non-policy defences. But it's pretty amazing to get unanimity with hundreds of privacy groups on some basic principles with which to start building proper, 21st century, surveillance law.
It's the users I feel bad for, the people who wanted to play this thing but will now never get the chance to.