skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> > Sometimes you have to kill people.

> This is not true.

The position that one must never kill someone else is certainly a defensible position, defended over the centuries by many honorable people. I respect that position. But, even though I have largely pacifist ancestors, I think as a father of a daughter that if the Taliban tried to set up their women-oppressing rule anywhere my daughter might have occasion to live or work, I would oppose them by all means necessary, up to and including lethal force. That's not because forcing women to be covered from head to toe when they go out of their homes is itself a capital crime, but because some Taliban fellow-travelers also commit capital crimes like murdering women who try to teach mothers how to vaccinate their children to keep the children from dying from infectious diseases. I would not be ashamed to kill a baby-killer or woman-murderer.

AFTER EDIT: I will now take time to give a careful lawyer's read to the document (white paper) linked to from the blog post submitted here.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_W...
Can someone explain- is there actually a joke in that ad, aside from "haha the power went out"? Are they doing anything particularly clever, aside from showing that they are really on top of things?
That's just a conspiracy theory.
And who is in charge of labeling people terrorists? What if I decided to label you a terrorist tomorrow because you developed violent video games that poisoned the mind of children? What further steps would I need to take to be able to murder you and get away with it?
Ok, at risk of turning this post into a flame war, I feel I'm obligated to call out what it is:

Ruby devs: stop making excuses!

Security is hard, but there are also a lot of very simple and effective ways to minimize vulnerabilities, e.g. a mere excising of your cerebral cortex for a few minutes before you make a decision is a very good way in preventing security vulnerabilities from being introduced in the first place.

The mere fact of deciding to default to using YAML as the default JSON parser without disabling arbitrary object construction is a mind-numbingly dumb decision. What's more fucked up is the fact that this commit actually made it into the code base, and it's not even a recent decision. Apparently it's been in the code base as far back as the 2.3 days. Basically, thousands and thousands of Rails devs have looked and used this "feature" and believed it's not a bug. This is a systematic and cultural failure and crime against reason perpetrated by the Rails community, which also happens to be a vast majority of the Ruby community. It's time you guys learn some proper security 101.
There is an argument that the zero interest rate policy and quantitative easing helps banks who are technically insolvent, at the expense of prudent savers like pensioners.
With a little brush-up, this has the potential of being the next The Onion News Network. Great job, and I like where this is going.
Unfortunate automatic URL generation.
If you're going to say that terrorists can be killed without judicial overview, which I think you have to

I vehemently disagree: You don't have to think that terrorists can be killed without judicial overview. I'm also willing to bet I'm not alone, and am curious about why you think the opposite.
I'm sorry to be callous, but at this point I feel little pity for someone still buying domains through GoDaddy. It is a terrible company with terrible policies, terrible management, and a horribly misogynistic marketing team. Why are you continuing to pay them rent on your domains?
Firefox has as full DataChannel implementation (SCTP-based), while Chrome has a partial one (RTP-based). They don't interoperate yet. I implemented most of the partial implementation and am working on the full implementation now.

I'm glad that you're excited about them. I am too. I hope to have it ready for you soon :).
Ha! But shouldn't they be going at each others throats for the best competition?

In any case it's nice to see friendly rivals compared to microsoft.
Outwardly, it looks democratic, but the democratic principle rests on a limitation of power.

No, democracy is unlimited power by the majority.

A constitutional republic is a system that allows the majority to exercise power within a restricted scope.

EDIT: I completely agree with your point, though. It probably _is_ too late, but for it to not be too late, people have to learn what's what. And for that to happen, people need to understand what a democracy is and why it's not the right solution.
5% for an engineering guy? How many employees could they hire before they run out of shares?
Women were fired to make room for returning soldiers and veterans because of male privilege, not because of "soldier privilege", certainly.
Without reading the memo (only the linked article), wouldn't top Al Qa'ida operatives be classified as traitors and enemies of the state? (Maybe that's the legal angle expressed in the memo.) Within the country's borders, the government kills its citizens all of the time when the judgement is made that the suspect represents and immediate threat to the safety and well-being of others (see: hostage situations and police shootouts). Otherwise, the state's decision to end someone's life is a long and arduous process filled with courts and laws and appeals (and rightly so!).
I've used everyone from 1and1, GoDaddy, NetworkSolutions, and eNom as registrars. Most of these guys have cluttered slow interfaces which are painful to use.

I've most recently become a fan of Hover.com ( https://hover.com/hH8tN94H ). NameCheap.com, Name.com, and Gandi.net are also decent alternatives.
Read the paper. The issue is not "potential terrorist" but rather swearing allegiance to Al Qaida, between whom and the United States there exists a present state of armed conflict. The US is not in a state of armed conflict with OWS.

Also note that the application here is with regard to US citizens outside the US - picture someone training terrorists in a cave in Afghanistan, not someone camping on the streets of New York.
caffeinewriter, thinks for your feedback. At this point, we haven't really put too many thoughts on header design yet - the idea is to get something out acap to show our core concept, which is a channel-story matrix of news videos from professional agencies, supported by an auto-human process. That said, we agree it is important and needs to be addressed.

Responsive page design is on our to-do list, but may not come very soon, as our current top priority is
- expand news video supply through automation, and
- enhance personalization capabilities

I hope you like our mobile site, which works well on IPHONE, but has some issues with some Androids.
Groups like Al Qaeda are launching a military, not criminal campaign of violence against the West. It warrants a military response. Patton wasn't rounding up Nazis and delivering them to district attorneys in France; he was shooting them. That's the fundamental difference between military and criminal actions. AQ is not a criminal organization. They're a paramilitary group that has declared war on a state, and they should be treated as such.
Downvote the parent if you must, but it is not untrue. A defining characteristic of fascism is unchecked executive power, and this is the case here.

There are no checks and balances here. The US intelligence apparatus has justified killing its own citizens without judicial or legislative oversight, at the sole discretion of the executive.

As uncomfortable as it may be to point out, that is fascism.
Isn't this inspired from http://www.ebay.com/new ?
If this is all just standard rules of engagement, then why is such a memo necessary?

These are very plainly executions.
To play devil's advocate the reason would be if the terrorist could otherwise not be captured or detained without serious risk to American lives. The problem is that it's hard to trust the executive to not push the limits of what this means.
Because it's a military, not criminal issue. Al Qaeda is not the Mafia or the Triads; they're a paramilitary group that has declared war on the West. They warrant a military response.
I think it was mostly viral due to the speed at which the ad was placed. I think it was something around just a few minutes, which for a major brand, is insanely impressive.
This isn't the outrage. The AUMF, which fairly elected US legislators enacted, and this white paper simply attempts to interpret, is. What's it been, 11 years now? We've always been at war with Oceania.
It's not quite that simple. We (I work with the Chrome team) have an RTP-based data channel (sort of what you call "tunnel through the video" already in Chrome), but it provides no congestion control or reliability. To provide those, the IETF has proposed as the standard to use SCTP. Firefox has already integrated SCTP into their implementation, and we're working to get it into Chrome. So, you can start using the API now, but it'll get much better soon.
Killing "terrorists" (whatever that word means) without judicial oversight is counter to the idea of due process.

It's something a lot of people rightfully disagree with.
I'm curious if people actually have more of a problem with this than invading Iraq which caused the death of thousands if not millions of innocents. Now history is being rewritten that Iraq was okay. Why are American citizens more important than thousands of innocent Iraqis?

We should be protesting war in all forms, not just assassinations.

But we're going to have enough problems domestically in a few years with drones everywhere.
If you aren't sure what the "-<x>" flag does for a particular command, but you are a competent Unix user, you should be fine with the man page or 10 seconds of Google. If you aren't used to Unix, then I think it's dangerous to expect the verbose flags to explain things simply to you. For example, what would --mmap or --null-data mean to you in the context of the grep command? Are they immediately obvious?
We have to weigh this kind of thing against the fact that if you do business with GoDaddy, there's a good chance an internationally famous supermodel will suck mouth with you for 30 seconds on national television.
Well, in a conventional, declared war (e.g. World War II), enemy soldiers can be killed without judicial oversight.

So how do you translate that to fighting Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups? Not so easy. But the obvious way is to treat them as enemy soldiers in a conventional war.
I'm currently taking the Single Variable Calculus by Professor Ghrist from uPenn, and I think it hits all the correct notes:

- Prof G and several of his TAs are in the forums. If you post a good or interesting question, they will show up and offer an answer.

- The class is incredibly complete: way more complete and self-contained than any other MOOC that I have tried. Prof B is incredibly knowledgeable and quirky to say the least.

- With the above said, the class demands a ton of self-study, but it is backed up with a lot of homeworks. Each lecture has a hw associated with it. They do have an attitude that you must struggle with the material and keep doing it over and over until you get the questions right and it starts to become second-nature. They pull this off by never giving answers to hw's.

- Despite the attitude with the hw, they have given amazingly complete answers to Exam 1 and Exam 2

- They offered a diagnostic exam before you start. This would let you know right away if this class will beyond your head.

- They really put some time into the class. The entire course is beautifully hand-drawn and I think the professor said that the drawings alone took 1200 hours or so. If you add in the Exams, hw, and the exam answers, there must be something like 1500 hours committed to making this course great.

I'm not entirely sure what to think of the grading:

4 Exams at 5% of the grade each
Final = 80% of the grade.

I sort of like it because it gives you a bit of room to screw up and recover, but it is definitely shattering to do bad on an exam and start worrying about how bad the final may turn out. It is an interesting way to encourage you to take the work.
It does cost a fortune to run. Considering every case meticulously on a case by case basis is exactly what they should be doing. That is not an idealistic expectation, it is a realistic one.

To have an effect, condemnation has to be of sufficient magnitude, such that the problem is acknowledged and recognized. It has to be necessarily grandiose in its nature. Given that you agree that the system is not fine, and can improve, where does your contention lie? How can you deny a problem from being recognized if you wish to solve it?
Actively firing a qualified employee because of bigotry versus never hiring a qualified employee because of bigotry? They're both terrible, but that poster was just clarifying the terminology.
I think your suggestions are good. I've found that the weakest element of Coursera courses were discussion. Even with heroic efforts of the volunteer tutors, the forums still end up cluttered and confusing.

For this person to come in and try to push everything towards a student centric approach is... scary... Student interaction is what has traditionally had the most trouble scaling. Assigning teams via Google Docs wouldn't have worked for most large sized university classes, let alone a class of thousands.

Coursera now has a major issue: universities now understand that a publicly (spectacularly) failed course can tarnish the university's image.

I know a number of professors in academia and the university bureaucracy is what they're constantly fighting. The bureaucracy kills off innovation and hates taking risks. I fear many professors will not be allowed to teach from Coursera or similar MOOC platforms due to the possibility of damaging the university's public standing. This was already an issue before, considering these MOOCs don't directly benefit the university and could in fact be lowering their revenue (i.e. distance based learning).

The failure of this online course could have a far wider impact than just annoying 40,000 Coursera students.
We got used to it.

Give it a few more generations and we will completely forgot what it was like pre-9/11. In 7 year more years ask any 18 year old what their world view is and I imagine it would be completely detached from the reality we grew up with. So it is.

Obama owes Bush Admin a great debt for the expanded executive powers over the years. A lot of Obama supporters back in 2008 had an erroneous belief that once in office Obama would return the balance of power, instead he opted to protect it as well as not pursue prosecution of acts of torture from the previous administration. Maybe that's just the kind of big boy pants decisions that need to be made for the sake "national security" or maybe it's just the leeway required to operate in a post-9/11 world.

Who knows, I'm just a computer nerd, not a poliwonk.

And if we're going to be fantasy quarterbacking maybe at the end of 2016 Obama will leave the office emancipating every inch that were taken in the past two decades, decriminalize, and fully end the global war on terror. That's some Abraham Lincoln level stuff right there.
Is Randall Munroe a Unix user after 15 years of using it?

http://xkcd.com/1168/
By your qualification, youtube, facebook, twitter, instagram, yahoo, pinterest, skype, tumblr, google and more, would not have been considered 'startups' because none of them had a business model at the time they were created.
I looked once the game had come back up- the tweet had been retweeted around 6,000 times. That's not actually that successful- it seems like the media are talking about it a lot more than people are.
Excellent! That means we're done and can wrap this whole thing up then:

"We achieved our central goal … or have come very close to achieving our central goal, which is to de-capacitate al-Qaeda, to dismantle them, to make sure that they can’t attack us again." -Barack Obama (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/12/us-obama-afghanist...)
How do you believe the police should have handled the Sandy Hook gunman?
Last weekend my domain was up for auto-renewal with GoDaddy but my credit card had expired so they switched the domain over to a GoDaddy landing page. I wasn't exactly pleased to see my blog replaced with ads. Fortunately there's an ICANN renewal grace period, so I didn't lose the domain and was able to switch it over to Namecheap.
Good to hear.

Out of curiosity - do you mean that you're writing a full SCTP-based implementation, or completing the RTP-based one? The standard draft specifies SCTP, right?

edit: this was addressed in another post.
Programming Technique - Recusion in Java with Example
How to Get a Job at an Early Stage Startup: Non-Technical Version
>> Hustling = passion + ability to sell yourself. No degree required

Wow, inspiring writing, I agree too with the footnote that was attached, paraphrasing; this works in the computer industry. I think the reason why is that it's easy for the human mind to comprehend being a doctor, lawyer, scientist, etc. It's hard to contemplate wanting to actually do programming. The general populace just doesn't get it; those who do, can't imagine doing anything else. Even if it's not programming, just working with and through computers to see ideas come to light.
Real-Time Chat Using Dynamic Animated Images
You're not being callous at all. There are some companies that are known to frequently mistreat customers and have harmful policies. Any halfway savvy user (which OP appears to be) should know this and it's unfortunate when they get burned. It's even more unfortunate when a less technically literate person gets screwed by GoDaddy.

Having said this, I'm super happy OP wrote this. We should not forget that yesterday's GoDaddy is the same as today's GoDaddy. I really feel for OP, and I know how it's easy to feel as though bad stuff only happens to other people, but my hope is that posts like this will continue and the beast will starve.

I suspect that GoDaddy will begin to employ the same tactics Nigerian scammers do in order to weed out the savvy customers with blogs, and will try to ensnare technically illiterate people with credit cards.
So you don't like welfare, and you associate it with dictators for some reason, and it will look like democracy but really be something else, and some unspecified drastic action must be taken because after that all opposition will be snuffed.

It should be interesting that you have laid out a set of propositions which could persuade people to overthrow a democracy with violence (after all, it's not a real democracy and after all, if we don't stop it then THEY will snuff US, so we had better act first hadn't we?)

Be careful about who you support, if you build a machine to overthrow the government you might get more than you bargained for from that powerful new machine.
It's true that the audio, video, and data are all encrypted. But it's not the case that you can send audio and video over the data channel. Well, you could send audio and video data, but there's no way to pipe audio and video data into the data channel. That's an interesting idea, but it would probably take a long time to figure out and become part of the standard, if it ever happened at all. We'd probably need a worthwhile use case to justify it.
Just because Hitler killed himself doesn't mean you don't shoot back at the soldiers defending Berlin.
No, actually, that's not what facism means. Facism is a specific type of authoritative power structure almost always involving mass indoctrination of citizens into forming a unified movement via heavy nationalistic propaganda themed around a "vitalization" or "rebirth" of the nation state.

In other words, authoritative governments indiscriminately killing people, while not good, is not a defining measure of fascism. In more broad terms, "things that I think are evil" are not either.
My age probably shows in this statement, but it seems odd to me to suggest that someone else change their behaviour so the poster does not have to rtfm. We're coders. When we don't understand something, we read the manual, then the source.
Nobody claimed he was a saint, not that I know of. What they said was that he was a hacktivist and broke the law in protest of it being unfair. He found a loophole by using a closet at MIT to download JSTOR data behind an MIT IP address and kept changing his MAC address when they banned his old MAC address.

Some of you run a script that automatically changes your MAC address every time you reboot your system, apparently that is a crime how.

Google runs a web robot that scrapes content, no different than what Aaron wrote to scrap JSTOR articles.

The only real difference is that Aaron did not ask JSTOR for permission to download content. How many of you use Bit Torrent to download files without permission?

It is not so much that Aaron was innocent and a saint, he was not, it is more the case of they tried to make an example out of him and bullied and harassed him and brought outrageous punishments to him that far exceed his crimes.

The man was bullied and harassed by lawyers until he killed himself. You got cases of teenagers doing that to other teenagers over the Internet and call the bullies as murderers. But if a lawyer does it to a defendant it is not considered a murder, is it? Well maybe it should be?
Who should be killed without judicial overview?
Is it really that fair to describe this as "Obama's rules"? They were prepared by the Office of Legal Counsel, after all.

In any case, good to see this out there- it appears that the New York Times brought a court case to release these papers but were unsuccessful.
> Just because a door is unlocked doesn't mean you have the right to enter someone's home.

I didn't mention rights. I am simply pointing out that if you want to remove the risk of someone entering your home because the door was unlocked, then it might be better to make someone responsible to lock the door in your house than going through some legal process to remove the person from your house.

In fact, if the act of the person accidentally walking into your house, though an unlocked door, resulted in extreme embarrassment to yourself, then you may also be inclined to use/extend/take advantage of the legal system to hide that embarrassment.
Hi,

This was really good feedback, we are definitely working on a better design and this will really help with the development of it. We have been working on making it clearer in what we are doing.

I love the critical feedback really helps us build out our idea in the best way possible. Will be using all of your feedback to our advantage.

Thanks,
Steve
It doesn't matter how many times it mentions the fourth and fifth amendments if these powers of the executive branch are checked only by the executive branch.

There's nothing actually stopping them from overriding the fourth or fifth amendment unless there is public or judicial oversight. And if you give someone power, they will eventually use it for an unintended purpose.
In this case, you are right. I made my earlier comment before reading the actual paper, and the paper makes it pretty clear that they are not talking about "terrorists" but "Senior members of Al-Qaeda and Associates."

So yes, I can see why such a response is necessary. I guess now the issue falls specifically on the wording of the issue. Terrorist can really mean anything and are we on a "slippery slope" where the President is being given power to assassinate any citizen he can label?
I hope not, if the family of any criminal out there could get policemen jailed for doing their job, there soon won't be much policemen left.