skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Right on!

A game like dwarf-fortress is a 6+ year labour of love from its creators (and its players!), and screw anyone who says dedication like that is wasting your life.

And more broadly, a game is as artistic & life-changing as the developer is able or willing to make it.
http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/abb06be/
Now to understand why I like HTTPS/TLS so much:

Do all of these things.

You still can't break my secure HTTPS channel to Amazon.com.
Do a 5th year. Study/Major in Computer Science. Maybe you can do honors?
> that server is going to be able to read your plaintext no matter what.

I'm truly sorry, I follow you on Twitter and actually really respect your opinion, but that's just nonsense. the HTML, CSS and JS can all be verified, either by a plugin or by researchers studying what the server is sending, or by a variety of other ways. This ultimatum you're giving is silly.

> Yes. If you think China is intercepting your HTTPS traffic, remove all the root certs in your browser. Then browse to the key sites you're worried about protecting and create exceptions for each of them. China will not be able to use "fake certs" to intercept traffic to those servers.

That is not a real solution.

> Yes. In cryptosystems, 10+ years of study does count for a lot.

Of course - I never suggested it didn't - but that doesn't mean that new research can't undergo and survive skepticism.
Wow is that ever far from true.
My hobby: reposting links from inside other HN front page articles.
Don't dread, it is clear and factual and free from obvious typos. You've even got a jwz quote and radioactive boy scout references - I rather enjoyed it.
TLS encryption can't be compromised by oppressive goverments. Only the CA-based authentication can.

Trying to "fix" this by rolling your own ad-hoc encryption (while ignoring the authentication issue entirely) is completely missing the point.
:s/all the have/all the rave back then/
You just stuck a plugin into the mix. You can make crypto work from a browser plugin. Just use the plugin for all the crypto; what the hell is the point of Javascript cryptography if you have a plugin? That's reckless to the point of negligence.

That is not a real solution.

Neither is YOUR FACE.
The protocol doesn't have known major problems.
The Xbox 360's processor is PPC. GP was referring to the difficulty of porting XBMC and its underlying codecs to PPC.

On that front, XBMC already runs on PowerPC[1]. It also already has some flavor of Direct3D bindings, since the original Xbox used D3D 8. No idea whether PPC/D3D 9 would be hard or not.

[1] http://xbmc.org/download/
Here is my crack at a PHP version of this: http://pastie.org/2371425
Requires Goutte: https://github.com/fabpot/Goutte
Only the configuration of the CA-based authentication can. Nobody loves X509 PKIs, but so far, they seem to "work".

This matters because you can literally write a HOWTO that my mom could follow to get a browser configured so that China can't snoop on (many of) your HTTPS connections. No code required.
In fact, any "solution" that relies on the server giving you code to prevent the server from reading your data is inherently broken.
WaW and MW2 were full of them during their respective year of glory. BO has had a lot less glitches than previous installments.
.com, .net, .org are managed by US companies. So, no matter where you have the DNSs
Well, at least not after they patched for CVE-2009-3555.
This idea of PROTECT IP is really bad. As Vixie said, it will bring more trouble than solutions. And in the end, it won't solve anything.
Was Amazon ever vulnerable to session resumption attacks? How?

Either way: every vulnerability we've found in SSL/TLS (the protocol) makes me more confident in it. Those findings are the product of millions of dollars of attention. Why would we think that any alternative to TLS wouldn't have the same flaws, or worse ones?
Loyal Dog
A man’s best friend shows emotion to the presence of his master at his funeral service. music by Harold Britton titled “canon” composed by Johann Pachelbel,( very short video looped for emphasis).
During the funeral service of Navy Seal hero Jon Tumilson, his loyal dog Hawkeye lays down with a sigh near his casket.
"They spent one year"

This, in and of itself, is a sign of how innovative Android is, under-the-hood. Google and everyone else saw the iPhone at the same time. Google took one year to have a baseline-credible iPhone competitor ready. Palm took two (and they had the advantage of starting over from scratch). Microsoft took three. Nokia took four (so long they eventually killed the platform and have embraced Microsoft). RIM still hasn't gotten there.

Even though most people don't realize it, being a fast follower isn't easy. The Android team planned for their OS to be flexible and retargetable from the start. You can see it in their architecture, some of their lower-level features (e.g. Intents, input frameworks) and you can see it in the speed of their "iPhone pivot".
Whether you consider it "utterly broken" or not without the validator depends on your trust of the server - similarly to HTTPS, which is vulnerable from the trust standpoint thanks to CA vulnerabilities.

Furthermore, it's possible to verify the code manually, although tediously, whereas a CA impersonation is perfectly transparent and very difficult to detect. The validator plugin usually does the job.
Why is it more moral to watch corporations I've invested in give away my money, hoping that at least some of it may reach the causes I would have given it to?
I don't see any problems with this. The devs also have to balance the weight of breaking current applications using their existing url parsing. It also doesn't seem an unreasonable argument that users should expect node to carry on existing conventions from js in browsers. I'd make the same choice.
I agree that organised crime is the main adversary to such a system, but I believe I have developed a miraculous mix of technology to thwart them that this margin is unfortunately too narrow to contain.
Or, he simply had enough money and influence to advertise and market his way to success, this time around.

I'd imagine the iPad got far, far more publicity than the Newton in its day.
Furthermore, another reason the entire classic test-based approach is bad since it encourages having binary hypotheses when many real-world problems don't, they may be many or composite or even infinite. (Of course, many real-world problems can be reduced to binary ones, which is one reason the approach became popular.)

If you know enough probability theory, statistics is just a special case. The nice thing about using probability theory is if you do decide to use a 'test', all of your assumptions are put forth first. As E.T. Jaynes says:

In estimating a location parameter, for example, the sample median M is often cited as
a more robust estimator than the sample mean. But here it is obvious that this
‘robustness’ is bought at the price of insensitivity to much of the relevant
information in the data. Many different data sets all have the same
median; the values above or below the sample median may be moved about arbitrarily
without affecting the estimate. Yet those data values surely contain information
highly relevant to the question being asked, and all this is lost. We would have
thought that the whole purpose of data analysis is to extract all the information
we can from the data.

Thus, while we agree that robust/resistant properties may be desirable in some cases,
we think it important to emphasize their cost in performance. In the literature,
ad hoc procedures have been advocated on no more grounds than that they are ‘robust’
or ‘resistant’, with no mention of the quality of the inference they deliver, much
less any comparison of performance with alternative methods; yet alternative methods
such as Bayesian ones are criticized on grounds of lack of robustness,
without any supporting factual evidence.

A recent probability book I've started that I think is pretty good is http://uncertainty.stat.cmu.edu/
Even though you can circumvent technical barriers, this PROTECT IP is a bad idea. It would bring more trouble than benefits.
SSL/TLS is a better solution.

Absolutely, to the point that it's ridiculous to compare it to client-side Javascript.

Comodo was breached and the certificates were revoked using the theoretically-sound, tested, and implemented PKI solution.

Weeeellll actually... Mozilla, Google, MS had to rush out a code patch to manually blacklist the fraudulent certs. Revocation checking is implemented so weakly in browsers and other HTTPS clients that it just doesn't work when it comes down to it.

Of course, the browser Javascript doesn't have any problems of weak revocation checking. It's simply altogether unauthenticated in the first place!
Oh brother.

Edit, post-downvote: I am a relative "early adopter" of Bitcoin, having used and audited and spoken on it ( http://vimeo.com/27653912 ) for some time now.

I think we all knew that something like this was inevitable, but the sheer volume of idiocy and scale of nonsensical forks seems to be tending toward the rather silly end of the spectrum.

So, to that end: "Oh brother."
I disagree, on the grounds that the code can always be verified.
While I know this is semantics, I'd argue that Sony (and the XBox) didn't create a massive market where there was none. Nintendo and Sega previously had the market in shackles. Sony expanded it immensely with the PS1 and the PS2. I say expanded because the market grew around the one that was already there. They certainly did affect the market though. The hardware proved capable of providing games that were previously difficult to impossible to make on Nintendo's and Sega's systems.
A Year In The Life Of An Entrepreneur
This is hilarious.

I did this because I hate freedom.
For an unmodified and basically functional browser, in a way there isn't a "client" and a "server" context. There's only a server context. The client is actually a sandbox that has been designed to carefully partition off the server code from everything else that the server doesn't authorize, and hasn't got enough of an "identity" to be its own thing. A normal, correctly-functioning browser is designed to basically be an extension of the server in question, and there are no effective mechanisms for the client to have any state placed in it and fed back to that server that did not come from that server. Even when you type a comment into a text box and hit 'submit', what comes back to you is fed to you by the server in question.

When a server serves you a page, it basically owns that context. Crypto can secure further communication between that page and the server (via SSL), but there's basically no room to hide something from the server, and if there was that would probably be considered a browser bug at some level. If the server does not receive plaintext, which a network-level analysis may say it does not, it is only because the server has graciously consented to not receive some plaintext, not because you have actually somehow built a webpage that can prevent the server from getting that plaintext. One tweak to the server, it serves slightly different JS and offers a slightly different API and bam, it's getting plaintext.

Web pages just don't have enough identity of their own to do anything like this separate from the server, without further extensions (which is why the topic of plugins keeps coming up).
...and your trust of the network itself, unless you're using HTTPS in addition to your ad-hoc solution.

And vulnerabilities in the trust chain are not HTTPS vulnerabilities - they are trust chain vulnerabilities. It's straightforward to address them yourself simply by not trusting any CAs you don't trust.
Has anybody tried out the "How are your sites connected?" demo? It connected several 'twitter' sites hosted on app-engine. Such as:

http://liuhui0803.appspot.com/
http://jasonfose.appspot.com/
http://jay98888.appspot.com/
By whom?

Do you trust them?

If so, why not have them do the encryption rather than relying on untrusted code to do it?
Given the context of the general argument involving Apple 'creating' versus 'expanding', your semantics are a good point. the PS and XBox massively expanded a nascent market - but there were also innovations like the development of online profiles and the like.
Galileo was interested in understanding the mind of god. That's different than mysticism.

All science is religious in that sense, but not all science is mysticism.
I think using TLS is largely the right solution, and "shouldn't be hard" (a $400 certificate is the hardest bit).
However, the article assumes that modify attacks are as simple as intercepted, which I do not believe is true. It's not about GUIs. Re-routing DNS requires holes and access that a properly configured infrastructure won't give you.
However, as long as you can put up a competing DHCP server at an open Starbucks network, you can probably own anything non-TLS.
Said to John Sculley who absolutely sucked at changing the world and should have stuck to selling sugar water.
SQLite should reject DDL that specifies DECIMAL(n, 0) unless that type is implemented correctly. Until now I only expected MySQL to display reckless disregard for users' stated requirements in favor of guessing what they might want.
This sounds like the US military's rational for not scrambling video feeds, and using armour piercing rounds in the Middle East. The Soviet Union can unscramble insecure cryptography, and their soldiers will have armour, so insecure encryption and non-armour piercing bullets are considered harmful.

JS encryption is certainly less secure than SSL, and may give a false sense of security to people who want to use it as a replacement.

On the other hand, it may be better than nothing.
We are winning the war on automobile deaths
Some minor nitpicks

> Xerox invented the GUI

Not really either. Engelbart has show mice and windows before the PARC folks. I remember people dragging stuff with light-pens on IBM's 2250's and other similar GUI-like behavior on high-end CAD and image manipulation software. Was the Star close to what Apple offered? Yes. Was Star clunky in comparison? Yes. It was also 3 times more expensive. I think the single most meaningful innovation in Lisa was the mouse drag actions and the clipboard metaphor. They made a convenient bridge between physical and virtual objects that took windows & icons one step further.

> The early web was a fairly incremental step from Gopher

It reminds me more of local-based hypertext and SGML. From that to HTTP, it's a very easy jump.

> Apple didn't even produce the first touch-screen phone.

Indeed. I owned a Sony Ericsson P-800. It was multi-tasking, had a huge touchscreen and, when I first saw the iPhone, I felt it was very "meh". Nice animation, beautiful icons but I had a more functional phone. And the honor of the first touch-screen smartphone belongs to the IBM/BellSouth's Simon. Unless you count Esslinger's concepts (they show a touchscreen desktop phone that predated the Simon).

And yes. I agree that Apple's most revolutionary product was the Apple II, but it must share the spotlight with Commodore, Atari and Radio Shack. The Apple II is (or, at least, should be) a source of inspiration for engineers: it's simple, small, concise and incredibly rich in functionality.

> there hasn't been anything that Google's done thusfar that I'd nominate for being society changing

An open-source post-PC OS seems quite impressive. Helping move data into web apps, dooming local storag, too.
I'd prefer that browser developers give me more choices regarding how fonts should be rendered. Firefox 6 seems to have made an effort to look more like IE9, which is why I don't use IE9, and why I immediately Googled for hacks to disable forced Cleartype rendering as soon as I installed FF6.

I know it's hard to believe, but not everybody likes Cleartype. And I'm tired of killing the first 4 hours every Firefox upgrade searching to figure out how to put things back the way they were.
ClojureScript has compile-time only macros, but they are handy for repetitive (set!) calls as in your example.
You might want to look at the (attr) macro in the cljs-d3 source:

https://github.com/lynaghk/cljs-d3/blob/master/src/clj/cljs_...

which solves a very similar problem to the one you mentioned in the article.
In this case it expands attr(hash-map) into multiple attr(key, value) calls at compile time.
World's biggest startup launches in Silicon Valley - WalmartLabs
C'mon now.

I think you are being intentionally dense. We all know what is meant by "making technology usable" is "making technology usable - for muggles" ;)
I see that you also hate freedom.

We should hang out.
Here's a list of companies using Lisp in production: http://www.pchristensen.com/blog/lisp-companies/ . pg also has a list of Lisp applications: http://paulgraham.com/apps.html
> unless you're using HTTPS in addition to your ad-hoc solution.

Yes, I don't see why not.

> It's straightforward to address them yourself simply by not trusting any CAs you don't trust.

From that standpoint, we're assuming that everyone with a browser knows what a CA is and discerns between trustworthy CAs. I could equally say that it's straightforward for users to simply review the JavaScript code they don't trust - but the problem is that there exist many users who don't know how to review JavaScript and don't know what a CA is, and will just rely on what their browser tells them (which is where a plugin comes in handy.)
64-bit architectures were around 20 years ago. It was pure luck (whether good or bad I'll leave up to the reader) that it didn't get exercised enough to show up until now. The code invoked undefined behavior which just happened to work on the architecture it was targeting at the time. That's still a bug, even if the result works as expected, precisely because it could stop working as expected later.
> Here the nerdly Bitcoin advocate handwaves around the fact that we actually have notions of what it means to be a "good" or "bad" currency.

Like we had notions of what it means to be a "good" or "bad" encyclopedia before Wikipedia came out. Saying that Bitcoin is bad as a traditional currency does not prove that it is useless.
>The inevitability argument can be made for YouTube, but I don't think it can be made for Google search.

I think it can. Around the time that PageRank was published, Jon Kleinberg also published the HITS (hubs & authorities) algorithm. There are some key differences in the way they work, and Page & Brin smartly went on to found Google around PageRank, but it was becoming evident in that period that hyperlink-based ranking was a smart thing to do.
The part you're missing is the bit where ad-hoc JS crypto takes longer to implement and is more expensive than turning on SSL.
"___ Considered Harmful" considered harmful.
Would be cool if this had an author listed.
Why is a plugin trustworthy where the root CAs are not?
The corporations are the roots, and the govt represents the branches. Seeing it the other way around is delusional.

If "another provider" is not marginally more beneficial, why would you switch? Or put another way, how would "another provider" compete for market share if it is not marginally more beneficial? Granted, the competitive process is, sadly, subject to all manner of governmental interference.

Because you get tempted by alluring advertising, or by false promises. Ultimately there is no good reason to switch if they're all the same -- but that's the way quasi-monopolies like it. They aren't interested in competition. They're interested in sucking more money out of their existing customers -- much easier!

Don't mistake Adam Smith's concept of hundreds of competitive small businesses with two or three corporations dominating an entire industry. The rules of capitalism -- real capitalism -- no longer apply. It's corporatism. Their way or the highway.
What has Freedom got to do with this? Not arguing with you, I just don't understand where your comment is coming from.
I'm afraid you're going to have to be explicit, because the idea of using Bcrypt for that reason makes perfect sense to me - the logic that makes Bcrypt better than SHA-256 for passwords seems to apply nicely to Bitcoin. Hardware optimization privileges the few who can invest in the hardware over the many who are able to run more commodity hardware, and is exactly contrary to the P2P Bitcoin ethos.

(A similar point applies to time-lock puzzles: http://www.gwern.net/Self-decrypting%20files Why were Rivest/Shamir/Wagner unhappy with brute-force decrypting? Because it's so amenable to hardware optimization. Why were subsequent researchers unhappy with successive squaring and looked for memory-bound hashes? Because squaring is still implementable in hardware.)
you can jump out whenever you get bitcoins. You don't have to hold onto bitcoins more than a few minutes after a transaction is confirmed. You can tie goods/service to the market rate and sell your bitcoins whenever you get them. It won't matter what the price is, $30 or $0.30. No fooling going on. And tell me again what the question is that roots this thread?
Was Amazon ever vulnerable to session resumption attacks?

I have no direct knowledge. I was personally extremely careful to never test any actual sites.

But unless they were running MS IIS or certain brands of SSL offload devices on every accessible host with the cert on it, they were likely willing to conduct client-initiated renegotiation. I know they use client certs for EC2 stuff, that likely involves a server-initiated renegotiation opportunity as well.

Just checked, they still haven't patched for the actual protocol fix, RFC 5746

How?

Frank Heidt came up with an awesome little exploit that isn't affected by anti-CSRF mitigations. Just find one single URL under HTTPS which redirects to HTTP. (E.g., https://www.amazon.com/) Inject a request to that and now you have a plain HTTP request to play with. You could enter an sslstrip scenario, replace the cert with a legitimate cert to a phishing site at a point the user isn't expecting the URL to change. How many users stop browsing after receiving a mixed content warning I wonder?

Other researchers showed you could replace the EV cert with a simple DV cert at that stage and the browser would still show the green bar.

Either way: every vulnerability we've found in SSL/TLS (the protocol) makes me more confident in it. Those findings are the product of millions of dollars of attention. Why would we think that any alternative to TLS wouldn't have the same flaws, or worse ones?

Absolutely. Those who criticize TLS need to understand why it is the way it is and either propose improvements (the IETF [TLS] mailing list is open) or propose a replacement that really does a better job delivering on all the security properties, not just one or two.
All of the libxenon stuff is linux based, so it has no way to get at the Direct3D code built into the original written by Microsoft OS.

This differs from the original Xbox where most of the "homebrew" was written for the Windows derived OS and ran under it, thus could take advantage of all it's features.
Thanks, that is awesome to hear. If you have any questions I'd love to hear from you. @joelgascoigne or joel@bufferapp.com
In this comment I would like to propose "PTTH". PTTH is nearly identical to HTTP, except you replace all occurrences of "HTTP" in the protocol by "PTTH". Why is this inferior to HTTP? Why are people investing time and money to provide HTTP service and not PTTH service? You are right when you say that the artificially imposed scarcity on Bitcoins does not entail a scarcity on digital currencies in general, but, as it stands, your argument seems weird.

Actually, I believe that Bitcoin's (possibly short-lived) fame has created some sort of value in the sense that there would probably be, for quite some time, people interested in hoarding Bitcoins just as a kind of souvenir ("hey, remember, people used to get excited over this"); not so with Flitcoin. I am not saying that this is something reasonable to base a currency on, just that it is wrong to assume that Bitcoin and Flitcoin are strictly equivalent.