skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Neither agree or disagree, but I couldn't help but notice that you pose a hypothetical question in a manner which is impossible to disagree with.

"Hypothetical question...and you saw incredible things, awful things ... things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington, D.C. ... what would you do?"

The question isn't interesting...in fact, it isn't a question, it's an opinion veiled as a discussion. If you drop your own opinion from it, then it becomes interesting. Then people can talk about it.

This is like saying:

"Hypothetical question...Let's say you're Truman, and you know that dropping the bomb will definitely kill more civilians and soldiers on both side while extending the war and turning all your allies against you, what would you do?"
The Guardian recently ran an article on the same subject:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/07/vitamins-...

Its longer than the NYT article and contains some interesting links to clinical trial results.
I don't see how this satisfies the inventive-step criteria needed for a patent. Any IT professional with the money to spend could whip up something like this.
It is sad that you (and most people here) prefer to live in a society where it's socially acceptable to hide who you truly are based on irrational fear of judgement, rather than be open and benefit from the improved communication which publicity offers.

We learned to accept and tolerate most directly noticeable features of people. Maybe you don't want to communicate your skin color, your height, your gender or your location when walking down the street, but you still do and probably don't really care about it. It's socially accepted to communicate these features anyway.

How are more "private" information about you any different? After all, walking "naked" on a nudist beach is also normal and socially acceptable.

Tolerance has no limits. All it requires is some adaptation time. One day, people will be open about their sexuality, religion, political ideologies and feelings, and the world will be a better place.
Think about how the NSA helped stop all the killings and maimings at the boston bombing.

Oh wait, they didn't - from two super stupid criminals not even trying to hide what they were planning.

So WTF good are they doing for all the damage they've done to our society.

NSA has become just like the TSA, completely useless theater that hassles everyone and accomplishes nothing.

Just wait until they can park hundreds of drones over every city and track everyone's movements historically, forever - the logic will be you are in public so no warrant needed or there will be yet another secret warrant for the entire country.
Communications Data Bill UK
While the UK's politicians express their faux outrage, nearly all of them support this effort to Hoover up all of the UK's commas metadata.
It's written by the same author!
Pull to Refresh for the Web
They're writing the tweets, I wasn't speaking to the tweets then being retweeted.

I also wonder that, it seems eerie how many people are "acting" as though the Twitter is not ironic.
A taoist would say that everything is "natural" , including man-made vitamins, cars and chemical plastics.
This Twitter account is ironic. They're not actually siding with the NSA. Look at the website listed in the bio[1].

http://danielsieradski.com/nothing-to-hide/14572
Read my reply to the first comment (the one asking for "personal" information).
Callbacks vs Coroutines
I'm quite sure OP was addressing the people whose tweets were featured on that account, and not the owner of the account itself.
Because that's what they do. By funding them with your taxes, you accept their "protection" and their opacity.

If you don't like what they do, which is my case, fight them. Don't hide behind privacy.
This article feels annoyingly incomplete or very poorly edited.

In December 1972, concerned that people were consuming larger and larger quantities of vitamins, the F.D.A. announced a plan to regulate vitamin supplements containing more than 150 percent of the recommended daily allowance. Vitamin makers would now have to prove that these “megavitamins” were safe before selling them. Not surprisingly, the vitamin industry saw this as a threat, and set out to destroy the bill. In the end, it did far more than that.

Industry executives recruited William Proxmire, a Democratic senator from Wisconsin, to introduce a bill preventing the F.D.A. from regulating megavitamins. On Aug. 14, 1974, the hearing began.

Speaking in support of F.D.A. regulation was Marsha Cohen, a lawyer with the Consumers Union. Setting eight cantaloupes in front of her, she said, “You would need to eat eight cantaloupes — a good source of vitamin C — to take in barely 1,000 milligrams of vitamin C. But just these two little pills, easy to swallow, contain the same amount.” She warned that if the legislation passed, “one tablet would contain as much vitamin C as all of these cantaloupes, or even twice, thrice or 20 times that amount. And there would be no protective satiety level.” Ms. Cohen was pointing out the industry’s Achilles’ heel: ingesting large quantities of vitamins is unnatural, the opposite of what manufacturers were promoting.

A little more than a month later, Mr. Proxmire’s bill passed by a vote of 81 to 10. In 1976, it became law. Decades later, Peter Barton Hutt, chief counsel to the F.D.A., wrote that “it was the most humiliating defeat” in the agency’s history.

Well, what more did the industry do than destroy the bill? After making such a strong clear case for regulation, how did the bill forbidding it pass with such an overwhelming majority? Were there payoffs, or was it something the vitamin makers said in testimony, or did they gin up a massive publicity campaign, or what? I'm quite frustrated at how little information this article contains.

On the plus side, I'm glad that I've stuck to getting my vitamins from food rather than supplements.
It's not fear of judgement. It's fear of abuse by potentially tyrannical government.
> Please log in.

Can we do something about paywalled links here, please? This is the 5th one on the front page today.
So... should I take a daily multivitamin or not?
No I wouldn't. If this were the case, it wouldn't be possible to depart from the Way.
Kafka never even imagined anything like this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial
Ask HN: What is your experience with mentorship?
I am thinking about finding a mentor to push my programming skills to another level. What is your experience with mentorship (in- or outside the context of programming)? Any tips how to find a solid mentor and get the most out of him? Thanks.
Right, so now there's no way to verify his claims. Accuse the Tech companies of not being truthful when they say that don't allow the NSA arbitrary access, but then offer no details that would actually substantiate the interpretation you made of the slides. How very convenient.

And how would divulging the NSA's program not harm their collection, but divulging the details would? If I'm the Germans and using Enigma, knowing that it was cracked, but not how it was cracked, would still get me to change my behavior.

If I'm Bin Laden, I don't have to know the technical details of how my satellite phone was tracked, just that they were doing it.

The harm has already been done, and now the harm to these tech companies is being continued with daily innuendo and no hard evidence. How much longer can this go on? Can the Guardian just keep going on for months making allegations without hard evidence?
Roll your Debian
Apparently they stopped some other bombing (though it's pretty hard to convict a criminal guilty purely on intent).

I think it just comes down to the trade off of freedom vs. loss of life.

I mean that's what it's really about, isn't it? We are giving up the freedom of privacy for the potential of more security?

Yet, This is not the American Way

At one point we realized that in order to protect the freedoms of our people we had to die. That's why so many fought in the revolutionary war. To protect our rights and freedoms as citizens against the State (England, at the time).

If we just lay down like dogs now and let our government walk over us like dogs, all those lives will have been wasted.
If there was a tribe who considered cannibalism and ritual sacrifice an essential part of their religion, would you also defend that practice? There is a line which cannot be crossed, we're just debating where it should be drawn.

I don't think religion has any bearing on whether something is acceptable or not. The Hopi may beat their children for religious reasons, but plenty of parents beat their children for non-religious reasons. What matters in the question of whether this should be allowed is not the reason why they do it, but the consequences of doing it. Laws regulate actions based on their consequences, not based on their motive.
I don't know much about Clojure other than "it's LISPY, Hickey is a cool cat, build on top of the JVM"

Since it's build on the JVM wouldn't it be easier to use one of the existing Prologs and their Java bridges/connectors?

SWI has JPL, GNU/Prolog has something iirc and commerical ones like Sicstus also provide these (Jasper for Sicstus).
So you want to choose what rules apply to you in any given context? Or is it just that you're happy to be told by the government what the rules are for each context?
Clbin.com - command line pastebin
At the point that a company called "Easy Post" is claiming it didn't send "call detail records" to the NSA, you know it is a joke.
Here's the thing - in theory the NSA knows about every corrupt cop in the country based on their calls, emails and financial data.

Yet they've done nothing. Interesting situation.
Uh, in the comment I was responding to?
Open source secure voip for Android phones
You can install it from: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.discretio.android
Take note - a bad example of how to do unsubscribe pages.
Yes, I can choose that. I can wear a mask. I can walk around in public and nobody has any idea who I am.
What's the difference?

If PRISM means the NSA has unsupervised access to any records they want from these providers, that's pretty disturbing, irrespective of word-games over the meaning of 'direct'. The scope for abuse of this sort of unregulated access rubber stamped by a secret court is huge, and there doesn't appear to be any effective supervision as people like clapper are happy to lie to congress about the extent and methods of the various surveillance programs, and the companies are obliged to lie about the program and conceal its existence.
If this is supposed to be ironic, it sounds frighteningly serious. Not sure if everyone posting on this feed knows that it's supposed to be a joke,
The last bombing that was announced that they stopped, it was the FBI spoon-feeding all the ideas and materials to the "would be terrorists" and nagging them to death until they started to put a plan together.

So I'll believe that they stopped something when they produce the details for the press to investigate.
Microsoft has it.
Pigs and humans can share a wide variety of parasites, intestinal worms etc. Even now, you're advised not to cook pork rare (as opposed to, say, a beef fillet 'en-bleu').
> Privacy has no intrinsic value whatsoever.

I don't believe you seriously mean it.
And the irony is that foreigners are increasingly being considered as targets fo prosecution without having set foot in the county.
That's a good way to look at it. I feel a bit better about losing it after seeing that it even affects users that have been active on HN much longer than myself.
Religion is an integral part of culture though, so an attack on religious practice is an attack on cultural integrity. This is why I support the Supreme Court's decision in Yoder v. Wisconsin, holding that the Amish in the US have a right to educate their children to Amish religious standards instead of the standards the state sets, even if, as Justice Douglas noted in his concurring opinion, this means someone raised as an Amish will never be able to be an astronaught.

The fundamental question is how much deference we give to culture generally and who is making these decisions. Do we want white folks telling Hopi they can't have what remains of their culture anymore? Do we want folks from China and India telling white Americans what should constitute free speech?

My view is that if we don't allow for local culture and decisions about such things to be made at the local and cultural level then we lose our basic humanity. For cannibalism or ritual sacrifice, if it is internal to a population group, I think that this is for that group to work out. If it is between groups, well then that's cause for war.....

A lot of things in culture are really structurally variable. For example is it a human right to be able to choose not to ever have children? Does this mean that cultures that expect retirees to be cared for by their children are violating human rights and every culture must have something like social security? Now, if you agree that's a cultural issue, then something like same-sex marriage also must be a cultural issue too.

(Religion, in my view, isn't about God. Religion is about community.)
The fact that he retweeted them somewhat implies that they, too, were being ironic.
Obligatory reading:

The Eternal Value of Privacy http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securityma...

Reddit comment from this week: http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1fv4r6/i_belie...
Network Forensic Evasion: How To Exit the Matrix
Hundreds march in Singapore against website licensing regime
EasyPost just embarrassed itself. You look quite lame trying to cash in on a serious topic.
One place where this has potential is for type checking & type inference.
Although there may be some truth in that, even things found and used in their natural state can be problematic, such as coal.
Maybe the OP is right and today's smartphones make it vastly harder to choose to approach nearby people than to retreat into the scrolling names of one’s contact list. But how was it five or ten years ago? There was always something which made it harder to choose to approach nearby people: dumbphones, MP3 players, newspapers, etc.

Maybe the OP just uses his smartphone and today's tech as an excuse for his timidity to approach people.
AppGyver Shoots Steroids Into HTML5 App Development
Does incognito mode still work to get around the NYTimes' paywall?
Perhaps someone can help you with that, but I'm not logged in, have never logged in, don't intend to register, and don't get the "Please log in" message.

I wonder what's different between your setup and mine.
"mostly women and children"

Of course it would have been much less horrific if it was mostly civillian men instead of mostly civillian women?

Or would it be more okay because civillian men are more likely to be guerilla soldiers? So then it wouldn't be so terrible to kill them "just in case"?
What If China Hacks the NSA's Massive Data Trove?
Being ironic on twitter is part of the problem.
Actually, I suspect Americans in general should be subjected to this ritual. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
The issue is that people on 2007 macbooks could upgrade to Lion, but Lion is a tad slower then Snow Leopard and they need all the performance they can get. But thanks for the great software!
Not even for RMS?

I'm sorry but you can't blame the people for overreach of government powers ex post facto. It's not like people are perfectly informed of everything or that they deserve everything they get because they were at one point manipulated by propaganda. The fact is that it's a constant battle against the ambitious and power-hungry people that drive governments towards totalitarianism. To smugly throw up your arms and say it's the people's fault is to give a free pass the actual evildoers—the actual people who are sitting in backrooms selling out our freedom and liberty in order to get more control and leverage for who knows what purposes. Maybe some of them are actually well-intentioned (certainly many of the people they manipulate are), but those people are fools, utter fools who should pick up a history book.
Select bias. You don't know what they did stop.
Or maybe they didn't:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/public-documents-contradict...
Congress can one thing, CUT OFF funds. So "No money should be spent to allow any agency of the United States Government to search the phone records of Americans" would work.
Why hasn't this issue been revisited in congress? Shouldn't everything be revisited very X years to ensure that the law is still relevant with current information?
مشاهدة مباراة مصر وزيمبابوى بث مباشر
Am I not special in this regard? Shouldn't I simply get whatever I want?

I'm more than five years old, so I accept that I'm not as special as I once thought. Nationalism is similarly infantile.

And you're not responding to my argument about the Hopi, just repeating your own; I didn't even address your point about them at all.

Edit: Whoops, that was sloppy of me. In fact I didn't address your Hopi/Swede point because I hadn't seen it yet. I'm not sure what I think about it (except that in principle it's a good idea to disabuse kids of their childhood beliefs, if not by beating them).

I'm not prepared to treat that as I would child abuse in larger society, though.
I'm sure they have plenty of proof ready to share with the public, to prove that the system is worth it, even though it's unconstitutional, but apparently no one cares about that and about American values anymore:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Etm4dHdaApo
Google may not like it, but facial recognition is coming soon to Glass

Nah, both Google and NSA will love it.
Check out what my friends at CozyCloud are working on: https://www.cozycloud.cc/

They want to be your user-friendly personal cloud. Easy as an an App Store. Open source. Host it wherever you want. Your data and your apps are yours.
The concept of privacy is inherent for dubio pro reo. If you take away or reduce privacy everybody is guilty by association - qed.
A Thinking Person
Makes you wonder..
These tweets are just a sliver of the overwhelming evidence that most of the US population is incredibly naive. The issue with that, of course, is that they won't vote out of office the officials responsible for allowing these programs. Every elected official involved in the oversight of these programs, those that announce support for them, and those that do not publicly denounce them, must be voted out in the next election. That won't happen because of people like this. As a democratic society, ambivalence may be the most dangerous enemy we face.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if the NSA offered free, nationwide, unlimited mobile voice/LTE data/SMS with a warning that all of it would be monitored and recorded. My bet is the adoption rate would be above 90%.
Free Javascript and Python eBooks
Thanks for the link. Some great points there like:

* Since 9/11 we have not had a mass-scale terror attack. We can say 9/11 was a one-off, an aberration, and cannot be a justification for everything the government wishes to do.

* If domestic spying is for our own good, the government should be proud to tell us what they are doing for us, instead of being embarrassed when it leaks. If you're not doing anything wrong then you've got nothing to hide, right?

* The system completely missed the Boston bombers, two of the dumbest, least sophisticated bro' terrorists in the world.

* If instead of spending trillions and trillions of dollars on spying and domestic surveillance we spent that same money on repairing our infrastructure and improving our schools, wouldn't that more directly create a stronger America?

All are valid points to consider in this discussion. But for me, it all boils down to the risk terrorist pose to America vs risk of government abusing its power. No contest. I'll take my chances with the "terrorists" any time, any place, any day.

Let us not forget the sacrifice made by our founding fathers to give us liberty. Our freedom came at great price that shouldn't be taking lightly. Only after an open national discussion, with the consensus necessary for a constitutional amendment, should the government be given this power over us that they are taking now in secret.
Ladda.js, easy to make you buttons loading
I went to the link and I received a wonderful ad:
The most fabulous jewels in the world, then I thought that the response to How not to be alone. A master act, get up in them morning and buy some fabulous jewels for her, you will not be alone today.
> "We're going to have to make some choices as a society..."

Apparently, "society" didn't know much about this.
There's nothing irrational about fear of judgement. I do things that are completely legal that, if many other people knew I did them, would cause them to treat me differently, to my detriment.

You seem to be saying that I shouldn't hide them. My choice is to stop doing something I like doing, or accept that people will judge me and I will be treated a little worse. Why? Why should I have to do that? Why can't I keep going as I am? It makes me happier, it makes everyone else happier. What's so fucking wonderful about me being less happy?

People without secrets are perpetually putting on a show; removing privacy won't cause everyone to suddenly accept everyone's differences. You have some kind of utopian fantasy in which if everyone knows everything about everyone else, the world magically becomes a better place. It's not true. Tolerance has no limits? Have you met humans? How about that tribe where a boy becomes a man by being anally raped by other men? Or the neighbouring tribe where he becomes a man by orally servicing other men? There are cultures and societies in the world where anally raping children is simply not tolerated. How about gender selection? Killing a healthy child a few hours old because you wanted the other sex? The society I live in has a very low tolerance for drowning children in a bucket. Extreme examples, yes, but making it public won't suddenly make everyone tolerate it, and won't make everyone agree "oh, well they're different, it's okay for them to be like that".

We are different. Differences lead to disagreement and conflict. Privacy, amongst other things, gives everyone a means to shield their differences; be it something legal that society disapproves of, or something illegal that everyone does anyway, or something that's illegal in other cultures, or just odd. It's a necessary part of living in this world without either spending our time killing each other, or ending up a bland monoculture in which nobody ever steps outside the lines of society's accepted behaviour.
Privacy is an ecological issue. Even if you have "nothing to hide" you can't have a democracy if dissenters don't have those protections.
I love how killing >guerrilla< soldiers is ok. You invade a country, collapse the fragile infrastructure and then accuse the locals of being the problem - there is no chance than they're fighting for something worth believing in... It's just, well, their country.
Btw, I don't mean you specifically, I mean the US military/government members who supported this.
With Droplet, the money resides in your Droplet account, not literally on the phone. When the money is sent, it is sent from Droplet to the merchant. The phone app requests the transfer but is not involved in it.

From the first claim in the Apple patent:

> issuance of a credit having monetary value to the mobile computing device

If I'm reading the claim correctly, it appears that the credit (or at least a credit authorization) is then on your phone, not in an account.

There are also some strange clauses about the separation of sponsor and issuer of the credit that make this patent a little less obvious than it might seem. The authorization comes from the sponsor (likely your bank) but the credit is issued from the issuer (likely Apple).