skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I find it very interesting that a domain registrar has a customer base demanding this. In my anecdotal experience domain registrar customers do vary a bit in their technical knowledge, but overall are above average.

As for being what the customers want, not this customer. I'll definitely never become their customer if they are this insecure.
Replace Libya with Egypt and Gaddafi with Mubarak, if it helps you to get the point.
I use Postmark, and I like them very much.
I think you're attacking a straw man. I can't speak for dean but I thought his comment was pretty much: people seem to think it's America's duty to police the world, and America does a half-assed hypocritical job at it.

> Please tell me, what other country is out there doing more to defend freedom?

I hate questions like this because it treats freedom as a 1-bit entity when it has many dimensions.

> We have no cards to play with Assad. We're already in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya and you want us to threaten war with a fourth Muslim country? Bizarre, arrogant, and ignorant.

I don't think he wants to go to war with Syria but the lack of government denouncement and threats appears hypocritical given our other actions. Did you make this exact same argument before we started bombing Libya? It sounds like a counting argument.

> What do more do you expect?

Personally, I'd like to see the government do some action, though preferably non-military. It seems like the gov. has been more outspoken about Israel than Syria lately, which is surprising to me.
What wccrawford said. No idea what this guy does.

Also, it's an artifacted image, which is probably the worst delivery method considering 95% of the content is text.
I thought/think this is a face account. Is there any evidence that this is real?
FYI - Hover is a front end for Tucows / OpenSRS, which also store passwords in plain text.
>The purpose of patents is to encourage companies to publish their research.

I would agree with you if it wasn't for this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent:

>certain subject areas are excluded from patents, such as business methods, treatment of the human body, and mental acts

And the fact that we have a culture built on the idea that it's every man for himself. What's short sighted isn't an appeal to emotion but the social structures we currently have. Cooperation is a simple and effective way to combat these issues and an appeal to emotion is the mechanism to encourage it.

Now, before you mention it, I understand that there are physical limitations which are hindering this change in paradigm, in particular, Dunbar's number - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbars_number From what I have researched, my current working model is that this has to do with the amount of serotonin in people's brains, hence drugs which raise serotonin levels such as MDMA or stimulate serotonin receptors, such as psychedelics, result in feelings of being connected to humanity and trigger a marked increase in compassion. Meditation also has these effects which suggests that it increases serotonin production. Perhaps when we start to modify our own DNA we can permanently increase the amount of this neurotransmitter for everyone and raise Dunbar's number to something more workable (in the sense of triggering said paradigm shift). Until then, it's up to individuals to do this work.

The bottom line is that the way we are doing things is backwards and can be improved by orders of magnitude, so I firmly believe that patents of all types are a transient effect which will disappear as humanity evolves socially.
Microsoft uses this approach with MS Office and once things started going their way it was next to impossible for a competitor to attack any one product.
You may be proven right, it would certainly seem G+ has huge potential: everyone I know so far, and most of the reviews on the net are very positive. It will integrate into all the others google's products, and with that, google will be the king of social.

But that's not the point I tried to make. Based on the post, my opinion was that Google did not want to renew the deal with twitter (and vice versa) which is strange. They are at war already with everybody else (ms, apple, oracle, facebook) and don't need another enemy.
I recently graduated with a CS degree and turned down an offer from Google in favor of one from Twitter, mainly on the grounds of it being a smaller company (for now). Google is still at the top of my list of BigCo's that I'd consider joining, as they have an incredible range of solid projects. However, my desire for a greater opportunity of individual contribution would prevent me from working there for the time being.

EDIT: Not to mention that Twitter (and many other software companies) is crawling with ex-Googlers, so the caliber of engineer coworkers will be roughly equal.
I worked there for 5 years in cluster management / datacenter operations, from 2005 - 2010. While I had a blast, I'm now working for myself (consulting + startups) and could not be happier.

Google is the right place for certain kinds of people; I don't think entrepreneurs are one of them.
At the moment I am still in college but I'd be happy to go there when I finish my degree. I don't think I'd like to spend there my whole life though - optimally, I'd like to stay there a few years and then go try something different, like a startup.
Hasn't buzz always been direct competition?
no because chances are all your skills will go towards doing some mundane task.

you heard of a land grab...well Google is in the process of doing a talent grab, hiring engineers left and right, so chances are unless you made a name for yourself, you'll be stuck doing something stupid
The 4th of July Shit-Show
I can't vouch for "security focused" - but Gandi.net have so far never let me down. They're based in France, so not susceptible to US law (dependent on the TLD you use of course) and have a huge variety of TLDs.

Can't recommend Gandi enough, they do exactly what they say on the tin - "no bullshit".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

Trying to contain the exposure may actually make it worse.
original contract was probably written on May 2009, and then it took them a few months to sign the thing.
It's about avoiding situations where your work and your personal life are in conflict ("conflict of interest") and many employers ask you to sign such a thing.

If you're not working on something similar to what the employer is working on, it's not a problem. If you're working on something that will compete with what your employer is doing, there's a problem.

If you were running a sports team, you wouldn't let your employees run a betting parlor - they'd have too much incentive to throw a game and profit off it. In the same way, employers don't want their employees having situations where the company's goals and the employee's goals are at odds.
1.) Basically everyone who gets hired at Google feels that way at the beginning, right on up to Larry Page. He tells this story occasionally about how when he got into Stanford, he kept walking around for a month or so terrified that he was about to be "found out" and that Stanford would ship him home and rescind his acceptance. And then when Google started becoming popular, he was afraid that it was taking too much time away from his studies, so he tried to sell the whole thing for < $1M.

The two things the interview process is really looking for is a.) How do you react when faced with a challenge? Do you dig in and attack it, or do you flinch and go away? and b.) Do you really want to work at Google? Things like big-O notation and coding skills are important, but if you really want to, you can pick them up on your own.

Incidentally, this is the same criteria YCombinator uses, except that instead of "do you really want to work at Google?" they ask "do you really want to found a startup?" It's a pretty handy mindset to develop in general.

2.) I felt the same way, and then discovered it was nowhere near as bad as I expected. There're a bunch of pretty autonomous small groups working at Google, often on pretty cool things. One trade-off is that the more important your work is to the company, the less autonomy you have, yet the more important your work is to the company, the greater the resources you have at your disposal and the greater the financial and career rewards.
Merely by becoming a programmer, you have alienated yourself in a sense. The most successful people in the world have alienated themselves. They are outliers. Superlative compliments can be alienating in a positive sense. Comments like "Dude, wtf? How do you find the time to do that s---? Are trying to be the next [famous technology-related individual]?" are alienating in a negative sense and convey disapproval. Some environments reward individuality; others ridicule it. Unfortunately, it seems that you have experienced more of the latter than I have.
yes but I'd like a bit more justification. i.e. for a camera all it says is high quality images and touchscreen controls.

I'd like something where there is literally a giant essay justifying the reasons for buying X. (i.e. even though this one has less megapixels, it's the better choice since you won't really need all those mega pixels in the real world, and this way you can save 25% of the cost).
These are the same people whose idea of fighting DRM was to attempt a DOS attack against Apple customers who needed service. Basically, they attempted to fill all the Genius Bar appointments for a weekend and then go in and read a script that called for asking the support people questions about why Apple had DRM. They suggested that people make multiple appointments at multiple stores, in order to take up as many slots as possible.

Looks like they still have no clue how to actually accomplish anything.

Edit: here's a link to their call for the DOS: http://www.defectivebydesign.org/apple-challenge
You appear to not understand how password hashing works. A well designed hashing function is one-way, it cannot practically be reversed. With a large salt, even very weak passwords ("cat") cannot be reversed.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Password_hash...
I was more than fair with dean:...they are willing to send in the army to spread democracy in Iraq..they are clearly reluctant to help the people of Syria

His comments are borderline trolling and clearly accuse the US of indifference to the Syrians and are also intellectually dishonest. We didn't invade Iraq to spread democracy, we invaded in the post-9/11 WMD debacle. You are defending revisionist history.

| Personally, I'd like to see the government do some action, though preferably non-military

Specifically what? What leverage does the US have in Syria? Will UN sanctions work there any better than in N. Korea/Iran?

| seems like the gov. has been more outspoken about Israel than Syria lately, which is surprising to me.

They have more leverage. They are actually on speaking terms with Israel.
The interviewer should have asked what he thought of Stuxnet.

I am very curious to hear what these 'hacktivists' think of white hats in the military and how they will try to weasel their way around an answer that justifies such military action.
Interesting all the "no" responses, in lieu of the (as of when I write this) the 2:1 "yes" vote.
Technically, overflow of signed integers invokes undefined behavior (or possibly implementation defined. In my copy of a draft standard overflow is given as an example of undefined behavior, but 6.3.1.3 say implementation defined). In practice, it's the same bit values as unsigned integers, which does the right thing in this case.
Right, this is a fair point, and what I think G+ is banking on. The abstraction and additional complexity is clearly there. On the one hand, the modelling part of the complexity is a wash, since as you state humans generally already understand separating their social circles. It's the application of the model that people will find confusing, and will require a learning curve. It might turn out that just getting through the modelling phase successfully will be enough for enough people to sign up, and the complexity of learning how to apply the model effectively can be optional and left to the user to discover.
It's probably a bit more true than that. You got the process right, but the problem is that Google is in so many lines of business that almost anything you do could be considered "along the lines of business of your employer".

The success of getting IP rights assigned to you personally is heavily dependent upon what you're doing. If it's just a Chrome extension for your favorite website or a webapp that caters to a niche interest you have, no problem. If it's a casual game (now that Google+ has launched) or a mobile app, it can be very, very difficult, as those are industries of pretty heavy strategic importance to Google.
People who answer "yes" often don't feel they have to justify it. :-)
Looks interesting. A suggestion: there's no example anywhere for something like

<div class="content">

Please add that to the example on the landing page.
If you substitute "practicality" wherever you see "worse is better", you'll have a much clearer idea of what the "philosophy" really is, and realize it in no way conflicts with critical systems.

All software design and development is done to a set of requirements. The more disastrous a failure would be, the stricter the requirements will be, and the more rigorous the processes will be.

Like almost all other developers, my software does not run nuclear reactors, therefore I am not going to expend the resources to achieve the safety necessary for a nuclear reactor. It would be both unnecessary and economically infeasible.

Do I care if a client makes a call to my IPTV webservice and gets back corrupt data? Well, yeah, but I'm not going to step through the entire software stack to mathematically prove it's impossible, nor am I going to encase the servers in a lightyear of lead to protect them from cosmic rays. I'm going to follow general best practices, let some testers play with it for a few days (while thousands of other lines of code in the client and server get exercised at the exact same time) and ship it.

Why? Because the small risk of a user not being able to watch their favorite movie in some weird corner-case has less economic significance than me spending days making 100% sure everything is perfect in my new API call.

At the same time, I recognize components of my systems that can have serious economic consequences, and accordingly invest more time in getting them closer to "right" (or avoiding them entirely -- e.g. not so long ago I ripped out all the C-style string/buffer handling from what was ostensibly a C++ library (not mine, originally) and replaced it with std::string and std::vector, which I knew were right, because people smarter than me had made sure they were, because everyone knew they had to be, and time was invested accordingly).

This is a continuum, not a pigeonhole.
I guess I meant that they could have released Google+ to coincide with the end of the contract, having realised that removing Twitter from realtime and replacing it with G+ would give G+ a traffic boost.
Ask HN: What do you wish your non-technical cofounder understood?
What concepts are important to understand? Things like HTTP, CSS v HTML, git. At a High level what is important to know.
What protocol is it that routes around censorship, exactly?

What is the software that automatically prevents a server from being unplugged by a co-location facility? What about TCP/IP prevents a blogger from being beaten unconscious in front of his children, then taken away by plainclothes 'police'?

(I sometimes think that only a totalitarian government's propaganda minister would keep repeating this trope about routing around in the age of China's firewalls, etc.)
Next weeks headline: "Anonymous hacks Hover.com, user database of emails and plain text passwords posted to torrent."
Yes, but the contract just ended. It wasn't terminated, it just wasn't renewed. And + is a much more «all-in» bet than Buzz was.
Our vision is to have google.com/realtime include Google+ information along with other realtime data from a variety of sources.

The subtext seems to be about as clear a reason as you can hope for from a giant corporation's PR dept.
When you pirate a game, do you also pay for it?
It's not what customers want! Customers don't have a clue. They trust the provider to look out for their interests, since they are not experts. Customers don't understand that receiving a password instead of a reset link means that someone else can take their password. Customers don't know that probably any technical 16-year-old who doesn't like them (or any Hover employee) can figure out a way to break into Hover.com and steal their account. Hover is taking advantage of their knowledge to exploit the ignorance of customers.

I agree that we probably can't stop them from doing it short of government regulation, but that doesn't mean it's not a fucked-up thing to do.
The URLs are usually time-linked, one-time, and service-specific, as opposed to the password, which 1) is permanent, 2) can be used without the user knowing, and 3) is likely to be used on other services as well.
I'm curious why there's this perception that the vast majority of Google engineers work on mundane stuff.

Yes, there's mundane work in any job. There is less of it in Google than in other places, even including the startups I've worked at, because when you operate at Google-scale, even simple things become an interesting technical challenge.

It's sorta hard for me to point out specifics because most of Google's internal infrastructure is quite secret, but if you can point out some things that you think would be mundane and boring, I can try to illustrate some of the challenges involved, up to the limits of my confidentiality agreement.
If the password reset function sends a temporary password just as you say, THEN it is not that big a deal. On the other hand, if they are storing every user's original password in such a way that they send the user their existing password...

I believe this is the scenario most people here think is happening.
A friend asked me if this was a good example to learn C from. I had to say no; in half an hour of looking at the code, I found seven bugs in a single 60-line routine. Details at:

https://github.com/GenTiradentes/tinyvm/commit/e78c192313c35...
Fukushima Cover Up Unravels
According to a variety of sources, including http://th3j35t3r.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/lulzsecs-cloudflar... and http://backtracesecurity.com/page2 Sabu is Hector Monsegur. He lives in New York. He owns the domain prvt.org. This is the whois before he remembered to anonymize it:

http://pastebin.com/Atf3V2u9
Funny, cute and just as irrelevant as the other comment. Not to mention that the places you placed ellipsis are not all appropriate places for commas. I would understand if it even slightly impacted the readability or understandability of my post. This is the trite shit I hope to avoid here, if I wanted grammar-nazi and punny sarcastic threads about it, well, you know where I'd go.

Jesus guys, I was on the mobile site and ellipses are faster when I'm already feeling limited by my thumb's tapping ability to have to go hunt for the comma. I didn't realize it was such an issue that it spawned 6 comments about my style and zero comments about the content of my post or the article.

I mean, do I explicitly need to write: "I'm so sorry, I know I should have used commas but I didn't and it wasn't easy for me to proof-read on my device"? Good lord, even the original post is being crucified without response.
Watch,Monte Carlo,Online,megavideo
Watch,Monte Carlo,Online,megavideo
comic happy without the required termination feel like we have been driven too hard through the plate mill. Monte Carlo is certainly a little, but it's still nice for a film was to try our charming rather.
So, does 2.0 have up-arrow history and in general not freak out when I try to do stuff in interactive mode? Guile's great for what it's great at, but interactive dev. in the custom of Python or Gambit Scheme isn't one of those things, at least for me.
Agreed, it's not what someone wants if they're fully educated about the trade offs.
If it requires you to log in with Facebook, that's a red flag right there.
I got to the number #1 point of why they should buy RIM ... OMG, no way was that written by anyone with even a basic understanding of the matter.

Epic fail. Author has zero - absolutely zero - credibility.
FWIW, Darwin also gets -lrt wrong, so you're not alone with that one. I was actually rather surprised when I found this stipulation.
I left for a few reasons:

a) Google has good infrastructure, but there's a high barrier to adding a new technology in production. If I put 5 engineers in a room with a rough design for a product, they'd probably suggest the same components. I wanted to step outside and use new technologies. (I wouldn't do this off work hours because I don't have the brain bandwidth to work on side projects)

b) Avoiding my own complacency. Google was my first gig out of university and I didn't want to stay there just by default.

c) I wanted to work somewhere where success and failure rested on my work (and of everyone on the team's) - I wanted to put my heart into something, and that, for me right now, requires something that can fail and then I'd be out of a job as opposed to just switching teams. Later, I might be happy making 1 billion people's search results 0.1% better, but now isn't that time. Certain teams at Google are more at-risk like this, but mine wasn't.

There are a few other minor reasons, but none of them were other people, an uncaring company, or incompetence.

Google's certainly not perfect, but I'm pretty sure no other company even a quarter of its size is as good a place to work.
I don't buy it.

Replacing Emacs elisp implementation is just looking for trouble. Although it is not the fastest one, the existing one works well enough and is battle tested and there are millions of lines of elisp code that would need to be tested, debugged and fixed.

If the goal is to allow to write parts of Emacs and extensions in some other language, I wander is Scheme really the best choice? Why not go all out and implement elisp in Common Lisp and use Common Lisp as a base for future Emacs and extensions development. There have already been such attempts, so it's not exactly something unheard of.
I agree that its fast and efficient to use the search box, but its something I rarely see people doing outside circles of sysadmins and developers.

The existing UI can easily be saved by just knocking out the expandable panels completely and just putting all the apps on one panel delineated by category name.
This is a unanswerable question. It depends entirely on the exact role, the comp, the team you'll be in etc etc.
True. Unless you're one of the chosen few.

Also, it's not a simple open-and-shut "yep, we own it" response. It takes ages, while you lose whatever enthusiasm you might have had going in to the idea.
DRM on open source platforms is a Non sequitur.

DRM functions by placing something in a lock-box, locking the box, then giving you the locked box and the key to the lock.

It then uses obscurity and subterfuge to try to make you believe you do not really have the keys to the box (usually by trying to hide the fact that you really do have the key).

Open source, by its very nature, is open. So you get to look inside and discover that you really do in fact have the keys to the lock after all. DRM can only function (to a loose definition of "function") in a closed system. Openness is, by its very nature, the anti-DRM.
If I know Carmack right, it was suposed to run at 60 fps on the target hardware.
Gandi is pretty awesome, but just be aware that your credit card company might freeze your card the first time you buy from them (apparently buying domain names in other countries is a fraud trigger) :D
Nice! Great to see more node.js support happening.