noodly

Comments are closed on that page, so instead I will comment here.

There's no need to use xargs, and pipe to sh in this scenario. The same functionality can be achieved by using only find:

  PROCS=8;cuffs=`which cufflinks`;find `pwd` -name 'accepted_hits.bam' -type f -exec qsub -l ncpus=$PROCS -- $cuffs -p $PROCS -o {}-cufflinks -g genes.gtf {} \;

Apple says, "As a result, we’ve created or supported more than 500,000 jobs for U.S. workers: from the engineer who helped invent the iPad to the delivery person who brings it to your door" [1]

It tries to include every person, just to make the number of jobs higher (it even includes healthcare workers).

Healthcare includes only jobs strictly associated with it - and that's embarrassing for Apple which had to include other industries.

"47,000 jobs at Apple" [1] - that's the real number of Apple jobs, and it's comparable with Intel (45375 jobs, 55% of their worldwide employment) [2]

[1] http://www.apple.com/about/job-creation/

[2] http://bit.ly/AdgusU [PDF] Intel "2010 Annual Report and Form 10-K"

Apple: 514 000 jobs

Healthcare: 14 336 000 jobs [1]

Healthcare embarrasses Apple.

[1] http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs035.htm

Great article. Thats the hackers spirit in there :)

Yeah, I agree with your opinion.

   You're giving all reasonable, just don't believe in God 
   but don't want to hassle you non-believers a really bad name.

Most of them doesn't call themselves nonbelievers, but atheists (in fact they're more antitheists/antibelievers than atheists),

that's why I like to distance myself from them by calling myself a nonbeliever.

Great talk, thanks for sharing :)

I hope to see more talks on HN combining physics and programming, that explain physics in an intuitive way to a programmer in similar way as this one does.

I would like it to be true, but apart from computing known values of Ramsey numbers, they should have computed unknown values of Ramsey numbers, to make their research more valuable.

As the bounds of small Ramsey numbers are known, it would provide more evidence of correctness of their computation.

gcc also has -Wsign-compare option that warns about such comparisons.

Status of EasyDNS is also posted on twitter:

https://twitter.com/#!/easyDNS

There is more information about that attack than on status blog:

   "The attack is multi-faceted, multi-gb/sec SYN flood, ICMP and DNS flood.
    Working with Prolexic to get DNS2 back online ASAP"

   "We are still taking heat. We expect that to drop over time.
    We are still putting in mitigation and workarounds."

Posting this thread here, because HN uses EasyDNS.

If you have problem accessing HN, here are IPs, that you can put in your /etc/hosts file:

   67.23.12.57      ycombinator.com
   174.132.225.106  news.ycombinator.com

or you can just wait, until attack is over.

And here's decrypted perl script: http://pastebin.com/7RDpTXDp

It does almost the same thing as PHP script, and uses the same key :P

For PHP script, the key is:

SjJVkE6rkRYj

and decrypted evil script is here:

http://pastebin.com/z53aByWX

I didn't look at perl script.

what about disabling access to this archive until "packages" directory is restored, so it won't propagate to mirrors ?

So how do you propose we function as a democracy if any media source that covers political issues is so full of shit that there is no point in even considering it?

From my perspective, for democracy, it's very important to have independent, non-profit media that provide raw stream of information - e.g. A/V stream from congress, major events etc. - that while being boring would provide unbiased stream of facts. For news - transcripts, photos, videos, documents, all without commentary. That would allow to compare "revelations" served by other media, with facts.

If only someone could try to create additional information layers to help you navigate a medium that is potentially riddled with dubious claims. Maybe that person could call the project "Truth Goggles" or something.

It would be great, if I could trust it - its sources (evidence) should be explicit.

The article is about "suspicious sentences in news", and media are news producers.

This is one thing I can blame them for, due to: media needn't be objective - that's not their mission - their mission is to make money, unless they're non-profit (how many of them is ?).

They use deception, to make you believe that news they produced is objective, and you shouldn't look for sources (which often are well hidden or absent), and assuming that news they produce is compatible with your worldview, you won't look for sources - you're their customer.

I'm sure you're able to divide media by political views they support - if they're objective why it's possible ?

The use of deception, means they're not good source of truth.

The main reason I found HN and stayed here, is its news quality (almost no political bs, and really close to the source).

Can you give some example ?

If you're looking for truth in media, you're looking in wrong place.

+1 Ubisoft. I hope to see more companies to do the same thing :) Maybe then users will learn to use free software instead of pirating.

I really like the "brogrammer" term :) I think in this femi-age it's important to cultivate more masculi-terms.

> you just can't advertise for men only roles in this day and age

Why not ? And what has this day and age to do with it ?

> I don't know the law in the US but over here in the UK these guys would be opening themselves up for a nasty lawsuit.

That explains everything. UK is closer to orwellian state than any other european country, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was true.

I searched for "hacker news", and got "You are part of a lost generation". I lol'd :)

> Okay well, I don't know what field of science you work in, but where I am sitting, we can't make progress without fourier-transforming millions of samples for tens of thousands of detectors three times an hour. Try doing that without software.

It's possible - you can make hardware circuit that does exactly this :)

> Science rests on the ability of others to reproduce and finesse your work. Releasing your code makes this much easier, partly because a lot of code does "boring" stuff like deal with data formats and basic calibrations before it gets to the "interesting" stuff. So giving somebody the "boring" part helps them enormously.

What if this "boring" part in others code contains bug ? There's less chance to reproduce it, if you had to write it yourself :)

> Depends on the science. Facial recognition software? That requires software to make progress.

Like every computation - you can simulate it on paper :)

> It is usually to the benefit of the individual researcher to keep the code under wraps, but not to the benefit of the field of research. A researcher benefits from generating results. They do not benefit from other people being able to verify their results. In fact, they may even benefit from raising the barrier to entry, as it makes their own results more important in the field.

It's to the benefit not only of the individual researcher, but also of the institutions - because they don't need to upkeep code repositories - so publishing is not as costly as it could be, when releasing source code was mandatory. From field of research point of view - as I wrote earlier - - source code is not important. It may be useful in some situations but only for individual researcher (like your girlfriend).

> Without having access to the original source code, you can't figure out what caused the difference.

I think that's good reason to share the code or for discussion between researchers - but I don't think it's enough to make sharing code mandatory, because your girlfriend could for example write article pointing out differences between her result and previous result(s) and be done (assuming she was certain about her result), without ever looking at others source codes.

  Without better software, science cannot progress.

Science can progress even without software - the only difference that software makes is rate of progress and its cost.

  But the culture and institutions of science have not yet adjusted to this reality.

Did you ask yourself why ? Maybe, because what's now, just works for them ? I didn't see any description of problems on this page, that this manifesto wants to solve.

  The code is the only definitive expression of the data-processing methods used: without the code, readers cannot fully consider, criticize, or improve upon the methods.

The code is not as important as descriptions of algorithms, and the ideas behind code - readers should not concentrate on the code, but on everything that's behind it, and if they want to verify results, they should write code themselves, in order to increase plausibility of the results by independent verification - including independence of code.

I'm not buying this.

From the FAQ:

"Why aren't ISO standards free?

ISO standards cost money to develop, publish and distribute. Someone has to pay. The current system whereby users are requested to pay for the standards they use, not only sustains the development process but also, very importantly, ensures that the balance of independent vs. government, private vs. public interests can be maintained."

http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/faq_standards_2.htm

Thanks :)

Oh noes, Stallman is nuts :(

1) So what ?

2) He did few things. He launched Free Software Movement, started Free Software Foundation, and GNU project. He is main author of GPL :)

3) So what ?

4) So what ?

"How can someone hear him when he says something like this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3083349 "

Because he's not hypocrite.

I like it. :)