skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I have two close friends who, right out of college, became teachers in California. Neither of them had teaching degrees; instead, they both started teaching with "emergency credentials" when that program was active. I really have no idea if they were good teachers, but they both seemed like they could be.

Within two years, both of them had independently concluded, "This job sucks", and they had returned to school to get advanced degrees within their initial field of study.

The thing is, they both loved the teaching part of teaching. Instead, they were both surprised at how much the paperwork and bureaucracy killed their spirits day after day. From their description, it was as bad as the worst Dilbertesque office drone position.

I guess setting up hoops to keep bad and under-qualified teachers out of schools is one way to go, but if your goal is to improve the quality of education, there needs to be focus on making the job a satisfying and attractive career choice. A lot of people think this means "throw money at the problem", but I honestly think, "minimize the non-teaching overhead part of teaching" would be just as effective.
Thanks very much. Glad it was helpful. ^_^
No, but the judges who they bribe are certainly involved.
Absolutely. I just finished reading Jarrod' Bootstrapping Design and it certainly is a great book to consider for web design.
Just because something is in public domain doesn't mean it's free. Shakespear's works might be public domain but there is a cost to printing a book. There is a cost to scanning pages, there is a cost to hosting a website, administering a website etc.

How hard is this logic to understand? If you don't want to use JSTOR don't use it. Don't go around saying they should let you download it for free.
I recorded a short screencast to capture the pace of the upvotes https://plus.google.com/105550226241566085548/posts/YxafettT...
My Twitter account -- @yes -- just got hacked. Can anyone help?
I already submitted all the forms on Twitter.com to recover the account but I have no idea if that will get through. The hacker already wiped the account clean. Anybody know what I should do?
I don’t know a lot of people running Ruby services on FreeBSD, either. I’m pretty sure I know one or two who, at least, develop on Windows.

But, yeah, noone’s stopping you to make your FreeBSD version of the cheatsheet, what with the open source spirit and all… :P
> And you don't think that she will think that this is hacking if the site goes down from the load?

No, I don't. Someone stupid enough to continue this shitstorm would never make it that high up in office, especially when this is even less plausibly hacking than what Aaron did, even to someone without a great understanding (it's distributed, they warned people it would violate TOS, and the intent is clearly not to burden the site but to make a political statement that is explicitly designed NOT to burden the site).

I could be wrong. But I really, really don't think so.

> Besides, making an example of people is having it out for them.

Well yea, she might have it out for 'hackers', but who doesn't? Anyway, it's a common practice to go after the 'big fish' to scare the smaller ones.
What I don't understand is why we need a separate law against "computer fraud", when we already have laws against, well, fraud.

Because when that law was written it wasn't obvious how to distinguish in law between authorized and unauthorized access. You might as well ask why there's a bunch of law specifically regarding real estate when we already have laws about property, or why the laws about murder are so complex when the basic idea is 'thou shalt not kill.'

As an analogy, consider the standard definition of burglary: 'Entry into a building illegally with intent to commit a crime.' Now legally, that means 4 or arguably 5 elements - entry, a building, illegality, intent, and a contemplated crime. These might seem like hair-splitting points, but they're important - not just for the immediate situation of whether someone is guilty or not guilty, but whether or not that makes them liable under a three-strikes law, perhaps years later, or deportable, or how it might affect their sentencing for a completely unrelated crime a decade later, or....

...I mean, have you looked laws on fraud? they're complicated! It's not obvious in many real-world situations, and it's even less obvious where computers are concerned. If I am operating a computer system, how much information do I have to give you as a user about what you are or are not allowed to do on my system? Where does my responsibility end and yours begin? I mean, many people can't even understand the distinction between copyright infringement and theft, and fraud is a lot more complicated than simple theft - and theft itself is more complex than most people realize. Lots and lots of legal situations arise because people have different opinions about what sort of behavior is acceptable.

I don't know if you remember a pre-internet work environment, but when I was going about in the early 90s promoting the use of email and FTP to skeptical corporate buyers, one of the most frequent questions I used to hear was 'who owns the internet?' It was quite difficult for the typical business person to conceive of how network traffic could be separated from ownership of the network infrastructure, or how any participant in a network like some kid with a modem could possibly stand on the same legal footing as the phone company or the post office.
If there's no compulsion to speak, is there any compulsion to tell the truth? (I guess lying in that scenario would fall under "obstruction of justice"?)
Ask HN: What encryption programs do you use?
Recently I've been trying to secure almost everything on my company's computers/employee's computers.

I was wondering if you guy's have any recommendations on file encryption; and what encryption software do you use/trust?
Spanish Chorizo, product range, characteristics and use...
Venture capital largely gets spent on employee salaries. At worse, the money while it lasts will create good jobs - think of it as a Keynesian stimulus, something the Conservative government's not usually known for. At best, it jumpstarts a lot of legitimate growth, like Israel's 1993 Yozma plan.

I suspect most of the people in this thread are just grousing because they don't like their government, and therefore don't like anything it does. But Canada's been starved for venture capital for a long time, which has resulted in a lot of unnecessary brain drain. No program is guaranteed to succeed, but here Harper's doing something quite smart.
lol, nearly all the commits are for README.md. I guess he put the project on Github after having nearly finished the framework.
Somehow the added ones don't seem as insightful as the rest.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4529484
ctrl+f "tptacek"
Not only that, but apparently you are a tool, you are retarded or just interested in defending someone else's interests for a couple dollars.
Fuck you piece of shit, fuck security people like you, bloodsuckers.
Man, I've tried to use Branch. A few times. I've tried to invite people and join conversations, but I just can't get into it.

I resent the fact that there is no content discovery on the site. Why can't I be able to search for conversations? I don't care about "most highlighted branches". Branch doesn't know what my preferences are. Whereas on a site like Quora, content discovery by topic and search is brilliant.

Maybe one day.
Was it a paper old enough to be in the public domain? I just did some spot-checking, and everything I've checked that's old enough is available with no paywall. For example, looking at the American Journal of Archaeology (http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=amer...), the issues from 1922 and earlier show up for me as free, while the 1923-and-later issues are paywalled.

It's absurd that copyrights are so lengthy that 1923 is the cutoff point, but that's a whole other can of worms.
There's also a difference when you're developing your own site compared to when you're developing a framework or library. If your library is used on more than half of the top 100,000 websites (as jQuery is) then a 45KB saving or a 100ms speed boost, 50,000 times over is a big deal.
Yes. I signed that one and would encourage everyone else to do so as well.

However, it is an unfortunate fact of political life, that when someone screws up; the best move is to try to get their boss fired. Shit, as they say; flows downhill. Wouldn't surprise me too much if she fires him or he resigns under pressure, regardless of whether her position is seriously threatened or not.
I'd agree, except there have been cases like this:

> The judge, Paul A. Engelmayer of Federal District Court, ruled that the rejected ad was “not only protected speech — it is core political speech,” [...] As such, the judge held, the ad “is afforded the highest level of protection under the First Amendment.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/nyregion/mta-violated-righ...

Here's one of the ads: http://i.imgur.com/iY0bx.jpg
My guess as to the logical basis for plea bargaining is the notion that there's two types of criminals.

Type A criminals see nothing wrong with hurting others through criminal actions, and will not hesitate to do so if they believe it will get them material benefits and/or thrills (and think they can get away with it). They have no conscience or restraint. They are a danger to society and should go away as long as possible. Think of someone who kills a family member to collect life insurance money.

Type B criminals are basically ordinary people who are careless, make a bad decision, aren't aware that a certain action is illegal, or perhaps are consumed by emotional passion. They genuinely regret their actions and the consequences thereof. Think of a drunk driver who accidentally kills a pedestrian.

The theory behind the guilty/not-guilty plea is that Type A criminals will never confess, since they have no conscience or remorse. But Type B criminals will want to try to become a good person again, and the first step to this is admitting their past mistakes.

That's the theory. It doesn't always match reality. For example, the Type B criminal may be so troubled about what he's wrought that he blurts out a confession before getting a plea agreement in writing, in which case the state can still throw the book at him. Or an innocent person might confess as purely a risk mitigation measure: If you were some alternate universe's Aaron Swartz, you decided not to commit suicide, and you had a choice between pleading and getting guaranteed 6 months, or having a trial and a 50% chance of a not-guilty verdict but a 50% chance of 35 years in prison, you might be very tempted to choose the former.

Interesting mental exercise: I arbitrarily set the odds of winning a trial at 50-50. What do your odds of winning have to be before you choose to roll the dice?
The copy you get from Amazon is bilingual in German/English and it's totally worth it. The way they set the bilingual text in itself is a pretty fascinating study on grid systems.

I read this book in design school and its probably some of the best reading I've ever done. If I had to pick one book out of all of these, it'd be this one.
Yeah. You can't sue the Board just because you disagree with their chosen good faith strategy.
Yeah, I don't know why you didn't secure funding because you're coming off as incredibly thoughtful and charming right now.
Yes. Less than 72 hours since I pressed submit on my half-edited, strike-while-the-iron-is-hot petition.

It feels rather hollow, I wish we hadn't lost Aaron.
"Man up" is pretty much always careless and unfounded. Not to mention sexist and insulting.
> What do you do?

1. Build another courthouse.

2. Increase the number of judges.

3. Increase the number of hours judges work. Many work half the day and don't work every working day.

4. Provide the option of night court. Even evening court would make a hell of a difference.

5. Remand more cases to municipal courts, which are less busy.

6. Reduce the number of law enforcement agents.

7. Remove the myriad laws which serve little purpose other than to incarcerate the unlucky.

8. Shall I go on?

There are a ton of solutions, but plea bargain is a very special solution. It allows the prosecutor to pat himself on the back and get wonderful stories about him published in the press. After all, every plea bargain is a conviction and with a 90%+ plea bargain rate, guess who looks like a hero? It really just makes me sick. Nothing will happen until we all begin to believe that there are better solutions and that they are right in front of us.
> Like I said, there's no need to craft Straw Feminists from whole cloth. Make your points without these fabrications.

I'm not lying and your need to claim I am damages your case.

An example from Reddit, which is very much the non-academic Real World I've been talking about:

ImaLamer:

> As someone who was raped by a woman, while drinking, something you've put full responsibility on her for in other comments, you quickly dismissed my feelings and the impact this has in my life. It was not statistically significant for you to care. So much so you took it as an opportunity to further bash men as a class.

Saganomics:

> Well ladies and gentleman, that's what Men's Rights thinks. There you have it.

http://www.reddit.com/r/sex/comments/168bwu/you_guys_may_hav...

The claim of ImaLamer's post being edited afterwords is difficult to take seriously: Edited posts are marked with an asterisk, which is not present on ImaLamer's post. Also, Saganomics' post happened long after the very brief window when you can edit without an asterisk appearing.
You can piece apart the design of the website all you want but don't decry the books, they're all useful and accredited. I honestly don't see the use (all of you) in critiquing a squarespace template. Do you guys realize that? That it's a cookie cutter template design? Look at the favicon.
Can I ask why you decided to offer an extra $50 to the winners if this is how you feel about Maciej?
I've long wanted a good book that covers design principles in a way similar to how one would introduce a student to calculus, but for graphical design, layout and their interplay with typography.

Most books I've found so far are merely coffee table books: Pages of very nice illustrations, but weak on explaining the theory and principles of applying it to, e.g., a book, poster or website.

Does anybody know of such books? What do serious students of graphic design read? Is the book "Universal principles of design" a good fit?
That used to not be the case with DSL, but about a decade ago the FCC reclassified internet services in such a way that it was no longer the case. The theory was that this would encourage the providers to upgrade the local loop.

[edit] The above was from memory, and it is actually a lot more complicated than that. The decoupling of broadband from voice was challenged in court and the FCC had to change their rules somewhat. I'm not sure what current requirements are. See also:

http://openjurist.org/359/f3d/554/united-states-telecom-asso...

A quick key for reading that: ILEC == people who own the copper CLEC == people who want to use the copper.
"Never speak to police" isn't explicit enough.

In many states, police can ask you to identify yourself. Some states require you to answer this question.

Most states don't require you to provide identification, but some do. It's also a good way to disarm the situation, so many lawyers recommend providing your ID when an officer asks for it.

Beyond this, however, you should only have two things you say:

When the officer stops you:

"Officer, did I do something wrong?"

When the officer asks you any other question besides basic information (name, ID, etc):

"Officer, my lawyer has recommended that I do not answer questions like this. May I go?"

When your Miranda Rights are read:

Say nothing. Obey instructions.
Statis + HAML + Bootstrap = Static Bliss
Could you elaborate on what you mean by substantive vs procedural?
You made it to HN front page so help from twitter is probably on the way.

On the same topic: How do these accounts (including email) get hacked? Does brute force work even with max number of failed logins or what?
How about a Pirate Party?
I, for one, think that print publications have left far too many revenue streams on the table when the going was good, before the advent of Craigslist & Google, even before the blogs of today - Huffington Post & the like - started robbing attention share away from established print outlets.

Print publications were and are notoriously stubborn in many ways. They could have done a dozen things to immunize themselves from the online entrants in the early days. They didn't. Now they're having to deal with the consequence of their arrogance and myopia in ways they've never imagined.
That's something useful that will also keep us from being lazy and hardcoding things when we usually need a config anyway :D
The difference is that The Atlantic is a private company. They aren't obligated to uphold the First Amendment. The MTA is a pseudo-government entity (a New York state public-benefit corporation[1], to be exact) and is (apparently) subject to the First Amendment.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_state_public_benefit_c...
I have been eyeing beego for a while, and will probably give it a try very soon. (well beego hasn't been out for long, but have kept it in my head of web frameworks to try since I've seen it :P)
So what? Freedom of speech and all.

Ignore them and they will go away. That's the best medicine for them
New users, old timers: Please read Hacker News Guidelines. (again)
http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation.

I often don't realize how my words negatively affect others, until someone says something that affects me. Its not that I don't KNOW it, its just that I am not always consciously aware of it. So I think it helps to get a reminder once in a while.

I sometimes go back to reading some of my old online conversations from 12-14 years ago. I always cringe at my writing, English not being my first language. Its still far from perfect, but its a lot better. One of the things that pushed me to better my writing was being berated and made fun of on online forums. But it also led me to a paranoid period where I was genuinely scared of writing any comments or joining a conversation. I would spend 30-60 minutes writing something and then not post it simply because how people might react. I always presume the worst, based on my experience.

Don't get me wrong, HN is a thousand times better than many of the other places online. But it could be better and certainly doesn't hurt to be reminded.
I consider the design of everyday things a good book but I am not sure I would consider it a "must-have". I bought it because someone mentioned it on HN before in the same way ("Must-read") and while I found it insightful, most of the principles were not new to me and I found it poorly written (it could have been MUCH shorter and concise). Some pages are really fillers. That's also why I question its "universal" status, as it is far from being perfect (especially in the later chapters).
I'm reminded of the "Never, ever talk to the police" video from a few years ago, a talk by a defense attorney and a veteran police officer. If you are guilty, innocent, or even just someone who witnessed or reported a crime, talking to the police cannot help you.

For example, Martha Stewart did time of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and making false statements; if she had not spoken to federal investigators, her case might have ended differently.

https://richardbrenneman.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/criminal-l...
Throwing resources at the problem is expensive, and runs into budget problems. Reducing the number of police is politically hard to do. Loosening the laws -- or, as your political opponents will inevitably call it, "being soft on crime" -- is similarly difficult.

The most difficult question here is not what we want to change, but how to change it.
I don't understand why the system works this way. Shouldn't the goal be to achieve justice?

You will never understand any system run by humans unless you understand the incentives that the humans running the system have. And those incentives are rarely what people claim in public.

In theory prosecutors exist to see justice done and the laws of the USA enforced. In practice those laws are passed by politicians to give vested interests (eg the copyright industry) tools to accomplish what they want. And prosecutors in turn are motivated to demonstrate their ability to secure convictions - the more numerous and stricter the better.

We are lead to think that courts are about justice. They are not. They are about creating a predictable (if arcane) set of rules understood by the legal profession. This set of rules is based on a ritual verbal combat. Originally this was a physical combat, and God was supposed to decide. However all vestiges of the actual physical combat have now been lost. (The last case that I'm aware of in any common law jurisdiction where a case was settled by willingness to engage in actual combat is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashford_v_Thornton in 1818.) Ironically many lawyers and justices believe that an adversarial system actually does result in justice, while at the same time studying all of the ways to get the outcome you want regardless of the merits, and acknowledging the advantage that a good lawyer provides.

The whole system is complicated by the fact that it is in theory accountable to the people. And from time to time the people do get upset enough at how things work that we put enough pressures to cause the system to be modified. Thus we create the Constitution, which is supposed to limit power.

However the problem is that the limitations are inconvenient to those in power, so they are inevitably eroded. Thus the ability of Congress to regulate commerce between the states, with the Indian tribes, and with foreign nations eventually becomes the power of Congress to regulate anything that touches on commerce in any way. (Some of the laws that Aaron was charged under were justified in this way.) Your Constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure is too inconvenient, so courts accept that your possessions can be sued, and since you're not being sued, you have no standing to protest as your possessions are seized by the government. (This is not directly relevant to Aaron's case, but it is a travesty.) And, of course, the people cannot protest what they do not know about, so government passes laws directly and indirectly that are not available to the people. For example find me the law or regulation which requires that you show ID in order to get on an airplane - you can't. (This is an issue that Aaron cared deeply about - see the PACER incident.)

Aren't these outrages? They should be. But apparently they are not outrageous enough for the public to try to change them. And so the bar continues to inexorably move in the direction that incentives point insiders towards.

Sorry for the rant. Apparently you hit a nerve that I didn't know I had.
I figured they'd need at least much after he finished screwing with their heads.
>(EDITOR’S NOTE: This post is about government employees stealing money the government itself has stolen, and since it’s about theft, it is a crime with a victim, namely those who put money into the parking meters.)

So this is a radical libertarian (or thereabouts) thing.

Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that. But it's worth noting that it isn't apolitical.
I would like to believe that the responsible adults have now stepped in to clean up the mess caused by some moron in sales being given too much of a free hand.
At the very least for the stimulation, I should suppose.
"Next time you think about saying 'man up', just don't" might be a good lesson to learn from this.

We are here to learn, right?