skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
No, you don't need to continue your litany without context. I here a lot of bleating about national security, good of the state, and all, but that is used far too often as a blanket justification to cover up anything. Restriction, or manipulation, of information is what gave rise to the powers that your examples had to counter. For example, if all information relevant to the public, was public, then the Afghan/Iraq wars would never have happened.

Foolish and suicidal to prevent state secrets? I would say it should be a mandatory past time and actively encouraged. How can you have a democracy that includes censorship? If knowledge is power, and it certainly is, as a government's legitimacy can be hinged upon the concealment of a truth, or the propagation of a lie, then the systems in place should err on the side of transparency.

Perhaps then a compromise should be made, all governmental information should be made completely available in raw form by the end of a governments term, irrespective of content. Secrets like those you listed, are a grey area, perhaps these special cases can be protected further if they are indeed legitimate cases. However, let there be an open real time record kept of who requested the information to be restricted and for what reasons, but eventually and with in a reasonable time frame, 5-10 years or soon enough to break a career if that is warranted. Abuses of the system can therefore be tracked.

I would go a little further and remove any laws surrounding information (that includes copyright and patent laws), and make it a completely moral issue when it comes to a secrecy. A more open society is a more equal society, and where there are fewer power imbalances you will get fewer abuses of power.

(For sake of clarity, I am not including private information; medical records, etc, unless there is good justification. I can imagine the revelations of schizophrenia for a would be government official, demographically related illnesses (eg all war veterans of X suffer higher rates of cancer), would be desirable.)
Snoring Can Ruin a Good Marriage
Same here. Not that it should be a decisive consideration by any means, but I got a prgmr account precisely because it was a small operation run by a real person I'd interacted with, who seemed to make decisions based on what he thought was a good idea / fair / etc., not a corporation purely out to maximize profit, or a startup looking to scale towards an exit.
I'm not desperate at all, in fact I had saved up money to fund the project myself for a couple months. The donations are because my goals in Mongrel2 changed once I realized I could actually change the lives of programmers and maybe put an end to at least a tiny bit of the language religion that seems to infect the web programming world. With a bigger goal and one that needs me to give the software away for it to succeed, I decided to ask for donations.

The donations serve two purposes: They make it so I can work on Mongrel2 for a while and get something awesome started. It also demonstrates that other people are backing what I'm doing. When you don't have a large community at the start, people will take monetary amounts donated as a sign that the project might go somewhere.

I can't say I agree with folks who judge a project's success by donation amounts or community size over technical capability, but I can understand it.
One of my personal favorites is The Story of Mel: http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/mel.html
I've just donated a bit, I've been using Zed Shaw's work a lot over the years so it's good to try and help him have time to work on that :-)
According to Schneier[1] n should be closer to ~2600000000000000000000000000000000000000. For each single available core, m would be smaller, say 20 wouldn't it? On the other side, consider 8 or more cores a box for the NSA by 500,000 boxes (wildly conservative guess??) for about P = 4,000,000??

NSA probably has much more compute power than this, though: "With supercomputers measured by the acre and estimated $70 million annual electricity bills for its headquarters, the agency has begun browning out, which is the reason for locating its new data centers in Utah and Texas."[2]

1 - http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/07/new_attack_on_...
2 - http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/10/james_bamford_...
try the movie surrogates.
"How can you have a democracy that includes censorship?"

If it wasn't for censorship, democracy wouldn't have survived the 20th century. There are concrete, non-hypothetical secrets democratic states did keep during the 20th century which safeguarded their continued existence and the reestablishment of democracy throughout much of the world.

Everything you say can and has been applied to every power of the state--the power to make war, the power to collect taxes, the power to enforce law, you name it. Each of these powers has been abused. Each of these powers--including the power to keep secrets--needs to be restricted and kept in check, but not abolished. That way lies anarchy, a fundamentally untested system when applied conscientiously to a modern society and a violent nightmare when applied haphazardly anywhere we've observed it in settled societies.[1]

"A more open society is a more equal society, and where there are fewer power imbalances you will get fewer abuses of power. For sake of clarity, I am not including private information; medical records, etc, unless there is good justification."

Privacy and secrecy are two names for the same thing.

[1] Whether hunter-gatherer societies were fundamentally anarchic is an interesting but, in this context, irrelevant anthropological question.
There's a already an iPhone app that shows you the metro map, your current position on it and the shortest route to you destination.
You don't disagree with me; you agree with me and disagree with the idealist, quasi-anarchist view that state secrets shouldn't exist at all.

Note that all (but perhaps one) of the secrets I listed is now well documented public knowledge. I think this example should be followed.
Yeah, there's a dissonance. People stay from being messed up physically and mentally by moving around and keeping their surroundings varied. On the other hand, you keep your mainframe CPU in a nice stable server room, not rolling around on the factory floor where it gets crushed when a bot slips and drops an airplane engine block on it.

What I'm thinking about this is what will it look like 50 or 100 years on, if it catches up. People becoming physically and mentally unwell from staying still is mostly a mechanical problem beyond the lack of changing stimuli and surroundings, and the telepresence rig would provide those.

The low bandwidth thing can get gradually better. The ultimate solution would be some kind of direct neural interface which would give pretty much the same sensory bandwidth as you get from your biological senses, but that would require an entirely new and really difficult to develop technology stack. What we can do now is develop VR and augmented reality technologies. At the operator end, a VR headset or some kind of CAVE environment to give 360° view of the bot's surroundings. At bot end, you could use augmented reality to project an image of the human operator captured from multiple directions as a 3D avatar that shows the operator's body language to people wearing headsets around the bot.

I'm not seeing intrinsic value in people moving around in person, though of course lots of instrumental value which would need to be patched in with technology. There is, on the other hand, value in many people not moving long distances much, in the massive amounts of transportation fuel it would save.
Banks won't take Fort Hood shooting suspect's paychecks
I founded a startup that was featured by the WSJ all by myself and have gone on to work on a new project which has some traction. I applied to YC with another idea and didn't "make the cut." I personally take that to be a greater challenge to succeede than any friendship or relationship could obligate me to. PG may have a checklist which works most of the time but I suspect that's the first step toward missing the outliers who define true success. No one's going to take the next Google seriously 'till its too late.
Drew Carey Loses 80 Lbs. After Getting 'Sick of Being Fat'
Kerala Honeymoon Packages
Kerala Honeymoon Packages, Kerala Tour Packages Offer Kerala Honeymoon Tours, Kerala Tour, Kerala Honeymoon Holidays, Travel Packages to kerala , Plan Tour to Kerala with Global Vision Tours.
But for someone whose whole job is to find, and invest in, "the next Google", you'd think there could be some sort of recognizable features that a Bayesian classifier could learn as positive weights (as, if there weren't, that person would guess correctly at no greater a rate than chance, and would therefore be replaced by a small shell-script/die roll.) Those recognizable features should then be able to be decomposed into discrete features—which could be written down as a checklist.

To put it another way—there are only two ways to do a job whose output is boolean (invest/don't invest): either algorithmically, or randomly. Any judging algorithm can be approximated by a checklist.
Yeah n would be bigger, but if you limit the key to a composition of characters (alphabet, letters, funky characters %^&*, etc), would that drastically reduce the search space?
Shuttleworth comes from South Africa, so he lived in a place where nationalism/tribalism is rampant.

I think the whole Gnome debate is rubbish. Canonical did a lot to the OSS-community. Look a the Ubuntu documentation project or simular things - there is more to OSS than code commits in Gnome.
Inside GameStop's refurbishment facility for used video games and consoles
You could charge for the binaries, like Red Hat and XChat do. Quoting from http://xchat.org/windows/:

You may use XChat for Windows for free for 30 days. If, after this time, you would like to continue using the product, you are required to register. Registration is a one time fee of $19.99 USD (US Dollars) which can be paid using the PayPal service below.
The best thing Microsoft could do is to innovate and do something no one's done. Everything they've done of late is in markets where someone has already done very well in, and they've done such a half-assed job of it that it's a guaranteed fail. Think what you want of Apple, but their products have been things largely not done before. Microsoft is copying the wrong half -- the product ideas themselves -- they should be copying the act of innovating.
At least now they are giving us concrete details about the state of the different moving pieces. This much transparency would have been awesome back in november 09.
What's wrong with PHP?
Ask HN : Anyone Root the Zenpad?
It works if you're defending the free world (as in, that's the motivation of the members of the team).

It doesn't work at all if you're implementing enterprise software. Who gets gung ho about TPS reports? Rather than heroes, people feel exploited, since they know they're busting their arses just to make their VP look good...
Yes, two years is very common. Most of the ones I've been aware of have been about that long -- three years at the most.
How do you determine if the transparent and inspectable filtering program is operating correctly if you only have access to the output and none of the inputs? You'd need all of the inputs, and at that point, you just have access to all the information anyway, and wouldn't need the program to do the filtering.
"If I'm not having fun, I'm not doing it right."
www.didtrade.com Online sell fashion goods,Accept PayPal.cheap replica fashion goods for sale from china free shipping
Replica Children-suit free shipping
Replica t-shirts free shipping
Replica Children-coat free shipping
Replica Children-pants free shipping
Replica UGG boots free shipping
Replica Edhardy handbags free shipping
Replica LV handbags free shipping
Replica DG handbags free shipping
Replica Gucci handbags free shipping
Replica chanel handbags free shipping
Replica fendi handbags free shipping
Replica Swimwear free shipping
Replica Versace handbags free shipping
Replica coach handbags free shipping
Replica juicy handbags free shipping
Replica Burberry handbags free shipping
Replica CA handbags free shipping
Replica Dior handbags free shipping
Replica watches free shipping
Replica Perfume free shipping
Replica brand wallet free shipping
Replica Jeans free shipping
Replica Jewelry free shipping
Replica Sunglasses free shipping
Replica Belt free shipping
Replica Accessories free shipping
Replica AAA Handbags free shipping
accept PayPal
free shipping
coach handbag
replica brand
bags,purse,wallet
fashion jeans
famous wholesale
chanel handbag
rolex watches
replica shoe
replica apparel
replica jewelry
Replica Children
replica belt
replica suit
Replica Scarves
Replica Perfume
fashion caps
LV handbag
replica sunglass
7* star handbags
wholesale apparel
chanel jewelry
DG handbag
Versace handbag
Jimmy Choo Handbag
Lacoste Handbag
Juicy handbag
Burberry handbag
EdHardy Handbag
Gucci handbag
DooneyBourke handbag
Hermes handbag
Prada handbag
Fendi handbag
Dior Handbag
TR Jeans
AF Jeans
ED Jeans
Polo T-shirts
AF T-shirts
Nike Sport Shoes
Jordan Sport Shoes
Replica t-shirts free shipping
Replica t-shirts free shipping

Replica t-shirts free shipping

Replica t-shirts free shipping
Not to mention that since the collapse of the Soviets, the F15 is perfectly competitive with anything it's likely to meet in the air in the foreseeable future.

That goes for all the other major Western fighters too. The ONLY reason we're buying Eurofighter Typhoons is contractual obligation. Tornadoes (more-or-less a British equivalent to the Tomcat) are still perfectly good. If there were worries about the airframes we should have simply spun the production lines back up and made more of the proven design.
Indeed, when the USS Vincennes shot down an airliner full of Iranian civilians, they believed themselves to be under attack from an Iranian F14.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
I bet they would, but most likely a tiny feature from it a bit at a time. I'll say they canceled it not because they didn't like it, but because it would take too long to finish. They felt Apple would have too much head start if they didn't produce _anything_ in the mean time. This rush is pretty much confirmed by their actions and this interview.
I'm surprised how most commenters here are willing to accept the idea of Gazehawk without questioning it. No disrespect meant to Brian and Joe, but any experienced researcher knows that any new research technology / method needs to be welcomed with a healthy cynicism until its value has been proven in the real world.

Firstly, can it really be as accurate as commercial eye tracking hardware? We're talking about the difference between $40,000 and $40 here - a Pepsi challenge is needed! Some leading figures in the UX industry claim that even the top end devices can easily become de-calibrated and provide bogus data.

Secondly, even if the technology is acceptably accurate, is the gazehawk research method effective at delivering findings that actually help you improve the design of your sites?

The idea of a predefined panel of 'users' is rather worrying. A user is defined as someone who actually uses your site. In the standard gazehawk offering, they provide a group of trained testers (who get paid $8 a pop), who may simply not care about the problem your site tries to solve. For example, if you have a webapp about mountain biking, you're going to get a panel of testers who may simply not care nor understand about types of bike, trails, nor understand any of the terminology you use. Eye tracking heatmaps are a product of conscious thought (as well as low level visual processing) - if testers don't care about nor understand the problem your site is trying to solve, the heatmaps you'll get from them will be almost entirely worthless.

Thirdly, analysis of eye-tracking data is very tricky. There are a lot of mistakes an untrained analyst will make, which could have major repercussions. I did a presentation on this at User Experience Lisbon a few months ago:

http://www.slideshare.net/harrybr/what-you-need-to-know-abou...

I really don't mean Brian and Joe any ill-will. All of these concerns can be dealt with if they share case study projects and having an open channel of discussion with the UX research community.
Hell yes, I want it so bad.
Hmm, it doesn't have to be my robot... I could rent a robot in Hong Kong from RentARobot for $20 an hour, while staying at work, so I can go visit my grandma or something without having the need to catch a flight. Stay at work and save the plane ticket... Or, visit multiple countries on the same day, if my relatives are spread across the continent.
Another side issue:

"In these situations, the ability of individuals to influence the course of events is essentially nil. That's why you and I have not stopped the millions of murders in Darfur, the same as our parents did not stop them in Rwanda 17 years ago, and so on."

No, the ability of individuals to influence the course of events is exactly why our governments did nothing to stop the murders in Darfur or Rwanda. Humanitarian intervention in a matter of no interest to one's people is the act of a benevolent despot, not a democracy--at least when there's lives on the line. (The closest the US has gotten to "humanitarian intervention" as of late was the nonsense in the Balkans where Clinton was careful to forbid any measures which would have actually endangered American lives, even at the expense of civilian lives on the other side.) Normal people fundamentally don't care about the other. Instead of a few people being upset about millions of African deaths by genocide, everyone would be absolutely livid about thousands of (for example) American deaths by combat in a godforsaken part of the world that doesn't effect us. Normal people don't have the stomach to see their people die for some stranger around the world with whom they have nothing in common.

Afghanistan was revenge against people who killed Americans. Iraq was misplaced revenge for the same motive--and when it became clear to most Americans that they held no emotional or practical interest in Iraq, they turned against the war completely, with all the idealistic arguments about how the war deposed a brutal, murderous despot falling on deaf ears. How do you really think ordinary people would have reacted to Bush invading Sudan, or for that matter Clinton invading Rwanda after all the mess in Somalia?

And without these damn governments helping us, how exactly are you and I going to stop millions of machete-wielding Hutus, eh?
I was curious about the disagreement over his predictions from 1998, so I looked it up. I don't think it reflects well on him.

Spiegel interview 2010:

SPIEGEL: The genome project has been called the Manhattan Project or Moon Landing of its era. It has also been said that knowledge of the genes will change the future of humanity and become a "main driver of the world economy."

Venter: Who said that? I didn't. That was the people at the consortium.

SPIEGEL: You're wrong. You made all those statements in an interview with DER SPIEGEL in 1998.

Venter: Really? Those are Francis Collins' lines. So I may have said that that's how he describes it. I, on the other hand, have always said, "This is a race from the starting line to the finish."

Spiegel interview 1998 (translated to German by Spiegel and back to English with Google Translate[1]):

SPIEGEL: What does the knowledge of the genetic material?

Venter: The End of Ignorance, a completely new understanding of the human body and a revolution in medicine. What we plan is there, of the order of the Manhattan Project or the moon flights. The decoding of the genome will change the self-image of humanity.

[1] http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&...
That's actually a well researched bit of cash machine UED. I remember when I worked in the usability lab at a university in the UK this one came up.

Most early ATMs gave cash first and there was a significant minority of people who forget their cards. I can't remember the paper, but it's pretty essential to be people first in design, rather than engineering first.
Mullen was even more direct and said that WikiLeaks "might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier"

Oh, and the government doesn't have that blood on their hands already? Brings to mind something about a pot and a kettle.
The Nimrod operated by the RAF is basically the Comet, world's first jet airliner in 1949.
so you'd buy a concept video.
In the US, wouldn't it full under the amendment that allow you not to incriminate yourself (aka, don't give over the encryption key (which you don't have anyway))
Heh. By the time we finish light rail we'll all be retired. (Backstory: I'm still at university.)
Reliable computing isn't just for NASA; it also works when an individual codebase may have been designed to "malfunction." Instead of a single machine, you contract several independent, mutually untrustworthy parties to implement (open, inspectable) machines, with an architecture that takes votes from all machines into account. You could then spit out a log of (hash of input, vote) pairs from each machine to see that the voting architecture is also operating correctly.
"Identifiers should not carry meaning": for some reason people just hate this rule and try everything to circumvent it. It drives me crazy too.
I don't want to agree or disagree with anything. All I want to agree with is that innocent people have the right to exist without getting shot in the middle of the night.

You know what's the biggest problem over here? It's okay if someone from country ABC kills people living in XYZ. That's collateral damage, but as soon as a few ABC civilians get killed it's war.

It's like somehow everyone in this world have agreed to play a game where they all assume that they're the heroes and the fate of the planet rests on their shoulders. Somehow they've agreed that it's okay to kill other people because they just don't agree with them. Somehow they've agreed that this is just the way things are and this is how they must be.

Why?

I think that it's safe to say that no one can analyze state secrets or anything in this world. It's just a long chain of causality that is propagated forward by implicit agreement.
Most people can't manage to take time off and travel overseas more than once a year. They might see more of the world if it were easier.

Also, there are a lot of elderly, infirm, or handicapped people in the world who can't physically travel.
An interesting point of view, especially that is a "bit opposing" the perspective of Sergey Brin described in
this article : http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/06/ff_sergeys_search/all/... where Sergey Brin knows having a specific gene (LRRK2) that has been associated with a higher rate of Parkinson disease. But the conclusion looks the same, we still don't know well the interaction of the Genome with our real biological operation and need more research especially in data analysis.

Looking at it on a programming perspective, it seems that we have a large pile of "source code" and we are still evaluating some functions (or even at some variable name) without grasping the overall modus of operation. When we are doing binary reverse engineering, we are always looking for an entry point where the program starts to be executed. It seems that for Genome that there are many entry points...
Thanks I started using ZNC since yesterday. Finding it awesome!
Unduped better than Dedupe
How is WakeMate different/better than the Sleep Cycle iPhone app? It just seems like extra hardware to buy and charge...
"Blog like nobody is reading" is what I always say.
On the contrary it is very useful to have a full fledged electronic kiosk, especially for developing countries. In most places outside the US, online banking is still in it's early stages and the masses generally prefer and trust the physical ATM
AceWiki:an open-source wiki, that can understand english(almost)