skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Looks like a simple differential equation to me. And we already have the models. The only real variable would be the rate at which materials are retrieved. And even that wouldn't be very variable, because SpaceX or whoever would use the rate that optimized their profits.
It's amazing how much you can innovate and improve a learning environment when the basic needs of all children are met in society. I don't think this would work in public schools in North America.
Doing the right thing is rarely the most convenient option, that's why it's considered notable.
The word is statesmen, few qualify for it.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/paul-repeats-baseless-vacci...

http://religiondispatches.org/rand-paul-we-wouldnt-need-laws...
I created this food discover app.. it helps you find local food for $5 or less. Primarily for students and people on budget.
If anyone is a threat to the Establishment, it is Rand Paul. He is not perfect but he can't be if he wants to win. He has a serious chance of getting the nomination and will help propel the conversation on surveillance reform and criminal justice reform. In another article, it said that he wants to eliminate jail time on all non-violent drug misdemeanors.
Maybe what actually happens is most of the material never comes back to the earth, it immediately gets put back into building infrastructure in space.
> Privacy must be handled as a sacred law

Fully agree with this. Technology is merely an amplifying factor here. If a society is healthy, then applications of technologies of the day are non-issues.

Just keep in mind that 1776 would not have been a meaningful year if the founders could not even "assemble" and discuss legitimate grievances without fear of being subject to misuse of state power. This is why we have a 4th amendment.
It will be a mildly entertaining distraction to watch establishment politicians squirm with this issue. Will anyone really argue in favor of dragnet surveillance?

But in the end it will be just that, a mildly entertaining distraction. Rand Paul has no chance, and even if he were to be elected President in a fluke, nothing much would change.
My issue with this situation is that these corporations generally have orders-of-magnitude louder megaphones through which to exercise these rights. It really skews the one-person-one-vote ideal this democracy is built on. (Yes, individuals exercising an out-sized influence through money and access is a part of the same issue.) This is why things like Citizen's United and Super-PACs are so horribly distorting the functional workings of our country.
This wasn't so many years ago.. Wasn't just about everything that group was doing, or not doing, around that time an attempt to sabotage the POTUS?

I mean, that did happen didn't it?
They used to have a better website. I think it was the victim of "upgrades".
I'm okay with creating some noise at the expense of creating a friendly and inviting atmosphere.
And against gay marriage, too! His defenders will claim that although he does not like it, he will still allow it. But that's not true either, because he will leave it to the states to decide (and about half of them will decide to ban it).

Private prisons? Have at it. Urban poverty? Let the charities deal with it. Access to abortion? Similar response to gay marriage.

The only reason he's popular on the internet is because he likes bitcoin, wants to legalize weed, wants to drastically reduce defense spending (including scaling back the NSA), and likes "civil liberties" (whatever those are).
Disagree. They understood encryption, and enumerated rights to free speech and not testifying against oneself. Warrants empower government agents to acquire information, but not compel the accused to explain it.
All presidential candidates make similar promises when they run, and then, when they get elected, they get exposed to the true reasons why most of these programs exist and they realize the reality is not as simple as it seemed from outside. And then, they perpetuate the status quo.

Besides, I just can't stand libertarians who contradict their own positions saying that they want the government out of their lives except when it pertains to contraception, abortion, mandatory vaccinations and same-sex marriage.
Yes, a solar still as you describe is highly inefficient. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_still for a discussion. Among other points:

- The system is inefficient for how much work is put into it versus the water output

- it is advised to make a solar still to supplement another water source, such as a reverse-osmosis unit or water purification tablets

- Similar sea water stills are included in some life raft survival kits, though manual reverse osmosis desalinators have mostly replaced them

This is a well-studied problem. The question isn't if you can improve on the design in the Boy Scout Handbook, but if you can improve upon the current state of the art.

Quoting from http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Fawzi_Banat/publication/... (linked to from the Wikipedia page on 'Solar desalination'):

> In order to evaporate 1 kg of water at a temperature of 30°C about 2.4 × 106 J is required. Assuming an insolation of 250 W/m2, averaged over 24 h, this energy could evaporate a maximum of 9 L/m2/day. In practice heat losses will occur and the average daily yield which might be expected from a solar still is 4–5 L/m2/day. Today’s state-of-the-art single-effect solar stills have an efficiency of about 30–40% [25].

You mentioned a heat exchanger. That paper goes on to say:

> Multiple-effect basin stills have two or more compartments. The condensing surface of the lower compartment is the floor of the upper compartment. The heat given off by the condensing vapor provides energy to vaporize the feed water above. Multiple-effect solar desalination systems are more productive than single effect systems due to the reuse of latent heat of condensation. The increase in efficiency, though, must be balanced against the increase in capital and operating costs. Efficiency is therefore greater than for a single- basin still typically being 35% or more but the cost and complexity are correspondingly higher.

The simulated maximum for a proposed system for this seems to be 25 L/m2/day, which is 8x better than the numbers I used. I don't know if it's been tested.

However, that paper then describes indirect solar desalination were more effective. This includes a real-world desal plant running at 6–13 L/m2/day and a simulated maximum for a proposed system of 25L/m2/day.

Hence, indirect solar seems to be the way to go, and not a direct solar still like you propose. The solar collectors can be placed on cheap land, and brought to the desal plants by the ocean edge.

All of these information is available through a web search. There's little need to handwave.
How does gov health care change this? I pay $500 a year to health ins or $500 a year more in taxes. Either way I pay $500 a year. That's not an argument for or against gov health care I'm just asking for clarification why it matters for your point
iEverything impoverishes us all
Presumably this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3919429
Goto: answer is a search engine for technical questions
Some of you're statements about his political views appear to be false: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul#Political_positions)

Its always nice to have a link when you make such claims :)
What the heck is a Dell W3 laptop? Did he mean Lenovo W5x0?
Thinking on getting an e-bike. Sounds like a good compromise between getting to the office soaked in sweat and doing some exercise on my way back and forth.
> If anyone is a threat to the Establishment, it is Rand Paul.

He's not a threat to the part of the Establishment which wants government regulation rolled back so they can pollute and play games with energy prices.
> How is that any different to information I store in my head?

It's the difference between a 4th Amendment issue and a 5th Amendment issue. Whether or not the police could search your phone used to fall squarely within the bounds of the 4th Amendment. If you encrypted it yourself, it would then be a 5th Amendment issue - you have a right to not self-incriminate.

With the new iPhones, someone else (Apple) decided to encrypt your phone for you in such a way as to prevent any searches, regardless of whether or not there's a warrant involved. In doing so, Apple created a class of evidence that cannot be searched. People here tend to frame that in terms of my phone or my data - why should the police be searching me? Most of us will never have a search warrant issued on us - they exist to collect evidence of crimes and we're generally not criminals. If you step back and and look at it from a law enforcement perspective, do you really want companies that manufacture popular devices suddenly deciding that data on their products cannot be used as evidence in a crime? I'll provide my own reductio ad absurdum in response to your brain-scanning argument and ask how you would feel if the cops told you "Sorry, there's nothing we can do. It looks like your spouse was shot with an iGun."

A split key solution would definitely stop a border guard - the data is still encrypted and cannot be decrypted without cooperation from all n parties that hold the pieces of the key. No, it won't technically stop them from installing a backdoor on your laptop, but I think you're kind of shifting goalposts with that argument. We're talking about warrants to decrypt data here.
Attlo: Email as never seen before. Literally. (Images in Subject Lines)
Totally agree. Especially since this is far from Ubuntu with GNOME skins. In fact it doesn't use GNOME at all. It's a completely custom built desktop environment.
And then there is his religious agenda like anti-abortion, anti same-sex marriages, anti mandatory vaccination etc...

So, this is an interesting ad-hominem, but something to consider is that, if a candidate is against pervasive government influence, they probably are also against using the .gov to enforce their ideology on other people.
Applicant tracking systems: key terms
Agree, its buried. http://blog.elementary.io/post/116134677986/freya-is-here in case if interested.
I have a different view on scams. I don't think they are productive, even in an economic sense, if one takes the long view.

A person who tries to succeed in life by scamming other people enters a war with reality. He may fool some people, for a certain period of time, but he is forced to constantly be looking over his shoulder. One lie leads to the need for additional lies.

Some people think this is fine, or that it's a price they are willing to pay in order to get away with stealing a million dollars or whatever. It's not worth it to me, however.

As regards Bill Gates, what he does with his money is his business. If he wishes to give it way in that manner, I'm fine with it.

I'd suggest, however, that Bill Gates worked many long hours to earn his money. So if you claim that giving it away is 0% productive, I think you're dropping the context of how he came to have the money in the first place.

Thoughts?
I disagree with many of Rand Paul's stances, but I think you're being misleading in saying that his stance on vaccination is related to his religious views. You should probably edit your comment to put that under a different category (like the preceding three blocks relating to his libertarian views).
I remember when Ron Paul ran in the primaries, and in one of the first debates from 2011 I believe, they asked the Republican candidates whether they support a stronger Patriot Act or not. Like all the other 4 or 5 other candidates tried to out-match each other in how much stronger they would like the Patriot Act and other such laws to be.

Ron Paul? He was the only one who said he would do away with it. Full stop. If only Rand Paul could reverse that majority of opinion this time in the debates, and force most candidates to say they'd also scale back on the mass surveillance, support repealing the Patriot, FISAA, EO12333, and possibly even pardon Snowden (probably even promising that in the campaign would be the best litmus test to see whether a candidate is actually serious about truly reforming the surveillance powers).
He's a traditional U.S. states' rights conservative, an ideal intersecting with classical liberalism - less common these days due to the widespread influence of neoconservatism.

He doesn't really touch on deeper libertarian or even minarchist philosophy at all. His stringent views on border security are also unusual for it (unless you're Hans-Hermann Hoppe).

His platform ultimately rests on anti-federalism.
I'm not in favor of a rand paul president, or even nominee. However I think it's great to at least have one candidate who can steer the conversation towards these issues.

Hopefully he will go after candidates on the left and right about this.
I work around 8 hours a day of which around 5 is billable. I work on my own projects and my clients'.

I don't bill for the time I spend researching in bed in the middle of the night to prepare for the next day. I'll wake up at say 3:00am with an idea/solution and I have to research it right then. I email the links to myself. I don't recommend this approach - it's probably not healthy.
Alright, two things..

(1) It seems you are just dismissing him and his father have similar ideas, which aren't necessarily any crazier than every other politician ever (i.e. social security is so awesome). Rand and Ron Paul both supported STATES rights, which lets be honest, makes it possible to move between states and have different taxes, laws, and unique experiences. This leads me to my second point...

(2) "His religious agenda" he's made it clear he doesn't have a agenda, he's not going to push any religious agenda because he seems (at least) to support the constitution. This means that,

(2a) Rand seems to support the President, Senate, House, and Supreme court all being separate. Constitutionally, the president doesn't control a state religion, abortion, marriage, etc.

(2b) Supporting the policy of letting the states determine their laws seems probably the most American thing to do. If you don't like it, you just move to a different state where people are like minded.

It's actually pretty awesome if you ask me, we can work together to defend our country, but live the way we want.

That is the American dream.
Designers take themselves so seriously... sometimes they need to be reminded about usability.
I take it you aren't one who has made any investments in Bitcoin over the past few years.
>http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/paul-repeats-baseless-vacci...

That quote is taken out of context. To quote the entire thing:

"The point is that I have heard of – I mean who hasn’t ever met a child who has a profound disability and in the parents’ mind they see a connection,” Paul said. “But I didn’t allege there is a connection. I said I heard of people who believe there is a connection. I do think that vaccines are a good idea. I’ve been vaccinated. My kids have been vaccinated."

>http://religiondispatches.org/rand-paul-we-wouldnt-need-laws...

The headlines says "Rand Paul: We Wouldn’t Need Laws If Everyone Were Christian". Paul never said anything like that. He said that "Christian values" like non-violence and such are good.
Personal stuff is difficult to write about
> Even a broken clock is right two times a day.

What matters though is which of these policies would actually get implemented if he becomes president. My guess is that ending NSA surveillance and the war on drugs would, the others not so much. You'd probably get a couple bad laws and a couple bad Supreme Court justices, but that's not much worse than you'd get with anyone else. I probably wouldn't vote for him for president, but I'd have no problem with him winning the Republican primary.
I'd think a better solution (that requiring full employee ownership) would be to remove as much of the per-employee cost as possible.

Make health insurance not tied to employment. (It could be universal coverage handled by the government, it could be what we're half trying where everyone buys their own. As long as it's not thru the employer, it doesn't matter for this.)

Make things like FMLA leave not depend on working enough hours.

Remove the caps that some payroll taxes have.

Some per-employee costs are unavoidable. If my team has 10 people instead of 5 people, and they're all available at different times, that's a cost. The work has to be divided differently, I have to remember more interpersonal crap, there will be communication delays, etc.

But as much as possible should either be handled by Someone Else or made dependent linearly on hours or pay, rather than being tied to employment as a boolean or to a threshold number of hours or amount of pay.
I don't think it's fair to call someone who advocates against abortion and same-sex marriages a libertarian.
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Rand_Paul.htm

Some of his positions:

Life begins at conception.

Endorsed Liberty Candidate: End the Federal Reserve.

Women won the "war on women": they're no longer downtrodden.

Punishing the rich means the poor lose their jobs.

Blacks look who's in prison & conclude cops out to get them.

EPA regulations cost $15 trillion in 2012.

Exit the UN; maintain US sovereignty.

Defund, repeal, & replace federal care with free market.

Defense should be largest part of much smaller budget.

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.

Economic growth comes when we lower taxes for everyone.

Voted NO on authorizing states to collect Internet sales taxes.

Tax cuts help the poor because local businesses will hire.

Yeah, no thanks.
Related: the UK trying to convince the US to give it nuclear secrets led to Windscale.
Meet Edgar: the only app that stops social media updates from going to waste
Could you explain what exactly you see as the difference between "I won't cooperate unless you subpoena me" and "I would like to cooperate, but I don't want this to affect my future job prospects, so please subpoena me"?
The OP is prompting the subpoena in either case, as far as I can tell. In either case, the other side can choose whether or not to subpoena him/her. I'm not sure I see any difference between the two...
I just can't get behind basic income. It makes sense from a very self-motivated individual's point of view (which many/most on HN are) but if you look at the majority of the country in my opinion most people are not driven this way.

I really feel like we would end up with a country where the majority just live on basic income and do nothing. At least now they must contribute to society on a basic level to earn an income, even if it is unsatisfactory (welfare and social programs aside).
If it had higher density, it would probably be less congested since people wouldn't need to drive to get to the corner store.
BuzzFeed may be 90% silly lists, but the fact that they want to be taken seriously as a source for real news and journalism means that it is important to hold them accountable to some basic standards of ethical behavior, like not quietly purging content at the behest of their advertisers and then lying about it.
I thought "mediocre" was the middle one third, rather than the middle two thirds? ;)
> Constitutionally, the president doesn't control a state religion, abortion, marriage, etc.

The Establishment Clause is pretty clear that states should not and cannot enact state religions, and its up to the federal government to enforce that.

The fact that Rand Paul is clearly biased by his religion makes him distinctly un-libertarian.
My name is associated with a lawsuit where I testified against a former employee. It's all in the public record, and if you try really hard, you can find all about it on Google. But it would take you a lot of work. Unless you get mentioned by name in all the associated press, you're probably safe, especially given your projects and presentations and blogs posts.
I'm saying that productive work is one way in which people can become more worthy of honor and respect.

For example, let's say you have two individuals. One gets married, fathers some children, and then decides that rather than supporting his family, he's going to sit around and play video games while his wife works 24x7 to try to take care of the family.

Another man, in the same circumstances, gets a job, works hard every day, studies things that he finds interesting, and eventually works himself into a job where he can easily support his family, to the point where the members of his family can engage in things that interest them.

Which man is more worthy of honor and respect? I would say the man in the second example.

Do you see it differently?
We have some models, but certainly none that are accurate for this kind of economic activity over the period of time we're talking about.
I think you need to be more precise about what you mean by "productive" before I can reply. Clearly you don't mean it in the economic sense (productivity is revenue/X where X is some measure of input, e.g. workers or hours). So what do you mean?
Because floor is a discontinuous function.

But you are right, what I meant is there is no way to define 0^0 maintaining continuity of the power function. Why is this important? Because power is a continuous function otherwise.
As I remember, elementaryOS originally was a customized GNOME, but they've since made everything their own.
Everyone has different opinions, such as Rand Paul's view on family/abortion/etc. Some people agree with his views, others don't.

However beyond that, you should be more educated before spouting historical "facts".

California Energy Deregulation: http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2013/10/13/after...

Federal Reserve History:
https://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/advisor/federal-100-years-de...

In this case, your clock is simply wrong 24 hours a day.
There is no such thing as a good candidate overall. Different citizens want different things.

But if the positions Rand Paul takes that you disagree with are the ones shared by other Republicans then you should still want Rand Paul to win the Republican nomination. Because if a Republican wins in the general election then at least it will be a Republican with the right position on mass surveillance, and if a Democrat wins then it will be a Democrat forced by Rand Paul to take more sensible positions on the issues that Rand Paul is right about.
no...

Barack Obama was viewed as a major contender for the Democratic Party nomination from the beginning of the primaries. He and Hillary were the only two candidates that had raised over $20MM in the first 3 months of 2007. So, 19 months before the election, the two serious democratic candidates had already taken the lead. In January 2008, Obama won 3 of the 4 first primaries, and tied with Hillary in the 4th.

Rand Paul is viewed as following in his father's footsteps, who was never taken seriously by the national party. In his best performance in 2012, Ron Paul only won the primary in the US Virgin Islands.
Savetify, Google Chrome extension for downloading songs on Spotify
High desert next in rain shadow of Sierras, so very dry, very little rain, sometimes snows significantly, but never that cold or hot. Big temperature swing between day and night. Often windy, sometimes ridiculously so. Not exactly climate, but sometimes there's smoke from forest or brush fires (and brush fires are a big problem in summer).

Source: grew up in Reno
My name is associated with a lawsuit where I testified against a former employee. It's all in the public record, but it's almost impossible to find using Google unless you know a few of the details. Like you, I've been creating a lot of my own content for a while and that's still what dominates the results for my name in Google. From a practical standpoint, unless you get mentioned by name in all the resulting press, you're probably safe.