skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Right. If the attack vector is "break SSL" I'm going to try some other attacks first. There's an underlying assumption in the question: my app (and everything else hosted on the box) is safe from XSS, CSRF, injections, and other information leakages. Is it really? How do I know for sure?

And who's to say that your forum server (for example) is just as secure? That could be a foothold into your environment too. And let's not forget social manipulation of your staff and users. Maybe I'll just steal the machine in question, or your laptop.

After I try all those avenues, I'm either finding another target or ramping up for a protracted attack on your SSL connections.

If your site attracts this dedicated of an attack, you'd better get that high paid security consultant. ;)
You have never heard such pronouncements? Pretty much every foreign policy speech by an American president involves talk of spreading freedom and democracy. Here for example is President Bush in 2005: 'Bush, putting Mubarak on the spot, delineated what he would consider acceptable conditions for elections in Egypt: "freedom of assembly, multiple candidates, free access by those candidates to the media and the right to form political parties."' http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16510-2005Mar...

Here are some Obama quotes from recent State of the Union speeches: "We will reward good governance, work to reduce corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans -- men and women alike." (2010) "In the Middle East, we will stand with citizens as they demand their universal rights, and support stable transitions to democracy." (2013)
The answer is no, but I forget the exact reason why. Will do a little more research and report back.
I have lived in the UK for some time, too. I can only tell about the Tube and regional train services in South-East England and those were quite alright back then (roughly 10 years ago), though not exactly better than German regional train services either.
It is the effect of making the example as short as possible. The price one pays is that it becomes pointless/silly (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11704406/whats-the-point-...).

In C++, the keyword 'virtual' can be used to introduce a new virtual member function and to re-assert that a member function is virtual (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4895294/c-virtual-keyword...). Using 'final virtual' only makes sense for the second use, but is legal in the first context because of the re-use of the 'virtual' keyword.
This is the greatest innovation since Virtudyne's "The Digital Donkey" [1] — which is a parody of SimIndiana [2]. There really have been donkey cart driven libraries. [3]

Of course, there really have been projects that used balloons in the upper atmosphere. It is actually difficult to maintain a balloon at a constant altitude in the upper atmosphere because you have to account for daily temperature variation and changing wind patterns. The most famous project of this sort was Project Mogul[4], which attempted to put a balloon in the atmosphere's analogue of the SOFAR channel to listen for anything that sounded like a nuclear test in the Soviet Union. One of the Project Mogul balloons crash landed in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947. The government's cover story was that it was a "weather balloon", which of course, it wasn't. But it wasn't an alien spaceship, either.

[1]: http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Virtudyne_0x3a__The_Digital_...

[2]: http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2004/040707b.html

[3]: http://archive.ifla.org/V/press/pr0225-02.htm

[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mogul
I took a look at your reviews. But can you clarify what you mean with "mishandles symbolic links"? Thank you.
The best I could do after a lot of searching (lots of books with pirate in the title):
http://www.amazon.com/Pirate-Cinema-Cory-Doctorow/dp/0765329...

Your description sounds good. This book doesn't sound that good but it is future England, has to do with computers has pirate in the title.
Benefits of the Cisco "top of rack" design
It is completely relevant. The ancestor post was making the argument that we already have a minimal support system in the USA that anyone can take advantage of a pursue their dreams. They just need to take food-stamps/etc. This doesn't seem to be working so instead, we need to give them $30k/year.

My point is that we aren't even providing minimal life support to everyone yet, so to say that it has failed is premature.

Show me a system where healthy food is accessible and free, and safe housing is also accessible, convenient and free where people are still struggling to invest and improve their situation and then I will believe that it doesn't work.
Chrome is different enough from Safari that I wouldn't want to deal with teaching it to a 90 year old.
Are you sure you use JSONP properly?
docopt is quite nice, but it makes it almost too easy to generate highly complex argument options. Favor instead a few separate commands with simpler options.

As a very simple example, in unix we have separate 'cp' and 'mv' commands rather than a '--remove-source-file' option to 'cp'
It's not a repost, pg didn't publish this until now.
Nonvirtual functions are effectively always final; if you have a pointer to a Foo which has a nonvirtual member function Bar, then you will always call Foo::Bar even if the thing being pointed to is actually an instance of a subclass that defines its own Bar member function.

Using final without a base class only makes sense if you don't actually want virtual semantics but specifically need the function to be in the vtable for some reason (such as for COM).
> another worry is that what is considered secure today might not be secure tomorrow

If history is anything to go by then what is secure today will definitely be insecure tomorrow. No real solution to this AFAIK. If vulnerabilities in the crypto itself doesn't get you eventually, quantum computing will.
Check out https://coworks.com, they are just starting up, but building a freelancing site based exclusively on recommendations and your social graph. Really awesome technology.
Google Glass Porn [concept VIDEO]
I am not an expert but I would guess that they would ground the blimp and secure it.
> the signals will probably be some manner of 3G (or even LTE).

That contradicts the details that are in the article: "Google lobbyists are targeting regulators across developing countries to allow them to use airwaves currently reserved for television broadcasts - which operate at lower frequencies and can therefore penetrate buildings and travel longer distances than current WiFi technology." It looks like it will depend on access points that serve as routers.
Now AFRICOM won't need to buy more bandwidth from china…
I'm not sure why you see this as the judge expressing their personal opinion or bias. They're giving a tentative judgement of the outcome of the case.
A lot of API authentication is half-assed, like the examples in the article. "OAuth is hard, roll your own" is a common approach. Even with, e.g., OAuth 2, who's to say that the scheme is completely safe and that your implementation is correct?

As far as API vs. user account, it depends on the loot. An API might let me do more damage faster, or subtly lurk and alter/steal data over time. It might also be harder to detect from the UI, no "last logged in" giveaway.

Also, some API vendors recommend disabling SSL cert validation client side. Even for credit card gateways, unbelievably. Since it's a script talking to a script, no one is going to see the cert problems from a MITM until it's too late.
A good introductionary book about C++11 is "C++ Primer":
http://www.amazon.com/Primer-5th-Stanley-B-Lippman/dp/032171...

What I like about this book is that it teaches you the new C++ way right from the beginning. Rather than walking you through the history of C, it gets you to the modern practices immediately.

Disclaimer: I have only read the first 10% of the book myself, but so far I like it.
That's incredible how the "third world" concept has gone a long way. It was a word play on the Third State of the French Revolution (long story short, the Third State lost a vote by order against Nobility and Clergy, took the Bastille, and it went downhill from there). In the sense that those countries were the majority in number but their voices were ignored. Then they created a "First World" to designate the rulers of the world (Nobility I guess?) and now I discover some "Second World".
I believe the blimps would be above the cloud layer.
On Lisp to Clojure
“We just picked up a pair of Google Glass! We’re thrilled to be one of the first (if not the only) porn store to start creating apps and content with Google Glass.”
What happens when local militants/vandals shoot them down?
I don't see why it's necessary to overreach and make health claims at all. It could just be "Meals You Can Cook On £1/day".

Frankly, it's this wishy-washy "Food Pyramid" definition of healthy eating (load up on carbs by default, also, FaVs solve everything) that's put the general population in such a bad state.
It's true for software that's completely standalone, a virtual island. But very little useful software qualifies. Most software interacts with other components, whether hardware, operating systems, external formats, etc., and when those change over time, the software effectively becomes worse, even though it's technically the same as it was before.
performance is still a big issue on mobile devices (I have worked on several commercial html5 games made for firefox-os, but they also work on ios and android, where you'd also have native options).

There is a huge - HUGE - performance difference factor and while that doesn't matter for every app it matters quite often for games (even simple 2d games in the style of angry-birds).

html5 on the desktop on the other hand is plenty fast.
string test=R"(C:\A\B\C\D\file1.txt)";

Hmm, that's ugly. Why are those parens needed?
And so it begins.

There is a new age coming, one where we realise surveillance is ubiquitous and more importantly carries benefits for us as well as loss of what we thought of as privacy.

This is probably a good thing. These blimps will not be the last of atmospheric and LEO orbitals that will criss cross the globe and provide always-on services we suddenly cannot live without.

We do need to manage who holds and uses information that relates to us personally, but in the end our children will always know where they and their friends are, will be able to look at any point on the globe instantly (want to see the giraffe running across the Serengeti right now) and the losses, well, we will deal with them. The benefits are going to be huge.

Tim Berners-Lee, look what you started.
internship for $300k / year would be appropriate
The taliban operates like the mafia in Afghanistan. They go from provincial village to village, effectively saying "Hey, nice village you have here...it would be a shame if something were to happen to it"

They do provide legitimate protection. If bandits or unsavory characters harass the village, the taliban will roll up with AKs and rpgs. They also adjudicate local disputes like "he stole my goat" or "he had sex with my daughter". The afghan military and police forces don't spend a lot of time in the poorest regions of the country, so it's usually the taliban that has to make someone give back the goat or marry the daughter.

In return for protection and dispute resolution, the people in poor afghan villages usually grow poppy on their lands to be sold as opium and volunteer military aged males as taliban recruits. When you think of this system at scale, running unchecked, you can see how 9/11 style acts of terrorism happen. The bigger threat is that a well resourced and uncontrolled taliban in Afghanistan could destabilize the whole region by inciting muslim conflicts.

The US response was close to being appropriate for disrupting a protection racket. In the near term, they sent marines to provide protection for poor villages and actively hunt the taliban. In the long term they tried to introduce free democracy to the country, to provide security and rule of law to the poorest people and put the taliban out of business.

The reason it's taken so long to produce results is optimism on the part of western politicians. Afghanistan is a country that's only loosely held together and there are many factions and families in Kabul competing to grab power in a newly formed government. It could still be decades before things are settled enough that they have time to worry about protecting their poorest citizens, and a strong taliban doesn't pose a direct threat to the most lucrative parts of the government.

It's a complicated situation mostly because the taliban is exploiting people who have little to offer to the government that is supposed to protect them. But many democracies start out this way, and ultimately western action may have helped the situation.
No I am pretty sure with a mandatory vacation law my salary WOULD be lower.
It also is joyful in the sense that it will throw exceptions at the place where you make errors and not at some later time (for example, you won't get a 'oops, there is no February 29 in 2013' exception when you print a date). I think the designers of Java value that higher than the extra work of language implementers.
Snow Crash: The quiet civilizing agent of knowledge as opposed to data [pdf]
A valuation cap is merely an upper bound on a valuation. I'd rather be conservative and wait till there is a valuation.
No journalistic integrity at Wired, I guess.
Outside of computing: health and diet. Sure, you get some feedback, but you also can screw up things in some ridiculously slow-acting way. Pharma companies (are supposed to) monitor drug use for decades after introduction for the same reason.

Construction. Just build that chunk out of two steel beams instead of one, and witness it work perfectly until someone decides to throw a party on that balcony. Or witness your construction slowly turn itself from a perfectly normal tower to a major tourist attraction over the centuries.

Parenting. Things like sudden stimuli in early life have been linked to ADD, the way you do attachment can have tremendous consequences, and sometimes singular events you barely have any control over can have unpredictable consequences later in your life.

In fact, I'm tempted to say "life in general".
A lots of them now wear gas masks, or at minimum put a piece of cloth (scarf or something) on their mouth+nose, breathing paint and what comes with it isn't good for you. So yeah...
You seem to be talking about a different kind of "problem" than the article. What you list are patterns that have advantages and disadvantages, where the "solution quality" is a matter of opinion. The article talks about things which haven't been proven yet.
Sure about that? Compare their policies to British equivalents at the time.
It's not a jury trial so the judge is going to be the one making the decision in the end. She's see the evidence and she's expressing her advance opinion. It's not binding and it gives a steer to the involved parties thereby probably reducing overall trial time and costs.
Yes, you are missing something, which is a bit of a quirk of C++. Normally, having two functions with the same signature in a parent and child class results in overloading.

struct A
{
void f() {std::cout << "A";}
};

struct B : A
{
void f() {std::cout << "B";}
};
//.,...
A a = B();
B b = B();
a.f();
b.f();
b.A::f();

This would print ABA, as the child's f() function simply hides the parent one when working in the context of B(), but it does not override it.

Now, what virtual does is it tells the compiler, "from here on out, resolve clashing signatures for this function in child classes by overriding. I'm sure you know how our example changes when you mark f() as virtual.

That's all old news, though. The more interesting bit, final, acts like so: from here on out, prevent overloading in child classes. Now, that only makes sense in the context of virtual, so that's the only place where you're allowed to use final, and here the actual difference to the first example becomes apparent. You see, final does not negate virtual, what it actually does is completely lock up the function signature from being used in any child classes. Adding virtual final to our example would not cause B's function to hide A's - it will simply not compile.

If you think that's all pointless semantics, you are absolutely right. Locking up names is not the point of "final". In fact, declaring something as virtual final in the base class is completely pointless from any practical standpoint. The actual problem that final is meant to solve is this:

As I mentioned earlier, virtual changes the way resolving names works in child classes forever. These two pieces of code are absolutely equivalent.

struct A
{
virtual void f() {std::cout << "A";}
};

struct B : A
{
void f() {std::cout << "B";}
};

And:

struct A
{
virtual void f() {std::cout << "A";}
};

struct B : A
{
virtual void f() {std::cout << "B";}
};

Therein lies an interesting dilemma. What if I wanted to prevent any child class of B, and only B, from changing the implementation of f. Under C++03, that is not possible. In C++11, final solves that.

But why go through the trouble of introducing a new keyword - and a keyword that is only a keyword in class and function declarations to boot (Holy context dependent grammar, Batman!) - and not just drop the virtual qualifier? Backwards compatibility - ever a dreaded thing when you wish you could undo your old mistakes.

It isn't all that big of a deal (said the C++ developer about every strange rule in the language, ever), though, since when you use "final" for the intended purpose, you won't actually be needing the virtual qualifier.

struct A
{
virtual void f() {std::cout << "A";}
};

struct B : A
{
void f() final {std::cout << "B";}
};

struct C : B
{
void f(); //I'm afraid I can't let you do that.
};
Take a look at the "blocks" extension to C, in LLVM. It includes mechanisms to handle the lifetime issues, though it does still require explicit memory reclamation of blocks.
> So why should the mere existence of servers in the U.K. entitle the country to tax some substantial amount of Google's income?

This is wrong.

UK customers buy ads to be shown in the UK to UK viewers, from UK staff at Google's UK offices. They pay in UK pound sterling, from UK bank accounts. So far everything is in the UK. It is only at the very end of the process that someone in Google's Ireland office pushes a button to close the sale, thus taking the sale out of the UK (and our tax system) and into Ireland and their tax system.

This is a transparent dodge to avoid paying tax. It might be legal, but it's sleazy.

> but not any specifics about exactly what those loopholes are.

You don't know what you're talking about, which is fine, but why go to all that effort to create scenarios that aren't happening rather than just asking what is happening?
It might be worth your time to read up on Temple Grandin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin

Also, she actually is substantially autistic, despite all of her work and achievements.
Similarly, will it float so low that it could be shot down with a gun or missile?

To avoid these two risks (storm and attack), I imagine it'd have to be at an altitude above weather currents and beyond shooting range... or be able to stabilize during a storm and be bulletproof.
Yes but notice the mistakes the developer made when adding extraneous whitespace. Also the use of the same class names. At the very least some of the code was copied verbatim without attribution.
Show HN: gitsessions.vim - auto save/load sessions based on git branch
Not really; Safari with the 6.0 update is markedly similar to Chrome. There's few differences left in all of the browsers. Most are homogenous with overlapping feature sets. Yeah, sure, Firefox has the advantage of extensions, Chrome has the advantage of Google's great services and webapps, and Safari has the plus of being bundled with every Mac, but in the long term, they're all the same thing.
You can also do a good job and ask for a bigger salary.

I am sorry but if I do a good job, and ask for a bigger salary, that means without mandatory vacation laws I would get an even bigger salary.

I don't understand how you think that's actually an equal solution?
My Teenage Son Does Not Know How To Mail A Letter
Local militants/vandals then lose access to the internet - and hopefully get reprimanded by the other folks of the area. Hopefully said militants/vandals would be more willing to use the services (maybe even to further their own nefarious goals) than destroy them.
No, but all that still goes through a highly centralized infrastructure (att, google, etc). I think there should be provisions for reasonable police access to that data, with appropriate safeguards.
I am 30 and I've sent my last hand written letter 15 years ago.
The how isn't irrelevant, especially when the colony in question ceased being a party of the mother country because of opportunists who thought that it would be fun to start a new country built in whatever manner they pleased. Without our specific set of malcontents the Revolutionary War wouldn't have occurred and the US would have been given a voice in parliament.

Your claim is wrong.
Who Gets Email Sent to test[at]test.com?
Really depends on location. Cheap canned meats are available. Chickens are cheap but take work (see standard objections to gardening). Roadkill is viable (norm in rural areas). Hunting takes work but can be cheap per pound (somewhere around license around $20, gun for $100, $0.25 per shot).
So I'm not sure how concerned I should be about the work-life balance of someone making $250,000/yr.

Well, most rat-racers are not making $250k. A more typical example of a rat-racer is a Dunder Mifflin sales reps in The Office, who would probably make between $40-$70k.

The median household income in the US is $44,000. Does mandatory vacation help a family of 4 making $44,000? Or would they be better off with higher wages?

I do not see any reason why the right policies could not both raise purchasing power and grant more vacation time. Keep in mind, as I say in the essay, that the output of most goods in the modern economy is not bound by labor. Most output is bound by natural resource production, land, regulation, and natural monopoly. So if you decrease total labor output by 5%, that does not necessarily mean a decrease in output of food or housing or fuel oil by 5%. So there could be ways of increasing vacation time without lowering people's income.

Humanity's big problem is probably not improving the lot of Americans.

Well yeah, but this article is about America, and I'm a lot more involved in the problems of America than the problems of India. I do not know what I can contribute to solving the problems of India.
Have you come across any static site generators that would be user-friendly enough to recommend to users currently stuck with iWeb, DreamWeaver, RapidWeaver and the like? I was recently trying to help somebody migrate away from using iWeb (abandoned by Apple), but found that trying to teach something like Hyde* was not a feasible alternative.

In my opinion a user-friendly static site generator would require some kind of minimal GUI, dialogs to handle inserting images, and a smart set of predefined options to generate menus, listings, etc. Maybe even a one-click option to update an S3-hosted site.

If this doesn't exist, perhaps writing a GUI wrapper for an existing generator would be a worthwhile project.

* The Python program, not the CHICKEN Scheme static site generator of the same name.