skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Isn't that what the #poopin tweets are about? You're always going to let the hatchway open once by accident.
Personally, I'd find these questions a lot more palatable if they'd change the format a little. Instead of asking "how many gas stations are there in Manhattan" why not ask "what steps would you take to estimate how many gas stations there are in Manhattan"?

The latter makes it clear that this isn't some sort of brain-teaser, it's question about process. You could also phrase it as "what information would you need to estimate how many gas stations there are in Manhattan?" This in particular would be a good question for people who will doing a lot of work that involves some speculation, such as long-term product roadmaps, long-term expansion planning, looking at new markets, etc.

BTW, I've been to Manhattan and noticed that there are remarkably few gas stations there for a city of its size, so whatever estimate you come up with will probably be very, very wrong.
Piled on your mom!
right on, thx
Roughly 1.5 million people have top secret clearance[1], I would personally be alarmed if over half of them had access to data like this, although I can't say it would surprise me at this point.

[1] http://news.clearancejobs.com/2011/09/26/how-many-people-hav...
The problem is that our legal code has ballooned, and needlessly so. We tend to react to any bad news with, "Pass a law so it will not happen!" Americans often do not bother to reflect on whether or not such a law is even compatible with a free society or with our constitution. That is not how things are supposed to work.

Sex offender registration and housing restrictions are an excellent example. Megan's Law was passed in response to an exceedingly rare crime, and everything we know about child sex abuse suggests that it is a stupid law (most of the time, it is someone close to the child, not a mysterious stranger). The regulations on where sex offenders are allowed to live have resulted in colonies of homeless sex offenders (which can be a parole violation). These laws are almost all ex post facto laws, but the courts are willing to perform all the mental acrobatics necessary to justify their constitutionality. We wind up with stories about 19 year olds who had sex with 17 year olds winding up on the registry, or even guys who urinated in public.

Yet that has been the pattern in American law for my entire life. Someone died because they overdosed on some new drug at a party, and suddenly the drug is illegal. Someone put a high-capacity magazine in a gun and shot dozens of people, and suddenly high-capacity magazines are illegal. Someone bullies a middle schooler on Myspace to the point of suicide, and "online bullying" becomes a crime.

The second problem with these sorts of laws is that they never expire. Legislators are never forced to debate old laws, even if the laws no longer make sense. Cocaine was made illegal because members of Congress were told that black men became unstoppable monsters, more accurate with a pistol, and more prone to attack white women -- and in the century that has followed, nobody has bothered to renew that debate and see if that line of reasoning still makes sense. Virginia recently took a rare step and repealed a law that made it illegal for an unmarried heterosexual couple to live together (though plenty of other moronic laws remain on the books there). Maybe it made sense to make it illegal to dig for arrowheads, but without debating it now, how do we know that it still makes sense?

We should live in a society where no reasonable person has to worry about whether or not they are breaking the law. That means we need our laws to expire periodically, so that we keep debating whether or not they make sense, and that means we need to not just pass laws every time someone happens that we do not like.
I dare say most people are blissfully unaware of how often and how easy it is for someone to use their webcam to spy on them.

Either way thats not the point, I don't have a webcam or mic plugged in, except when i am using it for video chat or gaming, and afterwards i unplug them. The xbox's cannot be removed like my PCs.
But there is no browsing feature which is pretty entertaining. I love seeing all the designs and creativity.
Sure, but point being instead of trying to measure talent itself, you try to measure indirectly.
Device-disabling Fake AV migrates to Android phones, demands ransom
Novos Cabos em Fibra de Carbono Permitirão Poços de Elevador com 1 Quilómetro
3D Printer Helps Amateur Prosthetic Designers Build the RoboHand
Crafted in Chicago
This is what I thought all along.

A) Access is MUCH broader than just tapping Google, FB, MSFT, etc. Access is at the far broader level of telecommunication cables. Encryption can be broken later, with specialty FPGA chips.

B) More importantly, with the US taking "everything foreign" and with GCHQ (also) taking "everything foreign" ... the Venn set of these two closely associated govt spying operations means they get "everything, period", including US domestic communications.

If true, the original Snowden revelations are (small) child's play to what may actually be being surveilled, which may indeed be everything.
Do You Really Need All Your Employees to Work In Los Angeles or New York
I wonder if donating to wikileaks or even sending an email to wikileaks offering to volunteer would be enough to interest someone in government in getting all your 1's & 0's.
This is awesome. Are you developing it unfunded at the moment?
no, but i've never heard of a motherboard having an internal mic. Is that a thing now?
> I suppose a simple way, without getting involved politically, would be to stop using any service which is hosted in the US or by a company that falls under US jurisdiction.

I'm not sure it's that simple, nor is that entirely practical. It's not the companies you need to put pressure on. I would image that some of them aren't entirely excited at the idea of working with the NSA, but they aren't given much choice.

The unfortunate truth is that lobbying DC is the most effective way to enact this kind of change. You can do this online to some extent by using services like Votizen.com. Lobbying by Silicon Valley and others in tech certainly worked for the JOBS act.
I think it's selection bias.

If there are ~100 fans who make trailers for every major movie that comes out, a lot of them will probably be garbage, but this article isn't comparing the official trailer to a randomly picked fan trailer; you're comparing it to the best or most viral fan trailer of the 100, the one that gained enough traction to be visible.

Also, since (in the scenario in this article) the official trailer comes out first, and the fan trailer copied footage and such from the official trailer, it's not too hard to imagine that bootstrapping from the work done on the official trailer helps the fan trailer overcome the handicap of having resources several orders of magnitude smaller (probably consisting entirely of a couple fans' free time and, if they're lucky, maybe commercial movie editing software that one of them had bought for something else.)
Here is a recent discussion on chromium-dev about the password manager: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!searchin/ch...

Evidently, only 0.0085% of users toggle on the "Use a master password"
I like the idea. I'm also wondering about the notion of deprecating laws that no longer function as they did when introduced or don't address the issue it was intended for.
We do active drowning victim training in which we lose our floatation device. Part of our training includes freeing ourselves from the victim. I've personally never had a victim panic when I got close to the point of endangering me. We're basically taught to poke them with the tube until they grab on.

You're right though, the safety of the rescuer always comes first.
Huh? The laws were created to stop manufacturers from turning around after using franchises to scale and selling directly at lower prices.

As "lower prices" tells you, the customer was not considered in the equation.
You actually got asked that question? That shouldn't have happened, I'm sorry.
Net neutrality and peering wars continue
Idea: Take the content from a blog and convert it into a hardcover book.
I see no list of company names in this article by The Guardian. I believe the British people --or anyone that does business with them (edit: "them" as in the companies that have assisted the GCHQ) in any way, really-- would be very interested in hearing some names right about now.
From some googling, here's an article from 2008 that suggests this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/...

Essentially, it says that prison rape accounts for the majority of rape in the US and those victims are predominantly male.
More specifically, lifeguards are taught to turn their heads (so the chin is over the shoulder) and push up on the victim. This makes the victim feel safer by getting them further out of the water, and puts some distance between you and the victim.
Ugh, the take-home test/coding assignment. I've done two of these and I will never do another. Bottom line, if a company can't be bothered to respect that the time the interview process eats up for both parties, they probably aren't going to be worth spending their time with long-term.
You don't lose trademark rights just because someone else files a trademark on a name you're already using in commerce prior to that registration. In fact, trademark rights are common law rights -- you don't need to file a trademark to claim a priority right to that mark.

In this case, his prior usage trumps any attempt for Adecco to claim ownership on the mark for their subsequent usage -- no matter how much they try to register those rights with the government. A trademark registration is exactly what it sounds like a - registration of a mark with the government. It doesn't give you any rights to ownership over a mark that pre-existed the registration.
Same in .Net, although Resharper (http://www.jetbrains.com/resharper/) has made my life a lot easier by giving me much better import/using suggestions, although not 100% foolproof.
Or, for example, attacker stole your backup via vulnerability in your NAS. Or, for example, some idiots share whole system volumes in e2k and Direct Connect networks. Or ever web:

https://www.google.ru/search?client=opera&q=intitle:%22index...
File → Save Page As.
Teach Like You Don't Know
Http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=X1mVcSUttX4&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DX1mVcSUttX4
She works for the NSA's FOIA department, hence bearing sufficient responsibility for the NSA's wrongdoing.
This reminds me of a movie about a car company who put seat belts in their cars and marketed them as safer. The name escapes me (and I can't see to find it via Googling). They had a hard time in court, but, I think, won. The establishment hates change.
Church Committee Report on NSA Surveillance Affecting Americans (1975) [pdf]
Given how prominently Woz features as well in the trailer the tagline "one man..." comes off just inaccurate.
The Varnish plugin on New Relic's new platform
I'm not sure if you did this on purpose, but THANK YOU for posting the mobile version of the site. It removes a lot of the distracting spam from the main version.

I think more people should try to find a mobile version of a submission before submitting it.
No you were not the person that failed to include a complete address. But you were the one that assumed there would be no problem with submitting incomplete addresses. Did you read 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A):

(3)
(A) Except with respect to the records made available under
paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, and except as provided
in subparagraph (E), each agency, upon any request for records which
(i) reasonably describes such records and
(ii) is made in accordance with published rules stating the time,
place, fees (if any), and procedures to be followed, shall make
the records promptly available to any person. [1]

Or maybe you can point me to where it says that NSA is not allowed to specify the procedures for filing? It seems that NSA is not alone when it comes to requiring a complete address.[2]

You seem like an intelligent person who is genuinely interested in government. You may enjoy reading the DOJ's procedural requirements for foia[3]. It is an interesting exploration of all of the legal subtleties of FOIA.

I am still interested in hearing what behavior would constitute recognition that this is a "protest"?

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552

[2] http://www.justice.gov/oip/foia-guide13/procedural-requireme...

[3] https://www.google.com/search?q=foia+%22complete+address%22+...
I'm personally alarmed that so many people (presumably) have had access to this material and yet these leaks are only _now_ coming out.
There's no need for purchasing shipping insurance, unless it's a one time shipment of a relatively very high value. Packages do not get lost or damaged, contrary to what insurance providers might want to make you believe.

If you ship a lot of high value items, just save some of your profits for such a rare eventuality (also called "self-insurance").
People bemoan how all the smart people ate working in finance. Look on the bright side: they're not working for the NSA.
That's a pretty lame (and tone deaf) response. Not only will it do little to dampen the Internet Furies, but it will probably just make it worse. They need to make it right with Turner ASAP in a public manner. Otherwise, Hell Hath No Fury like an Internet Scorned.
Google recently refused to give me access to my account when I'd lost the password.

While it was intensely frustrating at the time I'm actually grateful that it is so hard to get an account. I provided considerable amounts of information, but it wasn't enough for them to hand it over.

Still, when I got access to my super secret hard copy of passwords, and loaded Chrome onto a new machine, and signed into Google, I was a bit alarmed by just how much stuff came back from them onto my local machine. I'm currently slowly migrating to Yubikey and a nice password safe and better passwords for everything.
What I'm shocked about is that newspapers haven't outright printed in the front page headline "such and such a person lies to congress and the american people about NSA wiretapping". Every time a public servant lies to the citizens they are supposed to serve, it should be the headline on the front page.
Technically, a smartcard is both something you have (the card) and something you know (the PIN). Even if there were no PIN, smartcards are better than passwords:

1. The public key stored by the server cannot be used for authentication. That means that hacking a server will not give the attacker access to anything beyond that server.

2. More randomness; there are no dictionary attacks on secret keys, and brute force attacks are hard to mount.

3. Defense against phishing: the attacker cannot trick you into giving your secret key, because the card does not export secret keys.

All of the above address the biggest problems we have with passwords right now. You are not likely to be tortured for your card or your PIN, just like you are not likely to be tortured for your password. Sure, smartcards come with their own set of problems, like dealing with lost/stolen/destroyed cards; yet these are not terribly hard to solve (banks are able to deal with lost/stolen/destroyed credit cards). The benefits far outweigh the cost.
Do you have a problem with her actions?
What Apple is 'Interested in' with the HDTV Viewing Experience
Do you know what the best method is for producing jet fuel (aviation turbine fuel) in a carbon neutral way from electricity?
For the attack profile "something you have" is often pretty good. It protects you against criminal gangs getting pasword files.
It's down now. Not because they regret making the video. Oh no, they don't have that sense of regret quite yet. It's down because they can't handle the velocity and fierceness of the negative comments.
If you've been following recent threads, there should be no confusion as to the fact that Tptacek consistently supports an establishment view.

He nit-picks small details to steer conversation away from the big picture. Any notion of abuse, scandal or surprise is routinely dismissed. People who disagree are brushed off as hysterical or conspiracy theorists.
Yes, some of those dealerships (but not all) are probably organized as corporations, but most people (and clearly the OP with his reference to that documentary) mean it to refer to joint stock corporations.
Clearly, you'll want local login, and then integration to as many services as you can stand: fb, twitter, google, etc. There are some pretty robust solutions that are almost drop-ins that do this kind of thing for you.
If you live in New York, please contact your senator and let him know what you think, regardless of your opinion. http://www.nysenate.gov/senators
Samsung Ativ Q tablet runs both Windows 8 and Android
We are creating new tools for academics: bohr.launchrock.com
Needless to say this doesn't make much sense. There are so many confounding factors in the business of electric cars it's silly to take one company's failure as evidence that a particular subset of their technology is bad.
"Actually call them and ask how they're doing"

I'm amazed at the number of product companies that don't do this. Or stop doing it as soon as they think they've found product/market fit.

If I had to pick between A/B testing and talking to my customers (and it would, of course, be dumb to pick only one of those options) I'd pick talking to my customers without hesitation.

A/B testing let's me optimise. Talking let's me discover my customers' problems.
If Google has records of all emails that have been sent and deleted, presumably even if you don't have a Gmail account the government could ask Google for all emails that had ever been sent to your account.

Just as the Syrian government is unlikely to be able to get Google to give them information on particular dissidents, it would be wise for American activists to choose a email provider that is not located in the United States.
My family has a Ford Excursion that has a standard 40 gallon tank (151 liters). It gets almost 800 miles (1200 km) to a tank.
It might take years to become a lawyer, but I bet their are more than a few people here who have spotted an error (international or accidental) in a contract that has passed under the eyes if a lawyer or two. My wife and have caught several major errors in our time that could have cost us a lot of money. There is no substitute for a careful reading of a contract, legal training optional.
And it only takes one vulnerability once for them to get your passphrase. Sleep well!
I fully admit there might have been a detail I'm neglecting that made it more clearly useful, but I do know for a fact it didn't fall in the "market estimation" bin, either. At least not fully or obviously.
Warrant? pfft, they just force their way in when they really want to http://www.storyleak.com/video-shows-home-searches-by-boston...
> (another example - recent public outcry about drone killing of Americans was easily put down by switching attention to the alleged fact of existence of the "strict designation and targeting rules" the government follows without even publishing the rules, just a mere statement of their existence)

As a technical U.S. citizen, Anwar_al-Awlaki had due process rights. Therefore, the relevant inquiry was: what process is "due" (M-W: "owed," "capable of satisfying [an]... obligation," "required or expected...")? It's a foundational principle of Constitutional law that "due process" does not necessarily require a jury trial. So the legality of al-Awlaki's targeted killing depends entirely on the issues you dismiss out of hand. The fundamental question is whether the designation and targeting rules are sufficient "process" (meaning "legal procedure") in context.

Far from being a "responsibility deflection schema" it is a good faith attempt to stay within the bounds of the law while still following through with an important governmental objective: bringing to justice an enemy of the United States. It's no different than when any person or company asks their lawyer "can we do this?"

Because here is the thing: not everybody agrees with you (you, VladRussian2 personally). Lots of people think your ideals are stupid and dangerous.[1] Outside the echo-chamber of this website, lots of people have no problem with torture in the course of war, lots of people think supposed "Americans" who take up arms against the U.S. can't claim the protection of their Constitution. Is the government just supposed to go by principles? If so, why your principles instead of other people's principles? It's not a workable system. That's why we instead follow rules, rules we all agreed to. In the course of following those rules, we often have to make judgment calls about exactly what those rules do and do not allow us to do. And sometimes, we're on the edge of that boundary and make good faith attempts to stay on the right side.

[1] I remember as an undergraduate in Atlanta in the lead-up to the Iraq war, lots of people seriously suggested turning the middle east into a "glass parking lot" as a solution to the problems in the region. You may not like those people (and I personally found those comments tasteless), but they are as much a part of our body politic as you, and their principles carry just as much weight as yours.
> Legaleese requires you to take years of law classes to even understand

This is why I'm against EULAs. As a non-lawyer, it's an asymmetrical game--I have no idea what the legaleese I'm agreeing to actually means in a court.
I understand that he just asks real question on that level to calibrate your answer. It's just faster to start from some reference point.
How generous of the NSA to admit to a DDOS attack surface. You may all commence emailing each other PGP-encrypted copies of the complete Star Trek: TNG (Blu-Ray, natch), now.
Except if the home countries won't take them. Or if they will execute them if given the chance.

Nothing in politics (or life, even) is simple, so you might as well start by assuming it's hard and conclude it's simple after you've eliminated all the things that could make it hard, rather than the other way around.
Agreed, and that's fine. I think this is a clearer statement of what I was trying to express with my initial post :)
And your door is LOCKED. WHAT ARE YOU HIDING?
Read receipt requested? That seems unnecessary given its the NSA.
Chuck is assuming (reasonably) that license plate numbers are assigned in sequential order to all new cars.

So if 1000 cars are sold in a year, maybe he'll see plate #267 from Year 0, and plate #1796 from Year 2. 1800 - 300 / 2 = 750 cars per year, close enough.
Rotate your passwords. Regularly.
I think what's next, and quite frankly, what's already been happening, is that crowdfunding will move away from platforms and onto self-hosted websites.
Presumably the same justification/reasoning could be used to serve a home/business search warrant.
I agree, and that's why I don't believe in them.

But consider this:

The reason I don't think 9/11 was an inside job isn't that I don't think there are people in Washington or in -- say -- the defense industry who would do such a thing. There surely are. I don't think it was an inside job because I doubt there are enough of such people or that they are cooperative or competent enough to pull of something of that magnitude and audacity.

But yeah, I think there are people who'd do it. Consider how ugly a statement that is about our leaders.

We have a problem.
"Not trusting" in this case is more of an operational than moral/ethical judgement, and more general than Google - you can't rely on privacy from any company if the government can send them a letter saying, "Gimme everything on this guy, bitches."

And, well, if you don't want to run to Hong Kong, you're pretty much the government's bitch in that circumstance...