Marticus

That... is spectacular...

I can't help it, but it's my Wave in a box.

What I don't understand is how exactly it is as you claim it is. My Reddits consist of programming, robotics, science, math, etc.t, and get nothing but positive, helpful feedback and meaningful discourse that DOESN'T (key word here) infuriate me. Not sure how it's a "circle jerk" at that point when I can ask questions and have them gasp answered in a timely manner.

Just because it has a "politics" Reddit doesn't mean the entire site sucks.

I come to HN for the simple reason that it's more about startups and programming than most anything else, and overall I am just as happy with its content. It's considerably more granular, and sometimes that's precisely what I want.

I read both sites and have for quite some time now (although mostly lurking). I get immensely good return on my time invested in both.

Agreed. I'm pretty sure the message here was "hey you can enhance things and this is usually the most common surgically-enhanced body part," not "women are items and you should make sure to keep her in the kitchen lest she learn how to work a computer or something."

According to sources I can find that actually seem legitimate, we have a toss-up between liposuction and gasp breast enhancement.

What makes me really happy is that when me and my roommate discussed how this worked months ago, we eventually explained it exactly as he did in less-equation-y form.

Moral of the story: I don't fail completely at fluid dynamics.

While I see your point (I agree for the most part), I do hold that while it is being a bit... overconfident(?) I do see that is a problem sometimes in companies.

I think it's mostly a fault in recruiters as some of the more-technical positions are frankly over their heads, but nonetheless I myself have had a few failed interviews because the people weren't willing to take me on my word that if I am passionate enough about something, I WILL learn it and I will be GOOD at what I do. But that alone will not net you a job.

I think part of his problem is a lack of persistence. We are (for the most part) hackers of some flavour here, and hearing "we'll get back to you" when we know that's "you will never hear from us again" is unacceptable. So go hunt down the recruiting manager. If that fails, hunt down someone who likely holds a similar position and who you can impress to the point that they might vouch for you.

Take alternative routes, and be DAMN persistent and passionate about the job you are trying for, even if it may not be 'teh bestest job evar.' Make them believe that you think it is.

As someone commented below, they get tons of resumes (especially now). You've gotta stand out. If that means rolling up to some business in a suit and tie one day and wanting an interview so you can circumvent lackluster recruiters, so be it, or setting up an interview with (insert manager here) because you can Google things / social engineer a bit (obviously you don't want to lie, but you'd be surprised how few questions receptionists ask - usually just your name).

This was discussed a few days ago, and I completely agree.

If you rely on a buggy platform, and it fails, you subsequently have your site fail. This is a perfect example of exactly how this goes about, too.

True fact - CoffeeScript did the same for me even though it was heavily frowned upon by others.

Typically I omit them if I can. And I have no reason to do so other than I think it makes the code look cleaner (I am often quite zealous on proper indentation / return lines).

I figure if using them works for you, rock on. If you hate them and don't use them, rock on. I really don't get bothered by debugging others' code either way as long as it is "readable-formatted" and works.

I've found that usually you fall into a situation where you have a company standard and have no choice in the matter though, and it doesn't even make a crap what your personal preference is.

Edit: To be fair though I only got "Eagle" on the test, but I chalk that up to only giving the test about 5 minutes of my time, too.

Claiming forgetfulness concerning the key would give you a way out unless they could manage to crack it - at that point you would have dodged the self-incrimination bullet but could not be legally bound to simply "decrypt it."

I agree though - the entire thing is an absurdly mucky business. Apparently however the English law doesn't have much like that in the way of loopholes, or he simply refused to decrypt it outright.

Forcing me to be okay with everyone and their dog seeing what I do on my own time and on a completely different site is unacceptable, and frankly just lazy on their part. That has nothing to do with "commitment." I as a consumer get nothing out of it other than a lack of privacy and the heavy-handed assumption that some startup's "service" outweighs that.

No thanks, and the fact that I'm not the only one means that if you're using FB to authenticate as a startup (IE need to get as many PURCHASING customers as possible), you're doing it wrong.

If I like your service enough, I will make sure to tell people about it. You do not need to try to do that job for me. That's insulting.

Edit: Please note that I realise that you may be an exception if it is something whose market IS a Facebook user (apps, etc), and I am simply addressing the issue as a whole as I have seen completely disparate sites that require a FB login for no reason that I can fathom.

Well actually I think it's better than jamming the newest (insert band here) album and not be able to hear much other than that and a very dim amount of engine noise.

I think it is safe to say it's likely a combination of many things - this coupled with statistics (as mentioned before, very small % failure rate + very large flight volume = enough dead people to warrant having them turned off) seems the most plausible.

Not to mention that someone linked that it could very well be a problem with the cellular networks - if (hypothetically) you could bugger up an entire major tower with enough "hop" volume, I can see why the FAA or other organization would just want to have this as a cover-our-ass precaution, too.

This is actually quite interesting - I didn't know you could do that, and I will likely employ it in the future, especially with a remote web server or something you can't immediately get to. So as you roll in, you check your email on your phone, and know walking in what you're getting into and likely how to fix it. From a time-optimization viewpoint, this is nigh-invaluable.

Plus this guy has some other very nifty articles.

But I guess (glancing at first few comments) that "haterz gonna hate."

Plain and simple: She should have driven a harder bargain or not gone for it.

Also #3, #3, #3, and #3. People don't read the little bit on Groupon where it says "tip like you're not getting a discount," or just ignore it, and also #3.

I believe this is the final answer for water-cooled systems, haha.

No joke - ironic from the Linux crowd to bash how timely some corp releases their proprietary data.

The person writing the article has been in industry and realises what the proverbial "red tape" is, right?

But the thing is that is religious text, and also isn't particularly inflammatory. We know that religions don't usually accept homosexuality. They're not saying to burn a couple hundred.

But really if some organisation was to round up a few hundred Bibles, post on their site that they were going to burn them and here's an invitation, bring your family and your friends, we're doing it to show how we don't like Christians, you can bet that the ISP servicing their site would likely go "uh.... yeah not so much" and also pull the plug.

If they just said they were having a meeting to talk about how they don't like Muslims, fine. You can do that. But it's a bit more drastic to burn a bunch of their holy texts which is DEFINITELY with the intent of inciting violence or hatred toward a (very LARGE) group of people.

Edit: The "very large" bit is not to say that the numbers matter in this case (I'd be just as much against doing that to any other religion or group regardless of size), but only that they are spitting in the eyes of quite a few people and that it's unfortunate.

It's a ToS agreement for a reason.

"You may not publish, transmit or store on or via Rackspace's network and equipment any content or links to any content that Rackspace reasonably believes:

is excessively violent, incites violence, threatens violence, or contains harassing content or hate speech"

See at this point I would be far more amused than furious.

A legitimate, helpful response (although it IS SO's login, so.... eh) that's a little bit of a "hey quit being a douche" is actually a pretty good way to go about it from a PR standpoint, in my opinion.

But hell at least they respond.

Yup, now they just need to actually do that with quite a few of their own products and we'd have two happy, completely different corporations that don't release sh*tty software from time to time.

To be fair, they published a paper in 2006.

While slow, I can see how something like this would need heavily evidence-supported data to be even remotely non-laughable in even scientific communities.

Now I'm not disagreeing in saying that proving something "simple" like, say, the ability for the cells to reproduce at 121C could be somewhat easily verified, but usually with things like this just verifying something like that isn't grounds for publication by any means.

It's not that it's not interesting, but we're trying to prove that these are extraterrestrial life forms here. They're going to definitely want to prove, independently, the whole (likely) bundle of proposed theories, such as the fluorescence possibly linking them to (in the article) the Red Rectangle, plus verification that they do not have any type of DNA or RNA (harder than you'd think), plus other behaviorial/evolutionary traits not yet discovered before they consider it "proven" or otherwise.

To say that since one cannot be verified, thus it is all irrelevant or false is just impatience. Work with a grad student sometime who is pursuing their dissertation, haha.

While trying to avoid the cliche "Apple sux" explanation, I'm actually genuinely surprised they botched this as badly as they seem to have.

Maybe it's releasing a product without a comprehensive music database being in place. Maybe it's the inability to link to, you know, their OWN PRODUCT a la last.fm and, well, anything.

But really, whoever was in charge of this obviously wasn't being watched closely enough - this is a software foul-up of pretty large proportions.

Plus I like the implication that they don't trust any other form of avatar/username site (Gravatar, etc) and instead you have to take your picture with your cute widdle iCameraAsApprovedByApple and then wait for it to be "approved."

Which makes me feel immensely sorry for anyone whose job encompasses looking to see if pictures violate a ToS agreement, even if it is 10 minutes a day, and even if it is "pre-filtered" by some type of algorithm (surely, please for the love of all things surely).

Overall, depressing.

Moral of the story: If you give a physicist a cookie...

Sensationalist graphs, unfortunately, live on.

What he said.

If they're going to try to say to break out of your shell and be different and go crazy and be rebels (look at the people in that video, jeez) it's ironic that Apple now tells people what they can and cannot create.

Here's what gets me:

The disconnect between that video at the end of his presentation versus Apple today.

"Think different... as long as we approve your application for download on the app store."

Admittedly a pretty cool video though.

Not really, because it has hard boundaries, that is to say it can never "level" at perfectly parallel to the ground (obviously), and cannot achieve perfectly perpendicular alignment to the ground.

Speeds with such limited motion are actually quite limited themselves along the circle.

Well, from looking at it, it's actually very predictable.

Once one arm crosses what I'll call the lower bound (at roughly 80+ degrees from the bar being parallel to the ground), the water empties so rapidly that the tube filling up is not nearly fast enough, so the pendulum tilts back to the other side.

There is also an "upper" bound on each side, which is during the filling phase. If the arm doesn't switch sides and "stops" roughly within, say, 15 degrees from parallel, the water will fill up to the point that it will become so heavy at that side that it will tip, satisfy the lower bound, and switch sides.

Otherwise the "current" side will oscillate between those two bounds until it breaches (usually) the upper bound.

That's pretty unbelievably awesome.

If anything, I wish it was more complex though.

I prefer David Thorne's take on the Macbook Pro.

I just really liked one of the comments:

"(Steve Jobs = Angelina Jolie; Mark Zuckerberg = Scarlett Johansson; who's Paris Hilton?)

Well, Paris Hilton is pretty but dumb. So the "wealth anorexia" version would be someone who's insanely rich, but dumb. So Paris Hilton is... Paris Hilton."