skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think they're killing it too quickly. It's not like it was a resounding failure.

Those who have adapted it and taken the time to really learn and use it swear by it, which strongly implies there is opportunity for it. It's not so much a product failure as a launch or marketing failure.

Pandora.com, for example, had similar problems getting initial traction, but stuck it out long enough to get over the hump (thanks in large part to iOS and Android), and are now one of the hot 'new' things.

Sometimes I think you can kill promising products too quickly in an attempt to stick with 'fail early/fail often'.
I would like to see how this guy would react if it was an American citizen leaking information about random_enemy_country. Should the federal authorities of said country have the right to violate foreign soil?
The risk of that happening was obvious to me and probably others as well. Heck, whenever you have a dependency on some external service there's a risk that service or provider could go away. Provide the service yourself, or scratch that itch another way, and you'll be immune to that risk. They didn't force you to use Wave, and in fact they were nice enough to let you use it for free, so I don't see what grounds you have to complain about it going away.
I would tend to assume that in cultures where the birth rate is sufficiently high, breastfeeding is sufficiently common and where such matters are handled more openly than is typical in the US, you would be less likely to hear people expressing bafflement as to why this seems to be so hard for some/many women when it seems like it ought to be "natural". My only point is that one of the differences between humans and animals is that some human cultures treat this in a rather secretive manner and we wear clothes and such.

I breastfed publicly in my twenties. I believe I was discreet about it but people who knew me well seemed to be shocked by how casually I handled it. Since they couldn't tell I was doing so until I told them I was feeding my kid while walking around the store or sitting in a booth at an eatery, I didn't see what the problem was. To most folks, I appeared to be holding a baby in my arms wrapped in a baby blanket -- which I was. He just also happened to be getting a meal. So I know first-hand how gasp-worthy this is to some folks, even if you are being so discreet about it they didn't realize it was happening until it came up in conversation. (And I was in Germany on an American military post for some of it. It wasn't all in the U.S. or only around Americans.)
>This is true. However Assande and Wikileaks have put over a hundred peoples lives directly in danger through their leaks as well as potentially thousands more.

Some examples of this would be great.
Using the dividing categories, if people put their names as categories, you could see each other's todolist without needing a username mechanism.

I am not a big fan of having to switch from one list to another. Tadalist does that, and it makes the application useless.

Maybe you can simply allow to see several lists at the same time in the same page. People would name their lists by projects or by people and they could see it all in one page.
Your premise is flawed. The ruling stroke down the law as violating constitutional rights of gays because they are denied benefits that are given to non-gays. Period.

You're arguing a straw-man.
After using the multitasking implementation on my iPhone in iOS4, I can heartily disagree here. Copy/pasting back and forth wasn't too much of a chore before, but it's lightening quick on iOS4.

The reason for no 'multi-tasking' is that people generally do one task at once. You read twitter, you click on a link, you post it to Facebook, you play a game, etc. Most people I know fullscreen their apps on computers anyway, so switching back-and-forth to copy/paste something is already the normal use-case. It's really not that big of a deal.
New Nerd Bird - Austin-San Jose nonstop flight starting on Nov 7
1) I'd hardly refer to many or any of the people calling for his head as "people who are not normally angry with anybody else in the world". Most of these people are professional anti-something, whether that something is a group, government, philosophy or what have you. And generally they are as unhinged in that regard as they are in regards to Wikileaks.

2- Many of the rest of us unfortunately have to live with the decisions of 3+ star generals. I'm not sure why Assange is any more of a threat than they are - indeed, in my view it is quite the opposite: the generals are responsible for more death than a deranged Assange could dream of if he were to dream of such a thing.

3- There is zero chance the Wikileaks will gain access to and release all secret information. So fear of anarchy is nothing more than a trope. Considering the amount of information marked as secret by the gov't that actually appears to show the gov't in a negative light vs. information of genuine safety for human life, this Wikileaks release is but a drop in the bucket. This emphasizes the canard of "anarchy".

4- Perhaps the gov't should think long and hard about what it elects to withhold from the public. Assange is not responsible for gov't openness. If the gov't decides to increase the amount of information it withholds, perhaps you should think long and hard about who you are voting for.

Assange's personality is essentially meaningless. He's not running for public office.
The value of divergent, then convergent thinking (NY Times Op Ed)
It would turn into an encrypted Wack-a-mole, evolving the state of the art for information dissemination. The author clearly believes that the DoD has magic computers, or the equivalent of a digital nuke.
This is reasonable, and it's been the way things have worked any time I've had access to production as a developer.
It solves the problem for remote teams of how to efficiently collaborate online. I don't know of any better solution for that problem, do you?
Developers can touch the code but not the data, production/operations can touch the data but not the code. That's the oldest quality control rule in IT to prevent fraud.
While I would be incredibly happy to hear that IE switched to webkit. 95/100 is a great ACID3 score. And they explained why a few of the points weren't made. ACID3 just tests things that browsers usually get wrong. Not necessarily things that are in that high demand to be used by Web Developers.

IE9 is an amazing step-up from IE8 so far and I think we should all be patting them on the back. I'm sure dealing with Microsoft policies and playing catchup to the other browsers is no easy task. And the team is doing a great job trying to modernize IE9.
The history of the US government with respect to keeping secrets is really appalling. See the history of the original "state secrets" Supreme Court decision:

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a030953states...
As a European this comments really pisses me off "In other words, we do not need permission to apprehend Assange or his co-conspirators anywhere in the world." The political hatred the US has gotten from around the world stems largely from the idea that the US can do whatever it pleases wherever it pleases.

Also

"The United States has the capability and the authority to monitor his communications and disrupt his operations. " Julian Assange is a good hacker, he made the first free portscanner (precursor to Nmap), co-invented Rubberhose deniable encryption and wrote the Usenet caching software NNTPCache. I highly doubt the United States is monitoring his activity.
I don't know how this works in the US, but here your MBA will generally be sponsored by your employer.
Unless I break both arms, or both legs, or an arm and a leg, I'm not letting that stop me!
Someone with a smaller penis than yourself might be embarrassed at his scan getting posted on Facebook or wherever - even if you personally are OK with it.
Yes, that's definitely what I mean to say.

In my short lifetime, hundreds of thousands of people, many of them civilians, have died in Iraq. Tens of thousands, many being civilians, have died in Afghanistan; we continue to kill several civilians per day. We have spent God knows how much money to date on both combined. They have completely undermined our moral standing in the world. Those are not potential costs. Those are the real costs of our military's actions, and I honestly can't imagine how anyone could defend them as being justifiable or reasonable. Nothing we even dreamed of accomplishing is worth that much.

That seems to me like a really big destructive force, and barely anything stands in opposition to it. It's a lot bigger than 100 Afghan informants who are at risk of retribution. If anything can put the fear of God into the people responsible for making these decisions, it's worth a huge price, and I think that shining a huge light on the military's actual actions is a pretty good start.

Wikileaks fucked up badly, in my opinion, by not redacting identifying details from the documents. They will indeed have some blood on their hands if retribution arrives. However, it seems to me like the benefit of Wikileaks' continued operation dwarfs the cost of their fuckups.

I hate to put people on the spot with "well, what would YOU do." But Daniel's post implies that there is some wise oversight that can expose just the right secrets, without exposing the dangerous ones. I don't think that's realistic, unless he has some particular scheme in mind. I think the choice is between total control and some degree of anarchy, and I would take as much anarchy as I could get on that spectrum.
Revolution Analytics Lifts R language into Terascale computing
What about Black & Tan's?
Can't they just stop improving it and keep it running? It's not like they need to save their server resources.
I totally agree and would add SharePoint as a potential victim. Maybe Google was the only company that could invent Wave but it was definitely the wrong company to market and sell it.

Not sure if the pieces of wave that are open-source are enough to build a product but there is definitely a real email problem inside corporations that Wave seems to have potential to solve. Google has very limited interest in products for intranets, their focus is the wider Internet.

The point I'm trying to make to this startup community is that there's money to made solving the corporate email problem. And the second mouse gets the cheese.
As a single person, I'm in the same boat as gay couples.
Gay marriage supporters want to throw me overboard in
order to join the favored group, forcing me to subsidize
a slightly larger group of people. Why should I do
anything but oppose that?

Assuming you are straight, your being out of the favored group is your choice. At any time, you are allowed to go out and find someone who you find sexually and romantically attractive and who finds you the same, and marry them, thus getting the benefits of the subsidies you listed.

Gays aren't given this option. If they want the subsidies, they have to marry someone they aren't attracted to.
"I'm fine with that. Assange isn't killing people. 3-star generals are."

Yes he is. The information he released in the latest round of "secrets" gave away informants to people that can (and will) kill them.

If he gave information about locations of jews to the Nazis, would we say it was freedom of information?

"Government can function with much less secrecy than it currently does. WL is serving a public need in challenging a growing regime of secrecy that blossomed under Bush and that Obama has failed to reign in."

That's because Obama knows the importance of secrets.

"I'll take a self-promoter over a murderer any day."

Wikileaks failed to remove actual names. I don't see a difference.
I'm far more threatened by Mr. Thiessen's implication that surveillance should be the sole domain of government than I am of Assange's attempts to thwart such secrecy.

Governments should not have unchecked powers of surveillance. We all know the myriad ways that can go wrong. Somebody has to be watching these people and that's just what WL is doing.

Don't trust anyone to have your best interests at heart.
> Theres nothing wrong with pointing out that one way is just as bad as the status quo.

Neither way is perfect - but that's far different from your equivocation. "Hundreds of people" possibly identified through the Wikileaks release pales in comparison to the tens or hundreds of thousands collaterally killed by the U.S. military.
Wikileaks publishes leaked information. They don't steal information. By the time information gets to Wikileaks, it's already been leaked. Wikileaks just tries to verify the information, determines the value in publishing it, tries to protect their sources and the people the leak might affect, then perhaps publishes the leaked information. What they're doing is precisely journalism.
Which link are you referring to? I went down back to where the tweets stopped looking to be referring to the incident. To do so, I took many seconds to click "more" repeatedly. Every link I saw either didn't response to expand (post.ly) or redirected to their blog... on posterous, which didn't respond.

I don't see a single tweet explaining what they changed (they mention IPs, did they change IPs, IPs for all servers, or just bring up additional ones) or why it is that custom domains are affected (I'm assuming it's an IP change, but is this a permanent change, or one I can just ride out).

I also don't see an actual announcement other than the @replies, although it's possible it's buried under those. As I'm not a frequent user of Twitter, I'm not aware if there is a way to filter out the replies and see only the useful content.

*edit - after typing that Posterous "finally" started responding again, so I can see what the blog post said.
less than 10% of your debt is still progress.
it's not wikileaks' job to filter what gets leaked. that's the job of the leaker.

you have to understand, there's very little cause to leak classified documents. most people who have classified jobs would be retarded not to assume they could get caught. if they have some matireal which they object to, they weigh it against the possibility of manning's fate (which could be death, or just lots of torture). if it's worth the risk, they leak it.

this wild west of anarchy where every secret gets leaked will not exist. but important, controversial things (or whatever could sway the balance of power of any given government) that are worth the risk, will be leaked. for the first time in the history of the world the powerful are afraid of keeping secrets. and that's OK with me.
In Schengen, you might have to have your identity determined by the police at the police station, so yeah, you can be detained for that.

Searches, in Germany, generally demand cause. I have no idea what laws govern searches in Switzerland.

The part with citizens vs non-citizens was mainly about borders. The US is known to be incredibly mean to non-citizens, going so far as to require a visum for transit, whereas Schengen only requires a transit visum for citizens of a small number of states.

It seems strange that Swiss police did a random search. Anyway, it seems that the US police also does random searches—at train stations for example.
Why you should migrate from a relational database to CouchDB
.. until you're suspected of being the whistleblower, of course: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10529110
TMTC 30 - Agile Estimating
Or Yelp.
If it "isn't even mentioned in the Constitution," (and it's not), then it's protected. The U.S. Constitution enumerates the powers of the U.S. Government. A right does not have to be mentioned in the constitution to be a constitutionally protected right by virtue of a lack of authorization for the government to take it away.
If he gave information about locations of jews to the Nazis, would we say it was freedom of information?

Godwin's law so soon in this thread? Not helpful.
That and life stage. By the time you graduate from b-school a spouse, family and house are coming soon. The years in which one can earn ramen wages are precious and b-school takes up two of them, often at what might otherwise be your living expenses vs experience peak.
When you call those prosecuting the US/NATO side of the conflict in Afghanistan "murderers", you run the risk of implicitly taking the side of US/NATO's adversaries, who in this case are the Taliban.

Here's what I'm wondering: when did it become fashionable to stick up for the Taliban? The Taliban aren't the Sandinistas. The Taliban aren't the North Vietnamese Army. They aren't even Hezbollah.

It is conceivable --- even directly observable --- that countries can survive and thrive led by any of those movements, however much we may disagree with their politics and practices and the mechanisms they used to take power. Say what you will about Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but women can go to medical school in Iran and (presumably) Lebanon.

I've read a little bit about the history of Afghanistan leading up to the Taliban. I know it was a disaster, and I know the Taliban took root in part because they managed to impose some semblance of order over a country governed essentially by banditry. But as near as I can tell, the Taliban is objectively evil. Apart from consolidating the warlordism in Afghanistan, what possible virtue can there be to defending them?

Outing innocent informants and getting them killed --- which I know hasn't been reported to have happened yet --- is bad no matter where it happens. But I don't have much of a moral qualm about directly opposing, say, the Iraq war. But I don't understand how you can construct a worldview that permits you to cheer on something that assists Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who may be the closest thing the Earth has to an actual comic book supervillain.

There's a lot of secrecy and dissembling and corruption in the world. You have to choose your battles. Wikileaks chose a really crappy one this time.
I laughed when the author cited a US law claiming the United States' ability (specifically the FBI) to legally violate international law. That's like me citing my own personal law that says I may legally violate state laws and burglarize any house I want to.
1) It's difficult to gauge the general sentiment, but as you say a lot of people have got het up. I see that as a good thing personally.

2) That's a good point. Wikileaks has the potential to leak material which is more damaging than it is beneficial. The question is if you think that risk is worthwhile. I do.

3) Anarchy encompasses a wide variety of political thought. You are being reductive. Besides, there is nothing to suggest Wikileaks is an anarchist organisation. Also you are incorrect when you suggest that they are opposed to all secrets. Assange himself has repeatedly said that there is often a legitimate need for secrecy.

It's not a question of the need for secrecy, it's a question of it's abuse.

4) This makes little sense to me; information doesn't need to be on a computer for it to be leaked. All it takes is one person with access and motivation.

"As much as I want the maximum amount of liberty, freedom, and openness, this isn't the way to make it happen."

What is the alternative then? As it stands, governments have little motivation to become more transparent; the opposite is true in my opinion.
Yes he is. The information he released in the latest round of "secrets" gave away informants to people that can (and will) kill them.

The story I've heard is that Wikileaks attempted to contact the White House, so the two parties could go through the documents and remove references to informants. The White House declined the offer. Has any evidence emerged to suggest this is untrue?

Wikileaks failed to remove actual names. I don't see a difference.

See above.
Push pins
Apple has fix for iPhone PDF flaw
Look like Apple didn’t waste no time fixing that nasty PDF flaw use to jailbreak the iPhone 4 this week.

Apple’s spokeswoman said Wednesday “We’re aware of this reported issue, we have already developed a fix and it will be available to customers in an upcoming software update.”
With $600 billion floating around in private, generally unmonitored hands...

Shouldn't we be keeping an eye on charities? That sounds like it'd be ripe for exploitation.
[Wait several minutes for a large complex unwieldy UI to load]
In the case he's talking about, where you have a working spouse and a non-working spouse, the couple likely pays considerably less in taxes than would a single person with the same income.

For any given income, a couple filing jointly with that total income pays less than a single person with that income, because the joint tax tables are lower than the single tax tables at any given income level. The so-called marriage tax is simply an artifact of the fact that we have a progressive rate structure, so that if both spouses work, their combined income is in a higher marginal bracket, which in the case where both have full time jobs can be enough to overcome the tax break they get from filing jointly.
"If you ignore them then huge swathes of people will simply blindly believe anything the trolls say no matter how wrong or weird it is. I guess it's a guy thing where they'll just believe whoever's tallest, and "tall" on a forum is who's most obnoxious and writes the most."

This is a textbook example of a vocal minority. And social psychologists know their effects well: http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/07/loudest-voice-majority-opin...
From everything I've read about the "Right To Privacy", starting with Alderman and Kennedy's book in '96 (which got me to start paying attention to what SCOTUS and SCOTUS nominees were saying about privacy as an actual right implied by the 4th amendment), it is very much up for grabs as to whether we have a Constitutionally inviolable right to privacy.

I hope we do! But an argument backstopped on the notion that we do doesn't seem very strong.
> The latter imperative might be achievable.

It might be, but so might putting a replacement online a couple of days later.
I know I'm suppose to like this feel good small houses thing. It makes a lot of sense to sleep in a small house if that is within your means. But you know, I still like my average sized american home. Although I used to live in a tiny studio and loved it because it was only me. I could not imagine myself raising a family in a small place like that. I like small living spaces if I'm by myself. I need a bigger space for my family.
>Yes he is. The information he released in the latest round of "secrets" gave away informants to people that can (and will) kill them.

Specific examples would be great.

>If he gave information about locations of jews to the Nazis, would we say it was freedom of information?

The jews weren't attempting to occupy Germany at the time so probably not the most fitting comparison.

>That's because Obama knows the importance of secrets.

Absolutely. The truth can be politically damaging.

>Wikileaks failed to remove actual names. I don't see a difference.

Most people recognize the difference between dropping bombs on civilians and revealing the names of those involved in the killing trade.
Civil partnerships do not have the same rights. The federal government does not recognize them and as a consequence gay/lesbian people are not able to sponsor their partners for permanent residency. I know some international gay couples who can't live in the US due to this.
I think the point is that it is almost impossible to take a picture today like #6 without getting one overweight individual in it. Definitely a different world back then.
Unless you can prove that the military is unnecessary and their absence would not prevent more bloodshed than they cause then I would say my equivocation is right on the money. So to echo the previous poster do you have an alternate solution to the military that doesn't involve an impossible mass change to the entire worlds mental and emotional state.

The military is an unfortunate but necessary evil that involves bloodshed for as long as people stay people.