skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's onomatopoeic, and capitalised not to indicate an acronym, but for emphasis. I don't know who originated the term but it was popularised by Eliezer Yudkowsky and Robin Hanson. The idea is that once an AI is able to self-modify to become smarter and consequently better at self-improvement, that feedback loop creates an 'explosion' of intelligence, and the AI "goes FOOM!".

"FOOM!" here is usually accompanied by some form of hand gesture evocative of an explosion.

http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/FOOM
What You Lose When You Sign That Donor Card
Never-ending storage that self-heals... sounds a lot like cloud storage, innit? :-)
But the "reduction" adds no benefit. You might as well just check the whole hash and eliminate the false positives, which have no purpose. (A false positive has no correlation with being "closer" to the real password.)

All you're doing is shifting the time at which you check the password, from when the form is submitted, to when each key is pressed.

You seem to be wanting to assume that a correlation between some subset of the input bits leads to a correlation between some subset of the hash bits. But that's exactly what a cryptographic hash function is designed to prevent.

EDIT: The brute-forcing issue assumes that you treat form submissions and keypresses differently. In other words, why would you ignore a billion mismatches on keypresses and then raise an alarm on a few failed form submissions? You're just dividing the detection into two different phases, for no real purpose.
Or what if, instead of connecting biochemical to hardware, you connect hardware to your biochemical body. Add wifi and you're connected to everything, anytime you want.
I don't understand how that addresses his point.

If you're trying to use maximally secure work factors, bcrypt should take upwards of a second. You'll encourage users to get into the habit of waiting that long before submitting just so they can get the gratification of seeing the design mesh.

If you're using a lower work factor already, it's probably because you need to limit cpu use because your system is popular and is doing lots of authentications. Assuming a minimum password length of 8, you'll be doing an order of magnitude more bcrypt calls for those users who still type in their passwords (and by implementing this, you're encouraging them to keep doing so). How will that work unless you decrease the work factor by a similar amount? If you can afford to be doing more bcrypts, you should be increasing the work factor, not doing stuff like this. Wasn't that his point?
Extremely exciting! It's in PLoS, so the paper should be freely available as well.

Interesting that it's 6 dimensional, this figure shows up often in the brain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_cell
Pretty sad when it ended on me...is that meant to happen?
First link is 404.

Google cache tells us it's a Lexis Nexis cable-- essentially a press release. It's probably true, I don't see any real reason to doubt the facts of the matter, but still, we don't know who actually wrote that puff piece.
I just launched my first iOS app a few days ago. The marketing is probably at least half the work. We're in the education space and it's been a little hard really developing contacts and getting attention without an app, so we built a fairly simple first app mostly to get into the space and build a network. We're hoping that pays off for later, more ambitious apps.

Even though I should know better, I was surprised how many people asked for our app on Android, especially for the Kindle Fire. I had planned to eventually do an Android port, but I scrambled and got a port done and submitted to Amazon today (Google Play to follow). It really hit me today that if half or more of the work is the marketing and non-development tasks, it makes even more sense to address the top two markets. I just don't know how much Android users will really pay. We're hoping that the education space, again especially on the Kindle Fire, is a little more willing to buy apps rather than just grab the free game of the day.
Are your work habits slowly killing you?
Your experiment is attempting to produce a complicated method for a server to tell a user that they might not have typoed their password. This is probably not an issue because:

1. There is (to my knowledge) no reason to hide the password field with asterisks unless you have someone looking over your shoulder. If you really want to check for typos, use an 'unhide password field' icon/buttom like Android has.

2. Passwords are dead. I wouldn't even worry about somebody abusing this method because the user's password is probably "password1". Implement a second factor and you don't have to worry as much about a typo for a 20 character password.

3. Password managers never make typos.

4. Humans are fallible, typos happen, make it secure enough to handle typos or we're all doomed.
> The first step from your "How It Works" section is this

Surely you must realize that there's more than one way to sort random strings into 2^N buckets.

If you feel like criticizing, go for the general idea. Nitpicking on the implementation details is (to borrow from a comment below) silly.
But you can turn a hard drive off and stop having to feed it power, then come back to it months later to recover the data. You can't stop feeding biohardware, it would decay and decompose.
The full article text is at http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fj... (yay PLoS!) -- read the inline Abstract and Author Summary to get a better description than the sciencedaily spam.

Sadly, nobody can crack the thought process of whoever designed sciencedaily.com (three equal width columns? 10% content and 90% blogvomit?).
iframe, you are dead to me
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3689024?
One of the posts down the page references "The Great Weibo Unblocking of late-January 2012", and many of the posts show separate block statuses from November and February.
This is certainly pretty, in a das blinkenlights sort of way.

I'd guess that most people aren't going to be looking at a little kanji-esque pictogram for guidance. They're going to click the "forgot password?" link after the first fail. Ambient data only works when you have an inkling about what the ambient display is reflecting.

More damning, though, is that this is trying to solve a problem by dragging the solution in an incorrect way. If you're typing in your password, you're doing it wrong. Use a password manager. Sell your users on the value, too.
Seth's Blog: Learning from four viral events
I think you're arguing a far tougher point than you need to. I was talking about the theoretical upper limit to intelligence. We don't need to make the argument that our particular civilisation will actually achieve it (though I agree with your post on that by the way); It's far easier to argue that hyperintelligence is possible in principle, and that's all that's needed to refute the point.
The part where you seem to be treating it like a breakthrough of some sort, when it's just a fun little gimmick. Your indicator is beyond useless, I just tried it on a user and they had no idea what that was supposed to indicate. There's similar reports out there. The setup is somewhat complex. The extra computational and network resources are not something to sneeze at. It looks like a fun project, but the idea that many sites would actually use this is quite silly
False positives are needed to mitigate the risk of brute-forcing abuse.
>give in on issues the other side thinks are far more important than you do

One problem is that sometimes you may not actually know which issues are their highest. But this does not invalidate the advice.
You really went off on a tangent based upon one unverified statement.

Edit: come on now, if you're going to downvote, provide an explanation.
Appeal to authority doesn't make for a good argument.
> Compare with Apple and some of the iOS gestures such as four-finger (!) swipes...

Are you trying to imply the four-finger swipes in iOS are bad?
Something about that start screen feels like you're watching every TV in the TV store at the same time, with about the same inability to focus. Also seems ripe for abuse by 3rd parties, but we'll see.
'Anonymous' member admits hacking UK abortion site
> you seem to be treating it like a breakthrough of some sort

Hahahahaha... seriously, where? What does make it seem that way? This is few hours worth of effort. That damn indicator took the longest to draw. Here, have a look at runner-ups - http://drbl.in/dpbA, http://drbl.in/dpgl
Page is loading infinitely for me when I click Hack!. Waited for about 2 minutes.
Exactly - you just need to think "What's the square root of 459683" this queries the internet returns the result and the answer is instantly relayed to your mind. Just imagine you could think (open the garage door) and it would happen.
No, I think you're confusing my issues with the ones of the poster to whom that was a reply. My concerns are not so much about security of doing more hashing server side, but rather that you will be burning more cpu to do this cute thing when you could be using that cpu to increase the work factor which users might actually care about. And since modern web auth systems already use ajax to check the password and simply modify the page if the password is wrong, the argument that it's better to see confirmation before submitting rather than submit and wait for confirmation doesn't seem to make sense.

You're waiting for (bcrypt + network latency) in either case. If the standard behavior is unusable (because the auth page reloads if there's an auth error), that's a design problem, to be addressed by not reloading the page on auth errors, not by adding gimmicks IMO.

Furthermore, if you insist on this sort of thing, why not pass back a boolean indicator of whether the full hash matched, and display a checkmark when it's right? You could even automatically log-in the user if it matches. Since you would be doing a full bcrypt each time anyway, in order to do the 8-bit comparison, and you've put limits in place to prevent abuse...
If you can solve that problem, you have will have done the world an amazing service, outperforming even Norman Borlaug, and the idea is certainly ambitious in its scope.

One question though: how would you go about doing it?
We're actually building a giant brain; the Internet /is/ a global collective consciousness. You should check out Serial Experiments Lain and Eden of the East :)
The Civic Hybrid is one example (actually the base model Civic needed a firmware upgrade). Auto manufactures do not produce error free software, and there are a lot more cars than planes.
Same thing in the story a few months ago about why Apple manufactures in China: the entire supply chain is there.

And that's a total BS claim. Apple is sitting on $100 billion now and still whining about how there are no companies in the US with sufficient manufacturing capabilities, as if that's forcing them against their will. In reality, there is nothing stopping them from creating such factories in the US or elsewhere. However, they can't get 10,000 workers in employee housing and, at the snap of their fingers, put them all on the assembly line in back-to-back 16 hour shifts. Ultimately, it's not about production facilities nor simple labor costs, but rather how they can treat Chinese workers.
Hearing Beazley speak was definitely one of the highlights of PyCon for me. I've already looked into PyPy in the past, so most of it wasn't news to me. I felt validated though after hearing him declare the same things I thought of as "rough edges" the same.
منتدى الموبايلات ( الجوالات )
blogvomit is a good word.
> If the password doesn't match, why not just show a big red cross..

It wouldn't look as cool :)

I was actually considering changing the text color on the password field on a match. Starting with gray and turning it black if there's a match, but it seemed to be too strongly implying that the password was 100% correct. And so I settled on something a bit more ambiguous.
Sounds like the idea recycling program to me! haha
Perhaps that was hyperbole, but read this article for example, and you can see the impression it leaves about relative historical importance:

http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa121598.htm

Yet, at the time, nobody really cared about Apple. The two big sellers where the TRS-80 and the Commodore PET. Apple was a distant third who most people thought was too expensive. It was relevant only because it was the only third place contender.

TRS-80 and PET were both pre-ordered in higher volumes than what Apple sold per year in the first couple of years.

But they get the vast majority of the article, including a lot of attention for the (for the purpose of that article) irrelevant Apple I (it was sold as a kit, sold in the low hundreds, and had plenty of competition which the article ignores).

The worst outright error in the article is to claim the 6502 was designed by Rockwell - of course it was designed by Chuck Peddle, Bill Mensch and a few others at MOS Technologies (Bill Mensch incidentally still produce new models of it). Peddle was the person who personally got the 6502 off the ground and was responsible for the low price point - without Peddle, the Apple computers would've looked a whole lot different...

And the PET entry gets an incorrect NOTE about Commodore's start of the PET project which really only serves to diminish it's role (in reality, Commodore had bought MOS long before, and it was Chuck Peddle who had the responsibility to do a new computer and wanted to talk to Apple as an option before they decided whether to go ahead and do their own machine - the note doesn't match what either Chuck Peddle or Woz says about it, though Peddle and Woz have very different accounts of the discussions). It also makes it seem like Commodore had nothing, but Peddle had designed numerous boards around the 6502, including the KIM computer.

If you're going to insert notes like that, why's there no note about how Commodore bid for a deal with Radio Shack to be their computer supplier, but Roach at Radio Shack opted to have his team develop his own instead? It's a similar story, yet somehow it's important only when it involves Apple.

This is pretty par for the course for coverage of the start of the home computer era. There are few outright errors in that article, but it's biased in a way that contributes to making Apple seem far more important.

If you want to get a better idea of the mythmaking around Apple, I suggest Brian Bagnalls "Commodore: A company on the edge", which contrasts a lot of the coverage about Apple with contemporary sources and eyewitness accounts.
Just one big quote lifted from here: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/03/...

+ 2 words of agreement
Is "no network access" going to be part of the legal framework under which the vehicles operate? Presumably they need to download maps from somewhere, along with traffic updates, road hazards, etc. Most new cars have network capabilities as it now stands. So it's unreasonable to assume that they won't have any network access. And as we know, anything with network access can eventually be rooted.
SXSW: Meet Clarence, The Homeless Hotspot
How Musicians Can Keep From Getting Screwed by PayPal
There is a difference in complexity though. Most systems developed by the Automotive companies are just a step above highway lane keeping, and adaptive cruse control. Google's system handles city roads with pedestrians and more complex traffic patterns.

There is a cost to that of course, Google's system uses $100k of sensors, and isn't well integrated into the body of a car. This means it's father off from being seen a in a production car. I could see it being sold as an aftermarket add on to specific cars, maybe even only to business customers, who then want to sell the service and automated car can provide.
You are correct sir. It's been a while.
A Metabaron merely appears in the Incal books as a supporting character.
after some of the days i feel we all go though, it concerns me that people might know how many times i wanted to stab someone...

lets shelve this, we're already failing at online privacy...this wont help...unless i can think "this is a private thought" and it actually be private haha
Mock Page Lets You Hack Like in a 90s Film (mirror)
"Whats more, the trucking industry is one of the biggest employers in NA"

I Agree with everything you say but I'm willing to bet that those who depend on their driving for their livelihoods will fiercely protest against this.

For the record, I'm all for driverless cars, but I suppose it's easy for me to say that as a programmer.
Do you want a laptop that remembers what you want or that _approximately_ remembers what you want ? Photos, Movies and songs may make good storage media for bio-hardware, but documents and other information critical stuff can not be replaced by biology.
Thanks for the blue outline report. Should be fixed now.

The idea is that the purpose of the indicator becomes obvious after some repeated use, and that it is not too intrusive or distracting on its own to be confusing to the new users.
The big miss in this article was leaving out Immanuel Kant[1]. Although he wasn't unknown in early life, the works that secured his place in history didn't happen until well into his 50's and beyond.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant
If you need that you can always rate limit it with the exception that you can add to passwords
e.g. if you queried "abc" perviously "abcd" does not count to the rate limit, but "bcd" does.
It's not meant to be an argument, it's meant to establish the context. Especially considering how way off the mark the original comment was.
They put sprinters in vats of water and ice cubes after running to freeze their muscle so that they perform better, and they put thermometers deep in their butts to check for the exact point until which they can be frozen before they get hypothermia. I think if that's allowed then zapping yourself with 9V is definitely in.
You can have a whole economy without operations jobs. The futures jobs will only be innovating and fixing when things have problems. The self-driving tractor will plow the fields or harvest the mine, and send it to the factory. Robots make it, and the self-driving delivers it.
Of course, this ignores a lot of prior art: for example http://www.ubiq.com/hypertext/weiser/UbiHome.html
However, history has shown that the best way to change another country is to engage with them on as many levels as possible.
One issue that I haven't seen much talked about is the is system wide control instabilities if everything is automated, as you have alluded to. I also don't know if anyone is doing any work in preventing cross talk and interference when you have several dozen vehicle all with similar lasers and radars in close proximity. If you operate two of the popular Velodyne lasers near each other, used on the Google vehicles, you get a good amount of noise on both sensors.
It's about what you'd expect. When you press any key, a few characters of linux kernel source code appears, so you can randomly mash keys and it looks like you're programming at breakneck speed.
Prepare to be assimilated. Resistance is futile!
--

On a serious note, I love the technology like any other guy. But there will be this nagging issues about privacy. We would need to give up some parts of our lives, but who draws the line and where..
>Robots will, in the next few decades, wipe out all the labor benefit that China has.

Not sure about this, however, China has been hedging against this as well. This is why they are securing all the natural resources in Africa.

The US is SO fucking short sighted - while China has been thinking 50 to 100 years in advacne with respect to securing all the resources in Africa, the US believes it can just keep spending on a military that will be used to seize resources after political manipulations.

The myopic view that the only resource that the US should be securing (oil in the mid east) is because the US' vision comes from greed-now viewpoint. (i.e. profit as much as possible on the near term, future be damned)

There IS NO LONG TERM VISION in the US - from energy policy, tech, health etc.

This is what is killing us.
For those wondering: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se7/html/jls-5.html#...:

"If the value p being boxed is true, false, a byte, or a char in the range \u0000 to \u007f, or an int or short number between -128 and 127 (inclusive), then let r1 and r2 be the results of any two boxing conversions of p. It is always the case that r1 == r2.

Ideally, boxing a given primitive value p, would always yield an identical reference. In practice, this may not be feasible using existing implementation techniques. The rules above are a pragmatic compromise. The final clause above requires that certain common values always be boxed into indistinguishable objects. The implementation may cache these, lazily or eagerly. For other values, this formulation disallows any assumptions about the identity of the boxed values on the programmer's part. This would allow (but not require) sharing of some or all of these references.

This ensures that in most common cases, the behavior will be the desired one, without imposing an undue performance penalty, especially on small devices. Less memory-limited implementations might, for example, cache all char and short values, as well as int and long values in the range of -32K to +32K."

When I first heard about that, I wondered why they would specifically specify that range in the language standard. Wouldn't it be better to describe the desired performance, and leave it at "implementations may choose to have boxing a given primitive value p, always yield the same reference, either for all values, or for some values"? Even if Sun's implementation used that trick to get sufficient performance in some part of the JDK, I do not think they should force everybody else to use it.

Also, the way I read that first paragraph is that two primitive values p and q of the same type with identical small values may still get boxed to different references. I doubt anybody would implement it that way, though, and the second paragraph seems to be in disagreement with that by speaking of "certain common value_s_".
The headline of the submission seems misleading. It sounds like scientists have theorized a plausible model for how the brain stores information, not that they actually tested this in vivo.
An interesting exercise I suppose but solving a completely non-existent problem. The problem is sites departing from the more than adequate password requirement of 6 chars and nothing more.

Also, I hate input fields like that where the label disappears immediately (I don't even really like that label positioning in the first place). If you want to improve usability, fix that instead.