skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I plan to launch a project related to URL shorteners early in the year and continue work on my startup into the first quarter.

My resolution though is to ship/launch more code. "Real artists ship" :)
My goals so far for the year 2010:

1) Relearn how to eat. Do not eat just to eat, but eat for a reason.

2) Actually write a useful application.

3) Perhaps most importantly, be a creator and not just be a consumer.
Build a spin-off line of business from my existing business that is SCALABLE, so that I move from the sole-proprietorship personal service business world into the true start-up world.
That's exactly right. Automation raises the value of a system administrator, it's a multiplier whereby one man can do the work of dozens.

Optimization and performance tuning is another multiplier, if you can tweak a set of application servers to serve twice as many sessions you've just doubled the number of visitors you can serve before you need to buy more machinery, or cut your hosting costs in half if you're running on third-party equipment.
Injader CMS 2.4.3 released
Read the bit by Jeff Schroeder at the end of the comments, that pretty much deflates that whole key management argument.
I'm puzzled over the difficulty people are having with number 1. Surely it's pretty obvious given public-key cryptography ...
It's definitely something I'm going to be looking at in the very near future. The pain we're experiencing is definitely worsened by the fact that it's largely undocumented internally as well.

Have you had experience with either technology, and if so, do you have a recommendation one way or the other?
That was the first solution I had for #1. I'm currently at the following, but I think there has to be a better one because it's not clear that it would be possible.

G places the amulet in his safe, attaches his padlock and locks it with his key, then sends it to K, keeping his key. K receives G's safe, attaches his own padlock in addition to G's (there is a "large clasp", no mention of how large or how many padlocks it could support) and sends it back to G without sending his key. G removes his own padlock, and sends the chest back. K removes his padlock and has the amulet.
Before WW I and perhaps after, the Russian gauge differed from the western European, not least as an anti-invasion measure. Charles Babbage agitated to no effect for a broader gauge, by the way.
Shahrukh Khan Desktop Calendar 2010
Bruce's points against broadcast encryption seem rather weak to me. If it was possible to distribute secret keys during WW2, surely it's also possible in 2009 - probably a great deal faster and more efficiently.

If a UAV was flying over areas of the world that I know well it's highly likely that I'd be able to identify the locations that it was looking at, and send out warnings/orders accordingly. Also I could perform reconnaissance on the typical flight paths of the UAVs, and plan accordingly.

Probably a major risk in the world of 24 hour news and P2P networks is the possibility of recording and later re-broadcasting closeup video of what happens when UAVs misidentify their targets and hit civilian populations. This could result in some public relations catastrophes for the UAV operators. If the military are happy for this information to be broadcast unencrypted they should also prepare themselves for said footage to appear on YouTube or TV news.
there are just two things remains: apt-cache search/apt-get install and yum search/install =) If you know rpmbuild --rebuld or dpkg-buildpackage you're enlightened guru. If you were realized that it is possible to rebuild Fedora's .src.rpm on CentOS you could be compared to Krishna himself. =)

btw, Someone still hiring "Linux admins"? I can do it for free. =)
New development release of ELive available - Linux Critic
There is provably no solution if the servants simply make off with everything given to them. I think we have to assume that they don't steal secured (i.e. locked with a lock) safes.
Any time you sell a security, you are selling a security which you believe to be a bad investment.

Firstly, that's not true if you're a "market maker" as many large banks are. Secondly, it's not true if you are selling for a reason (e.g. you need the cash to do something else with) or for a technical reason (e.g. you are an index fund). Thirdly, so long as you are not actively misleading the buyer, if he thinks it's worth that much, that's his call.
I like the solution to the variant of the Knights and Knaves problem in Every Man For Himself And God Against All by Werner Herzog.

To determine the liar, Kaspar Hauser asks both people -- the liar and the truth teller -- if they are a tree frog.
I think you're focusing too much on ignoring everything that's been written on this from the original story to Bruce Schneier's commentary.

Every source has reported that the military has been aware of the possibility the video feed might be intercepted by an adversary since operations in Bosnia well over a decade ago. It's basic common sense that the designers must have considered such a possibility as well - after all, they made the control link encrypted.
Yes, but it only applies for US troops with security clearance. As he points out guys on the ground and allies that they don't necessarily want to share crypto with can't join the game.
"Those that love law or sausage shouldn't watch either being made"...but in this case, extremely fascinating.

But how much of this technology existed in 1997? How did Prodigy really make the track?
I am curious how he found the original songs whose samples are mixed into the song. I guess in an interview the authors told about it, but hard to believe that he recognized those pieces by ear.
I think your current solution is clearly the right one: It gives me the 'duh' moment.

Edit: But in real life the first solution might work better. Hard to imagine the henchmen who would be sure to spot you if you left your room even for a moment but would take no notice of servants shuffling back and forth three times with a [double-]padlocked safe.
Downmod this if you don't want me to get the karma from up-voting the spoiler warning.
WARNING: SPOILERS FOLLOW

If you want to read on, do so. If people up-mod this comment then it will stay at the top.

In case you don't want me to get the karma, up-mod it anyway, and down-mod the other comment to balance it out.
Here's the link:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1013881

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.
Then I think the puzzle is somewhat flawed.

If the premise is that it is a 'logic' puzzle and in the end it depends on the cooperation of the servants then in 'real life' there would be no solution.

After all, the 'real life' problem is what sketches the background for this, otherwise why bother with that?

My personal favorite for little (smart) kids:

A farmer has to cross the river, he has with him:

- a wolf

- a sheep

- a cabbage

The boat that hast to take him across the river will only hold one item besides the farmer, what is the sequence of moves that will get the farmer and his possessions to the other side without the sheep eating the cabbage or the wolf eating the sheep ?
Sorry, but I don't think that this solution is correct. This is a classic "Alice and Bob" security/encryption problem. G should place the amulet in his own safe, lock it with the padlock and send it to K. K then adds her own padlock onto the safe and locks it (now there are 2 padlocks locking the safe). K sends the safe back to G and G unlocks his padlock. He sends the safe back to K whereupon she may unlock the only remaining padlock with her own key. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography#A_posta... for more.
I use git more than hg, but neither bothers me, and I do use both. There's one major workflow that's significantly easier in hg, which is to generate a local patchfile (amazingly clunky in git sometimes, despite being actually kinda simple too). Hg has some UI fail too, it's just different.

Some of gits front end is (even now) a bit weak, but, it's also quite complete (really) and insanely powerful (for better or worse, you can really shoot yourself in the foot with it, if you poke too much).

There are things that are commonly in use that people shoot themselves with all the time (like stash - which is really an antipattern when you have such cheap branching (hint: branch & commit never causes problems, and rebase / cherry-pick help you squash temp stuff)). You can find anti-patterns in any software though, and I recommend you simply use both for a while, I think anyone unbiased will generally agree they've very very comparable.

If you have a brain cell or two, neither of these systems are going to be a major bottleneck to use, despite what folks might say about their UIs etc.

Git is a little faster at doing some tasks, but this isn't going to really matter to you unless you're managing large repositories. Gits recent popularity growth means there's some neat tools out there too, depending on your platform, and preferences.

As far as windows support goes for git, I have to help less technically minded non-developers use git on windows on a fairly frequent basis, and msysgit works just fine there. You'll want to be aware of details of SSH & key management, and debug with ssh first before debugging with git. That's standard debugging though, and not really anything to do with git, or windows, but the lack of commonality of these tools on the platform. Again, a few brain cells correctly engaged very rapidly get past any such niggles if you're being pragmatic.
So far there is no proof that they considered that, if they had they would have probably evaluated the PR fallout from such a breach of security as well.

Judging by how this is playing out in the media so far that does not seem to look too good for those that built this system.
The people that care know that and those who don't know don't care.
Sabayon Linux 5.1 Gaming DVD released
HP webcams are RACIST
9. Finally launch 2 projects that I have been working on.
10. Chronicle each day of the year 2010 on my blog.
UAVs are flown by airmen sitting at comfortable desks on U.S. military bases, where key management is simpler. But the video feed is different. It needs to be available to all sorts of people

Poppycock! At least encrypt the stream going up to and coming down from the satellite! If lots of people have to see it, redistribute it afterwards. The uplink/downlink encryption is the exact same key management problem as the command signal! Hell, why not use the same key. The video signal going up to and back from the satellite is hanging out there, accessible from the majority of earth's surface. But encrypt it and beam the encrypted signal to those "comfortable military bases." Then you can re-encrypt it for distribution, and completely change the key management problem to suit your needs. (Essentially make it into two key management problems. Divide and conquer.)

I usually like what Bruce has to say, but this blog post wasn't well thought out.

EDIT: Upon re-reading, Bruce's point is that it's the NSA's bureaucratic requirements that make it too cumbersome for an encrypted feed to be easily made available. So it's just easier for them to leave it unencrypted. I still say poppycock. If they were really being clever, they could "leave out encryption," but still obfuscate matters. (Both from the signal standpoint and from the bureaucratic standpoint.)

Even something like a "new compression algorithm" would probably be enough to flummox the Russian software program. If it were unique to the drones, then the sat-download program authors would have no economic incentive to implement it. (And some "representatives" of our interests could have talks with them about it if they happen to implement it anyway.) This isn't strong crypto, but it would at least raise the bar.

EDIT: To those with poor reading comprehension: the tactic is a bit of "divide and conquer." (Colloquially, not algorithmically.) Divide the "key management" problem into two: "Sat up/down link" and "distribute to allies." The "Sat up/down link" is the exact same key management problem as for the control link. Also, if you solve that key management problem by just using obscure compression, then you can distribute the video using ordinary website access controls on establishing streams. Not strong crypto, not uber-secure, but still better than what's there now.
Not taking a side on branching philosophies (other than that I think it's good to be branching lots), but git does let you do checkouts in multiple directories. It uses hardlinks (in the repo, not in the checkout, obviously) so it's fairly efficient in terms of space and time to perform the checkout.
I thought it was obvious because I have never come across a person who hasn't dealt with the logic problem where the farmer has to get a few of his animals across a river, one at a time, and must do so in a sequence where no animals will kill each other. There was some vicious animal included.

I immediately recognized that problem #1 is very very same problem, but worded differently.

But it sounds like you and I have different solutions...?

Edit: Oh okay, I had to look up public-key cryptography. I thought you meant slip each other secret messages or something.
I oversimplified. However, the article describes Goldman taking a position, not acting as a market maker.

It also says that Goldman informed the clients that it might be taking a position opposite to theirs. So I'm really not sure I see the problem, apart from lazy reporting: "Goldman Sachs made money, scary financial words, now I've got a story."
Some DNS caches will continue to try giving out expired records if no newer ones can be found. Unclear that it's worth it, though.
Mostly hardware rack samplers. I think Liam used (uses?) Akai S1100 or a similar model. You play in chunks of audio to them, trim the waveform to the part you need, optionally build a keyboard-split/layered patch with it, and then play it via MIDI. They also have some envelopes for pitch modulation and other stuff you can use.

You can do this with sounds you make yourself (The Prodigy frequently samples their own synthesizers) or to anything you play in.

The sequencing would have been done with a hardware sequencer (unlikely) or a PC tracker or MIDI sequencer (more likely.) Record the outputs onto tape for mixing at the studio.
FTA: "The problem is, the world has changed. Today's insurgent adversaries don't have KGB-level intelligence gathering or cryptanalytic capabilities. At the same time, computer and network data gathering has become much cheaper and easier, so they have technical capabilities the Soviets could only dream of. Defending against these sorts of adversaries doesn't require military-grade encryption only where it counts; it requires commercial-grade encryption everywhere possible."
Apple may demo tablet on Jan. 26; Jobs "extremely happy" with final product
Anyone want to read through these replies and place some bets on how many goals will have markedly progressed by this time next year?

http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2006/08/how-to-set-goals-yo...

"work at becoming a better Dad" - Unspecific. Should being a better dad have the same negative connotations as work?

"Release one app every 15 days and spend 1hr a day..." - Specific, determined. I'd bet on this.

"Stop slacking" - Vague, phrased in the negative, no chance.

"Launch my startup no matter what" - Also vague, low chance.

"I plan to end 2010 with 10x as many customers as I start it with." - Great. I bet he will progress this.

"Go full-time", "Eat healthier and become more active", no and no, bet against these.

"Start eating a proper breakfast" - What, when will you prepare it, how will you stick to it?
Yup. It's the same room in all three pics. Also, it seems like the same pen is used.
1. A puts amulet in the safe, puts lock on it, sends to B. B puts lock on it, sends back to A. A unlocks his lock and sends it back to B. B unlocks and receives the amulet.

2. Take 20 coins aside, and flip them - this is one group. Take the 80 remaining coins - this is the second group. If there were X (0 \leq X \leq 20) queens in the first group, then there were 20-X queens in the second group. Since we flip the 20 coins in the first group, there are now 20-X queens in the first group as well.
Plans: (1) Add a few more members to the team. (2) Lease our own office instead of sublease. (3) Release the new version of our app. (4) Expand two more verticals. (5) Get more mainstream press. (6) Finish moving our core team to New York City. We're currently 2 of 4 in NYC. (7) Start our newsletter. (8) Do more charity work. (9) Start a meetup. (10) Get involved in local NYC art/design scene more than I already am.
* The economist: Technology quarterly, weekly news update page, analysis instead of opinion
The 2009 Cloudies Awards
Graduate school and start working on startup fulltime.
Exactly. These drones (or similar drones) are able to fire laser or radio guided missiles. I can't believe fire command and control of the drones isn't handled with 'hardcore' security of some kind. But it was too hard to encrypt a video feed? I don't buy it.
So, you don't want to share crypto with your allies but you do want to share your data with the enemy ?
repost. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1005406
Best "This Week in Startups" Guest 2009? vote now...
In the Iraqi case, I'm guessing the bandwidth of the signal would be prohibitive to send out on anything other than satellite.

Also, if you send it out again you will still have a key management problem if the data is encrypted.

I do agree with the premise that if there is crypto it doesn't have to be strong as the enemy do not have a proper analytic capacity. While I also know that the current US defence chief wants gear to fight the war on his hands right now and down the track, but you'd think that they might have considered that crypto would be a good idea at some point and at least had some plans on how to incorporate it. At the moment it just looks like the US military were caught with their pants down.
I was thinking "eh, just like my brother used to", so I told him the problems and he solved both in about 5 mins (although the first one the same way I did, it seems trivial if you can ybpx gur fnzr fnsr jvgu obgu ybpxf ng gur fnzr gvzr but also seems slightly wrong)
Key management is a tricky issue, especially when your neighborhood working with AT&T No Such Agency spies are the ones who get to dictate how keys are managed (i.e. same as if your adversary are soviet crypto-hackers).
I'm sure the algorithms for time stretching and the effects have been tweaked over the years, but the core principles of snipping wav files, sequencing on multiple tracks and adding parametrized effects are the same.

I'd love to see someone reconstruct some other tracks (like Public Enemy's "Fear of a Black Planet", 1989) with readily available consumer software like Apple's GarageBand.
reason it is unsatisfactiry (I had the same) is that one of the safe is not used, imo
Security in the Ether
How is the control link key distribution problem the 'exact same' problem? The control link key is secured in the aircraft and at military bases. There's no additional need for ad-hoc distribution, you never have to send a key to someone in a trench somewhere who's too busy shooting to put pants on. The entire point of the article is that the design decision not to encrypt the video was likely influenced by the problems of ad-hoc key distribution. To this reasoned analysis your response is 'hey just do key distribution!'. Doesn't seem very well thought out at all.
The point of using UltraDNS is that it they provide fast "real-time" failover of DNS routing. This is used, for example, for fault tolerance where the IP address responding to a domain name might change due to failure scenarios or load balancing (where a different server is now primary responder to the domain name, maybe located in a different data center or country). Infrastructure-wise, UltraDNS is kind of like the Akami of DNS, instead of content distribution.
My solution for #1 - not sure if it is correct. I didn't expect that two locks could fit in the clasp.

Person #2 sends the safe back to Person #1. It has nothing in it.

Person #1 locks his own safe to the safe of person #2, making sure the clasp of his safe is over the latch pin of the second safe. Again he sends it back with nothing in it.

Person #2 repeats this; now you have two safes locked together (with the latch pin being on top of opposite clasps). He sends the safe back to person #1.

Person #1 unlocks his lock, puts the amulet inside, and locks it again. He sends it back.

Person #2 unlocks the other side, and now has both safes, plus the amulet.
Last year, my goals were: (1) learn to program Mac OS X (2) get better at maths, basic data structures and algorithms (3) write more stuff on my blog.

I accomplished: (1) learned to program the Haiku OS (2) got better at C++ and OO design (3) met a bunch of awesome people in the FOSS community (4) learned version control (5) gained enough confidence to start a small FOSS project with some friends.

I still suck at programming Mac OS X (even though I've made some progress), still suck at maths and my blog is updated about once a month. I learned a little something about data structures and algorithms, but only because I took that class at college.

Moral of the story: you usually end up accomplishing something completely different from what you initially plan. The trick is to just go with it and let good stuff happen.

That said, I still have some plans for 2010: (1) learn Haskell and x86_64 assembly (2) release the FOSS project I've been working on (3) contribute more code to Haiku (4) get better at socializing (5) write a lot of stuff on my blog (for real this time).

I know I'll end up accomplishing a completely different set of goals, but it's still nice to have a roadmap :)
What's wrong here is acting in bad faith by selling known-bad investments.

I participated in this activity in that I created software systems to enable the creation, valuation, analysis and management of the securities. As such, I'm sure I'm biased, but perhaps I also have some additional information and perspective.

At the points in time when the securities were being sold, they were not known-bad. It's possible a few were sold afterwards, but they stopped being created pretty much the moment it was realized that they weren't going to perform. After all, the profit on them came primarily from holding a piece of the equity tranche (rather than from the sale itself), and the value of that tranche plummeted to zero and those bits were renamed 'toxic assets' in the press.

As this new information came to light, two activities occurred. One was the wind-down of a lot of the structured products. Another was that traders looked for ways to use the information for a profit, such as buying swaps to profit from it.

While I support 'what did they know, and when did they know it' style research to find bad actors (of which I'm sure there are some), it's my sincere belief that the vast majority of the deals were made in good faith.

I don't think the insurance/fraud analogies are accurate, nor particularly useful in garnering lessons learned.
Every accessor needs the keys - all relevant field commanders, etc. They also need security clearances. The keys need to be stored and managed securely. They should also be updated regularly, which means that all commanders need new keys at some point. I presume the keys for each UAV would be different.

In WW2 it was only a few top commanders who worked with Ultra (afaik), and it wasn't anywhere as regular as broadcast video. I guess the main difference here is the number of users is that much greater and in Schneier's opinion the value of the information is that much lesser.
link appears dead, and their search turns up nothing - mirror?

Edit: Working Google cache: http://bit.ly/6HNZbs
More:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-12/tcob-fmo12170...

http://www.qbi.uq.edu.au//index.html?page=52793#novel%20low

(article not published yet, but this stuff is pretty good)