skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If there is a suspicion of a crime they should be able to stop and search you (hence the reasonable clause). But if they only see you carrying a TV they should not be able to stop and take it. And that is what they've done. "You have a lot of money in your possession, it must have been ill gotten gains from a crime so we will take it." They do this without even knowing what crime was committed.
Akshar Patel is a muslim with links to Ahmed Patel
Microsoft working on a new breakthrough phone
I didn't see any computers running this OS during my trip to Pyongyang. I saw a few machines running Win2k and one that ran a bowling alley ran Win3.1. Comical stuff..
What something absurd did I make up? That North Korea puts entire families in camps for minor offenses? That's not made up.
So I was on Glassdoor just yesterday and saw a little note "Your trust is our top concern, so companies can't alter or remove reviews."

Is that just a flat out lie?
>So you understand how quantitative easing stimulates the economy but you don't see the analogy to creating more copies of information goods?

Quantitative easing is a very dangerous last resort action and it's done in a very controlled way. It is also RARELY executed because printing money is really bad. Look up runaway inflation in argentina for more information.

If executed successfully QE will come with an inflationary cost that affects anyone who owns money in the united states.

I don't see the analogy between QE and piracy because no such analogy exists, you don't jump start a business by pirating it's software, never seen it happen. Although, I do see the analogy between piracy and counterfeiting money.

>They... lower taxes and increase/maintain government spending. Which you can't do at the same time as each other without either borrowing or creating money, and government borrowing money increases interest rates, hence the printing.

Sure, but that hardly helps. The main tool for easing recessions is decreasing the federal funds rate aka "interest rates." You lose!

>Then just claim copying is stealing directly so people can better understand why you're wrong. The analogy is unnecessary and it doesn't even hold in that context.

Ha! The analogy is there to HELP YOU understand why I'm right and why you're wrong about me being wrong. It holds in context of supply and demand. The law of supply and demand applies to all products from software to food to paper money.

>If you use forged currency to "buy" a loaf of bread, the store is out one loaf of bread. If you copy some information the store's balance sheet is unchanged. The two are not equivalent and trying to ignore the difference is exactly what leads to the crazy conclusions the law makes about the calculation of damages for copyright infringement.

What if I make a billion copies of music and sell it for cash? Then I use the cash to buy a loaf of bread from the store? Would the store be out one loaf of bread? Did the balance sheet change? I didn't do any work to earn that loaf of bread, so who got shafted in this transaction? the software vendor or the bread maker or someone else? Philosophical question.

>It is merely saying that the damages are not equal to the retail price of the copy

So? I never said anything about this topic. It's still theft regardless if the value of the theft is equivalent to the retail price.
>I don't see how this is relevant. We already accept that terrorism is not justifiable, we're discussing whether drone strikes are terrorism.

I replied to this comment "Ironically, much of the personnel involved in the U.S. drone program lives and works stateside, among the civilian population." My point is that the fact that drone operators live among civilian population makes no difference since no muslim (or otherwise) terrorists have tried to attack them, thus killing innocents as collateral damage - which is how civilians in Afghanistan or Pakistan are killed.

>Because being Muslim is not a terrorist's defining characteristic. One defining characteristic would be a disregard for human life.

So why are they 'people identifying as Muslims' instead of 'muslims'? Are other muslims refusing to accept them as muslim?

Separately, their religious identity is their defining characteristic. Same way that communists' who killed millions in Russia and China political affiliation was fundamental to their identity.

While we probably can't say this about middle east civil war participants, the muslim terrorists who kill people in the West are driven primarily by their religion. If they weren't, they would be small-time crooks or drug dealers at worst. Somehow their religion turned them into murderous psychopaths - let's not beat around the bush here.
tl;dr The pinnacle of establishment propaganda suggests we should continue to pretend we can trade freedom for safety.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM
I don't understand. My position is that blatant abuses of civil asset forfeiture should happen less and should be punished severely. The standard required to seize assets should probably be higher, and there should be far less burden on the asset owner to reclaim their assets.

In your analogy, that's me saying that we should try to reduce the number of bugs in our software. I don't think this is controversial.
Here is a fantastic on on Privilege Escalation using DLL Hijacking http://www.pentesteracademy.com/video?id=575

Just how malware works today! even saw this in a Mark Russinovich talk.
So you're confounding average CPC with search advertising margin. Great. And then making a bunch of statements about the cause for a decrease in CPC with no factual basis. Here's another plausible narrative:

Mix of traffic is shifting as traffic builds in new platforms (e.g. mobile, emerging markets, YouTube), knocking down average CPC. Then we're getting a Simpson's paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox) effect causing average CPC to decrease.
Ah. Then we agree!

I think I mixed up your opinion with some other folks who think we shouldn't have asset forfeiture at all. Sorry about that. My mistake.
Startup Failure by Industry
Oh, absolutely. The problem is that your key schema also ties you to what kind of queries you can do efficiently. My primary keys actually are very well-distributed across the hash space, but in my initial implementation, one of the global secondary indexes had a key that caused throttling and absolutely destroyed performance. Dropping that index meant losing the ability to do an entire class of queries. In this case, we were (sorta) able to live with that, but I can imagine many cases where that's a problem.

That's actually another instance of the lack of transparency and trial-and-error: "oh hey, writes are getting throttled... no idea why... let's drop this index and see if it helps".
I think this is a fundamental property of capitalism. People who are happy and taken care of don't need to spend money and are terrible for the economy. If you can create problems for someone, you can market solutions to them. Some of the best selling products in the world, like Coca-Cola, are themselves creating the the problem they purport to solve.

For a century, companies have been pushing cultural changes that make it harder for us to take car of ourselves, privatizing public spaces for socialization, promoting nuclear families over extended families and neighborhoods, narrowing beauty standards, promoting exotic vacations and recreational activities, etc. This has fueled economic growth while making us generally more vulnerable. As the article describes, even if you have enough money to take care of your basic needs, you have a long distance to go to happiness.

On the tech side this is quite common too. I would put PowerPoint in this category, too. And most AAA video games.

The sooner we can get out of this "money is a proxy for everything because markets are perfect" nonsense the better.
Because a direct challenge to Constitutionally protected speech is unlikely, I predict the Communications Decency Act from the 1990s -- specifically, Section 230 which protects web services from many liability claims associated with comments posted by users (1) -- could be targeted for repeal or a major rewriting.

1. http://technology.findlaw.com/modern-law-practice/understand...
This sounds like an interesting mitigation, but comes with it's own drawbacks:
- you now start worrying about if it's possible to get a malicious download from your domain that dll-hijacks non-malicious downloads (better than the current state of the world, but not a lot)
- less user friendly: who wants to remember what domain they downloaded something from when they go looking for an old download?

also there's the question of should you associate the file with the domain that served it (probably?) or the domain that was in the browser bar when the download was triggered? I think it's unclear because the user's will expect the latter but the former makes more sense as security.

Anyhow I think the right answer is that this is on the OS to provide better defense mechanisms. Maybe just something like the ability for the browser to tag the file with the domain it's from, instead of just "the internet". And then the OS could say "exe from www.foo.com is trying to load dll from www.bar.com, this looks fishy do you want to allow?" or maybe just flat out fail it; this way you get your cross-domain restrictions but less usability problems.

Or better yet, the OSes could solve this problem entirely by having a much stronger whitelist of what DLLs are included from where. why don't we just require programs to specify the full path to any DLL they try to load, instead of doing a search for the file? Or maybe some sort of code signing technique could apply, and programs could specify they want to load X dll, but only if signed by Microsoft or whoever the expected party is, with some optional power-user way to override this?

Or maybe we should just have some sort of warnings when you download a DLL from the internet, and put DLLs in their own download folder or something? That might be the easiest mitigation for a browser to implement.
You need both constant power hardware and software to be immune (and to related timing attacks). The libsecp256k1 library for example is designed to be timing attack resistant, but I'm still working on verifying how power sidechannel resistant it is.

Using an internal power source, like a primary lithium cell, is one way to circumvent the power sidechannel. But power sidechannels can also easily become RF sidechannels, so it's still good to minimize them.
Interesting aside...I downloaded the dll this afternoon just for laughs to see what the fuss was. Since I didn't want to dig around for an installer that would trigger the hook, I just left it in my download dir.

Just now, I decided to mess with Steam again after a long hiatus...guess what popped up when I ran SteamSetup.exe?
Thing is, the approach your describing is fundamental dishonest... Leading investors to believe that you have technology that will be ready in 2011 when in reality you expect it to be ready in 2016 is not flipping a start up business model... It's just lying to get investor money
The problem with ElastiCache -- and why I rejected it as an option -- as that they make you define a 30-minute "maintenance window" where AWS can apply patches and reboot your cache instances. In practice I've heard that this happens rarely, and when it does, the downtime is short, but it can in theory cause longer outages.

And in the case of both the redis and memcached backends, if the maintenance requires restarting redis/memcached or rebooting the instance, you lose all data in the cache (at least up until your last backup). For this particular project, that amount of downtime would easily cause a real outage for customers, and was unacceptable.
React/JavaScript fatigue
Scarier than you think. Many of these these proposals have already made it in Europe. It may come to the US too in the future given Millennials support for these kinds of measures:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millen...
Model S starts at $69k. That's a lot of car. The model Consumer Reports gave 100/100 to is the P85D, at $105k. That's a ridiculous amount of car.

If you're looking at sedans/coupes: BMW M235i or 328d xDrive ($50k), BMW 5-series ($60k) Mercedes E250 diesel ($63k), Audi A6 ($56k), Porsche Boxster ($59k).

I wouldn't be sad about my money going to fund cool battery technology and saving the environment. But you could also use it to buy more car.

The price premium for Tesla over a similar gas or diesel luxury vehicle is conservatively $20k (since the BMW M and 5-series are closer to the P85D than the base Model S). Figure diesel is at $2.50. The 328d and E250 both get close to 40mpg highway. You'd have to drive more than 300,000 miles to break even on the electric, and that's before you consider the price of electricity.
It's not a lie but it's not necessarily the whole truth. Companies can't alter reviews, but Glassdoor definitely can and does. We just don't know what criteria they use.
>Usually anyone can copy currency as long as you clearly indicate that it is a copy.

Would a copy of a dollar still be a copy if it was clearly marked indicating it was a copy? Strange loop!
I'd have to disagree with code quality in regards to PHP. While the way it's traditionally done can have code quality problems, that isn't something which is inherent in the language. I've had great results working with Laravel. At least for my use case, it's basically just been a better Rails that happens to be in PHP. It's also compatible with HHVM and Hack, which can be useful depending on your needs.
Couldn't this be alleviated with a finger prick method that prevents the droplet from sitting on the surface of the skin before it is collected? (i.e. a tiny needle that reaches below the epidermis to extract a drop of blood)
The biggest issue I have with this project isn't the chosen plan -- it's that Seattle waited 20+ years to take action. The 2001 Nisqually quake certainly damaged the 99 bridge, but it was already in a state of constant repair prior to that point. Before then, initiative after initiative was put on the ballot as Seattleites would constantly register their preferences for how to deal with the 99/waterfront area.

There have been lots of politics involved over those 20+ years, and if Seattle is really bad at something, it's politics. The project, as poorly planned and estimated as it has been, is actually better than the historic alternative -- doing nothing at all.
The USA will murder you in a death camp for looking at them sideways. Given that context, the difficulty North Koreans have in watching cat videos on Youtube is nothing.

Edit: Downvoters what are you objecting to?

Do you think people in "black sites", like Gitmo, are guilty of something?

Do you believe former staff at Gitmo who say "suicides" were murders are lying?

Do you think NKs can access the internet easily?

Or do just not understand that the ridiculous comparison/exaggeration/simplification in my post is exactly the same as mikeash makes, except he makes it apparently sincerely?
You could put the noise source deep inside the CPU.
Huh? Sounds like she did answer the question -- only Herpes.
Probably this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10714292
Samsung Electronics values hardware over software when it comes to mobile
Can you name a successful country with no protected military secrets? How would that even work?
"On the Multicians site it suggests Multics had a very different concept of "files", which could also be "segments". There was apparently potential ambiguity regarding the term "file"."

Segments are a hardware mechanism often used then for accessing or protecting things in memory due to simplicity & speed of mechanism. Several modern techniques in INFOSEC use segments to protect programs.

Here's how the MULTICs filesystem worked, though. Gist of it seems like MULTICS came up with all the key concepts I recognize for hierarchical, filesystems.

http://www.multicians.org/fjcc4.html

Hansen's history shows the Titan System also had a similar filesystem:

http://brinch-hansen.net/papers/2001b.pdf

Both predate UNIX with Thompson and Ritchie actually using MULTIC before writing UNIX. So, it's probably main influence.

"Today we often see the phrase "Everything is a file" being cited when introducing people to UNIX. But I have never seen anyone attempt to explain why. What was the context in the 1970's?"

It's explained here:

https://superuser.com/questions/364152/why-is-everything-is-...

More detail from authors (see 3.3):

http://www.scs.stanford.edu/nyu/04fa/sched/readings/unix.pdf

"Again, this early manual says: "The most important role for UNIX is to provide a file system.""

Ritchie was clear in other writings that there wasn't a single goal for UNIX at all other than to be usable and more than what they were working with. It was designed to be efficient and enable programmers rather than hold them back. The rest fell into place from there.
It's seems like there has been enough deception of investors, employees, partners and customers over the 12 years with little/nothing to show that "fraudulent" is probably the correct word.
2016 Tech Predictions
Cherries in the Snow
Every article I read about this company sounds like a recap of Rashomon. No two participants ever describe the same events.
The media was caught off-guard after years of writing puff pieces, and it's only now that they are doing any investigative journalism. The only thing they have to go off of right now are hype-filled interviews, sources, and he-said / she-said conversations.

I'm sure the major newspapers are all preparing full investigative pieces, but those take time. In the meantime we'll get articles full of circumstantial evidence and insinuations.
I didn't know how ... artificial this practice was. I didn't know they literally wired up the trees to hold them in position.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled" - Richard Feynman
Well that's all very moral, but what Theranos is doing is mostly engineering. So while "hype the fuck out of it, raise big money, and fake it 'till you make it" might feel all icky, it's not a unique plan.

Will we be saying the same things about Palantir? Maybe, maybe not. There's not that much difference between Palantir and Theranos. What has Palantir got that others don't? Answer: The ability to raise money at incredible valuations. Both are living off a mythologized ("PayPal has great fraud detection" and "you don't need an incompetent phlebotomist poking holes in your arm") advantage. We'll see if they can turn all that money into a real advantage.

But you can't count on science to spank these people.
Beyond your cable modem (How not to do DOCSIS networks)[video]
The latter half of that paragraph is articulating what I think Theranos is currently doing, not what I think they should have done.

What I said they should have done is described to their investors the business model that would act as a stop gap measure (gain market share and revenues by using existing technology) while allowing them to develop their proprietary technology to a point where it can get regulatory approval and can replace the already existing tech they're currently using.

> Leading investors to believe that you have technology that will be ready in 2011 when in reality you expect it to be ready in 2016 is not flipping a start up business model... It's just lying to get investor money

I've not seen any indication that rounds were predicated on certain delivery dates of the tech (what tech? what is the "success" percent? can the tech be augmented with more traditional tools?). If terms did get that specific, then there would be grounds for potential fraud.
> The essence of trolling isn't bullshitting; it's knowing how to get a rise out of people.

"Provocative"? No, I think there needs to be an element of bad faith or inauthenticity. 'Actual' trolls are supposed to be malicious creatures.

> homeschooling

I wouldn't call that scalable, it only worked for me because I was already coding by the time I convinced my parents to let me do my own thing. Though maybe there is an advanced body of theory I'm not aware of.
As if marking a certain brand of speech as forbidden, without being able to do more than a tiny smidgen to actually prevent its dissemination (as must be the case given the unfiltered nature of our Internet - unlike in the past with paper materials, not that censorship worked out so well then either), would reduce its effectiveness on vulnerable young people questioning their worldviews, as opposed to making it seem more attractive!
>but memory limits and networking gaps would remain real and intractable

Those don't have much to do with Moore's law though.
The Gregory Hays translation is by far the best out there.
Show HN: 30 Days, 30 Demos
So, if I want to tell her that I like her, I should say it quickly in case I don't see her again?
The strategies being played by Theranos's executive don't look like Silicon Valley, IMHO. They look like outsiders cargo-culting the startup process: outside-looking-in Silicon Valley.
Stating that your company has tech it does not have in order to lure investors and obtain contracts would be fraud. Whether that's in fact the case with Theranos will become clear eventually.
Elemental: C++ library for distributed-memory linear algebra and optimization
Theranos = Pets.com of this decade's bubble, which will once again be defined by founders, often young ones, having no clue what they are doing.

Investors can you please get better at realizing that sometimes experience and know-how can help?
Aside from the somewhat out-of-place right wing tone, this is all basically true.

About 5-6 years ago, it occurred to me that:

- information is the new oil
- politics is the exchange of power

which implies:

- in 2030 or so, we will have someone with a tech background as president.

Why did we have George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush as presidents? Because they developed immense wealth through controlling the flow of oil around the globe. They went to Saudi Arabia and brought back oil.

Then they exchanged this power for political power.

Information is like oil in that everybody needs it. You can't build a house, open a restaurant, import shoes, etc. without energy, and you can't do any of it without information either. Whereas you can open a restaurant without building a house. These two things are special and fundamental.

Now we have the flow of information concentrated in the hands of the very few. We rent our devices from Apple and Google, and they exercise control over what apps you run on it, and what content is surfaced through searches. Things that happen on Facebook can change the course of your life.

In the near future, there will be undoubtedly be someone who exchanges this immense power for political power, just as the Bushes did. I'm not saying this is good or bad -- it's just a fact, in an almost mathematical sense.
Without knowing the term sheets and early investor negotiations that were held, I shy away from using the term fraudulent in the strict legal sense of the word.

Certainly you can argue more broadly that Theranos statements to the public over the past decade go beyond being disingenuous about their implementation of difficult technology and enter into fraudulent territory.
I saw multiple machines running RedStar OS, even took photos of me interacting with one of them, on my 2-week trip a couple of years ago.

I commented on another North Korea post here on Hacker News a while ago, where I also posted the URL to the photos, if anyone are curious. It even had IP addresses set and some sort of network (not Internet) access.
Moore's law is about transistor counts and DRAM is made of transistors so it really does.