skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The point though is:

Ordering you to update the canary is in effect, ordering you to make affirmative, untrue statements about your products, namely that they are secure against government surveillance. Do I think they'd threaten you with obstruction? Yes. Do I think they'd threaten to send you to jail? Yes.

But do I think they'd arrest you and try you? I am not sure. They might. But once they do that, they are in a bind. They lose the leverage against you revealing the specifics of the warrant (other than that there was one somewhere), and they go past the point of no return, where you have to fight back and challenge the Constitutionality of the order to lie. I won't give advice (IANAL, etc) but I think the most likely outcome would be a game of chicken. It would be a public fight (you have a right to a free and public trial with all evidence submitted in open, public court, obviously including the NSL or warrant!), and they'd risk an adverse judgement handing a tool to everyone to resist this.

So if they are willing to try you and admit the NSL or warrant as evidence, they are then revealing more than you have, and this undercuts their case.
I, myself, started the course of flying long time ago. I left it because the money, it was expensive for a 16 years old guy :(. My favourite planes those days were Piper PA-11 and the motor glider Grob G 109.

I had the chance on many other planes and gliders, like the Nimbus 3DM but I'm impressed with the prices for this plane. It can be really nice starter for those who enjoy flying.
The actual translation of the equation is

> (1+ (exp (complex 0 pi)))
#C(0.0d0 0.0d0)

But you got

> (1+ (exp (complex 0 pi)))
#C(0.0d0 1.2246467991473532d-16)

Which is not “precisely the same”. Hence my confusion.
1. Flag it and move on.
2. Vote up the tech/programming submissions.
3. Submit articles of the type you prefer.
4. Hope that others share your taste.
5. If not, realize that you are "people".

(General, and not particularly directed at the parent)
We're getting a working demo of the one type of political news story that all (well, most) HN readers can get worked up about.

(As a friend of mine once said, "the big political question of the 21st century will be how to deal with too much data." And this is your baseline case of the issue going political this decade.)
Do you just ignore what the US government does to citizens in other countries? Or do they somehow not count?

Because America kills people without trial, abducts suspects and tortures them, very often they turn out to be innocents. To say nothing of the support, if not wholesale installment, of the very kind of regimes that you guarantee me the US will never become.

Comments like yours seem to say that all of this doesn't matter, because we are not doing it to Americans! (At least not white ones and only if they happen to be outside the country.)
>The president has the power to use his veto when needed. That he may be pressured not to do so or not is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant at all. It's a real pragmatic issue. The president (all of them, I mean) has advisors, pressuring him to do this or that. He has lobbies going for some things. He can be blackmailed or exposed for some peripheral BS (think of Clinton). He has pressure from his party. He might be complicit and make a quick buck (thing of Halliburton and such). In the end, if he's too difficult to work with, he might even be shot (some presidents have. Was it all the work of "madmen"?).

The fact is: the president is the president only after he is elected. And to get to that point, he is vetoed himself so much by the party, lobbyists etc, he has to pass so many "loyalty" tests, he is screened so well in order to get campaign funds and support, that nothing really unpredictable can come out of him against the whole system.

Despite the BS "profile" articles, it's not like any random guy gets elected president. Even if he is a "Chicago community organiser", the above process makes sure he is the RIGHT "Chicago community organiser" -- a tame one, that will satisfy all requirements, and wont affect much change.
"Lean" examined - its origins, truths, techniques, and problems.
It's funny how people in the US hate government so much that they seem more outraged by a national agency collecting meta-data for antiterrorism purpose, than private company collecting content for ad targeting.
Hacker News is not ALWAYS about tech and programming. It's a means of sharing stories with people of a similar interest. It just so happens this became a big deal and everyone found it important to make sure everyone was aware.

Additionally, this does actually reference technology and programming and the web. "Online freedom" is a big deal for everyone here. Major websites like Facebook and Twitter being used to track what we are doing by one or many Nation's governments is something to discuss.
Even without secure boot environment, if you're paranoid enough you can throw away and reconstruct the boot environment on every unplanned boot.

Encrypted disks are not meant to protect against attackers that can gain access to the server without rebooting. But all your OS-level security mechanisms (user separation, AppArmor, file permissions, firewalls) become useless if the hosting provider's admin interface has an exploit and the attacker can reboot the machine into single user mode. In other words, the Linode scenario. That's what encrypted disks protect against.
Isn't it amazing that we didn't used to have a thousand terrorist attacks every day before the internet existed and the government could read every conversation we have? Thank G_d for the surveillance apparatus that the government has available to it now. Civilization wouldn't be possible otherwise.
I agree with your main point in this rebuttal, but I think you should have worded it in a way that would educate him as to why his interpretation was egregious without coming out so bitterly. It would raise the odds of your message actually being heeded. I understand that when people respond ignorantly, it's incredibly frustrating at times. However, they're more likely to change if you educate patiently instead of reprimanding.
HN Top Stories: Friday June 7, 2013
Public mood is largely a product of what the media forms it to be. Look at how Boston was covered. How many days did they blather on and on about 3 deaths? If it had been three Boston people dying in a car crash it wouldn't even had made local news.

Of course some say the media is just showing people what they want to see but that is naive. The two are intertwined. Further, if no news agencies were allowed to report on terrorist attacks (as they are not supposed to report on self immolation) then the public wouldn't care because most people wouldn't even know about it.
Yay, something that's not about the NSA!
Well, our collective democracies are less than perfect; easily swayed by money and special interests, not least the special interests of government agents and other civil servants. Like many (most?) organizations, government is necessarily self-serving, (or self-perpetuating at the very least) and the power imbalance that is amplified by technological change is directed first and foremost at the preservation and survival of the very institutions that hold the reigns. Normally, we might direct our attention to our systems of checks and balances to redress any imbalance of power, but these systems were designed in an age where modern technological capabilities were simply inconceivable, much less effectively planned for. We are only starting to tentatively explore the potentially monumental implications of this shift in the balance of power. Whilst it pains me to admit this, my advice is to admit defeat, to recognize that our privacy (and with it, our freedom) has been irrevocably compromised, and to do what we can to ensure our own individual survival over the coming decades: to wit, offer our full-throated support for whatever objective the agencies claim to be currently pursuing, and to learn to be more guarded and more circumspect about what we say and think. ("I for one welcome our new silicon overlords" etc... etc...).
I hope this sentence was sarcastic.
And how many people before you have posted pretty much exactly the same thing?

Move on - come back in a few days and it will have settled. Either that, or it won't be worth coming back at all.
Though I understand your point, I don't share it. There are thing that are plain bad. For example, applying death penalty to every criminal would be 'good' for the society: less criminals and you'd waste less money in jails. But we all know that killing people like that is not morally good.
Revealing this revolving door of corrupt NSA execs and the vast intelligence industry sprawl outside Fort Meade is far more frightening then what is the popular angst today. William Binney is another brave whistle blowing hero.
Lovely argument. If something just manages to sneak under the radar long enough, then surely it must be acceptable. Criminals should try that argument in court. "Your honour, I was able to successfully keep on embezzling for several years without detection, so surely it doesn't do any harm if I keep it up just because I finally got caught?"
Oh, absolutely. Of course, that would be 5 years in prison after sentencing. Consider the fact that both Kevin Mitnick and Jeremy Hammond (allegedly) were threatened with the "revolving door" of never having their "final" day in court, spending an indefinite time in jail (as opposed to prison) and in cross-state prison transports.

Now, they were accused of committing crimes directly (hacking/so called computer "fraud") -- so it's not quite the same thing (one would hope).

The chilling thing about these laws, is that they're (allegedly) only used for secret "national security" stuff. So if you go up against that, you aren't that far from being held "in the interest of national security" -- and -- there might be an honest (or seemingly so) appeal to your patriotism thrown in there, for you to actively become an agent of national security (spy on your neighbours for their safety!).

I don't think it is at all clear cut (how can we know how many of these law are even legal, if some of them are secret?).
Didn't realise that but it kind of makes sense.
Sorry I didn't notice this was common. Anyhow, I wanted a memento of this day. Thought I'd share. This will zoom by if no one upvotes.
Prediksi Skor Czech Rep vs Italy 08 Juni 2013
Prediksi Skor Czech Rep vs Italy 08 Juni 2013. Prediksi Czech Rep vs Italy. Prediksi Pertandingan Czech Rep vs Italy.
> The problem is that to do that kind of queries, if you don't know beforehand what information you are looking for, then you need to store everything.

It's worth reading up on the history of the 4th Amendment in order to realize that isn't very far from the specific situation it was intended to prevent, namely "general warrants" allowing police to search whatever homes they wanted in an investigation.
If I were to donate to EFF, I'd want to do so anonymously. Like very anonymously. So bitcoin is an interesting option - depending on how easy it is to get bitcoin anonymously. I don't want other charities or political organisations to hound me for years afterwards. And I don't want a donation to be used against me if/when some overblown official in my country decides that EFF is a terrorist organisation.

I found the humble bundle is a good way of donating to EFF, because that way at least it looks like a game purchase rather than a donation. If I were interested in donating of course.
I don't even understand the ignorance of this comment every major tech company had been cited as participating and especially the isp's. Google analytics is nothing in comparason to what the isp's know
So you're upset because you're losing nuclear power (admittedly, that's a mistake)? You could be having indefinite detention, constant wars on ideals (as opposed to tangible entities), a failing school system, a system where the balance is tipped so far in favor of corporations (as opposed to labor) that it's practically a vertical line, and on and on but you're concerned about having less efficient power? The mind boggles.
Defense contractors pay a lot more, and once you have an active clearance you're in high demand. If they want higher pay, that's where they go.
How can you blame us? It's like a news site for doctors freaking out during a bird flu outbreak. It's what we do. We care about this stuff.
Confirmed: XBox One requires online connection every 24h
Do you have any specific reason to believe that?
This is one of the best parts:

If you see something, say something.

and it's directed to potential whistle-blowers.
No, his calculation shows P(baddy|flag)=1/10,000. In other words, given that the system flags somebody, there is only a 1/10,000 chance that this person was correctly flagged.

This is given the absurdly high P(flag|baddy) of .99 (a terrorist raises a flag 99% of the time... good luck with that.) and a P(flag|innocent person) of .01 (meaning that in the US an absolutely staggering 3.19 million people would be wrongfully flagged by this system). Then there is P(baddy)=1/1,000,000, which implies that we believe there are 300+ terrorists currently in the US that desperately need to be caught. What the hell have those 300+ terrorists been doing in the past few years? Wishing they could only find guns the the great US of A? 1/10,000,000 is a far more reasonable number, though even 1/100,000,000 is probably being generous.

1/10,000 is absolutely abysmal. When you start punching in more realistic numbers though the result becomes much worse and you rapidly approach a situation where you would have more luck flagging random US citizens as uncaught criminals than you will with using this system to identify terrorists. If you permit those sort of absurd odds, then even hiring "forensic psychics" to investigate murders in small towns starts to make sense...

This sort of screening flat out does not work for something as rare as terrorists. It only works when you start bumping your P(baddy) way up (dropping P(flag|innocent person) is not practical, and raising P(flag|baddy) to even more absurdly high levels only gets you marginal improvements). Replace 'terrorist' with 'person of interest to the DEA' or 'tax cheat' and suddenly this sort of screening starts to look a hell of a lot more practical.... hmm....
>How likely is the NSA PRISM program to catch a terrorist?

A better question, which involves historical understanding about the issue rather than going directly to the maths and taking the framing of the thing as granted:

How likely is the NSA PRISM program even cares about catching terrorists?

Sure, they wouldn't say no if it did. It would even justify the program to the eyes of the public.

But, thing is, similar programs have been going on for centuries in all governments. They care only about two things: spying on third countries (enemies, competitors, etc, things that effect commerce and military) and spying on their own citizens (population control, etc). Those programs have roots aeons before 9/11, and aeons before "terrorism" was any real concern of the government.
If I ever see a press-release like:

After consultation with several attorneys and government
officials from two branches of our government, we have
opted to discontinue the warrant canary.

I will know there was a court order involved ;-)
I use something similar so often that I made myself a shell alias "gl".
A supermajority vote in Congress nullifies the veto; I'm not sure if any President has ever vetoed a bill following supermajority passage.

As a practical matter, I don't think Obama can take on the Patriot act until after the war in Afghanistan is brought to a close and the AUMF terminated.
Hah, that is exactly what I thought.

It doesn't lend itself well to strings of words longer than 3 though, because you can't "chicken" someone, as far as I know - and I don't intend on visiting Urban Dictionary to find out.
Interactive 360 degree light field display
For all you PGP fanatics, consider (from http://33bits.org/2011/03/09/link-prediction-by-de-anonymiza..., a blog which I highly recommend) the sentence "During (...) 2007-2009, Shmatikov and I (...) showed how to take two graphs representing social networks and map the nodes to each other based on the graph structure alone—no usernames, no nothing."

Tinfoil won't save you this time.
If I remember correctly, Verisign has indicated they would be willing to create a trusted root level certificate for the government to spoof the ssl of any domain... so I don't know if SSL is enough, unless you only allow CAs you've created or you trust.
Oh how I despise the sentiment that if some group with an important function gets low pay that this could only mean other groups with a "less important" function are overpaid. The only people that are overpaid are executives. The rest of us are under-paid (with some exceptions). Yes, even developers. Look how much money a trader makes if they do well. Now compare that with a Quant who will do consistently better and make the company much more money.

If you feel like pulling others down into your pit, reach out for executives, not other working class people. FFS.
Maybe. Then again, these things (NSLs) are supposed to be about national security, aren't they? As of now I don't think the intelligence establishment is mad enough to disappear a "well standing" (white male?), resourceful citizen -- seeing as the entire idea of these secret laws are clearly illegal by any sane definition -- but how long will that last?

Also, remember that if this is part of some semi extra-legal investigation, one or more of the agencies involved might pressure you with black mail of some sort. Or a mix of black mail and prison.

But yeah, I think the reality of the situation is: comply, or government will frown on you and your business, and that might be the end of your business (at least you can forget about having new radio spectrum for your wireless, or any other licence you might need, etc...).
Everybody is reading way too much into this. They were all issued "gag orders" which say "You will never disclose in any such way the existence of this operation". These orders also specify "If this operation is ever leaked into to public awareness you will outright deny knowledge and participation of said operation".

They are legally forced to do this.
Considering NSA and other three letter agencies apparently have quite plenty of surveillance equipment installed, I think your revolution will be met at the door step by two gentlemen in black suits.
Alan's point is that others have downplayed us, people concerned with privacy, as conspiracy nuts. Having hard evidence helps with that.
I have good news for you. You have the power to fix it.

Submit the kinds of articles you want to see, flag the ones you don't.
Current stabilty of the Hacker News Front Page
AirBnB is allowed in Amsterdam
Want better? Use tig - https://github.com/jonas/tig
Isn't it already the kind of thing bountify is doing https://bountify.co/?

I have been really happy with the service so far, even though people tend to really put low tips compared to the amount of work required
> We have such a massive program, according to many; the NTSB is a big bureaucracy and a lot of people consider the whole concept of speed limits and traffic police as a encroachment upon their freedom rather than a reasonable collective decision on how to share transit arteries.

A similar view is held here (in the Netherlands), where interesting new methods are created to monitor speeding. The thing is, it's not viewed - or even promoted as - something that increases safety and reduces lethal accidents on the roads, but instead as a way for the government to make money.

Similarly, the way this is portrayed and kept secret by the government and the security agencies is not to reduce and prevent terrorist attacks, but to infringe upon the privacy of people using US-based online services. If the NSA and similar organizations were to be more open about what terrorist attacks they prevented, they would create more goodwill and would gain support from the people.

Yet, branding terrorists and openly causing fear of terrorists and their attacks has two side-effects; one, it will make terrorists smarter and more secretive, and two, it happens in all the Orwellian dystopias, instilling fear of 'terrorists' and foreign nations in the populace as a means of control.
As an interesting data point though (which works heavily against the government here), a petition for habeas corpus requires that you specify grounds for habeas, and facts supporting the grounds claimed, so as soon as you are arrested if you aren't promptly arraigned, you pretty much must have more details filed in public court.
With that many servers you probably have to reboot a few of them pretty often.. You'd have to live in the datacentre :)
Twitter for Google Glass
Well the first step to fixing it is to throw Obama out of office (that starts with finger pointing). That would be the single most powerful statement that the US public could make. We will tear down any leader or administration who acts this way.
Not only is this a repost, I have seen it on Hacker News several times over the past year. Anyone who is searching for a better Git log will find one without the help of free advertisement on the front page.
Congress can very easily overrule that, by the simple expedient of defunding anything it doesn't approve of. Two current examples:

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/303869-house-vot...

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/303803-house-vot...

I too would sort of prefer that the President function as a benign dictator but Congress can exert much more fine-grained control over the Executive than the Executive can over legislative excess - Clinton actually got Congress to give him a line-item veto but the Supreme Court declared that unconstitutional only 2 years later.
>And let's consider that "inner strength". It is not the actual strength of the argument since that is what the logic-users would see and support.

A circular argument, if I ever met one. No, it's the actual strength of the argument, since, what the logic-users would "see and support" (the mere logical consistency of the argument) is far from the essence of human argumentation. Except if you argue with Aristotle or Medieval Philosophers.

>And yes, conversations can be multifaceted. I'm sorry to have to inform you that serious logical flaws and mistakes of fact in one facet of a multifaceted conversation do in fact invalidate that one facet of the conversation.

For one, you misunderstood me. Badly.

I said that real world arguments are multifaceted, and thus, spotting a "serious logical flaw" in one, doesn't mean the whole argument is invalidated. And you reply to me that ...it would invalidate just that facet? Well, you don't say!

This repeating of what I told as if it was some novel information tells me you are incapable of evaluating even my simple arguments in context.

>And please refrain from the insults, although it was nice to learn that I am both young and old at the same time, and also a racist.

Where you gathered that from my reply, I can't even fathom. If my guess is right, you think "naive" also implies "young", and "prejudiced" implies racism. I don't know about "baloney detection", but my extreme reading comprehension issues detector started beeping wildly.
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote....