skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
In the Constitution, the federal government is given broad, exclusive, power over national security and defense. Intelligence-gathering has always a part of national security and defense. That was a key purpose of the documents, to address the failure of the Articles of Confederation to provide for a robust centralized defense. Intelligence gathering has always been a part of the historical understanding of defense and national security. Therefore, the federal government can conduct intelligence gathering unless some affirmative right prevents it.

The 10th amendment just says that a right need not be enumerated in the Constitution to exist. However, you still have to prove that such a right exists, say by pointing to its recognition in English common law. Just because it isn't mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it also doesn't mean that it exists and is just "implicit." The idea that communications are protected by a broad "privacy right" that protects even information you share with others just can't be traced back to something the founders would have understood to be a "right" much less something so fundamental that they might leave it implicit.
Needs to be payable in bitcoin?
Is anyone else disappointed he didn't manage to work in "I am high as a kite." in the translation?

Background: the mother of all translations:

[ http://daringfireball.net/2007/02/macrovision_translation ]
http://anondrop.io is up
Working suspend and resume is not a basic feature as far as linuxen go.
Almost everyone in my company either has a desktop with two screens or a laptop with a external screen. At any given time we'll have some or all of Outlook/Word/Excel/IE/other local progs open. We couldn't manage this on a 10.8 inch screen.
Sounds like my granddad's job he had in the 30s. He was a troubleshooter. It wasn't a euphemism.
VFabric Enterprise Ready Server to End of Life
wtf, why was this not in the title??? Now this article has a completely different meaning than I had initially interpreted.
The CIA Invests in Narrative Science and Its Automated Writers
I know that these petitions don't always get the result that we'd like. Nor is it the only way to fix the problem.

I hope that anyone reading this post will email their representatives as well as the administration (even if you think the petition is a waste of your time). If there is one thing that Congress will respond to it is a demand by the people (that's us) for a change.

Edit: Thanks waterphone. Yeah you should call your representative as it is more effective.
most likely that was best 10 minutes of your day :-)
Electronic Surveillance Under Bush and Obama - Timeline
What he IS right about is that licensed software limits the user's freedom. That's unequivocal, you can't deny it.

This becomes much less clear if you bother to consider things like how that software came to exist in the first place.

Consider that there are things you can do, things you can't (or aren't permitted to) do, and things outside of possibility (eg web browsing before the internet was invented).

Requiring software to be Free/unrestricted reduces "things you can't do", which given a fixed set of possibilities increases "things you can do".

But the set of possibilities is not fixed. Depending on how any particular software being free affects the rate that things are removed from "outside of possibility", it could either increase or decrease the amount of "things you can do".

Edit: Is your freedom defined by how much you can do, by how much you can't do, or by the ratio of how much you can vs can't do? It's silly to be concerned only with the second of those.
Hi Siddhartha , thanks for your feedback ... the first legend is the country code , second one is the institution type ... colors are randomized for now .. ur suggestion on the placeholder in search box is taken and will surely implement. thanks .. Kindle fill in the survey too.. good day to u ..
The Amish are getting fracked
Then beat them. Let them spend all the money they spend trying to get you to vote, then use that vote to cast a ballot for a third party candidate that best reflects your beliefs.

Being able to get a substantial number of votes is a HUGELY BIG DEAL for third parties, as at some point (I can't remember the number exactly, I think it's 4%) they start getting federal funds to aid in future elections.

A viable third party, or even better, a variety of parties would provide the electoral market place more competition, potentially stop all politicians from positioning themselves in the middle, and free politicians with real views from needing to pander to party lines.
I had the same thought at about the same time. I think a lot of people saw this coming. Uber-surveillance has been a old standby for dystopian popular entertainment for a good while. It's almost like NSA spooks have been consulting to hollywood to make a little coin on the side.

What I admire more than Stallman-the-visionary is Stallman-the-idealist. The guy speaks his mind even when it's really difficult. Further, he appears to live in accordance with his thinking as best he can even though it's pretty inconvenient. These are both really very difficult to do consistently over the long haul.

At the time Stallman wrote this, it was a very unpopular thing to say. He was not just considered a crackpot but drink-in-the-face-at-parties unpatriotic.

For better or worse, I'm more of a pragmatist. I often experience the idealist as a pain in the ass and standing in the way of 'getting things done'. It's good for me to be reminded that the idealists must be listened to carefully. It might just be that I'm trying to get the wrong things done and I should slow down and listen.
Nothing of interest to see, was hoping for a season three insight into Persons of Interest, that would of been more worthwhile a read.

Suggest save time and avoid unless you are in need of a cure for insomnia.
Really, Google plus? That is not crypto-anarchism. Try Usenet.
Github is a business, and I think they're fairly entitled to have some closed source components, something proprietary to differentiate themselves.

They also create a lot of open-source software that can be used as an alternative to what they do. If Github becomes a poisonous influence, people can and will abandon that platform and move to something better. It happened to Sourceforge and it can happen again.
There are numerous reasons dragnet surveillance is bad, and these are only a few:

There are so many federal laws, no one even knows how many there are. Law professors and other experts have said everyone over the age of 18 has committed a federal crime, often unwittingly. Collecting and indefinitely storing information on the communications and other data of everyone in America allows retroactive and (necessarily) selective enforcement of these laws to target people who cause problems for people in power. Whether or not this is happening now, it inevitably will with a system in place long enough.

Privacy is generally considered a human right, and it should be for a variety of reasons, including to encourage a free society. People under constant surveillance by the government are less likely to speak negatively about the government or subjects that could be misinterpreted. If you know you're being watched by the government, even passively, and things you say are permanently stored and potentially on record, you self censor your own speech. Thus, this indirectly becomes a way to suppress free speech.
There are not a lot of options but VirtualBox works pretty excellently. There's also BHyVe and you can always use Qemu :)

The lack of hypervisor support is really more due to people not keeping up with the porting work. I would love to see Xen actively supported but I think BHyVe is going to be where the most work gets done.
Obama Defends NSA Programs, Says Congress Knew About Surveillance
I really don't get it. I read the court order to Verizon.
All it says is "you are to give us all your data". There are no individual cases, there are no NSA people identified. There is not a single bit of any identifying information anywhere to be found.

The nerve of some people. How you can defend classifying the mere fact that NSA was granted access to Verizon data from a court? What possible "damage to national security" could there be?

The only damage here is that the government looks like a bunch of lawless thugs, and to expose that we created transparency laws and classification systems in the first place. That is the one reason out there that is completely invalid for classifying something.
Ask HN: Why is there such little talk on Multicore/Machine Programming
This came to my attention after taking a mid level programming course were the professor stressed multi-core/machine programming and how most programs even today are not multi-core. Now I am trying to get into OpenMP (in C++) and there seems to be quite a lack of conversation and tutorials on the issue. (also with OpenCL and CUDA).
Were are the multi-core/machine programmers at and is there a market for having that skillset on your resume?
Alexander Karp was interviewed by Charlie Rose[1]:

"Most of our business is in government, and it all involves both sides of this equation -- finding people who are up to essentially bad things..."

"So, let’s say you go to the market and you buy something. You talk on your cell phone, and you send an SMS. You send every little -- you write a
report. All those are data, and massive scale, it is very hard for you to see that as a pattern.

So what is the pattern of Charlie Rose? Each Charlie Rose interacting with people that are up to no good?

And then it is very hard for me, the citizen of America, to look at the government and say, did they look at Charlie Rose because he was up to no good or did they look at Charlie Rose because they didn’t like his hair color?

And by the way, did they use Charlie Rose as a way to look at Charlie Rose’s audience and find out who is in the audience?"

[1]http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10549

[2]http://www.charlierose.com/download/transcript/10549
I object to you calling his conclusion insane.

While his response to this (almost completely removing himself from society) is unrealistic for the majority of people, his conclusions here are not insane, and are frighteningly accurate and prescient.

I actually disagree with Stallman on a lot of political issues, but highlighting the dangers to liberty in the wake of attacks is completely sane.

The only thing about Stallman that I find insane is his personal grooming habits/food choices.
Hahaha, indeed! +1
>Put yourself in the spooks' position.

Ok, I instantly resign and go become a monk or something, hoping I have enough time left in my life to make up for all the negative karma and evil I've built up.
Is A "DevOps" Job Title So Bad?
It's good, I will bookmark it.
This fan-films are a "old stuff" now. I helped a bit with one some time ago, making some 3d stuff for Star Trek Origins.

If you like this, you will love Star Trek Phase II
http://www.startreknewvoyages.com&#x2F;
The first chapters two aren't very good, but they make a steady progress improving it, and actually have a great quality in all senses.
Obama: Can't Have 100% Security, and Also Have 100% Privacy and 0 Inconvenience
A few months back I met a building contractor at a party outside of SV who was going on and on about installing "bullet proof glass" inside various areas of a tech company headquarters. I asked a few questions about the environs and it was clear it was the Palantir office he was talking about.

I've never heard a single good thing from my friends who had interviewed or had brushes with the company.

Do the employees get stock options or just U.S. Treasury bonds?
Why would you disclose that publicly? That pretty much reads as: "Don't use Repustate" to me.
"Who but Stallman can operate like this?"

I think the real question is why people pretend they cannot and end up acting helpless.

My co-workers can't even say no to $startup that acts like it's a requirement that you put your picture and bio on the company website. Some will grunt and complain about it, then act like I did something wrong when refusing this request (which is never presented as a request, of course).

People are the problem here, the government is doing exactly what I would expect when you have a bunch of ineffectual serfs running around.
Amazing Resonance Experiment
This is one of the most sensible things I've read on HN, hands down.
Or don't vote, and take every opportunity to peacefully undermine the government by educating people, participating in alternate currencies and black markets, striving to be self-sufficient, etc.
A simple way to decide if a law is bad or not is to look at how many people break it each year.

That's one way. I'd go further and say that if the "crime" doesn't have a victim, and involves strictly voluntary / consensual actions & behavior among adults (children may be a bit of a special case) then it is no crime.

I generally agree with Bastiat's[1] sentiments on this:

What Is Law?

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

Where I disagree is the whole "from God" bit, considering that I'm an atheist. I consider the rights he is speaking of, as being a fundamental aspect of being a sovereign individual possessed of self-ownership and agency.

[1]: http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
Like putting a "Protect the Environment" bumper sticker on a Hummer.
There are two ways to view this:

1. By letting them know how we collect intelligence, they will find ways to evade us.

2. By letting Americans know that we are spying on them, we risk a backlash and possible budget cuts.

I suspect that both of these were going through the heads of high-ranking decision makers at the NSA (and the FBI and the DEA).
> Those in power want you not to vote

Of course they want you to vote. Only they don't vote. They just prepay all politicians so that whichever of them wins the election is already in their payroll. Units of power are not people, are cents. When did this start?
Cool idea, but lack of results for `deftemplate` suggests that you're not scraping enough :) It's the non-core stuff that's more likely to need scraped examples.
A decent number of Stanford CS undergrads/grads end up there.
My small screen's real estate cannot afford a browser's toolbar.
You sound like Boromir.

Now that I think about it, calling it Palantir is ridiculously apt.
Check Star Trek : Hidden Frontier.
they are very old in this, and it's obvious that they do all with low budget, but they made seven seassons!!! And It get improving and getting more interesting in each seasson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Hidden_Frontier
I don't know if the GP is saying that, but I certainly am. Perhaps it's naive but the problem is; the government simply can't be trusted with this level of power. Every time a government is giving these kind of powers they do something corrupt/evil with it. So better to not have it at all and face the consequences than to keep having shit storms like this current one popping up all the time.

Full transparency in government, consequences be damned.
Schneier has a great article here on the many ways you are being tracked, but I think overlooks the fact that much of this record keeping happened prior to the internet. Almost all public activity generates a paper trail, and before the internet, your phone company, bank, grocery store, even your VHS rentals and public library, were keeping records on you. The internet makes it far far more efficient, but it didn't invent the collection of such records.

I think the focus shouldn't be on the unavoidable "information radiation wake" you give off as you move through the world living your life, but on the ways people utilize this information. The government, and private entities, need to be constrained in how this information can be legally used, not in the collection of it, which I think is impossible.

Consider health records, which lots of people are paranoid about. There's a lot of diseases we might be able to treat if people's health records were available to researchers. One might be able to detect correlations in disease from these records of millions of individual cases. But insurance companies and employers could potentially discriminate against you based on these records, so it is in your interest to keep your medical conditions secret. In cases, if you have a communicable disease, it is understandable you'd want privacy too.

Point being, the biggest danger of loss of privacy is abuse by the state or other private entities, and if we could build safeguards against that, the fact that your phone signals give away your location, or your subway card shows where you've been, might not be so threatening.
This is from Obama's commencement address (May 5th 2013, OSU).
Full quote:

“Unfortunately, you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They'll warn that tyranny always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can't be trusted.

We have never been a people who place all our faith in government to solve our problems. We shouldn't want to. But we don't think the government is the source of all our problems, either. Because we understand that this democracy is ours. And as citizens, we understand that it's not about what America can do for us, it's about what can be done by us, together, through the hard and frustrating but absolutely necessary work of self-government. And class of 2013, you have to be involved in that process.”

(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/05/obama_to_o...)
Someone should recompile ps2 games to x86.
It's absolutely unbelievable how groupthink manages to take over here sometimes. There are 296 repositories on Github when you search for PRISM. People need to stop and think for a minute about how generic of a name that is. It's certainly doesn't serve as any kind of useful evidence against Palantir.
That's not limited to "elected" or "federal" officials.

U.S. Constitution, Art. VI, Clause 3 (emphasis added):

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Completely agree. Every so often I promote hacker news through twitter, such that my own "brand image" is associated with Hacker News. Today I am completely ashamed to be associated with this twaddle. A couple of days ago a long discourse defending child pornography, today this stuff. Time to start with a new slate!
Preferential voting helps a lot to resolve this problem.
How Boston Powered Gay Rights
I've wondered for a while now why a European company would do their hosting in the US. Surely everyone knows by now that the US is one of the worst places (outside of NK or China) to host, why not host somewhere that doesn't have these issues? You're worried about latency? Then just get rid of half your facebook/g+ buttons and call it good.
you can talk about it... anonymously.
Bug: The title of pages gets double html-encoded when viewing a single comment. Does not occur when viewing a thread like this one.

Example: single quote (') displays as &#x27; in the title bar, or &amp;#x27 in the HTML data.

Example case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5838757
Certainly. My point is that the cost of farm land in non-populated areas is minor.
Entrepreneurship is decreasing in the US
You should keep in mind that Cambodia under Pol Pot considered anyone with glasses to be an intellectual and were killed.
> So if a few hundred thousand people decided to not vote because their one vote doesn't matter, it's conceivable that the result in a state could be swayed.

Yes, but it's extremely unlikely that your vote would sway the result, and I'm operating under the assumption that you can only control your own decision to vote.

> So why try to persuade people their vote doesn't matter? If enough of them (an admittedly large number) listen, it will matter.

You're confusing two things. I would never try to persuade people that the sum of everyone's votes doesn't matter, because it obviously does (discounting for the moment the possibility of election fraud). But I would try to persuade individuals that their vote will not matter with a very high probability.

Even though this is often phrased in such a way that it almost sounds like a contradiction or paradox, it's not at all. It's analogous to the lottery: the more people that play, the higher the chance that someone will win (assuming random picks), but one person buying a single lottery ticket has such a small probability of winning that I would recommend against relying on the lottery to change one's financial situation.
Steve from StatusPage here -- an issue like this is extremely rare so we just haven't prioritized a solution for it. This is something we plan on being able to handle in the future.
Well, it's been running for a while, how many has it caught? Oh, zero? Yea, that's what I expected.
"In a press conference just now, President Obama addressed the NSA surveillance programs, saying "we're gonna have to make some choices as a society" to examine how we deal with privacy issues and terrorism."

Right. And just how is society going to make informed choices about things they don't even know exist?
I guess reasonable people can disagree.

Maybe it falls apart if you look at it too closely or from a particular critical angle, but I would expect it to hold together than most broad-audience action pictures.