skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Starting at the top of HN and reading down comment thread by comment thread is a recipe for hypertension. Instead, pick a couple commenters you like (my list is on my profile) and follow them. I have a list of bookmarks for each of the users in my profile.

An advantage to this approach is that those commenters also screen stories for you. You can glance at the front page and click only the very most interesting stories, then go read all of 'potatolicious's comments to get a glimpse of what he found interesting without having to click from thread to thread.
Facebook already tried to acquire Snapchat and obviously was not successful. I would assume that's would spurred them to make Poke.
It would seem that Wikipedia agrees with my interpretation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerundive

> It is used to indicate that someone or something (the referent of the noun it modifies) needs or deserves to be the object of an action.

Also some of this spills into common names of people today:

> The name Amanda is the feminine gerundive of amare ("to love"), and thus means roughly ... "worthy of being loved", ... Similarly with the name Miranda; ... "worthy of admiration" ...
"Set up shop"? Where were they previously?

Do you really think it is a coincidence that the more people we bomb, the more there seem to be?
All our client deliverables are PDFs, generated from a JRuby Rails app (I haven't had a lot of luck with Prawn).
You should write about your experience with this organization, and submit it separately. It might be a good way to get the word out. This is the first I've heard of them.
> I'm on the lookout for any kind of service that operates in a country with transparent law enforcement and accountability.

And Diogenes thought he had it bad when looking for an honest man. That the U.S. did this is completely despicable and I'm furious at my government--especially, the guy I voted for who ran on a platform of stopping this--for continuing to pull these stunts. I look out over the panoply of countries with "modern, well-formed" legal systems, and I keep seeing the same abuses:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2027377.stm - "The [United Kingdom] National Technical Assistance Centre (NTAC) will decrypt computer data and intercepted internet and e-mail traffic as part of a drive against cyber-crime..."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/constitutional-c... - "German Intelligence Under Fire For Spying on Parliamentarians..."

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/every-click... - "[The] telephone and internet data of every Australian will be retained for up to two years and intelligence agencies would be given increased access to social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter..."

Plus, if you're a foreigner (e.g. an American using Australian services), what incentive does the "other" country have to care about you? No one has complained, in this whole debate, about one country spying on the citizens of another country. This uproar happened because the U.S. NSA admitted to gathering data on domestic people under the guise of doing "foreign" surveillance.

Maybe I'm just getting too cynical.
There are plenty of people who graduate from top universities and end up in low-paying sales jobs.
A 1 percenter tells the truth about "job creators"
Why can't HN be HN without the politics/prism stuff? I mean, it says right there in the guidelines that it isn't.

I don't flag stories when they're part of a wave story like NSA (what would be the point), but I try to be pretty religious about flagging off-topic stories in other cases, and political stories are universally off topic.
I'm not changing anything because I already assumed all of my data was being monitored anyway. Therefore I've been keeping my important data under my control away from these services and companies so there is no point to change as I have already assumed I could not trust them and have already taken all the steps I can to protect myself.
Snapchat was likely trying to value itself in comparative terms to Instagram. Instagram was a threat because it had both the meteorically rising product AND the engineering team capable of scaling ahead of that growth. I think Facebook created Poke not to compete directly, but as a response to the comparison to Instagram. Facebook "coded Snapchat in a weekend", literally.
There are 450 million Snapchats sent a day. Their engagement is insane and so is their month over month growth. Snapchat has created a new form of communication that a lot of people enjoy using. If we use other startups as benchmarks (Tumblr, Instagram), the valuation does not seem far-fetched.
Rdio Service and Web down :(
I can't listen to Skrillex, and I'm getting mad!!!
I have a hard time Glenn Greenwald would stake his reputation on this without having more concrete proof. I think that there is still a lot more information to be let out. They are slowly leaking more and more every day so that the story stays in the news. It's a clever tactic. I'm curious why Greenwald isn't going to release the "highly detailed technical materials on how they eavesdrop" that he claimed he had on Twitter. [1] Perhaps it would give up his source? Or maybe it just contains too much national security information or whatever? I'm not sure.

[1] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343470800784982016

Ninja edit: Also as another commenter pointed out, that $20-million figure could be for just one specific part of the program or what have you.
How to make an easy Bok Choy Salad
One doesn't just develop alternatives to Google, Apple, etc. It takes more than just an official calling for it to make that happen.
These slides? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/07/t...;

They look like they were made with MS Paint. CNET and James Clapper says this is all bullshit.

Maybe we should stop drawing conclusions about a story that is developing and extremely foggy until it clears up a little more?
"A random guy with no particular qualifications to write comments, writes a comment."

See how this is not the most productive line of "argumentation"?
His argument is that radical Islamists hate us for what we do, not who we are. But we do what we do because of who we are. That's nearly a tautology in a democracy. We support Israel because its people largely share our values. We threw Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and maintained a presence in Saudi Arabia because we support and defend the sovereignty of our allies, particularly when those allies supply vital resources. We continued to prop up Mubarak because we thought he was better than the alternative, etc.

All of these are policies reached through a free, democratic process, which has not been a hallmark of those societies which have welcomed Al Qaeda into their midst.

Also, have you heard of Sayyid Qutb? Just curious.
There is no such thing as 'Nothing to Hide' unless you have an extremely naive view of the world. If you feel that way, you just need to remember that out there, somewhere, are those who'll judge you harshly for being you.

Sure, you may not be ashamed of it. You're probably not be breaking any laws that you're aware of, at least none that really matter. You're pretty sure you live in a country that you're free from persecution. All should be OK, right?

Sadly, whether that's true or not, that only works for today. Tomorrow, well it would seem those with enough bile and hate to judge you, seem to be one of the few sets of people who actually want to seek out power and privledge over you.

You sure you're really that free today? You sure you'll really be that free tomorrow. Your sure it'll be the same for your kids? If there is any hesitation, any hesitation at all, then it's probably not a brilliant idea to sit idly by and accept Government creating profiles on you and the future you's.

Dead god, won't anyone think of the children? :P
> this assumes that you're okay with starting with an array of characters and ending up with a rope.

Well, in any OO language, I guess both a string and a rope would still be considered a String object, whether it's a character array or a tree-like structure backing it wouldn't really matter to the public interface.
I found this which explains a variety of protections: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_protection_in_Uni...

Additionally it would be interesting if the leakers leaked more to get a softer punishment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_state%27s_evidence

Also, I have to add, I'm a little ashamed of my country today. But I feel vindicated as a programmer that we were right! We knew it all along. Things like this have been reported for years. But no one cared. Finally this is plastered on every major publication and people no longer think it's some conspiracy theory or exaggeration of normal security measures. So now's the real test. What do we do? How do we fix this? Our innate liberties have been trampled and threatened. Have some self-respect and speak your mind at work, people.
Show HN: Bookmarklet to filter HN by regex-enabled keywords.
This is a small bookmarklet that adds a background color to articles matching keywords, making it easier to distinguish links important to you. Tested in Chrome 27, Firefox 21 and Safari 6.0.5.

Preview: http://i.imgur.com/6A3CU6T.png

1. Modify the OPTIONS.color and OPTIONS.keywords properties to your liking. You may use regex in the keywords. Keywords are case-insensitive.

2. Paste the bookmarklet below as the URL to a bookmark. You have to click this bookmark on every refresh, therefore you may want to place it on your "Bookmarks Bar" for quick access.

javascript:(function(){var OPTIONS={keywords:["surveillance","nsa","prism","privacy","government"],color:"#f4c3c3"};NodeList.prototype.forEach=Array.prototype.forEach;document.querySelectorAll('.title>a').forEach(function(e){if(e.firstChild.nodeValue=='More')return;if(new RegExp(OPTIONS.keywords.join('|'), 'i').test(e.firstChild.nodeValue)){e.parentNode.parentNode.style.backgroundColor=OPTIONS.color;e.parentNode.parentNode.nextSibling.style.backgroundColor=OPTIONS.color}})})()
I'm not sure how others feel, but for me the systematic nature and the scope of collection are what get my hackles up. Requesting specific information on a specific individual because of the suspicion that a crime has been committed is perfectly reasonable. Collecting information on everyone in order to search for illegal activity feels like a serious violation of privacy. We can debate about the kind of information they can get through NSLs only being "metadata", etc., but that's the crux of the issue for me.
> no one's thus far denied its validity.

On Thursday, James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, wrote "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."[1]

Today, he released a fact sheet[2] which stated, among other things,

* PRISM is not an undisclosed collection or data mining program. It is an internal government computer system used to facilitate the government’s statutorily authorized collection of foreign intelligence information from electronic communication service providers under court supervision, as authorized by Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) (50 U.S.C. § 1881a). This authority was created by the Congress and has been widely known and publicly discussed since its inception in 2008.

* Under Section 702 of FISA, the United States Government does not unilaterally obtain information from the servers of U.S. electronic communication service providers. All such information is obtained with FISA Court approval and with the knowledge of the provider based upon a written directive from the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence. In short, Section 702 facilitates the targeted acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning foreign targets located outside the United States under court oversight. Service providers supply information to the Government when they are lawfully required to do so.

* The Government cannot target anyone under the court-approved procedures for Section 702 collection unless there is an appropriate, and documented, foreign intelligence purpose for the acquisition (such as for the prevention of terrorism, hostile cyber activities, or nuclear proliferation) and the foreign target is reasonably believed to be outside the United States. We cannot target even foreign persons overseas without a valid foreign intelligence purpose.

* In addition, Section 702 cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, or any other U.S. person, or to intentionally target any person known to be in the United States. Likewise, Section 702 cannot be used to target a person outside the United States if the purpose is to acquire information from a person inside the United States.

[1] http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-pre...

[2] http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Facts%20on%20the%20Collec...

For other statements from the DNI, see http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases
Okay, I have created a mailing list where you can get notified about future episodes via a weekly e-mail.

You can signup here: http://sysadmincasts.com/get-notified
Looked you in the eyes, measured his words, and then turned out to be completely full of shit. A 2013 GPG user is creating AES256-CFB ciphertexts with session keys delivered over 2048 bit RSA and DSA signatures.

These are far from the sturdiest constructions we have in cryptography; a conservative design today wouldn't be using RSA or DSA at all. But they're proven and used all over the place, including on government traffic no reasonable person could believe the USG would accept a mass compromise of.

If you believe that anyone at the UN can decrypt PGP and would have under any circumstances ever shared that with you, I have some dead aliens from Roswell to sell you.

It may be that he was confused. Very early versions of PGP, from when Zimmerman was apparently just learning what cryptography was, used a cipher of his own design that turned out to be broken.

Being 2 hops from a lot of people with active clearances, I'll add that this is a very popular bit of gossip. The last one I heard was Blowfish; "don't use Blowfish!" "Why would I? It's super old?" "Never mind that. My friend just got out of NSA and said they could trivially break Blowfish. Something about the sboxes."

A credible claim you might make right now: with some degree of effort (ie, not in real time), it might be possible to break large-ish RSA keys.
Show HN: Ever posted to HN, and received 0 feedback? Here's a solution.
Hhh
slt
If you have ever seen a government presentation before, you might find that the lack of design makes them more credible, not less.
Here's a bookmarklet I wrote real quick to filter/highlight keyword-based articles:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5846934
I disagree. It depends a lot on your type of personality. But if you are an introvert you think a lot about weather to approach a (distressed) person or not. And ultimately are almost are never going to do that.

If you just listen to your "subconscious" and not making an intentional effort of being more open to people this will negatively impact social interactions.
> An individual has no rights over the hysterical "consensus" of the mob.

Those things are not new and unrelated to surveillance, surveillance only amplify those problems. The issue is, companies/government should not be allowed to take decisions or discriminate, based or not on information, without a decision from a judge.

The rest was about shortcuts being taken, because the government was able to take those shortcuts, because:

1. people are not aware of the technologies enabling surveillance, and how to efficiently protect themselves. Those technologies are new.

2. Current internet technologies being surveillance oriented rather than privacy oriented. This need to change and will obviously change one day or the other. At least the market will expand with the news.
He hid the answer quite well. Thanks for pointing it out!
Why the middle class in particular? If our economy is based on spending, then it like giving money to anyone who will spend it is the answer. Could be poor, middle class, or rich, so long as they don't just put it into their bank account.

(And yes, banks could theoretically loan out the money, but currently they won't.)
What implementations actually do in code is almost always very different from what the specification wording suggests. For example, in V8 the handling
of a line terminator used as a semicolon is practically the same had you used a semicolon as you can see here:

https://code.google.com/p/v8/source/browse/trunk/src/prepars...

Furthermore, parsing source text initially into a representation that can be worked with is like 0.000001% of the total work to be done. And it is cached too.

Another example is in PHP where you can open and close <?php ?> tags as many times as you like and it will perform exactly the same compared to equal code
with single open and close tag. Especially if you use PHP opcode caching where the source text is not even used for subsequent requests.
No quote, just thinking out loud (so, as another comment asked, I can't really offer any recommended reading... Other than maybe this classic episode of TNG:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8WpjLGh3wg&list=PLB579CFA383... ).
A clear statement. Thank you Yahoo!
The data retention laws in Australia haven't been approved yet to my knowledge, but as part of the Echelon program they're not safe either. Although at least they announced the intention to make those changes to let democracy work and, and didn't use gag orders for spurious reasons.

I'm expecting something in Europe (ThePirateBay crew seem pretty trustworthy), or some self sufficient island? (New Zealand?)
The SMT bit you mentioned shines a light in one of the gripes I have with logic programming: most often the examples people give are for the sort of AI search problem that might look nice when specified but that you can't hope to solve in practice with a generic depth-first-search.

That said, one thing that I always felt was unique about LP was how one of the primitive operations was data structure unification and how some pieces of code can be run in both "directions" if you are careful. However, I still haven't been able to find a neat example of what sort of problem really benefits from this.
I had a talk with Roger Dingledine(Director of the Tor foundation/ dev on Tor) about this (specifically regarding the NSA, which is who is one everyones mind I assume).

Tor, compromised or not, is completely worthless against an attacker who can monitor the entire network, observe both entry and exit nodes, and correlate packets. The NSA wouldn't bother compromising nodes since they presumably already can see all the traffic and a compromised node might expose them.
The IRS was being partisan. I consider this fairly well established at this point. The only remaining question is exactly where the idea to be aggressively partisan came from.
Yeah, but who fucking cares anymore.

Like, based on the events of the past week, I think we can all agree that whatever you're paranoid about right now, they've already far exceeded and overstepped your pedestrian low-ball estimates for what might be excessive, and in reality it already happened a decade ago, so you're just worrying about spilled milk.
How would you SEO the following site?
The question is the same as the title and the website I'm interested in is www.wildhives.co.uk

I'm a web designer however I tend to get carried away with projects I work on, such as the one above, and I've gotten very interested in SEO..
What do you call the Google Transparency Report document then? They have been admitting it and documenting it, to the best of their ability (when not gagged). Google has been fighting these in court, they have declared their opinions against the practical, they have been lobbying against these laws. They've done everything they legally can do, unless Larry Page wants to risk being put into federal prison.

The PRISM leak started as this dramatic claim that NSA is hoovering up all of the person data of everyone in the cloud. Now this has been mostly retracted to tech companies sending them data on individual accounts as requested by lawful court order, which is what they've been doing, in public view, unclassified, for years, and admitting it -- that they respond to lawful requests on a case by case basis.

What more do you want? The denials are about as vehement as they can get. The NSA denies the "firehose feed" hypothesis as well.
What you did was unlawful. Had you downloaded the software they were using and tested it yourself, you'd have been fine. But testing live web applications that other people operate is dangerous.

Speaking from the vantage point of someone who tests applications for a living and helps manage many tens of concurrent projects: it is surprisingly easy to crash a site by dicking around with URLs trying to find SQL injections (here's a classic example: some other part of the system you weren't aware of caches every hit to the URL you're testing and displays a result based on it to users elsewhere; your query generates an exception, bang, feature dead).

If you noodle around with someone's application just to see how riddled with SQL injections it is, and you blow up their app, there's a decent change your actions were tortious. You can get sued. Nobody will care about your intentions; everyone (at least, everyone who matters) will tell you you shouldn't have been testing to begin with.

I think you're in a bit of a pickle, because I think it's also unethical to sit on your hands if you know a firm is putting its users at risk by fielding a comically insecure application. I'm on the side of "report anonymously". It's obviously possible to do this safely if you try hard enough, but I don't even think you need to try that hard.

A growing number of US companies, most notably Google and Facebook, now reward people who find vulnerabilities on their sites. They've deliberately made it much harder to grief people who test them for vulnerabilities. This is a trend you could reward by giving them more of your business.
This is just a placeholder for those who haven't had a chance to read the book recently - I know lots of us are too busy with code or design to read as much as we would like.
Didn't Apple file a patent for multiple profiles (derived from one) on a social network? Thought I read this somewhere.
There is no evidence they collect information on "everyone". Everyone has denied the firehose feed hypothesis, even the NSA. Verizon didn't deny it, proving that there's no gag order, nor did the NSA. So we have Verizon admitting a metadata firehose, but everyone else denying it, which seems to suggest the tech companies are telling the truth.
FBI File reveals bizarre paranoia of former high-ranking Cold War G-man
Simple Go wrapper for the GitHub API
As part of building gh (http://git.io/Ey_zSQ ), I extracted the Go wrapper for GitHub API to another project http://git.io/ulRQWw , enjoy!
i think the reason this statement feels like it carries more weight is that it doesn't read like a mad libs where the CEO has filled in their company name in the required blanks.
In case anyone is looking for other novel ways to solve Sudoku. I wrote a CP language a while back that does pretty fast solving for the right kind of problem [1]. Folks might also find this Sudoku benchmarking blog post interesting [2], it includes links to solutions in a bunch of languages.

1) http://sabrlang.org/sudoku

2) http://attractivechaos.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/an-incomplet...