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/