Ardit20

I would need case authority for that proposition.

I would not for example see how my comment would be any different from any other article which you can not simply post in your blog as it is copyrightable. I do not either see for example how it would be different from say mentioning a great idea I told a friend I was going to implement yet goes on to implement it himself.

The boundaries are yet to be defined for certain, but I do not see how one can reason that others should be freely able to record my speech in a permanent form without making me know so.

If Hacker News in their terms and conditions stated that they owned all that I contributed and made this blatantly obvious, then fine, but otherwise, all that I have stated is mine, and within my authority alone.

Not that I care at all of any of it. I simply want my account to be deleted because I am tired of this place.

Dude, you play games?

I just want to not be able to log in tomorrow.

So too I would perhaps also like this website to not contain my thoughts.If it takes a man to go through each of them, then fine. If it takes me going through each of them and deleting them then fine.

Not that I would, but it is in a way a matter of principle. I own all these comments. I should have the right to decide as to which site or which person can view them or otherwise. Not some complete stranger.

Desirable and necessary resources are different. The entirety of the night in regards to hacker news however has been quite revealing.

This place is no less a waste of time than telly. Your insistence simply proves so. Anyone who has been in a university just knows that they had access to the journals they needed, but perhaps not some they might have wanted to.

Yet regardless, neither helps us in our endeavour. Whether the person publishes all the journal articles, I care little. This is no longer a community. No longer are etiquettes and the culture of the site enforced, it is a play ground instead where populism wins.

That is fine, that is how things have been working. You go there first and leave when so it becomes. Yet I thought naively perhaps that this time it would be different.

It is not. Only in the physical world is it different, only in the physical world do we have the freedom, for in that sphere, nature has had the advantage of many years.

Not even the best and brightest can come even close to it. Though maybe I am just naive to suggest that PG is either of those in regards to the internet. He is of a different generation, of a different age too, in his 40s or 50s, chasing money or whatever he chases.

This is our net to make. Ours to learn the mistakes and implement their solutions.

Long Live Youth perhaps I should have said.

I doubt it is the flagging, though it might be.

Might perhaps be that this is the very first time that someone publicly asks to get deleted and no one knows what to do about it, hence deleting the thread t is an easy option.

Perhaps I do not quite so much care about the actual content, but that the content is likely to be permanent does quite change my opinion of social media and their kins such as this website.

I simply would not want to comment on a site like this if indeed all that I have commented has no way of being eradicated. For me on a personal level I suppose that is fine since my Id is fairly anonymous, but others would simply treat such platforms as businesses and that is, well would be, a sorry state of affairs.

I can not believe however that the brightest minds can not deal with this, yet can deal with utterly complex mathematical formulae and even P does or does not equal NP!

Don;t ask that. Etiquette is last century in hacker news land.

We were not reading a peer reviewed article.

Why would the question need context? It is not asking of a specific instance, as in, was it reasonable that such a thing happened at such a time, but generally.

That is, do you think that reason reigns supreme from your practical experience of life.

I understand finely why your criticism might be a valid point, however, when all comments take the same shade that your criticism does, we start looking for the trees and miss the forest.

If you can build something for $100, yet the same thing they used costed $250,000 to build, ok let us even say for good measure it costed $25,000 and the rest was inflated, compared to $100 it must be a well awesome product, way superior than what you could build, ten times, 25 times, and if we are to trust the actual figure, 250 times better than what you could built.

The point of the article is most probably that it is the latest technology anyway. I mean, it is fine to look out for these flaws, but something much grater happened there, they actually discovered something. If all we get from comments is flaws flaws and the opposite down voted, then this community simply is not working.

So it is not a good idea to put an affiliate banner on a normal page, hence perhaps why I have not gotten a single sale. Affiliates just require a different strategy?

What you needed, not the students.

"But yes, reason has little purchase in this place. The community has very strong biases and refuses to give time to opposition."

What exactly do you mean?

Ok, this is a reply to mquander on this thread http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1628106 (unfortunately I do not know how to link directly to the post and the reason why I am not replyin there is because I can not.

I would not like to see this community as a place where I can validate or discredit the thoughts I already hold. I am only 22 and wish much to grow. In those areas where I might not provisionally want to grow, I write a diary, it is a fine way to speculate about the knowledge one has in his own space.

Perhaps this is desire speaking more than reason, but in this place more than other I have found people who are of my intellectual level, who are inquisitive, naturally curious to learn about such matters, such as to use the easy example, what matter is made of.

So when I suggested, what is wrong with people who engage in orgy sex being protected from HIV, I was not making a point of the kind which seems that people might make, that is of the intention to suggest that it is fine to have orgy sex. I am not fine neither however with orphan kids in Africa being held somehow as angels for whom we must all fight, and ignore the reality which lurks in our street. Sex should be free for all. I do not see how that can possibly be a frowned upon proposition. I do not see why we should be free to put on a hierarchical scale the position that children would occupy with that of sex orgies. I do not see either on a purely theoretical, philosophical, rational or logical manner why such children should attract our sympathy more than the 18 year old naive girl or boy who simply made a mistake. Are we all the sudden putting life on a hierarchical scale?

But of course with all the mighty brains that might lurk these pages, such matters deserve no consideration. Down voting is much easier, than inquiring, counter arguing, suggesting alternative views. It is simply easier to censor dissenting views which one hardly understands than put one self in that child like curious position of wishing to learn such as asking well why must it not be like this, well why do you think so.

I personally know my opinions, I know my thoughts, I know my reasoning and perception. That is not why I frequent these pages. I come here to learn of other's rational reasoning, to learn of the way others rationally perceive things, to be in that cutting edge, where reason and logic reigns supreme, where emotions is not taken in consideration, where one discusses rather than asserts their authority, where the community discusses in the free spirit of reason.

We have a great thing here. It currently is outside of the mainstream eyes, yet influences the "opinion makers" for the opinion makers are people of our intelligence. Yet, this is becoming a community of assertions, a community where are found those fallacies men of intelligence know to guard, such as marketers cheating the system, in uniform, each of them starting their title with Why is this so, not quite asking, instead, following it with their opinions, opinions which I have to guard against calling them bluff due to their physical presence in the community. Their vocal and crowd reputation might be free to set the agenda and culture, and challenge us to keep it so free, keep it so unguarded, argue against any cultural impositions.

I have used this net thing since Google was born. There is often birth and death. PG foresaw this day, and this day is here. A great shame and loss for in these pages the mighty and brilliant are contained. yet the might of PG could not withstand the fortunes of nature, or maybe, just maybe, PG made grave mistakes, for man is chaotic, and if man wishes reason, man devises a system, a system which is utterly lacking in these pages, where irrationality most certainly must rain supreme, unless rational men act to tame it.

Or this is just a different kind of reddit. Just as useless as the previous kind, for humans only make both.

This should perhaps be my last comment on this.

On your first point. I was a student and during that time I had access to all the papers I needed, sufficient papers to get the top grades.

Second, I do not know what profession you are in, computer science is very different from medicine. To start with, the latter requires actual physical stuff, you know, people you can experiment with, or monkeys, and substances, like bleach, and an actual physical space, rather than simply a computer and some time.

I understand that my opinion is in the minority. I understand too that most of you bright smart angels are trying to find loopholes in my reasoning or arguments. I am not however pleased at all with having the entire people of reason and intelligence set against like leaches.

This is a discussion. Not of an adversarial kind, but of a collaborative nature, where people of reason and intelligence try to arrive at a conclusion, rather than win one over. If I gather this wrong, then that is my bad. My intention however was to suggest as to how things taking in consideration practical matters, matters of principle, matters of a complex nature and combined by my own self, derives at simply copying a journal article and putting it on your web page to be no different than my buying the application you sell and putting it on my web page for free for all others to use as they please.

If reason is dead in this place and what counts is the "I am right", then that is fine.

Long Live Liberty of Choice.

Those who are interested in the goods however, subsidise those goods. You, or the tax paying public is not interested in those goods, but only the results. Just bare in mind this is only one article. There are thousands of other articles which you personally, let alone the tax paying public cares nothing of.

Knowledge is useful only to those who know how to make use of it.

But my opinion is not wanted, thus, you have your opinion and hold it dearly beside any questions of reason or logics because perhaps I should say if you had such understanding then you would have the liberty to suggest a better system.

Wow. That is brutal. To be absolutely honest, I would love that kind of objective, brutal feedback if I did not suspect motivations.

It is very silly however to suggest that my motivation for this is something which I would expect to get down votes, not least because the original post, the comments of which I echoed, got downvoted. I simply wanted to say it. Which is my very nature. Uncensoured thoughts. Be the results what they may. I care about the downvotes as much as I would care about the looks of any person down the street. A mere moment, here now, gone in seconds.

I have been thinking of making such a post in quite a while, not least because, and of course I might be much wrong hence the post, I think that this place will at one point become too big and perhaps loose the culture it has. My motivation thus was, to ask the brilliant minds that reside within these pages, to speculate as to how perhaps such fate does not need to become a necessity. That is, whether you can have a reddit like site, without becoming reddit.

But thanks for your comment in any instance. It does quite prove my original point.

Edit: I should add also, on a purely objective and inquisitive manner also, I do not quite see why you would do that. I have looked as far as I could in you comments, and I do not see any comments that I have made in reply to any of yours, let alone to leave a bitter taste in your mouth.

It frankly is sufficient to simply make me not want to have anything to do with this community any longer. I sought reason and I found it. Once reason vanishes, so indeed shall I.

Right. So affiliate marketing is on a completely different level to adsense.

What I have been doing is use affiliate links no different than adsense, that is find 250 by 250 image links and put them on some location on my website.

I gather that I have been doing it all wrong and affiliate advertising is fundamentally different from say adsense.

Do you then mean that affiliate ads are not quite suitable for an informative website and do not quite compare or supplement adsense. I suppose I mean to ask, do you mean affiliate ads are fundamentally different from adsense, in the way that say walking and driving a car are different.

"old bloated system"

You mean the same one that google uses for, amongst other things, to measure authority?

I am fine with kicking the old system into oblivion. I am not fine with doing so before suggesting a new system however. I simply do not see how, in this chaotic internet where everyone has an opinion and is able to communicate it to the entire world, we can differentiate between objective solid stuff, and mere speculation.

If we are for freedom, then lets us have such freedom. Let us not frown at wikileaks if they publish deep and damaging secrets, let us not be defensive when our own content is concerned and copied, let us so too resist any attempts of the real law, say the law of defamation to apply to the internet, let us be cool with bittorrent and the way it distributes freely our content.

If that is the internet we wish, then fine, let us be the pioneers and disrupt all older notions.

If the above is extreme however, then let us be impartial and judge where the line ought to be not from a selfish perspective, not from an emotional or ideological perspective, but from a rational, detached, without favour or fear perspective.

That is the choice of our generation, but I submit, we can have only one of them. We can not be hypocrites when our own interests are concerned and guard them ferociously, yet fight to undermine the interests of others.

There are only seven microscopes there which are more expensive.

This is journalism of course, but there is no need to discredit everything simply because you can word it in such a way as to make it sound stupid.

Personally, once the sum for the microscope was mentioned I was able to judge that the research is quite serious, has the latest technology and advantages of the latest technology and thus give me more confidence in their findings. Is it such a bad thing to use facts to make a story credible?

I am sorry, perhaps you are allergic to monkeys, but I did mention them, and I did mention that bleach was not tried on monkeys and succeeded. Monkeys that is, not labs.

Why should there be grant money set aside to cover peer review? Just ask yourself honestly and try to be unbiased, is that not a very selfish proposition?

This is only one article, amongst thousands of which we do not care of. We do not care of them because they have nothing to do with the field we have chosen to focus on, be that computer science, medicine, history, physics, law, or artificial intelligence. I would rather the money goes into research, than to provide some randomer with the pleasure of reading something they hardly can understand anyway.

I did not read the peer reviewed journal, I do not care to read it, I know little about medicine besides what I was taught in school. The terminology used is different, one word contains entire concepts, there is an entirely different way of thinking in that field, and frankly, it adds no value to me personally. If it did and I could afford it, I would buy it. £30 is what one spends on a Saturday night!

Now if we wished to live in a paranoid world where we do not trust the experts in their field and wish to validate everything our self, then that is a personal choice of perspective.

One can well choose to spend his entire life to learn of every field in this earth. Most people, if not the vast majority of people, if not 99% of people, sooner or later, focus on one field, and perhaps focus further on that field, especially if such field is medicine, or computer science, or law. That is how we work, that is the best system we have found of operating.

I personally do not see anything wrong with the way the system currently works, not wrong in such a way as to justify throwing it out entirely. If you are a doctor, you subscribe, if you are not, then buy the one article you want to read, if you do not want to buy it, then you do not need it.

I think there is a difference between the substance of the content and its distribution. The way that the article can have any validity and authority is for the current time through a peer reviewed system which requires plenty of money to be upheld.

I like the system, with all its flaws. Why should you be free to cheat it? If you are poor and can not afford it, then fine, but if you do not value the knowledge sufficiently for a fiver or tenner, then maybe you should not gain it.

The thing is that this goes beyond a random user like you or me. It is not hard at all to see vast distribution of such articles on free websites. You only need to buy a subscription to the distributor, and then copy and paste and upload each and everyone of them. Then, the people who actually find it necessary to read such articles, which is quite different from a random viewer, and who are the actual people who support the system, would simply not need to provide the funding for the system, and thus the system either collapses, or it evolves stupendously fast.

I would rather give them their time. This is not music or film. This is knowledge. I would thus rather be conservative and give them the freedom to adapt and adopt to the new technology and innovate within their own space and time.

Common. You probably are a college student, or the original poster is, or both were thus know full well that you get free access to the journals you need when you are a student.

A journal has editors, some choose to have their journals in print which requires much money, and some journals have sub editors, and assistant editors, and chief editors, and a whole infrastructure which demands much money to be upheld.

If you do not pay for it, well not you precisely, but the professionals who work in that field, then the funds would be taken either away from research or from students. I would rather someone who is in their thirties, and thus able to afford merely £10 for an article, or £30 for a monthly subscription, or however much it is, pay for it, than the students, amongst whom may be many poor ones and amongst whom almost inevitably the next Einstein come from.

There are problems with the system for certain. Personally I think such research should not be beyond a firewall for those who can not afford to pay for it. There is no reason that those who can should not, for if they do not, then the poor will pay.

Ohh right cool, geeks feeling awkward when sex is compared to pleasure?

Dude, sex is pleasure, indeed it is one of the highest pleasure!

It is not just poor African orphans who get aids. In fact the reason why so much effort is put into it is because it is not just poor African orphans in a far away land. It is you and me and anyone else who could potentially get aids in a drunken night in a club, or park, or maybe even after weeks of flirting with a girl and in a fit of a moment stuff happen.

I suppose however you can not beat crying, but think of the children.

I say it again, what on earth is wrong with HN. Actually, I'll do an Ask HN.

Because we have not heard of a $225K microscope before - thus the microscope must be well good - but have heard of $10M research building and actually expect the latter.

Good luck with that. Barriers to professions - which includes access to research - is what keeps the professionals well paid and thus perhaps allow them to fund more research.

Isn't that infringement of copyrights by the way? Do you think it is fine too if I start distributing freely an application for which you have worked for years and decided to charge for?

I have not heard of any experiments being carried out in monkeys with bleach which showed positive results.

I do not see what your point is. Is this not something new, hence news, but something well know to the mysterious field of drug researchers?

that should probably be network advertising