skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
They do, actually, because it wins them votes. But the issues with corporatism that the parent is citing are very real ones; Hungarian politicians and business leaders alike (anyone who sees an opportunity to enrich themselves at the expense of the nation) have been very quick to sell parts of Hungary to anybody in Europe. There is one remaining grocery chain that is Hungarian. The malls are Austrian. The phone company is German. The gas company is French.

Land ownership is being concentrated in the hands of a very few, very rich individuals - partly simply because the average salary here is about $500 a month, and partly because of policy explicitly crafted to this end. (For example, the government now requires agricultural certification for you to work your own land. The only option is often to sell.)

All this works to the benefit of the richer European countries, so they're cool with it. Jobbik is one of the very few voices in the Hungarian political scene that questions any of this at all - so it's not just out of the goodness of European media's hearts that they report on the most lurid details of their admittedly unfortunate rhetoric.

Do you really think Germany is worried about antisemitism? Did you realize that Angela Merkel actually "joked" (scare quotes intentional) that the Hungarian situation wasn't yet dire enough to require Germany to come in here with tanks? Because you can bet that Hungarians do, in fact, remember the last such incident - and some of my wife's own family died in the concentration camps.

And no, my wife's family never left Hungary, and yeah, they're Jewish. She didn't even know about it herself until about twenty years ago, but I will say that the synagogue downtown is still there. Nobody burns it down, and they still have services as far as I know. They certainly have lots of papers posted in Hebrew.
That's fine, I can accept that Racket favors FP. The point isn't that Racket tries to be functional, it's that Lisp as a whole doesn't.
The legitimacy of an act (violence in this case) is highly subjective. The legality is a lot more objective. In this particular scenario, I think I would rather say that the government has a legal monopoly on violence. The legitimacy argument breaks down for oppressive governments where some revolting citizens take up violence because they see it as their last and only option. Some might argue that their act is legitimate, but it is still illegal. Now, one could always say that if the violence by government is not legitimate, it is no longer a government. But that is largely a philosophical/literary point. Here, when people are saying that Government has a monopoly on violence, they mean that the voters have granted them a legal right to do use force (which is at least pseudo-aggressive if not violent in all cases). The legitimacy can be contested in courts and debated upon in the next election - but till then, they reserve the monopoly.
Show HN: NodeBB - [Open Source] Node.js/Redis/WebSocket powered forum software
Humble Bundle (with Android) 6
I'm curious as to how I'm being insulting when the other commenter was the one calling me a troll.

Not pumping the latest SV (or YC backed, for that matter) fad is not being "overly critical and insulting".

Stop drinking the Kool Aid without thinking.
Well they are Oracle. Perhaps they will rename it to 'TheirSQL' :-)
It's kind of sad seeing something digging it's own grave like that.
Would drones be considered a loop hole here?
Alo, Terroristas?
The leaked slides say clearly the government can query the servers at will. They get real time login data, logout data and payload data.

I don't know why people keep putting this into question, giving Google the benefit of the doubt, when they were caught pants down, no questions asked.

If the companies mentioned in the slides just complied with the law, why would they be singled out in those slides? Honoring search warrants and FISA requests is an obligation, not an extra.

The reason Google was singled out as a partner since 2009 is because they gave the government full unrestricted access.
We have enough information for an informed decision now, thanks to Edward Snowden.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio
Google Challenges FISA Gag Orders on Free Speech Grounds
Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5901540
Google fanboys make this discussion hard to take seriously.

Google was caught pants down spying on everyone, stop trying to white wash it.
Russia blast: Multiple explosions rock arsenal storing ‘13mln’ shells
Well, judging by your comment history(about 100% anti-Google), I won't be taking your word for it. I'm still waiting for the dust to settle and see where Google ends up.
Right now, it's just a bunch of people pointing fingers at each other. The truth will be found once everyone calms down.
I think a vast majority of people in this world would never feel eating to be such a tedious task.
Interesting. My question is why is this setup like a landing page of a pre-funding startup?

Or am I missing something?
In my experience with iOS music apps, most of them use IAP. YMMV.
Also, they used to offer only 12 RSS feeds for free. Now, they give you 64.

And they've also been improving their user interface.
Viva Maria!
I think this one is decent:

> In 1989, The New England Journal of Medicine published a study that looked at hundreds of cyclists treated at Seattle-area hospitals. The research team concluded that helmets “reduce the risk of head injury by 85 percent and of brain injury by 88 percent.”
I think too much credit is given here. Another way to view it is that it is more important for Dropbox to have new people signup than already converted people login in.

Of course loging in should not be unfriendly, but pushing slighly out of sight on the home page is fair game. BTW my main use case for login to the website is for accessing my files from someone's computer or a different account, so yhe appis not helping.
Here's how I'd do it: Everything gets chucked into a secure storage. Meta-data (from processing the data) goes into the dataming system (where it's probably shared with a lot of projects, somewhat securely). If the data mining indicates a "hot" message, the original message (and associated messages) will be sent to an analyst.

Can anyone think of a more likely scenario?

By "secure", I mean "not shared within the agency". Obviously, everything is locked down within the agency, but there'd be a limit to how much the staff would be allowed to see (except the sysadmins, like Snowden, who need wide-ranging access).
I think that's part of Schneier's point though. This spending seems to be primarily on cyber "weapons", not cyber "shields". We DO need to spend money on making our networks more secure and redundant. But instead of that, we seem to just be taking more of a MAD-style first strike approach to things. Glass cannons, essentially.
The Series A Round Is The New Series B Round
If this is the case it should be rather straightforward for you to provide an answer to the question I posed in the previous comment, which you have yet to do.
NSA Disruption of Stock Exchange Bomb Plot Disputed
I will also say that John von Neumann was (ethnically) Jewish, and left because of rampant antisemitism among the academic community at the time. Antisemitism is an endemic problem in Hungary, and it would be foolish of me to pretend it wasn't.

For an American, the weirdest thing about Hungarian racism is the fact that they widely discriminate against people who are visually exactly identical to one another. There are many people who don't know they're Jewish here - that Jobbik guy being a case in point (sorry, I don't remember his name, but it was pretty funny).

I just heard a joke the other day. There are three women at a hospital giving birth on the same day - a Magyar, a Roma, and a African woman. Unfortunately, all the paperwork is misplaced, and nobody is sure which baby is which. So the Magyar woman grabs the black baby and screams, "I'm keeping this one until we can figure out which of the other ones is a gypsy!"

This was told to me by a Hungarian - an older guy who always says hi when we walk the dog past his workshop - laughing about the racist element who discriminates based on nothing. Food for thought.
The download button is where the signin button should be. Having login in the upper righthand corner is a long seated UX pattern - there is very little logic to messing with it. Now every time I go to signin, I'm going to accidentally download dropbox.

This is going to confuse the hell out of non-technical people like my dad, a dropbox user, but not a very patient one. I'm sure I'll get a confused call from him in a few days... Plus, I'll have to go into his downloads folder several times a year to remove all the dropbox install files that were inadvertently downloaded.
"Land of Lisp" is actually what turned me on to PG/HN/startups a few years ago. I believe there was a passing mention of PG somewhere near the beginning and that got me started reading essays.

I am very excited for this book as I do prefer the cleanliness of Scheme to CL.
More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5901540
So, if Google does continue like it should, at the very least we should watch out for Sergei & Larry's dirty laundry hitting the internet soon enough?
Right, but saying "Google only starts caring about its users now," is not true. For example, Google challenged the National Security Letters prior to the Snowden leak.
The power from the wall is only as clean as permitted by the cheapest, most worn out hair dryer or air conditioner in your building (or maybe neighborhood). PC power supplies typically aren't great but they have to do some filtering for the machine to run at all.
This is where we need more than one company to stand up. If Google is the only one doing it, and the government vigorously slaps them around a few times, more than likely they'll stop before they go out of business. And then all the tech companies get put in their place -- want to resist government overreach? You're going to get damaged.

On the other hand, if they all resist, who is the government going to retaliate against? The entire industry? It would be too great a hit to the economy.

So the question is whether Facebook, Apple et al are going to take the short view or the long view. If they let Google be the only one to stand up then maybe it will encourage the government to damage their competitor, but in so doing set the precedent that the industry won't stand together on issues like this, which can only make the government more brazen in the future.
50 is on the highish side of reasonable, seems like a good choice. still, i would've gone with a bazillion, just to really wow people.
This point simply cannot be overstated. The absolutely deplorable level of "oversight" performed by Congress is a direct function of the degree to which they've been able to insulate themselves from the electorate. Being able to select who can and can't vote against them is one of their most effective means for doing this. Indeed, this practice explains why so many of them can hold onto their seats while continuing to act against the interests of their constituents in ways beneficial to their funders.

In short, gerrymandering, closed primaries, and private campaign finance form the Triangle of Doom. In combination, they provide the noose with which Congress is choking America to death. Abuse at the hands of the NSA (and their multi-billion dollar web of contractors) is just the latest, and perhaps the most chilling example of this phenomena.
Or when everyone agrees on a mutual truth even if it's not the real truth...
My problem with things like the UDHR is that it is worded in a way as that the document provides these freedoms to human beings. This implies that simply changing the document can possibly take these rights away. That's the idea behind the language of the US Constitution (the Bill of Rights at least), it seems to provide rights to the people but instead restricts the government from infringing on the natural rights of the people.

For instance, the first article of the UDHR states that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. What it should say is something more along the lines that no form of government may make a law that prevents any human from being born free and equal in dignity and rights.

Something like that.

Granted, it's possible to strike the article from the document regardless of which way it is worded but I personally like documents such as this to have language that government is restricted from infringing my rights as opposed to government telling me what rights I have.
> force an everyday commuter to wear such a thing

> Bicycle helmets are the equivalent of telling homeowners they should build a nuclear bunker

Um, your head gets a bit sweaty and you have to shell out $40. You look kind of dorky too, like the rest of the 50% of cyclists wearing helmets. That is not nearly the inconvenience of "building a nuclear bunker." It's more like asking the homeowner to pay a small premium on his insurance for a slightly riskier residence.
Hmm, so there's a bunch of hosted MySQL providers. How long before they become MariaDB hosted providers?

Oracle, your engineers know exactly what will happen. Why don't you?
You and Camdykeman should re-read the HN guide for new users pages.

Things like this:

> Stop drinking the Kool Aid without thinking.

Are a good example of what not to say.
This looks very interesting. Any chance it would compile to asm.js? That would be awesome.
Can I coin a new political term: terrorismism. It is the enlargement of all state powers over its citizens in the name of fighting terrorists.
The reason Google was singled out as a partner since 2009 is because they gave the government full unrestricted access.

Which part of the PRISM slides make you think that? They certainly indicate pretty much full access to accounts which have been OK'd by Google (at least in archive form), but that is very different from 'full unrestricted access' to servers. I'd say we don't really know the extent of it, and welcome Google's decision to try to challenge the government in court to reveal more details.

As far as I read them the few PRISM slides we've seen don't really indicate:

1) The extent of access (how many accounts, how many accounts per order etc)
2) The mechanisms for FISA access
3) Any time delay in receiving documents/access
4) Whether data is realtime or not after access is granted

and the figures that FB, MS, Apple have announced hardly constitute full unrestricted access to all accounts as you seem to be implying. It's still a serious invasion of privacy, there are serious doubts about the efficacy of the FISA court supervision, and for foreigners I'm not even sure there are any protections at all (the NSA might not even feel obliged to get specific permission for non-US communications), so for everyone outside the US this is really invasive, but I'm not sure I can agree with your characterisation of these slides as showing full access (full access to what, to all Google servers, seriously?).
You are wildly mistaken.

Don't believe everything you see in the news or from opinion polls.
In my book, there's no number.

The question assumes that this is all negotiable, that there's some level at which we should be prepared to surrender fundamental freedoms. I claim that no such value exists.

Since the primary source of these threats seems to be from militant Islamicists, it would seem that we could get some measure of safety from banning Islam from America. How many thwarted attacks should it take for us to toss out the First Amendment?

It's difficult to prove that somebody is conspiring with a terrorist organization. Surely the need to prove a defendant guilty before a jury, is opening the door for terrorist attacks. How many thwarted attacks should we expect before we're willing to discard the Seventh Amendment? Oh, wait, we've already done that one in Guantanamo. Maybe we are on the way...
Intel beats leading ARM CPUs in both power consumption and performance.
> The legitimacy of an act (violence in this case) is highly subjective.

In the sense Weber uses it, it may be fuzzy, but its not subjective (its essentially the aggregate of how it is treated by the people in the territory.)

> The legitimacy of an act (violence in this case) is highly subjective.

The idea that legality is objective in a way legitimacy is not is debatable.

> I think I would rather say that the government has a legal monopoly on violence.

Perhaps, but that seems to be a trivial tautology, in that what is legal is precisely, by definition, what is formally allowed by some government.

> The legitimacy argument breaks down for oppressive governments where some revolting citizens take up violence because they see it as their last and only option.

Weber would state that, to the extent that this is a general failure over some subset of its territory, the entity has failed as the government of that territory -- that, in the case where no entity exercise a legal monopoly on violence over a territory, there is no government, and in the case where there is such an entity but its not the one that is claiming to be the government, then the claiming entity is simply wrong.

> Some might argue that their act is legitimate, but it is still illegal.

In the eyes of the purported government that they are revolting against, but not in the eyes of the purported government that they have formed in the revolution. Legality has no meaning without reference to a governing authority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Pistols

And they'll have a lot of non-homosexual allies, even ones who don't particularly care for homosexuals, for enough of us remember where the pink triangle base of this organization's logo comes from, and even more will learn.
A secret list limiting travel by common means, with no more visibility than a bureaucrat's perfunctory "you're on the no-fly list, go away", with no way to confirm or challenge it

Completely untrue, the ACLU has gotten several people off the no fly list, used FOIA requests to gain access to it, etc.
If they hold all the copyright on the documentation, they're free to do as they please. It was always expected that Oracle would kill the project.

MariaDB is a fork of MySQL started by the founder of MySQL after the Oracle acquisition. This is good news for them because it gives people more reason to use the fork.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MariaDB
None. Look at all politically-motivated violent attacks that deliberately or recklessly affected civilians; all of them were done by people who would be uninfluenced by any detail of due process in the US.

No sane person tries to blow up an airplane over NSA surveillance.

I think James Clapper should be fired, that we need to reevaluate the FISA court system, and (most radically) that NSA needs to be transitioned back into a foreign intelligence agency and be firewalled off from domestic law enforcement.

I don't think we should try to get there by making arguments that 99% of Americans will immediately reject, in part because even people who are sympathetic to the problem of an overreaching NSA will disagree strongly with them.
> I guess we're lucky in only having to fiddle around with dates in awkward formats.

And that thing that isn't the metric system.
Hail in Zurich
I wouldn't grab the torches and pitchforks unless/until it's clear they're relicensing to a non-free license. The GPL is written to apply to code; it doesn't make much sense to apply it to documentation.
Do please recall that friendly_chap is not a native English speaker.
Yeah but the world is not the USA. Some states DO have the monopoly of violence. E.g.: if you try to kill me in Spanish with a knife and I shoot you, I'll go to jail.
> Oracle, your engineers know exactly what will happen. Why don't you?

I think Oracle knows what they're doing. Oracle likes paying customers and I suspect that they don't make much, if anything, on MySQL users. I've been using MySQL for years and I've never knowingly paid Oracle a dime.
You can wear whatever safety gear you want on a bike. It's just that bicycle crashes are usually so low energy that motorcycle gear is overkill. On a motorcycle, road rash can grind flesh off down to the bone. Nothing's stopping you from wearing a motorcycle jacket, full finger gloves etc. every time you get on a bicycle though.
I've long moved to Postgres and never want to go back, but I am glad to see just how thoroughly the MySQL community up and moved on to MariaDB. Linux distros are now shipping with it as the default "MySQL".

That represents a very good effort to take an open project and keep it open. Two thumbs up for the community. Now, if we can just talk about silently munging data instead of giving proper errors...
Do you wonder if the people would vote for it or the government? Because I see those as two different things.
Best quote... “If you have nothing to hide, then that quite literally means you are willing to let me photograph you naked? And I get full rights to that photograph—so I can show it to your neighbors?”
What is skeuomorphism?
You have to be careful mixing and matching bits and pieces of philosophy from different groups of people in different time periods. The framers did talk about natural rights, but you need look no further than their interactions with the American Indians to understand that when they talked about "natural rights" they were more referring to rights inherent to Englishmen than rights common to all humans. To put it glibly, do you think the framers would have objected to using drones against the American Indian threat?

> but it does not follow that the extension of our recognized rights to all people is in any way contradictory to our ideals

No matter what theory of the nature of rights you subscribe to, as a practical matter "rights" are limits on collective action. To say that, say, a non-American in Yemen has "rights" is to say that there are things that the American people, acting through Congress, cannot do. That is what is inconsistent with Americans' perceptions of the world. Not because we think people in Yemen are a lesser sort of human, but because Americans don't accept the idea that there is some higher power that can decide what America can and cannot do.
Some people have the personal opinion that they just can't be bothered to learn to cook and to eat nice food. I'm trying to get my head around that. It's an alien concept to me.

Then there's the liquid feed nature of it. Put it in a cake and I might not be so critical of it.

I am trying to make myself remember that I have strong personal opinions and that I need to wait for science before leaping to the "it's stupid" conclusion.

This submission was nice because it was reasonably cautious - it has some safety advice, and warns people about the experimental nature of it. So, what people do with their bodies is mostly up to them and I don't try to stop them.
The difference is that if Google did that, everyone would immediately stop giving them that information, which is worth more to them than the advantage they could gain in screwing you over once.

On the other hand, if the government does this, people can do... what, exactly? Stop giving their information to the government? They didn't willingly do that to begin with. Stop giving it to Google? Maybe, but they would have to stop giving it to anyone, which is a lot more difficult than just switching from one service to another.
Is that even relevant? What are you going to do against the SWAT Anti-Homo unit raiding your home alone in the night? Pretty much nothing.

Are the Pink Pistols going to fight the army too? With pink tanks I guess :P (come on, how stereotypical is the pink reference?)

Also: you completely missed my point. Replace "homosexual" with whichever minority you want. Maybe mexicans? Muslims? And their friends too! Whoever they target, they'll be minority and will smear their name and accuse them of America's illness. Desperate people buy that shit.
Stop Shaving That Yak, and Make Your App Faster (Velocity 2013)
They are going to make it happen.

http://typescript.codeplex.com/discussions/438243