drewse

My bad, didn't realize you were joking =]

"Do you prefer Starbucks or Peet's Coffee?" implies the following: "Do you prefer Starbucks' [coffee] or Peet's Coffee?" From what I've learned, this title is grammatically correct.

Here is an explanation: http://www.kerryr.net/webwriting/gpwu_punctuation.htm#q5

It looks like it's a good idea and the website has a nice design, although I've never understood how online surveys can be unbiased considering the fact that the population of voters is definitely biased. Do you have any plans for making the data more reliable that you're using with the site (e.g. asking users for how they found the site)?

Exactly. It's true that one can't achieve anything without execution, but that only comes after inspiration. Ignoring sources of inspiration all together will only bring failure and thus create a negative impact. It's great that you [GDH] are looking to make your life more productive but, as tuppy said, find a balance when making reforms.

I found this concise talk (around 3 minutes) to be really insightful. In case you can't watch the movie, the main points of the talk were that visuals and the ability to properly filter information can help simplify complex problems.

I'd like it to be more of an informal poll than a discussion thread, as I don't want people's philosophies to be rejected or argued against. It's fine if people want to contribute to or add on to other's beliefs as long as they're respectful, but it's best that you stick to sharing your own ideas.

That is some very good advice and I think the opposite is equally as important (do things to others that you would appreciate if done to you). Putting the two statements together, you essentially get the Golden Rule.

There does exist debate on the topic, although I'm not sure if I agree that there should be. The statement is clear by itself, but unnecessary interpretations are what cause a debate. I understand that there is usually necessary interpretations to be made on topics from the constitution and other legal documents, as some are very vague. However, in my opinion, this statement leaves no room for interpretations and therefore no implications should made. [Sure this is debatable, but so is everything]. Rather than spending so much time on forming interpretations, people should consider an amendment. The general consensus now may have changed since then.

Yes, I'd assume that most of these immigrants described by the article will become productive citizens and will benefit the USA. I don't find anything wrong with what these people are doing, except for the fact that they have to "work around the system" to achieve their goals. There will be many more people who will move with their children to the US shortly after their births and then live in the US longer than those mentioned in the article. Why should one group of people be able to become citizens immediately while the others aren't able to [until they apply for citizenship]? In short, I feel no hard feelings against those who only come to have their children here, but rather feel that the system needs to be changed in some way.

Since I'm not sure if a link to a youtube video is appropriate for Hacker News, I'll remove it if someone lets me know that it isn't.

That is a very good point that I failed to consider. However, it brings up the old debate on whether the people of a nation are sufficiently educated to make the right decisions for their nation as a whole. I believe that they are sufficiently educated and have the right to make the decisions they want, but I'm not sure if everyone believes this quite yet. We're definitely headed in that direction, though, if you look at how far we've come.

That seems fair, and I liked the part of the having spent the last 10 years of his/her life in the US. I still believe, though, that a fraction of the person's first 10-20 years should be in spent in the US as well. This could get complicated, but it may work to require that the person have spent 75% of their childhood and 75% of the last 10 years in the USA, and possibly 50% of the time in between as well.

Yes, I definitely agree that this clause seems a little bit arbitrary. Currently the requirements for the position are...

1) be at least 35 years old

2) natural-born US citizen

3) have lived in the US for at least 14 years

One possible alternative would be to get rid of the 1st requirement, but to add another requirement of having to have lived in the US for a certain number of years as a child (under the age of 18), since we could agree that experience from growing up in the US is very important. Something along the lines of this...

1) be at least 35 years old

2) have lived in the US for at least 6 years as a child

3) have lived in the US for a total of 14 years

I'm also an app developer, but have very few (if any) pirates using my games. However, I agree that if a large group of pirates downloaded your app, it would be worthwhile to take advantage of that increased user base (even if they're not customers). The problem occurs when the negative impact from the people who pirate your app (but otherwise would have bought it) surpasses the positive impact that the pirates make on your app (e.g. suggestions, more publicity, etc.) I'm pretty sure that there is a point where the negative impacts surpass the positive impacts.

It can be, or it can not be.

If by "genius" you mean someone who's defined by their actions, then it is [simply the product of hard work].

Otherwise, if by "genius" you mean someone with the potential to be great, then it is not [the product of hard work, but rather one's genes].

Both of these interpretations of "genius" are often used, although there is very little distinction between the two if the "genius" with the potential to be great lives up to their expectations. On the other hand, those who have the potential to be great but don't take advantage of their genes are hard to discover.

Also, the "genius" that -has- potential to be great and -is- great is technically a genius of both kinds. Something to think about...

There are many applications...

http://www.usereffect.com/topic/5-useful-uses-for-wolfram-al...

http://mashable.com/2009/05/19/wolfram-alpha-better-than-goo...

http://blog.wolframalpha.com/

Sure beats Apple's page

http://www.apple.com/pr/bios/

As well as Tapulous' (which I thought was pretty good until now)

http://tapulous.com/team/

This title yelled "paradox!" at me. It's funny to see it coming from a ".gov" website.

For those who need clarification, if this published research and its title are true, than it is saying that research like itself are usually false. This contradicts the original assumption that it is true.

If this published research and its title are false, than research like itself is usually true since what it's saying must be wrong. This contradicts the original assumption that it is false.

As posted by a commenter on the original article, this website may help: http://www.AccessibleTwitter.com/

Nice idea!

Here's one I set up for the Bay Area: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_157421747614365

Try it on John Gruber's Daring Fireball. Everything collapses quite nicely and it's fun to start at the top and then shoot everything as you go down!

Maybe something like this...

//How's my coding?

//1-800-NO-ONE-CARES

Although I had trouble coming up with what to say in the phone number. Any suggestions?

Sure, it changes the way we will search. But is that a good thing?

It's all about whether we want change. Change can be good, but think about how long (if ever) it could take for more time to be saved than time lost getting used to the change in the first place.

Also think about it this way: people have been searching on search engines for over decade in an very uniform way, regardless of the search engine. Search engines aren't that intuitive, even if they try to be. They aren't that user friendly, even if they try to be. But people worked with what they were given, and got quite good at. Now Google wants to break our habits, and a I don't think I want to. Not only because of the time I would lose changing my habits, but because it works just fine.

Another reason why Google Instant does not work for me is since it only works for "browsing" and not "finding". Sometimes people will go to Google to just "browse" a broad topic. They're not necessarily looking for a specific website or detail. So after entering a broad search term, Google Instant helps them narrow their search query. On the other hand, sometimes people will go to Google to "find" a specific topic subject, point, or answer. Therefore they don't want suggested search terms. They have already crafted a detailed search in the heads and are not looking for suggestions. In these cases, Google Instant just acts as a distraction. And that brings me to my problem with Google Instant: I use it for "finding" 90% of the time and only 10% of the time do I use it to "browse". I have a feeling that many tech-savy people here on HN probably have a similar distribution of their time spent on Google Since Google Instant only works for us the 10% of the time, it's hard to justify using it all.

I think this yet another step in Apple's progress in refining the App Store for both the consumer and the developer. Every thing Apple does with the App Store is taken one baby step at a time, but their baby steps have added up. If you look back at how different the App Store was when it came out, you'll notice how far it's come since then.

These review guidelines that Apple recently posted were not needed by most developers, and will still only be relevant to those 1% of developers whose apps are controversial or unlucky enough to get rejected. However, since this has been covered so much by the publicity (just like the iPhone 4 antennagate issue and Adobe-Apple war), Apple felt the need to succumb to the media. Sure, it was not that big of a thing in the first place to just publish their review guidelines, but isn't it unusual that Apple is having to quiet down the media more and more often these days? Apple shouldn't have to do this, but with people taking everything out of proportion (all these issues only affect the small minority), it's hard for them to ignore it. What do you think?

Thanks, but I guess I can't change that now.

Also, since it looks like you're like you've been on HN for a while, do you know how I can add this to the questions section? Some posts start with "Ask HN:"

[I'll delete this comment once the issue's been resolved]

Thank you very much! You are extremely helpful and supplied me with a lot of material to look over! Some of these books or topics are only covered by big textbooks, which is not exactly what I was looking for (I think it was unclear in my original post), but you did help introduce me to some new topics and fields where randomness takes place.

Also, it's nice to be reminded about Quora. I've heard of it before, but hadn't thought about it in a while. I might try it and give it a go!