skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm not sure how you can assert that math hasn't informed real security. Even disregarding crypto (which is pretty much the purest math you'll ever see in CS), the bulk of classic security design is based around systems like BLP and Biba, which are not only very strongly rooted in algebraic theory, but rely on formal proofs for assurance of their correctness.

At the end of the day, Haskell is just another programming language, with all the equivalent strength and limitations that provides. However, I do think that having a cultural expectation of strong type checking and reasoning about systems can only help security.

(To be fair, I should disclose that I do most of my day-to-day coding in Ruby. However, I'm trying to impose the discipline of at least mocking out security-sensitive systems in Haskell before implementing them in Ruby to force me to make my assumptions about safety and information flow explicit.)
I agree 100% with the assertion that modern webapps should divide privileges across multiple database connections/security principals. A large portion of SQL injection and session-hijacking issues could be rendered useless overnight if the basic tenet of "minimal privilege" were taken to heart by LAMP coders.
Except that government, almost by definition, deals with goods that necessarily involve lots of externalities, involve a public good, or require transaction costs too great for any one entity to pay them. One person's service is another person's annoyance.

Think about the highway system. Say that people paid a certain amount for the privilege of driving on the roads. But then what about the folks whose land was taken for the highway? How about the ones who now have to put up with the noise of thousands of automobiles? And then what about positive externalities - the business owners who make more money because cars can get to their businesses, but don't pay to use the roads themselves?

Or think about the legal system, including consumer protection agencies. What happens if someone contracts for a service, and then never pays up? Maybe enforcement of service contracts should itself be a service. But then what if that service itself breaches its agreement? Who do you go to?

Democracy's a pretty shitty solution, but it exists for a reason. All the alternatives seem to be worse.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. While it's true that Catholics and members of the mainline Protestant denominations are unlikely to believe dinosaurs and men lived together, there are still millions of other more conservative religous people out there. I did a quick Google search and found that there are about 16 million Southern Baptists, 6 million Mormons, 3 million members of the Assemblies of God, and 2.5 million members of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (whose doctrine statement supports young Earth creationism). So there are easily 30 - 40 millions of these kind of people in America. Now most young-Earthers probably haven't thought much about dinosaurs and people living together, but they do believe in the story of Noah and the ark and that the Earth is about six to ten thousand years old, and it would only follow from that. So what percent of these 40 million are voting for Palin and also believe dinosaurs and people lived together? Easily five percent, but I'd wager it's closer to 50-75%.
It probably couldn't have grown as fast as it did, but it certainly could get to it's current size.

no, because banks don't even do this kind of lending anymore. to grow google organically would have taken decades. in that time they would have been crushed by competitors with access to public funds

American Tobacco

are you aware that american tobacco was one of the first stocks listed on the dow? sorry to blow your theory, and to boot the formation of the company was based on monopoly economics

Ford Motor Company, still controlled by the original founding family.

and larry and sergey own a lot of google. and jerry and david own a lot of yahoo. founders keep lots of stock, this has nothing to do with public/private ownership. the ford family extracts wealth from ford, they do not contribute to it or bankroll it
Read some DeSoto and Rothbard ( Money, Credit and Economy - http://mises.org/resources/2745, America's Great Depression http://mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf and History of Money and Banking -http://mises.org/books/historyofmoney.pdf ). They both make a pretty compelling case that government played a major role in the 19th century busts.

Pretty much every single bust since 1870 has been the explosion of a credit bubble. Cheap credit is the heroin of democracies. In the short term, it's like free money. It's cheaper to buy stuff, and it doesn't result in higher taxes. Politicians are always for it. The cheap money will endear them with the population in the next election, and they won't be around for the bust ( or no one will remember who's at fault). In the long run, cheap credit leads to too much debt and people can borrow no more. This leads to two choices. Choice one, the borrowing must stop, and with it consumption. This sends the economy into recession or depression ( this is heroin withdrawal, the Volcker strategy in the 1980's). Or two, the government must make credit even cheaper ( higher doses of heroin - the Alan Greenspan strategy in 2001).
Top 5 Linser Sites - Kontaktlinser 
Billige Kontaktlinser og Linser
The question is not one of doing better, but of inevitability; for a company's stock to be worth anything, it has to pay profits out to the stockholder

so google is worthless? the point of owning a share is to make money from your ownership. if that comes through dividends or through sale value, who cares?

I have no evidence to show dividend-bearing stocks outperform their counterparts, but my point is that those counterparts are overvalued

do you know what fair value is? the price the equity is currently trading at. look at MSFT. a total dog but wheee...look, they cut me a check a few times a year and i take the wife to a movie. and why do dividends imply value? maybe microsoft could have taken the dividend cash and used it to buy out google. excess cash is often seen as a LIABILITY, as it shows the firm cannot use the money to effectively grow. MSFT is a classic example...losing market share even though they have a mountain of cash.

The stock price is, in theory, the net present value of the stream of earnings its bearer will receive. So if no company will ever pay significant monies when it winds down, that leaves dividends

no, stocks get delisted before they go under, and you get bupkus. how are your LEH dividends doing?
I don't know if he could have possibly made it more garish (neon blue back lighting.... come on!) but the concept is fascinating.
The bibliography link in the original article was unfortunately broken.

Bentley is also well known for his book "Programming Pearls." The 2nd edition is still in print.

http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Pearls-2nd-ACM-press/dp/02...
> its totally valid

That wasn't my point. It's easier for small economy to grow at a higher rate. If a $50B economy grows by $50B, that's a 100% growth rate. If a $10T economy grows by $50B, that's a 0.5% growth rate. For the $10T economy to grow by 100%, it would need $10T of additional goods and services, which is a significantly harder accomplishment than growing by $50B.

The answer to my trivia question, BTW, is J.P. Morgan. The Fed was created as a reaction to the panic of 1907, when Morgan went over the books of each failing bank and said "Nope, let it fail" or "Okay, the trouble stops here. Let's give them cash" depending on whether they were solvent. Much like Bernanke & Paulson have had to do with Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. Congress felt that this was too much power to concentrate in the hands of a private individual, and so they created the Fed as a quasi-government organization responsible to Congress.

Inflation is not unique to the Fed system, either. Remember "not worth a Continental", or the erstwhile Confederate dollar? The 1870-1910 era featured deflation because it coincided with the industrial revolution and a huge flood of cheap new goods onto the market, not because of the absence of the Fed. The 1929-1932 era also featured deflation, yet had an activist Fed that interfered far more than the current one.
What's supposed to stop open source OSes from including a copy of your commercial function in their next version? Isn't recreating commercial products for free of the point of open source?

By your definition anyone who doesn't own the OS is a sharecropper.

The real danger is in writing software that is easily recreated.

In the end, all software is made obsolete by better (or better marketed/distributed) software. The only difference with the OS is that it's a little faster.
Cheap credit is the heroin of democracies

amen, it will be only too late that people realize that those who print the currency run the show, and thats the Fed...who by the way are not accountable to voters in any meaningful way
Can anyone explain why this takes so long to compile? It doesn't look that complicated.

Edit: I compiled with "gcc -O3 -s", which took 8 minutes, but the executable is only 4784 bytes.
The Vice Fund - the Ultimate Investment For Today's Financial Environment
That wasn't my point. It's easier for small economy to grow at a higher rate.

i know and i basically agree...my point is that the Fed has not demonstrably proven to grow the economy, manage the currency, or control inflation better than other forces. while we have not lost our currency like the old bank notes, the dollar has lost 99% of its value. relative to pre-1913, the dollar is indeed worthless

The answer to my trivia question, BTW, is J.P. Morgan

he bankrolled the government for, what,. thirteen days, he did not print currency. indeed that event goes back to your "small numbers" arg. he could bankroll the govt because it was small. bill gates could not fund our govt for thirteen days today.
There is no greater crime in this country than creating something of value and being proud of it.

Other people often called "arrogant" - Paul Graham, Steve Jobs, etc.
Actually the problem might be that the Fed is too accountable to the voters. Remember, Volcker was fired by Reagan. And Greenspan is a goldbug at heart who had a lot of political pressure to keep the heroin flowing. Voters do not understand economics, but they do like cheap credit. Democracy breeds short term thinking. Read some Herman Hoppe - http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe4.html
Call it exaggeration if you like, but actually I firmly believe exactly this. People are not capable of achieving perfection. Perfection is by definition not achievable.

What are the downsides? Well without writing a thesis on the subject, basically what I have already mentioned. If one believes ones self to be perfect, then logically, there is no reason to continue to strive for improvement is there? Again by definition, you can't improve on perfection.

If one believes ones self to be perfect, then ones opinions/decisions/actions must also be perfect (i.e., perfectly correct) and therefore beyond doubt or compromise. I see such an absolute and unquestionable position (particularly if that position is held by a person in any kind of leadership role) having the possibility to lead to all sorts of unfortunate social consequences. History is filled with examples of leaders who believed their point of view to be beyond question or compromise, usually with bad results.

So if it's not Ayn Rand, who's perfect then?

I stand by my original comment.
There's a 'Facebook Engineering' group on Facebook where they blog about their internal operations.
i wish the big universities would kill these publishers

come on, harvard and stanford have like ten quadrillion dollar endowments and they get muscled by a thirty person publishing house in ohio??

i know the profs want to get paid. just pay them a flat fee of like $100k from their school's endowment and then release the book under CC license. the prof makes out because they get their money up front. the students win because they get cheaper books, quicker. the publishers die like vermin.

also some of these profs need a reality check. just like the musicians and actors...they are not a breed apart...if they want to gouge, they will need to deal with piracy.
Sweet Jesus, why is Apple the only computer company in the world that understands (and applies) the idea that, in the age of Core Duos and 2 GB RAM standard, style is the primary thing most people want in their computer?
I don't understand how the stock market doesn't collapse completely. But, it seems to me that if owning stock makes no sense if there are no dividends Then owning stock makes no sense anyway.

Top technology stocks that pay (eg IBM,MSFT) usually pay <1.5%. Even currently cashed up oil stocks tend to stay under 2%. So either way it seems to me if you were buying to own (isn't that theoretically what you're doing), you'd need to be expecting to earn the majority of your marbles on growth.

I freely admit, I don't understand financial markets. But it always seems like the emperor has no clothes.

Theoretically all those guys holding MSFT should not be willing to pay more then about $9 per share (price is about $25) unless they expect growth & no risk.
I had a Thinkpad in the late 90s - its design wasn't too bad. Things seem to have gotten much worse.
Can you tell me the difference between owning a share of Google and owning a baseball card? A share in Google currently gives you no claim to Google's profits. Nor does it give you any voting rights or control over management. So then what the heck is it good for?

Now, baseball cards can be quite valuable. The price can fluctuate enormously, You can make money from investing in them. The price correlates with real world events such as batting average. But fundamentally, the value is based purely on fads, perception, herd behavior, and marketing. At any time, the floor can drop out. The price can plummet and never recover ( baseball cards were my first investing experience and I'm still scarred :-) )

A dividend paying stock has fundamental value. As long as the company's business remains strong, you will earn money from owning the stock, even if everybody else in the world believes it is worthless.
To be fair to nethack, you can not only kill things, you can make them your pet, appease them with gifts, use them defensively in a variety of ways, or frighten them off with bright lights or elven scribblings. And, as for things you can do with objects...I'm not even gonna try.

But, yes, what "story" there is is not emergent, and is injected by human authors, and the game can only really have two outcomes: death (about 95% of the time) or ascension and success (with a few bits of story line along the way based on your character class, race, and alignment). The joy is in the many amusing ways in which your character can die, rather than in the narrative.
I didn't say math hasn't informed real security; I said mathematical reasoning hasn't had a great track record in systems security. What doesn't seem to work is proving a "kernel" and then building application code on top of it; you have to analyze everything, formally, which is too expensive. So in the real world, a B-level secure Solaris kernel like Argus Systems sold still falls to code execution vulnerabilities in its after-market web server.

I'm not repudiating math. I'm just saying, systems security is messy.
They like that at Corpus Christi.
I think I can agree that CEOs will always take the highest-risk/highest-reward these days because the government continually bails-out this kind of bad behavior. However, I think it is the government itself which is the root cause of all these failures. We have a fractional-reserve banking system propped up by a fiat currency. This means credit is easily created and when the government decides that everyone should own a home (Fannie and Freddie) then we use our fractional-reserve system to lend money which, frankly, does not exist. This leads to the business cycle of endless booms and busts. I think that rich people will take advantage of this system of easy credit. This is exactly what happens when you subsidize something--you get more of it. In this case we are subsidizing risky financial behavior. If the government did not run the banks in this country then Fannie and Freddie would be forced to default on a majority of their loans and a lot of people would be hurt, but we're essentially just making our children and grandchildren inherit our debt because we believe that home ownership in 2008 is more important than long-term financial stability. We should work to end the monopoly the federal government has on the banking industry so that consumers can demand more fiscally responsible credit managers (or riskier ones if they so choose). Right now we all have to put our faith in a currency backed by winks and nods rather than something with implicit scarcity. And beyond that, we put the printing presses under the control of the government, which has most assuredly wasted more money funding a welfare/warfare state than any bailout would ever amount to.
I was 18 or 19. And it was pretty much like a rope swing to the other side of the river for me, rather than a convincing argument to go for a swim (i.e. I turned out to have anarcho-capitalist tendencies, rather than Objectivist ones--and I was already an atheist before reading Rand, so there wasn't much room for her to have an impact on that front). But, mostly, I'd be happy if everybody would just agree that the founding fathers of the US got things mostly right (excepting the obvious bugs: slavery, male-only voting) and leave well enough alone. I don't much care for the strident tone of Rand's books (excepting Anthem which was short enough that it avoids all of the mind-numbing angry repetition of all of her other works).
Selena Gomez and Taylor Swift rule the red carpet
The article says it uses less power than three 60-watt bulbs... why not just say it uses about 150 watts?

Also, when the designer says, "No one knows how a grasshopper escapement works", does he mean "most people don't know how it works", or does he mean that the very principle of its operation is beyond modern science? Probably the former, but it's unclear phrasing.
I find his ideas fascinating. I also wish he had a much better editor, with good grammar.

So I guess he is saying startups have a small but real chance of massive success. True, maybe obvious, but still music to my ears!
I wish there was another feature. Store my favorite q/a threads within my profile. Delicious doesn't cut for these kind of bookmarks.
Here's how it works:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/07/Grasshop...

So some people do in fact know it :)
J.P. Morgan. The Fed was created as a reaction to the panic of 1907, when Morgan went over the books of each failing bank and said "Nope, let it fail" or "Okay, the trouble stops here. Let's give them cash" depending on whether they were solvent. Much like Bernanke & Paulson have had to do with Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. Congress felt that this was too much power to concentrate in the hands of a private individual, and so they created the Fed as a quasi-government organization responsible to Congress.

Isn't it much better to have the bankers be responsible for bailing out their own mess, rather than have the taxpayers do it? How is the creation of the Fed a positive development in this case?

And yes, the Fed isn't the only way inflation happens. Good old fashioned printing money to cover the cost of war works too, and it's just as awful.
A startup is so much like a bank heist
From what I understood Google used WTL as an abstraction layer for the GUI. Meaning in order to create a button they used the WTL CButton (which is a wrapper for a Windows button control).

So to create a Mac control button they'll add a pre processor directive that will call a different code that will generate a Mac button.

Nothing wrong with that...
Dsnapshot, a high-level interface to the Linux LVM2
"Like Perl, C++ is a swiss army chainsaw of a programming language. Unlike Perl, it's got all the blades simultaneously and permanently cast in a fixed half-open position. Don't turn it on."

Priceless.
Because every other computer company uses M$, which is the opposite of "style" -- its downright "conformist"

not saying I agree with that, just stating facts.
unless of course, you're psystar
Why is Hawking unveiling this? Seems like he had nothing to do with it.
rms, did you just submit a comment complaining that a submitted comment is inappropriate for this site?
I used to work at Bloomberg, you would be surprised how little everyone used it even though it was free to us.
I'm speaking mostly of what is, not what should be. I agree that it would be better if bankers cleaned up after themselves and owned up to their own mistakes. However, when you're dealing with something as fundamental to the economy as banking, it's almost always to someone's advantage to bail them out (or worse, to use someone else's money to bail them out). If the Fed didn't exist, one of the other banks would do it, and probably reap huge profits in the process, right up until it miscalculates and loses all its depositors' money too.

Basically, I don't think it's the Fed that's the problem. It's humans.
Jobs in Hospitality
Easy to search online recruitment jobs site for vacancies in the catering and hospitality industry with a huge database of jobs and CVs registered so the top employers in the UK can find you as there are lots of opportunities from recruitment agencies and hotels, leisure clubs, restaurants, bars, cafes, contract catering companies with career &amp; training advice for chefs, restaurant managers, hotel staff, reception and reservations, sommeliers, bar and pub staff, conference, events and market
Badoo - Las mejores fotos de Badoo 
Las mas hermosas y lindas chicas del sitio badoo, varias fotos de chicas de Badoo.
You're right, of course, that systems security encompasses more than a formally-verified system can encompass. I say this having worked for a group that pitched the DoD and private vendors on "provably correct" systems that relied on commodity operating systems and compilers, so I really do get it, and know just how horribly limited formal methods are in the real world.

My point is, as I originally suggested, that any static analysis would likely be an improvement over what currently happens in the LAMP world. Most compiled languages have at least some tools available which developers can use to perform basic sanity checks -- the compiler itself being of course the first and most oft-overlooked of these. Dynamic language users lack even that basic safety net, which is the reason for my primary argument about the benefits of type safety and static analysis.

Basically, we're in furious agreement, and if you had caught me at a different time of day or mood, I could just as easily be standing on your side of the fence, arguing against someone who was trying to tell me that theory could solve all my security problems.
Online Forex Guide
The no1 forex news resource
17. Being fourth generation progeny of critical thinking literary snobs, I was unable to make it through Atlas Shrugged.

Unfortunately, as it is difficult for Hollywood newcomers to avoid Scientology recruiters, a college freshman finds it difficult to avoid the Objectivist Club recruiters.

Thus, later in the same year I had a brush with Rand again. I tried reading "The Romantic Manifesto" and found it unintentionally hilarious, in the same way Sarah Palin's press conferences are hilarious.
Google disassembled the source code of Windows Vista to make some Chrome features
By its the "baby sitting" bit I don't understand, unless it means the old people?
To all those guys who took the conservative banking jobs
Because it's unlikely that articles like this one would have been written without the "hook" of Hawking's name. He's allowing a bit of his fame to be reflected onto the project, and I suppose that's a good thing for all involved.