BUT (there's always a 'but' isn't there). I'm skeptical. On two fronts:
First, it's becoming increasingly difficult to make reservations as a guest in a nice place unless you're planning 4-6 months ahead of time. Some people have the luxury of doing that, many do not. I've just taken reservations for both Xmas and New Year's eve at my place in NYC and it's barely the end of July.
As a guest, this irks me. I spent 3 weeks in London recently, booked the trip about a month in advance, and tried to no avail to find a place on AirBNB -- nada. All the nice places had been snapped up months ago, and the ones that were left were either shady brokers or absolute crap (it makes sense -- I wanted a 3 week booking. If a nice place had even a 1-day booking in that window, the whole place was unavailable). I ended up booking on HomeAway or FlipKey or one of their competitors.
Second, I feel in some sense, the tide is turning the other way on the regulation front. I've been lucky with my place in NYC in that I'm in an AirBNB-friendly building and I've had extremely good luck in getting terrific guests. But the regulatory environment is not AirBNB-friendly and it's getting less so. Several people who used to host in NYC have stopped doing so for fear (irrational or otherwise) of running afoul of the law.
I tried to host w/ my apartment in SF and within 72 hours of posting the listing, I received a very strongly-worded C&D letter from the building's management company staff attorney. They had someone in the office who constantly scanned for listings on AirBNB and came down hard and fast. Others have reported similar stories from HOAs and management companies.
So of course I want nothing but the best for AirBNB - I've a happy customer on both sides. But I don't think it's such a slam dunk as many seem to think it is...
I, for one, welcome it. It's time the market voiced their opinion over how much value these groups provide.
For example, take internet. Right now everyone can get cable/dsl but in many contracts it is against their terms to share it. I understand why because a lot of their #s are based around utilization. But I still feel in some way taken advantage of.
I'm 27. Most people I know have not stayed in an Airbnb rental, or considered becoming hosts. They haven't heard of it, or they're reluctant to stay with a stranger.
Eventually, positive word of mouth will convince them to try. They just have to like it once and they'll do it again.
Friedman tried to paint Airbnb as massive, but all I can think about it how tiny it still is compared to the global hotel industry.
You may say that for use case X, a hotel would be better. Fine. But I'd estimate 80% of the market hasn't tried Airbnb, and X% of them will switch once they do.
It also seems like there was a large shift in (or discovery of) the willingness of individuals to participate in the way that makes sharing work. I suspect that many other innovations will be primarily social ones enabled by the internet (the watsi model?), and that these will be just as powerful as, say, graphene or spacex.
What are some other sharing ideas that are out there?
I think women's fashion could benefit from something like this, sharing shoes - dresses, gowns etc. Think of all the money that is spent on weddings, proms, etc.
For the typical man, power tools and machinery. The one guy in town with the Bridgeport will make out like a bandit.
Neighbours let each other borrow sugar or borrow an egg. - There's definitely a location aspect involved in all of this. Vacations are different because you're specifically going to some place far away. Maybe otherwise, you shouldn't focus on a single type of item, and simply connect the nearby community with a focus on sharing any and everything.
The ideas in the piece clearly aren't new for most of us on HackerNews, but I would contend they're not really new for many in the general public either.
There have been many mainstream news stories about the sharing economy. And even battles in big cities (SF, NY) over regulation. I would've guessed that this was already on many people's radar.
I like the idea of something like this, with a local non-monetary exchange currency.
The United States life expectancy of 78.4 years at birth, up from 75.2 years in 1990, ranks it 50th among 221 nations, and 27th out of the 34 industrialized OECD countries, down from 20th in 1990. Of 17 high-income countries studied by the National Institutes of Health in 2013, the United States had the highest or near-highest prevalence of infant mortality, heart and lung disease, sexually transmitted infections, adolescent pregnancies, injuries, homicides, and disability. Together, such issues place the U.S. at the bottom of the list for life expectancy. On average, a U.S. male can be expected to live almost four fewer years than those in the top-ranked country.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the United States spent more on health care per capita ($8,608), and more on health care as percentage of its GDP (17.9%), than any other nation in 2011. The Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among similar countries, and notes U.S. care costs the most.
Is it mandatory insurance? Insurance doesn't make everything affordable, but it probably wild have been helpful. Though maybe the co-pay would have been $50k.
Universal tax-payer funded insurance? The term "tax payer" is interesting because politicians and pundits forget that we're all tax payers in one form or another. Granted some pay more, some are net consumers of govt services. But tax payers mean us, and those with more earned income more than those with less. I think the main difference between taxes and donation is choice.
Single-payer or government provided healthcare? Pretty sure that no one would identify the government as the picture perfect example of efficiency. Plus, putting elected officials or their appointees in charge of handing out goods and services doesnt seem to be sustainable. Not that putting profit seeking entities in charge has yielded the ideal result.
Making drug providers, healthcare providers and everyone else in that supply chain non-profit? Profit has enormous motivational powers. Not always for good. But it is pretty amazing what can be accomplished by organizations setup to create wealth.
Big Data? Sorry, I couldn't resist. Well, lets use that as a proxy for innovation. It would seem that greater opportunity for innovation would help. Lower barriers to trying new drugs, procedures, diet, treatments would allow for potentially lower cost solutions to be created.
Separating health care from your job? Of your insurer only needs you to be healthy until you find a new job, there's not much in incentive for long-term healthcare and preventative screenings to identify tumors and other problems before they become an expensive problem. Though that would seem to be an arguement in favor of a single payer system.
Sorry, I don't have an answer. Hopefully, great stories like the OP continue. But if we don't make it scale then we haven't really done all we possibly can do.
I lived in the US for two years, and I never understood the aversion to government healthcare. The Canadian system is far from perfect, and I know there are failures. But it's still a lot better than soliciting for online charity on a case by case basis.
I'm impressed and humbled that it worked in this case. Just a little disturbed that it was necessary at all.
David Goldhill is the author of Catastrophic Care: How American Health Care Killed My Father--and How We Can Fix It
He advocates restricting the insurance system gradually and phasing out eventually, to increase accountability and vastly improve delivery standards.
His father was afflicted by a series of hospital infections that compounded his condition and eventually killed him.
When admitted in hospitals, he was thrice subjected to medical procedures that were meant for other people.
This Atlantic article is eminently readable.
How American Health Care Killed My Father
P.S.: I am from Pakistan.
which covers some of the points in the TC article.
AirBNB, by contrast, is creating new supply, and that supply is in turn only being sold to AirBNB users. As an AirBNB host, it would be very good for me if I was constantly full of people making one day stays and then disappearing forever.
Similarly, if the businesses offering groupons were still profiting from them at the margins even without assumptions of repeat business, then these "locusts" wouldn't be taking value away either.
EDIT: found http://www.ribbonfarm.com/for-new-readers/. Onto the Kindle you go.
Even though it's "just CSS"...I think CSS Zen Garden, and other sites like it, were absolutely critical to my web development career. Not because I specialized in web design, but because it demonstrated that CSS was cool...and not just some other syntax to learn (which, when you're new to web development, can be quite intimidating).
Zen Garden inspired me to learn CSS...and it wasn't the CSS itself that was important, but the concept that CSS is based on: separation of presentation and content...something that is very hard to grok until you just do it...Zen Garden's fantastic demos encouraged me to try it out, even if I could never match the site's artistry.
And if I had never gotten the concept of separation down...I don't think I would be a web developer today. I think the maintenance of even a simple personal website built on inline HTML would've driven me to quit web development long ago...
That said, in my career (which admittedly hasn't been focused on design), I've never been in a situation where a client has wanted to redesign the site and to do so was just a task of rewriting the CSS sheets, no matter how well-written the HTML templates were. Redesigns almost always go hand-in-hand with addition of new features, technology, and content...the architectural ideal that CSS Zen Garden strives for is a great one, but it doesn't seem to occur often in professional work.
On the subject of CSS, I've often thought it would be great if somebody made a sort of 'CSS koans.' Like each koan would be a little puzzle where you manipulate the box model etc. to get the desired physical layout.
Some fantastic designs produced by it though.
BTW, here's the design I sent... 8 years ago o_O
This site was my inspiration for a senior project in an independent study class on web design where I surprised and completely redesigned my teacher's website while only changing the CSS file, and the original site was not designed well - at all.
This let people experiment on the side, which sometimes failed, but sometimes discovered something useful. It takes some of the risk out of startups in the very early stages. By contrast my employer in the UK at the time claimed that anything I invented while employed by them (eg new cat food) would be owned by them, no matter how unrelated and no employer equipment used.
I would also like to thank the creator of rubular for inspiring me to create my own service with extended features. I have from rubular recreated the regex quick-reference table (with some slight modification). The same goes for the welcome popup used on the index page. If there is any concern, feel free to send me an email and I will address the issue immediately.
I have recently released a new update for regex101 where I pretty much recoded everything; the entire explaination and colorizer engine. They are still not perfect, and I'm not fully satisfied with the code, but its way way better than it was before. I will probably remake it when I get more time on my hands.
A list of all that has been fixed would take too long to write up, but I have added some of the things I have most commonly been asked:
- Changeable delimiters
- Alternating color matches
- Bigger editor
- Wider and more accurate explanations
- Samples on how to use regex (automatically generated)
Until then I ask you guys to please tell me what you think of the current features, suggest new ones and please report any bugs you might encounter :).
If you want to help me out with the website, send me a message!
Thanks in advance!
How do you enter a tab character in the test string without losing focus of the text field?
When I start typing the regex, the cheatsheet gets pushed below the visible part of the page as the "explanation" section expands itself. It would be nice if the cheat sheet remained next to the regex field as I typed in the regex.
1. The ability to escape a string when searching using vi:http://www.0x11.net/regex/escaper.py
2. Lots of regex examples with a description of how they work.
Thanks for making it!
Edit: I did bookmark it, it was just so long ago that it ended up being overshadowed.
It's a similar concept, except that the matching is highlighted in the same input field of your target value.
I realize that they are just little sub-dialects that I need to learn the rules of but I've never had a project which required me to take the time to write extensive regular expressions.
On the rare occasion that I do need to use a regular expression I find tools like this to be invaluable.
This tool looks particularly nice.
Community Forum section, online quiz, even IRC placed right within the page!
My favorite feature is definitely the ability to share a regular expression you've created via a link.
Nice work! (also I just followed https://twitter.com/regex101)
Would love to talk about other ways to work together as well drop me a line: firstname.lastname@example.org
I also really like the community submitted regexes. But, on that note, what's to prevent someone from submitting all of the quiz solutions to the 'community'? Are the submissions occasionally moderated?
I have appreciated this website for a while now. For those who don't know, Lindrian is also often active on #regex on freenode IRC, which is a great place to get feedback on regexes. (Or to just be told many times not to use regexes to parse HTML.)
From Google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mr8RddZ...
This is not available yet, and appears it will only run after the developing company, WigWag, completes their Kickstarter campaign and start shipping products.
The nice thing though is that besides being able to run on their proprietary device, it will also run on Raspberry Pi.
Designers do this stuff because they have ideas about how devices and interfaces can change and they explore those ideas. It doesn't seem to me that Johnny is making claims about inside information. He's using his visual talents to create mockups of what might be possible in the future.
The medium is different, but the process isn't any different than sci-fi writers setting stories in the future or me making UI wireframes for an application. It's just ways of exploring what could be done.
The last point is to realize that this is most likely just personal portfolio work. Some of us have github profiles and others have PSD's. Just think about the exposure Johnny is getting out of this and how it might get him more work in the future. That's the best reason for him to make this.
where the screen comes round the edge of the surface. Pretty, and a lot more likely to be in production this decade.
One question: why not a 1920x1080 screen? The Galaxy S4 already has that resolution.
2) Not going to happen
And moisture is the essence of wetness.
Arguably the biggest hardware leap so far was the 3gs -> 4, and that was limited to an aesthetic re-envisioning, a camera improvement, screen resolution upgrade, and processor bump.
This design showcases improvements that Apple would likely spread out over 3 generations: everything listed for their biggest leap above, plus new input mechanisms, new connector, significantly less heft, and waterproofing (!!).
Don't get me wrong -- I'd buy this in an instant, but it looks more like iPhone 8, than 6.
Translation: the passwords were stored using dumb MD5/SHA1. Seriously, it's 2013, why can't 99% of the web get their act together when it comes to password hashing?
If it is an attack, it just means a time bandit for the admins I suppose...
I can't think of a Range that is not meant to be continuous...I would test out some cases right now if my computer weren't grinding away at a database insertion process...
edit: OK, tried it out....as I suspected, Ranges that consists of Strings will have different behavior:
 pry(main)> ('aa'..'zz').include?('c') => false  pry(main)> ('aa'..'zz').cover?('c') => true  pry(main)> ('aa'..'zz').include?('cc') => true  pry(main)> ('aa'..'zz').cover?('cc') => true  pry(main)> ('aa'..'zz').cover?('cccccc')
There's absolutely no need to go hitchhiking in the C source in this case.
"3.days.ago" at least by default is a TimeWithZone object in Rails.
3.days.ago.class => ActiveSupport::TimeWithZone
Calling .include? should be equivalent to .to_a.include? in effect.
Secondly, this article is far more verbose than necessary when compared to the succinct 5-paragraph explanation provided by David Flanagan in "The Ruby Programming Language" p. 69-70 
It's great that you took a chance to dive into the source of Ruby. Nonetheless, it's times like these when I wish people would understand that the best way to learn a programming language is by example AND by documentation (whether official docs or books). Those that ONLY learn by example fail to understand or unlock the true power of a language until it's too late.
Coursera (23 courses) https://www.coursera.org/courses?orderby=upcoming&lngs=en&ca...
Udacity (5 courses) https://www.udacity.com/courses
edX (10 courses) https://www.edx.org/course-list/allschools/math/allcourses
There's also a more-recently launched Computerphile, which has some interesting vids, as well: https://www.youtube.com/user/Computerphile
Also, the author of this article, Paul Offit, is has serious credibility and corruption problems beyond writing articles designed to mislead people.
He has previously claimed that it is perfectly safe for children to take "10,000 vaccines at once" (and originally he claimed 100,000 but reduced it when it was questioned). Even understanding the benefits of vaccines, there are trade offs with them and it is certainly not safe to take 10,000 at once. Offit holds a $1.5 million dollar research chair which is funded by Merck. He also sold the right to his future royalties of a vaccine he developed for $182 million, of which he received around $46 million for a rotavirus vaccine. This was interesting since he had previously pushed this vaccine during his job at the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which was a serious conflict of interest that ended up making him quite rich.
Here is an interesting investigative report into Offit's conflicts of interest and hiding of financial relationships.
Doesn't seem like that's quite the same thing.
Personally, I take omega 3, vitamin D (gelcaps, it's fat-soluble), and kelp (for iodine) daily. That article doesn't say much about those.
Also, the ending of the article destroys its credibility. The author is no less an intellectual hack than the people he writes about.
My personal experience is that older folks (>65) get stuck more firmly than younger folks. It is especially sad when someone you care about deeply believes so strongly in a reality that exists only for them.
- Oxygen- Power, Sex, Suicide
If you want a fascinating, very readable, well laid out argument against the entire notion of antioxidant supplementation (as well as a fascinating, technical but not too technical, pop-sci read) these are it.
tl;dr: Ingested antioxidants have no way to target the specific area in mitochondria where the damage would take place, and even if they did, it would probably be negative because free radicals are an essential cell signaling mechanism that aids in weeding out damaged cells.
He said "Americans have the most expensive urine in the world."
Focus on a healthy, balanced diet and make sure you include enough variety focusing on plenty of colorful vegetables, fruits and nuts. Exercise regularly and take good care of your body getting enough sleep and enough sunshine.
Is that not enough?
The article seems to focus on them as cures - which they are not. Saying that a vitamin is a cure for anything is like saying a loaf of bread is a cure.
Vitamins are fuel - the more intense activities you do, the more you use them.
IF you have a good diet, you don't need multivitamins/supplements. But if you have a homogenous diet (eat the same thing every day and nothing else), then vitamins and supplements are much more useful than harmful.
Moreover, no matter what diet you have, if you do bodybuilding or intensive physical or mental exertion, vitamins and minerals from supplements are almost a must.
It's like using normal fuel vs jet fuel - no matter how good your bioreactor (stomach) is, it just cannot extract all the vitamins and minerals you need for that kind of exertion.
Most bodybuilders know that a dose of pure protein powder is much more effective for muscle building than any amount of meat or cheese. Same goes for glutamine and other supplements, and of course vitamins.
The article also focuses on megadoses - well, no s#@t, a megadose of anything is bad for you. 3 grams of vitamin C per day is batshit insane in my book - 500-1000mg is more than enough.
But don't just take what I said at face value. Like Einstein said, don't trust everything you read on the Internet - check with several different sources, read some research abstracts before making up your mind and storing ANY information as true in your brain.
But a year ago there was a large, randomized, double-blind study (not something most of these studies can claim) that measured a regular dose multivitamin, not huge megadose supplements that tend to focus on one or two compounds. The result showed 8% fewer cancers. The subjects were all men and were all doctors, so one could infer that they were much healthier than average. I've been taking a simple multivitamin since. I wouldn't be shocked to learn in ten years that I'm doing the wrong thing, but this is the most convincing study I've seen in any direction.
This market is truly caveat emptor.
Two years later the same journal published another study on vitamin supplements. In it, 18,000 people who were at an increased risk of lung cancer because of asbestos exposure or smoking received a combination of vitamin A and beta carotene, or a placebo. Investigators stopped the study when they found that the risk of death from lung cancer for those who took the vitamins was 46 percent higher.
Chances are you don't need it, and I think the body is really good at snatching up things it needs when that pill rolls by.
(I worried about the kidney/etc burden of daily excess, but the idea that daily excess could spur excess in the form of cancer does not surprise.)
It's every bit as important, in my opinion, to not eat killer foods, as it is to eat vegetables. That is, a neutral effect alone would be enough to show dramatic health improvements. This is where the pro vitamin arguments went wrong from day one.
Water isn't a miracle elixir that cures cancer. Strip out all high fructose corn syrup and sugar from all American beverages, and the equivalent conclusion would be to suggest that water cures obesity, diabetes and cancer (when in fact the absence of sugar and HFCS is what's doing the trick).
Also, telling me that people took vitamins without showing me their specific day to day diets and exercise routines, is absurdity to put it very mildly. Dietary input and exercise is radically more important than the vitamins in the health outcomes.
We sought to keep our baby clothes especially and up to about age 3 clothes as neutral as possible for that reason.
Pink as an effeminate color has always seemed kind of arbitrary to me. I just can't see how a color would have a specific gender.
> Add a user for our project and give him a decent password:
Better off not giving the encbox user a password at all and only allow SSH key based login. You can already login to the primary/root account and sudo/su to setup the encbox user and copy SSH keys.
$ ssh-copy-id email@example.com
What is special about their VPS offering that makes it so cheap? I mean, from what I can see for an extra $2/month they let you host websites and install anything you want (except torrents, TOR or anything illegal).
I've been wanting to have an affordable VPS solution so I could be host my own stuff, and have the freedom to experiment with various development tools, and this might be a decent deal.
>Will you backup my Backup VPS?
> Unfortunately, no. Even though we use a RAID protected setup, there is still a slight chance of data loss due to RAID controller failure. For extreme redundancy you can order 2 backup VPS in different nodes and we can mirror them for you ("Configure it for me" addon should be purchased).
It was thoughtful of the blog author to quote Gladwell's reply in full (as it appears he did). Gladwell is easy enough to misunderstand that I have had occasion to mention this on Hacker News before. Gladwell is a professional writer, and he does quite a lot of research on unfamiliar subjects that promise to include interesting story angles. In the subjects that I research for my own writing, I have more often than not discovered that Gladwell does a better than average job of finding and citing good sources. He originates few new scientific hypotheses himself, but he writes interesting and thought-provoking stories about leading scientists in disciplines facing tough problems. Any reader of a Malcolm Gladwell book (as I know, from being a reader of the book Outliers ) can check the sources, and decide from there what other sources to check and what other ideas to play with. Gladwell doesn't purport to write textbooks, but I give him a lot of credit for finding interesting scholarly sources that haven't had enough attention in the popular literature. He is equaled by very few authors as a story-teller who can tie ideas together in a thought-provoking assembly.
Gladwell has said in an interview by a journalist that he writes to try out ideas:
"Q: Do you worry that you extrapolate too much from too little?
"A: No. It's better to err on the side of over-extrapolation. These books are playful in the sense that they regard ideas as things to experiment with. I'm happy if somebody reads my books and reaches a conclusion that is different from mine, as long as the ideas in the book cause them to think. You have to be willing to put pressure on theories, to push the envelope. That's the fun part, the exciting part. If you are writing an intellectual adventure story, why play it safe? I'm not out to convert people. I want to inspire and provoke them."
I wonder how the US military has changed culturally over the past few decades. As an outsider, I have presumed that the purpose of degrading training programs, continual demonstrations of the power of officers (parade reviews, etc.), and required social proof of the officers' power and authority (stand and salute upon the officer entering a room) all were designed to avoid argument, hesitation, or doubt when an officer tells his soldiers in battle to charge forth toward an enemy firing upon them. To win an infantry battle, such obedience probably is necessary. Imagine if only a small fraction of the soldiers were willing to advance -- they would likely be much worse off than if all the soldiers advanced at once.
However, this nearly blind obedience surely comes at a price. Can a junior guy tell an officer that he is unsure of a drone target's validity? It strikes me that a modern military operation is much more like a large scale construction project or perhaps software development than traditional trench warfare. In these civilian endeavors, the price of hesitation to consider alternative opinions likely is low compared to the cost of being wrong. Has the military changed?
It sounds like Malcolm Gladwell's publisher never bothered to fact check the piece with an actual airline pilot before publishing.
But I can't help but wonder if these same cultural factors can go both ways and maybe we're obsessively focusing on just one effect. For example, it might be that deference to hierarchy and older people leads to children taking responsibility and care of their parents in old age more. It might even be that the elderly in these places live longer and more happier lives as a result and that this outweighs the (still tragic but rare) plane accident.
It reminds me a bit of the terrorism situation in the US. We obsess over these things which are relatively rare and spend great effort to eliminate. But what are we losing in the process?
I was no longer able to take Malcolm Gladwell seriously on _any_ subject.
The major hollywood movie studios have filed a motion for contempt against the popular torrent site isoHunt, arguing that a court-ordered piracy filter is not working properly. The MPAA informs the court that isoHunt has deliberately engineered the filter to ensure that it is ineffective and wants the site to turn over its source code to prove their claims. In addition, the MPAA wants millions of dollars in compensation for the damages the studios have suffered through the isoHunt site.
isohuntAlmost three years ago the U.S. District Court of California ordered BitTorrent search engine isoHunt to start filtering its search results.
The injunction was the result of isoHunts protracted court battle with the MPAA that began back in 2006. The Court ordered the owner of isoHunt to censor the sites search engine based on a list of thousands of keywords provided by the MPAA, or cease its operations entirely in the U.S.
isoHunt implemented the filter for U.S. visitors which allowed it to remain online, but at the same time owner Gary Fung took his case to the Court of Appeals. Through the appeal, isoHunt hoped to reverse the permanent injunction, but this didnt come to pass.
With the appeal concluded the movie studios are now asking for a summary judgment, hoping that the court awards them compensation for the many pirated movies that were downloaded via the isoHunt site. In addition, the MPAA has filed a motion for contempt claiming that the current keyword filter on the isoHunt Lite site is not doing its job.
The Isohunt Lite filtering problems are too serious and consistent to be mere matters of innocent mistake or unavoidable filtering leakage as Defendants have variously claimed, the MPAA tells the court, suggesting that isoHunt is making these mistakes intentionally to keep up its profits.
The record to date supports the inference that Defendants have deliberately engineered the filter to ensure that it is ineffective in preventing access to Plaintiffs copyrighted works. As the Court found, because Defendants profit from infringement, they have a powerful economic incentive to continue providing users with access to Plaintiffs popular movies and television programs.
Backed up by screenshots, the MPAA cites several examples of popular movies whose titles are on the ban list, but are still available thought the site.
One work on Plaintiffs title list is the popular film Zero Dark Thirty for which Plaintiffs provided Defendants the movie title, release date and media type. Yet, the movie is available to any Isohunt Lite user who looks for it. Typing the term Zero Dark Thirty into Isohunt Lites search box returns innumerable dot torrent files for the movie.MPAAs screenshot of isoHunt
The movie studios argue that nearly all movies are still accessible through the site, which would mean that isoHunt is not in compliance with the injunction. While isoHunt has claimed that these are mere mistakes, the MPAA believes that it supports their motion for contempt.
These are not isolated instances. Virtually every movie Plaintiffs looked for using Isohunt Lite returned innumerable dot torrent files for Plaintiffs copyrighted works. Defendants so-called filter does not even appear to block access to dot torrent files that match a movies exact title, MPAA writes.
Facially, such a filter is wholly ineffective and cannot be the basis of compliance with an injunction that enjoins Defendants from hosting, indexing, linking to, or otherwise providing access to any Dot-torrent or similar files that correspond, point or lead to any of the Copyrighted Works.
The MPAA asks the court to order isoHunt to hand over all filter-related source code and databases, so the movie studios can show that the filtering failures are not innocent mistakes or mere unavoidable leakage.
TorrentFreak asked isoHunt owner Gary Fung for a comment on the allegations put forward by the MPAA, but he chose not to respond at this time.
It is clear that the MPAA is not letting the isoHunt case rest just yet. In addition to the motion for contempt there is also a motion for summary judgment pending. The movie studios are currently in the process of calculating the damages they have suffered as a result of isoHunts operations, which is expected to be in the millions.
The MPAA previously won a $110 million judgment against the TorrentSpy site, and its expected the damages claimed against isoHunt will be in the same range, or perhaps even higher.
This filter was a bad idea from the beginning. If someone had ordered my business to do something like this, I would have said "You build a working filter without any help from me and you can order me to install it if it is compatible, but you can't order me to build a working filter because that's indentured servitude"
Follow-up question: how come the Usenet providers are not caught in this dragnet?
It's that lack of "real" authority that makes DHS seem less desirable than its parts being moved into "real" departments.
In other words...think of your reaction when a police officer has a gun in your face telling you to place your hands slowly where he can see them...and a mall cop who is bellowing at you to put your hands in the air "or else". The former situation is materially less pleasant, but you may psychologically be OK with it because "the cop is doing his job and cops put their lives on the line, and also, he has the power of the Law behind him, and, Law & Order is a great show"...whereas with the mall cop, your life is never in danger and yet you have contempt with someone trying to assert authority in his small pathetic world.
With DHS (in some people's opinion), and seemingly, these Chinese rule enforcers, you could have the worst of both worlds...a poorly trained government official who oversteps his very limited authority and yet has the ability to ruin your life, legally.
Not much different from the US, iow.
If I was the law firm, I'd fire the lawyer.
From my experience (gleaned from dutifully reading every Bitcoin-related article I can get my hands on) I am very wary of reading about any topic which the author admits to just having learnt about yesterday.
The majority of the time, unfortunately, English majors aren't the best at understanding technology.
this is a tough thing to google for. Terms I used a few weeks ago
- authorship attribution/verification
- grammatical analysis, plagiarism detection
Analysing sites like HN to see indicators(!) for sockpuppets or generally correlation of likelihood between accounts' writing styles would rock!
Nah, I must be dreaming.
Say you want to pretend to be another author: first build a language model of the target author, then use the model to single out sentences of high perplexity from your writing. Then, have the model "rewrite" your sentences by replacing your words with synonyms of higher n-gram probabilities according to the model. Similar things can be done to fool the character n-gram analyses, or analyses above words (e.g., parses).
This is either marketing or fear of public reception of her non-Potter book (imagine the pressure she must have). Either way, this is crap.
Coincidentally yesterday I snapped and decided that no longer was I happy using a URL forwarding service that requires configuration or running a web server that redirects old domains, so I built http://cnamer.com/.
subdomain.source.com. CNAME google.com.cnamer.com.
cnamer.samryan.co.uk. CNAME minotar.net-opts-query.true-querystring.avatar-querystring.citricsquid.cnamer.com.
The code powering it sucks at the moment and I intend on adding the ability to use TXT records to set the redirect but it /works/ for now.
Almost always you'll want to redirect a bare domain like iskettlemanstillopen.com to www.iskettlemanstillopen.com. Registrars like Namecheap and DNSimple call this a URL Redirect.
If anyone wants to help, I'm pretty confident a Space based encoding would greatly improve DNS:
 - http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-li...
Also the awareness of the hazards of lead, such as in lead paint and gasoline. A study showed the stunningly high lead levels in the blood of the prison population.
Despite the proliferation of increasingly dangerous weapons and the very large increase in rates of serious criminal assault, since 1960, the lethality of such assault in the United States has dropped dramatically. This paradox has barely been studied and needs to be examined using national time-series data. Starting from the basic view that homicides are aggravated assaults with the outcome of the victims death, we assembled evidence from national data sources to show that the principal explanation of the downward trend in lethality involves parallel developments in medical technology and related medical support services that have suppressed the homicide rate compared to what it would be had such progress not been made. We argue that research into the causes and deterrability of homicide would benefit from a lethality perspective that focuses on serious assaults, only a small proportion of which end in death.
industry rules require that all that metal cannot simply sit in a warehouse forever. At least 3,000 tons of that metal must be moved out each day.
Moreover, said rule means (among other things) that no manufacturer can hold a strategic reserve of aluminum for unexpected spikes in demand without playing the games that Goldman is playing. Naturally, the response of the New York Times is that we need more such rules and regulations, that next time we'll anticipate their consequences, that the only failing is that they haven't been "strict" enough.
But the "stricter" the rule, the more that little guys get hit with it while Goldman uses teams of lawyers to define and then exploit a safe harbor. In this sense, Goldman and the NYT are in cahoots: "strict" regulations directly benefit big companies.
A safe harbor is a provision of a statute or a regulation that reduces or eliminates a party's liability under the law, on the condition that the party performed its actions in good faith or in compliance with defined standards. Legislators may include safe-harbor provisions to protect legitimate or excusable violations, or to incentivize the adoption of desirable practices.
> I frankly dont see that much of a downside.
I think Windows taking over the world from 1995 to 2008 has absurdly destroyed lot of hacker interest in computing devices. I'm talking about those born around 93 - 96 that grew up during complete Microsoft dominance. There is no (good) terminal, until recently the development environments and toolchains were behind paywalls or not included, and terrible habits like "reformat when something breaks" emerged because of how undocumented and malignant a lot of DOS / NT's behavior acted. By raising a generation on closed platforms, they completely avoid realizing the inherent mutability of internal systems in these devices, and I think this promoted a huge amount of the computer illiteracy we see rampant today. Microsoft did give people what they wanted - brainless easy computing that takes no thought and was effectively consumable and disposable - but at the cost of a lot of engineering potential if they had distributed a tinker-able sandbox rather than a black box. Rather than be knowledgable about the workings of their devices (which are more and more taking over their lives) they are dependent on them but know nothing about them besides how to smack the keyboard or tap the facebook button.
Bill has done a lot of good in education outside this, but the undercurrents of the Microsoft takeover of consumer electronics for 2 decades will have lasting negative implications on computing for probably an entire generation. We don't know what the alternative might have been, but I know from my peers (I'm 21) there is an absurd amount of illiteracy and apathy to these devices because they were raised on Microsoft products and expect it to work or just replace it, rather than hack it to fix it. This doesn't even start on how the majority of web devs seem to be 25 - 40 explicitly because they grew up on netscape, telnet, etc and not IE. I see a firm line right around where XP came out when the entire browser space collapsed into IE where anyone currently 15 - 20 I know had a significant drop in web tech interest as a result.
> Anybody who thinks getting rid of [patent law] would be better I can tell you, thats crazy, Gates said. My view is its working very well.
Patents seem to still work (due to their short duration), so I'm not arguing patents, but copyright has destroyed a supermajority (I see estimates in the ballpark of 95%) of media and content created for the last hundred years because it all died and all copies were lost while still outside the public domain. There is a reason all modern media takes its roots from 16th - 19th century media - that is the only place you can reference without landing in a lawsuit minefield.
However, I see no reason at all why all this nonsense can't be abolished and culturally we could move towards a systemic crowdfunding approach where people propose ideas, everyone invests in the creation of their ideas, and the result is inherently public domain. The creator eats, the public benefits from any idea someone may have, and we don't end up with a huge fraction of culture and innovation lost under a rug of time.
I love Bill Gates for the good he does with his money, but I'm not going to blindly agree with him just because hes a genius or because hes rich and popular. I think Microsoft had a lot of systemic societal damage, and that IP law is completely out of control and unnecessary in this day and age.
More like 'indoctrinating 90% of the population in one sphere to demand the substandard, then profiting massively, then flailing around wildly with charitable work to try to cover your shame"
If the lion only had to get close, it would clearly win by just continuously running directly towards the target. The curve it traced would cover less distance whenever the target was forced to turn, and so the lion can get arbitrarily close (assuming things like an instantaneous reaction time).
The important detail, that allows the man to escape when the positions must match exactly, is that the lion's tracing-smaller-curve advantage goes down as it gets closer. It has to match the turns being made by the man more and more exactly in order to not lose ground. Work out the result, and the corresponding infinite sequence fails to converge.
There are a few obvious differences. The first being, in orbits, we (intuitively) use a time interval of 0. More importantly, in orbits, the sun is accelerating to the planets current position, not moving towards it. Formally speaking, I cannot see the connection between the stragety presented in the article and orbits, but intuitivly I feel like there is one.
Differential game theory poses these situations as optimal control problems, with evaders and pursuers each having a separate control and opposite objective functions.
Surprisingly, for every continuous man strategy, there is a continuous lion strategy that can catch the man by time T where T is the disc radius divided by the lion's speed.
Restricting to continuous strategies in some other lion-man games actually leads to other paradoxes such as both lion and man having a "winning" strategy. The shallow resolution of the paradox is that two such winning strategy cannot actually be played against each other.
The deeper resolution is that even continuous strategies can be unphysical if they allow for information to travel at infinite speed (e.g., if the man is modelled as knowing the lion's current speed and velocity, special relativity notwithstanding). I'm not aware a proof in the literature, but presumably continuity of strategies plus an information speed limit will avoid the above paradoxes. (Continuous-time game theory is still very immature compared to discrete-time game theory.)
That said, in San Francisco the grasshopper tacos were banned  even though people did like them and people back in Oxaca apparently suffer no ill effects from eating them.
So given that good marketing (grasshopper tacos) can overcome western sensitivities, it offers the possibility that farming bugs for human consumption can in fact be a worthwhile endeavor.
There were some disappointed people when I ran my test and they tried to buy crickets or mealworms just to find out I didn't actually have any.
Ultimately I decided not to mess with it because I'm not very excited by eating insects myself. I've tried a few things (crickets and mealworms) and while they didn't taste bad, they didn't taste like much of anything... I foresaw the eating of many insects in order to make it succeed and it's pretty tough to get excited about :)
I've tried to raise crickets to feed a pet bearded dragon. I followed all the guidelines, but generally could never even keep them alive let alone get them to reproduce. I don't think this is quite as easy as it's made to sound.
It's odd because you see crickets everywhere in the wild, they must be pretty hardy, but I utterly failed trying to "farm" them.
Maybe have these farms available for very poor countries?
I just don't see the desire to eat crickets and worms.
And forget about a social life or dating once they find out you raise and eat crickets and worms, doesn't matter how good you are at explaining the concept.
Am I missing something?
If anyone wants to try something let me know. The store has blemished items cheap and I could mail some out this week.
Off to find some nice night-crawlers...
Of course, I imagine it would be a lot harder (and maybe more subjective) to come up with a different metric for success, since not all startups wind up publicly traded (and therefore required to report their financials) and some are acquired in deals where the terms aren't reported, etc.
Anyway, even if we use funding as the metric of success, what are we supposed to do with the data from this analysis? Is it supposed to suggest where one should choose to go to school, or to suggest that other schools should try to mirror aspects of the schools listed, or what?
Also, maybe schools with MBA programs might need to be compared separately. Princeton doesn't have one, and seems to lack somewhat in terms of on campus non-technical founders.
While this article may portray the trend as "universities that produce successful startup founders", it's very possible that it may actually be something like "prestigious universities attract people that come from well connected families who have an easier time creating a successful startup".
I have very little faith in higher educational institutions' ability to actually educate and prepare people like potential startup founders for the real world. This trend of successful startup founders coming out of prestigious universities makes a lot more sense when you consider that high-end unis tend to attract people from affluent, well connected backgrounds.
This isn't to say that rich kids have an easier time creating startups. Rather, I think that affluent families typically become affluent through the ability to form business connections with people, and the ability to form a vast contact network. Through parental influence, these attributes are passed to the children who go on to attend prestigious universities, and eventually create a business for themselves.
The field of endeavor may have more to do with it than ambition. Pittsburgh startups are disproportionately in biotech, for example, which tends to be capital-intensive.
Cargo cult success metrics are bad for everyone.
Its worth noting that Tel Aviv University, an Israeli university, ties Duke University at 21 and unfortunately just missed making the chart.
And today I learned that Stanford ant MIT were not part of the Ivy League ;)
Granted that this does not apply to every case and there are true bootstrapping stories out there, but the fact of the matter is that wealth generates wealth and capitalism is the trademark of the startup industry. It has very little to do with the actual education in the end.