skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The rule says "the district where the media or information is located has been concealed through technological means". So yes. BUT, the search still requires a warrant with probably cause. So the thesis of this article would appear to be completely wrong.
We have a lot of scientists. Just the US government spends 140+ billion per year and 1.4 trillion per decade on R&D. The problem is we simply try and push more people into those fields than we are willing to pay for. Research is important in the short and long term, but I think the U.S. would be better off focusing more on infrastructure and less on research.

A few pipes to move fresh water from dry to wet areas of the country would not cost all that much. A few more subways in major city's could do a lot. 10% or 14 billion could go to projects that more than pay for themselves in a few years.

PS: Yes, a big chunk of that is military R&D, they can also get cut.
Might be wrong but it also appears to give the right to access any cluster of (5+) machines that were hacked together AND download the contents of those machines WITHOUT any notice or due process for the owners of those machines.

If anyone feels I'm wrong, please explicitly state the line of logic used.

If true, given the scope of exploited devices in the wild - anyone may randomly get there computer searched and unless they're able to prove the search was illegal anything on the device is fair game.

Worst case, they hack machines to create "probable cause" using shell companies or contractors; no idea how this would be legal, but no idea how this ruling is legal either.
Do what you will in terms of voting. I don't enjoy being downvoted, and sometimes I even get upset by it, but there are many views on votes and people must use their best judgement so I respect it if they feel it is a fair judgement.

I appear to have upset you, and I recognise that I may have been too forceful on this subject. In my defence, I've had some very informative but uncompromising arguments on this matter with vezzny-ford and I have come out far more informed and enlightened as a result. I assumed this was the case here also - I've tried to stick to the technology itself, and don't have any ill will towards you as a person but I can understand if my manner may have given that impression. So I do apologise for anything I have said or done to make you upset with me.

In terms of the substance of your comment, you said that you would need to patch udev if you swap out systemd with System V init - but this isn't the case. In a previous comment on another article, you said Gentoo patched udev which seems to have been the basis for your claim. If that's not the case, then I have probably not understood your reasoning.

However, if this is the basis for your assumption then I think it's worthwhile pointing out that Gentoo say they forked udev "to avoid glibc-specific functions and gcc-specific constructs by sticking to C99 while tracking closely the systemd-udev development". [1]

1. https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Eudev
I'll mentally add a ";)" to your closing sentence. :)

Yeah, I'm quite familiar with the poorly-informed pro-systemd and anti-systemd arguments. I'm also fairly familiar with a variety of init and RC systems and have -thanks to vezzy-fnord and others- learned waaay too much about the history of <star>nix init/rc systems. (There's a lot of wacky stuff out there!)

Cheers, man!
Marxists have enslaved far more people that were ever enslaved by the "capitalist, slave-owning class" in the early United States.
What Happened to Google Maps?
Bowyer's RepRap is GPL so the MakerBot couldn't build on RepRap derived work without violating the GPL.
Do Your Wikipedia Donations Fund a Crusade on Intellectual Property Rights?
Recent discussion of the rule change:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11594597
I wonder how many kids realize they can go to community college for about 3 semesters of their general education requirements?
I would encourage anyone interested to actually read the proposed rule change.

"(b) Venue for a Warrant Application. At the request of a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government:

(6) a magistrate judge with authority in any district where activities related to a crime may have occurred has authority to issue a warrant to use remote access to search electronic storage media and to seize or copy electronically stored information located within or outside that district if:

(A) the district where the media or information is located has been concealed through technological means; or
(B) in an investigation of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5), the media are protected computers that have been damaged without authorization and are located in five or more districts."

This is not "labeling you a criminal" or authorizing anyone to get a warrant to search your computer (remotely or otherwise) simply because you have a copy of the Tor Browser Bundle installed. The claims in the linked blog post are flat-out wrong.

What it's actually saying is that during the investigation of a crime, if either of those two criteria are met, the government can apply for a warrant in "any district where activities related to [the] crime may have occurred". That's it.

If you think about this for a second, it makes sense. It's not possible to file a search warrant in a jurisdiction that you can't determine until after the warrant is executed. This rule change allows the government to apply for that warrant in a known jurisdiction, that of one of the victims. It does not make anything illegal that was not already illegal. It does not "label" anyone anything. It's a simple recognition of the fact that you can't ask for a search warrant when you don't know physically where you'll be searching.

Now, whether the whole "remote search" thing is a good idea is a different question. I happen to think it's not. However, those remote searches are already a reality and spreading FUD about this fairly innocuous rule change won't change that.

Edit: My quote was FUBAR, sorry.
beep: The advanced PC speaker beeper
I think Riker here was saying, you're getting into a relationship with someone who didn't put his career ahead of you back then, but he might do it in the future.
I tried to learn openGL ES from the official android tutorial, which is subtly broken all over the place. It works but shouldn't. The funny thing is that when I googled it, there were lots of complaints about it being broken, and the author responded and fixed them... but years before...

I eventually got things working, though I feel far from confident about openGL ES. Actually, embedded shader code, packed arrays, limited debugging and my rusty matrix algebra doesn't make it easy.
Speaking as a long-time inhabitant of Berkeley the start-up scene here is still small potatoes compared to Silicon Valley or San Francisco. Moreover, there are a number of drawbacks to doing business in Berkeley.

* Office space is in very short supply. Office space with adequate parking is even more difficult to find. This is mostly due to restrictions on building.

* Both Berkeley and Alameda County levy taxes on the gross receipts of companies, which hits tech companies that do business on global markets. [1],[2]

* The political climate is not exactly favorable to techies. A good percentage of the population is anti-growth.

There has been a fair amount of interesting technology spawned from the Cal EE/CS department over the years. Berkeley also has convenient BART connections which make it easy to reach from many locations in the Bay Area. Still, most companies move out of town fairly quickly when they achieve any sort of size. Databricks is a recent example--they started as a spin-off from Berkeley AMPLab work but are now located on Spear in San Francisco.

I suppose over time the absurd costs of doing business in San Francisco will drive more business into the East Bay as people relocate out of the city. That said it seems premature to talk about a tech boom in Berkeley. The situation seems unlikely to change soon.

[1] http://www.acgov.org/treasurer/faqbus.htm#receipts

[2] http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=4258
See my post in this thread that quotes the rule change. This is entirely about venue for search warrants. A valid warrant is still required, ALL this rule change does is expand which jurisdictions the government can apply for the warrant in.
Native UIKit Apps on Apple Watch
hilarious! Saving humanity with one ng-repeat and btn-primary at a time.
I think something like the self-hosted version (file:///) of this is getting close to something I'd consider safe enough. The backdoor problem from my previous post obviously isn't exclusive to web apps - a large chunk of software we use day to day performs updates automatically, and no one's going to reverse-engineer everything after each update.

That being said, the average native app implementing E2E crypto is probably still safer as of today for a number of reasons:

Binaries are typically signed by the developer, which isn't something you usually see in a web app using Web Crypto. Signing keys are easier to protect from unauthorized access, compared to your entire web stack.

With native apps, you tend to have far more control over code changes. You can chose your own update schedule and review new software versions for any critical component. A typical web app could change the code on every request. Web apps also make it a lot easier to pull off a targeted attack.

There's also simply a larger attack surface in general. Anything from XSS to phishing is much easier to pull off in a web app (though, as iMessage showed us, it's not quite that simple). Just think about how much effort browser plugins for password managers have to go through to prevent users from accidentally entering their master passphrase in some phishing form.

@chrisfosterelli mentioned the app cache approach of circumventing this - I guess we'll end up with some kind of trusted zone for crypto-related code in browsers, maybe with code signing and what not, sooner or later, and that might get us fairly close to the security of native apps. I don't think we're quite there yet.

PS: Thanks for writing acme-tiny!
Don't forget the sweaters.
Well, they claimed that the "people problems" were caused by Democrats' policies, so it'd be useful to have some clarification as to what that is before we identify root causes.

Unless your implication is that Democrats are the "people problems?"
Playing basketball is an NBA player's entire job, shooting guns is a small part of a police officer's job.

Enthusiasticly reading some tutorials on the Internet isn't really what I'd consider "into" something, but there are absolutely amateur programmers that are far better at programming than a 9-5 enterprise "code monkey" level programmer with no interest in the job apart from the paycheck.
I prefer the Scheme way: #x53, #o123, #b1010011

It feels more natural to my taste. We already use #1, #2, ...
Fuck it. Why 100% commitment is needed to succeed
It's not only that, those things went extinct because of things out of their control as a species. Right now we have the means to fix everything, and create some sort of civilization that is somewhat stable. But we don't have the heart or sociopathy or ideology to do things like that. We have a system which is inherently causing problems, but we're happy at least in the idea that it does not make us to do things to each other that would be terrible. So we are incapable as a species of doing things necessary.

Now imagine that the civilizations that do practice these sorts of things to survive. I mean evil at levels much greater than Hitler. Imagine how unstable those civilizations are, as power in those types of ideologies is chaotic.

So you are in a damned if you do damned if you don't scenario. In either case your ideology and the natural laws of power are working against you. Either people are fighting with each other for their desires to have freedom and rights, or they are fighting for their desires through an economic system at the cost of everything else, environment, etc.

So I think what you are hoping for is some blind luck that your systems somehow work themselves out, not because they are good, stable, or functional systems from the perspective of survival but because of blind luck and that somehow leads you to survive millions of years, which itself is a rather small accomplishment considering massive timescales, but massive from our perspective of an apparently terminal 10,000 year old civilization.
I have been in 3D printing for over three years now and it has been gut-wrenching to watch Makerbot's actions. Like watching a crash test dummy, you can see the moves coming and it's beautiful and destructive at the same time.

Makerbot systematically SOLD their founding values. Open source, open community, independant, and made in america (new york).

These values appealed to the early adopters. And by taking large amounts of venture capital, Bre effectively decided to accelerate crossing the chasm by incrementally tossing each of these values aside as they were potential liabilities for mainstream adoption. He was maximizing shareholder value rather than catering to the customers of his products. Their patent strategy was clearly to increase their value to acquirers (Stratasys or 3D Systems). And by aiming so high on the acquisition negotiations they tanked the stock of every single industrial 3D printing company, who have all operated for decades longer than Makerbot.

I hope that Ultimaker and Printrbot stick to their values and gain significant market share. I'm not confident that Lulzbot's libre values will translate to a thriving marketshare and ecosystem.

One note on the article though... There is no way that Zach and Adam walked away with $100M each, where did that come from? I'm sure they must have been diluted significantly. If not, I'm very interested how that happened if anyone knows!
I'll leave off the ones that others have already mentioned.

General

- Waking up with Sam Harris. This might be my favorite thing going. No other podcast makes me examine what I believe about the world, spirituality, religion, world politics, consciousness, and so on, like this one does. Just fantastic.

Tech

- The Talk Show with John Gruber. Not much to say here. It's Apple-centric navel-gazing.

- The Stack Exchange Podcast. It's too bad they don't record more often, because this is one of my favorites.

- Accidental Tech Podcast. Another favorite. Perhaps I just like hearing Siracusa tell the others they're wrong.

- a16z. A more valley-focused-let's-talk-about-software-eating-the-world type show. But still good.

I also listen to most of Carolla's podcasts. Adam and Drew -- now five days a week -- and Reasonable Doubt are sometimes better than the flagship show, but his schtick isn't for everyone.

Man, I wish Norm would bring back Norm Macdonald Live.
Yes, read the full ruling and your comment when it was posted. I do not see a conflict with what was said and what my statements.

Meaning currently say there are 5000 devices in NYC the FBI is already legally allowed to hack into them and remotely copy all the contents of those files without due process or notice to the owners?

________

EDIT(Re: "General warrants" comment below)

Just to be clear, me reading of your comment is that "general warrants" that allow the FBI to download the contents of any computer that's in a botnet within the jurisdiction of the warrant provided is legal and the owner is not required to be notified unless that owner happens to be the defendant in the filing. Further, unless that warrant is later proven illegal, owner is legally accountable for the contents of the computer unless they're able to prove that they are not the party responsible for in illegal activities "discovered" in the process.
Side note: your blog content doesn't show up at all with JS disabled.
If you're on the board of directors for a billion dollar search engine, who do you hire as CEO? A guy in a cubicle, or a Stanford grad who was employee #20 at google that spent a career in charge of Search, User Experience, and Location?

You're acting like they just hired Paris Hilton off the street, when the reality is that she busted her ass her entire career in a field that few women have had major success in.

The last CEO to hold onto the job at Yahoo as long as Mayer has is Terry Semel, and he got booted in 2007.
Yep.

(I modified the software in my Biturbo V6, it added 60hp.)
I have no idea what J_Darnley has written previously, but in this case you are being unfair. J_Darnley’s “snarky dismissal” may in this case be terse, but it is entirely deserved here – they didn’t “install Windows 95”, they ran it in an emulator. A standard, commonly used, x86 processor and PC platform emulator. The title is misleading.

From the article, it seems that to even get the emulator running on the Apple Watch was a serious problem, and I can see that. And if the article title would have reflected this, like “I got a PC emulator running on my Apple Watch and ran Windows 95 in it”, then I would have had no problem with it. As it is, it’s misleading clickbait.
See the range_v3 library, which is on it's way (albeit slowly) to becoming part of the C++ standard. It provides C++ versions of range, as well as most of the iterator combinators in the itertools library.
As ridiculous as I find this particular change, in general, warrants do legally constitute "due process" for a search.

EDIT: added a comma after "in general" for clarity.
Oh, thanks, I was not aware of that.
I'll fix it!
> .. role model ..

And don't forget, the superior way to project confidence [1] in your 'precious'.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSmkqocn0oQ
Throwing out your pet quote like that was much like reading a microsoft help manual. Technically correct, but no help at all.

It didn't really address djrobstep's post apart from a trite, "Everyone is different," observation, and certainly didn't address the real pain and grief there can be, caring and loving someone with such serious disabilities.

I think removing the Asperger's from the DSM was in many ways a disservice. It was a useful distinction of high level autistics, which is really the group the article is talking about for the most part, to the more seriously effected like djrobstep's brother.

And to finish with a quote of my own:

“In an ideal world the scientist should find a method to prevent the most severe forms of autism but allow the milder forms to survive. After all, the really social people did not invent the first stone spear. It was probably invented by an Aspie who chipped away at rocks while the other people socialized around the campfire. Without autism traits we might still be living in caves.”
-- Temple Grandin
Or better yet, finding a forum post from a decade ago you made and replied to with "nvm, figured it out" and nothing else.
"the client (i.e. browser), protocol, proxies, etc. are very hard to reason about. For instance, content sniffing and HTTP response splitting should not show up in a sane protocol, yet here we are. An encyclopedic knowledge of - at least - browsers bugs is required to write "secure" web sites."

It's true. I think you could encode a lot of that in a framework or language such as Opa or Ur/Web. What's left is a tiny checklist. Edit to say maybe not tiny but smaller.

"type-based safety doesn't do a lot to ensure that e.g. the same-origin policy actually protects your users"

There's secure, browser architectures that do that in various ways. I'm not sure about the language level. Might need to be combined. Worth thinking about. The publicsuffix website is new to me so thanks.

" It makes me happy I'm not working on the web. ;-)"

You're the second or third to recommend Tangled Web. On my reading list for if I get back into Web development. I'm sure I'll have the same reaction. You might find it funny that a prior commenter found it shocking that I hadn't read work on secure, web applications. Whereas, I originally found it shocking that people were trying to build them.

Perspective changes everything, eh? :)
It certainly has for me.

Here is me translating as literally as I could a bit of nontrivial code (which I originally learned from R's C code):

http://inversethought.com/hg/medcouple/file/default/jmedcoup...

http://inversethought.com/hg/medcouple/file/default/medcoupl...

I'm really happy how almost every Python statement has a nearly equivalent C++ statement. The only one I had trouble with was list comprehensions, but they can be very nearly translated with C++ stdlib algorithms and a few lambdas (kind of looks more like map and filter than a list comprehension, though).

The best part is that the C++ code runs as fast and sometimes faster than the original C code I grabbed this from! (The translation path was C -> Python -> C++.)
Interestingly enough examining a couple of my apparel with YKK zippers, I see a specifically machined tab like here:
http://www.reissverschluss-zipper.de/WebRoot/Store5/Shops/62...
The fundamental problem is that Rust is actually two languages that interact with each other. There is the high-level language with a region system, traits, etc. as well as the low-level language used for unsafe code, which exposes most of the functionality and memory model of LLVM IR (which is very C-like).

Formalizing the high-level language would have some difficulties, e.g. the trait system has a lot of ad-hoc complexity, and there are convenience features like automatic destructors that improve programmer productivity but greatly complicate the definition of things like evaluation order (which is currently undefined for Rust). These things make the specification more complex, but they appear to be well within the limits of current programming language technology. For example, the safe subset of Rust could possibly be translated into a relatively standard type system with linear regions, e.g. http://www.cs.cornell.edu/people/fluet/research/substruct-re....

The difficulty comes at the semantic boundary, where the state-of-the-art in modeling the interaction between distinct languages is still far away from the safe / unsafe portions of Rust. This is an interesting research project, and fits in well with a general trend of cross-language interaction that appears in current research on programming language formalization. However, because it requires formalizing something that includes a C-like language, it's hard to imagine it ever being any simpler than formalizing a C-like language. If you're a user of unsafe code and just want to prove that the unsafe code is "memory-safe" (a somewhat nebulous term), then this helps you out. But if you're going to prove that your entire program is correct, why bother with all of the extra complexity?
After C++11, the bottleneck of the speed of development in C++ is no longer the language. But it has numerous other problems dragging down C++ developers still: std::string is close to useless, no userspace and project-scoped package manager, too long build times, hard to debug templates, etc.
It's surprising that all the other countries have decided to basically toe the line, rather than attempt containment.
All the windows and doors in my house in Japan are made by YKK.
C# does not have type inference: http://ideone.com/fmm92M. Nor does C++ for that matter: http://ideone.com/HzyM2E. This is type inference: http://ideone.com/0Gv8fV, http://ideone.com/r9nHUF. Note how the type checker figures out the list's element type from how the list is used.