econgeeker

You're expressing a prejudice here and advocating discrimination based on it. It seems ideological. You're saying "Don't hire people if they don't contribute to open source projects." You assume they are watching TV, rather than, say, working on an iOS game that they are selling.

Resumes are for deciding who you're going to interview. If github is the new resume, then you're not going to know about the side projects.

No, you're saying you want an excuse not to hire people who don't contribute to open source on your favorite source hosting site.

You're right. However, state's don't really care about logic. They have one hammer: Legislation. Everything is a nail to the legislature.

One of the key motivators that made me start my own company was this kind of nonsense. Poor managers, having made bad hiring decisions, are always looking for some way to short circuit the process. The entire recruiting agency industry exists for this very purpose (and look how little they know about engineering!)

This does provide a very useful feature for confident, quality engineers: Whenever someone asks for your github ID as part of the hiring process, you can say "Next!"

Seriously, you're an engineer. You can be choosy. And signs of pointy-haired boss syndrome are a good way to choose.

This is one of them.

The correct way to interview someone is to have a stakeholder in the business, who is a competent engineer, look thru the resumes, pick the ones they want to meet with, and bring them in. Talk to them, one on one, for about 30 minutes. (You should know after about 5 minutes, but you want to give them more time so they don't feel like they're being brushed off if you aren't willing to give them the job right then and there. Also, be ready to make an offer, or tell them you'll be making an offer, right then and there.)

If your startup doesn't have a stakeholder in the business whose competent enough to do this, then you still need your technical cofounder. Your technical cofounder cannot be "too busy" to interview engineers.

My point is that journals should use whatever methodology to choose papers for publication that they feel is appropriate. And that there should be no forced "peer review" standard, since this methodology is currently being used to exclude valid scientific research for political purposes.

This forum bans people for having a minority opinion. I wanted to mention that, because I would not be surprised to be banned for expressing such an opinion.

When it happens, you have no way of knowing it. So, you probably think this forum is an open one where any opinion is allowed so long as you are not trolling. That is not the case.

Exactly, you advocate "peer review" to censor scientific papers that don't agree with a pre-ordained political position.

That's not science, and that's not objective.

If you understood the issues, you'd understand that I disproved the AGW hypothesis in my earlier post. It really isn't that difficult. Obfuscation and complexity are the tools of politics, not science.

Frankly, I think g+ is one of google's more innovative projects in recent history, namely the way circles work.

But think about the "copy first, innovate second" idea.

When your product is a search engine, there already are engines out there and its a category so you have to "copy" the basic functionality of search. Those are the table stakes.

Google innovated with pagerank, but they did this first. By finding the pagerank method, they were able to produce a better search engine... but they didn't just do an inverted index and run with that for awhile and then decide to "innovate" later.

Look at what Apple does. When they did an MP3 player, yes, they met the table stakes of being able to play MP3s. But they didn't just put out a generic player, and then innovate. They figured out an innovation that made the player worth doing in the first place, then they did it. Apple doesn't just copy products, everything Apple makes they do so because there is a unique selling proposition that differentiates it from the rest of the market (at least in Apple's eyes. We may not appreciate the USP that Apple does.)

For instance the key innovation of the iPod was not the clickwheel, but the iTunes ecosystem. Even though iTunes store didn't come out until later, it was the purpose behind the iPod.

I'm not really disagreeing with this article which reviews the similiarities between g+ and facebook.

But I do want to point out that so many companies get the "copy first" part right, but never get around to the "innovate later" part. Copy first is becomming a mantra. Facebook was a copy of The Face Book, in fact. The reason facebook is what it is is that they did get around to innovating later.

The reason there's no competition for the iPod is that the competition never got around to innovating (or in MSFT's case, got around to it way too late.)

You cringe when you hear phrases like "collective opinion" regarding science, because science is supposed to be objective, correct? Further, I suppose you recognize that science is not subject to the will of the majority, but to the scientific process, right?

Yet, when it comes to scientific papers, you want to see them subject to the filtering of "experts" to assure they are politically correct?

During my time working in a national lab I had several papers published. Around me, there were over 100 Phds, all of whom were actively publishing papers, and we worked together on them, at least to review them. We were investigating an area of physics regarding the electrical properties of some rather exotic materials. One thing about the peer review process is that it is very highly political.

Often, perfectly legitimate papers would be refused for publication because they disagreed with a scientific view of one of the peers. Sometimes we'd have to submit the paper to another journal.

But at least this level of "politics" was scientific politics. I don't like that some Professor Emeritus is holding to an older view, as that forces us to make our argument a bit stronger, or to do a bit more experimentation to resolve his concerns. But, sometimes, there was just no way we were getting published in that journal. This is completely subjective. Sometimes our case was really not strong enough, but often, it was simply our position was too modern.

And that was the state of affairs (at that time, in that area) without any undue government influence.

I believe the earth is very old and evolution is an observable phenomena. But I don't see how any scientist who also holds this view is threatened by articles proposing the alternative. Some creationist makes a publication claiming that evolution is wrong-- should be amusing!

On "global climate change" there is no scientific consensus. The idea that there is a "consensus" is a political talking point that lets people who don't understand the science short circuit debate by claiming that the scientific community has reached a conclusion. Worse, given the political nature of that position, government is starting to influence the actual publication of papers to make sure they comply with the AGW political correctness filter.

I shudder to think the road this country is going down if political correctness remains in the review system.

However, I recognize the right of journals to choose their publication standards as they wish. This is also why I oppose any sort of government "blessing" or requirements for journals. Having made "peer reviewed" a phrase that is code for "legitimate", I don't want to see the politically correct crowd start dictating which panels of peers are "legitimate" and which ones are not.

If it is time for a new journal to cover a new branch, then let a new journal form. This is how many of them got started in the past-- people unable to find publication elsewhere, for reasons such as topic, length, nature of the research, formed new journals.

PS- FWIW, AGW is really easily disproven if you are familiar with the basic science. The IR absorption of CO2 is below that of water vapor, the CO2 levels in the past have been higher than the "tipping point", etc. AGW, is really a political, not a scientific, movement. This is what is so insidious about the idea that "All scientists agree"- it makes proponents of this theory feel like they don't have to defend their position, and that anyone who disagrees is "rejecting science", when it is the reverse. "collective opinion" is not how science works. Yet, I've never met an AGW proponent who actually understood the AGW theory, and the science behind it, well enough to debate the issue, but I've gotten a lot of hate for failing to regurgitate the party line. I half expect to get banned from this forum for taking this minority view, in fact.

Joe Armstrong (one of the erlang creators) wrote a book for Pragmatic Programmers. This is the book I used to learn erlang. It was quite an interesting ride, and I think it is an excellent book for learning the language.

I think erlang is a really fantastic language, and the only language that I personally trust for concurrency. It is battle tested, and once you spend a couple weeks learning the syntax, quite a delight to develop in.

Windows PCs from about 1994 to now have been an example of "only execution matters". The whole industry is commoditized, and the only way to compete is on price. This has produced really low quality, lowest common denominator junk.

Since Apple's software was not compatible with the windows market, Apple had to build a culture of innovation. This innovation has served them well.

Google seeks to rip off apple's innovation with android (the multi-touch UI, etc.) and sun's innovation by copying java and "giving it away". A lot of people think this is "open" because it is "Free" and because google is open sourcing the code-- why not, they stole the technology in the first place. It doesn't matter that they clean-room duplicated it, they didn't have to incur the cost of discovering it.

The result is, predictably, a race to the bottom in quality and price for android handsets.

If you want to get rid of patents, ammend the constitution. What I don't hear much from anti-IP people is what they want to replace it with. Have you considered what things will look like when all this technology-- rather than being published openly for everyone to learn from and to use as a starting point for coming up with new things-- becomes a secret that is closely guarded?

It seems the anti-IP people want to be able to use other's innovations (Eg: Apple, Sun) but without having to pay the royalties for it that the patent system imposes--- and without also using these patents as a starting point to come up with something new.

If android had come up with something genuinely original, then the anti-IP perspective would be undermined by android starting with Apple's IP (Before coming up with something new.)

But since google just copied Apple, it sound to me like wanting something for nothing.

The "Big Content" industry wouldn't be able to do this at all if they had to go thru the courts.

It is government control and government regulation that is the perpetrator here.

The ISPs rolled over because they are dependent on government permission to operate. This is defacto censorship. AT&T wants to buy radio stations? Has to get FCC and anti-trust approval. Comcast wants to introduce a new high speed internet service? Once again, they need regulatory approval.

It wasn't "big content" that made the "ICE" and "Homeland Security" shut down offshore poker companies-- companies that, it is worth noting, were perfectly legal under the laws of the jurisdictions where they operated.

The government of the USA is no different from the governments of Libya, Egypt, Jordan, and China in wanting complete control over the internet. Control over the internet is control over information, and thus control over the population.

The only difference is in the USA, they have to pretend like there's some other justification-- copyright infringement, terrorism, drugs, etc. are the go-to excuses.

But they are never the reason.

If that was a physical attack, then all the bottles kagen threw into the audience were also physical attacks.

Frankly, it would have been a better outcome if kagen had gotten beamed in the head with the bottle. In that case, at least, innocent bystanders wouldn't have had to deal with hot sauce.

I mis-spoke. My average karma per post was well over 4, not 6. (memory fail.)

http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=nika

OF course, I know that by doing this, I'm likely to get hellbanned again...

New Rule: If you're going to show a sexy, naked, or scantily clad woman in a slide, you damn well better be making a self deprecating joke.

If you show a derogatory slide about an innocent bystander (such as an ex-girlfriend) whatever you say about them is a reflection on you, not them. (Of course, making fun of your legitimate competition is always a risk, as well.)

I was hellbanned in the past and i was not trolling. I had over 1,000 karma earned in 6 months. My average karma per post was well over 6.

I was not trolling. My posts were not getting voted down, despite often taking unpopular positions.

I was, however, taking a position that one of the moderators of this site disagreed with, and (without realizing it) wrote a response making an argument in response to a post from one of the Y combinator people.

I was hellbanned for disagreeing with the politburo. It was pure censorship because pg, et. al, cannot tolerate people who disagree with them on a political topic. Ironically, I was taking the pro-startup, pro-capitalist position.

Since people are aware of hellbanning, they should be aware that it is used to silence people for disagreement, not just against trolls.

You're presuming that you need to develop expertise in a particular area in order to sort out "correct" ideas. This presumption is falling into the trap that is being pointed out.

Put me in a room with an expert in a topical area and a professionally trained liar. If I know nothing about the area, and these two people are having a debate, I will be able to tell which one is the expert, not by knowing his qualifications -- he may not have any-- but by being able to evaluate the quality of the arguments.

Even if the liar is equally qualified to the expert but is lying, you can tell.

It is not that they are lying that gives them away, it is that they must, inevitably, make poorer arguments.

The very idea of "Expertise" is a renunciation of intellectual thought.

I have spent most of my adult life believing that most people were as smart as me, and that they might just not be as well informed as me.

I cannot say whether it is stupidity that is the problem, and I certainly never went looking for the evidence of it, but I have been, at long last, forced to conclude that most people are trained not to think and spend much of their lives avoiding it. This reliance on credentials is a crutch and an excuse for not thinking. Credentials are useful to know the basis for debate, or someone's background, not for determining whether they are correct or not.

I believe people are being taught not to think, and this is one of the methods.

I've noticed this form of anti-intellectualism is becoming more prominent in recent years. It is almost as if people are being taught it.

When presented with an argument that they cannot debate, people will demand a "citation" or "credentials". In both cases, they are pretending like you have made a logical fallacy.

Saying "I've got a degree in auto-body repair from West Alameda Tech, therefore, java is a terrible language" is obviously pointless. You can see how the degree has no bearing on computer science.

But if the degree were in computer science, the argument would still be argument from authority. But the debators then switch to debating whose degree is better.

You find this a lot in political debates whereby somehow, politicians (who often do not have very useful degrees, as they tend to be lawyers rather than engineers or scientists) somewow are magically transmorgrified into "authorities" on whatever subject they have an opinion about.

And you-- as an engineer, or scientist or economist, are expected to somehow cite credentials that are superior to theirs.... as a politician? Any credential would be superior to what amounts to being a paid liar, but of course this is letting your debate opponent set the terms anyway, and thus your PhD in computer science with Donald Knuth as your thesis advisor means nothing compared to the authority of some ex-TV comedian who managed to parlay that fame into a senate position.

Another variation of this is the demand for a "citation", invariably from opponents whose citations, if you can drag one out of them, are to blog posts, which are themselves essentially another variation of the argument from authority.

The real problem here is, these are tactics whose effect, of not their purpose, is to eliminate reasoning and thought from debate.

They are excuses to ignore the quality of an argument and thus ignore the need to address that argument, or make a counter argument. Instead, they jump to the position of arguing from a logical fallacy, which precludes from possibility the idea that their opponent might be making a good, logical, rational argument.

If you find yourself asking people for citations or for their credentials, check to see if you've narrowed your objection to a particular fact, or if you can argue against the logic they are using.

Otherwise, they should rightly consider you to have conceded by trying to move the debate onto a false basis, where, at best your position rests on a logical fallacy.

This tells me a lot about what you think is attractive. To be honest, only 2 of the celebrities were ones I would consider to be on the attractive side of the coin.

Currently, gaunt looking women, are considered "attractive". Many of these women are extremely thin or have unusual bone structure.

Megan Fox and Olivia Wilde, for instance, are really unattractive women. (I personally like Olivia Wilde quite a bit as an actress, and bear no ill will against Megan Fox)

There are a huge variety of women out there, and from my perspective, you've presented a list consisting only of a narrow range of the spectrum.

No offense intended, this is meant to be honest feedback.

I understand the frustration of getting a rejection from Apple, it probably wouldn't sting as much if they had better bedside manner. When it happened to me, I was livid for about 5 minutes, thinking it was actually due to a bug on their end. Then I investigated it and discovered that it was actually my mistake, and didn't feel so bad. But a little less terseness and I wouldn't have had that initial anger because I would have correctly understood the reason for the rejection.

I appreciate greatly the long list of issues you just presented. Despite the tone of my previous post, I was on the fence about android.

I'm dismayed to hear that google doesnt' seem to be supporting the NDK as much going forward, as one of the alternative solutions I'd considered was using the Unity engine. Unity is a game engine, but it can be used to make just about anything you want, and you could concievably do a regular, say, business app in it, with the advantage that the same app can be produced for multiple platforms, including iOS and android.

It seems to me, the way to support android would be to do a web app. Presumably the browser, being based on webkit, works and is reasonably targetable. But that limits android as a platform to situations where a web app works as a business model.

Thanks again!

There's a huge difference between Tim Ferris and Eric Ries. If you made these charges against Ferris, I'd agree with you. Ferris is constantly self promoting, and attempting to cultivate a cult of personality. I know what Tim Ferris looks like because his mug is on everything he does.

I have no clue what Eric looks like. I find Eric makes suggestions that are far less obvious than Ferris. I find that Eric promotes his ideas over himself.

The accusation that this is all just "existing ideas" is kinda silly, given how infrequently this perspective existed even in cutting edge circles like "Hacker News" even a couple years ago.

It has started getting traction, this is true, but 5 years ago, it was a radical idea, and 3 years ago, there were very few practitioners and 2 years ago it wasn't even a movement.

In fact, I strongly suspect that Reis is the source of the ideas that Ferris used in his book.

You can currently pre-order it from the iBookstore.

Bonus: It is $5 cheaper there than it is on the Kindle!

This is really good advice, for those who aren't doing it.

For those of us who are doing it, however, books such as this one can be very valuable for improving how we're doing it.

I've found that some books pay for themselves thousands of times over!

As a developer, what's relevant to me is the addressable platform.

Here the comparison is between a bunch of android phones with a mind boggling matrix of hardware and OS versions... to just one of the iOS devices.

Having ported an app between the iPhone/iPod and the iPad, and having done the transition to "retina" resolution, the fragmentation in the iOS universe is about as much as I'm willing to take.

Is there a single hardware & OS combination for android that is comparable to the size of the iPhone & iPod touch, iOS 4.x installed base?

I really don't know, and have no idea where I'd go to find out.

The thought of trying to support an android port of my apps, with the seemingly lower return on investment that the android application stores seems to give doesn't seem profitable.

You're making an assertion of a fact of law when you say: "Assets used in the commission of a crime can be seized regardless of if you are charged or even found guilty of that crime." This is the perspective of those who agree with the Asset Forfeiture law.

However, the constitution is also the law, and the fourth amendment is pretty clear on the matter. Further, other federal laws make it a crime to violate constitutional rights, due process, etc.

If the constitution is the highest law of the land, then every one of these illegal seizures is a crime. If the constitution is not the highest law of the land, then the Asset Forfieture law, which was enacted by congress that was created by the constitution, is null and void because the congress is null and void.

Further, in Mabury v. Madison the supreme court ruled that any law contrary to the constitution was null and void the moment it was enacted, not the moment it is struck down.

This means everyone participating in these thefts of property without due process are liable for their criminal acts.

Due Process requires that a conviction be obtained before seizing assets.

If you want to amend the constitution, there is a procedure for doing so. It requires more than just the congress passing a law.

I worry that brussels and the UN are both just as bad as the US government, only a number of years behind them. The UN doesn't throw its weight around violating people's rights in large part because it doesn't have the power to do so.

I think the entire DNS system needs to be out of the hands of government bodies of any type, preferably relying on a cooperative, distributed solution, like the internet itself (theoretically) does/can.

I think it is amazing how divorced from US law the US government has become. Seizing domains without having previously gotten a conviction for a crime is against the law, and the idea that a DNS lookup is the same as "routing all traffic thru the US" is absurd as well. DNS records are cached globally.

I'm afraid that the solutions will have to be technical, and not governmental.

They wouldn't need a lobby if they weren't put in a position where they had to spend a lot of money-- essentially paying off politicians-- to conduct basic operations of their business, such as offering new products or engaging in a merger.

The government set up the original digital spectrum auctions to establish three carriers in each geographic region. I'm not sure what following auctions have done, but this essentially set out the competitive landscape to be (what eventually became the companies) of AT&T, Verizon and Sprint.

Given that spread spectrum does not require allocation of bands, these auctions of spectrum essentially limit competition. They are near monopoly grants (triopoly, specifically.) If every operator were allowed to use the entire spectrum range, using spread spectrum signaling, with straightforward regulations on power, placement, etc, the cellular carrier landscape could consist of dozens or hundreds of operators-- however many the market would bear.

Given that, at the spectrum level, competition is limited by the government, the idea of worrying about there not being enough competition is kinda funny.

For anyone other than the three ordained spectrum holders to operate, they have to do deals with the three majors. Many of these smaller companies are already essentially owned by the majors. This merger is just a consolidation of the two carries using the same protocol.

GLAAD doesn't represent me, even though I am queer. And if they took money for this, then I don't really have a problem. This is no different than anyone being paid to advertise.

You don't have to choose between a nice place and low taxes. high taxes and regulations can give you cities like detroit and chicago while low taxes and regulation can give you cities like hong kong, monaco, panama city, etc.

In fact, the point of my comment is that the business could be located in a low tax jurisdiction, resulting in more funds flowing to the bottom line, while the owners and employees could be located somewhere they like, even a high tax jurisdiction if they wanted.

A high tax jurisdiction will charge, often, %40 of profits at the corporate level and then another %40 at the personal level. So, for every $100k you bring in, corporate taxes reduce it to $60k and personal income taxes reduce it to $36k.

A low tax jurisdiction would might charge %10 corporate taxes and %10 personal taxes, meaning that for $100k in income you're left with $81k.

I think more than doubling your net income is worth consideration, especially if it means the difference between being able to afford to continue your startup, or having to go and "get a real job".

Do you have a link to the green card program? Is it EU wide or germany specific?