skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I"m sorry, you still haven't pointed out any laws on this issue. Your references are to corporate and cultural hyperbole, which do sometimes have weight in a courtroom.

As to Yahoo or anyone else getting sued by shareholders, sure you can sue. The courts may take into account actions of corporate execs and decide they haven't been listening to the shareholders. But it really depends on what the shareholder rights are in any given corp. Was Yahoo required to put a buyout offer to a shareholder vote, but did not? If so, the shareholders have legal standing. But its not the reason you state: "exist for the sole purpose of advancing their shareholder's interest (profit). period. end of story."

In fact, I'll wager you cannot find such a clear law that supports your position.
The problem here is of the government. Government decided to intervene and give those billions to the corporations. If government and bureaucrats didn't have the power to give away taxpayer's money, we won't have this problem. And that's why we libertarians talk about 'limited government.' Remember, 'Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.'
And, you sir, live in a false reality.

I bet you'd love to tell us how socialism would work if we "just gave it a chance." Let me guess... it "hasn't been implemented properly" yet right?
Statistics isn't built on proofs in quite that way. It is built on data. Yes, there are proofs for the mathematical tools of statistics, but they logically and pedagogically FOLLOW rather than precede becoming familiar with data.

Here are more two favorite recommendations for free Web-based resources on what statistics is as a discipline, both of which recommend good textbooks for follow-up study:

"Advice to Mathematics Teachers on Evaluating Introductory Statistics Textbooks" by Robert W. Hayden

http://statland.org/MyPapers/MAAFIXED.PDF

"The Introductory Statistics Course: A Ptolemaic Curriculum?" by George W. Cobb

http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10...

Both are excellent introductions to what statistics is as a discipline and how it is related to, but distinct from, mathematics.

A very good list of statistics textbooks appears here:

http://web.mac.com/mrmathman/MrMathMan/New_Teacher_Resources...
It doesn't have, and I can't think of an easy way to group them this way. Perhaps I could cook something up, like given "red, yellow, blue", do a Google Search (with my library) for each "red", "yellow", "blue" and find the surrounding words. Then count the frequencies of surrounding words, do another search at Google Sets for "red, yellow, blue", remove all those items from frequency list, and then output the most frequent word. It might be "color" or "colors". Perhaps also de-pluralize the words so that "colors == color". Just a quick idea.

mmm... might actually try it out, if it works, will write an article about it.
How The Associated Press will try to rival Wikipedia in search results
To be sure, this happens, but I'm not sure I'd accuse him of living in a dreamworld...

For one, he's not saying you can't go through hoops to avoid paying taxes, he's saying don't do it. Of course, if we wanted to we could legislate to prevent this exploitation of tax law, although I'm not sure how far that would get without a considerable social realignment.
Yes -- the general public, who don't have strong feelings about the matter, will all end up on one or the other anyway. The other side, the one visited only by people who care about the difference, would become an irrelevant backwater. One side is going to win, and the other is going to lose.
He invented concurrency in music recording.
Your point is well taken that it's easy to treat fortune differently in different situations. Hard workers that don't make it are "just unfortunate." Lazy people that win the lottery are "just fortunate." Hard workers that make it "earned it."

However, I think randomness (i.e. "fortune") generally plays a much larger role in all of our lives than we care to admit. The American obsession with hard work and merit fuels this misconception. Our brains are also somewhat intrinsically hardwired to intuit simple causes and effects, even when none truly exist.

If you're interested in the topic, I highly recommend reading "The Drunkard's Walk" by Leonard Mlodinow.
http://www.amazon.com/Drunkards-Walk-Randomness-Rules-Vintag...
I once picked up de Botton's "How Proust can change your Life" in an airport impulse purchase; found it disappointing. But based on others' positive reviews of his other works, I might check those out.
Those are really two different things.

Compare their projected cost with, say, a deep discharge marine battery at $200 for 10 ah, which is 120 watt/hour.

The claimed figures are a huge improvement over what is available today. If they can make this work, it will be a seriously big deal.

There is a long ways to go before that, though.
Just a heads up for guys that are new to this: seeing that this is scraping - you can get your IP blocked from Google.
Wow, HN folks sure have a 'socialist' slant. Anyway, do you think you are getting your money's worth when you give away 30% of your income in taxes? Do you know how much of the tax money is spent of infrastructure? Look at this chart of US budget spending.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY...

65% of taxpayer's money went to defense/social security/medicare-medicaid. Think about it for a moment. 65% of the money spent had nothing to do with infrastructure. Also, do you think that government is spending all the taxpayer's money carefully OR you think that government wastes tremendous waste amount of money? There are 3 ways to spend money:

1. Your own money on yourself. [You are very careful about getting your money's worth and you do spend generously]
2. Your own money on someone else. [You are very careful about getting your money's worth but you spend as little as you can]
3. Someone else's money on someone else. [Let's burn some money to heat up the place!]

Government falls in 3rd category and it's no surprise that there is tremendous waste.

That's why libertarians are advocating 'limited government', 'minimal taxes' so that people (you and me) can keep their hard earned money for themselves and spend as they see fit.
New Austin startup (in the Startup District) looking for a LAMP developer
I download the latest trunk on all computers I use and all OSs on those computers.

The latest trunk build automatically downloads and installs the newest nightly build every day.

I've been using firefox since version 0.5 (2002) and I've probably been running the latest-trunk for half of that time.

Conservatively, I've downloaded firefox > 1000 times. Just sayin'.
Mentioning HN in an email if you're interested = mad bonus points.
Socialism isn't a scalar. We have government run/funded military, police, fire fighters, grade schools, universities, postal service, space program, welfare, pensions in the form of Social Security and health care for the poor and elderly through Medicaid and Medicare. Many European countries are more on the socialist side of the spectrum than we are.
You don't really need to. You can guarantee that the right HMAC and the wrong HMAC both take exactly the same amount of time to compare by using a constant-time algorithm like the one in the article without dealing with non-portable, unreliable timers.

(In some languages—hi Ruby!—you might not even have access to reliable millisecond-resolution timing.)
That's true. But you can always use anonymous proxies.
"The majority of the market this is targeting doesn't "do work" on computers, they consume media."

Very very true.
Ask HN: Good Sci-Fi/Geek-Lit For School-Age Kids?
Hi, Ask HN. Long time listener, first time caller.

My son is 10 years old. We're going to the Western Michigan on vacation next week. I'd like him to be reading.

If he was just a couple years older, I'd know where to aim him --- early Stephenson, early Gibson, non-crazy Heinlein books, to be followed up with a period of weaning him off sci-fi and onto Vonnegut.

See, I've got this all planned.

The problem is, for his age right now, the only title that jumps to mind as age-appropriate is Ender's Game. Harry Potter In Space. Besides the fact that OSC's politics scare the bejeezus out of me, that's just one title.

The standard list of sci-fi books "for non-readers" falls down for me because of his age. Long story short, I don't want to spend my summer vacation having the birds and the bees talk. If you must know, I also won't let him play video games with non-cartoony violence --- although I'll make an exception for literary merit.

Some of you are parents, some of you are pretty young, and most of you are geeks. Give me some ideas!
And, you are correct; I don't understand the socialist philosophy, it's incredibly illogical.
Here's the problem with your argument. How are you going to make sure that government helps those poor people (the one you identified in your post) and not others? How are you going to make sure there is no waste/minimal waste? How are you going to make sure that lobbyists/corporations won't lobby the government to get this additional taxpayer's money and use it for their own instead of helping the poor? Where is the accountability? Show me one government program which has achieved its stated goal without wasting huge amount of taxpayer's money.

Let me give you an example. NY State auditors recovered around 270 million dollars in Medicare fraud/waste between Oct 07 to Mar 08 (6 months). This is only one state, think about the amount of fraud/waste happening in other states. In fact, they plan to spend 90 million dollars to prevent this fraud/waste! Why give government money so that they can waste it and then let them spend more money so that they can prevent the waste?

Link: http://www.nysun.com/new-york/state-recovers-269m-in-medicai...
I actually think people here tend to run more libertarian than socialist.

I wish we spent less on the defense, but the amount spent on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid sits fine with me. I consider that social infrastructure. When large portions of society go without, all of society suffers.

We see ourselves as fitting into society in different ways. You feel that the government is taking your money in the form of taxes. I feel that I'm paying for the privilege of living in a society that affords me the opportunity to earn money.
cant you all just gang bang along
Basically, whenever you are proving things, you have to be aware that you are entering the endless chain of turtles. This proof works, because proofs about modelchecking worked, which worked because proofs about abstract algebra worked, which again work, because proofs about sets work.

If any of these proofs is not proving what one wanted (either, because it is wrong, or because they prove something you did not want (potentially in very, very subtle ways)), your entire proof collapses. This is pretty much the danger of proving things.

A very interesting application can be found in the game 'singularity'. In this game, you are an artificial intelligence, and after enough studies of math and psychology, you can create a proof that no AI can ever exist. However, this proof contains a very, very, very subtle bug, which will stay hidden forever, probably.

So, stay aware that your proofs stand on a boatload of assumptions and other proofs and they might (in a rare, esoteric case) collapse and everything will be fine :)
"it certainly isn't about hacking code or electronics"

I, for one, like articles which intelligently discuss hacking economic and social issues. To me hacking is hacking. Almost all the software hacking I do is a part of a form of economic hacking, i.e. my business plan.
Springboard. A new incubator (in Cambridge, UK), takes no equity.
I think that 'iPad', while interesting, wouldn't work because it's so close to iPod that many accents would make them sound too similar.
Brent Hoberman [of Lastminute.com] searches for new dotcom darlings
I don't want people spending their money as they see fit, see I'm not a politician so I can say this.

This why I don't see libertarianism (or even conservatism) working in general. There are vast swathes of americans who given more money would spend it irresponsibly - and what do you do then when someone spends their limited income on new truck nuts instead of health insurance?
Or they could just tag certain articles as "not ready" and notify the user. But in the end it's still wikipedia and it's still a volatile reference.
There's a great cartoon about how status is zero-sum, but technological improvement is not: Two voices come from a futuristic building, complaining that no matter how much technological process, not everyone is happy, because their happiness is based on being "better" than others, and not on absolute improvement.

"Yeah. And that's where we come in," complains one voice sadly.

"But on the other hand, in what other era could a toaster and a coffee pot even be having this conversation?" reasons the other.
Asimov's, I Robot.
"It was important for us that retweets are easily differentiated visually from regular tweets."

This stems from a misreading of why people retweet stuff. People retweet stuff because someone else said something they'd like to say themselves. Adding the RT: @source is a concession to good manners and etiquette. If every retweet someone sends is marked as "unoriginal content" I can see the number of things retweeted in general take a nosedive. Who wants to be exposed as a conduit for other people's ideas?
After reinstalling and reconfiguring, search and display of emails works fine but the app crashes after about every 50 emails it syncs.
Why is the social security/medicare/medicaid program okie with you? What is 'social infrastructure'? Why do you think that government can do a better job at spending your money than you alone? Check my other comment where I have written about money spending patterns. Also in another reply I have written about the amount of waste/fraud incurred by medicare/medicaid.

Trust me, I have no problem with taxes, I understand their need and pay them on time every year. My problem is the already high taxes and the fact that they are increasing. This means that government gets bigger and bigger and wastes all our (yours and mine) hard earned money. Unless you are suggesting that government doesn't waste money, I don't want them to increase taxes.
That might be a half-respectable position, if libertarians were against all concentrations of power. But they're not. They're more than happy to give corporations and individuals all the power their money can buy them. Also, libertarians have plenty of scorn for what the government does wrong, but little respect for what it does right.

The EPA, before the anti-EPA right wing nuts of the bush administration took it over, was doing good work, like trying to keep mercury out of our water. Of course, under the "pro business" bush administration, they've undermined such protections and declared that mercury and other toxins in our water aren't so bad after all and raised their acceptable limits in water (which is just a small sample of the outrageous "pro business" bullshit the bush administration was guilty of).

I happen to enjoy the National Parks in the US, as I think many Americans do; and I, for one, am glad that they're in public hands instead of the hands of the corporations. Yet Bush appointed people to head the National Park service who had explicitly expressed their opposition to even the existence of National Parks. And they've proceeded to sell off public lands and undermine the protections of the National Parks by granting more permissive logging rights to corporations and by watering down environmental regulations.

Now on to the FDA, which does a pretty good job of protecting the quality of the food and drugs it regulates (though in my opinion they are not nearly strict enough, because in many cases they in bed with the corporations and are underfunded, so consequently their regulation and enforcement is not nearly strong enough).

All the "pro-business", anti-environment, and anti-public-property abuses of the Bush administration would be increased a hundred fold if the libertarian vision ever came to pass. The libertarians would get rid of the EPA, the FDA, and sell of the National Parks. The corps would be free to pollute our air and water, kill off all endangered species, and the corps would be free to "self-regulate" the food and drugs they produce (meaning a free-for-all for a quick buck at the expense of public health).

And the above doesn't even begin to address the havoc libertarians would wreck on our education system (turning it in to even more of education for the wealthy than it already is), and destroy the few vestiges of a social safety net that America has managed to save despite many decades of assault from the "small government" crowd.

Basically, what libertarianism really amounts to is the attitude that there should be even more concentration of power in the hands of the wealthy, and the poor can go fuck themselves.

In my youth I was drawn to libertarianism (and I still agree with a few of their positions, such as their opposition to the War on Drugs), but as I've learned more about politics and history I see that the vast majority of those who will benefit from libertarianism are the wealthy, which is one reason (another is his racism) why Ron Paul could sneak in as a Republican candidate, where he wouldn't have stood a chance as a Democrat.
Maybe the reason album sales are out of line with singles in growth/ decline because bands are cutting corners and releasing albums with a couple of good songs and a load of average stuff just to get to album size.

Given the relative low payoff from making an album these days I think some bands would be better served making new music bit by bit between tours rather than trying to push out an album every year. It usually gets to the point with a good band after about 2 or 3 albums that they don't have time to play everything you want to hear at a concert anyway so slower production of songs isn't an issue in that reguard.
At around that age I read The Tripods trilogy and liked it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tripods
Also, proper sanitization is different for HTML, JavaScript, SQL, URIs, and other contexts.
Advanced Caching with Django and Beaker
Just DoS his ass
For the same reasons you might link to some other website from your blog, or submit a link here.
It will mean you can always RT a full tweet, instead of often having to cut off part of it to get it to still fit within 140 characters once you've added the "RT @soandso"
how would the computer know which key your finger was on to figure out what keys are relative to that finger?
Here is another thought. Could you use the sound the fingers make as they tap on the table to figure out what key was pressed? This might be hard on a normal table. So a workaround could be a simple keyboard hardware device that emits a different inaudible frequency for each key. Now if two people are using this device near each other that wouldn't work. Wait. What about just using a keyboard with bluetooth. The iPhone can pick that up. That should solve all the issues. I am sure someone could make some money on a device like this.
Twitter-based Botnet Command Channel
Can't they just extract the entire original message for redisplay out of a shorter URL like this: "hey check this out: http://bit.ly/anKad ?

That link ... http://twitter.com/jonpierce/status/3293845360 ... is easy for any client (and twitter) to grep.
I put myself as one of the persons born in my home town on wikipedia, and they had the nerve to delete it... jk

It seems the inclusionists built Wikipedia into what it is today. It also seems what the deletionists are trying to do: gain Wikipedia more credibility, is a futile effort given the nature of Wikipedia's volatility and inability to be used as a credible secondary source.

The whole idea of a wiki that anyone can edit is so that the best final result always comes through. And this is based on the assumption that there are more reasonable people out there than unreasonable, so that the better article can come out on top through reason.

But if some exclusive group does take over Wikipedia like this then this idea of an open wiki of information where the best content comes out on top is dead. However theoretically wikipedia is still open to everyone right? So to take back wikipedia we wouldn't have to make an alternative. All we have to do is to organize a counter group that's more powerful in numbers and out click those deletionists right? Correct me if I'm wrong I don't edit wikipedia. But if we can't do that then Wikipedia is no longer really open.
And your solution is to what exactly? Pay less in taxes and hope the parents of underprivileged kids in poor neighborhoods spend the money responsibly on healthcare and schooling? That seems naive at best.

I have a general issue with the waste argument. And perhaps this is a bit naive, but as long as the gov't spends money that stays domestic, then the economy is being helped. Even with waste.

I'm sorry I have less faith that "most" Americans would spend money more responsibly than my gov't.
They provide (amongst other things)...

- mentoring (10 weeks in incubator, then ongoing)
- speakers e.g. Ryan Carson, Joel Spolsky
- office space
- accomodation
- money (expenses & living allowance while in incubator)
- free breakfast and lunch every day
- sessions on product management and sales

...and take no equity (atleast initially?), tie you down at the end, or even require you have a company.

Seems the motivation is work with "smart, exciting people" and build relationships with those trying to build "companies where the customers are other businesses rather than consumers".

They describe this as an "accidental incubator"...

"Over the course of the last 10 months we’ve managed
to create an accidental incubator.

After meeting start-ups at various events, we found
ourselves playing host to about a dozen people across
five companies here at our offices. They all seem to
like it, and we like them, which inspired us to put
together Springboard."

Also, building on a MS stack will probably increase your chances of acceptance if you are applying (as Red Gate, the host company, builds tools for MS software), but I know first hand some of the companies already involved build using other tools e.g. RoR/Scala/Erlang.
No, you don't. The last thing you need on a team is a person who's first thing is to start whining about things that cannot be changed.

Depends on what phase your project is in. You can't start with a mediocre team and later try to hire rockstars. It can sometimes work the other way round, though.

A complete change of platform is obviously not something a real rockstar would suggest when invited to a large, existing codebase. Much rather will he recognize a lost cause when he sees it and just politely decline.

Note how I referred to the first iteration in my parent comment. I was aiming at the bootstrap phase of a startup where the initial choice between hiring a veteran for real stake or "going cheap" happens. Many people don't realize the consequences of "going cheap" at that point.
A good chunk of the technology articles on HN can be boiled down into eminent matters of politics. The test for whether an article is political or not is whether the article is about something, or whether it's about the politics of something. This article is studiously not about the politics of something.
That may work but there's going to be so much noise in the population how do you filter it to get "colors?"

There's a google vid on this subject: I never did get through it but it might make more sense to you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgqWMGT9haY
They are rubbish. Aside from being poorly written -- plenty of groan inducing dialog -- they completely distort the historical details from the original books. Rather than being an extension of what is philosophical series, they are instead cheap space-opera and power-fantasy.