skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Also of note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_rights#Application_of_t...

It's only necessary to mirandize someone prior to interrogation, it does not have to happen immediately at the point of apprehension.

Additionally, there are some reports that Tsarnaev was, in fact, mirandized when he was taken into custody.

As an aside, I find it ridiculous that anyone is wanting to treat this suspect as an "enemy combatant". What possible advantage is there to that? What legal justification? My take is that people want to short circuit the justice system and I find it appalling that such a tendency is even remotely commonplace.
He's a wise man, a spiritual leader. The Power of Now is a mind-melter.
The whole of objective reality.
DMCA notices can only be used to allege copyright infringement, not violation of the anticircumvention rules. If SE was delivered a DMCA notice, it was over the images or text in the post infringing some copyright, not the nature of their content.

While they're technically both part of the same bill, the safe harbor system (Title II, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act) is totally separate from the anticircumvention stuff (Title I, WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act).
I don't know, haven't we? An entire city shut down, militarized police systematically searching wide swaths of civilian homes, all to look for a guy who caused fewer deaths than a botched bank robbery, a highway pileup, or a hospital MRSA outbreak? Focusing on the loss is fine and appropriate but it's precisely when we focus elsewhere that we lose sight of how utterly over-the-top some of our societal reactions are and will continue to be.

I've been in Colombia when some government buildings were destroyed by FARC bombs. People died, each one was a tragedy, but cities weren't shut down and society didn't let itself be overcome with fear. That's not to say they accepted that violence as OK; but the response was (and continues to be, as the FARC are still sometimes active here) very different.
You don't know that at all. There is no control to that experiment. What you have is an opinion.
People become editors at book companies not because they can write, but because they know how others should.

I'm confident few of the Engineers for F1 racing are spectacular drivers.

I know my PE teacher couldn't touch his toes.
Double magazine pouches for concealed carry are not exactly a niche product. I would wager there are tens of thousands of Americans who pack a medium frame pistol and two spare mags.
One could just as easily quote Biblical passages which promote violence as one might from the Qur'an.
"Why don't these companies have a scientific strategy running alongside your product/customer/marketing/financial strategies?"

Why would you devote any pretense of research and the associated costs if your customers don't care? Investors don't care as long as the money is flowing in and our regulatory agencies are toothless to deal with "health" product scammers.
This is the precise attitude GP is railing against.

Are you seriously tabling the notion that "gee, hundreds of Americans will die in car accidents today, oh well" is even in the same universe as "gee, I think I should drop a bomb in the middle of a crowd"?

The difference here is as wide as the ocean, it is anything but academic.

And this is why some arguments cannot be taken seriously. No one is saying that car accidents, heart disease, and cancer shouldn't be Big Deals, but to say that being idle in these matters is tantamount to mass murder is how you get people to stop taking you seriously.
Air Jordan 3 Joker Night Vision Retro Black Green Mens Cheap for Sale
I didn't realize that you had started so recently. I appreciate that patents and papers take time to produce.

I am trying to be helpful when I say that for a company that produces language processing technology, your customer-facing content shows a strange disregard for language. If your writing does not demonstrate that you have mastered English grammar, why should I believe that your software has?
> Welcome to modern physics, where physicists do unfalsifiable and imprecise things based on bad philosophy. Anything goes as long as it gets you attention anywhere.

Thank you! I've been saying that for a long time, but much less eloquently.
This makes me lose faith in half of humanity
This seems remarkably similar to Jeff Hawkins' memory-prediction framework theory of the brain in his seminal work, On Intelligence[1].

[1]: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B000GQLCVE/
This seems remarkably similar to Jeff Hawkins' memory-prediction framework theory of the brain in his seminal work, On Intelligence.
I hope this means NPR will stop pimping this garbage during their pledge drives (a $450 value) and lending what little credibility they have left to junk science. It is genuinely something that puts me off pledging... It just reminds me of their general decline in standards and terrible science reportage... And funnily enough since I stopped pledging I stopped listening pretty much, just catch it occasionally at the parents, but i digress.

I suppose the broader point I'm trying to make is they won't have to change as it is hardly like there's any scientifically literate mainstream media to hold them to account, and they've bought off the public media alternative.
If this were allowed, I could forsee a scenario in which someone receives 1 packet from a fake source address and proceeds to DDoS that address into oblivion while being legally protected...
When a company does something like this, whether or not the claims/criticisms are actually true, their actions tacitly imply that they believe that the claims are true. In other words, terrible PR/technical brand management.
Coinbase Database leak
The market for paid iOS apps isn’t dead
You're taking RMS's statement out of context. His point was that we not allow fear to overwhelm our senses so that we trade individual rights for security in police states, saying:

"Every death or injury is a sad thing, but the fact is that many happen every day, and we should not let these few upset us disproportionally more than the others. Let's make an effort not to get bent out of shape about them, so that we can resist when people try to cite them as an excuse for tyranny."

You're picking out his statement of proportionality as some sort of logical flaw in his argument, but you're completely missing the main point.
> Logic dictates you need to start with the higher probability safety issues and start working down so long as a mitigation strategy exists for each type of event.

This seems to hinge on the assumption that we should value our lives infinitely. This isn't particularly logical, however, given the fact that most people do dangerous things. If you are like most people, you probably want to maximize your total happiness over the course of your life, regardless of how long it is. Would you rather be miserable and live to be 80, or live happily until 50?

So if the cost of mitigating such an event happening results in a lower expected net happiness than the cost of of the event happening (including all future happiness) multiplied by the probability of it happening, it would make logical sense to not attempt to mitigate it.
What you're implying is extremely insulting.
(1) it's clear that the regulatory agencies are gunning up to get more involved in "digital health" products which make healthcare claims and (2) it depends who your customers are. If you're only selling to b2c and can afford to never make healthcare claims then you're absolutely right. If you ever want to sell b2b (which is where healthcare dollars are at) then you'll need more.
Well, it's an online opt-in survey so you have to keep that in mind. Also, they didn't directly poll on the question of background checks, which is the subject that gets the 80 - 90% approval rating in other polls. Instead they asked about the effect of "currently proposed White House legislation" and got a much different result.
Yea I think you would have to include that, its obviously a very complex situation and next to impossible because it requires a lot of uncertainties if you were to try to base a decision purely on monetary value of a life.
Silencers aren't illegal at all.

And really the proper term is sound suppressor, they're far from silent.
Brace yourselves for some posts in the next days...

* "How I've been living with my mail server at home for six months"

* "Yahoo pushed for the use of technology INSERT_TECHNOLOGY_NAME and now they're trying to kill it by closing INSERT_SERVICE_NAME!"

* "Yahoo INSERT_SERVICE_NAME is closing, use INSERT_APP_NAME-ly to replace it (and import your current configuration)."

* "Show HN: This weekend I built an app to replace INSERT_SERVICE_NAME. It will never close, I promise."
You appear to be somebody who slanders random people you know nothing about, makes medical diagnoses you aren't qualified to make, indulges in lazy, stereotype driven thinking, and lacks the interest or ability to contribute anything meaningful to an otherwise interesting discussion. So I guess that makes us even?
My response to Richard Stallman
That isn't the kind of gun violence these emotional responses are trying to stop, though. Situations like Boston and Connecticut are planned incidents. They don't use silencers for the reasons you list because they aren't trying to conceal their crimes, they just want to kill as many people as possible, and silencers hurt accuracy.

People just ignore the slaughter of spouses and mass murder of the destitute on the streets in favor of only focusing on shooting sprees.

The emotional rage murder would be culled by stricter gun laws, but gangs and mass shooters will just go to underground channels to get their armaments if they can't try to get them legally.
I own guns. My parents own guns. My brother owns guns.my cousin owns 15+ guns and is a police officer. My girlfriends father owns guns. Some of us belong to the NRA. My brother and cousin going shooting a couple times a month. In some cases, we own guns that would be banned under a lot of gun control laws. My cousins response to Newton was to buy an AR15.

Yet we all support background checks. I don't find the 90% number hard to believe at all.
How do we determine whether this is real, or a hoax? Can anyone suggest an experiment that doesn't involve paying 0.25 BTC?
> That is still not precise enough to be used in a rigorous analysis.

I think that is a precise definition of "double spend" in bitcoin. Do you agree with that definition?

As for all the other stuff you're talking about re: polynomial algorithms, collusion, etc.... I am just puzzled that you are bringing all that stuff up. It is widely known that bitcoin is resilient to any attempt to double-spend unless there is a coordinated attack by greater than 50% of the total hashing power. And double-spend is the _only_ attack at the distributed algorithm level.

Can you comment on the above paragraph? I mean, were you not aware of the 50% issue, or were you aware of it but have a problem with it? And do you agree that double-spend is the only kind of attack at the algorithmic level?

Of course, there is always DDoSing the peers at the protocol layer, and stuff like that, but I think we can agree that that is not what we are interested in discussing.

And then there is the crypto level, which you bring up by mentioning ElGamal. Bitcoin uses ECDSA, but only for signing; nothing is encrypted. So one can talk about whether ECDSA is breakable, but I'm not losing any sleep over it, personally.
As terrorists, these guys sucked. The Swedish guy, even the Columbine schoolboys had a much higher body count.

Still, in economic cost, it was a creditable effort, not on the level of 9/11 but not bad, for two presumed amateurs to shut down Boston for a day.

When you do that, you're giving these guys a lot of power.

Imagine if London had shut down every time there were IRA attackers on the loose.

One comes to expect an extremist point of view from RMS, but I find myself mostly agreeing. What the victims experienced is heartbreaking, and we should honor them by catching the bad guys, and also finding ways to make ourselves more resilient.
Just think, these guys could do for human behavior what Newton did for chemistry, Kelvin for geology, Seitz for oncology, Fomenko for history and what a number of other physicists have attempted to do for climate science.
Criminals don't have suppressors because they are a novelty and any gun-owner understands this.
While intent does matter, the consequence is still the same. People die. Therefore, we should devote effort to reducing incidents of death, no matter what is the cause.

People who kill others intentionally are going to be treated differently than those who ignore basic safety precaution, as a matter of justice. But we must still pay attention to the magnitude of tragedy when it comes to allocating money to reduce probability of death incidents.

That mean, if car accidents kill more than terrorists each year, there should be more money on accident prevention.
His point was that there are better things in life to worry about. An example is chemical plants.

To paraphrase his letter -- your actions should not change based on the events these past few days. Decisions should be made off of data and actual potential to harm, not on what happens to be scary at the time.
The challenge with the website is saying things in such a way that we don't scare off the non-technical, and still appeal to the technical.

All cards on the table, there is a lot of discussion internally about who we are writing for. The result is we get a mish-mash of copy from Engineering and Marketing.

The PDF I linked to is much better because those were targeted to Engineering managers. The website still doesn't know who it is targeting. http://www.tldrstuff.com knows its audience it sucks much less.
Rise in U.S. Gas Production Fuels Unexpected Plunge in Emissions
That's a pretty novel idea, which would probably be appreciated by the (small) community of people who have a problem with the "deflationary" nature of bitcoins and are actually interested in doing bitcoin forks.
Do you actually believe this crap as stated, or were you going to go back and add "and Judaism and Christianity" to that "Islam is a terror religion" stuff you were spewing?

It's the Old Testament that's the terror religion, whether as practiced by Mohammed or by Moses or by the Crusaders.

And Moslems react when they think their religion is under attack just like Christians do. Have a look at some of the IRA types who were into butchering Irish Protestants. They were "defending" the Catholics in their minds.

It's not "kill the infidels to get into heaven". The religion is merely the language they use to frame the real motivation, which can be defensiveness, reaction, or even sheer prejudice.

And not all the bombers are loonies, by the way, not even the suicidal ones. If the official story so far is correct, the Boston two seem to be good planners with a healthy sense of self-preservation.
Heh, no idea what it was.

Update: wow. WTF is this? :-)

Thanks for all the upvotes...
Now let the Streisand effect do its work...

(I made a snapshot of the page from Google's cache only to discover that at least two others used the very same service within the last hour to do exactly the same...and there are a few services to snapshot web pages.)
Your example is situational, and also doesn't come close to his argument.

The super-parent argument is that the loss of life in the immediate is shallow compared to the inevitable loss of life from the loss of liberty and rise of tyrrany in the name of security.

If people are on the train, condemning many to die for one is never the right decision. If the train is unmanned (assumed if there is no conductor to manage it) you are trying to minimize loss of life, so of course you divert the train and just lose some resources in the crash. That example just doesn't make sense.
making the case that the chemical plant owners willfully ignored employee safety in the name of profit;

No, that's not what he said. He said more people were killed in the "Texas explosion" he hasn't mentioned anything about the cause other than maybe imply that it was not related to terrorism. He also hasn't maligned the plant owners, but rather suggested that technology might be employed to prevent it from occurring in the same manner again, and that the resources we spend on terrorism and the freedom we've sacrificed might be better spent in other ways.
Well, he is a complicated figure.
You're confusing law for the court of public opinion. They are two entirely separate (and mostly unrelated) things.
>any more than I lose sleep over having my mail opened.

You know, that does bother some people.

Are you bothered with having your incoming and outgoing mail checked for un-approved messages and then having those thrown away?
Ultimate DVD Player Software for Mac
DVDFab Mac Blu-ray Player, with its robust DVD and Blu-ray playback functionalities, is definitely your right choice if you’re looking for an ultimate DVD player software for Mac. It can freely and smoothly play any newly released DVDs or your old DVD collection, with fantastic effect and complete DVD control feature. Next is a simple tutorial about how to use it to play DVD on your Mac, please follow me to have a look at this professional Mac DVD player software.
That's a good question, but in this case they're both software engineer domains. Apple does run some pretty successful online services, like the iTunes and app stores. If your theory were true they wouldn't be able to do that. Clearly they do have more problems with services than software/hardware. But that could be a function of the people at the top, not the management process, which but most accounts is minimal.
Often these trivial laws are passed in order to be catch alls. You might get off on a technicality of a murder charge, but they get you for the illegal silencer.

Remember, they got Al Capone on income tax violations.
This justifies another book: "The Real Jobs by The Real People"
Nobody ever said that we will regulate our way to a perfect society. Nobody said that every business owner is a greedy, evil, soul-sucking bastard.

But maybe, just maybe, added regulation doesn't need to hurt the honest business owners, and can be used to keep those whose ethics may be a little more sketchy in check.
Google cache of question in...question (lol): http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:FYBbAFU...
> There is no expectation of danger while spectating at the Boston Marathon.

You are in the presence of many other human beings. You are always in a present state of danger around everyone, ever. It is naive to think you can predict the actions of others.

I'm not saying be paranoid, I'm saying treat people like people and not faces in a crowd. You don't know their intentions with rare exception to those you actually know.
Yet here's rms doing his thing, making the case that the chemical plant owners willfully ignored employee safety in the name of profit.

That is an argument that's not supported by the text.

The point that Stallman is making, as I see it, is to be concerned about overspending (and sacrificing freedoms) on rare salient threats, while neglecting more commonplace but more dangerous sources of danger like chemical plants and car accidents.

As a matter of public policy I could not agree more with Stallman here. For more information on this line of argument I'd recommend reading Bruce Schneier, who makes the point passionately and with authority.
feeling a need for self-gratification i see...
I can't figure out how to get to the red shed :-/
Because one day it might be you who doesn't get read their rights.
Agree with your first paragraph. I definitely think we should devote effort to reducing incidence of death, no matter the cause.

Couldn't agree less with the remainder, because you are comparing car accidents and terrorism, which I specifically said is impossible to do; there is no comparison remotely possible between automotive accidents and terrorism.
Yes, and I guess I could have verbalized it more, but it seems like that need (to verbalize) appears every time anything like this is mentioned. So maybe the verbalization is not so important after all.
This is very stupid.

The guy who goes to deliberately kill a bunch of people by bombing is probably very much not a sociopath, because a sociopath is someone who sees other people as expendable.

That matches the psychology of someone who doesn't give a shit. Which is your corporate CEO who didn't give a damn about the risks of the chemical plant.

A terrorist bomber may very well care deeply. He might be motivated by hatred. He may be motivated by vengeance. He may think his victims really have it coming to them. He may in fact be the exact opposite of a sociopath.
> How can you rule out someone computing a longer block chain, when doing so involves simply duplicating the work done by the rest of the parties in the system? What actually stops someone from doing this?

I responded to another comment from you elsewhere, and I hate to confuse things by having one conversation in two places, but this is a really good question, and there is a straightforward answer.

To make a longer blockchain, you have to have enough computing power to "catch up" to all the other people mining bitcoins, and then mine faster than they are. So, you have to have > 50% of the total hashing power.

If you look into the mining "business," I think you will become convinced that only a nation-state or maybe Google could perform this kind of attack right now, and once ASIC mining technology is widely diffused, even that would be difficult.

The "6 confirmations" thing the grandparent said is kind of arbitrary, but that is the number of blocks that bitcoin devs widely agree is enough to wait before you can be "effectively certain" that your transaction is in the longest block chain, and always will be. So that's how long you wait before handing over the keys when somebody purchases your mega-yacht with bitcoin.

By "kind of arbitrary" I mean, in the context grandparent used it. If you do the math (as is given somewhere near the end of the bitcoin white paper), that is where you start approaching a 0% chance of the transaction not ending up in the longest chain.
This main point is ridiculous. Our response to deaths should scale exactly proportionately to the number? I shouldn't let the death of a friend upset me disproportionately more than the death of a stranger?

A reasonable statement would have been, "Let's not let these deaths be cited as an excuse for tyranny." But what he said was more along the lines of, "Let's not be very upset about these deaths, because then they will be used as an excuse for tyranny." Why should we let the government's supposed tendency towards tyranny influence our emotional reactions to the deaths of friends and colleagues? Instead, let's react however is natural to these deaths, and at the same time ensure that we don't stand for fear-mongering and security theater.
Quite a few. It puts food on my table.... :)