skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Good point. The FAA has long made strong distinctions
between private (amateur/sport) and commercial operations,
and I would expect that the risk/reward balance is at
the heart of their initial rationale.

That said, does their
current stance on commercial vs. amateur drones stem
from reasoning, institutional momentum, or a desire to
get a lot of drone-relating rule-making resolved before
opening the door to commercial drone operations?

ps - if ever we get to having flying cars,
we will have a similar set of discussions.
Every change like this makes me think we're getting further and further away from what the web was originally intended to be (and not in a good way).

It seems like most of these changes come from some suited marketroid fresh out of a new paradigm meeting, rather than an actual honest-to-god engineer wondering what would make the web better.
That's not very helpful on a touch device
That's utterly meaningless. I don't think Google is amoral; I do think their product is selling my information to advertisers.
No . . . the genuine issues are still issues. There is no need to inflate them by pretending there is a multi-page laundry list and posting a bunch of things that are either not Facebook's fault, or not privacy violations, or both. I wouldn't have said anything at all if the site contained only or even mostly real issues.
That is certainly one way of looking at the situation, but it misses the point.

I claim that the Chinese politburo cares as much about "lifting millions of Chinese out of poverty" as the US Government cares about "reforming the campaign contribution process." What those two, apparently disjoint topics, have in common is that both are a threat to power of the people currently in power in the respective governments.

The whole 'crowning' or 'we're number 1' sort of stuff that you were asserting was so mystical and unnecessary is in fact, in the world policy arena, the only point. This point cannot possibly more clearly illustrated than the shenanigans going on in Ukraine at this very instant. Russia of five years ago would never have made as provocative move as they did had they not believed the US and its allies incapable of responding. Russia, in the form of Vladimir Putin, feels very much like someone who can get away with annexing a neighboring country for the same reasons that Hitler was ok with annexing his neighboring countries. The belief that the will to act would not overcome the potential cost of acting.

An emergent China will annex Taiwan and it will not be so that they can lift up the Taiwanese citizens, it will because they can, citizens be damned. They will also annex large regions of the border with India, same reasoning. They will do this, and potentially succeed in doing so, by virtue of their place as the pre-eminent economy on the planet. Defy them and they don't have to fire a shot to take out your economy, they just have to cut trade with your economy and blammo, recession if not depression time.

In grade school, the class doesn't get together and elect the class bully. The class bully takes that position by beating up or intimidating everyone else. Basically being the baddest actor in the set of possible actors. What the Economist alludes to with their pithy "Pacific Century" is that the China, as the largest economy, gets to be the boss. Not because they were elected, but because they can punish folks who don't toe the line, just as the US has repeatedly done to people over the last 50 years. I could give you lots of examples real or hypothesized, but the key is the weaker economy risks more in a showdown than the stronger one does, and that has been the basis for world governance and policy since 1948.

The one line summary of the Economist article is "When China's economy exceeds that of the US, China will be calling the policy shots on the world stage, not the US." It is that ability to shape world policy that will make them the new 'boss' not some imagined contest between horses.

My guess is that you should care in a deep way because China has a different opinion on what constitutes 'human rights' than the current world order does.
There are a few more details in the FCC's official “Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,” which was released yesterday:

On June 14, 2013, agents from the Tampa Office tested the seized cell phone
jammer and confirmed that it was capable of jamming cellular and PCS
communications in at least three frequency bands: 821-968 MHz, 1800-2006 MHz,
and 2091-2180 MHz.

— http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014...
Legally meaning right-to-stream? Or legally meaning uncensored?

Forgive my ignorance, I do not know which country you are in.
No mention of this on the Mt.Gox website, where the last article was talking about liquidation.
But thanks for the heads up, as I am also one of the creditors I should look into it.
Seems to be fairly broken on Firefox (Nightly, at least) too, though in somewhat different ways.
The blockchain makes Bitcoin less fungible than gold, think of blacklisted addresses for example. Of course using something like open transactions improves things substantially.
The video doesn't play for me. Anybody have a youtube link?
Well, here at the trailing edge, the cellphones (many feature) are the main device but lots of love for bigger screens. If given an iPad they use it (a lot), so I would expect the first iPad sitting at $99 bucks with a cell contract will kill off the cellphone in a lot of youngsters with a big second to the phablets. Bonus, once someone figures out a decent dock that we can add a big screen to and leave around.

Its a price thing right now, not an I want thing.
I love how hackers love giving things cute names. These days everything has an actual term: they're preemption devices. http://prioritygreen.com/index.htm
So now users are supposed to click the embedded +1 button to share a link instead of copy pasting the url into their chat network of choice. Actually I'm surprised this hasn't been built into any desktop browser or os yet as it is on android.

Anyway, I think most people don't care about the URL looks like at all as long as you can link the page somehow, the recent rise of all URL shorteners kind of proves that, not exactly something I'm a fan of.
The 'we got along fine without instant connectivity' argument is a counter to the overwrought life-and-death-situation arguments in general. It's not about being a luddite, it's about keeping perspective.

Have another read of my comment, and you'll see in the middle of it that I'm saying that it's an argument of conveniences. It's convenient for a parent to have instant connectivity in case the babysitter calls, just as it's convenient for the audience to enjoy the movie they paid for without distractions. You say the theatre would take a financial hit for installing blocking devices, yet the more common trope is that the major annoyance in a theatre is people on phones - you could just as easily argue that they'd get a financial benefit from it. Doctors specifically on-call to deliver babies aren't much of a market segment to a movie theatre.
Wow, that's impressive. I'm most comfortable around 300-400 :p
I really appreciate your feedback! And that's an honor to hear.
I tried to make it very customizable, and do find that sometimes I prefer the text not move at all (achieved by unchecking 'Scroll Automatically'). I hope you'll continue to use it, and I'll continue to improve it :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvsxnOg0bJY
Can a Pro Beat an Amateur? (Photography)
First result on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvsxnOg0bJY
Submitted yesterday with hundreds of comments.
I did this for a high-performance time sequence database of robot activity. It's pretty hard. You need custom data structures for everything (no STL), adding fields to the data structures requires a schema migration tool, and it's easy to have subtle bugs around things like hash table growth.

However, it is insanely fast when it works.
The post linked to by this post now says:

>Update: As of version 36.0.1966.0 this has been removed. Iterate quickly!
I'm curious what your issues look like. I've tested it on all I can (IE10+, Firefox latest, Chrome latest, Droid Chrome and iPhone Safari), and all seem to work quite well.
The scrolling feature does get hairy on slower devices due to hardware limitations.
Depends on your state. This isn't the case in Victoria. I think they split the licenses into auto and manual about 15 years ago.

This being said, I trained and passed in a manual car, and have driven an auto since. I at least know what the clutch is supposed to do, but I'm not exactly practised :)
Assuming that this was fixed by caching the machine code, cant the same approach be used for packages ? Or to turn my question around: what is different about packages is it that they are not necessarily written in Julia ?

I have still not taken a serious plunge with Julia, testing waters.

Any plans for doing the same to individual scripts ? It would be handy to start off from the last known set of JIT'ed functions, may be retiring paths that are no longer frequented.
Your first point is accurate. I will likely start with Python because that's what I'm most attracted to currently. I want to thank you for taking the time to offer your advice with such a thoroughly written explanation from your POV. I will check out Pyflakes and Pylint. I was already intrigued by Go, so I'll learn and dabble with it for fun programs. I really appreciate your help.
I would think it would make it harder to phish. Since all you see is the domain name, it should be easier to tell if it's not the right one.
Some useful tips for your implementation here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3303029/http-range-header

If you want people to use it, I would recommend a browser compatibility chart and perhaps some basic benchmarks, or at least some hand-waving comments about performance and compatibility.
Faraday caging is an extra expense, especially when it comes to retrofitting.
3d art can take more overhead to produce, but it gives a very different aesthetic than 2d art. We were really lucky to have someone on our team with 3d art experience.

At one point we did play around a little with having the camera turn and fly around when the knight grabs the cup at the end of a level, but the levels are really only build to look good from one perspective, and it would have been hard to make it work well.
As a power user, the only time I care about URL's is when copy-pasting and when developing web apps.

I like to explicitly know what I'm copy pasting.

It offends my personal sensibilities to make websites with ugly links.

Other than that ... I don't know. I can't decide how I feel about this, but I can't help but think that I really don't care about the URL being accessible. Not like I ever do anything with it.
This is an excellent book http://www.amazon.com/Zig-Ziglars-Secrets-Closing-Sale/dp/04... . I buy used copies and give them to friends starting new businesses.

Used copies start at 1 cent, and I closed a lot of deals with the contents of this book. Very easy to read, with short humorous chapters.
Here is two suggestions based on translations of the word "postman";

postino: Italian
postacı: Turkish
> To Mr. Summers, the potential contained in bitcoin’s breakthrough technology, with its fast, low-cost system for confirming transactions

any article that touts Bitcoin as "low-cost" is a joke. paying 3-5% transaction fees[1] via inflation is not any better than the 2-4% that credit cards charge. And soon the bitcoin protocol won't have any coin left to mine, so this 3-5% will just be charged to consumers just like the existing networks, thanks to its baked-in gold-bug monetary policy. At least credit cards are instant, and the companies have good fraud monitoring...

not to mention the cost of the mining rigs, electricity they require, etc...

[1] http://blockchain.info/charts/cost-per-transaction-percent
It's funny though we did all these efforts to put URLs at the center of our APIs just to see Google hiding them from humans.

Seriously. The amount of time I've spent making pretty URLs and now most people won't even see them.
Probably didn't have enough positive stuff to say about him, so they opted not to say anything at all.

He lost interest in Reddit at some point and just got really flaky... not turning up for work and shit like that. Think he was going through depression at the time and there was a bit of drama around all that.

EDIT: It's a real shame he and Alexis Ohanian didn't get along better... it seems that thay could have made a great team, with him being the soldier and Ohanian the diplomat in a fight against govts/corporations (SOPA, TPP, etc) impinging on our freedoms online.
From an IT support perspective, it could become a minor annoyance. It's not uncommon for support to request the URL or have the user manipulate it in some way. Now they have to instruct the user to click on a button to reveal the URL, but only after identifying if the user is using a browser or the version of Chrome that hides the URL. (And if IT is ignorant of this new feature, they are going to be very confused when the user is arguing with them "There is no URL in the box!")
Isn't that normal? These days I notice a lot of 'this-is-way-too-wide-and-full-of-images,-tricky-css-and-little-useful-information' sites everywhere. And they drive me crazy, but that's another story.
UNLESS somebody calls your constructor as a function, instead of with "new".

It breaks my heart to see constructors that check to see if they were called as a function and then try to do the right thing by recursively calling themselves with "new".

There is no possible reason for calling a constructor as a function -- it is always the wrong thing to do, so it should be impossible, not tempting. Conflating functions with constructors was stupid. Why should there only be one possible constructor for a class, anyway?

And it's a terrible idea for constructors to try to silently correct mistakes that programmers make calling them in the wrong way, instead of asserting an error, because you know damn well those programmers are making that same mistake all over the place, and lots of other constructors don't try to correct the mistake of calling them directly as functions.

The idea of using functions as constructors, but requiring them to be called with "new", yet still allowing those functions to be called as normal functions, which seems like a very reasonable thing to do, especially if you're coming from Python, is the other incredibly idiotic JavaScript design flaw, up there with "this". It's like having a gaping wound that never heals and is just waiting for another infection to come along.

The other stupid thing about JavaScript is the idea that a subclass should inherit from an INSTANCE of its superclass, instead of from the superclass directly. Why insert one extra level of indirection and waste the time and memory and simplicity? And why require that the constructor of all classes that you might ever subclass be callable with no arguments to create a dummy intermediate instance through which a subclass can inherit its class? That puts restrictions on and adds needless complexity to how constructors work.

JavaScript was NOT a clearly thought out language, and it's insulting to Self to claim that Self was its inspiration, when there's no good way to dynamically change the prototypes an object inherits from at runtime, and an object can only inherit from one prototype. Self is SO SIMPLE and SO EASY to understand, yet JavaScript is so confusing, that comparing it to Self just sets you up to be surprised and disappointed if you know Self, or think badly of Self if you only know JavaScript.

And don't even get me started about JavaScript's and Brendan Eich's misconceptions about equality.

It's really a shame, because the fuzzy magical thinking that went into JavaScript made it a lot more complex and error prone that it would have been otherwise, if only it had been designed by somebody who knew what they were doing and learned from other language's mistakes without aping other language's mistakes, instead of having such a cargo cult design, and then having a cargo cult name slapped on to mislead people into thinking it had something to do with Java, which WAS written by somebody who knew what they were doing.
Thanks! I hope you enjoy it.
I can understand the logic, but no one using Popcorn time will credit the movie for being their own. No one thinks the star of Hunger Games was the developer of Popcorn Time, or the person pirating it, and no one is claiming as such.

Secondly, from my cursory glance, it seems as if T4P can/will easily spread malware, but this could just be fearmongering on Popcorn Time's end.
The post implies that Google wants to get rid of URLs the core of the Internet but that's not true -- Google wants links, latest example is the possibility to deep link into any Android app via URLs.
Out of curiosity what is the monetary benefit of self hosting streaming video?
Yes - the base image is compiled to a shared library.

There is a mechanism for including package/user code in the system image if you compile Julia yourself. It works well with a wide range of packages, but the goal is to generalize this and make it usable with binary releases, and probably to compile packages to separate shared libraries.
No probs! There also appears to be a longer teaser vid on YT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3izOJ7zX5I0
Still not clear why you're telling me about this, but ok.
Good read, and good app idea!
It appears that my perspective is ignorant of too many possible challenges I may face. I just need to build it, and react the best I can when a problem becomes apparent. Thank you for making this clear.
It may be gone for now, but someone who made this decision is still making decisions in that team. Honestly, I went OMG when I read the post.

Dogfoodable Servo based browser arrives in Q4 this year according to https://github.com/mozilla/servo/wiki/Roadmap. Probably the most important project on the internet right now.
Congratulations, you've set them up to get screwed every time they define a callback that uses "this" inside another function (which is an extremely common things to do in JavaScript). Any explanation of how "this" works that doesn't fully explain all the pitfalls of DYNAMIC BINDING of the KEYWORD "this" is just misleading and will teach people to write buggy code.

I'm not blaming you, it's not your fault, it's Brendan Eich's fault for such a crappy design. There is NO WAY to properly teach JavaScript without getting deep and dirty into the intricacies of how the virtual machine works and binds "this" dynamically at runtime.

You should explain why you should do "var self = this;" and use self instead of this inside of closures, because it's definitely going to bewilder new programmers when they see code in the real world that does that, and wonder why the fuck anyone would write something so crazy, and not realize that they should be writing crazy stuff like that themselves or else they will regret it.

It is very embarrassing to explain "this" after having extolled the virtues of lexical scoping and closures, having to explain that the variable you most often want to close over, "this", is not actually a variable, not lexically scoped the way it seems, but actually a magic keyword (as if that mattered to anyone learning the language).

The flaw is that "this" is dynamically bound in a way that 99% of programmers don't actually want it to be 99% of the time, and the bugs it causes are subtle and hard to spot, because you read the code as you meant it to behave, not as it actually does behave, so "this" looks just fine, but doesn't work the way it looks.

In the rare cases that you do actually want "this" to be dynamically bound instead of lexically scoped, there would have been many other ways to get that effect explicitly instead of implicitly.

The terrible way "this" works makes JavaScript code so much harder to understand and write and debug and prone to difficult to diagnose and spot bugs, so it's one of the first, most important things you should teach new programmers about the language, who should realize from day one that as cool and popular as it is, JavaScript is deeply flawed.
You seem to assume that people are looking to learn and grow their computer abilities. Learning takes an open mind, which isn't the case for most people.

Ease of use enables the user to perform actions with more impact. Think of it as Python vs C. You need a lot more knowledge to get started with C, but you can customize almost every aspect of your program. With Python, you lose some customizability, but you can do a lot more in a lot less time and understanding. If you need the customization and you have the knowledge, you can also build C extensions for Python (which would correspond to the chrome flags).

I'm not saying I'm for this change or not. Testing it out on real users will decide its fate, I'm quite ambivalent about it. I'm just speaking for ease of use in general.
I dunno dude. I can't seem to play anything on slate. ghostery blocks it. So I disable ghostery and the video element loads. I click play and the video does not play.

YouTube works fine with ghostery.

I want to watch shit online without people watching me. I don't think that's unreasonable. Lots of sites try to make it really fucking hard, though.

/end rant
I'm one of the film's backers and the operator of a site based on Aaron's work. We still need your help opening PACER.

http://www.plainsite.org/asymptote/

http://www.recapthelaw.org
TempleOS: 64-Bit, Open Source, Public Domain, Operating System
You're being a bit dramatic don't you think? All you have to do to use Quora is log in...
i like graphic design of the site, especially the hanzi interspersed throughout. i've no idea what the "remember" boxes say, although it might sound like 记 from "to remember," based on it looking like 迹?
Wikipedia has ... immense flaws, the greatest one being that nothing it publishes can be trusted.

s/Wikipedia/any publication

Yet another article complaining that articles on subjective topics are vulnerable to subjectivity. These articles are a dime a dozen, almost never look outside their specific little bubble-of-complaint, and have been going on for almost all of WP's 13-year history. This particular article is at odds with itself, because it complains that the moderators are censorious and overbearing, and also that WP can't police itself. So... moderators should take a stronger hand? Or a weaker one?

Wikipedia is less worthless than this blinkered, agenda-pushing article.
I used to try to mimic this by flashing my high beams at them. I don't know if it worked but it sure seemed like it did at least some times.
Couldn't book-reading also be similar? Both book-reading and TV-watching take the participant out of the facets of reality and immerses them into another world.

Granted, some could argue that book-reading is an intellectual activity because our brain is processing language, but I'm not so sure reading Nora Roberts could be considered an intellectual activity (nothing against Roberts, but the type of people who seem to read her book don't seem the intellectual type).
Moving WordPress blog to Azure from Webio hosting
And that has got to be the most irritating thing about Google these days, they mangle the URLs in their search results to the point where I can't get a clean URL sometimes, at least not without some real work.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd...

Instead of

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

Is really irritating.
Why some English words are controversial in China
Fairly small RC aircraft have occasionally killed people. So it's not so much safe as it is simply rarity that's allowed RC aircraft to be unregulated.

IMO, if your willing to fly it into yourself at full speed it's safe enough to fly without any regulation. More dangerous than that and basic certification seems like a reasonable precaution.