skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Assuming we're talking about U.S. law, it depends.

If the implementing website did not actually copy the copytext from the generator and came up with the exact same language by chance, then the implementing party owns the copyright (or more accurately, the implementing party has not infringed upon the rights of whoever wrote the idea generator).

But let's assume there was actual copying. Then whoever write the idea generator owns the copyright on the copytext (assuming he or she didn't assign those rights to an employer, etc.). BUT that assumes the copytext is copyrightable to begin with.

Copyright law requires that a work be created by a human being in order for it be copyrighted. In particular, the U.S. Copyright Office refuses to register "works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author."[1] Since the copytext here is computer-generated, you could argue that no one owns the copyright.

But that's a stretch. Although each individual idea is randomly generated by a computer, a fair amount of human creativity went into making sure the ideas it spits out aren't total gibberish. I don't know what the exact level of human input is required for something to be copyrightable, and as far as I'm aware, there's no court case directly on point here. But I think there's enough for whoever wrote the idea generator to make a good copyright claim.

One final aside though: If a start-up actually copies the copytext, they still might be protected under fair use. Fair use generally protects copying that is minimal and serves a different purpose than the original (e.g. quoting a passage from a book in order to critique it).

In this case, the work that is being copyrighted would have to be the set of all ideas generated as a whole, not the text of any particular idea. That is, assume the idea generator is capable of generating 100,000 possible random start-up ideas. Then the unit of "work" that is copyrightable is the set of all 100,000 ideas. Therefore, because you're only copying one of those 100,000 ideas, you might be able to argue that your copying is minimal. Moreover, your copy of the work serves a different purpose than the original (the purpose of the generator is parody, but in your case, you're actually being serious). There are other factors that go into fair use (economic effect and commercial vs. non-commercial use), so it's hard to say for sure whether you could get away with it, but it's certainly a plausible position to take.

[1] http://copyright.gov/comp3/docs/compendium-full.pdf
With a second printer head added, it should be possible to deposit thermal insulator right within a wall. The insulator just needs to be semi-liquid (small balls are ok).
A Century of Extinction
Pangu jailbreak download for iPhone,iPad and iPodiPhone jailbreak
Yeah... It's Wadler's Law. I accept it.

I think there's a lot of room for creativity in technical fields (étale morphism comes to mind) but typically once a word has a technical definition it is made off-limits within relevant fields. Terminological blurriness is nice sometimes, but often technical terms are incredibly concrete.

To me "isomorphism" means exactly "a pair of arrows, called witnesses, (f, g) in a category such that fg = id and gf = id" and it confers many properties. If you find a category where {Server Javascript} and {Client Javascript} are two objects and exhibit an isomorphism then I will gladly let you call that object "isomorphic javascript" all day long. Frankly I'm already feeling "isomorphism" fails to capture the nature of this relationship, though.
Google's Self-Driving Car Can't Navigate Heavy Rain or Most Roads
Nuclear energy has still some popularity in the US. Especially among technical people. But technology is only one thing. What are the effects on a society long term?

Here in Germany it is mostly dead. For us you are discussing positions of twenty years ago. The US has a very different energy situation compared to us: large country, nuclear weapons, lots of nuclear technology, extremely high energy use (more than twice than the average German), much lower population density, lots of energy sources, ...

Here in Germany we've seen a lot of the negative effects in a country with higher density in the middle of Europe:

* no plan or place for the waste

* nuclear power plants all over the country

* widespread corruption between politicians and industry

* protests were suppressed with military-like police, escalated almost into civil war

* lots of transport of nuclear materials through the country

* extremely costly research paid by the tax payer

* lots of promises of the nuclear industry just did not materialize: for example our pebble-bed reactor was closed silently, while earlier it was promised to solve a lot of technical problems

* centralization of electricity production in few monopoly-like companies with zero competition

The effects on an democratic society of nuclear technology is at least as bad as its technological problems. This was seen decades ago in the book 'Der Atomstaat' and the effects had been shown in Japan, where the Atomstaat was more advanced than here in Germany. We were able to stop it.

Now we have to build-up renewable decentralized energy during the next decades. That's the common goal here in Germany.
I agree with the general concern about the JS crypto, however that could easily be solved with a native front-end to the website, and a systematic compromise could easily be detected.

My bigger concern is that, even assuming uncomprosied client side code, the server can still access the decrypted content when someone access it, becuase the nessasary password is still sent to the server in the url.
This is equivalent to 'sc.exe' (service configuration) and 'net.exe' (service runtime control) on NT.
What I want to know is how rich he needed to be to get all that hardware to review.

If I had access to all that hardware I might have done something like that as well.
Problem with nuclear is that they cannot operate in situation where there is other players which destabilizes the network and are profitable with subsidies even if they sell at negative price. Nuclear is long term base load you just cannot shutdown a nuclear plant in windy situations, and expect it up in next hour and save anything by doing it.
Solar and wind is more expensive if you take away all subsidies and force everyone to handle the smoothing their electricity production to grid needs. But force buying in short term spot prices and giving more subsidy than cost of production per kw/hour for intermittent sources is actually terrible way of handling the grid, it increases greenhouse emissions by forcing to use low efficiency gas plants when sun doesn't shine, (not high efficiency since you cannot bring them online fast enough).

Nuclear gets loan guaranties which are not free money, and regulatory fees which are additional tax for nuclear industry.
You didn't read waqf's comment, did you? You may have read my comment but you clearly didn't read my link.

> actually measurement is the act of collapsing the wave, and entanglement only exists before the wave function collapse. It's possible to never measure something, and it could be entangled forever.

Entangled particles continue to be entangled even after they are "measured". If this were not true, faster-than-light communication would be possible. To understand why, read the paper.

The only way to "undo" an entanglement is to time-reverse the process that created the entangled pair to begin with, i.e. to bring the members of the entangled pair back together.
It's actually not sent to the server. The password is part of the URL fragment, which is not included in the HTTP request. A very clever hack, in my opinion.
Perhaps the lesson is that reactors are just about the most complicated construction projects that humans build, they continuously operate on the edge of disaster, and they require a huge number of highly educated operators. There are too many factors to assure they will be safe, and their failure mode can reach catastrophic levels.

As you obviously know, the Fukushima disaster was not because of quake or tsunami damage to the reactors. It was because of water damage to the diesel generators that circulated the coolant to remove decay heat. Then failures in 3 (4?) redundant backup measure to provide that power occured, too.

What would happen, hypothetically in the event of an human generated EMP (or general infrastructure because of war) or a multi-stdev CME from the sun? What if a sufficiently dedicated group was able to infiltrate a reactor and intentionally damage it? There's always a way to imagine a failure scenario that is possible, even if unlikely.

Thankfully Fukushima wasn't nearly as bad as Chernobyl. Had the fuel breached the containment unit and triggered a steam explosion with groundwater. it would have been worse.
Make a keyboard where you have one key for each finger. You get all characters by pressing combinations of keys. There are 1024 possible combinations.
I don't understand why Bayesian statistics needs to be an "-ism", and still less why other statistics needs to be an "-ism" too. I don't understand why people feel the need to line up on one side or the other or get so worked up about it. Other branches of mathematics seem to avoid this kind of thing, they have no problem with the idea that there's different ways of doing the same thing.

It actually discourages me from learning more about Bayesian statistics, because the whole thing sometimes comes off as a cult.
> This is a common misconception. Asperger's wasn't folded into the parent category, instead those who were diagnosed with Asperger's, and the symptom constellation it represented, were folded into the parent category.

That's what I said. Those are the same thing. What are you arguing about again?
Mathematics of the ISO 8601 calendar
> you need social consensus and a forward-looking bureaucracy to ensure that public infrastructure receives adequate funding. Most American cities do not have either.

Absolutely, because it's trivially easy for a somewhat small minority to simply stand around and say "nope, nope, nope, not gonna do any of that" and then retort "why are all of our bridges falling down around our ears?" 10 years hasn't changed anybody's mind, so why not build some Internet connectivity to let people work from home?
Open Source Data Analytics Application for Non-programmers
In case you're having installer issues: https://kitematic.com/docs/known-issue-fixes/

If that doesn't fix, please submit a bug report:
https://kitematic.com/docs/help-us-debug/

Feel free to jump in our support chat as well.

Sorry for the trouble. We're working on a fix.
I went to the same high school that Anand went to (albeit several years after he attended).

It was always interesting listening to my C.S. teachers talk about Anand and how he had gotten started and everything. It was the kind of thing that inspired me to keep working and improving my skills.
"Sustainable Energy - without the hot air" [1] suggests renewables don't stand a chance at displacing conventional power generation without radical efficiency gains across the board and massive investment in infrastructure. They are not ready to drop in at massive scale.

As for Fukushima: I can't find a single source suggesting there is any danger short of eating fish caught right in front of the facility, which would indeed be a bad idea.

[1] http://www.withouthotair.com/c27/page_203.shtml
What exactly is the point of this? I'm seriously asking. What's a scenario in which Curl.io would be useful?
Huh, it does appear that officers are the ones who are locked up in the event that a corporation is held in contempt[1].

Which brings up another question. Instead of proposing that the officers be held in contempt, could the judge instead rule that the corporate charter get suspended? It seems like that would be more analogous to imprisoning a "person".

[1] - http://www.millerjohnson.com/pubs/xprPubDetail.aspx?xpST=Pub...
> If the implementing website did not actually copy the copytext from the generator and came up with the exact same language by chance, then the implementing party owns the copyright (or more accurately, the implementing party has not infringed upon the rights of whoever wrote the idea generator).

This is quite false. A copyrighted work's content is protected by copyright, and how it is duplicated doesn't enter into the equation.

In principle, with a very powerful set of computers and a lot of time, I could randomly generate any work of art, visual, sound or print. The fact that the works were generated randomly doesn't make any difference.

There are many variations on the thousand monkeys at typewriters story going back decades, but the idea is if enough random sequences of words are generated, eventually a recognizable, copyrighted work will appear.

Many people don't realize that the "Birthday Song" is copyrighted. The first measure is a mere six notes long. Assuming I can render the tune within a range 12 semitones, I only have to generate 12^6 = 2,985,984 notes, to be absolutely certain to have randomly violated the copyright somewhere in the sequence -- and, of course, it's very likely that I will have succeeded well before generating all 2,985,984 notes.

But my method of generating the tune is irrelevant to the outcome, which is a potential copyright violation.
See also The SVYFT Project : https://www.svyft.com

* i'm part of the project.
Ugh, is there any way to only get the HN FrontPage via Feedly? Tired of this shit clogging my feed
or Forego! https://github.com/ddollar/forego
My ISP in Seattle is similarly equipped/price and it's awesome. No contract, no data caps, no problems. Support is great too, a real person who knows their stuff answers instead of a machine. I got set up in about 2 minutes from hello to loading my first web page.

http://www.condointernet.net/
Big deal, we've been "3D printing" buildings by hand for centuries.

How does 3D printing work? You lay down layers of grains of your material and sinter or otherwise stick them together, and build up an arbitrary structure that way.

Well in the building case, you use grains called "bricks", stick them together not by sintering but with mortar, but you still build an arbitrarily-shaped (within the limits of what will stay up) structure from a uniform store of material. Just replace the printing head with a bricklayer, who is probably just as fast and cheaper than a robot anyway.

The Byzantines managed to 3D print the Hagia Sofia in three years nearly seventeen centuries ago, and it's still standing.
Cordova Installation in Windows 8: A contributed comprehensive guide
Why is France rarely mentioned in these discussions?

Most of their energy is nuclear. They've also standardized on plant design, which must have huge benefits - fungible employees and more MTBF being big ones.

All of our (the United States) plants afaik are bespoke designs, and can't be cheaper than pumping out cookie cutters.

What are they doing right, and how do we copy it?
My guess is that one reason for nuclear power's relatively high cost is that they must spend large amounts on safety while their primary competition, carbon-based power, gets a free ride from the rest of society on their safety costs, especially climate change. Nuclear pays for its own safety (AFAIK); who pays for climate change prevention, mitigation, and damage (e.g., hurricanes, seawalls, droughts, etc.)? The taxpayers.

Make carbon pay to clean up the mess it creates, and nuclear will look much more attractive.
> Now we have to build-up renewable decentralized energy during the next decades. That's the common goal here in Germany.

Can it be done quickly enough to prevent the damage from climate change? If not, the problems of nuclear may be much less than the alternative.

> * protests were suppressed with military-like police, escalated almost into civil war

I don't mind a little hyperbole, but many people reading this have no idea what actually happened. Could you describe it?
> Sure it's easy for a municipal ISP to have "cheap" rates when you consider that they are taxing authorities and don't have to run a profit.

why is this a bad thing?
Ahhh ok, that explains it then.
It is absolutely relevant. Did you check the link I posted? I understand completely what's going on here, and the important part is that the website is inviting you to copy a command from the website and paste it into your terminal.

Now, even if you're OK with giving curl.io your files and trust it enough to not insert malicious commands into the command you're pasting (see link from my GP comment), since the connection is on clear text, anyone between your machine and curl.io can in theory modify the command text you're invited to copy-paste, and inject malicious commands of their choosing.
Show HN: Android app to send pictures using standard html browser
A Wireless BMBI – Feel the Internet
I recently made an attempt on codecanyon. My item sells ok but with the number of support emails I get and time I need to help people with trivial issues which I clearly explain in the supplied documentation, it can't be considered passive.
Item 1: Germany shut down 41% of it's nuclear plants following Fukushima, and greatly accelerated plans to close the remaining ones.

Item 2: Germany is building a raft of new coal plants; something like 30 are in various stages of planning and building. According to Die Welt, power generation from brown coal (the dirtiest form) is climbing, at the highest level since 1990, and projected to increase further. Overall fossil fuel use for power generation is staying constant. If it wasn't for the decline of nuclear power in Germany, fossil fuel use could have declined. And according to Germany's energy regulator, coal fired plants will be essential to replace the closing nuclear plants.

> There is no shift to coal.

Yes, there is. As you go on to admit, even if you label it a "temporary effect in a long-term plan". (But given that the coal plants now being built are projected to be operating for 40 years, it's not what I'd call temporary.)

And that shift will result in a net increase in deaths. You seem very defensive, but you haven't actually disputed any of the underlying facts.
(Tangential, I reconsidered and deleted my last response at the same time lutusp was responding to it. I'd have left it if I'd known it was seen already.)

I dunno, you're awfully keen to tell me that I'm not...something. You seem to be getting really worked up over semantics. Asperger's was always just a particular flavor of autism. I knew I was autistic, and I still do. The name has changed (according to one standard among several, and not without controversy from respectable, even "responsible" professionals); the symptoms remain, and the solutions remain. If I say I have Asperger's, or that I'm high-functioning autistic, and a friend of mine says the same, we mean the same thing now that we did before the DSM-V.

And it's nice to know you care, but I am not yours to un-label, any more than I'm yours to label. You are not in the least qualified to tell me whether or not I'm Aspie, autistic, gay, straight, or a Reptoid From The Hollow Earth. If you really care about my right to self-determination, you should know well enough to keep your judgmental labels--and un-labels--to yourself.
>> This is a common misconception. Asperger's wasn't folded into the parent category, instead those who were diagnosed with Asperger's, and the symptom constellation it represented, were folded into the parent category.

> That's what I said.

False! Here's what you said:

> Asperger's wasn't "abandoned," it was folded into the broader spectrum of autism ...

Your claim above is that the condition known as Asperger Syndrome was folded into the autism category. In fact, those individuals with the Asperger diagnosis were folded into the autism category (strictly speaking, only 45% of them, under the new rules), along with the symptom set, which now has no significance as a diagnosis, but the Asperger Syndrome term has been abandoned, and clinicians are advised to stop providing the diagnosis. According to one of those behind this change:

“Asperger’s means a lot of different things to different people,” Dr. Lord said. “It’s confusing and not terribly useful. ... It’s not an evidence-based term.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/health/03asperger.html?pag...

So which part of this do you find confusing? Asperger Syndrome never represented a distinct, identifiable condition separate from mild autism ("“Asperger’s means a lot of different things to different people,” Dr. Lord said. “It’s confusing and not terribly useful.”"), and its rate of diagnosis was far above anything realistic. It threatened to become as big an embarrassment to psychology as recovered memory therapy, facilitated communication or pre-frontal lobotomy.

Imagine a group of doctors voting cancer out of a medical textbook. Sound absurd? Not in psychology.

> Those are the same thing.

No, I assure you, on the best of evidence, that Asperger Syndrome, and people with the Asperger diagnosis, are not the same thing. If you believe otherwise, then you may need professional help, but not for Asperger's.
That may all be true, but like Strom Thurmond, nearly all of the democrats you're referring to either retired or became republicans in the years since 1964.

>In fact, you would be hard pressed to find any racism in the TEA Party or Republican party.

That's an amusing perspective, given that both parties have members who espouse racist beliefs, with the Republican party having slightly (only slightly) more than the Democrats: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-white-republicans-mo...
Sonic Pi Live and Coding Summer School
It probably could, if we spent enough resources on it. It's just not worth it, Nuclear is better for the environment.

Photovoltaics could not do it, no way. But solar thermal probably could. Storing power would require immense amounts of land for pumped water storage, but we could do it.

We'd also need huge amount of land for the solar collectors, but we could do it.

And huge amounts of copper for power lines and transformers. Again, possible.

But none of that is worth it, not when we have something as good as nuclear.
Ah, I see we're still doing the "top dismissive comment" thing around here. Good to know.

Computers? Bah! We've been "computing" for centuries.

How does it work? You take a pencil and paper -- or a pen (should you be feeling bold), and you write out the computations one by one, and build up a result that way.

Pythagoras managed to compute that the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides, and that rule still stands.
Virality of Ice Bucket Challenge
The not doing anything is intentional - only when the pair is resolved and the status row goes back to saying "choose a tile" can you click a new tile. This "feature" really needs to be communicated better though, sorry abouy that.
1. I think the best option is for the client to encrypt using a local library, like NaCl before sending anything to the server. The server should not provide the encryption algorithm. The client and server must agree in the algorithm, but neither provide it.

2. Yes, it defers trust and responsibility. Now Mozilla, Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Opera are on the lam for issuing a competent browser encryption.

The messed up thing is, all it does is defer trust. What I'm trying to say about the current state of client-side web crypto as far as I understand it, deferring trust doesn't do a damned thing. It's still the source of the crypto lib, which is you.

EDIT: clarity
Jovie is a video app that’ll help you with the content
Can you build enough nuclear power to prevent the damage from climate change?

I don't think so.