skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Different people and organizations have widely varying reasons for wanting to share source code. Some of these reasons are selfish, and some are completely altruistic. Many are both selfish and altruistic- one could easily argue that the FSF falls into that category, not that there's anything wrong with that.

The whole point of creating Open Source was to acknowledge that. The GNU philosophy is very, very, very specific in its means and goals and presents a very specific worldview, and plenty of people (maybe even the majority?) who are interested sharing code don't agree with much of it.

You state that Open Source was created "to keep the code sharing parts while shedding the ethical positions of the GNU philosophy", and many of the people who were instrumental in creating the concept would agree with you. But the reason the concept has stuck around has nothing to do with that. It's just a very, very useful concept. It's very handy to have some way to refer to software for which source code is available, redistributable, and reuseable, and not instantly imply all of the metric ton of legal or philosophical baggage associated with FSF-approved projects.

Someone who doesn't agree with the ethical portions of the GNU philosophy isn't unethical, they just have a different point of view. Yet, that's what you imply in your phrasing. Tons of people who contribute greatly to Open Source (or even Free Software!) consider certain elements of the GNU philosophy to be unethical. This whole "with us or against us" attitude is what turns off so many people to the FSF and RMS in the first place. It's like PETA saying that you are either 100% on board with them and everything they do, or you are in favor of murdering puppies, and there's no middle ground or room for more nuanced perspectives or alternative philosophies.

I'm not arguing against the GNU philosophy; I agree with much of it and strongly disagree with some other parts of it. As always, I'm just strongly in favor of a world where people think for themselves, come to their own conclusions, cooperate with others when they have overlapping goals, and don't go out of their way to continually villainize people who aren't 100% on board with every single line item in one guy's personal doctrine.
RackCDU Liquid Cooling
I'd be inclined to believe that there are likely to be controls to prevent people not authorized by higher ups within the NSA from doing this, as that would represent a security problem.

I am, to put it mildly, considerably less sure that these controls operate in a manner that inhibit NSA leadership from directing that this be done in specific cases, when they feel that providing this kind of under-the-table feed of information, particularly to domestic law-enforcement when the conditions in which the information was gathered would, if it were known, prevent the use of any information derived from it in court under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
That might work indeed. At least no obvious problems come to mind, which is usually a good start.
We can't do better within our current system; it's optimized. Congress must agree to fixing it (with instant run-off voting, to allow competition) but they certainly won't work against themselves to do it. So we're stuck. The president or a member of Congress can largely disserve you with impunity.
I think frankly it is you who doesn't understand how intelligence agencies work. Massive conspiracies have leaks. No agency would set up something as broad and involving as many people as you describe and expect it to stay secret.

Also problematic is your theory about motivation. That Mark Zuckerberg and his chief legal officer are compelled to take bet-the-company risks and lie to their shareholders under threat of prison. There is no such law. They are only restricted in how much they can reveal about the requests for info.
So, a couple things here.

#1 - The United States is wired for legacy reasons, our infrastructure was built 50+ years ago when wireless voice and data for the most part did not exist.

#2 - When I say "sparse" I'm referring to density of the target population, as in, the number of households per square mile.

It does make sense to run wired connections to dense urban populations, the cost-per-connection, particularly measured on a bandwidth-per-drop-per-dollar basis is great. Also, if you already have cable (either pairs of copper, or coax-for-TV) running to those people's homes, you've got a foundation for delivering data.

For most of the developing world in the next century (excluding the cities), communications, data, and entertainment will be in the form of wireless (Satellite, 3G, or directional 50 GHz+ data drops for backbones).

We won't be running cables to supply communities in the African countryside with high speed Internet. (We also won't be running it over 3G/LTE - which wouldn't be most people's choice for a wireless data backbone these days)
1. They are describing the invention of David Chaum

2. What they are describing has a security definition and can be proved secure. Bitcoin has no security definition, no proof of security, and is vulnerable to polynomial time attacks.
This is a nice technology, but if it is really supposed to protect you from a serious thread, you first need to define, who your adversary is and how strong are his capabilities.

For example, if your adversary is some big national agency, you are chatting this way, but both of you don't anonymize yourselves properly, you could just raise suspicion [since most people don't chat encrypted] and more surveillance can be deployed against you.

To sum it up, the technology is good, but if it should be used for more than an exercise, it must be combined with other protection.
I would love if there were a finite time period after which classified information is to be released publicly, even if extensions were available.

I believe that prior to Bush, some such system did exist with respect to some types of records.
5) They spied on Obama, and now are blackmailing him
The whole argument is a non sequitur. The products and companies the author is hoping people defer too, are not prevalent in mainstream society yet. Ubuntu and Arch Linux do not have stores in the mall. Sparkfun is not making arduino based mp3 players and phones down by the food court.

I think this highlights an interesting point, but we aren't there yet as a culture, globally.
Experts Warn Eyeball Licking Trend Can Injure the Eye, Damage Sight
Yes, like a box making company. Or a johnny-on-the-spot one.
Bell Labs is long gone, and existed to appease the government about a monopoly.

This is about BIG thinking enabled by the unique org structure. Everything about corporate governance says this is a bad structure. But they still might pull this greatness off!
It is worth pointing out that the double spending is not merely detected in these systems; the bank is able to compute a proof, that anyone can verify, of a particular party's guilt. This allows the bank to create a blacklist, or to use a legal system, etc.
Diary of a 5000 hours per year troll
This is again a case of apathy. How many users care about DRM and the integrity of their data, let alone its freedom and exportability?

Most users are not power users (else the term would be redundant). Most people who use computer that I know simply log on, surf the web, check email, etc. In fact, most users spend almost all of their time on a web browser, to the point that different systems seem pretty much the same.

Most users cannot quantify the difference between Mac OS X or Windows beyond the hardware differences, and even that's just a momentary thought. They don't care about data because it's not relevant to their lifestyles.

Corollary to this point is the fact that many hackers attribute malice and spite to companies that don't allow data freedom. But honestly, it's not profitable for most companies to serve that small subset of users in the mass market because their voices aren't loud enough. They have more profitable things to worry about - their users couldn't explain what RAID is or DRM to save their lives.

So they don't invest in you - the customers who want these features (or lack) because it's not relevant to mass producing machines for everyone. This goes hand in hand with perpetuating the ubiquity or proprietary software.
Ask HN: Are any startups organizing the PRISM debate?
Several startups are working on organizing information on the web by letting users annotate, collect, and comment on stories - RapGenius, Storify, and Hypothes.is, etc.

Have any of them tried to make sense of the PRISM revelations? For example, what news and commentary has surfaced, and through which sources.
One of the major advances in the last decade or so in intelligence gathering has been social-network/cohort analysis. Phone metadata makes it possible to identify relationships between people. Let's say you know two "terrorists". If you can identify, say, 3 other people who are all friends with those two then you can tentatively identify those folks as possible terrorists. If you obtain other information such as actual phone conversations, email, etc. then you might be able to confirm that, which then gives you the ability to find their friends, and so forth.

Potentially it's an effective way to identify folks who might deserve more investigation. Though it's highly questionable how effective it is as a means of stopping crime or terrorist attacks.
I agree these arguments are worthless (but no need to curse).

Naomi Wolf's theory that Snowden is part of a propaganda effort by NSA/CIA/FBI/??? to make people fearful makes no sense. There is no secret "intelligence/police state" in the US but a state that has police and intelligence functions. It is run by actual people and we know their names: Obama, Holder, Panetta and Clapper. Naomi is either saying these people planned this or some rogue group inside NSA/CIA/FBI/??? planned it. Neither scenario is plausible because any possible benefit is outweighed by the political, career and diplomatic risks. These are not stupid people.

The accusation that Snowden's "very pretty pole-dancing Facebooking girlfriend" is running a PR campaign is hilarious coming in a post on Facebook hilarious from a supposed feminist and PR expert.

Actually you are right calhoun - this is "complete and utter bullshit".
Amazing idea, but then the rest of the world (non-americans) are still worried about the implications of this for PRISM. Getting the rest of the world online is cool, but then the NSA gets to have access to their data,that's not cool and I was beginning to like Google!
So what's the solution? Get celebrities to run for office. (Seriously.)

Over 60% showed up to the gubernatorial elections won by Schwarzenegger [a] and Ventura [b]; you know, the former body builder and the former wrestler, who co-starred in Predator... Wasn't George Clooney born in Kentucky? He might be a "rich old white man" at this point, but do you think Mitch McConnell (or any incumbent, for that matter) would stand a chance against him?

If Brad Pitt, James Franco, Shaquille O'Neal, or Ashton Kutcher ran for office... they'd win. And they'd be better representatives, because they're not career politicians, and they don't know how the system works. Then watch as normal people are suddenly tuning into CSPAN to catch a speech by Sen. Pitt or Rep. Shaq. I'm surprised the major parties didn't court celebrities after 1984, when a former actor captured the highest number of electoral votes in history...

"It's Charisma, Stupid" is focused on presidential elections, but pg remarks near the end that he's "not saying that issues don't matter to voters. Of course they do." Yes, issues do matter to voters. But voters are generally a minority, at least in non-presidential elections. The majority cares more about movies and sports because celebrities are interesting. Existing politicians are boring.

I read the other day that Allen Iverson is basically broke, recently divorced, had a house foreclosed, and doesn't know what to do with his life after basketball...

a. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_gubernatorial_recall...

b. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_gubernatorial_electio...
Most people (users/customers) don't give a crap about freedom zero because most people aren't hackers. Most people want things to "just work." Most people don't want to tinker and screw around hunched in front of a lit screen for a few hours just to set up their drivers in a specific way.

Oh, please, not this outdated crap. As long as you don't choose a particularly hostile machine, nowadays GNU Linux distros don't require almost any manual driver installation, and even restricted drivers can be installed with a couple of clicks.

Linux just doesn't offer anything that most users can appreciate. How hard it is to install or run doesn't even enter the picture.

My mother is barely computer literate. If I presented her with Banshee instead of iTunes, she'd freak out. It would either gray out, become non-responsive, and subsequently close on her while syncing, or she wouldn't have all the features that a coordinated group of engineers in a multinational company built and designed for mass production.

Clearly you haven't used the Windows version of that marvel of technology. It features all of that plus randomly not detecting the iPod, being bloated as hell and slow as molasses.

I agree that Free Software is not as convenient as proprietary software, though, and I frankly have no interest in convincing any of my relatives to use Linux instead of Windows.
Before the introduction of the Mac, peak Apple would've been in 1977 with the launch of the Apple II. Before the introduction of the iPod, peak Apple would've been in 1984 with the launch of the Macintosh. Before the iPhone, peak Apple would've been in 2001 with the launch of the iPod. Before the iPad, peak Apple would've been in 2007 with the launch of the iPhone...
nod

I think every idealist embracing that "corrupt West" and "noble savage" outlook on cultures should spend a year or two living in one of many shitholes of the world. It could bring some perspective.
Link to a CDN in your README, so your users can test the tool more easily.
I think the phrase "to be on the internet" is going to finally loose its meaning soon. With everything around you (and on you) connected to the global network, you'll be on the Internet all the time. Just as you have your eyes and ears open all the time.
I'm disappointed I can't find reference schematics for the smartwatch but they provide datasheets and specific chip models at http://developer.sonymobile.com/services/open-smartwatch-pro...

The watch has bluetooth, a touchscreen, and an STM32F2 microcontroller [disappointed its not a F4 :( ] which makes it a powerful and cheap development kit. Their instructions for flashing the firmware of the chip uses open source dfu-util so IIRC you'll be able to flash a binary to the STM32F2 from any compatible toolchain. Surprise, surprise, this means Arduino from LeafLabs!: https://github.com/leaflabs/www.leaflabs.com/blob/master/pos...

Looking at http://www.cmw.me/?q=node/59 you could even replace their PCB with your own, preserving the LCD connections and upgrading the processor to an even more power efficient one with a sensor or two added on (this is a four layer board at most, you could theoretically make the ICs even denser). However, you'll probably want to find someone with a pick and place + reflow at a hackspace or something unless you're confident you can reflow leadless chips and 0201 components yourself.
Plenty of people care about Freedom Zero. Millions or tens of millions or even hundreds of millions. That's great; that's their prerogative. Jeff seems to be really saying "why doesn't everyone care about Freedom Zero?", and that's a very different and much more interesting question.

Unfortunately for him (but not for humanity as a whole), the answer is that everyone has their own Freedom Zero that they care about, and one of them might be, "I want to use the hardware and software that I want to use, that works for me, rather than be restricted to what Jeff Atwood personally approves of and claims to do so for moral and ethical reasons that I don't necessarily agree with."

I'm not saying he's wrong. It's just much more interesting to live in a world where tons of different philosophies perpetually collide and mutate and influence each other, rather than one in which we've collectively decided that there's one and only one way to do something, and there's no room for debate or people just doing whatever the heck they want to do provided they don't hurt anyone else.
It's not my tool, but do you know about rawgithub.com? Just use the Github version if all you're doing is testing.

https://rawgithub.com/philipwalton/html-inspector/master/dis...
The problem with this is that you end up trading corruption for incompetence and uncertainty.

Suppose we pick elected officials at random. OK, in the first round we get a bunch of reasonable people and they do a bunch of reasonable stuff. In the second round, maybe the same thing, except that they have different ideas from their predecessors so they end up repealing all the programs and replacing them with still reasonable but quite different ones. Businesses can't plan anything because they don't know what the regulatory environment will look like the year after the election. The churn strains our already-difficult ties with countries like China, Russia and Saudi Arabia when the things the Nth Congress promised get repudiated by the N+1th Congress which is comprised of entirely different people.

Then, sooner or later, random chance produces a majority coalition consisting of people who are willing to horse trade for corrupt programs that specifically benefit their own friends and family, or "libertarians" and peace activists who very suddenly disband the entire U.S. military, or nationalist religious fundamentalists who decide to declare war on "Muslims" or drop a nuclear bomb on somebody with the ability to strike back.

The thing about politics is that you actually do want professionals running the country. You want people with formal training who know what they're doing. You just have to make sure they're representing us and not somebody else.
This is likely. They store everything then decrypt as necessary in a continuous batch mode as targets are identified.

It looks like they have some sort of alerting system for real-time "incident surfacing" for things they feel they need to react to quickly, but I imagine most of their work is over the longer-term as far as building profiles of their targets.
I think (and I should have said so) I was mostly responding to the categorical-sounding 'No' at the start of your comment - such transactions do occur, occasionally even for straight up 'services rendered' (with the other party generally having to pass the 'qualified investor' bar).

I'm probably in violent agreement with you that there is no sensible way someone's going to be able to offer some magical web-based marketplace for such exchanges, for all the reasons you listed.
Interesting comparison. A couple of points:

1. Fortran code being 2x slower than anything for array operations means you're not using Fortran right. So this result says more about f2py generating bad Fortran code than anything else. Labeling that as "Fortran" is disingenuous – it should be labeled "f2py".

2. I'm surprised that SciPy and Scikit aren't faster than this. You can use clever techniques to compute pairwise distances asymptotically faster than the naïve loop approach. For example, see the Julia Distance.jl package [1], which gets a 125x speedup [2] over a naïve loop implementation for computing pairwise Euclidian distances. I haven't done a direct comparison but for simple scalar loops like this, Julia has C-speed, which means its naïve version would be about the same as Numba and Cython and the Distance.jl version would be correspondingly faster. Of course, the amount of speedup depends on the shape of the matrices, so 125x speedup might not happen in this particular case.

[1] https://github.com/lindahua/Distance.jl

[2] https://github.com/lindahua/Distance.jl#pairwise-benchmark
Square co-founder Tristan O’Tierney exits the company
Sean Parker on his wedding, redwoods, and death threats
You can tell that Obama doesn't believe in what he's saying in 2013. There's just so much hesitation in his words.

In 2007, he believed in what he said - that security is not an excuse to violate the civil liberties of the people. There was so much conviction in his words. That conviction just isn't there anymore.

I'd follow 2007 Obama anywhere, but 2013 Obama is severely lacking.
don't be a tool then, is the lesson
Well like if you didn't have a camera in your pocket for years. Or like cameras hidden in pens weren't available cheaply for years. Seriously, the time for people to be scared of others recording things is has already passed (mostly unnoticed).
I know the article touches on this point, but I thought it worth saying directly. The fact that this journalist had long been publicly singled out for extra scrutiny under the current programs is a damning indictment of them. Whether she was targeted for political reasons or simply because the dragnet was too wide - neither explanation is compatible with the basic requirements for a functioning democracy.

If the people whose job it is to speak truth to power are being persecuted by the system then we are no better today than we were 50 years ago when the FBI used their surveillance of Martin Luther King to try to intimidate him into silence.
"All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests."

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Washington's_Farewell_Address
I voted you up, but keep in mind it was 6 candidates acceptable to the existing power structure.
Here is the article I read about this issue:
http://grugq.github.io/blog/2013/03/12/anonymity-is-hard/

"Hiding anomalous activity is hard, but vitally important. The problem with many security systems based purely on secrecy is that their usage is itself anomalous. It singles out and attracts attention to the users. If the adversary doesn’t know who those users are initially, they can cross correlate real world data with the suspicious activity and narrow their focus to real people."
I believe NSA refers to themselves without the article when the organization's name is abbreviated.
My creeping concern is that Naomi Wolf is one missed dose of her medication from becoming a bag lady.
Oh, sorry, the categorical no was just an answer to his question of whether I'd get involved in something like this.
It can be fixed by putting $100 caps on donations per person. Then they'll also work that much harder to please the people, not his/her "biggest donors".
Then how about baloons with guns?
Its important to note that some will NOT want to attend a classified briefing because they will then be bound NOT to discuss what they have heard in that classified meeting.
Hi, just to round up the thread: http://bit.ly/layersdepth is a version done in GWT, less pretty, but you can also use the arrow keys to simulate an accelerometer if your device doesn't have one. Plus, it works on my old iPhone 3GS with iOS5, while most links in this thread did not.