skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
First of all, the author sells a book about vitamins being bad, so he's probably not being objective about it.

I think you are reversing the cause and effect here. You assume that because he is releasing a book on this topic, therefore his opinion has been molded to fit the book. But you should be asking where the opinion behind the book came from originally.

Meanwhile, the reverse can also be true - the author, a highly credentialed doctor, started out objective on the topic and after years of research has come to the conclusion that he advocates in his article and book.

The focus here on "being objective" is a bit odd - not every issue has two sides that are both equally correct. The fact that someone has done all the research and looked at years of studies and has arrived firm conclusion does not automatically make him or her an unfair observer.

In fact, that's not even bias! Bias is refusing to consider any other viewpoint even with evidence.

I do agree with you though that the article would be better if it was more clear about the dosages in the studies. It's advice comes off as "vitamins are dangerous" rather than "megadoses of vitamins are dangerous".
Nice caricature you've got going there. I like how sometimes people tend to shit on a people/group because they themselves are a part of because, hey, if they're a part of that same group they can supposedly say whatever they want without scrutiny since they have first-hand experience and they are 'only talking about themselves' (well, this is just an impression that I have since I don't know how to mind-read).

Yes, Scandinavians aren't ones to strike up conversations with strangers. Hell, they might be hesitant to respond positively to a stranger that is requesting their help. But I wouldn't say that they (we) are downright socially dysfunctional, as you seem to be saying.
Can't wait to see this! When will it launch? Only for London though?
I disagree in part and here is why.

We have social obligations first to those nearer us and later those further away. We owe our parents more than we owe strangers. If we are in a crowded theater and fire breaks out, we have a greater obligation to save our own kids' than our neighbor's, but we have a greater obligation to save our neighbor's kids than a stranger's. So obligations start at the family and household level and spread out in concentric circles of community. This is healthy and it is more or less the way humanity has always worked. The outer two levels might generally be classified as the ethnos and lastly everyone else.

Where I hesitate is where you say "in many cases outright denying the existence of" because that's a problem, but not because we owe no more to our own than to others.

The problem is also wider than mere denial of the existence of innocent drone strike victims, but this idea that because we believe we have justified reasons for engaging in drone strikes, everyone should just understand that. A healthier attitude would be to expect and value the fact that Yemenis and Pakistanis will value their family and community members more than Americans, and where too many people off base is that they don't expect or value that. They think the Pakistanis should be grateful that we are killing bad guys and that's where the problem lies. Attitudes like that make it impossible to build bridges between our peoples, to understand and respect eachother.

The alternative is to say that communities shouldn't matter. Why should the Pakistani not have American liberties? But then why should African Americans not be protected by European hate speech laws? Why should American Muslims not be protected against people insulting their religion?

In the end, I think that community (as a series of concentric circles) is important and as much governance needs to be as local as at all possible. This means tolerating all kinds of things we might believe are abuses of rights in our own culture while trusting that other people have the ability to make things work in a basically just way.
Sure you can: "We do not share your data without requesting your explicit consent before hand"
You are saying "government nuclear weapons facility" as if it was some serious thing. If it were actually serious in any way to anybody then three geezers would't enter this facility to spray and pray just by cutting few fences some random morning.
> It seems that the Hopi would be entirely justified in saying that all other Americans are guilty of child abuse.

Which brings me back to my point. Who gets to make the rules?

Isn't the greatest justice served and the greatest abuses of power prevented by keeping these decisions as local as possible?
You might not like Singapore's govrnment, but calling it "evil" is a bit of a stretch. I don't think Singapore has ever had legal slavery, massacred its indigenous population, or used weapons of mass destruction on foreign cities. But hey, we can talk about it, right?
Thanks, I've been thinking about buying it, this gives me the excuse I need :-)
Glad you're excited about it. We don't have a date yet but we're working hard to get it out as soon as we feel it's ready. And London to start with, though we already have plans for other cities (so long as the data exists).

Any suggestions for cities?
To be fair though, the author does not hide any conflict of interest - it is stated in the footer - and the argument is made with evidence, not simply "I've been a doctor for 25 years, listen to me!".

This is coming dangerously close to dismissing all arguments from experts because their expertise has made them "biased" or presents a "conflict".
This isn't an attack on free speach. This has the hallmarks of regulatory capture. If you're a news organisation whose readership is being undermined by no moat blots (anyone can set one up and they cost nothing to run) then your profits are in grave danger. Structurally your business is suspect unless you can find a way to arbitrarily limit competition.

This license is both arbitrary and expensive. Media sites no longer need to fear competition from small time blotters or new news upstarted.
Elon Musk in Iron Man 2 pitching Electric Jet
Don't do that please.
Well ... the day after Osama was killed it was all in the news and all positive. If they stopped something on similar scale they would not have reasons to hide it.
The Singapore government an evil regime? Wow.
> The CPU is not made for this motherboard.

That line have never made much sense to me, can anyone elaborate on what he might have been seeing?
Insulting? Really?

It's a truism in computing that the only really secure computer is one that has been disconnected from the network, turned off, encased in solid concrete, and sunk to the bottom of the ocean.

Even then, better hope James Cameron doesn't want what's inside.

I'm sure NSA's security people are aware of this. If they are not, then they're not very good at their job.
Do not use this article as an reason to stop taking Vitamin D. Totally different thing altogether. This article demonstrates the problem with calling all of these things "vitamins."
> One important thing to recognize is that: "You can read my text/call logs" !== "You and the rest of the world can know everything about me"

No, "having nothing to hide" means exactly that. Especially since we live in an age where everyone can google anyone.

> So someone saying they "have nothing to hide" doesn't really mean they would answer all the above question publicly, but rather there is no electronic record/evidence of anything they know they want to keep private.

"Nothing to hide" on the internet or IRL implies everything of one's private and public life, you can't change its meaning back to exclude some kind of private life (defined as what isn't electronically stored) after the facts.

"having nothing to hide" is the fallacious moral stance used by Schmidt when he says "maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place".
Narus is an Israeli company ?
Headquarters in California but also offices in India.
Half of the management is Indian the other half American. I would say if an NSA really outsources to Narus it would be to India not Israel.
Ask HN: What are the chances of getting hacked when sending email
What is the probability that an arbitrary email will be "accessed" by "unauthorized persons"?

For background, the insurance company is insisting on sending me an encrypted email that I cannot open. I told them to send me a regular email without encryption but they refuse. This is what they say:

"[Our] policy strictly forbids transmission of member PHI (Protected Health Information) through a non-secure channel. To guarantee confidentiality, our response(s) must always be sent using secure e-mail, consistent with HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) requirements, or through the U.S. Postal Service."

"We use a form of security known as encryption. Encryption is for your protection. Encryption prevents unauthorized persons from accessing your personal information which may be contained in our e-mail response to you. All messages you send us using the "Contact Us" feature are automatically encrypted."
San Fran would be great although any city would be interesting
This request is invalid.
Let's talk iOS
Aside from getting encrypted data, PRISM can also get historical, structured, and non-transmitted data.
Makes sense, especially given the fluorescent yellow urine that often comes shortly after taking a vitamin (the liver/kidneys working hard to eliminate something, which is telling enough). It seems like vitamins would be improved to come in smaller, multiple-doses (though that becomes less convenient) -- the one I occasionally take is dosed as two pills through the day to hit the 100% mark, and it has removed the nuclear pee response -- or slowed delay, etc.
"they haven't at all become terrorists."

Of course that's what they've become. They were even convicted of it. What Big Brother defines as terrorism has very little to do with reality, of course.

The real problem is if you make the penalty for non-violent protest the same as the penalty for violent protest, you're relying solely on the perpetrators ethics and morality to not shoot the place up and burn it down. After all they get the same penalty for holding up a banner as for doing something actually violent... so why not make "more" of a statement?
Conservatives complain about "activist judges" but I would like to see something done about "activist prosecutors", who stretch the law to imprison people in ways not intended by law. The computer hacking statutes are also a good example of this.
With NYTimes, I find if I add ?_r=0 to the end of the url it works.
> Keep in mind that you read RT to learn what Russia wants you to think. Then it's great. That's the point I was trying to make.

That's a very good point, and could be made about most things. I think the way you worded it above misrepresents it.
Thanks but no thanks. Visual Studio 2012 does (i think) all those things out of the box and much, much more.
Any threat against a government's monopoly on violence is a threat against its very lifeblood. The outcome is pretty predictable.

What do you think would cause a more passionate and exaggerated reaction in the IT community?

* someone stealing a few computers from a hardware store, or breaking other people's computers on purpose, OR

* someone saying computers are inherently evil and should be abandoned and banned forever, while rallying support in that direction?

(to be clear, this is an analogy to a government's expected reaction to theft, vandalism, rape etc. versus a perceived existential threat to its military and police)

Being suddenly outraged or shocked by the development in this story displays a lack of understanding of basic historical patterns. If anything, the government's desire to send such exaggerated, exemplary signals by means of giving peaceful old nuns "a lesson" points at some surprising weakness & insecurity on its part.
...then they say "hey, our server with all your confidential information has been cracked, and we are leaking".

Now your private info is public.
Thanks, glad I asked.

I do similar stuff with mental arithmetic, to make sure I can, and exercise it.

I think the main reason I go straight to fancy electronics when driving is because I don't really like driving all that much,and want to make sure I get to my destination as quickly as possible. I'd rather save the pain and effort for other things.
The average American is probably more outgoing than the average Scandinavian. So American culture is probably more outgoing. So being reserved and not "interfering" is more likely to be looked upon as a "pathology" than as "politeness" in this cultural context. In the same vain, an average American might be more likely to be looked upon as being "loud and obnoxious" than "open and friendly" by Scandinavians.

...and then we are back to the point that _delirium brought up about cultures varying by regions.
Thanks for mentioning Guido von List. I didn't know such a character had existed and there is a really interesting story about his life and how it connects to Arianism.
Quick note on Oracle Java SE Time Zone Updates
We have enough data for SF, it's actually one of the cities we'd like to implement in the first batch.
There is a difference between being an introvert and being socially awkward/shy.
>>We have no idea what they actually did prevent

Ugh.. what terrible reasoning. The absence of data is not somehow possible data.

>pointing out the failure in the Boston bombing is a poor counterpoint given that to many it would suggest that increased surveillance is necessary, not less.

It's actually a rather good counter point. It shows that the FBI/NSA/big brother already can't process all of the data it has in a meaningful amount of time. How does adding more data to sift through help? Unless there's some benevolent, magical AI that can pick terrorist patterns out of a colossal sea of data, I fail to see how more data is the solution.
In a case like that, what prevents somebody from taking more than one pill at the same time, if one pill alone is insufficient?
Each book is missing its edition and year of release.
sound reasons and very little magical thinking in terms of the economics of food

First, there isn't much logical thinking involved in veganism or vegetarianism. At their best, they're about ethics (which I certainly respect). At their worst, they make some very dubious claims about te economics of food and the environment.

But either way, note that people make significant and probably burdensome changes to their lives when it comes to upholding morals pertaining to food. I think that more (liberal) people would go a longer way making actual life changes when it comes to food than just about anything else. They might explain that the things you actually put into your body are the things you should care about most. Only there's little evidence to suggest that's the case. It is much more probable that national policies like increasing minimum wage or reforming education would have a bigger (though indirect) effect on your personal well being than optimizing your diet (as long as it's more or less "normal").

All religions, in this case the healthy diet religion, must not rely on facts in order to gain followers; they must rely on gut feelings, because gut feelings are much more powerful than proof when it comes to motivating life changes. And we just naturally feel that ingested food has to have a major effect on our health and general well being. It just makes sense, right? But, at least in the current state of scientific knowledge on the subject, that intuition is just superstition. After decades of research there's little consensus even on what makes us fat, let alone more subtle or indirect effects diet may have on our health. In fact, it's very probable that even if one day we do know exactly what's healthy to eat and what isn't, and at what quantities, the actual effect-size on our health will be quite small. It's quite possible that within some sane bounds, what food we eat simply does not determine our health to any large degree.
It's not, our governments would love something like PRISM. The "I don't have anything to hide" argument is going strong over here too.
When I was growing up as a Quaker, I was raised to see such people as heroes, and I still do. These people took their beliefs and their convictions and chose to live life on their terms, not bowing to the authorities of the government. They knew what the potential punishments were. They used the trial to make their case. They made it. Like many other heroes of great magnitude they have sacrificed much and now stand as political prisoners.

But in addition to making their own cases, they have exposed something deeper about our system of government. We are all in their debt.

I shall listen to Jack Warshaw's "No Time for Love" (as a tribute to political prisoners) tonight, both his version[1] and the Moving Hearts version[2] (which was published first interestingly).

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT8p1XhTc2Y

[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTgD-QveQrU
Did North Korea ever had legal slavery, massacred it's indigenous population or used weapons of mass destruction on foreign cities?
Why doesn't simply being disconnected from the internet and located in the middle of nowhere Utah locked in a super-secure fortress with the best network engineers, computer experts, and cryptologists suffice?

And yes, it is insulting. The NSA has been at the forefront of encryption and network security for the past 60 years.

Am I giving the NSA too much undeserved credit?
And this is why I think Palantir is behind PRISM
Nothing, but it becomes quite expensive.
Sounds like the Cold War line of thinking. It was Russia then, now China takes over the place. What if Country_X does Y? Oh we must keep up the pace! What history tells me is when a government starts to draw people's attention to some public enemy abroad, usually it has some ax to grind and some shit to hide.
Clothes serve many purposes beyond hiding your body. Protection from dirt and weather conditions, social signaling, etc.
Yes. And because you know the questions to ask means you have too. And so since we both have it makes it OK.
My old friend Zigurd, who's Latvian parents, grandparents, etc. know a thing or two about totalitarian regimes (in WWII the country was first invaded by the Soviet Union, then Nazi Germany, then recaptured by the Soviets; his parents met in a displaced persons camp post-WWII), and who is now heavily into the Android ecosystem, made what I think is a wise comment in the Stallman prediction thread, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5840210:

"Until the early 80's there was no widespread use of mobile telephony and internet. It's not crazy to think that the surveillance state has ruined the internet and that there is more value in avoiding it than in using it. Maybe it's over.

[...]

The car industry is facing a generation of buyer who find cars a burden. It's crazy to think that we can't screw this up."

He may well be right, it could be that these wonderful toys are so subject to government abuse that we'll realize we would have been better off without the rush to adopt them.

Perhaps we need to develop proper institutions, methods and control over their abuse, but that process is going to be painful. The story of the West's adaptation of the printing press and government controls over them is not a pretty one, after all.

Anyway, if he's even somewhat right, it's hard to imagine there's a more important topic for HN to discuss right now, it impacts everything, from our daily lives to the things we build and expose to the Internet.
Show HN: Gethub
Isn't lobster one of the foods that is only as tasty as how you cook it? If you are poor and eat it because you can't afford anything better, you probably don't have the asparagus, butter and lemon.
New long distance quantum teleportation system ‘extremely reliable’
Deep Learning for NLP (without Magic)NAACL 2013
It sure would! Watch this space ;)
Yeap. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Singapore elite already has enormous, ever increasing power. Everything is done to destroy all opposition. You must be very naive to think that once a small group achieves a complete control over a country, they will use it for everybody's good.
I suspect that a vast majority of people are going to be okay with this. It was been my observation that people are far more interested in safety than freedom.
Anyone who was so naive as to think that terrorism laws would not be used against political troublemakers has no perspective of history ;-)

We've known for some time (and it has been controversial on many sites I frequent on both left and right) that "terrorism" has been used to label groups believed to be radical by the government (i.e. those groups which threaten the bipartisan consensus. Environmental groups get added. Groups espousing local governance get added. But it is nothing new in this country.

The words of Jack Warshaw, originally applying the experience of Americans to the Troubles in Northern Ireland are as true today as they ever have been:

They say that here we are free
To live our lives as we please
To sing and to speak and to write
So long as we do it alone
But do it together
With comrades united and strong
And they'll take you away for long rest
With walls and barbed wire for a home

No time for love if they come in the morning
No time to show tears or for fears in the morning
No time for goodbye, no time to ask why
And the sound of the sirens, the cry of the morning.
awesome, I was getting a bit worried about the lack of updates on their blog. Thrilled that they are actually talking to various agencies.

I am a bit worried about the attention given to "shiny" (Leap Motion, Twitter, vehicles etc.) features rather than actually useful statistical stuff but I am hoping they are just working on this while they are in discussions with said agencies.
A group of people trespass into a nuclear weapons facility, carrying written statements indicating they may be there to sabotage the weapons, already caused damage to the facility, and they didn't expect something like this to happen? I don't think their charges sound that terribly unreasonable. Maybe somewhat excessive but it's definitely not a bigger deal than the NSA issue.

What's the problem with nuclear weapons anyway? They're simply a fact of international relations that you have to deal with. Should all of NATO have just thrown all their nukes into the ocean during the cold war and let the USSR have our way with them? They've only been used in wartime twice in history, and that was to save far more lives than it took, and since then they've been an adequate deterrent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
Hell, Texas even fingerprints you for a driver license or state-issued ID card and has since the late 1960s. Now they even get thumbprints on renewals. (Transportation Code, 541.142(b))
As much as it might feel nice to make suggestions such as this, it's probably worth remembering that this sort of data is probably gapped from the external network (no data flow outward).

If anybody knows (and has experience) well enough about keeping data safe (indeed through doing quite the opposite), it's these guys. Whilst it's well established that in software there's not much we can do to avoid bugs and other vulnerabilities, there's rather something to be said for practical operational security in making it almost impossible for data of this form (and especially volume) to be leaked - good luck trying to get data across an air gap or indeed something monitored physically to the extent that this all is.

(caveat: spies and other infiltrators would perhaps, in certain circumstances be in a position to leak this sort of stuff - there is only so much that can be done to avoid this, of course (oh - and also others on the inside willing to leak information))
Frankly, I find that very hard to believe.