skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Disappointing that you're being up voted, as this just isn't true. Foreign citizens in the US are held to the standards of US law, just as US citizens are held to the legal standards of the countries they visit. So your blanket statement is immediately proven false.

And even in this specific case, in espionage cases, the US can choose to prosecute and basically abduct anyone in the world they want, provided they're willing to put up with the political consequences. Not saying it's right, but if you think you can spy against the US (or many other countries) and face no consequences because you're not a US citizen, you might be in for a nasty surprise.
Yeah, I looked at that too, but we don't quite have the number of servers that Twitter does. :)
The primary goal was to get the deploy sequence and cache management right.
Solar Companies Hit Rough Patch
Certainly, the defamer's big guns are rape and child porn/molestation. Once someone has been accused of those, people seem to lose all objectivity.
I'm really interested in startup marketing for hackers and have been considering a similar writing project... I don't want to step on your toes at all but I'd love to bounce some ideas around. My e-mail is foobar at fooandbar.net :)
Often it is the word spoken in private that carries the true intent of its speaker.
Sure, they might... but the point is that a DoS attack is pretty naive and ineffective way to attack the site.
The Mysteries of Naming Tech Products
Buncha bored kids, no doubt.
To explain a downvote.

I don't think anyone here (or very few at least) honestly believes that the government is foundationally motivated to take away freedoms or cover up conspiracies. I'll concede only that considering Assange's point of view as one operational principle in the complex, subtle machinery of society is at least not a bad intellectual exercise --- if not more.

Moreover, Assange's tactics are fundamentally technological. Wikileaks and its operation both depend and reflect upon the capacity of the internet to share information with very low transaction costs. This is another face of the same arguments that Zuckerberg or Schmidt have made on the intersection of society, internet, and privacy.

Finally, Wikileaks is one gigantic hack with possibly global repercussions. I'm fanatically interested to see how it plays out.

For HN to have a greater than passing interest in this seems rather characteristic of the community. Moreover, meta-discussion of this nature has been repeatedly discouraged, and ad hominem rhetoric is pretty low on the discourse hierarchy. Cut it out.
The Unbundling of the Venture Capital Industry
That's a refreshingly honest and frank assessment. It's nice to see someone in his position speaking to reality.
Going further: how about a vulnerability in every program compiled with gcc? I'll just leave this here:

http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html
1. The belief on HN that the WikiLeaks release was a responsible thing to do, and will produce a net benefit because, you know, OPEN=GOOD and SECRETS=BAD! Here's my thoughts: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1949234

2. The belief that shutting down a few domains selling counterfeit goods and trafficking stolen goods is the first step toward widespread government censorship of the internet. My thoughts: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1945648
> Democracies don't work by doing the right or correct thing. They work by the consent of the governed

Can people consent to things they don't know about? Isn't transparency a pre-requesite for the kind of democracy you describe?
Rand at SEOMoz wants to hire this guy. Every startup in the Valley wants to hire this guy. Many traditional software companies desperately want to hire this guy. I get an email at least once a week asking for an introduction to this guy.

I know this guy.

He's self-taught, freakishly intelligent, and has long-since learned that he can either come in at nine, put up with rules which stifle his effectiveness, and make pennies of the value he drives, or he can run his own business, answer for his results only, and earn appreciable percentages of the value he drives. And he drives a lot of value indeed. ($200k is too low.)

If you want to work with this guy, you want him as a cofounder. Fair warning: so does everybody else, and he's kind of "meh" on the idea.

Of interest to everybody else: you want to be this guy. It is a body of skill which can be learned, and it will only take a few years and a lot of experimentation. And after you do that, the world is your oyster.
Moreover, the risks of disappearing him are too great relative to the reward.

Assange is just the poster child. He's not the phenomenon. Literally any college student has the tools to leak stuff to the Web in a way that will be difficult or impossible to suppress. Just post it all over. Stick it on Digg and Facebook, link to it on Twitter, upload it to a few filesharing networks. Wikileaks is helpful to a leaker because everything that appears there gets instantaneous publicity and a slew of immediate mirrors, which gives authorities a very short window within which to try and censor it. But Wikileaks is hardly essential, and Assange is even less so.

So turning the guy into a martyr is utterly counterproductive. That'll just spawn copycats. Angrier copycats. A better strategy is to make his life seem miserable. Just the total opposite of fun. Try to convince people that leaking stuff onto the net is a recipe for being slandered, being followed, and being subjected to endless, unglamorous, thoroughly unsexy bureaucratic harassment. One parking ticket per day for the rest of your life.

He will be dragged into court over and over. On the days when he isn't in court they will make him out to be a fugitive, forced to live in caves and avoid all his friends and loved ones. On the days when he is in court he will tend to look like either a criminal or a victim. None of this will stop Assange, of course, but Assange is powerless without the rest of the world: The people who are in a position to leak stuff to Wikileaks. They are the audience. And the message to them is: You can leak, sure, but you'll be found out, and then you'll either be arrested or be followed continuously for the rest of your life by men in black who are just waiting for you to slip up.
How to Link Cells in Different Excel Spreadsheets
Learn how to link data in one Excel Spreadsheet to data in cells of another worksheet or workbook using linking formulas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_jurisdiction_over_inte...

To the person who posted this and those who upvoted this: you have power over the quality of the conversations on this site. Please give some thought to how you use it.
Sadly, this is more interesting then most of the podcasts I listen to on a regular basis.
They can't, which why this article is bullshit. Settlement-free peering agreements exist because they are mutually beneficial, not to directly generate revenue. Both benefit from cost savings and Level3 can deliver better service quality, which is a big competitive advantage in their business.
Dr Will Davis has a post on the brief.
http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/what-institute-of-...

Section of Text:

Instead of a careful, science-minded conclusion that meets the painfully conservative demands of crafting broad public policy, the committee instead chose to dogmatically pull the discussion back to the 1990s, ignoring the flood of compelling evidence that suggests that vitamin D is among the most important public health issues of the age.

Believe it or not, this new, though anemic, RDA represents progress: It's a (small) step farther down the road towards broader recognition and acceptance that higher intakes (or skin exposures) to achieve higher vitamin D levels are good for health.

My view: Vitamin D remains among the most substantial, life-changing health issues of our age. Having restored 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels in over 1000 people, I have no doubt whatsoever that vitamin D achieves substantial benefits in health with virtually no downside, provided 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels are monitored.
So it'd be impossible to ever log in to an account at any .p2p site because at any point it may suddenly be in the control of an attacker? Seems rather limiting.
Look at both ends of the transmission: If both endpoints are inside Comcast's network, Comcast receives payments from both the sender and receiver to cover the costs. If one end point is in Level3's network and Level3 refuses to pay, only one side is paying for the connection.

Or consider just the part of the transmission that occurs within Comcast's network. Case 1: data is sent from Comcast-user-A to Comcast-user-B, both pay a share of the costs. Case 2: data is sent from Comcast-user-A to Level3-Border-Router, only Comcast-user-A pays.
I've personally lost that much twice. The second time was due to illness while traveling, but the first time was when returning to serious distance running training after a multi-year layoff. Not only did I lost 20lbs in a month, it was a total of 55 lbs over three months. I went from struggling to do an easy one hour run to running over 150km/week.

I'm almost positive your math is off on the calorie burning. As an overweight guy, you should be burning over a 100 calories per km, not mile. Also, there's more to it than just what you burn while running. After a certain tipping point (about an hour a day for me), it seems my body just doesn't want to store fat. I'm not sure if it was a factor, but like most successful distance runners, I stuck to a low-protein mostly plant-based diet while training.

The other factor to consider is that someone approaching running from being a sedentary programmer (as opposed to a bodybuilder), you'll be building up muscle and even some bone mass as well as losing the fat. This is the case for pretty much any weight-bearing activity (eg, skiing, snowshoeing, etc)
yes in U.S. you follow U.S. law...but that's not the case here.

And yes, the U.S. can kidnap him and bring him into U.S. so they can charge him with U.S. law...but they can't charge him in another country under U.S. law and expect him to get arrested...not unless they go through the whole extradition thing.

But that's like saying, you fall under Chinese law, because they might send a hit squad to take you out for breaking their laws.

Yes might generally equals right internationally, but for now they are trying to put up the pretense that U.S. cares about foreign relations.
Crime? This is international politics. If Steve Ballmer says to Steve Jobs, "It's time to cut off the head of the snake," and Steve Jobs goes and kills Larry Ellison, Steve Ballmer can be charged with a crime. If the Saudis say the same thing to the U.S. and the U.S. invades Iran, who is going to get charged with a crime? The word and the deed would be popular in the United States and in Saudi Arabia.

If he was revealing truly sensitive information, it might force people to be a little more honest. For example, it has been claimed that Saddam Hussein was concerned that his invasion of Kuwait might upset the United States, so he went through the British and got assurances -- or perhaps merely thought he got assurances -- that the United States and Britain might respond with harsh rhetoric but would ultimately look the other way. He thought he had de facto permission to invade Kuwait, in other words. Something like that would be worth revealing.

But hundreds of thousands of documents and nothing scandalous? C'mon. There is no way he could have published hundreds of thousands of cables and not a single scandal unless he is revealing information that by its nature never contains anything scandalous. Keep in mind that this information was already available to many people inside the United States government, and so there was already good reason for it not to include information that would threaten anybody's career. Even government bureaucracies have Boy Scouts, and of course they have internal rivalries galore.
Are you responding to someone in particular? The article itself seemed very neutral.
Alex talks about BankSimple and more in this podcast.
http://thisdeveloperslife.com/post/1475231255/1-0-7-audacity
He did it for one word. Bad article title.
Google Translate unveils new beatboxing protocol (click listen)
Nothing would be preventing you from accessing the site with their regular domain name. This system is meant for when that isn't possible, for the vast majority of websites this is better than nothing.

Obviously you should use discretion when using it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good idea.
Wikileaks only moved to amazon really recently, to avoid the DDoS attacks against it (or at least to lessen their impact on the site's availability), I think. Your conspiracy theory doesn't really have much weight behind it, unless you have other supporting evidence.
Like others have said, life is too short to work on bad ideas. This list isn't saying that these ideas are necessarily bad, but that they're too common. So you should think about what makes your idea sub-variant different enough; if you can't, that's a sign your idea may be bad.

Frankly I wish more people would say 'your idea is bad (because of X)' because that's useful feedback, rather than the usual feels-good-but-useless 'good idea'. You can always choose to disagree with X; or maybe you'll find a solution for X.
As my earlier post states, this is incorrect. It is generally true that the laws of any given country only apply to its citizens, and to non-citizens within its sovereign territory. However, many countries assert the right to prosecute people beyond those bounds for certain types of crimes. Espionage is especially high on the list of such crimes because (as wikiLeaks has so clearly demonstrated) an anti-espionage law that stops at the border is practically impotent. Usually, such crimes are tried in absentia because the prosecuting country has no way to get their hands on the defendant (e.g. Osama bin Laden), but sometimes countries will go to great lengths to seize a suspect, such as when U.S. Navy jets intercepted an airliner carrying Palestinian hijackers and forced it to land at NAS Sigonella.

International law can be very quirky (IANAL, but my work sometimes requires me to deal very directly with particular specific aspects of international law). Much of it comes down to precedent: if you can enforce a claim consistently for a long enough time, it becomes accepted and legitimate international law, which is the reason for the U.S. military's Freedom of Navigation (FON) operations. Conversely, if you allow others to regularly violate your national sovereignty in a particular manner without responding (even if only by formal diplomatic protest), then those particular rights may come to be accepted as no longer belonging to your nation.

A meta-observation: I've noted that posts saying, "he can't be prosecuted by the U.S." are generally getting many upvotes, while posts explaining how and why he could (not that he SHOULD, just that it's possible) are getting few or none. I can't know what other people are thinking, but it seems to me that people are voting based on what they would like to be true, rather than on what actually is true.
What's to stop a person opening 10 $10 accounts in the hopes of increasing their odds?

Also, if you deposit more money do you increase your odds or payout, or does it work on a regular deposit schedule? Otherwise there isn't much incentive to keep saving. Can you just withdraw and redeposit the same amount each week to keep entering with the same amount?

I think the best way to increase the savings rate is to stop artificially underpricing money and creating inflation. I don't save cash because I know the government is working against it. And I'm not poor or stupid.
> Then you are starting to believe all the misinformation that the government is trying to spread about him. This is how the discredit people and this information, since they can not actually deny it.

Actually, I haven't heard a single government report about Assange or Wikileaks at all. It's my own judgment I came to.

There's a big gap between Wikileaks' stated goals and the actual results of their actions. I'm looking at the potential consequences of some of this - releasing documents related to nuclear disarmament in Pakistan, a Politburo agent risking his life to protect dissidents - this isn't greater transparency, this is stupidity.

> We need more transparency in government, and there are people out there willing to do this, and get in all sorts of trouble for it.

There's a place for secrecy - counter-terrorism, investigating human trafficking smuggling, sensitive negotiations where a local population is sympathetic to violence against minorities, but the country's leaders want to work with the USA to stop genocide and suicide bombing. Transparency sounds great as a buzzword, but you need some pragmatism and discretion too. That's not government misinformation - just my researched and studied opinion on the matter.
How can anything in a comment be a copyright violation? Since when is text or words copyrighted?
You should also definitely partner with BudgetSimple, heck the branding is even similar ;)
It's classy responses like this that really contrast Assange et al as being a bunch of classless amateurs. They got lucky and ended up dumping a bunch of gossip and information that didn't serve any real political purpose than making the U.S. look bad. No widespread conspiracy blown open, no major corruption revealed, nothing but trashy gossip and a few questionable ethical violations, but nothing even worthy of being in the same sentence as the pentagon papers.

This will be, in the end, a net loss for the perception of Wikileaks in the public eye.
Eclipse Cheat Sheets Rock
Kind of like Osama Bin Laden, who these days is more of a fictional character than an actual person.
I'm unclear on this: what has he done that is reckless?
Search and Download free mp3 Badly Drawn Boy - Too many Miracles video
Yeah, that was what I thought too. It was a very weird situation. And it was the only one of its kind that I found: I found other vulnerabilities, but none where CSRF tokens were presented but not validated.

Edit: I should clarify that this is my blog post ;)
> given a target vertical or, ideally, a list of target companies

Well, sure, "ideally" it's easy to find people to call, "given" a list of companies!

Much more interesting if someone produces the list from a vertical.
You do know there was a leak of Clinton telling her drones/diplomats to spy on anyone they could: biometric data, secure passwords, emails [1]. Even the UN was spied upon. Do not forget, Wikileaks is just a publishing company, people submit data, they release it.

The rest of the world already knows that the US will break any law if it sees fit (GTMO anyone?) and is a morally and financially bankrupt state. I understand: if the US invades a country, it is "bringing democracy"; if the US spies and gets information it is foreign policy/diplomacy; if the US through buying oil and selling ammunitions supports a totalitarian regime like Saudi Arabia, it is business as usual, but if Wikileaks publishes damaging material a US soldier submitted without coercion, it is terrorism.

[1] http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/clinton-ordered-diplomats...
Alright, I'll bite, but obviously we're hand-waving definitions on many fronts.

I'll argue that equity markets are not good platforms for crowds to judge the fair market cap of companies (or the NPV of cashflows). Most participants have an incentive to maximize profits or preserve capital subject to some risk appetite, and very few are actually interested in pricing companies; instead participants are mostly interested in what they think the others players are doing.

If we were to crowdsource what movies HN users enjoyed, that could work. However, if we said that you would be paid for your vote only if you were in the same group as the majority, then suddenly you aren't voting honestly... you are trying to figure out how other people might vote, and our final result is the aggregation of a lot of game theory (plus a few naive honest players who get picked off by the rest of us).

Therefore, equity prices are not a democratic vote. Prices are not a weighted sum of your vote times your conviction (nor are they your vote * conviction * wealth). They can break down to a battle of speculators trying to outwit each other and exploit any flaws in the market or others' thought processes.

D. E. Shaw Research recently set a record simulating a single protein molecule in surrounding water for about 1 millisecond using first principles from computational chemistry, and I suppose that means they have a long way to go before fully modeling protein folding because the aggregation function of all those forces are complex. However, I'd bet it would be much harder to aggregate all the market participants and all their incentives from first principles to step 1 millisecond forward in live trading time.

I'm not saying you can't make profits. Obviously people have for a long time found relationships here and there that can predict future price movements. I'm saying a formal aggregation model that would let us fully compute and Turing-decide future prices, even if we had all the relevant inputs, seems complex.
"When did American business leaders turn into such wusses?"
16/19, 2 minutes, got bonus for Ada, missed Groovy, PHP, and (sigh!) Erlang.
Are you looking for any exclusive content, or are you only looking for stuff that's already been voted up?
Yup, I initially clicked a paid plan, then clicked back, then clicked the free one. I was redirected to PayPal upon creating an account.
This looks like spam but I'll bite. I'm a huge fan of excel in certain situations (Like to generate VB6 Code or bash scripts if you travel back in time) but ten years later when you're stilling using it to run your business or you reorganize your "shared network drive" and all your file reference links break you are going to be really sorry. Also, you're doing it wrong. You should be using named ranges for everything and not things like =Products!B1 etc.

For an ugly but useful site about excel look at http://www.excel-vba.com/
Most terrorists aren't sitting on huge piles of sensitive material set to be released en masse in the event of sudden, unplanned death.
"When fugitives flee...crime victims are denied justice."
(from Interpol's blurb about fugitives)

I thought the criminal corrections system was about rehabilitation, not Hammurabi-style eye-for-an-eye justice.
Oracle has a project to run the metacircular JVM Maxine directly on Xen: http://labs.oracle.com/projects/guestvm/
But they're not really offering the same thing, are they?

Don't Amazon and Rackspace require you to administrate things?
Wheedly.com -- want to borrow my stuff?
They are designed to be descriptive and informative (hrmph!). I applaud the article I submitted. Let there be no doubt.
However, 0.00 might be a valid guess. If I think Acme is going bankrupt soon, then 0.00 is a good approximation for its future stock price.
We all do that. Precious time is lost when you have to "figure out" how to write Dijkstra's in Java/C++. Technically, the ICPC allows you to bring a print out, but other competitions do not.
You think it is wasteful. Do you drive to work, or take a vehicle powered by nonrenewable resources? Live or work in a residence or facility that has heating and air conditioning? Eat meat you have not raised yourself? Many would say all these things are wasteful and harmful as well and they would have a better argument than one against owning polished stones. Why should you have moral authority to claim that things other people do that you are not interested in are harmful or wasteful, while you engage in harmful and wasteful practices that others object to but you are unwilling to change? Are you better than they are? Who decides what things will be allowed and which forbidden? You? Why? And who is your master, or do you fancy yourself servant to none, but master to all?