skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> It is hard to imagine a more consequential singular leak than one that reveals a carefully-planned human-intelligence counter-proliferation mission against a hostile state.

It is hard for me to get up in arms about Iran seeking a nuclear power program when:

* In the 1950s Iran had a democratic, secular parliament, which was overthrown and turned into a puppet dictatorship by the US and UK because Mossadegh wanted to nationalize Iran's oil resources.

* The nuclear power industry in the US used to run magazine ads in the 1970s boasting about how they were "proliferating" nuclear energy to Iran ( http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/sh... ), with Henry Kissinger making statements about how we should encourage Iran to have nuclear power etc.

* At the end of the 1970's, despite the Savak secret police torturing and murdering secular left wing opposition to the dictatorship (with CIA help), Iranian nationalists still managed to rise up and overthrow the puppet dictatorship - with the main force being the religious right, partly because the government had killed off and driven into exile a lot of the secular left wing opposition.

* The US takes the Shah in and Iranians believe due to this are planning another coup. The US declares Iran an enemy and seeks a worldwide ban on arms import to Iran. The US sends Donald Rumsfeld to Iraq and begins arming Saddam Hussein to fight Iran and the Kurds. When a Kurdish uprising occurs in the north, the US lifts sanctions against Iraq and sends helicopters to Iraq so Hussein can gas the Kurds. The US continues to arm Hussein after gassing the Kurds. Decades later, the US sanctimoniously uses this as one of the reasons to invade Iraq. Then Reagan begins secretly and illegally arming Iran, so as to fund another illegal and secret war against the democratically elected government of Nicaragua.

* One of the major issues in Middle East nuclear proliferation is that Israel is a nuclear power in the region. All calls from Iran and other Middle East countries to address this in a broad peace plan or anti-proliferation plan are rejected by the US. The "only democracy in the Middle East" (which controls the West Bank but "democratically" forbids Palestinians there a vote in the Knesset, although some Russian Jew just off an airplane can move to a West Bank settlement and vote) is de facto a nuclear power and the US declares it can be and Iran and other Middle East countries can't be.

So it is hard for me to shed a tear that the US can't persecute its own press for reporting on its hypocritical, sanctimonious attitude towards Iran.
You don't need a very detailed model to understand anthropogenic global warming, but you would need a detailed model to disprove it.

Once you understand that certain gases in the atmosphere act as a heat reservoir, then the obvious hypothesis is that trapped heat will increase if the amount of those gases increases. Since we know we're increasing some of those gases by burning fossil fuels, we expect warming.

There are only 2 ways to disprove this hypothesis. One would be to disprove the basic science of the greenhouse effect--not likely. The other would be to show that there is another climatic process that counteracts the expected warming. And to do that, you would need to create a more complicated model of the climate.

This is what scientists have done, and they haven't found any effect that fully counteracts the expected warming.

So just to be clear: computer models aren't important because they prove that global warming is happening. Warming is the base assumption. Computer models are important because they have failed to prove anything can stop it.

As for gravity, there is no analytical solution to the 3 body problem. NASA still uses numerical simulation to model the solar system--just like a climate model, but with many orders of magnitude fewer nodes and inputs. They can be so precise because their model is so simple, not because of a fundamental difference in scientific understanding.
Beyer Dynamics Dt770 is extremely comfortable, but you'll need an amp. The isolation isn't quite as good as the HD 380 Pro.

The ATH-M50 is a popular choice, but I haven't personally tried them.
That is certainly something to worry about, but it isn't a criticism of automated scheduling directly. Both a human and an algorithm can choose to either care about schedule consistency or not. We just have to make sure we choose to include those considerations when designing our AIs.
POLLIT
CMP $C050
BNE POLLIT

It's not a function, it's a procedure. It doesn't need to return anything, it produces an effect. Interrupts will break it.

await until an as yet indeterminable time in the future
What If America Had Never Invaded Afghanistan?
why do they strip the EXIF?
Influence, and they also get paid - as much as $500k/year for public corporations, and equity at startups.
in this case, David Drummond was presumably the steward of Google's 250M+ investment. The reason investors join the board is so they can help the company succeed and make sure their interests are being protected
Nope. The fact that they have to be a bit fuzzy with their accounting to cover up the interesting programs means it is near impossible to tell who is sitting idle and useless, and who is super critical but on a project that intentionally is described as idle and useless.
I have absolutely no idea about the processor in the Pi 2, but I got all the specs for the Pi 1 from here:

https://github.com/hermanhermitage/videocoreiv

(It's a beautiful processor. 32 registers, built in DSP, built in vector processing, some really elegant instruction design, dual core, and enough weirdness that writing good code is satisfying without being frustrating. No double precision float, alas, although it's got single precision, and for some bizarre reason there's no adc or sbc instruction which makes 64 bit arithmetic annoying.)

If you're interested in playing with it, you might also like a look at my half-finished pure-VC4-code boot loader here:

https://cowlark.com/piface

Stick it on an SD card, hook up a serial terminal, and it'll boot directly on the VC4 without even starting up the ARM.
Because it makes sense to ditch an inefficient company structure when starting from scratch. Why would the motive matter anyway?
Everything you described, but with people!

https://www.makespace.com/
The other option that you didn't mention is that Google sees an opportunity for acquiring the partner.
Bottom line is that net neutrality comes out of the desire for people to be able to access any site they want without penalties due to traffic shaping or other shenanigans.

The reason they are concerned is that the cable companies and to a lesser extent wireless and DSL companies are doing this.

And why do they have the power to do this? Why don't people just vote with their feet and switch to a competitor?

Because they are all monopolies.

Every cable company in every city I've lived in the USA has been a locally granted monopoly with the city extracting massive amounts of money from the monthly cable bill in "Franchise" fees.

Every provider of POTS service to your houses and apartments is a regulated monopoly. And while they have to let DSL companies access the lines and long distance competition, the barriers to entry are still there, and the level of regulation is stifling making it hard to compete.

Every wireless carrier is a monopoly-- because they all have monopoly powers over bands of spectrum the federal government sold to them. And while multiple bands were sold, only 3 max bands were sold for mobile in any metro area, reducing competition. (The government claimed that they had to reduce competition to boost the prices that the spectrum sold for-- probably true-- monopolies are very valuable!)

So, in response, these companies engage in rent seeking, to cover the massive taxes they pay to the federal government but also to maximize the value of the monopoly they paid so much to establish.

And as a result, people get mad at this rent seeking and demand net neutrality.

And what do they propose as a solution? Regulation! Treat it like a utility!

Well, I worked in the electric industry. Another utility that is highly regulated, engages in rent seeking and is, a monopoly over its area.

People pay way too much for electricity in this country as a result. And we have a poor service level-- like the brownouts in California a decade ago that were created when regulations made it illegal to both make and sell electricity, literally prohibiting the provisioning of additional supply. (which naturally the left decided to characterize as "de-regualtion". How making it illegal to provide electricity by regulation is "de-regulation" I'll never know.)

Seeing a lot of green accounts? probably people who know their karma will be killed for daring to speak out against the leftist desire to regulate everything, despite the fact that, once again, regulation is the cause of the problem. (I consider granting a monopoly and prohibiting competition to be "Regulation", though an extreme form of course.)

Nothing better exemplifies the old saying "Government is a disease masquerading as it's own cure" then the calls for more regulation to fix the problems of regulation.

Most people won't subject their karma to the onslaught of down votes that daring to take a non-leftist position results in on this site.

But sometimes you have to take a stand.

And really, it's just astounding that people talk about net neutrality and pretend like these aren't government granted monopolies. Such denial!
Behavior flow with sunburst visualization
http://www.vecteezy.com has loads of free art to download.
What I learnt about inequality after spending time with the world's richest
There's a clear difference between these resources.

If you could use 100 times more electricity and water at the same cost (with no damage to the environment), would you? We might find uses for doing that, if those resources weren't relatively scarce.

If you give an average consumer a 10tb hard drive, will they use it all? Probably not even close. The amount of storage wasted by consumers is beyond epic, thrown away with the next system upgrade (someone want to count how much storage America has thrown away in the last decade?). That's the bandwidth context. We can keep boosting the amount of bandwidth for an exceptionally long time, at little additional cost over what the present infrastructure cost. You can go from 100mbps to 200mbps while not having to rebuild everything. Try doubling the output of or availability of water or electricity like that.

Put another way, bandwidth - like storage or processing power - is a hyper expanding resource; one in which we can even expand just by being clever while using most of the existing infrastructure. Water and electricity are nothing like that.

Humans could easily consume all the fresh water on this planet. We can expand storage, bandwidth and processing power to such an extent that we can never saturate the total capacity. In fact, in the first world, that has already mostly occurred for consumers with storage and processing power (and for the radical majority of all server side use cases). Will 99.99% of all web sites ever need a 1gbps pipe? Nope, and they also won't need 1tb of storage, or 64gb of ram, or a 16 core modern Xeon processor. Those sites will never have enough content to consume such resources, and certainly not in the next decade.
While I don't agree with him on the necessity of religion, I do believe this highlights the need for teaching kids ethics, character, honesty, self-discipline, etc. in school--arguably the most crucial things to success as an adult. Ideally, parents would teach their children these things, but this isn't an ideal world.
From what I gather, Qt has "won" the war, if there was ever such a thing, but GTK and Cairo will not be going away. What are your gripes with Cairo, anyways?

Also, when you start getting into scientific software, very few projects explicitly state "Runs best on Linux" even though that may be the case. If you are looking for examples though, I will give some:
PETSc/Elemental/Trilinos/etc
Clawpack/PyClaw/OpenFOAM/etc
Gromacs/NAMD/HOOMD/Quantum Espresso/etc
Julia/Nimrod/etc
Paraview/VisIt/VMD/etc
OpenMPI/MPICH/MVAPICH/etc
ImageJ/Fiji/etc
GNU Radio/RTL-SDR/etc

There's tons of it out there!
I can't see it happening. Only recently they got partially integrated with maps.google.com in some cities.

You're right though, it would absolutely destroy the business, requiring them to redevelop their apps. Would be a huge service disruption.
It already happens to some degree, when you consider how strongly companies treat their stock price as an indicator of what is and isn't working and how much stock trading is automated these days. The companies dance to tunes increasingly played by algorithms.
Measurements on the reality of the wavefunction
I'm sorry to break it to you... http://thenextweb.com/facebook/2014/02/03/facebook-estimates...
Not true. It's impossible to truly compete at First Class Mail. The USPO(USPS) is a de-facto First Class mail monopoly because of the Private Express Statutes.
Ah, yes, that obviously should have been qualified as DB writes.
You can have an app store account without a credit card. I don't think it was always possible, but it is now. Also, the accounts don't have to be newly created. This operation could be quite long-lived.

You could have some automated system which loads many different apps to be rated, so that the person in the picture isn't rating the same app over and over again in a short period of time.
I think you're deeply romanticizing the past, certainly with respect to Henry Ford and likely with respect to Rockefeller or Edison. I could be misinterpreting but it sounds like you're basically saying that today's companies get where they are due to predatory marketing, whereas in the Good Old Days everybody just worked hard and did their best and competed solely on quality and price.

That may be an unfairly reductive paraphrasing of your point though. I do think it's fair to say that nowadays marketers have far more different ways to reach people, and they have to be far more nuanced (or sneaky, if you prefer) in their messaging. I think the latter is due to it being much harder to outright lie to consumers, for legal reasons but also because there are many more ways for those consumers to discover and publicize sleazy advertising claims. 100 years ago cigarette companies advertised that you needed to become a smoker because it's healthy for you (they had nothing to back that up with, and plenty of evidence to the contrary). Those were the Good Old Days that you're fondly remembering here. Companies lied through their teeth about their products and each other. Marketers still lie, of course, they just can't be quite so blatant about it. But just because this is true doesn't mean that things are worse now than they were before.

I also wouldn't be so quick to blame people doing things you don't approve of (like taking crappy loans or buying expensive phones as status symbols) as being the result of an evil marketer exploiting a helpless prole. Actual predatory marketing is something that needs to be monitored and regulated, but there is also no shortage of people with lousy values who continually make terrible life choices. There probably always will be. Take away all marketing (not just the blatantly predatory kind, but also the lifestyle marketing that it sounds like you also consider evil), and many of those same people would simply be finding other activities to engage in that you would also not approve of.

Ultimately, who are we to say that some idiot spending way too much money for a status symbol he doesn't need should be prevented from spending his money however he wants? It's a very slippery slope to go down. Once you break open that philosophical seal, you may discover that there's lots of other people who don't approve of something that you do, who also want to tell you what to do in order to save you from yourself. They don't have to be right about it, there just has to be enough of them who agree that you are spending your money inappropriately or reading the wrong books or engaging in dangerous hobbies or whatever.
In that pic there are roughly 18*6=108 devices per panel. On the other side of the girl it seem there's another panel which could have another ~108 devices. That's 216 good reviews/votes coming from a single asian lady... notbad.jpg
Ask HN: Why is HDMI input/picture-in-picture not a thing on PC?
I feel like I have a fairly good technical grasp of both HDMI and of PCs end-to-end. However I cannot for the life of me figure out why HDMI (and similar digital connectors) cannot be trivially read and displayed on a PC (e.g. Windows, OS X, Linux, etc).

Back in the VGA/analogue days it made a lot of sense why a "WinTV"-type card is required, take the analogue signal convert it to digital, and do a bit of internal processing since CPUs weren't powerful enough to handle it solo and RAM was limited (even for the resolution).

Now all of those issues are "solved." HDMI is already digital, the cable and inputs are identical on both ends, and really all a PC has to do is have a driver which hooks the HDMI port and "pretends" to be a monitor/digital input, rather than a digital output.

So why, purely in technical terms, can't I plug my cable TV box into my PC via HDMI and get a little picture-in-picture TV feed? Is it literally just the lack of a driver?
Self-betterment is an incentive for you and maybe the people you are friends with.
>Those two links seem to contradict your point that tap water isn't "clean" since they point out that it is, in fact, very clean.

If you actually read the links you would see that "clean" is simply defined by the EPA as "what we allow by law". And that there are many chemicals known to be harmful to humans that aren't regulated or monitored at all... not to mention the fact that tap water in many towns and cities across the US regularly has chemical levels that exceed the EPA's defined limits (and many scientists argue that these limits are too high as it is).

Here's another link: http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/uscities.asp

>I'm also really curious where you get your water since most bottled water comes from "municipal sources" (i.e. it's tap water).

There are several dispensers in my area that provide reverse osmosis (plus carbon) filtered water (water source is usually local tap water) and it costs about 25 cents a gallon or a dollar for 5 gallons. Most Walmarts have one, back by the beverage section.

It's also pretty easy to find inexpensive bottled water that's RO filtered, you just need to look on the bottle and it'll tell you where the water is from and how it is processed/filtered, if at all.

>Oh yeah, and it wasn't fluoridated so I had multiple teeth rot away before I was 10 years old (luckily I moved to Canada before most of my adult teeth really started growing).

Correlation does not equal causation.
The corporation is the entity. The shareholders are the owners.

The corporate form very specifically exists to be a separate legal person (for the technical meaning of person) that shields its owners from liability for claims against the business. The cost of that separateness is that the corporation is also subject to tax as its own person. If people want to have the benefits of direct taxation of income they are free to choose a flow-through form (i.e., a partnership or LLC).
We're talking about the US government regulating a US industry. You say you live outside the USA and you have lots of choice and therefore what I say is "bullshit"? Really? That's your only attempt at an argument? Especially after you talk about your one or two possibly colluding providers?

I think it's unfortunate that anti-intellectualiosm has become so prevalent that you feel comfortable with a post that consists of nothing more than the word "bullshit" and an assertion that I must be astroturfing. Labeling the argument without a counter argument and then labelling me.

Can't you do better?
The waste is less, if you weight storage by performance or energy efficiency. Then, we're throwing away low-yield storage and replacing it with high-octane storage. The 'waste factor' becomes small.

Also consider most discarded storage is a fraction of the size of what it is replaced by. So the fraction of waste is always small (compared to its absolute value).
>> Google is just as evil as any large corporation.

Let's not exaggerate. Google might not be perfect; nobody is, but their actions are great magnitudes in distance from the evil some other companies have done. I'd rather work for Google than any of the companies below:

- http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/10/1141724/-Walmart-fu...

- http://www.alternet.org/story/52526/rural_communities_exploi...

- http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/08/02/3466915/chiquita-c...

- http://philosophia.uncg.edu/phi361-metivier/module-2-why-doe...

- https://www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights/private-prisons

- ...just about any oil company.

- ...The diamond industry.

- ...and I'm highly suspicious of what goes on in insurance & credit card companies.
The First Trillion-Dollar Startup (2014)
I have never been on a phone call that felt more "high definition" than two landlines connected together unmediated by any voip or cellular link.
Is Elasticsearch the right solution for you?
This is precisely my take. I wasn't familiar with SFW until last night (this post), but I've been playing around with this concept for awhile myself.

The only real drawback that I'm seeing so far is some link fragility. There are two countering forces at work here. You can take a link to someone else's content and mirror it back to your own SFW. If the source content changes and you don't take the "pull," your content is no longer relevant. This might mean for popular sources, lots of replicated copies of the source, but not always current. There is also a problem with the always available aspect. If someone is using content from another source, what do you do when the source goes down or just changes locations. At least with a non-federated wiki, the entire set of content goes offline together. That model is less prone to rot since it prunes entire branches and not just bits and pieces.
Well the alternative is /u/changetip 1000 satoshis

- - -

The Bitcoin tip for 1,000 bits has been collected by some_person.

ChangeTip info | ChangeTip video | /r/Bitcoin

- - -

having that changed to become just another small number beside the gild-count, would be nice
In a sense, the "one thing" that JIRA does really well is being bloated (and through fulfilling the check box process).

And I'm only half joking. I mean, have anyone ever successfully been productive at using the thing? To me, it certainly doesn't do well in department of being useful to developer (or manager, for that matters).
Isn't this essentially just projecting a 3d sphere onto a 2d surface, but evaluating the transformation components without putting them in matrix form?
And also the creator of the "Dead Fantasy" fan work, where Final Fantasy characters are opposed to the Dead or Alives characters in a serie of videos.

That's not the best of his works, but I first heard of him when he was still working on it, and it always impressed me how well made they were for something that he didn't get any money for.