skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
"Chemical castration is the administration of medication
designed to reduce libido and sexual activity. Unlike
surgical castration, where the testicles or ovaries are
removed through an incision in the body, chemical
castration does not actually castrate the person, nor is
it a form of sterilization."

"Chemical castration is generally considered reversible
when treatment is discontinued, although permanent
effects in body chemistry can sometimes be seen, as in
the case of bone density loss increasing with length of
use of Depo Provera. Chemical castration has, from
time to time, been used as an instrument of public
and/or judicial policy despite concerns over human
rights and possible side effects."

"In the United Kingdom, computer scientist Alan Turing,
famous for his contributions to mathematics and computer
science, was a homosexual who chose to undergo chemical
castration in order to avoid imprisonment in 1952. At
the time, homosexuality was still illegal and
considered to be a mental illness that could be treated
with chemical castration. Turing experienced side
effects such as breast enlargement and bloating of the
physique. He died two years later, with the inquest
returning a verdict of suicide, although recent
research has cast doubt on this result. In 2009, the
then British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, issued a
public apology for the British government's "appalling"
actions, after an online petition seeking the same
gained 30,000 signatures and international recognition."

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_castration#Europe

"Alan Turing, the British mathematical genius and
codebreaker born 100 years ago on 23 June, may not have
committed suicide, as is widely believed.

Turing expert Prof Jack Copeland has questioned the
evidence that was presented at the 1954 inquest.

He believes the evidence would not today be accepted as
sufficient to establish a suicide verdict."

Source:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18561092?print...

Edit: Added last portion.
Hopefully tories will change that at least a bit. I personally think families do not belong in central London.
Speculating about who has the bigger brain seems pretty silly.

There's no way you could ever realistically prove your position (ditto the parent).
The program disclosed recently collected phone metadata, not call contents.
Good. IPv6 is a failed experiment. It's time to reconsider the IP service model. The future of the Internet belongs to startups, not to the IETF.

My hope is that by 2020, IP will have approximately the same importance to the global connectivity fabric that Ethernet has today; it'll be a particularly flexible next-hop technology, and we'll be routing something more clever than IP on top of it.
What if want to test or rewrite that code? I just tried to do that, don't think that's unusual at all in programming-related articles.
I'm curious about two things:

1.) How do you comply with E911 laws that require addresses for the end user? Whatever carrier you deal with will likely terminate any contracts it has to, upon discovery.

2.) How does the shipment process work? You may delete all records of the purchase transaction, but you're still shipping via UPS/FedEx/USPS/Etc and all of those maintain records on source/destination addresses and various other shipping details (size/weight/approx cost).
Well UK is socialistic. Probably more benefits then in USSR.
The worst part is we had no real choice, at all. In Bush's case, at least he could say, “I'm the tough-on-terrror candidate. In the tradeoff between security and liberty, I favor security.” That's how he was positioned. By electing him, it was understood at some level that this is what we as a country were choosing.

Obama took the other side of this argument. A vote for him was a vote for favoring the liberty side of that tradeoff. His actions in office are a clear demonstration that we can't translate our widely held preferences into implementation through the mechanism of our election system.
You and I both, but the problem is convincing the rest of America.
Freedombox: Telecommunications that protects privacy and resists eavesdropping
Almost none of that growth comes from changes to federal law. It's almost entirely state and local laws. During the 1980s it was the War on Drugs, but during the 90s it was three-strikes and zero tolerance laws.

The best work on "the carceral state" being done right now is by a UPenn professor, Marie Gottschalk. Check out her books.
This is what legal positivism ends up turning into: anything is legal as long as there is a "law" allowing it. The fact that said law may be -f.e.- unconstitutional has nothing to do with the 'legality' of the act. Only when -if- a superior entity (the SCOTUS in this case) deems the 'law' unconstitutional does the act become 'illegal.'

So always win-win for the NSA.
Statically Recompiling NES Games into Native Executables with LLVM
Thanks :) I (OP, and blog author) have been doing Etsy for a little over a year now and try to blog about my process. I don't get a ton of sales (a few a month), but it's a fun side-project.
Obama switched his stance to be in support of the Patriot Act/FISA extension _right in the middle of the 2008 primaries_!

This is true, so that rather invalidates the complaint that 'this isn't what we voted for.' Much like military incursions into Pakistan to target bin Laden, Obama himself clearly ran as a conservative Democrat, but a lot of people projected their own views onto him without paying attention to his actual platform.

He signs off on, and executes this

He has limited the scope somewhat through signing statements, but I feel bound to observe that the huge majorities with which Congress passed the original Patriot act and its various extensions make his signature a mere formality - even if he wiped his ass with it on national TV, it would still be the law and he would still be required to faithfully execute it.
>These tools exist for the bigger fish:

Funny, that's what they said about the PATRIOT act, yet virtually all invocations of said act have had nothing to do with terrorism (e.g. drug arrests). If you give the government these powers you are assuming there will never be someone in charge of this information who is corrupt. But corrupt people are already in charge of it! This will only get worse.

>Warren Buffet has predicted a major nuclear terrorist attack on an American city to be a "virtual certainty" given enough time.

Buffet probably has no idea what would be involved in pulling off a nuclear attack. Hint: "dirty bombs" is just made up nonsense.

If I had the money to make it interesting for him, I'd take a long bet on this one and even leave it open ended. I'm sure we'll all be dead before it happens.

>Ok, but no one here is going to argue that stopping terrorism is bad

I do. Terrorism isn't a legitimate concern for the US. Over the last 30 years, we've had around 100 deaths per year. That about a drop of piss in the ocean. Not worth even thinking about for one second. Us all those resources to do something that would have an effect like fighting cancer, making highways safer, etc.

Fighting terrorism as the US does is like doing extreme chemo therapy for a sniffle.

>It's important to remember that we still have a functioning democracy.

Really? Go look up some executive orders that have come out of the president's office (past as well as present). This paragraph is more a hope about how things should be then proof of how they are. Ask yourself how you can know any of it's true. It's legal to take pictures of cops, yet if you do it you could end in jail anyway. It's illegal for cops to rape and murder, yet it happens and often enough with no real consequence to the cop.

>Extreme efforts such as these may still be insufficient to prevent New York from being destroyed by terrorists.

Then why bother? We're only giving corrupt people unchecked power to lord over us and we're getting back a small chance that we might possible prevent some attack that might possibly happen (but if you look at the actual history of terrorist attacks, they usually fail from their own incompetence).

>However, do not forget that we can't see NSA success stories.

Then why would we assume any exist. The onus is on those who violate us to prove it's providing some value.

>hidden in the background, don't inconvenience you, or lead to loss of freedom or property.

Of course they do. They expose we to the whims of low paid morons on power trips.

> But the incentives the intelligence apparatus have to not use any data collected here against anyone for reasons less than "real" terrorism are strong enough, that I think it's not open-and-shut.

Complete and utter bullshit. Have you actually looked at e.g. what the PATRIOT act has actually been used for? Hint: terrorism is line noise in the application of that act. It's used for almost anything but.
He's right. Let our kids worry about it... no. If you think stopping the inertia of post-9/11 is hard now, wait 50 years. It will get worse and it will not be stopped, except with extraordinary civil unrest.
I guess the phone company can see which IP you're making a connection too, but that doesn't seem like much.

It may not seem like much, but it's actually everything. Social network analysis gives a significant amount of information about peoples' activities, even if those activities themselves are encrypted.
He is right, for now they are just recording them.
Is your question specific to AES itself, or just my own implementation? If it's the latter, I'm hesitant to say more comfortable. It's not something you can just implement in a couple days from memory. There's always a chance something might go wrong.

If you mean will I be more comfortable in using the algorithm itself, then definitely yes. At least for the moment. IIRC, there have been some partially successful attacks against AES, but nothing that has managed to break it fully.
It's already 2013, so that's an aggressive schedule; it seems to imply the next-hop tech must already exist. Did you have something in mind?

(Tone: Honest question. I'm curious.)
If you read the description, you are only allowed to download the files one time. It it a quick easy and dirty way to send a file to another computer without registering for anything.
Supermarkets Are High-Tech Hotbeds
> Prince is hoping that the growth will not be steady-state but exponential, accelerating through the adoption curve. Even if that happens, however, CloudFlare predicts that full IPv6 adoption would take seven years, until January 2020.

> Not impressive.

Perhaps not impressive, but pretty much as-expected. RFC 2460 was finalized December 1998. I'm not sure why a 20-year +/- deployment process should surprise anyone for what is, ultimately, a telecom standard, one built before it was needed because we knew it would be.

Remember, APNIC is the first to hit its last /8 and only did so in 2011, and due to their exhaustion policy, hasn't exhausted that last /8 yet. Other regions are in better shape.

As we've always known, the big push will come when the IPv4 supply dwindles so low that it becomes reasonably impossible to accomodate new endpoints.
How much programming experience do you have? Are you looking to learn it as someone moving from a different language (PHP, C, JS, etc.), or as someone completely new to programming?
Yay, my all-time favorite employability-related article. Here's some more useful stuff for who's interested:

* Steve Yegge - Five essential phone screen questions [1]

* The Google Resume (might look iffy but has really strong advice) [2]

* Four Steps to Google, Without a Degree [3]

[1] https://sites.google.com/site/steveyegge2/five-essential-pho...

[2] http://www.thegoogleresume.com

[3] https://medium.com/this-happened-to-me/8f381aa6bd5e
Go-SDL deleted, packages using it will now fail to compile
What's legal and what's right aren't always the same thing. For example, in Nazi Germany, it was illegal to be Jewish; and communicating heavily with Jews may have increased suspicion that you were Jewish. Or in Rwanda in 1994, communicating with Tutsi's may have given rise to suspicion that you were a Tutsi. Or in North Korea today, communicating with defectors may raise suspicion that you are likely to defect.

Here are some legal, or questionably legal but morally correct things you may use this for, in the modern day US: you would like to notify news organizations about a secret NSA spying program, but don't know who to trust, since some news organizations may hand your information over to the federal government when pressured to do so, to root out the source of the leak.

You are a lawyer for a detainee in Guantanamo. To collect evidence, you need to contact several people who you know are on terrorist watch lists, but want to avoid being placed on such a list yourself and be restricted from flying.

You have are in the process of divorcing an abusive husband who is a high-ranking FBI official. You want to be able to contact your lawyer and his, without worrying that he may abuse his authority to find out information about where you are now living.

You are a founder of a whistleblowing operation, which has recently done a large exposé on US forces killing innocent children in the Middle East. You would like to keep in touch with your friends and family, without them also being added to watch lists that cause all of their electronics to be confiscated every time the fly.

You are helping to get information out of China about human rights abuses about Tibet. Given that the Chinese government has done hacking deliberately targeting surveillance back doors of networking systems of US companies, you worry that they may be able to track you.
WikiLeaks - Mass Surveillance - Smart Phones, Web, Social Media
I'm not sure I buy that. My entire education was the US public school system and I was never very patriotic. I'll admit I did feel a little bad about it though.
>You don't have to register anywhere because they don't need that.

That is not a very good argument. Why do the Germans need you to register at the local police station?
According to https://live.gnome.org/Wayland Gnome 3.12 will be fully ported to Wayland at Spring 2014. Hopefully others will pick up soon as well.

I am not sure if "smaller" window managers such as XMonad would benefit but hearing about XMonad being ported to Wayland would be cool.
What the hell people are gonna sue each other over the Moz and Doz similarities and here are two software programs called Prism they may do the same thing.
Perched so high, looking down on mere mortals. The view from the Ivory Tower is never cloudy.
What is your background? Do you have any experience with other programming languages you can relate to? What is the purpose of learning Ruby?

First and foremost, you are the best resource for learning Ruby. Lean by doing.

1) Work through http://ruby.learncodethehardway.org/book&#x2F; then work through it again.

2) Then pick up David A. Black's The Well Grounded Rubyist. Read it to fill in the blanks, then read it again to pick up the tidbits you missed the first go around.

3) Find other people. Look for guidance. Look for a mentor. Look for a users group (ruby brigade) in your area where you can find others to ask questions and advice on the topics that stump you the most.
Or just not release the stuff at all if that was their decision :)

Any whistle blower who has made the moral choice to make certain information public has a choice around whether to take responsible steps to ensure that the information is released to the public as they intended.

Releasing it only to the media companies is an odd decision, if you want to be sure the information will be made freely available.
Why? Either way you're left with evil running the country.
Might be thinking of OpenLeaks which should be at openleaks.at
Just because there are more ramifications doesn't make it more complex. Proving a mathematical conjecture is more complex than driving a forklift, even though driving a forklift is dangerous to yourself and your surroundings if you aren't careful, while solving a mathematical conjecture might give you a paper cut at worst.
I'm trying to understand one thing: what is the difference between a telephone number and a name?

This is Penn register information, that is what it's referred to as in public laws.

In aggregate it can be used to draw connections between people, such as people talking to those who are committed to doing us harm. That is what public comments on these programs have said and that is true.

But clearly telephone numbers are identifying information, unless they are hashing them prior to building their graphs, but if that is the case why not say that?

His speech also conflates "federal courts", with "FISA court", which implies review by the independent judicial branch.
This just isn't a useful question. I can understand where it comes from, but "this could be used for bad things" puts it in exactly the same camp as cash, cars, anything heavy enough to throw at someone, and pretty much... well, everything.

If the service were "weapon specifically designed to kill large Rhinoceri and then instantly sever their horns" or "phone that will encrypt and forward only narcotic-trafficking-related conversations," this point would be valid.
What about the security cameras at the store?
Stallman and the Free Software Foundation may have started this movement, but they haven't been the primary driver for the last decade. First it was Linux, then a multitude of others like RedHat and Debian that built on the Linux foundation. Now there's a robust ecosystem built on and around open-source.

Where before The Free Software Foundation and the GPL were important at pushing things forward, they are now holding things back. People want even more freedom than the GPL offers, they'd rather use the MIT or BSD license. In some circles, GPL is the kiss of death, that no matter how good the software is you can't use it.

My point is Stallman has done important things, but if he thinks he's still as singularly important as he once was, he's delusional. The movement is much, much bigger than one person taking a stand against proprietary printer software. It's millions of people working together to make software as a whole better. Nobody will ever be at the center of this movement again.

If Stallman moved to a tiny island in the Pacific and was never heard from again we'd get by, and many of us wouldn't even notice. He's done his part and left his mark.

By way of contrast, when we lose someone like Aaron Schwarz we're diminished. He was someone who was not just opinionated, but motivated to change things. He didn't just write papers or give speeches, he wrote software to further his cause, he went out of his way to challenge the status-quo and force people to to pay attention.

We desperately need more people like him.
Then he was irresponsible to criticize the policy. If he ran against surveillance and then continued to escalate it, he's wrong. Whether he was foolish or a liar is I suppose up for debate.
Projects often have multiple designators. US-984XN is the official name. Internally the collection platform (source) is referred to as PRISM (as an example, the entire U-2 program was CHESS). Each relationship with a partner probably had a code name like LONG WINTER (completely made up).
Then you're on the security camera footage. How would you avoid that?
Major Shooting in Santa Monica
What to realistically expect at WWDC '13, starting June 10th
A vegan telling you about how easy an ethical lifestyle can be is still telling you, albeit very nicely, that our society is engaged in institutional atrocities and that you are complicit in them. They are just not dwelling on the negatives.
etherael! I see that you are using encryption today! Would you like me to:

a) Notify the authorities that you're using banned software.

b) Make sure that you stand out from the crowd due to your lack of social media profiles.

c) Get the rubber hose to force your password out of you.

d) Book you a stay in Room 101.

e) Order you a double-dose of government feel-good pills.

f) Send you to the Gulags because use of encryption means that you are trying to hide from the government.

</Clippy>
To call any death a price worth paying is widely seen as unempathetic. In a culture where empathy is deemed the core value -not quite a settled question in the US, but it has been known to sway elections from time to time- treating even a single death as too many is the natural result. That, in turn, leads us to today.
Does snapchat really need $100M?
Have you guys consulted an attorney and tax professional to verify all of this is legal? Maybe I'm just naive but it sounds like by destroying all records of every sale and shipment, you guys might be setting yourselves up to get shitfucked if the IRS comes after you with an audit. But then again I don't know much about the telecom industry or their reporting standard.
unfortunately i have to question how long this operation can survive in US
But can such evidence be used to establish the grounds for a warrant?

That is a common trick in the USA. Data obtained in ways that would not be admissible in court can be used to get a warrant, and then data collected under the warrant can be used in court.
DigiX -Arduino compatible board with WiFi
IOS keyboard exploit allows brute force iPad lock screen attack
You're not thinking big picture. The government is building an infrastructure for citizen monitoring on a scale that has never before been conceived. That same government has already abused virtually every power they've ever been given. No, we know of no Gasto-style "disappearing" as of yet but there's really nothing holding it back but luck as far as I can see. How much longer is our luck going to hold out?

And we don't need to put ourselves as the mercy of the worst people in government. We don't need to allow this stuff as it buys us practically nothing. Terrorism isn't a legitimate threat to America and never has been. Even if we utterly ignored terrorism it will never be more than line noise compared to things like heart disease, vehicular death and so on.
these valuations just don't make any sense.
Out of curiosity, what sparked this reaction? Is "problem solving" a euphemism for technical drudge-work? Glorified IT contracting?
When I think of marketers, I think of the marketing assholes from the old Dilbert TV show, both of whom where men. I am in fact completely unfamiliar with this stereotype. Can someone enlighten me as to the origins and propagation of this character?
Well, I guess that can be explained by the difference between how I hired, and my perception of how a lot of other organizations hire. Looks like my non-degreed smart person approach was not particularly unique.

I have to believe that an appropriate degree may often be the door-opener that let's you prove all the rest in person. It should also place a floor of sorts on what pay someone can reasonably offer you at various points during your career.
EU data protection regulations are in force. There will no doubt be some scrutiny as to what data safe harbour companies have transfered outside the EU and what steps were taken to protect it.

Far from giving up the EU is engaged in strengthening the directives far beyond what's required now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulat...
Other people have commented on the payment issue - I'm glad you're looking into bitcoin.

I'd be worried about delivery, too. I know you say you destroy customer information immediately, but if I'm truly paranoid I'm not going to trust that statement - I'd rather pay someone on craigslist to buy a bunch of prepaid phones for me.

I'm just brainstorming, but would it be possible to set up some sort of physical tor/mixmaster style forwarding that would keep the final destination of the phone from ever being known to you? I'm not entirely sure how that would work, and it would probably be open to abuse, but it's an interesting thought.

Also, could you consider posting something like rsync.net's warrant canary?

http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt

It's not perfect, but it is a nice touch.