skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I didn't want to citation here but here is what he wrote about your point. Again, if you have proof he is a liar share it no problem, but please don't blindly accept and repeat mainstream opinion without seeking information by yourself first.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2016/05/the-biggest-problem-for-o...

Quoting Mueller

Please bear with me while I'm repeating the following: I haven't done any work for Oracle in quite a while, I have no reason to assume today that I'll ever do any again (I'll release two game apps this year and that's my professional future), and I have taken consistent positions ever since the case started. This lawsuit was filed not long after I had been fighting against Oracle's acquisition of Sun Microsystems on the antitrust front. Despite having embroiled in a bitter fight with Oracle, I realized early on that Oracle had a point here (though I usually like Google a lot, especially Android). I still hold those views even though working with Oracle on standard-essential patent matters is a thing of the past for me.

An opinionated, independent view is not "propaganda" by any stretch of the imagination. This blog got copyrightability right when Judge Alsup got it wrong, and three higher judges than Judge Alsup totally agreed with me (and the top U.S. court didn't elect to hear the case in order to disagree). The truth is on my side, not his. And when all is said and done, people will see that this blog also got "fair use" right to a greater extent than he did/does.
Here's Why Incentives Make the TSA Is So Terrible
To be more precise[0]:

2013 US Budget ~= $3 803 300 000 000
+- International Affairs = $ 52 018 676 000 ( 1.37%)
+- State Operations = $ 17 702 825 000 ( 0.47%)
+- Int'l Orgs = $ 3 386 331 000 ( 0.09%)
+- Foreign Operations = $ 33 810 927 000 ( 0.89%)
+- Bilateral Assistance = $ 21 134 577 000 ( 0.56%)
+- Int'l Security = $ 8 791 500 000 ( 0.23%)
+- Multilat. Int'l Orgs = $ 2 875 204 000 ( 0.08%)
+- Foreign Banks/Funds = $ 2 548 553 000 ( 0.07%)
+- Direct Food Aid = $ 1 533 859 000 ( 0.04%) [1]
+- US AID = $ 1 450 806 000 ( 0.04%)
+- Independent Agencies = $ 1 258 585 000 ( 0.03%)
+- US Dept. of Defense ~= $ 672 900 000 000 (17.7 %)
Total Military SA+FR+UK+DE+JP ~= $ 283 500 000 000
2013 AAPL total expenditures ~= $ 136 000 000 000

What people think of as "foreign aid" may vary. The budget covers everything from bed nets to bullets. If you count only spending on operations that most directly assist poor foreigners, such as US AID, Peace Corps, and UNICEF, rather than just writing checks to foreign politicians, militaries, and bankers, it amounts to about $7-$10 billion, or 0.2%-0.3% of the budget.

And nothing in the US budget takes up more than 25% of it. The top 4 items are, in fact, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, military, and debt service (6.5%!). Even if you count all military spending as some sinister form of foreign aid, you can't get to 28%. The problem there is not just being uninformed. Someone must be actively spreading misinformation--lying to the public. That's a much bigger problem than simple ignorance, and trying to restrict turnout to only "informed" voters is not going to help when people believe they are informed after hearing enough lies.

[0] http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/224071.pdf
[1] paid to US Dept. of Agriculture
Back when there was little to no airport security at all, hijackings were far more common than they are now. In the late 60s and early 70s, hijackings ran in the dozens per year. I see no evidence that TSA-style pat-downs and shoe removal and liquid bans are necessary, but it does appear to be useful to have some minimal level of screening so that a crazy person doesn't just toss an AK-47 in his bag and take it on the plane.

If your argument is that current airport security arrangements don't even prevent that, then why did attacks fall off so sharply once basic security was implemented?
The problem is that it's not "at your own risk," it's "at your own risk and the risk of anything that might happen to be underneath you at any point on the journey, or within range of your fuel tanks."

Not that I'm a fan of the TSA by any stretch, but that's a pretty grievous misunderstanding of the root issue.
> iPhone in hand, with my digital ticket ready to board; so easy and pleasant.

Most airlines provide the same digital boarding passes, I often travel with my pass added to Apple Wallet.

> If an alternative airport wanted to do things a little different, such as "fly at your own risk" "no lifeguard on duty", aka no TSA b.s., I'd happily take the "at your own risk" option rather than the TSA controlled situation we're subjected to currently.

The problem here is that it's not just "your own risk" if that plane is directed at a populated area.
The two are intermixed. The only reason powerful people are powerful is because we acquiesce to their demands. Our acquiescence in turn influences our moral judgements; or alternatively, one measure of power is the ability to cause people to inhibit their moral judgements that could cause them to resist.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Admini... "In July 2007, the Times Union of Albany, New York reported that TSA screeners at Albany International Airport failed multiple covert security tests conducted by the TSA. Among them was a failure to detect a fake bomb."
I didn't read the sources in depth, but it looks like the TSA is bigger than the jobs it replaced:

> TSA is a major part of DHS, having a workforce of about 62,000 people. TSA became a large organization very quickly after 2001, when it replaced 16,500 private airport screeners with more than 40,000 federal screeners.

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/homeland-security/tsa
They lied about persecution of gays and sex workers. The article was about a small group created to raise awareness about face recognition by trying to identify porn actresses, before closing entirely. Hardly a nightmare made real.

I'm also not sure how YouTube mods from 10+ years ago are relevant in a discussion about tech advancement. If anything, the automation of child porn detection since is proof that technology keeps up and prevents nightmare scenarios.

Also, why create the new account to question?
> it's hard to propose a workable alternative

How about recognizing that 9/11 was a troll, and we fell for it? The attackers hated the U.S.'s idea of freedom, but they were too powerless to take away our freedom. So they figured out a clever way to make us take away our own freedom ourselves. And yep, we did exactly that.

We honor U.S. military who defend our freedom with their lives. They value freedom more than personal safety, and we respect them for doing that. So why does the rest of our society pick the opposite and humiliate ourselves daily by choosing personal safety over freedom? Why have millions of us agreed to walk around in socks at airports just because some jerk tried to scare us 15 years ago?

A "workable alternative" would be what the Flight 93 people did: beat the living daylights out of people who act up. That approach has worked for tens of thousands of years. Yeah, sometimes you'll get killed, but most of the time you won't, just like our honored military. But most important you'll stop being trolled.
Airport security was tested in the Supreme Court back in the 70s when it was new. Due largely to the fact that it reduced hijackings to almost nil, the court ruled that it was a reasonable exception.

That said, my personal opinion leans closer to your position.
It's reasonable to get searched walking onto someone's airplane.
Agreed. It has sullied their otherwise stellar track record, IMO.

On another note: THANK YOU NEWEGG! For adding an apply to their side-bar search function so my page doesn't have to refresh EVERY! TIME! I! MAKE! A! SELECTION!
I also like speedof.me which tests latency, download, and upload but purely using HTML5/JS (unlike speedtest.net with it's Flash app)
My suggestion is to go through some full-stack tutorials. Vary them up to learn how workflows with different library combinations/boilerplates feel for you.

For React my quick and dirty intro a few months ago involved: http://jamesknelson.com/learn-raw-react-no-jsx-flux-es6-webp... and then following along with http://teropa.info/blog/2015/09/10/full-stack-redux-tutorial...

The first link is very light on dependencies and brief. The second link is basically a mini-ebook going from front-end to back-end but walks you through the choices very well.

What you want to do is build apps, so look for tutorials that make you build an app from start to finish. Do a number of those, semi-rotely, and you'll develop familiarity with the tools and methods they use. That's when you want to deep dive on specific libraries and stacks.

Imagine how complicated it would be to try to learn Rails by learning ActiveRecord and then ActiveSupport etc. The interesting work happens when all the dependencies are combined -- and the challenge/beauty of the framework is how it combines them -- not when they are taken as individual libraries. Boilerplates are shitty, immature frameworks but similar principles apply.
Well first of all, for Paxos to survive 2 failures it would need 5 nodes; Paxos won't work very well for smaller networks, and a bad network design [or lack of good maintenance] could take out a majority or all of your nodes, making the whole system worthless.

Second, most systems don't need atomic write operations to succeed across network partitions, when network partition is even a concern (for general operations), which it isn't usually. If your network is partitioned, you can't really "decide" anything until it un-partitions, at which point you don't need to come to consensus if you have simpler methods of solving discrepancy - like using a higher level decision process than block-level or database-level. Even after the discrepancy is solved, network-wide changes may have invalidated the initial partitioned operations. Paxos tries to over-simplify a complex operation.

When it is a concern, application design often trumps system design in terms of reliable operation. It completely depends on your network, system, platform and application design. In general, you won't need Paxos to reap the benefits of distributed systems, and synchronous systems will give you more benefits and less headaches.
The TSA is obviously a complete clusterfuck, but it is offering us an important lesson:

Despite everyone hating it, including Big Business, it persists and will likely continue to exist until the U.S. Government collapses. It is nearly impossible to ratchet back a government program dedicated to "security", among other sacred words.

Look at the solutions being offered: add more workers, more bomb dogs, etc.

The system cannot fix itself. Perhaps the system does not want to fix itself.
> They're all getting some hefty money. What a waste of human intellect and time.

Unfortunately, the purpose of human intellect and time has become to get more money, so what they're doing is by definition not a waste, but the only possible outcome.
Well, there are 6 different orders in which you could insert the 3 if statements, but I'm not sure that's a material difference :-)
I like the idea of getting ISPs into internal conflict: the folks responsible for making sure that speed checks like speedtest.net run quickly will be fighting the folks responsible for throttling Netflix.

But, I think the throttling folks will ultimately win. In that case, I guess Netflix is laying out a good case for consumers to complain, so it's win-win.
It can be made to work under wine... or you can still use rdp.
Fast.com, a New Tool to Check Your Internet Speed
That, and the right to not be treated like a criminal, not be tested without consent, and not be stressed out for weeks over fear of her baby being taken away.
I think the parent commenter was just using spam as an example of an activity that uses a disproportionate amount of energy compared to it's value.

The court room climate control costs would likely be dominated by energy expended for every involved individuals' commutes, which would likely be dominated by the opportunity cost of all of those individuals doing something more productive (if you want to go that far)
More relevant information: "What are the 37 Java API packages possibly encumbered by the May 2014 Oracle v Google decision?"

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/23583968/what-are-the-37-...

From the #1 answer (it is worth clicking the link and reading the full answer):

java.awt.font
java.beans
java.io
java.lang
java.lang.annotation
java.lang.ref
java.lang.reflect
java.net
java.nio
java.nio.channels
java.nio.channels.spi
java.nio.charset
java.nio.charset.spi
java.security
java.security.acl
java.security.cert
java.security.interfaces
java.security.spec
java.sql
java.text
java.util
java.util.jar
java.util.logging
java.util.prefs
java.util.regex
java.util.zip
javax.crypto
javax.crypto.interfaces
javax.crypto.spec
javax.net
javax.net.ssl
javax.security.auth
javax.security.auth.callback
javax.security.auth.login
javax.security.auth.x500
javax.security.cert
javax.sql
What fun would that be :)
Show HN: 20 startups to invest $100 in (the law changed)
> Copying the SSO allowed Google to greatly reduce the barrier to entry for Android by leveraging the enormous Java ecosystem.[1]

Google used Apache Harmony implementation of Java.

Why Oracle never sued Apache Foundation?
I like the idea of an "at your own risk" option, but it'll never happen. Since 9/11, a large part of the purpose of airport security is to protect uninvolved people on the ground (or at least in tall buildings), not just passengers. We can certainly debate whether that's necessary or useful (I'd argue that we could do far less than we currently do), but I don't think you'll ever get the public to agree to allowing airline flights with no security screening, even if you can convince everyone to take a libertarian approach to it.
Nokia indirectly re-enters the mobile phone business
Under the scheme described, fromIndex == toIndex would be a stretch of 0 array elements, so it wouldn't really matter whether fromIndex and toIndex pointed into the array at all.
I likened it to my architect spouse as copyrighting buildings for having flat walls with door and window sized openings. A win for Oracle would have every construction related company designing doors and windows in proprietary shapes.
Do you mean on-demand instances? The announcement says "Spot bidding is on the near-term roadmap." And $13 / hour is the on-demand price in US East.
TSA is not a very important issue, but politicians love to discuss about this kind of issues where they can show their talent without hurting their sponsors. It is a good way to distract public from the more important issues (economy, unemployment, privacy, ...).
Does anyone have an idea what is really going on?

I've heard people say that Google actually copied the API structure (which is copyright-able) but I've also heard that this lawsuit was actually about Google using a wrong (or missing license). And I've heard that Google also manipulated the developer community by only propagating "we only copied 7 lines of code" and big evil oracle sues us.

From what I know Google used Java's API structure but did not include a license. They could have paid oracle for a license to use it conmercially or they could have used the GPL from OpenSDK and be bound to its restrictions. What they did instead was not to include a license at all, because try did not want to pay oracle but also did not want to be bound by the GPL (which might complicate things with phone manufacturers that change the code).

Could anyone tell me what the fuck this lawsuit is actually about?
Right, same with every other "sky is falling" argument.

The PRISM dark fiber exploit has since been blocked by most tech companies, and honestly, you're more likely to be negatively affected by slipping in your shower or a car accident. Doesn't mean don't be aware, it just means you don't need to wear a tinfoil hat. Or worry about hypothetical nightmare scenarios.
This article is stick in the weeds.

"Web designers" were an anomaly and stuck in the past. "Web design" of 1998-2010ish was mostly designers used to paper trying to translate it to the web (think complex use of huge tables to constrain presentation). Photoshop was the chief mockup tool tells you how out of touch they were.

The fact is that magazines had converged on a number of useful core ideas like black text on white pages, page numbers (mostly), text width constrained, breaking into multiple columns if necessary, etc. People who deviated too far from this ended up with "art" rather than a magazine. A lot of designers thought the web would allow them to go bonkers, yet at the same time had a command-and-control mindset that was straight out of paper-land (they'd tell you what size to make your browser in order to read their web page, for crime's sake).

So we ended up with some more conventions and are starting to have online (not just web) design that fits the medium -- e.g. finally we have reactive designs that aren't rigid table layouts that model paper so at least work to some degree on different sized devices.

Good riddance to those old fashioned losers. Anybody can now do an OK job using templates, and there is still room for experimentation. Hell, theres more experimentation, and a lot of it involves UI research, something anathema to magazine and poster designers!
Are you objecting to the names, or that they all exist?
Buying a plane ticket implies a consent to search.
They do help somewhat by making ownership more explicit, i.e. they are hints that the programmer can use to do the kind of analysis that rust would do automatically.

Dereferencing a moved-from unique_ptr is UB, but many compilers do abort in their hardened modes.

edit: spelling
Huh?

Surely an organisation (i.e. an airline, an airport) can enforce searches as part of the conditions of travel.
All these tools exist for a reason, it's not "madness", it's individuals who wrote some code and open sourced it for the benefit of those who might find some use in it. Just because a tool hits the front page of HN doesn't mean you need to use it. I find it ridiculous when people complain about the js tooling ecosystem (especially beginners), "too many tools" is only a problem for someone who doesn't have a real problem to solve. If you were tasked with the job of hanging a window curtain, would you walk into Home Depot and exclaim "omg, hardware is a mess, why are there like 40 different types of drills, why can't they just make this simple??". It is simple, you are the one making it complicated by obsessing over the options instead of focusing on getting the job done. "but I want to pick the best tool for the job", well if you don't know what that is, hire an actual professional, it's their job to know.
Whoa, so many names.
>As long as there is a solid wall between pilots and passengers, the worst a passenger could do would be to take down an aircraft which is much harder than you might assume.

This is a pretty bad worst case scenario! That really only prevents a kamikaze scenario. Most terrorism against airplanes has been either blowing it up or hijacking for hostages.

Blowing up an airplane is a solved problem. It's been done many times.
This case is not about RangeCheck, is about the 37 Java classed declaration
And Enterprises like it on /their/ machine. Which is the whole premise of VDI.
DevOps Is Undead
My wife drove up to a private jet this morning. Got on. Took off. No TSA.

Holding the "pleebs" to a higher standard than the rich is unconscionable IMO.
I see, thanks for explaining :-)
Based on my numerous but infrequent interactions with front-line TSA staff, the qualifications seem to include "passing familiarity with the English language" and "a confusing mix of hostility and apathy."
"tue" means "kill" in french... I wonder if a french programmer somewhere had something to do with this?
Epson WorkForce WF-3520 Driver Printer Download
> If you could just walk onto a plane with a gun, people would do it again.

No, they wouldn't. In the 70's the unwritten rule was: you hijack the plane, land it, make your demands, get your TV time, and then you surrender (or get away) but no one gets hurt. It is only because of that unwritten rule that you could get away with it because everyone assumed that the best route to survival was to cooperate with the hijacker.

All that changed on 9-11. Cooperating is no longer seen as a viable option, and so if you try to hijack a plane you can expect the passengers and crew to put up a fight. At best you can bring down the plane. But you won't get your TV time, which is what most hajackers really want.

Actually, you don't even need to look at the track record on airplanes. The TSA, by making everyone stand in line, is creating a nice soft target just outside the security zone. Any terrorist who wanted to make the headlines would set off a bomb in the TSA line at O'Hare. It would be trivial. The fact that no one has tried it is more evidence that our fear of terrorism is a vastly bigger problem than actual terrorism.
Verizon FIOS in my area was throttling down Youtube and Netflix to unusable speeds. I was paying for a higher end connection speed and getting constant speed issues.

So then switched to a cable provider, pay half what was paying with Verizon, get lower advertised speeds yet have a much more reliable and consistent connection.

Also Verizon had free installation at that time when I signed up, so they installed a bunch of their equipment on premises, even a phone (including a battery pack) and now after I dropped them they come to door, in person, every other month begging me to reconsider.
Stuff that has "nitrogen" in its name usually decomposes whenever it feels like, and humans generally don't like the results of that process - especially if they're standing nearby.
It's not like the TSA is stopping people on the street, it's an agreement, if you want to enter the airport then volunteer for the search.