zosi

The thread seems to end with the conclusion that the poster is not the real owner of Mybitcoin.com, and that the whole thing is a prank/hoax.

Unless, of course, the system clipboard is on a different machine than the running copy of Vim. This is useful advice, you really don't have to be so negative about it just because you aren't in a situation where it's applicable.

All of those papers either post-date Intel's announcement from 2003 regarding tri-gate transistors, or are written by Intel employees. That search also brings up multiple patents held by Intel on the technology.

Since the story link is just to the project github page, here's a blog post from the person who did the performance optimization talking a little more about what he did:

http://blog.patshead.com/2011/04/improve-your-oh-my-zsh-star...

Here's the exact pull request for that commit, with quite a bit of discussion about why it's faster and why it was done the "wrong" way before:

https://github.com/robbyrussell/oh-my-zsh/pull/269

Hope that helps anyone else who was curious about exactly what was changed!

O'Reilly doesn't seem to do that, unless it's embedded in the PDF in a way which doesn't show up in simple viewers.

Pragmatic Bookshelf, Manning and Packt (out of the e-books I have handy for quick checking) do put your name/address on the bottom of every page to discourage piracy.

Edit: Specifics for each publisher, for anyone who's curious:

  Manning - Name and email address on each page
  Pragmatic Bookshelf - Name on each page
  Packt - Name, physical address and purchase date on each page

Yes, you're over-reacting. Your post sounds spiteful, and your threat of bad publicity sounds more like revenge than warning your fellow consumers. The way I see it, it would've been nice of them to give you a free MEAP copy, but it was well within their rights to refuse. Similarly, it's well within your rights to write a nasty blog post about how Manning is a bunch of meanies, but it'd be nice if you let it go, admitted that you made a mistake and got on with your life. It doesn't seem to me like there's anything to be gained by taking the low road here, even if you feel that it would be fair.

I have a story that starts similarly to yours, but ends very differently. I discovered "The Joy of Clojure" from a post here on HN, and after some consideration, I decided to pre-order. I was familiar with Amazon, but not with Manning, so I checked them out a little. I read their page about MEAPs and preview releases and really liked what I saw, so I pre-ordered the e-book copy from them directly, got my MEAP copy immediately and started reading. Since then, I've purchased/pre-ordered a half dozen other titles from them (frequently on steep discount thanks to their daily deals and newsletter sales) and they've become my go-to publisher for tech e-books when O'Reilly doesn't have what I'm looking for. I can't help but feel that my life would be ever-so-slightly poorer if I had had a bad experience with them right off the bat and decided to avoid them in the future.

Regardless of which path you decide to take, I hope that you enjoy reading the book. As someone who's fairly new to Clojure and functional programming, I've found it to be a great way to get deeper into the language as well as expand my horizons by exploring concepts like laziness and immutability that I don't see often enough as a Python programmer. Happy reading!

Actually, that's completely wrong.

As the law was prior to this decision, the SEC had to have good cause to remove someone from the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. The ruling was that requiring two levels of good cause between the President and the oversight board was unconstitutional, and now the SEC is able to remove oversight board members directly without requiring good cause. The logic is that this provides sufficient insulation from Presidential control, because the President still requires good cause to remove the SEC people who can remove oversight board members.

tl;dr: The SEC no longer requires good cause to remove oversight board members any more, and the President's power is essentially unchanged.

You are. They already have a dialect of Scheme that contains many extensions beyond the RxRS specs, this is just giving it a name so that people stop confusing "PLT's dialect of Scheme" with "Scheme in general".

Personally, I'm not a big fan of the name "Racket", because it makes me think of tennis rather than racketeering. However, I do support the idea of having a PLT "brand" rather than a hodgepodge of names like DrScheme, MrEd and mzscheme.

Erm, Chrome supports Theora in HTML5 video. I just played a few of the examples from http://double.co.nz/video_test/ as well as the Opera page linked from there to test, and they worked fine.

By saying that it's not working, you assume that a raw domain.com is "broken" if it doesn't resolve to an address which is presumably the same as www.domain.com, which is pretty much baseless. There's no technical reason for a bare domain to resolve to anything, it's just a popular convention to make it redirect to www.domain.com because most people who type that into a browser expect your web site to come up.

Why not just add a CNAME for convenience? Who knows. They may have an internal technical reason, or it may just be a case of "don't do something unnecessary just because it's easy". For what it's worth, government agencies have a pretty good variety - army.mil and navy.mil both have the same behavior as nasa.gov, whitehouse.gov and justice.gov both have redirects to the "canonical" www url and house.gov and senate.gov both serve the same content as their www versions without a redirect either way.

Regardless of their particular reason, I see no cause to assume that it's due to laziness, funding level or how "high-tech" they are. It's just a convention that they don't use, but you expect.

What you're saying is that if I click on an ad, and that click results in a company in a completely different country paying another company in another completely different country a certain sum of money, that my government should be able to tax that? There is no money entering or leaving France when a French person clicks on a Google ad. The French government has no business whatsoever trying to tax online advertising revenue that occurs due to transactions in other countries.

Hmm, it looks like the first link got eaten by HN's linkerator due to the %27 (single quote) in the URL. Sorry about that, try http://preview.tinyurl.com/ydb8h28.

As for the calibration period, you're right, there are definitely some issues there, and that's a problem with the entire temperature reconstruction approach. We only have reliable instrumental records back to the middle of the 19th century, so it's hard to test any kind of reconstruction on a large scale.

Personally, I don't put much faith in the reconstructions themselves - I just think that it's important for people to understand the context around these experiments, since there's so much blatantly false information going around. It's hard enough for those of us who aren't climatologists to keep up with the information without people screaming bloody murder over a few lines of comments that they don't even understand.

Absolutely. I'm not very good at finding information in scientific papers, but here's the first few I found with Google. If those don't satisfy you, I'll see what I can find when I get home from work.

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/fac/trl/downloads/Publicati... (PDF) is a paper that specifically addresses a lot of the concerns about temperature prediction using tree rings. In particular, I'd like to quote the following section as it pertains directly to your question:

"A number of tree-ring series indicate a divergence between tree growth and temperature at some northern sites in recent decades (e.g. Briffa et al. 1995, Jacoby and D'Arrigo 1995, Briffa et al. 1998, Vaganov et al. 1999, Barber et al. 2000). Theories for the cause (s) of this observed divergence, which may vary from site to site, include decreased temperature sensitivity due to warmer temperatures, drought stress, increased winter snowmelt and ozone effects. This divergence needs to be considered to avoid bias in dendroclimatic reconstructions; however it is not present everywhere. For example, temperature-sensitive elevational treeline sites in Mongolia and the European Alps exhibit dramatic growth increases in recent decades (D'Arrigo et al. 2001, Buntgen et al. 2005)."

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/fac/trl/downloads/Publicati... (PDF) is an earlier paper referenced in the above that also discusses the problem.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Loehle_Divergence_CC.pdf (PDF) is a paper by someone that's more skeptical, it goes into a fair bit of detail about the possible causes, mostly to argue against them.

Of course, we're getting a bit away from the actual topic. We know about the post-1960ish divergence. We know that it's a good idea to exclude that data from any kind of analysis, which isn't a problem because we have accurate modern measurements from that period to use instead. There may be other periods of inaccuracy - but if there are, they haven't been discovered, and there is a substantial amount of overlap between these reconstructions and our actual instrumental record during the calibration period. In other words, it's the best reconstruction we have at the moment, and like any scientific theory, it's subject to change if better evidence were to come along. Unfortunately, the skeptics seem to be more interested in politicizing the debate rather than finding that better evidence themselves.

None of this really changes what the comment says, which was basically "Don't use this to plot past 1960, because we know that part needs corrections". I don't see an issue with that. The wording could be better, but it's a useful note to have, to make sure that the data isn't misused. I don't think it would be necessary to say "Oh yeah, the rest is just a theory, it could be wrong too" - everyone who was supposed to have access to the source knew that. It comes with the territory. The problem is when internal stuff is leaked and that territory changes - a random person reads that comment, completely misses the tentative scientific context and thinks that the programmer is asserting the absolute correctness of everything he doesn't single out as wrong.

Edited to add in a (PDF) tag that I forgot.

This has been debunked over and over already. The predictions based on the tree ring data in question are known to have diverged from actual, measured temperatures from 1960 onward. They're known to be fairly accurate prior to 1960, to the best of our knowledge. This is a scientific thing - if you can prove that tree rings were affected enough by non-temperature factors prior to 1960 to lead to inaccurate temperature predictions, you'd be making a huge contribution to the field of dendrochronology.