skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
A private browsing window is another solution to this problem. I use it frequently! :)
John Von Neumann convinced Einstein that Israel needed a computer
Atheist Suicide Bomber Kills Eighteen Agnostics
"They" knew that the "Ft Hood shooter" had been in contact with extremists, yet we all know what the end result there was.

13 dead
30 + wounded
About these supplementary pills I think the advice of Taleb is very good:

- When there is a very strong reason to medicate or do surgery, do it immediately.

- When it is just for convenience, don't do it. The long term risks are unknown.

His diet advice is "don't ingerate anything that has been invented in the last 50 or 100 years", so wine: yes, Coke: no, vitamin pills: no, etc.

However in case of a cancer with a very bad diagnostic, he would try even the newest unverified cure.

I think this advice should be heard in the US where so many people seem to fill their stomack with aliments that did not exist 50 years ago (processed food, chocolate bars, soda, pills being the worst).

(I am rephrasing)
He is doing the only smart thing to do and that is milking the story. We always complain that people are not paying enough attention to privacy and he is trying to assure that the story stays in the news for a while.

If he can come up with 1-2 further "big facts" (e.g. clearly demonstrating that ale the Tech CEOs have been lying about their involvement) this story gets much more attention than just dumping it all on one day.
Remembering WEIZAC: the beginning of computing in Israel
One blog at a time. It's not difficult to imagine there are a few government people looking for unauthorized blogs, or the ability to report an unauthorized blogger.
I read some comments from you and I keep asking myself: What is your alternative?

Corporations also want our personal data. Maybe do you imply "no government, no corporations"?

Even in this scenario, other people want to know relevant bits about you, with any purpose. So, don't you have right to choose what to share publicly with them? This is privacy.
It's not about total enforcement, it's about chilling the desire for anyone to start a blog, to the point that the effect is the same as if they were able to enforce it.

Singapore has had strong defamation laws in effect for awhile now, which have been able to make a mark on public discourse with a few select enforcement actions:

http://blogs.wsj.com/searealtime/2012/03/01/debate-over-blog...

> But in recent weeks, lawyers acting on behalf of key Singapore leaders have delivered sharp legal warnings to dissenting blogs, saying the blogs published untruths and defamatory comments. Although editors of the blogs have retracted the posts and in some cases apologized, academics have said the cases nevertheless could have a chilling effect on writers at a time when they’re just beginning to enjoy new freedoms following years of restrictions defended by the government as necessary for maintaining social stability.‪
>
>In one case, lawyers acting on behalf of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong issued a five-page letter to prominent public affairs blog Temasek Review Emeritus, accusing it of posting a “defamatory” opinion piece that contained comments related to the appointment of Mr. Lee’s wife, Madam Ho Ching, as the head of Singapore sovereign wealth fund Temasek Holdings. The piece had asserted she received the appointment because of political connections, which the government says is untrue.‪
>
> The letter asked the website to retract the post and issue an apology, both of which it did days later.‪
This is an article in the NY Times, not a scientific paper. Providing all those direct references would not make for good reading. The Cochrane Library is a very reliable resource, and I think it's valid to assume that the author is not simply making this up.
Soon, fighter robots to protect Indian borders
Cool. For those unaware, Xonotic is a FOSS FPS, forked from Nexuiz after the Nexuiz IP was sold (bit of drama on that one—the creators of Nexuiz did so without asking the Nexuiz community[1]).

Although I've only played Nexuiz, it's a serious blast—very akin to Quake 3 Arena.

[1] http://www.xonotic.org/the-game/faq/#What_prompted_the_split...
Still, the first step to fixing it is being upset about it.
That he's "probably not being objective" isn't a fact. You opened up with the ad-hominem, do you really not see that?
Paul Offit seems to be irrationally biased. In his longer guardian piece on the same topic he is extremely selective in his referencing of the scientific literature. This is his summary of the findings on one popular herbal treatment for depression:

"Depression is a serious illness; to treat it, scientists have developed medicines that alter brain chemicals such as serotonin. [...] Alternative medicine practitioners, however, have a better idea – a more natural, safer way to treat depression: St John's wort. Between November 1998 and January 2000, 11 academic medical centres randomly assigned 200 outpatients to receive St John's wort or a placebo, finding no difference in any measure of depression."

He omits the fact the same study also did NOT detect any effect of Sertraline/Zoloft (one of the very medicines he refers to so approvingly):

"Neither hypericum nor sertraline could be differentiated from placebo on the primary efficacy measures."

This points to a lack of statistical power in the study (which the authors of the study acknowledge).

He also omits to mention the many studies showing st john's wort to be as effective as SSRIs, with fewer side effects (eg see the cochrane summary here http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD000448/st.-johns-wort-for-tr...).

I don't trust this author.
Really, an article on censorship from "RT" aka Russia Today? According to Wikipedia "funded by the federal budget of Russia".

I want to see an article from them critical of Putin, their dear leader. I suspect that whoever wrote it would be lucky to escape alive to London. That's a bit harsher than spending $39,500 for a license.

Reminds me of the old joke of many years ago. An American journalist and a Soviet journalist are talking about press freedom. The American says something like "America is great. We have freedom of the press. I can freely criticize Richard Nixon and explain how bad and corrupt he is". The Soviet journalist says something like "We have the same freedom. I can freely criticize Richard Nixon and explain how bad and corrupt he is".
Hypothetically, let's assume that I don't eat vegetables but once a week. Should I take a multivitamin daily?
This passage confused me too. But this part:

> According to a more precise description contained in a classified NSA inspector general’s report, also obtained by The Post, PRISM allows “collection managers [to send] content tasking instructions directly to equipment installed at company-controlled locations,” rather than directly to company servers. The companies cannot see the queries that are sent from the NSA to the systems installed on their premises, according to sources familiar with the PRISM process.

Could refer to queries on accounts/targets that have already been approved. In that sense, it's not much different from a traditional wiretap...once it's in place, the government investigators want the ability to monitor it continuously...the difference in this context is that this "wiretap" encompasses Internet activity, which may require active querying beyond passive listening.
The problem is that standards of government, education, and so forth are cultural standards, and when one says everyone should have the equal opportunity, then there is no opportunity for the Amish or other more traditional groups. Additionally if you think as many do that if you call something "child abuse" that it impacts potential for many years of life, that impacts things too. So I don't think you can separate off standards of morality. These are deeply connected to economic and social realities and the interplay between moral standards and economic opportunity goes both ways. For example, think about this: why do we regard abortion as a right? Is it tied to the realities women face in our economy? Or were hunter gatherers who did not have access to abortion violating human rights? I don't think the second viewpoint is remotely defensible, so it must be the first.

> That said, I don't for a second believe that there's any reason for us to accept that all cultures are worth saving, or that some cultural norms should not be actively fought.

The question is who has the right to fight them and how. It's one thing to critique another culture. It's something else to go out to try to force them to see the error of their ways. The problem is that the latter is usually just an exercise of nationalism if we define nationalism as hating other national/cultural groups.

The question is, how sure should an outsider be of the context of an action? Or is this better left for the members of the culture to navigate and evolve as meets their needs? I side generally with the latter unless it involves conflict between cultural groups. That's different and poses different problems.
What compelling reason could there be to withhold this information?
How To Become The Mother Theresa of Internet Marketing
Apparently those people in the twitter feed are fine with getting registered and living under high transparency.

My suggestion would be a crowd funded campaign to doxx each one of them. Would be happy to donate a few hours of my time tracing their real names.

With some funded capital we could buy and publish for each one a personal background check sort of a personal gift to free them from the burden of anonymity.
When people say they have nothing to hide, there is an implicit qualifier. They still have much to hide -- from coworkers, neighbors, friends, etc.

What they really mean is they have nothing to hide from an entity with which they have a very special relationship. So special is it, that it's superfluous - perhaps even disrespectful - to mention it when saying things like "I have nothing to hide," "I pay my taxes," or "I'm law abiding."

It is the relationship between the owned and the owner.
Hi, I'm new to Hacker News and would sure use some help here. I felt an introduction to the library would be better. However I'll keep this in mind for future submissions. Thanks.
> 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.

Or some extremist party wins election and this information becomes excellent hit-list for persecution. It already happened to jews a few decades ago.
This is a brilliant piece.
Great examples too.
Thank you for writing this.
It would be fun if "internet detectives" (think 4chan) have a look at the profiles of people with "nothing to hide" and expose all their dirty secrets (affairs, comments that could be taken as racist, tax avoidance, listening to Bieber, gossiping about coworkers, naked pics or sex chats they made with their partners, whatever) to the internets.

Especially nice it would be if that would get them fired (e.g a negative comment about their company boss in an email to a friend).

That might illuminate them about the value of privacy.

That said, they are not the targets of NSA, because they are useless to society anyway (they are not active citizens), and not a threat to any government.

But any activist, dissident, whistleblower, investigative journalist, hacker, writer, progressive politician etc, people that move society and laws forward, people from MLK to Aaron Swartz to Phil Zimmerman, are those that can and will be targeted by such measures. The same kind of people that today's J.E. Hoover's would target.
I've often noticed the same thing, but to the extent that if I excused myself from each such conversation, I'd have no more conversations.

As regards my own behaviour: I keep a smartphone, but I have no notifications for email or SMS. I'll receive an interrupt for a phone call (something my relatives only tend to make in emergency situations) and that's it.

I think that, for me, this is the ideal balance between giving my full attention to conversations and being contactable.
Top Killer Traffic Generation Blog Posts
Analyzing Code in Movies – Tron Legacy Does Great
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem

"Conflict of Interest: Where a source seeks to convince by a claim of authority or by personal observation, identification of conflicts of interest are not ad hominem – it is generally well accepted that an "authority" needs to be objective and impartial, and that an audience can only evaluate information from a source if they know about conflicts of interest that may affect the objectivity of the source. Identification of a conflict of interest is appropriate, and concealment of a conflict of interest is a problem."
I don't think so. Any BS success they would advertise to high heavens.
Also read (and upvote!) this brilliant piece by the creator of @_nothingtohide:
http://danielsieradski.com/nothing-to-hide/14572

HN thread:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5848168
You can't forbid people or companies from revealing contact attempts if they have not signed any NDA's.
> (except that in principle it's a good idea to disabuse kids of their childhood beliefs, if not by beating them).

I think there is very deep wisdom in the Hopi practice, and it is part of a process that leads to very nuanced views on religion among the Hopi, remember that disbelieving is the prerequisite for participation.

The overall point though is to value one's own culture and heritage, and accept that we humans are cultural animals, that without culture we aren't even human, and then expect others to do the same.

It's one thing for Americans to sympathize with the victims of the Boston Bombings more than they sympathize with the victims of drone strikes in Yemen or Pakistan. I think that's fine. Nationality matters. However, I also think it is wrong to assume that Yemenis and Pakistanis should not also sympathize with their countrymen and women who are killed in such attacks more than they sympathize with Americans killed in 9/11, the Boston Bombings, etc. I also think that if we accept and understand that we can build a better future. That's what I mean by everyone being special in that regard, and one not so tied to the wrong sorts of nationalism.
Interestingly, the opposite is true for vitamin D. For years, study after study shows that most people are severely deficient in vitamin D and that supplementation helps. Yet, officially recommended doses are way below the levels that scientists recommend.
> That's a bit harsher than spending $39,500 for a license.

Why are you comparing the two? The fact that there's censorship in Russia doesn't invalidate the fact that there's censorship in Singapore.
The article gives calm, sensible advice.

It misses the importance of (normal quantities of) Vitamin D. Many people live in places where they're unlikely to get correct amounts of Vitamin D, especially because of the (correct) caution about sun exposure and the move away from dairy fats.

For those people a Vitamin D supplement is a good idea.

Also, women wanting to become pregnant should strongly consider folate supplements.

And children probably need (correct child dose) multivitamins up until about 4 or 5 years old.

EDIT: Some sources.

UK National Health Service: (http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/pages/vitami...) - notice how it stresses the importance of healthy diet, but also advises for Vitamin D supplements.

Scotland: Warning over Vitamin D levels (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-11355810)
I've done this with friends a few times. I like it. It honestly does make people pay attention.
I get that this is a joke, but could EasyPost assure us with a statement that it doesn't divulge its users' private information and communication to everyone who asks for it? In their Privacy Policy page (which I assume is genuine), all I see are "weasel" words that allow EasyPost to give away user data for every reason under the sun:

https://easypost.com/privacy

> The User’s Personal Data may be used for legal purposes by the Owner of the Application in court or in the stages leading to possible legal action arising from its improper use or that of related services by the User.

> The User’s Personal Data may be further used in ways and for purposes required for Application maintenance.

edit: this should go without saying, but I'm obviously not arguing to call for the pitchforks. EasyPost has a privacy policy that is in line with anyone else's (and one of the best organized ones, IMO)...but using the standard that they seem to judge the statements by the alleged PRISM participants, their privacy policy is full of vague "weasel" words and does not contain enough full-throated support for privacy and/or Patrick Henry quotes. In fact, the word "never" doesn't exist on EasyPost's privacy page...as in "we will never give your private data to...[such and such]"

Does that mean the EasyPost staff are weasels? Or is it just that they have a competent lawyer and that they realize that no number of words and power of rhetoric can satisfy every skeptic?
> When I meet with my attorneys I cannot tell my girlfriend where I am going or where I have been.

This is sure to make short work to any friendship, especially relationships. Disgusting and dehumanizing.

Imagine being legally required, by your government, to seem as though you are having an affair.
>The presentation claims Prism was introduced to overcome what the NSA regarded as shortcomings of Fisa warrants in tracking suspected foreign terrorists. It noted that the US has a "home-field advantage" due to housing much of the internet's architecture. But the presentation claimed "Fisa constraints restricted our home-field advantage" because Fisa required individual warrants and confirmations that both the sender and receiver of a communication were outside the US.

>"Fisa was broken because it provided privacy protections to people who were not entitled to them," the presentation claimed. "It took a Fisa court order to collect on foreigners overseas who were communicating with other foreigners overseas simply because the government was collecting off a wire in the United States. There were too many email accounts to be practical to seek Fisas for all."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-n...
This is silly. It is impossible to know how many other bombings have been stopped because of intelligence gathering attempts. In fact since 9/11 I've been extremely surprised at the low number of terrorist acts which have subsequently occurred, although maybe I was just wrong to assume how frequent / easy they would be to carry out.

There are much better reasons to oppose this than "To me it looks like they didn't stop every attack so it is useless".
The plans in the Conclusion section look interesting.
Actually, no, "every other country is" NOT "spying on every other country".

You think Belgium or France or Poland spies on US citizens phone-calls and Google/FB? Inside the US?

As for "Nobody gives a shit if your torrented a movie", first, we're not talking about Joe Average, that downloads GoT in rural Idaho. We're talking about people that matter to society: writers, investigative journalists, dissidents, hackers, activists, etc. They cared very much what A. Swartz did, for example.

Second, even normal people, downloading a "torrented movie" have been hit with huge fines by RIAA.
> Reddit comment from this week: http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1fv4r6/i_belie...

Wow, probably the best story/argument against "I've got nothing to hide" I've read so far. I posted a link to an article with a convenient list of counter arguments yesterday[0], but this one, in the sense of direct, believable danger easily surpasses those (for me, at least).

That story is actually happening. Various parts of it have already happened in all sorts of civilized countries (US, UK, NL, DE ...), infiltration of completely innocent protest and activist groups, blackmail, he didn't mention agent provocateurs but things invariably get real messy really quick when the agency gets pressed for results of these expensive operations and the activists are in fact quite innocent, just exercising their rights to have meetings and organising protests, nothing more. And then everyone and their friends & family gets on a list.

The torturing, maybe not yet. Not in my country as far as I know. But that is actually going on, on large scale, in countries that seem otherwise quite civilized. And it is happening to the people that had "nothing to hide" just as much.

Probably even moreso because they do not realize what the stakes really are until it's too late to hide.

[0] http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127...
As with any juicy enough collection of data, the relevant question is not "what if an adversary gains access" but "when".
[joke]Now the slide that needs to leak is the one that lists compromised root CAs.[/joke,sorta]
> But doesn't that essentially reduce culture to a disease as well? I mean traditional indigenous peoples do things to their children in the process of making them adults that we would find to be heinous crimes.

Children are not property. The expression "their children" is (at least to a humanist) an oxymoron since they are not owned by their parents. From that simple statement it follows that if something is done to a child that is a crime when done to an adult person, then that is a crime because a child is a person.
Studies say that N % of people who do items X1, X2, ... Xm are very dangerous to the society. Are you saying that you don't believe in statistics?
The british used to feed it to their prisoners because it was considered worse than eating rats.
> Really, an article on censorship from "RT" aka Russia Today? According to Wikipedia "funded by the federal budget of Russia".

What does that have to do with the story of the article? Either the story is true or not, this has nothing to do with the source.

> I want to see an article from them critical of Putin, their dear leader. I suspect that whoever wrote it would be lucky to escape alive to London. That's a bit harsher than spending $39,500 for a license.

False dichotomy. Spending $40k to blog is pretty awful and is not rebutted by something that's even more awful.
An internet campaign by privacy advocates to shame those people who expressed an opinion. That's a great idea. You should totally do it. This won't backfire or be hypocritical in any way shape or form.
Until a few weeks ago, my answer to all these questions would have been on the safe side (except for 11 which is very open-ended). I think, most people who say "I have nothing to hide, so why should I worry about privacy?" have a list like this one to fall back upon.

The question of whether you have anything to hide is really the same as whether you're willing to put everything that you have ever thought under legal scrutiny. It's not about being on the "correct social and legal side" in all the tame scenarios that one has dreamed up.
That twitter bot should mix those questions with the automatic retweets.

(and, just curious, but why does it matter if the local policeman is 23 years old? :) )
When I say "excuse myself" I guess I really mean from any significant conversation. I may continue to spend time with people who behave like this, but I back out of any serious discussions if they are conducted with interruptions from personal devices.

Smalltalk is easy and requires very little thought or concentration anyway, but I no longer give my full attention if it is not reciprocated.

I don't make a point of doing it, but if I am left hanging mid-word while someone checks their phone, and they subsequently attempt to pick up the thread again, I just change the topic to a bullshit one (How 'bout that game on the w'end?).