skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The distinction is easy to identify, is it because of desire or expectation.

At heart every one knows their limitations and every one tries to hope that they can acquire more than their capability allows them to achieve naturally

Expectation is not the same as desire, every one can have unreasonable desire, but expectation is more subtle. If the guy has been groomed from the earliest school days based on his/her performance that he/she can easily go into Harvard by the community, teachers, parents, friends etc and because of some ill health, he flunks a exam which makes him not achieve it, it may even destroy his whole life, because he may feel he has disappointed his teachers, parents etc.

The startup world creates enormous expectations using desire as the fuel. Imagine the number of people thinking just getting selected by YC leads to success of their idea or the number of people who get funding assume they have already succeeded. These are starting points and mid points in their pursuit to success. These creates unreasonable expectations which increases the pain. Where as if you pursued these are part of your desire the pain will be less.

Expectation is assuming you have got it and latter found you have not really not got it, where as desire is aspiring for higher things perfectly knowing you may not get it.

Creating Unreasonable Expectations causes more pain than creating Unreasonable desires. It is the difference between applying for a lottery and finding the lottery ticket is a forgery.
Having followed this since the raid earlier this year, I actually have no idea whose side of the story I believe now. Some people portray him as a Machiavellian psychopath (Jeff Wise), others think he just went paranoid nuts from drug use, yet if I were only to hear John McAfee tell his own story I'm fairly certain I would absolutely believe him.

He's clearly still in full command of his capacities at least as it comes to elucidating his thoughts in words, and everything he says is reasonable enough that I would believe it quite straightforwardly (as I did back when the raid news first came out) if it weren't for the notion planted in my head now from Wise's article that he's a scheming psychopath that's very charming and knows just what to say to make people believe him.

Either way, this guy has a crazy shit life. If everything is true in Jeff's article about his past and current life, I'd have to believe that he probably is just a scheming possibly paranoid psychopath, though still a little skeptical that he shot his neighbor to death. Fully plausible either way as I see it however, wouldn't be surprised at either outcome.

Also, I definitely hear the words "kill him" and "that's what he fucking needs" in that recording with all the background noise he sent out. Who knows what it is though.
I'm guessing the mods will come in and delete that shortly...
Clearly the easiest thing (as many have mentioned) has been "sell your stuff." One of the folks I know who got into trouble post 2009 was selling "PC tuneups and consulting" for $50 initially, and $75 later, he would spend an hour with someone and help 'tune up' their PC (get rid of old software, update to a current AV, etc) and if they were interested he would consult with the client on what they needed/wanted in a PC and would give them some places where they could acquire it. After a couple of weeks, and even after raising his price by 50% he had more business than he could handle. I believe he also got an affiliated marketing deal with one of the AV companies and they would spiff him something like $10 if the customer bought their AV product.

Basically technology is really confusing to a lot of people, many of whom will gladly pay for someone to explain to them in small words what they need to do.
Were they doing it for the lolz? As far as I can tell from the article, they're just regular criminals.
The title of this should be changed. Actual title is:

Jury convicts NY man accused of AT&T-iPad hacking
Once you've failed (and maybe, given your post-mortem), what else is there to do? You move on to working on something else.

To extend your analogy: during WW2, they didn't study the same plane every time a plane was shot down. They studied a the one that was hit, and moved on to the next one after that.
Porn is a very crowded business, with some groups doing very well and operating well within the law. Of course, their are many attempts that fail, which we do not see. Much like every other industry.
Show HN:  I built this CRM Tool for Windows.  Thoughts?
I believe the specific charge was "Access to financial records or to 'protected systems'". Unlike a blog which is not protected, the AT&T data was behind a login system.
Kragen Sitaker wrote a wonderful message about what "Enterprise" software really is: http://lists.canonical.org/pipermail/kragen-tol/2005-April/0...
Boo hoo. This is emo nonsense. Life is a brutal war for survival you are going to get severely beaten down a few dozen times before you ever make it to the top. 1% of 1% have an easy route to the top. The rest take it on the chin a few times, spit out their teeth, and keep throwing punches.

You seriously can't let that much negativity into your own life. Your business failed? Cool. That same day, 30,000 kids starved to death in Africa. You learned a lot about running a business and discovered that your specific idea didn't work out.

Move on and find a new adventure. Live in the windshield, not the rear view mirror.
"A combination of chemicals inside of a pill that cures headaches"

Oh my god. That is a terrific analogy. I regularly talk to people who don't understand the horror of software patents and have been trying to come up with a good example - this is perfect.
It wasn't behind a login system, and the indictment did IIRC make reference to AT&T's computers meeting the definition of "protected". But they charged fraud and conspiracy.
You have to admit though, that action is not very intuitive in most cases.
Why so patronizing?
Every government regulatory agency already does this. This is why we have millions of pages of regulations. For example (not exhaustive), the IRS, Immigration, and Labor departments lay out exactly how to follow the statutes, and set judicial precedent in their administrative courts.

The flipside to this is that there is so much information that people don't know that their questions have already been answered.
"Provided the information to Gawker" casts doubt on any criminal intent in my mind
The CFAA conviction referred to here (the Lori Drew case, also mentioned in the DOJ manual) was overturned.
Do you write iphone apps? If so ping me, I may have a gig.
A Brief History of 5by5 in Response to the State of the Union Address
What are you using? They are pretty convenient with WTForms.

# models.py
class Post(db.Model):
id = db.Column(db.Integer, primary_key=True)
name = db.Column(db.String(80))
title = db.Column(db.String(200))
content = db.Column(db.Text)

def __init__(self, name, title, content):
self.name = name
self.title = title
self.content = content

# forms.py
import flaskext.wtf as wtf
from flaskext.wtf import Form, validators
from wtforms.ext.sqlalchemy.orm import model_form
import models

PostForm = model_form(models.Post, Form, field_args = {
'name': {'validators': [validators.required()]},
'title': {'validators': [validators.required(), validators.length(min=5)]},

})

# views.py
def post_new():
form = forms.PostForm()
if form.validate_on_submit():
post = models.Post(form.name.data, form.title.data, form.content.data)
db.session.add(post)
db.session.commit()
return redirect(url_for('post.index'))
return render_template('post/new.slim', form=form)

# _post_form.slim
- from 'helpers.slim' import render_field

form method="POST" class="well"
= form.hidden_tag()
= render_field(form.name, class\="span4")
= render_field(form.title, class\="span4")
= render_field(form.content, class\="span4")

.field
input type="submit" class="btn btn-success"

# post/new.slim
- extends 'layout.slim'

- block content
.span6
h2 Creating new post
- include 'post/_post_form.slim'
a href="=url_for('.index')" class="btn btn-primary btn-small" Back

# helpers.slim
- macro render_field(field)
div class="{{ 'field-with-errors' if field.errors else 'field' }}"
- if field.errors
- for error in field.errors
p class="error" = error
= field.label
= (field(**kwargs) | safe)

Don't bother about the slim templates. It's a small jinja2 extension which I use to give me slim syntax.

Now this probably looks like a lot. But consider that you write the helper to render the form only once. Also, you can write a helper to generate models and form scaffolding for you. That's what I do.

python manage.py create_model post -f 'name:String(80) title:String(200) content:Text'

It generates me the model, form and form template(models.py, forms.py, _post_form.py). The form of course will have empty validators which I fill.
It's not that far off. Prosecutors have used the CFAA to try to prosecute people for violating the ToS act of MySpace (thrown out by judge post-conviction) and to lodge charges against a scalper which used automated ways to get past a CATPCHA in order to buy tickets. And now Weev gets convicted for finding an undocumented webpage that was a security hole and using that to collect email addresses they then used to embarrass AT&T. He face YEARS in prison. The CFAA is vague on its face.
Ok, I understand why they might sue Formlabs - it's a shame, but without knowing the details there's opportunity for patent infringement there. But Kickstarter? Seriously?
If it's really a short-term, temporary shortage (i.e. cash flow crunch), have you considered loans? This is sorta what credit cards, payday loans, and HELOCs are for. I'm guessing that HN is very opposed to debt of any sort, but the interest on even a payday loan is likely to be less than the depreciation hit you take from selling anything you'll need to replace later.

You could be in for major problems if it becomes a habit, though. Take on debt only if it is a one-time, nonrecurring expense that you can pay back in a short time, not if it's a problem of income not meeting expenditures. And work on building up an emergency fund so you can be your own banker next time.

(FWIW: I served as "banker" when my sister moved out and got her own place, because she'd never worked before and didn't have money for 1st months rent + security deposit. She paid me back with interest 3 months later, although the "interest" was only that she paid for my half of our dad's father's day gift and bought me some sheet music.)
The complaint and flagging was about it being against the "ethos and general topic" not a lack of "mystery."

A lack of mystery could merely make something dull or obvious rather than off topic or against the ethos of the site. Dullness or obviousness is rarely an impediment to reaching the HN front page (cf. "On Being a Junior Developer.")

Nonetheless, I found it interesting. If I were to want mystery, however, I'd read Harry Potter instead of HN.
Despite the assertions of tptacek, there is no requirement for any fraud to occur for a crime to have occurred. This is a pretty important thing for computer people to understand, and it's really unfortunate that one knucklehead vehemently asserting false facts has ruined this whole thread.

http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/docs/ccmanual.pdf

Essentially, anything you do exceeding authorization to a computer connected to the internet is potentially a U.S. federal crime. Anywhere in the world. No fraud need be proved. For example, here are the elements of a crime under 1030(a)(2):

1030(a)(2) Summary (Misd.)
1.	Intentionally access a computer
2.	without or in excess of authorization
3.	obtain information
4.	from
financial records of financial institution
or consumer reporting agency
OR
the U.S. government
OR
a protected computer

So if the government can prove these things: you intentionally accessed a computer; without or in excess of authorization; obtained any information at all; and it was a computer connected to the internet, then they have successfully proved that you violated 1030(a)(2). Numerous whistleblowers have been charged with violating this law, including Bradley Manning; at least one "cyberbullying" case has been charged under it, etc.

NO FRAUD IS REQUIRED. You can shouldersurf someone's password, log in as them, type "ls", log out and never use that password again - you've violated that law.

Every person working with computers in the U.S. or anywhere the U.S. can reach with its laws should have this engraved along the top of their keyboard.
In ¶ 64 it says that “there was no space in Patrice Gaultier’s [sic] group at Apple for Witherspoon.”

According to https://www.linkedin.com/pub/patrice-gautier/0/14/139, Patrice Gautier is VP of Engineering, iTunes Store and iCloud.

So maybe that is where those engineers will turn up…
Interestingly that is nearly 1/4 the revenue of Zynga [1] (3.2M/day if you're wondering)

[1] http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AZNGA&fstype=ii&...
hi pg.

i don't know you, this website, or anything about anything, but i felt a duty to inform a fellow internet user that someone has commissioned others to compile your comments for this site. here's the link: https://www.elance.com/j/scrape-gather-all-comments-person-o...

it could be totally fine, or creepy, or it could just be you wanting your stuff compiled, but i felt it my duty to tell a fellow internet user that someone wanted their stuff compiled.

if i'm breaking any sort of rules, again, sorry, i don't know anything about this site or how to navigate it; i also obviously don't know how to pm.

cheers.
I guess I just disagree that it's healthy for us to validate the pain of failing to achieve such high expectations. Investment bankers have high expectations too! But I'll think more about what you wrote, and thanks.
I think the answer to your question, and probably the point of asking it, is that It Depends. If you're writing a very simple web service that will be accessed by millions of clients for a small set of straightforward operations, you'll probably want to pick the framework with the smallest footprint and write a very little bit of custom code. If you're writing a vastly complex system to mingle support for new and legacy data and integrate with many disparate third party services, you will want a framework that does a lot behind the scenes to make your own code as painless as possible.

For everything else, aside from Mastercard, there's room for argument and discussion... but I think the only universal takeaway is that most or all of the frameworks mentioned have solid use cases, and none of them work for everyone in every circumstance.
One reason to raise capital (formally) is to deal with IP and lawyers, etc. This is potentially achilles heel for Kickstarter model.
No, jellicle. That's Bullshit, informed more by your political biases than any kind of fact.

You can't just focus on statute and ignore precedent, because precedent defines the standards for statutory interpretation. So many people on HN look at the statute and think that's the whole law, and then assume that any arguable interpretation of said statute is legally binding. This is absolutely not the case.
In case you're not trolling, here's a link to what's currently #2 on the front page, which explains it well: http://erratasec.blogspot.com/2012/11/you-are-committing-cri...
Sometimes with collaborations like these, there's a leak. When the leak makes it to the press, then the press calls up the collaboration.

If the spokesman for the collaboration can't say, "Nope, we haven't seen anything interesting. It's all boring, please go home.", then the journalists know that something's up and the hoopla starts.

Scientists like to talk. It's our job. Collaborations are only partially optimized to contain leaks. I sincerely doubt that any part of the rover team would like to stir up hoopla when they aren't certain about results.
Passwords exposed in Click Frenzy security slip
It will be ironic if Facebook causes MySpace to be reborn.
Speak to a(n astro)biologist. It is exceedingly likely that independently developed extraterrestrial life will use amino acids in some way, shape, or form. It is exceedingly unlikely that it would use the exact same 20 amino acids, however, which would give a way of detecting panspermia. For that matter, any chemically unlikely preponderance of a subset of amino acids would be very strong evidence for life.
On the other hand, you can only really "learn" this lesson once. The second time around, you look for something to sell, and realize that your possessions are now worth less than $300 combined. (And yes, this even includes the computer I would need to do my work! Depreciation is a harsh mistress.)
My apologies. My pretending to be a lawyer via google is stupid. 1030(a)(2)(c) seems really terrifying, obviously there is formal language in the text "Whoever—
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization and thereby obtains -
(C) information from any protected computer;

obviously includes formal language that means something i don't understand.
Not quite Color, but Google announced something similar at the last I/O:

http://support.google.com/plus/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answe...
From what I just read, he didn't hack anything. He found out that AT&T didn't require a password to check if an email was valid, then just got a list of valid email addresses.

How could a jury equate this with conspiracy to access a computer?
It sucked when my startup failed in 2001, but in retrospect it isn't close to the worst suckages in my life. Girlfriend breakups were worse.

Thanks for listening to me, though. I obviously managed to lose you completely with my original comment. I'll think about how I managed to do that. I probably won't actually learn from it, but I'll take a shot. :)
I'd recommend this book http://www.amazon.com/RESTful-Web-Services-Cookbook-Scalabil...

It's amazing, really. It's not just a recipies list, it explains a lot of very important REST cases, and also when to use or not to use REST.
Its a travesty, Weev comitted no real crime.
That article's bias is showing. If that is all you read about the incident then sure.. they are just regular criminals. But there is more to the case than that. From what I've read elsewhere, the Feds used a bit of stretching to make that law fit.
Hi Peter, thanks for your response. If you'll see below, my question is more on the practicalities of this (copied at the bottom of this comment.)

Personally, I'm not aware of any VCs in the "dividend business", but I'm by no means an expert so I could be wrong.

Also, if you are lucky enough to be successful and have over 500 employees/shareholders, my understanding is that the reporting requirements required by the SEC are so onerous that you might as well go public.

============================================

Yep. That's really my question anyway - is there a path to victory as a non-bootstrapped startup that doesn't include IPO or acquisition. How would you structure things to where investors and employees are confident they would share in the ongoing rewards of a non-public company.

If you look at the headaches Zuckerberg is running into now, even with, ostensibly, "total control" over a public company, it just seems like an extraordinary distraction from keeping your users and employees happy.

Speaking of Facebook, there is also the issue they ran into with having over 500 shareholders and staying private. I'm assuming that there is some way to guarantee revenue sharing to employees without making them actual shareholders, so that you wouldn't step over the 500 employee threshold and trigger the SEC's required IPO - assuming you were lucky enough to get that big.
I'm not a lawyer either, for what it's worth ('rprasad is). "Protected computer" is a term defined later in the CFAA.
There are a number of pixel art tutorials on Deviant Art as well. Some seem rather awesome.

http://kiwinuptuo.deviantart.com/gallery/27054576
you're skating over a bunch of precedent about what constitutes authorization (and indeed fraud, but that's another story). I'm not committing a federal crime right now because the free accessibility of Rob's blog post or this comment thread on HN, free of caveats, provide implicit authorization to the viewer.

Normally I would go and dig up a bunch of supporting material to justify this assertion, but your blanket assertions and dismissal of other posters as 'knuckleheads' tells me that it's simply not worth the effort. Flagged.
> It's that most Americans are worse off than this person.

You're being surprisingly sensitive and insensitive at the same time. It doesn't matter that most Americans are worse off than the guy, he didn't write a report for the Census Bureau.

He saw something, had an idea, for him this idea was as good as real, and then it died. Along with everything he had invested in it which wasn't just money but probably also a good part of his self-image, reputation and ego.

The fear of failure is so powerful that most people never even try. And he had all their worst fears come true.

You know how people are terrified of public speaking? When you did that the first time, did "hey, it's no biggie" helped and assuaged your fears?
See that is the nice thing about shotguns, they spray a pattern of pellets, lethal out to 50 maybe 60 yards and harmless to people down range. I've been duck hunting in fields where the next blind over was close enough to see the pellets land in the water between us.

The other interesting question which has yet to be answered is whether laser damage to video sensors in an unmanned vehicle in the landowner's "airspace" is actionable.

The final interesting question is whether or not its actionable if your R/C plane that you were flying around on your land and it happened to run into a drone and both fell out of the sky is a problem for you or for them. (I'd start that one off by suing them to replace your airplane)

I don't doubt though that all of these will be tested in court though.
The market is powered by individuals exchanging. Emotions play a role in transactions, sure.
Totally OK. That's what message boards are for. And for what it's worth, I'm being pretty unclear in my comments today. Someone else on HN wants to break my jaw for another poorly expressed opinion. :)
> You can shouldersurf someone's password, log in as them, type "ls", log out and never use that password again - you've violated that law.

I am not disagreeing with you, but in your example, wouldn't the part I have emphasised technically be fraud in some letter of the law way, because you have represented yourself as them to the computer?
Good point. I guess I went too far. The usual meaning of "bond" (say) is not irrelevant. Some other word ("llama"?) could have been used, but wasn't, and for good reason.

So we can add "customer development" to the list of terminology that does not fit the concept it describes. It joins many previous entries, including "vitamin", "malaria", "tree shrew", "lunar maria", and "resource acquisition is initialization".
100 BB downturns are not uncommon even among winning players.

Poker is a game of skill but it doesn't mean you can't have bad luck.

I play poker when I have $1000 to lose without risk. That's when I can play my best, with detachment from the money and the freedom that provides.

My last $1000 with no job? It's time to think about food and shelter and a new job -- any old job will do. I made a decision in my mid-20s that I would never again sponge off my parents or friends, that for me, I'd outgrown that. So no way would I risk my last $1k.

But, of course, YMMV.
absolutely love philterit - really helps me sort through my email
"affects interstate commerce" is anything, as has been shown time and time again by the Federal government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn and subsequent cases: producing a product on your own, and thereby not engaging in commerce, is considered commerce.