funthree

i think it is actually short for interconnected computer networks

>If their contributions help everyone equally, their genes will not rise in frequency within the overall population, and hence, the mutations are failures, genetically speaking.

Mutations? Shuffling a deck of cards doesn't "mutate" any cards in the deck, but you will also never get the same sequence twice. I think you are mixing things up a bit about how our genes work from generation to generation.

I think that must just be an opinion. It falls short of observing everything relevant to what our genes, and what we as individuals and as species are "winning" for. It might work to say such a thing on the meta scale, but it just doesnt work to say that about someone whose DNA is undoubtedly fully represented in his/her extended family, et al. For instance, my opinion of what I would call a genetic failure would be one which persists continually without ever contributing to the greater human intellect.

It's also worth noting that we have little knowledge of genes anyways, but that might fall on deaf ears.

tl;dr Someone who is a long-living nobel prize winner is IMHO, a genetic success, regardless of procreation.

>> there are a lot of organisms where they've evolved to have a large percentage of the population not reproduce, yet are absolutely vital to the species

>It sounds like post-hoc rationalizing to apply this logic to humans.

I don't think so. Perhaps it is less rational to apply this reasoning to the ability of a society to produce warriors (i.e. abundance of young males) but more so in philosophy, science, ideas, inventions, and thought. So long as these evolutions of thought are not lost to time (and they are far more fragile than genetics which sex is the only communication required) then it can be argued that they often times have a far greater impact on the human species as a whole than the passing of any certain genes over others. [1]

Humans are remarkable and unique in regards to this in the animal kingdom as far as we (humans) can tell.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates

Some reasoning: It gets (read:forces) you to use the top bar. For people that always ignored the topbar before; they cannot now. So these users, as well as everyone else who used it only sporadically, are now using it always and thus are more likely to investigate and use other links/apps on the topbar now. These of course include all of the other google services. It's like herding cattle.

Beware of everything worth more than it's weight in gold.

The list is pretty much on topic. It's books that appeal to hackers really since I made it from talking to people in #startups on IRC, the only difference is that, yeah they are real books that cost a few dollars to own.

Also it's more than introductions to various programming languages, there are more advanced concepts on the list that appeal to hackers.

Its 1 page of 17 books.

Here is an amazon wishlist I keep of good books that I have or want. Of course these aren't all free, though

http://amzn.com/w/TF6QJAIBPPFU

Edit: Why would this get downvoted, exactly?

Until the meme or whatever of people smugly laughing under their coats at people for trying to sound smart or understand difficult concepts (and sometimes getting it wrong) changes, which exists for whatever large number of various mostly individualistic reasons, this will not change.

Rather the politician (silver tongues) who can convince both the aforementioned types as well as those truly caring for reason will be elected. The reason is large and without making too many blanket statements, I think they are merely trickier to defeat when the game is all about making someone look more wrong. The game is sadly enough, victorious for those who care more about merely looking intelligent by a definition more widely accepted (by being less wrong) than actually being intelligent (read:scientific, by postulation and diligence even in regards to self) -- and largely the same game is scrimmaged in courtrooms all day every day.

Axiom: Words are just pointers to actual thoughts we intend to project

A startup is definitely a business, by definition of anyone who runs a startup that actually works. The author might have conveyed his point more astutely by choosing different terms. Saying that you are just building a startup and not a business because you are forcing your hand at growth prematurely seems a little immature because all of the people that have a different understanding of the word startup are going to be shaking their heads a little bit.

Startup are as much about marketing as they are about scaling out.

You have to have both balanced out, and there are many equally important aspects of any business. I think that forcing your business to grow before there are really any sales only works if you have a greater and over-arching sales or marketing plan that this plays into. That is, if you haven't proven your idea with real customer testimonials, or you arent better-solving some other problem that has already been proven to bring in revenue then it's just a mistake.

Axiom: The faster you (force yourself to) read, the faster you will be able to read (and comprehend).

This is just something I have found to be true, and doesnt come backed by all of the speed reading research (or marketing). As far as I know it to be you just need to read faster and stop trying to understand every single word and sentence. Don't try to grok every word just keep reading. The next piece of reading you do will happen that much faster (and faster, and faster). And when you come to something you do need to read and consciously comprehend every word, you'll be able to do that even faster than you could before.

Also see: https://github.com/tblobaum/nodeQuery

It's not a jquery plugin per se but worth checking out. Previous discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3238673

When did you build the device? It seems like you must have known about this for some time since you say it helped you get a job. Meanwhile, the article on Oxford's site was just posted today. How did you find out about it?

Your thoughts on caffience, amphetamines, and indeed this device are wholly correct. It is somewhat saddening...

Please consider adding dropdowns, popovers, modals or form elements :)

The article clearly describes a study performed in diligence (from the looks of it) which reveals a perhaps serious flaw that permeates (or can permeate) in all markets. The conclusion being that cartels emerge as a product of the system, not as a product of immorality or deceit.

I guess I understand why people would not want to see it put so bluntly (capitalism is flawed. full stop.) but even you in so many words said the same thing. It is in part inherently corrupt and the silent hand of the market is sometimes a sinister one.

This means that capitalism, at its core, is somewhat flawed.

Surprisingly and scarily in tune with Zeitgeist Moving Forward [1]

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYLLFpNn4lM

Our computers + the internet have exposed information profiteering for what it is. Abuse of power ensues.

"Information" should not be property under any circumstances except to protect our basic human rights (i.e. privacy of an individual)

My congressman is taking his name off SOPA today!

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3480951

comparing the American gov't to the chinese gov't is jsut ridiculous in this context. american gov't cares too much about it's economy to do such a stupid thing

>basically zero major label music or Hollywood movies are legally available for free

only because its not true?>

They are obviously not going to willingly violate any SLAs. Also the gov't is never going to shut down Google. Their site being offline would not be an accurate preview of any blackouts to come. SOPA is going to cost google money and headaches because they will have to deal with so many upset users. It is our websites that don't have billions of dollars that are actually under threat of being completely shutdown.

I think open sourcing this wouldnt take long. Basically a transaction-al email is sent based on data in a user system. The fact that the patent is for email communication that contains a "notification containing a portion of a da out of office notice. " ... is just ... ridiculous.

I think that mostly things on thumbtack just seem rather static, whereas craigslist is fluid. Craigslist is pretty close to pure UGC. On thumbtack the leads come in kind of slow (0-3 a month) and everyone competes with static profiles and a chance to write a short note (which is nice, but also can feel stale, and untimely)

I want to go to the website and connect with people ready to work together right now, or at least communicate with people in real-time. If you are active on craigslist and have the time you can email people until this happens, and it usually doesnt take that long.

Thumbtack seems like a nice upgraded version of craigslist and all, but it just isn't conducive to the same high successful transaction rates. My experience after a year has been completely underwhelming.

in 2004/2005 when I signed up for the facebook it was NOT a public site

be sure to use fountain codes

"a lint is the only comprehensive way"

No.

jslint is good, but if you are going to try to come off as an authority you need to be diligent or you need to pick your words better

>> Secondly, pass your code through a good lint tool to ensure that you've not used any undeclared variables, since undeclared variables will cause implicit global variables. This is also regarded as a general best-practice for JS development, and there's absolutely no reason you shouldn't adhere to it.

How about 'use strict'

You make some decent points, however, you also make some invalid points which you back only with caps-lock demands... Be humble.

>>Your widget is never important enough to add extra nodes or attributes to any element of the DOM. NEVER.

>>There are two permissible cases when you can modify the DOM.

really???

The host eliminates an "incorrect" door only after you first choose one. The monty hall problem is about using the new information that the host is obligated to give you. if you use it you increase your chances to 1/2, if you do nothing with the new information you remain at 1/3. Consider an alternative scenario with the same concept: you have 100 doors, and after you choose a door the host eliminates 98 wrong doors. you can now choose the 1 other door or keep your original choice. Its obvious the other one is a better choice