skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
should redirect the error/warning output so that it isn't mashed into the command:

openssl rand -hex 6 2>/dev/null | sed 's/\(..\)/\1:/g; s/.$//'

because if you are running this on startup there is a chance HOME or RANDFILE aren't set yet, the .rnd file doesn't exist or the permissions on it are not set properly - resulting in a warning such as "PRNG not seeded" or "unable to write 'random state'" that would be passed into the ifconfig command.
"What punishment was the minimum necessary to deter Swartz from continuing to try to use unlawful means to achieve his reform goals?"

Let's say no punishment would deter Swartz. Would that justify a sentence of life in prison?
This is a fantastic idea - congrats murtza! Our little startup does something in the same spirit, but for various types of junk mail (including magazine/catalog subscriptions): http://www.paperkarma.com.

Basically you download the smartphone app, snap pics of mail you don't want, it/we figure out who sent it & unsubscribe you.

(apologies if posting this is uncool. not sure what the protocol is. lmk & i will delete...).

Cheers.
But in no other country are the chips stacked as high as they are against the defendants as they are in the U.S. in a federal case. Ortiz, via her office, charged Aaron with 11 counts of fraud. If you think you're innocent, there's no negotiating out of pleading guilty to at least some of the charges. That is fundamentally wrong.
Doing what you think is right when you know it is probably illegal is called civil disobedience, and it usually entails a willingness to go to prison when done right.
According to Aaron's lawyer, MIT demanded jail time, even if they dropped the trespass charge.
Copyright infringment?
I wouldn't discount Ive's ability to take existing products in market, such as the TV, mobile wallet, or even things like Google Glass, and maintain Apple's attention to industrial design and user experience.

Macbook Pro Retina is beautiful, no other computer company can touch it. Still seems to be a big land-grab in the PC world, and halo effect could ripple on. Windows 8 sucks and my iPad collects dust when it comes to professional uses.

They do have an adjustment period to go through after showing a few missteps last year. Maybe they'll around $400-500 for the year until something shiny comes out like TV or iWallet.

Nobody said the market was rational. If you want to have fun, trade weekly options.
Try quoting the whole thing:

"The prosecutors recognized that there was no evidence against Mr. Swartz indicating that he committed his acts for personal financial gain, and they recognized that his conduct - while a violation of the law - did not warrant the severe punishments authorized by Congress and called for by the Sentencing Guidelines in appropriate cases."
Two Rules for Writing Better CSS
Let's say a person takes the deal, goes before the judge, the judge sides with the prosecutor, and the judge gives the defendant six months in prison. At that point can the defendant say, "actually, thanks but no thanks, I want a jury trial"? Or is the defendant bound to the sentence once he agrees to go before the judge?
I don't think plea bargaining is the best way to run a justice system either, but that's the reason why.
The op here:
Many have said that maybe the market is crowded with "sudoku" games. I do agree, that may be in part a reason.

However, I'm talked to many indie developers that have built very nice game and by nice I mean addicting that are unable to cross the 1k downloads.
Yes - it has me wondering who SocioTech is, who he or she works for and what their role is there. Arguably the behavior reflects someone who is PR, political party or DA office, which in itself would be fairly big news.
"That is why in the discussions with his counsel about a resolution of the case this office sought an appropriate sentence that matched the alleged conduct - a sentence that we would recommend to the judge of six months in a low security setting."

It sounds like a plea bargain to me.
The real take-away from the article is that by allowing access to _any_ Google service, access to the entire Internet is indirectly granted. This knowledge has applications well beyond "stealing" Internet on air planes.
Unlawfully Obtaining Information From a Protected Computer, and only the JSTOR counts. All the other counts --- wire fraud, reckless damage, CFAA offenses against MIT --- seem spurious.
He didn't say that.

Also, for the sake of accuracy--it wasn't just downloading journal articles. It was downloading copyrighted journal articles while using someone's network and evading their attempts to kick you off.
His post is all over the place, but what I believe he meant with that line was that the Airlines should lobby to privatize airport security.
It would be interesting to see what she, or some AUSAs, have told the courts in their pleadings.

I'm not sure if PACER (http://www.pacer.gov/) has all the criminal pleadings, but it might have those. Its another thing in the long list of items that should be completely free to access.
Why Facebook Search is a fail and Google need not lose sleep.
Gibson mentions this in the Foreword of the more recent edition I have.

What a different setting it evokes.
I think you're wasting time trying to discredit someone based on who they are.
I'm a reformed programmer who's now a lawyer (with a pretty high profile, but no connection to the US Atty's office), and I have another account that is more easily tied to my real-life identity. I'm not on HN a lot, but I know the community pretty well.

This whole case is too politically touchy for me, which is why I'm on this different account. The last thing I want to do is get the attention of Anonymous, or anyone else. I am connecting through Tor when I write this. Maybe that underlies my fear of the mob mentality and the idea of witchhunts. ;)
"...for an act that should have had a maximum penalty of no more than 30 days"

Where are you getting 30 days from?
He did access MIT's network after they tried to kick him off. That's not nothing.
Of course not. I think, and his lawyer thought up to the day Aaron died, that Aaron was in very little danger of a custodial sentence. He was a first time offender, his crime had no financial purpose, he had no co-conspirators, any damage he caused was minimal, and he cooperated with JSTOR.

The problem is that the 6 month sentence wasn't what the prosecution sought at trial; it was available only if Swartz plead out to all 13 felonies. To go to trial, he had to risk 6 years.
Carmen Ortiz's defence is an attempt to shift the Overton window.

Her argument is that he was charged with so many charges that if he was given the maximum sentence on all of them he would have been put in prison for a very long time. That sets the upper limit of the Overton window. Instead of that upper limit, she is quick to point out that he was offered six months imprisonment if her admitted to the charges.

But taken without context, six months imprisonment for non-violent activities that, even if they had been successful, would have been very unlikely to have had a significant adverse impact on anyone is extremely disproportionate.

The other problem with her 'maximum sentence' argument is that it was the USAG office that decided to charge him with multiple charges all relating to the same events. If they had just charged him with "access[ing] a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access" and no other charges, the maximum sentence allowed under 18 USC 1040 would have been 10 years (see http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030), and under the sentencing guidelines he would have fallen under Offence Level 6 (see http://www.ussc.gov/Guidelines/2012_guidelines/Manual_HTML/2...). Assuming no criminal history, the sentencing guidelines would dictate 0-6 months imprisonment and/or a $500-5000 fine.
The statement contains no new news, it was already reported that there was an ultimatum from the prosecution for him to either plead guilty to all 13 counts, or go to trial where he faced a sentence of up to 50 years in prison.

Attorney Jennifer Granick, the Director of Civil Liberties at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society, pointed out that plea offers are not binding on the court and are presented as optional suggestions for the judge to consider during sentencing. Normally the judge goes with the "neutral" sentencing guidelines, regardless of any deals.

http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2013/01/towards-learning-l...

In this case, neutral guidelines are capped at 5 years per count, for a potential sentence of 65 years in prison, with the guilty plea deal.

As Granick states:

> [T]he court is not constrained to sentence as the government suggests. Rather, the probation department drafts an advisory sentencing report recommending a sentence based on the guidelines. The judge tends to rely heavily on that "neutral" report in sentencing. If Aaron pleaded to a misdemeanor, his potential sentence would be capped at one year, regardless of his guidelines calculation. However, if he plead guilty to a felony, he could have been sentenced to as many as 5 years, despite the government's agreement not to argue for more. Each additional conviction would increase the cap by 5 years, though the guidelines calculation would remain the same. No wonder he didn't want to plead to 13 felonies. Also, Aaron would have had to swear under oath that he committed a crime, something he did not actually believe.

Those who argue that Swartz should have plead guilty to all 13 counts are either unaware of these facts, or choose to present their opinion in a way designed to mislead the public that the prosecutor's deal was reasonable.
I hear Applied Micro will sample their custom ARMv8 chip by the end of this quarter. It's likely we'll see at least the custom ARMv8 chips start shipping in the beginning of 2014. The stock Cortex A57-based chips like what AMD and I think Calxeda, too, are using will probably arrive late 2014.

I think Nvidia might target Project Denver for servers, too, and that's also a custom ARMv8 chip, but I don't think it will be ready until the 2nd half of 2014 (even though they initially promised late 2013). They might be waiting on the Maxwell GPU architecture to be ready.
Your comment has nothing to do with mine.
It's a problem with ACH in general. However, debits from consumer accounts (or, more accurately, those initiated with a "PPD" code) can be refuted for something like two years.

By submitting a file straight to the networks, I could also debit a nonexistent account for $20m and have it show up in my account the next morning. Wouldn't hang around for long though.
I for one can't wait to get my hands on some googly-eyes
Thanks for sharing all those insight. I'll definitely look into some of them with my partner.
They charged him with that many counts because they wanted to extort him into signing a plea. That's pretty much how they work these things. It's standard operating procedure - overcharge, then sign the plea.

The interesting part is that they wanted him to plead guilty to 13 felonies. That is relatively unusual, as in most cases they agree to drop all but one or two counts. In many states that deal would qualify him for a three strikes penalty if he were ever charged with a felony subsequent to this case (a state-based computer crime, for example). If he had taken the deal and were charged a few years later with any felony in Nevada, for example, he would be exposed to a life sentence.
It sounds like the response is trying to say without saying that there was no great big fateful choice of "plead guilty to something you think wasn't wrong and do 6 months or probably get 30 years."

I suspect everything they said to Aaron without saying in their dealings with him attempted to convince him that was his choice exactly.
You probably want to mask off the multicast bits.
Interesting. We should all beware. There are Reputation Management firms hired by people like Ortiz specifically to help "correct" what they believe are knocks against their reputation after a controversial incident. It usually starts off with carefully crafted and prepared statements followed by in-depth newspaper interviews in Sunday editions several weeks after the controversial incident. It ends when they write a book which presents their side of the story, uncontested, and provides an opportunity for them to have a newspaper article written against this one-sided story. In between they do have folks who would sandbag online forums like this one.
Or dividends. If Apple paid $100 per share and it cost $1 per share, it would be a good investment even if you thought the entire company was about to explode in a giant fireball.

And then there's something in between ;)
LV2013手錶新款目錄
http://servv89pn0aj.sn.sourcedns.com/~gbpprorg/2600/2600_28-...
I like this idea http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2013/01/16/bing-fund-adds-ma...
Why? How does jail time protect and improve our society when there are more appropriate forms of punishment like community service. They could have had him clean up trash on campus or use find use his computer skill to pay his debt to society. Does some one who did what he did really need to go to jail on the first offense with circumstances and evidence like these?
Once the defendant agrees, he agrees. But he can make the plea contingent. "I'll only plead guilty if the sentencing judge only gives me 6 months."
Command substitution does not capture standard error.
Kerr says later on: "decades in jail would have been extreme overkill". So apparently he was willing to at least set some limits without even knowing the answer to his question. A little earlier he says: "I’ll defer here to the people who knew Swartz best, with whatever they think the right answer is. Would probation have been enough? A month of home confinement? Jail time?" Which also sets some bounds on what he thought was reasonable.

So I don't know if Kerr really meant for his question to be taken at face value. OTOH, he does seem to consider it important that the punishment be sufficient to cause the person to switch from illegal to legal means for achieving his goals. So he doesn't seem fully consistent on this point.
Any public visitor can download articles using the MIT network. Aaron dis just that, but he downloaded more than one articles. Perfectly legal.

He didn't evade anything. He just used MAC address spoofing. That's not illegal either. There was no attempt to kick him off.
does it currently - or are there plans to - compile to js?
Typed Racket's static-dynamic is due to its module system: modules allow for seperate compilation, and the type-checker accepts accepts fully typed modules, not mix-code fragments.

However, Siek's Gradual Typing does handle mix-type expressions at finer-grain.
It's certainly a lot more fun.
Patent trolls own a patent, at the very least. The court could seize the patent and auction it off (or place it in the public domain) if the troll's string-pullers choose not to pay the loser's penalty.
>The statement makes clear

The statement doesn't actually provide any new information. All it says is that they decline to resign or admit wrongdoing. That much was expected and nothing else is anything we didn't already know.

>If we're going to be rational, that shouldn't change when a defendant commits suicide while the case is pending.

You're assuming that we were being rational before and now are being irrational rather than the other way around. It was previously irrational for us not to do something about this. (I don't mean these prosecutors specifically, but the system that allows this sort of thing to be "normal" is hugely problematic.)

As for "manipulative PR," I'm not sure how much we should care about being "manipulated" to try and fix something which is legitimately in our own self interest to fix anyway.
Reading about this case, I've seen lots of people called "shills" for the US Atty's office or the DOJ. You probably won't (and maybe shouldn't) take my word for it, but that's just not how these organizations work. It isn't even close.

People in small communities often overimagine their own importance. That's not an insult, just a psychological truth. The DOJ doesn't care what people here write, and if you talked to people there, from political appointees down to staffers, most of them would fall somewhere between (a) pleasure that the democratic process is proceeding through random or organized discussion online and (b) snide dismissal of hackers they don't understand. They don't hire PR people to infiltrate discussion boards on general issues. (Of course, the FBI does hire people to infiltrate criminal communities.) Think of any cases of astroturfing that have come to light. It happens by hotels that want to post undeserved reviews on TripAdvisor, startups (and even charities, as Aaron once pointed out) that want to get attention, etc., etc. The DOJ and US Attys aren't in the astroturfing business.

Another thing that should give people some perspective: It's laughable for people to have suggested, as I think a dozen did, that the new limit for White House petitions (100,000 instead of 25,000) had anything remotely to do this this case. Most people in the administration haven't heard of it and never will. There's a lot going on in the world. ;)
There's a huge problem with this.

For many people, it's creepy to "search out" and find you. Making an initial contact on the internet is a far bigger hurdle in a tight social network like facebook than it is in real life.

For myself, Facebook Groups have actually already done a great deal to put me in a setting with a bunch of new people that I can relate to... and I have made friends that way. From group projects, to school groups, to interest groups. You get to know each other surprisingly well.

Search requires initiative. Initiative is very uncool.
Tunisia: any revolution like that can susceed if the rulers don't have the will to order mass supression and/or the military is not willing to follow those orders. 338 deaths (Wikipedia) tells us there wasn't a whole lot of shooting in either direction.

As for your latter point and Europe, after the 30 Years War one would have hoped more would realize that widespread rifle ownership was an existential issue. The Swiss did, at least in due course. Others obviously did not, although as I've pointed out elsewhere wealth had a whole lot to do with that, plus the higher maintenance required by older guns.
>Where are you getting 30 days from?

My sense of proportionality?

See also what actual trespass is punished with: http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/...
Seems that someone has nuked your site?
It is possible to take notes if you upgrade to the Elite version. You also have hints when you upgrade.
MIT allows people to use their network, but that doesn't mean they give up the right to revoke permission. MIT took multiple measures to get block Aaron. There is nothing illegal about spoofing your MAC ID, but spoofing your MAC ID to get around a ban suggests that you know your permission to access a network has been revoked, yet you continue to do so. That's the illegal part.
that's not the direction language and programmers should follow
5.5 hours?
Or is there an extra hour there above the ETOPS rating?
>I don't want to sound dismissive, but the conspiracy theory stuff - that they targeted him because of SOPA or whatnot - is not something that anyone I know takes seriously.

Interesting that the Secret Service ECTF took over the investigation into Swartz despite the fact his crime doesn't meet any of their stated criteria for involvement ("Significant economic or community impact", "Participation of organized criminal groups involving multiple districts or transnational organizations", or "Use of schemes involving new technology").

http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/13/two-days-before-cambrid...
I agree, this is a terrible name. Their executives don't go outside enough. "Graph Search" means precisely nothing to the average joe.
You obviously don't fly much. This is you stealing access from me when you're on a platform meant to have just a handful of paying users.
It's the same sort of weasel words that Creationists use to confuse Christians who can accept science but now think it runs counter to the idea of "God's Creation".
So these were the choices they offered him:
- Plead guilty and become a felon (even if he believed otherwise, and clearly against his conscience.)
- Or face 13 felony counts, potentially leading to a very lengthy prison sentence.

The prosecutors were trying to make sure the case never goes to court. This is disgusting!
JSTOR settled, and so were no longer a victim. http://about.jstor.org/statement-swartz just sayin'.
Something's not adding up for me. If he were convicted at trial of all 13 counts the most he could face is 50 years but if he plead guilty the max is raised to 65? How does that work?
Not all the feature are free, there is in app purchases to unlock levels and cities. It also allows the user to take notes while playing and use hints (only for paying users).
>plea offers are not binding on the court and are presented as optional suggestions for the judge to consider during sentencing

That's not entirely true. There are two basic types of pleas. One is a sentence recommendation - the government recommends a sentence, but the court is free to do what it wants and the defendant cannot withdraw the plea if they are unhappy with the sentence. However, rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allows for plea agreements under which the court may only either accept or reject the plea and the stipulated sentence; it cannot change the sentence. If the court rejects a plea made under this rule, the defendant is free to withdraw their plea and go back to square one (face a trial). The Rule that the plea is being made under is always specified in the plea agreement in writing. I don't know which type they were discussing, but he would have had to be insane to plead guilty to 13 felonies and not insist on an 11(c)(1)(C) plea.

He may have been stressed not over the initial sentence, but over the the consequences. For one thing, he would have been under federal Supervised Release for a period of either 3 or 5 years, during which a judge could have barred him from using a computer or the Internet. Any violation of these rules could have then yielded an instant sentence of up to the length of supervision - either 3 or 5 years - even if the violation occurred on the last day of his supervision. These types of restrictions are put in place all the time.

Finally, pleading guilty to 13 felonies may have been problematic from a criminal history point of view. If he were ever charged with anything in the future, the judge or prosecutor would be unlikely to show mercy on someone that has 13 felonies on their record. In some states, any prosecution for a felony subsequent to this deal would have qualified him for a three strikes/habitual offender status and an accompanying life sentence (Nevada being one, for example, that does not distinguish between violent and non-violent felonies for purposes of three strikes sentences - a felony DUI in Vegas after this plea would have earned Aaron a life sentence).
> I know that there is little I can say to abate the anger felt by those who believe that this office's prosecution of Mr. Swartz was unwarranted and somehow led to the tragic result of him taking his own life

If MIT asked to drop the charges, then you not only wasted taxpayers money but whats more importantly, as a result, you've helped young man to take his life.

> The career prosecutors handling this matter took on the difficult task of enforcing a law they had taken an oath to uphold, and did so reasonably.

Yes of course Ms. Ortiz; so were those military and political leaders in Germany circa 1939 and see how they ended: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials

Nobody will live forever Ms. Ortiz. I hope Aaron will wait for you at Heaven's gates and handle you a key... to hell.
You're not querying the data to get one answer. You're harnessing existing data to narrow down hundreds of friends into a handful.