skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Surgery is an option, namely bone-marrow transplants.

The reason blood cancers are first with these techniques boils down to having better known antigen targets to target compared to solid tumors where known antigens have more cross reactivity to other tissues (so less specificity, more side-effects).
I think there are bigger repercussions than just PR and potential liability. If they do it once, then they will be asked again to. This also means that "hackers" can use that same method to get around the security.
I've been following the USB-C power delivery for some time. HP has one, but they disabled the ability to charge it from another PCs USB port because they can't trust other manufacturers didn't mess up the standard. Google Pixel, obviously perfect compliance with the spec. I am currently on thinkpad X230 with Debian Linux and W8. haven't booted into W8 for more than a year now. I wish the X260 had USB-C
BULLSHIT

I live in the command line and use a modern toolchain. Package management has no bearing on my development. mvn, npm, composer, gem, and pip all work just fine. Home brew gets you the OS packages and I've yet to run into an even remotely popular package not in a Homebrew repo somewhere.

On top of all that- with Vagrant and (or even just) Virtualbox you have whatever flavor of Linux you want running on your desktop.

I have found OSX to be the best combination of just works enough OS with all the command line power I need. I can't effing stand Windows anymore and all the Linux desktop distros, though may have some appealing niche characteristics over OS X, there are way more rough edges. I could see one day leaving OS X for a Linux distro, but it won't be any time soon.
Oh just wait. It will, I promise. It's nowhere near yum or apt.
Finding Patterns Using Keywords to Compose Table Answers (2014) [pdf]
From what I remember, these blood cancer have an antigen, CD13 or something, which is unique to them - no other body part has it, making it easy to target them.

Otherwise, you get the side effect of destroying your own body, the case of a woman a few years ago, who died having her lungs destroyed by immunotherapy. Lungs had the same antigen.

This morning I read something hopeful in this direction - UCSF researchers designed an AND gate, so now they could trigger a T cell attack only when 2 specific antigens are present, making it much more reliable. And I could imagine these can be chained, further narrowing it down. It needs genetic sequencing to isolate.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2016/01/401471/tricked-out-immune-...

At the moment this is a terrible manual and time consuming process, so it is expensive.
12.04 is still under LTS support by Ubuntu for another 4 years (LTS releases are supported for 7 years), so even if it's "old" it's also receiving active support. That being said, there's nothing stopping you from upgrading to 14.04 yourself.
That's not correct. This is still an open question. Some courts have went one way, some the other way.
The current models ship with 14.04: http://www.dell.com/us/business/p/xps-13-linux/pd
FWIW, George Friedman (of STRATFOR) predicted this, except he believed the implosion of China would be on a truly catastrophic scale. So they could still be at the edge of a much deeper hole.

See: The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century https://www.amazon.com/dp/0767923057
Interesting being Australian I don't have a 5th amendment to protect me. Also my understanding is that at least in Australia you'd likely be charged with obstruction of some sort, does that not fly in the US?
This! I guess the panels must be way cheaper or something. I would buy a 16:10 high quality expensive laptop in a second.
Splatoon's Ranking System Is Still Broken
That may be not a bad idea to get an APL keyboard actually, considering there are R interop interfaces for DyalogAPL, APLX and J.
Practice Sense provides electronic patient forms and other tools necessary to collect and verify patient health and insurance information before their appointment.
Yes, basically. Home owners were given mortgages they couldn't afford except under beyond-ideal circumstances. They then would refinance and take out other mortgages, until the whole house of cards came down.

The Saudis could maybe handle a situation like this, given their natural resources. As the current price of oil has shown, however, being rich in natural resources has its own issues.

The same principles apply across China, Saudi Arabia, and startups: at a certain point, you have to make money.
this is smoke screen. Purely.

they can already desolder the flash memory chips and brute force the data, programatically no less, all they want.
I've been on HN for years now and I've never seen someone write "BULLSHIT" in all caps here.

Can we not do that?
This is also why a combination of engineered T-cells and immune checkpoint inhibitors is a really winning combo. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/01/paradigm-shif...
No. OS X has its own implementation.

http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/Libinfo/Libinfo-477.2...
The fuses are only "blown" (i.e. the UID is burned into the chip) at manufacturing time, not when the device is erased.

When a device is first set up (or wiped) a random key is created and encrypted by the Secure Enclave with a key derived from the user's passcode and the device's UID. Since only that particular device's Secure Enclave has access to the UID the user's passcode can't be brute forced by any other computer, which enables the Secure Enclave to enforce policies like the passcode attempt delay and incorrect passcode attempt. If the device needs to be wiped the random key is simply erased by the Secure Enclave.

(Also, if you only changed 1 bit that would mean you only had to try 2 possible keys...)
Maybe not as good, but definitely good enough. (My personal laptop runs Archlinux, my work laptop runs OS X).
Good find. Wow, that repo is a class act. Binaries checked in and everything. Clearly looks like this and the OP's DVR share lineage.

From what I can tell, the e-mail address etc. are defaults used in CGI_send_email, which is only invoked as the handler for the /email endpoint. Looking at the order of endpoints defined in https://github.com/simonjiuan/ipc/blob/master/src/ipcam_netw... it seems that /email was probably left out in the DVR's code, so it's possible this function is simply never invoked, and we're just left with the WTF that not only did the original author (Mr. Law) think that an e-mail service needed a default "To", but that he thought it should be him, and that he left it in the final product.
The article at Errata Security [1] is better. There is an HN submission for it [2], but it hasn't drawn any attention.

In particular, it addresses technical issues not covered in the Techdirt article that are relevant to many of the existing comments here on HN.

[1] http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/02/some-notes-on-apple-decryp...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11115251
Why not just turn the phone off instead.
This actually looks pretty cool. Screenshots would be useful for passersby.
Yep, that's the one I was thinking of. Curious, did you ever do a follow up? Have 50% of the original drives died yet?
While I'm also curious why this isn't possible (as per everyone else's comments), the phone in question doesn't even have the same level of security so does it even have a dedicated chip with the GID and UID?
>>Are the same cities hanging around forever (and people complaining about them forever), or is it new stock every year?

I guess, googling "ghost cities in China" may bring out many interesting statistics about this. From the top links you get there one can fairly say that the "ghost cities" are in reality a biggish problem.
Of course, we cannot get more complete picture just from these sites, but that is true for any communist regime: they will never allow any independent market study to happen in the first place.
Knitr: Elegant, Flexible and Fast Dynamic Report Generation with R
Are you suggesting they can brute force AES-256?

iOS's security is quite sophisticated: https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf
Do what you will, but that was not a personal attack.
Yeah. This may end up costing a huge amount with no results. Apple (and it's employees) doesn't have much incentive to crack the device although someone might be curious and use this as a good time to look for security holes on the government's dime.
Controllers are important for being gatekeepers, which can be adjusted (think middlewares which add security, logging or other changes uniformly) and inspected outside of the MVC code, and separates outside from inside.

It might be worth the tradeoff in the short-term, but it's the lifecycle TCO of code counting support and modifications over many projects which will validate or invalidate a particular approach (there is also a cost in terms of hiring and learning curve for inventing an alternate convention).

I hope it works out.
I have the "old X1 Carbon with a low res screen", except that the article is a little inaccurate: it doesn't have to have a low res screen. You can select a 2560x1440 screen. Even better, it's a non-reflective (matte) screen and even has a non-touch option! I guess I'm not alone in disliking reflective screens.

What sold me more than anything, though, was that I could select the best parts without being forced into a touchscreen. In so many other company's product lineups, if I wanted the 1440p screen (or whatever is highest), they were convinced I absolutely wanted a touchscreen, yes sirree! Thank you, Lenovo, for understanding my needs.

I don't remember which manufacturer it was, but I remember one option page where if I wanted to select the Core i7 option, it required the touchscreen upgrade as well. I don't see any logic behind that at all except "Hey, that i7 means you must be a big spender, guess we'll milk you for all you've got!"

As for OS, I run Linux Mint (Cinnamon) currently and experience no particular hardware or driver issues. Battery life is 5-8 hours depending on load, screen brightness, etc.
Linearly increasing: True. I misread the axis. It still doesn't seem to have the form of something in a bubble or clearly unsustainable.

1. That's a fair point. But I suspect this has more to do with less developed capital markets in China than systematic weakness. I wonder if local supply of capital will be able to step up in the next American recession.

2. I think many have been successful in lowering their manufacturing costs. Not sure how an American correction would affect the Chinese economy.

3. Fair.

4. I'm generally skeptical of this argument. US corporations and households have maintained a high level of debt for more than 50 years without significant effect. I guess the Federal gov hasn't been the holder of that debt, but it actually seems better that way because they have the ability to print cash and add a stabilizing effect.

I guess my point is that none of these individually seem extreme enough to cause a problem. Maybe in aggregate there could be a storm.
No, don't put words into my mouth. I think Apple should go to some extraordinary means to assist here. Any system is hackable if have physical possession and control over the input.
I'm not understanding what is "insane" about installing to /usr/local/Cellar and dropping a symlink in /usr/local/bin. This is the convention on OS X. All tools I have ever seen install to /usr/local.
I think people are making a point by continuously up voting it.

It is a world changing web site that's been long coming, but perhaps could be short lived.
The beauty of being a professional doomsayer is that people will remember one time you were right and forget the 99 times you were wrong. Then you can weave your career through books and TV shows that will pitch "the [only] expert who predicted X".

cf Peter Schiff, Meredith Whitney, Ron Paul.
I've had two MBPs since 2007/8 and the first one still works just fine- in fact it works great with upgraded RAM and an SSD. The second is a late 2014... I was on a 2 year cycle with my PC laptops. Batteries, screens, the fact that they were shit to begin with...
Yes. If A were a class, I'd have to specify `public I_A`, but since it's a struct, that's the default.
We've been in constant crisis mode since 2000 (just as I graduated college). This crap kept me from buying a home, delayed marriage and children, etc. In my mid 30s, I have no job security, almost no retirement and no home. I had no idea life in the 21st century was going to be so miserable for young people in North America. I guess this is globalization in action :(
Twister is derived from Bitcoin, but actually uses its own fork.

IIRC, the blockchain is used to store account credentials and nothing else.
The html part only is 25KB; you got 13k because you had everything cached from previous sessions.
At my last couple of jobs, I actually redlined the employment agreement and put an addendum that said that anything I work on away from work on my own hardware is mine. They all accepted it, sometimes with a little back and forth (and in one case three years in came back to me saying "we don't have your employment agreement" and starting the process over again).

There was only one place I didn't have to do that -- Netflix. It's part of their standard agreement. It even went one step further and said that even if you use their resources, if you do it on your own time you own it, as long as it's not in direct competition with their business. It was a refreshing change for sure.
> Given that the answer to CAN they is a solid no, and that random searches of homes is in no way related to searching devices used in a conspiracy to commit murder, what is the point of this? In one instance, someone has clearly committed a conspiratorial crime, in another instance, people are living in houses with low property value.

You said that the state should be able to search the phone because it was likely to have evidence of crimes. I am arguing that higher than normal likelihood, as you might expect in a high-crime neighborhood, is not sufficient to justify a search. Instead, I am arguing that evidence (indicative of finding things that will help solve or prevent crimes), not likelihood of finding such things, should be the standard for a warrant.

> A conspiracy took place.

I should have said "a conspiracy beyond the two dead perpetrators".

> one of the participants declared that they were part of a larger group

Did she? I thought she said she "pledged allegiance" to a larger group, like one might do to a Pope you have never met or spoken with.

> what information is missing that would motivate you to think that a search of the attackers' phones should be conducted?

I discussed this elsewhere in the thread, but you may not have seen that post yet. Here is a link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11115698

> Are you really asserting that there is no evidence of conspiracy that extends beyond the deceased

No, I am /asking/ if there is any such evidence.

> I don't imagine that you're arguing that the post-mortem privacy interests of the terrorists prohibit investigation.

No, I don't think it prohibits investigation, but I do think that state searches of their personal effects ought to require evidence that searching their personal effects would solve old crimes or prevent new ones.

> Are you suggesting that the risk from not knowing the contents of the phone are so low as to not rise to outweigh the privacy interests of anyone incidentally mentioned on the device?

I am suggesting that those privacy interests can be balanced against evidence that searching the phone would solve old crimes or prevent new ones. I do not believe that risk is the only question. That is what I was trying to get at with my distinction between "high likelihood of" and "evidence of", above.

> What is the moral base from which you are arguing that this nearly universally accepted standard is somehow deficient?

The reason I think that evidence of solving (or helping to solve) old crimes or preventing new ones should be required before searching the possessions of any person, living or dead, murderer or pacifist, is a traditional one about privacy, but it seems like the balance I use is different than your balance.

That "societies generally allow" the state to do something, or that societies "nearly universally" do so, is not a big factor in my feelings on whether or not it is fair and just.
Swift.PM – An unofficial registry of Swift packages
All the vision news you want
That's fair enough. I can see how the response starts significantly more aggressive than I meant it to be as a quick response.
Maybe when humans are axiomatic that might work.

Till then......

Edit: The deleted post was suggesting that it would be wonderful if the law would be entirely axiomatic. The post was getting a lot of downvotes.
the big question here is what does Juno think it knows that Uber doesn't?

there is some implication that Juno will be friendlier to drivers, but that just doesn't seem to be enough to take on Uber, since Uber could easily match policies, and it has a large enough warchest to outlast most competitors.

the ride tracking aspect could be about a better matching and/or routing algorithm, but why would that by itself be enough of a differentiator? Uber seems to be efficient enough in that regard, so it doesn't seem likely that there is space to squeeze out margin on that.

do they think they can increase driver utilization, and thereby be more efficient? Uber seems to be experimenting in that arena with UberEATS and other delivery services, so it could possibly be a pain point for Uber that Juno thinks it can exploit. but again, that seems like a second order issue.

in any case, it's fun to armchair quarterback startup business strategy. =)
Great point about good/bad, so here's the line: systems should resist and prevent mass warrantless surveillance. We are innocent by default, a government should not be able to dragnet it's citizens.

However I don't understand why everyone on hn thinks it's impossible to design things in this manner.
There is no burden of proof. Apple says it's corrupted that's about it. I'm sure the other party will ask for details. If they don't believe Apple they'll explain that to the Judge and he'll go from there, but otherwise no one will demand proof of anything.

I don't see how statues of limitations is connected to the question.
Very interesting talk at Blackhat about the numerous security vulnerabilities CCTV cameras have such as hard coded master passwords in firmware: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaI0xjeefpg
Trash talking laptops and OS choices seem to be a pressure point for HN users, considering how civilised discussion is normally.
> But there is a very big reason to make such a distinction: consumers’ expectations based on long-standing law disfavoring these “restraints on alienability of property.” For almost 400 years, it has been widely accepted that those who manufacture goods shouldn’t be able to reach out and exercise a “dead-hand” of control over the goods once the manufacture has long passed ownership on to the consumer.

The EFF takes some artistic license here. The aversions to restraints on the alienability of property apply to real property (i.e. land), which is different than mass-manufactured chattel property for obvious reasons. The doctrine has nothing to do with "consumer expectations" but is instead a way to avoid land-use planning problems that result from use and transfer restrictions in wills.
I want the Pixel for its USB C charging capabilities. the biggest reason I don't get one is because while I have no regrets with wiping windows, I have FOMO about wiping ChromeOS.

if the SSD weren't only 64GB... I could put Debian and chrome OS on it.
yep. it is not science. they don't have... they don't even consider a null hypothesis.

It is raw data that they provide in an excellent fashion.

You can consume it raw and trust their high driver numbers to drive p high enough for you, or you can use their data for real science. either way, it is a great deal that they take the time to share it.
Does anyone have experience with the Tuxedo Computers - http://www.tuxedocomputers.com ? They have just recently released an interesting 13.3" InfinityBook.
You keep switching between legal and normative requirements. We disagree on the 4th amendment in the same way that scientists and climate change deniers disagree about global warming. You have a fringe understanding of it with no support from the relevant literature and your arguments about it are poorly structured, deny evidence, and rely on intentionally misunderstanding context and terms of art.

The legality of searching for evidence is pretty open and shut because you need probable cause. The point of a search is to gather evidence, requiring the evidence that would be the result of a search is obviously a non-starter as a system.

Shooting a bunch of people and saying you're with ISIS is plenty of probable cause for a search. I don't see how you're waiting for "all the evidence" here since all the relevant facts are in and they're sufficient. Whether or not she was conversing privately with ISIS counterparts would be the resulting information of the search.

> One thing I would call strong evidence is a shooter having announced that he or she was part of a terrorist cell in the US.

The only way to read this in light of our previous discussion is that saying "I'm in ISIS!" and then shooting up a bunch of civilians is insufficient to prompt a post-mortem search of the attackers' affairs, instead they need to say "I'm in ISIS and there are a bunch of us!" and then shoot a bunch of civilians.

Bravo sir, I have been well and properly trolled.
There is something I forgot to say in my other reply, and I didn't want to edit it and provide a moving target.

> Sorry for all the questions

There is no need to be sorry. They are useful for me to understand your POV and to have a conversation. I am happy to answer them as best I can.
Peeling Back to First Principles
Online dev tool adds DIY baseboard for RPi Compute Module
Hmm, I guess the tone of the actual content wasn't abusive or inflammatory so I didn't think about it. OS flame wars are still burning.
How much commission to pay salesperson for selling Consulting Services?
My software consulting company is looking to hire a salesperson (as my first hire!). I’ve been finding it difficult to get an idea on what other software consulting companies pay their salespeople. (I’ve found details on what software product/SaaS companies pay, but it’s not the same).

My first hire will be a friend doing some sales efforts part-time (lunch-breaks, after-work, weekends) on a contractor agreement, and I’m offering 8% commission on gross sales generated. i.e. 100k project = 8k in commission. The thought is that if we start landing some sales, I’ll bring them on full-time, in which I would then offer a base-salary in addition to the 8% commission.

I don’t want to cap commission, and I want the formula to be very easy for the time being (hence the % of gross sales approach).

In your experience, is 8% of gross sales generated by the salesperson considered high, or low, in the custom software consulting field? At a full-time capacity, I’d be looking to pay a base salary of around $30-40k with health benefits.