skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Careful: I don't want to ditch TCP, and I don't want to "ditch" IP so much as I want to push it down a level.

I have a bunch of problems with IPv6:

* IPv6 doesn't solve the multicast problem; multicast was attempted in an IP context and failed because when you try to express something as complex as group message delivery on IP, you needlessly complicate things, and because multicast on IP simply doesn't scale, because it conceptually requires core routers to maintain routing state for individual pieces of content.

* The topology of IPv6 is controlled by giant telecoms; also, some of what you are and aren't allowed to do with the connectivity you buy is controlled by telecoms. I don't have a moral problem with this, but it's a needless coupling between Internet and telephony businesses.

* IPv6 doesn't move us from our current state of "by default I don't have direct peer level connectivity with hosts", because in the IPv6 world, everyone will still be hiding behind firewalls, because for 2 decades the crappy software we had hanging out on TCP and UDP ports turned out to be too unsafe to expose. Overlays that would provide direct connectivity --- in the same sense as I can IM you on AIM or Gtalk right now --- would be starting fresh and would provide default direct connectivity to everyone. Anyone who's ever had to punch a hole through a firewall to allow inbound connectivity understands this.

* IPv6 is tremendously expensive to deploy: http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html --- forget the routers, we have so much software that has to get forklifted out to accomodate addresses that don't act like scalar integers.
This is a false assumption. AT&T did not deny opening its networks to the NSA during the EFF litigation. It simply declined to comment, and offered suggestions (which I wrote about at the time) about how the law allowed it to comply with such a secret court order.

It's the opposite of what Larry Page is doing.
To cover from the Verizon story, the government planted a story that makes the practice look even grander in scope?

The idea that they want to cover up the Verizon story is negated by the fact that many Congressional leaders came out immediately afterwards and said basically "yes this has been going on for years, they continually renew the 3-month orders, it's all telcos, we are pleased with it".
By default it's terrible.

You have to make conscious choices; ones that not only altruistic for you but also a bit dangerous for you; in order to attain some kind of wonderfulless.

Once the society settled on "grab all" or "protect all good from all bad", it degrades into a pile of terrible.
Does anyone seriously believe that they don't?
Great tutorial, thorough.
Cool link, thanks! What do you mean "regret it"? It didn't work properly/performantly?
a compromise between rural middle America, suburbanites, christian conservatives, and urban yuppies

Left out a few parties there ray. What about the military-industrial complex? Don't they get a vote? (Maybe two or three?) What about all of those whose paychecks appear magically from "black" appropriations? How about LEOs? Are they not voting now? That would be a pretty sizable class to which to deny the franchise. You think the people who make house payments based on subverting the general welfare of the nation might be a bit more focused on what horrible program they can impose next than is "rural middle America"?

"Let's be clear" though. The current embarrassment is a paragon of "democracy".
The side-benefit of this shitstorm happening with the NSA and PRISM is that people outside of the tech community are actually starting to hear about this kind of stuff. This law should be common knowledge to a lot of people here, but it's good to see that a few more mainstream sources are starting to raise the issue as well.
actually only included that last bit about userfox to give some background on why I deal with emails and such. Thanks for the feedback though!
Unfortunately for Google, the Director of National Intelligence himself has confirmed the program and publicly called its disclosure "reprehensible". However, Google and the rest of these companies are in an awkward position. This program is still technically Top Secret, even though everyone now knows about it. Because of the obligation to secrecy that comes with having received classified information through the proper channels, they are essentially the only people in the world that are required by law not to acknowledge the existence of the program.

That said, the canned "direct access" line - the exact terminology curiously arrived at by no less than 5 separate corporate PR departments within hours of each other - is a poor facade. They should have considered how using identical terminology would make these denials so transparent.
Hint: lots of people can read your e-mail because e-mails are transmitted in clear text over potentially numerous intermediate SMTP servers.

Protocol not designed to protect privacy does not protect privacy: news at 11.
But really.. as nice as X11 network is, it's mostly just as easy to use vnc, nx, rdp, whatever.
If that means a faster, lighter, better displayserver, go ahead, i say.
Did you read Larry's blog post? He didn't rule out the NSA, he did rule out the USgovernment period. Quote:

> Indeed, the U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the information stored in our data centers.
Cinderella’s convertible carriage - fairy-tale of neutrino oscillations
The fundamental problem here is that we have allegations that the US Government ordered all these companies to do something bad(tm) and not talk about it. So, if we assume that the allegations are correct, then the companies denying it are in on it, and the denial is false. But if the allegations are not true(either wholly or just for Google), then their denial may be entirely true. That's why it's problematic, because if you believe that the reports are true, then Google's actions are perfectly in-line with that belief. If you believe they're false(or even not as extensive as reported), then Google's actions are perfectly in-line with that belief.

So realistically, the best approach is just to wait and see.
My understanding is that X can run as a client on top of Wayland and thus you "strange" users can run remote X applications.
"One would think that there existed better methods to remote access then just copying the image buffer and compress it."
Web applications fit the bill nicely.
I prefer "Can planes fly?"

The Church-Turing-Deutsch Principle seems pretty uncontroversial when we ignore quantum mechanics (and remains questionable when it is considered). Add to this the lack of any evidence for any irreducible quantum requirements in the mind anyway and it seems pretty damn likely that the mind is algorithmic.

Even if the CTD Principle does not hold for whatever reason, that still does not put the mind and machines on different levels. It would merely imply that machines more powerful than Turing machines can be built (the mind being an example of such a machine). Not even Roger Penrose disputes a materialistic mind.
The spatio-temporal tracking only works if the battery is in the phone all the time. Take the battery out unless you're making a call or checking voicemail.
Shots Fired Near Campus of Santa Monica College
This is false. The NSA did not list Google as a partner. Reporters may have, which is different from what the leaked slides actually say.
Or the news organizations summarizing the leaked slides got it wrong.
This is cool. Is this coming to Android anytime?
I have to warn you ... be very very careful about your expectations when it comes to getting a PhD. It defies logic when one considers the simultaneous push to graduate more PhD students when there are very very few faculty jobs available. Are you okay if you get a PhD but then never get a chance to use it in your work? Think hard about this ...

Doing it when you are older doesn't stack the deck against you in my opinion. I've known a few older PhD students in CS and I think they have some advantages over the under-30 bunch. Specifically, I've heard of some under 30 PhDs sometimes being said to "look" non-professorial. I guess some people expect professors and researchers to look a certain way (I think those people are idiots btw).
To be clear, when I meant a religious fan, I was joking (in that the SF Giants are my primarily religious belief). Didn't have the additional context - thank you.
Ha ha ha thank you Bernanke, this is amusing. Dot com 2.0 has arrived! When is the IPO?
Travel Planner Mobile App
Do you use any travel planning mobile app? If yes which one and does it have everything you need. What functionality would you like to see in a mobile travel application.
Indeed, that one is listed in the known vulnerabilities section of the repo. Thank you for trying it out
Facts don't stop being facts because they sound weird.
The quote is:

Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false.

He doesn't say "Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information directly to the government..."

As such, I think you can either take it as "we don't disclose anything to anyone, or you can say that the sentence isn't true.
Why should I bother to read some moronic crap written by a marketing chick?
It does. "Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false."
A broadcast, by definition, is a data transmission initiated by the broadcaster to a number of recipients. HTTP doesn't fit this definition in any way, shape, or form. Every transaction is initiated by a request from you, the client. Right now radio waves are being forced through you and your computer by radio and television towers. Those are broadcasts. Hacker News is not. You made a specific request for the content of news.ycombinator.com. If you do not specifically ask for all this violent pornography you seem so concerned about, it simply can not find its way to your computer. Know why? Because it's not being broadcasted.

Beyond the "semantics" (your dismissal of which indicates you don't hold much regard for the rule of law), you are sorely mistaken if you think state censorship will be used exclusively to guard our fragile, sexually frustrated youth from gangbang clips. This is how a marketplace of ideas becomes a menu of state approved thought.
Siteleaf - Content management simplified. Edit in the cloud, publish anywhere.
10 GbE: What Took So Darn Long?
First, we have heard no denials from government officials that these programs exist. Indeed, US Senators & Obama have acknowledged they exist. Second, we have no denials of the document's authenticity.

Third, we would assume through logical deduction that someone who does deny the program's existence is either lying, being misleading, or has been mislead themselves.

Finally, if this program does not actually exist, what the hell program are Obama and these Senators' referring to?
The Guardian suggested that more leaks are going to be published...
> NSA says it's getting data in some form from Google, Page says no direct access.

Page says no direct access and not even legal access at that scale (verizon). He doesn't say they don't have any access -- in fact he says they comply within the bounds of law, but it's not at the Verizon scale.
Really? You don't see any difference between the denial posted by Google's CEO vs. the way that (say) Verizon responded? Here's Verizon's response: http://www.businessinsider.com/verizons-memo-to-workers-abou...
Tracking Desafio Intel 2013 SemiFinalists
I am confused. If there are no claims or evidence supporting the usage of the term "paramilitary thugs," then why bring it up at all? "Trying to get some terminology inserted into the discussion" is worthless (and arguably harmful) if there is no justification for such inflammatory terminology.
Thanks for the response, I have not found it to well matched for all of my tasks but it is definitely well set up for certain types of programming tasks, has several high level abstractions and a diverse set well documented libraries.
That is untrue. See:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588279-38/google-ceo-on-...;
James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, released a statement last night saying the Guardian and Post articles about PRISM "contain numerous inaccuracies."
Clapper's statement didn't confirm or deny any NSA activity. He said only that the articles "refer to collection of communications pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act," and that any such collection is legal.
It's all going toward Snapchat R&D and sales, of course. Staying on the cutting edge of technology and maintaining your paying customers is tough in today's market.
Is that even possible if Google's SSL certs have Extended Validation? They'd have to have cooperation all the way down to the browser vendors and I can't see Mozilla caving that easily.
You and I should get together and make a bet. If my rights are going to be stripped away I may as well profit.
Either way, if Google has troves of info of everything you do online, NSA will get it. One way or another, front door, back door, in-direct access and what not
First, in order to get a clearance you have to be sponsored. Companies have a limited number of sponsorship slots allocated to them by the government.

Then, the process behind getting cleared is fairly arduous. You may have a clean record but you have to prove it exhaustively even for the lowest level of clearance -- I believe the application form is on the order of 40 pages. You have to list all of your friends and sexual relations from the past 10 years, for instance, so that they can go an interview every single one of them.

Essentially, being born and raised in america and having a clean record while being sane is just a baseline requirement.
Google's legal process for government data requests
Oh you read it? I'm glad you read :)

However, note that everything you read is not necessarily true. Unless you have HARD DATA, whatever you read may very well be made up.
How about systematically irradiating 99% of the people that walk through their lines, without any independent study of the risks of such radiation? What happens when a terahertz antenna of unknown power is waved 2 feet in front of a male's genitals? 5 years of x-raying individuals, then taking all machines out of service shortly after the EU bans the machines? We will never know how many cancer cases arise from that program.

Not to mention the cost of running an agency that has not even once caught a terrorist.
AT&T didn't deny involvement during EFF's NSA wiretapping lawsuit. They didn't confirm or deny.
Well the good news is that it was shutdown. Even during the cold war and the threat of the commies.
It would be the FBI, actually.
Since there seem to be a lot of conversations regarding the Google blog post along the lines of "A: this seems pretty complete. B: no it's not, they don't specific what they do share"... here's some details on what sharing does happen.
Again, everything you mention is based on the current state. No successful entrepreneur raises money (or runs there company for that matter) planning on the status quo not changing.
I think that would fall under this denial:

> First, we have not joined any program that would give the U.S. government—or any other government—direct access to our servers.

You would be hard pressed to argue that "direct" access proxied through a gov't contractor isn't the same as direct access. I don't think they'd cut the truth that close unless they were under oath. The court of public opinion is less caring of technicalities.
I also wanted to point out this:

> Honestly though, I think they could make much much stronger statements about this stuff.

They can't really, though - they do cooperate with the government on a ton of properly-filed, fully-legal subpoenas. And that's fine, that's what they have to do, and it's what every other company in the world would do - though we should all push our government(s) to be more transparent about what they're requesting and why.
It's also possible that Larry is concerned about his share price, and what would happen to it if Google was revealed to be completely in bed with the NSA (My guess is it would fall quite a bit). He has real money at stake in limiting the damage that comes from this revelation.
Just goes to show you we were animals a little over fifty years ago. We still are. There are many examples of this, including the treatment of women and homosexuals in the Middle East. Humanity needs to get out of the caves before making real leaps forward. We talk about fighting poverty and hunger yet can't do a thing when faced with blatant in-your-face abuse. We respect the idea of women being mutilated, killed and having to walk under tents in public, even as immigrants in the Western World, out of respect for religion. Sad, considering the delusionary nature of all religions.
Please forgive me for the bikeshedding, but I have a quick question as a C novice: Is the equality check in the following necessary?

if (foo & 0x80 == 0x80) {

I thought if you're checking a bit simply anding would be enough (since everything else would be zeros). In other words, could we just use

if (foo & 0x80) {

If so, then it seems like this would be the preferred form to avoid the precedence issue presented in the article.
threw in some rhetoric about morals and freedom

I would feel better if Google put its brand at stake a little more, yeah.
As someone who has never used X's remote access, what are its benefits over VNC?
There's 2 different things going on, under different legal authorities and Google is confusing them.

Verizon was given a Patriot Act order for business records, metadata; no names; no content, but all citizens or foreigner.

Google and other tech companies are said to have gotten orders under section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. That allows the government to compel communications companies to furnish lots of metadata and CONTENT on NON-U.S. persons. This was Congress legalizing warrantless wiretapping ala AT&T, but limiting it by requiring it to be targeted at non U.S. persons.

Compliance is mandatory, under contempt of court and companies must provide facilities and help. They also get reimbursed.

So it's likely Google never got an order like Verizon did, they likely got one that involves content, but is supposed to exclude intentional targeting of Americans.
If you are going for short code then the following scala example:

val arrayTwo = arrayOne.map { item:Int => item + 1 }

Can be written like this:

val arrayTwo = arrayOne.map(_+1)

"the availability of ruby gems is highly superior to the amount of SBT dependencies"

SBT is just a questionable version of Maven and I would bet money the amount of Java/Scala libs available in Maven repositories far exceeds the number of Ruby gems available.
Take a chance on me
> If my company is outside the US I can try to use infrastructure that at least makes it harder for the US to gain access.

Which is great, if you have a decent idea of the NSA's (and the US intelligence establishment in general) capabilities. If not, you're essentially fumbling around in the dark trying to make that kind of infrastructure selection. (And, of course, the US intelligence community isn't the only threat, China -- through whom much traffic that neither originates in nor terminates in China is routed -- has to be a consideration, particularly, but they aren't the only other threat, either.)

If you don't have a system where you have strong theoretical guarantees of end-to-end security and integrity with the data sent over untrusted infrastructure, its security against any of the major threats really relies more than anything on them just not caring about it, and if you think that you are meaningfully buying security by choosing between Google or one of their competitors for basic services, you are probably deluding yourself.
At least prior to the cloud model

Where do you think that came from?
Exactly. It actually got me thinking if burner phones are already modified (either hardware or firmware) to basically be the man in the middle. There was a big problem with Chinese-supplied hardware in the US gov't which was modified for snooping. My tinfoil senses tell me it would be relatively simple to modify older phones to, for example, send GPS signals even when the battery is not in by adding a smaller hidden power supply that recharges off the main battery when the main battery is in the phone.

I guess the only way to be sure is by not using a mobile phone at all.
My reply was specifically to do with the contention that the sentences were "straightforward and unambiguous".
> To me the biggest thing driving acceptance of gay people is the realization that being gay is not a choice, but rather something you are born with.

I'm not sure that it is the case that sudden realisation of the etiology of sexual orientation is the cause of increasing tolerance.

I think it is far more likely that acceptance and tolerance has come from the fact that lots of people have come out (and partly because of pop culture). Wind back to Turing's time and nobody knew that they knew a gay person. Gay people were kept in the shadows of society, and myths, rumours and slanders spread with no check on them.

Now, precisely because so many people have come out, when I tell someone I'm gay, they don't immediately think "well, he must be some kind of sick, child abusing, creepy pervert who does unspeakable things in the bedroom". Reasonable people will simply conclude "okay, he likes dudes" because it fits with their experience of other gay people.

The malicious stereotypes fail to live up to reality. In Britain, the official statistics say that 1 in 16 people are lesbian, gay or bi. Most people know more than 16 people, therefore most people know an LGB person. When the vast majority of them don't turn out to be immoral creepy sex abusing pervert freaks, it becomes rather more difficult for crazy people to keep the stereotypes going.
I don't know, the name service resolution terminated in a server with an open smtp relay, which might be what you're talking about but sounds strange. Plus, it's name service resolution for _all_ outbound traffic. Thanks for the tip though. Like I said, I'm just a computer hobbyist
Program existing != program being exactly as described by the media.

> The Guardian and The Washington Post articles refer to collection of communications pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They contain numerous inaccuracies.

http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-pre...
Fun problem:

When the phone is turned on, the phone communicates with cell towers. This can approximate your location. To be truly anonymous (as much as possible) you should have the phone cut ALL communication with the cell towers. When you make the call, the antenna turns on, call is made, antenna turns off.

Additionally if the phone can be configured to use wifi for phone calls, then ideally you decrease the possibility of the location being tracked.

If the phone is on in theory authorities should be able to pull records from the cell companies and track every place the carrier of the phone visited.

For added shipping security always ship from a VERY high volume shipping place. This way its hard to isolate your package, but not impossible.
What does any of that have to do with your original assertion that it was a carefully worded non-denial denial? Your point now seems to be "I don't like Google, and this doesn't convince me otherwise." That's fine, but hardly relevant.