berrypicker

Are there no smaller, 'independent' ISPs which aren't part of conglomerates that are unlikely to remain net-neutral?

I don't see a problem. You can switch ISP if your current one isn't net-neutral. Why should you force businesses to operate in certain way? They're not breaking any laws.

This is hardly "inadvertently" revealing your location: (1) they've told you where they are (extra from the actual Tweets, not the photos) and (2) these places are all near well-known landscapes.

I mean good job on taking the time to actually do it but I doubt this could be done for the vast majority of photos like this.

What's the average age here? I feel like I'm in a no fun allowed zone.

An example of something similar that actually happened: tax in the UK was temporarily lowered from 17.5% to 15% or something and it cost more to reprogram cash registers and computers than the 2.5% savings.

I think during the 70s LSD was being used to rehab alcoholics, it's a shame such practices and psychedelics in general are all illegal now.. but ignoring the law, from what I've read and personal experience, LSD works well too.

I never used Android Studio, only Eclipse, since it was what everybody else was using. This was my experience from around 2012/13 sorry for sharing it but it put me off Android.

Perhaps you're already aware of Eclim, if not, check it out. Really useful for doing Android/Java in Vim.

Part of why Android development is so frustrating for me is the tools we have to use. If I'm not bashing my head trying to understand fragments and layouts, I'm battling with Eclipse -- constantly closing/refreshing project -- and that incredibly slow emulator.

I've emailed for the Matasano challenges three times from two different email address and never received anything.

Is it okay if I ask somebody here to send me a copy?

Here's the problem summarized by an old-time female hacker:

http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/girls-and-software

Whenever gender and software appears in a discussion, the same bs comes out every time. It's so predictable now you can just skip these sort of thread.

I wonder how much input Will.i.am has as the "director of creative innovation" at Intel.

In general, are these just extended marketing schemes or do they think bringing actors/musicians in will be of any benefit to the products?

There's nothing wrong with this submission and it has actually raised an important discussion on whether they need better marketing or not.

>It slows down positive growth

If we ignore race, this model of 'aid' (at this particular stage of development) seems to hinder growth and can not lead to self-sustained communities. Think about this: I could teach somebody how to plant seeds and provide for a whole village, which will eventually lead to a better economy, or I could just buy everybody lunch for a week and wait for somebody else to do the same after me. The latter (which happens in a lot of these programs) is simply interfering with their progress by taking away jobs from the community, which would made progress had you not interfered.

The better solution is guiding and teaching nations how to improve and there are plenty of organizations that do this and have a much more positive effect. Why can't these nations develop like other nations (in similar climates) have done in the past? Nothing wrong with a helping hand but charity like this isn't a long-term solution.

If you're interested in something more scholarly, read John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism.

As usual arguments against free market ideologies are based on misunderstanding.

They don't assume an idealized market model and don't derive conclusions from it. I don't see why I should elaborate when you're happy with simple contradictions and patronizing comments like "you fell for a simple trick".

So you just disproved free market economics with "very simple" reasoning along the lines of "their assumptions are wrong".

The funny thing is women and minorities are rarely offended by these sort of things but the White males of HN seem to think everyone else is a damsel in distress in dire need of their protection.

This could be abused and will render the whole thing pointless for everyone: make private repository, write bot to commit every day... now you have 4000 useless commits on your profile which an employer is supposed to think are legit.

Is opposing affirmative action programs, which have historically proven to be largely failures, being a "sexist asshole"? I'm looking at this from a purely economical perspective because I really do not care about what people do, and I do not see a good reason to try to manipulate the employment market instead of society's view on employment.

What's with all the Academic credentialism? I've just read the entire thread and there are an incredible number of people who seem to think whether a person should be taken seriously or not is largely determined by if, what and where they studied in college.

http://paulgraham.com/colleges.html

This is going to sound like an is-therefore-it-ought-to-be fallacious argument but it makes sense to me that there are more female nurses simply because women are better suited to the task and more importantly want to be nurses? I mean there are probably historical reasons for the low number of male nurses and other things to attribute the low ratio to but we didn't sit down one day and force females to be nurses.

Healthcare and educations has way bigger problems than some patients responding better to male nurses. There's a lot of what I consider grasping at straws when it comes to this sort of discussion. Let's start by talking about the curriculum and spending and stuff that has way more of an impact on our society.

Adding "This isn't rocket science" or equivalent at the end of a post doesn't make you right by the way, it does make you sound arrogant though. There are reasons to believe that skill and interest in genders vary, the premise of both of your arguments is weak, but I'll reply as though it was valid.

> 1) Unless there is reason to believe that the skills involved in doing a good job are widely different between genders, it represents a waste of human talent.

If either gender can be equally skilled at something it doesn't matter if one person is using their skill at nursing and another at coding, the split doesn't have to be the same. All women could do nursing all men could code, where's the waste of talent?

>2) Unless there is reason to believe that interest in the job is widely different between genders (and that this difference either causes no unhappiness/difference in social status, or is completely unavoidable) it represents a loss of potential happiness.

Essentially - "there are women who would be happy if they coded but they don't, so we should encourage more women to code". In our current society there is little pressure from anyone to avoid career paths that don't fit the gender role. You're pushing for equality when it is isn't needed because of "potential happiness" - hey there are men who would enjoy ballet dancing but we don't have enough men doing it so let's spread the word.

Sorry I don't buy any of this equal society crap, let people do what they want.

I definitely felt a sense of bitterness towards the rich:

>But it’s too much to ask bankers to justify the bonuses they sucked off the public teat. >A culture that forbids employees from comparing salaries helps companies pay women and minorities less

I don't understand these people who are hostile towards "bankers" and "big businesses" as they call them. Usually they seem to blame poverty to their wealth, and failure to their success. You may not become wealthy studying to be an accountant but you sure as shit will more likely have a stable career than somebody trying to make it in the arts. Yet the accountant is now the enemy. Somebody founds a company and it starts making a lot of money, suddenly he is responsible for everyone around him having no money. This is our generation, no wonder they call us entitled.

I mean she even mentions the economic system being rigged but she can't see that it is precisely that which needs to change. Businesses and bankers are trying to make it, like everyone else. Don't complain about them then vote for Obama.

>they do want more men involved.

Why is it so important in modern society that every area has an even split of men and women and the right quota of every ethnicity?

Since when are posts restricted to news?

In college cryptography was my main interest, but it was mostly theoretical (math) and little programming, which meant I was in fact useless when it came to practice because I had no experience in implementation and (I found) there are so many unknowns that one of the most important things is experience in implementing stuff in/on a specific language/platform.

I have signed up to the Coursera course and hope to brush up on basic topics and start doing more advanced crypto.

The trend is that certain ideas are offensive and are therefore kept censored or ridiculed, until people can overlook those societal views of past generations and assess the ideas with a fresh perspective, at which point they become accepted.

There are things today which if you say you might lose friends over, but I am certain it's a case of nation-wide groupthink. Evidence? In other parts of the world these ideas are widely accepted already.

"... how much you learn in college depends a lot more on you than the college. A determined party animal can get through the best school without learning anything. And someone with a real thirst for knowledge will be able to find a few smart people to learn from at a school that isn't prestigious at all." - PG

Have to agree with this. How good you are at coding is more related to the number of hours you put in than grades or school. People who enjoy coding have the advantage of being able to spend more hours before getting tired/bored, and thus become better coders than top CS graduates who are just trying to pass college.

Yes. Prohibition does two things: 1. Pushes drugs to a black market, which increases violence and cutting drugs with even more harmful chemicals and 2. Wastes money on a useless 'war'.

Notice I didn't say it decreases use, because it doesn't (evidence: see Portugal case study, they decriminalised drugs and use went down).

If that war money had been spent towards educating people how to use drugs safely, health care and rehabilitation, instead of putting people in jail for a victimless crime, well, you tell me if that's a good idea.

The benefits of drug prohibition (if any) are far outweighed by the problems it causes.