skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Exactly what US industry should health care emulate?

The best available answer is capitation, where care providers are rewarded for keeping people healthy, not treating disease.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitation_(healthcare)

In practice, people live longer and costs go down.

Too many people confuse prices (set by a market) with incentives. In the mythical future perfect "free market", competition would drive prices down and all would be "good". Alas, there are no free markets. Further, the desired outcomes is healthy people, not cheap healthcare.
India is hardly efficient - you can't charge a populace for something they can't afford. What India did do was not care about international patent law and cranked out generics at pretty much their production price.

Which yeah - is actually pretty damn capitalist.
Taking a desktop PC as carry-on luggage
Even if you only had the text of the password, one of the first things that you'd try if your keylogged password didn't work would be to see if the characters map to a different layout. (There are only so many after all.)

If you want an excuse to try switching to Dvoraks, how about not having the semicolon on the home row?
Which is why Adam Smith has a big section in "The wealth of nations" where he talks about the absolute necessity of government regulation to ensure smooth operation of the market and the necessity of building absolute divisions between business and government.

Mysteriously absent from most politicians free market tirades.
Let's play devil's advocate for a moment.

Why should selling exploits be illegal?

If I spend many weeks looking for an exploit and I find one, what do I get by disclosing it, to say, Google? The Chrome project does pay a little, but I could probably get more in a bidding war. If Google wants the exploit, it should be able to outbid the other people who are willing to buy it.

Time is money after all, and by disclosing an exploit I worked so hard to find I'm basically giving it all away to Google... and for what?
For ethical reasons? What ethical reasons? Google is not a person, it's a corporation.
The problem I see with analyzing The Google monopoly comparing to, for example, the Microsoft one is that they really innovat[e|ED?]. I am not in favor of Google monopoly for that but currently there are not companies in the market that can fight these kind of innovations or market position. I am not talking about beating Google in social networks, I am talking about beating them with a better search engine and advertising offerings.
Emacs has a package called autocomplete [0] that does what you want, but for some languages you have to configure it yourself. I believe vi has something similar.

[0] http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/AutoComplete
And you should walk away from any such relationship.
What can you trust then? License an ARM or MIPS IP core (in HDL form so it can be audited) and run it in an FPGA (or if you're rich, an ASIC)?
Ask HN: Is Java still the best way to create a client-side HTTP proxy?
I am creating a 3rd party device management system for a client.
<p>Basic Operation:
<p>Users of this system will be receive a link in their email and when they click on the link it will open a webpage that hosts the proxy. The proxy needs to be able to scan the user's subnet and access the user's local devices over https. Once the proxy has obtained the relevant information it will send that data over the internet, back to the central server. One thing to note is that the proxy needs to be able to make authenticated GET and POST requests to the local devices.
<p>Ideally the proxy would be able to call javascript functions as it completes as this allows me to easily change the UI without recompiling and resigning the proxy.

<p>Currently the plan is to write this in Java as an applet but Java seems to be becoming less and less popular. Is there a better technology to do this, like flash or something else? I considered pure Javascript but I think the local devices need to supply special headers to allow cross site requests and unfortunately they don't.
<p>How have you tackled this problem and were there any gotchas?
I'm pretty sure all music on www.bandcamp.com comes in FLAC and ALAC for no extra charge. It's mostly independent artists but there are a few major names (e.g. Sufjan Stevens). www.beatport.com also offers high quality audio for a little extra (not sure on the format or extra charge though).
> _the missing piece that keeps this from being useful is that they can't keep their fork up to date using github.com_

yep, a year ago removed "Fork Queue" would come in handy there.
Stylometry and Online Underground Markets [pdf]
what i want to know is what graphics card/driver can decode video at that resolution?
TrueCrypt. The most shady piece of security software I have seen. It's 2013 and there is still no public repository and no changelogs are published. Don't you expect the software you will trust all your secrets with to be at least open about these things?

People keep on saying Schneier says it's good, did he actually check each and every line of the source code? Not to mention that I read somewhere that they ban you on their forums if you ask them these questions.

Let's see the ChangeLog:

"Improvements and bug fixes:

Minor improvements and bug fixes (Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux"

Minor improvements and bug fixes :) This is how you write your ChangeLog friends!
"there’s no need for a MyMod::InstanceMethods since methods on MyMod are already in the chain."

There are no need for InstanceMethods in the original module either. They are included when the module is included.

"So far ActiveSupport::Concern has taken away some of the boilerplate code used in the pattern: no need to define an included hook"

Yet he still use such a hook, even if it has become an instance method call instead of a class method call.

", no need to extend the target class with ClassMethods, no need to class_eval on the target class."

Sure, the extend call is automated away (at the cost of adding a line like "include ActiveSupport::Concern".

But there are also no reason to do class eval in this context - just call the method directly.

The deferred usage of self.included does seem a bit useful though, and that is where the article should have started as everything above that is a strawman.
I didn't see any media, I'm talking about the prosecution's presentation of the case during the trial. He was presented as a 17-year-old child (never once heard "young adult" in ~two weeks of watching).

"Stalked" is pretty aggressive language, and according to GZ, his initial suspicion was just related to him not knowing who this person was (he knew most of the residents) walking around at night, in the dark, in the rain, near the houses. I think that's a pretty reasonable case for someone to feel suspicious.

And to re-iterate, when prosecutors are trying to paint a portrait of childish innocence, I think it's perfectly acceptable to introduce evidence to the contrary. They're irrelevant if we don't try to elicit sympathy from the jury, but that's not how the prosecution handled things.
Point taken, but the wheat in bread is not much better for you than the pure sugar...
The post is not against DDG.

It is against the unreasonable expectations for privacy when using DDG.
This is an excellent explanation.

I'm not sure what you mean by paleontology being mixed up with evolutionary biology, though.
well yeah, its the press :|

as if they ever wanted to inform people.
Some FPGAs are known to have backdoors (if you have JTAG access).
Did Greenwald just say that Snowden has documents that could cause grievous harm the United States, and that he may have set up a dead man's switch that would cause them to be published should any harm come to Snowden?

Three possibilities I can see:

(1) Greenwald really can't think even one move ahead and see that he's just published a reason for any number of US adversaries to kill his source.

(2) Greenwald understands the implications of what he's published but is, owing to his own incentives, fine with the idea of his source being killed

(3) Greenwald doesn't believe what he's saying and isn't meant to be taken seriously.

Cards on the table: that guy could be reporting that water is wet and I'd still have him in bucket (3). Although now you kind of hope the freakshow government in North Korea is smart enough to bucket him the same way.
I would love to see how someone gets 70% kidney or joint transplant. Like they put the stuff but don't sew you? Or you forfeit the anesthesia? Or if you have infection they give you antibiotics only 7 of the 10 days needed? They remove the bone cask a week before it is fully healed? Remove only 70% of tumor during surgery?
Daux.io, a simple documentation generator
> "enough information to cause more damage to the US government in a minute alone than anyone else has ever had in the history of the United States."

I don't see how this is not analogous to a longstanding marriage with a hidden affair. Would you reveal the affair thereby destroying the marriage (but gaining a greater measure of truth)? Or would you leave it in secret?

I don't believe that a thing based partly on secrets the revelation of which might bring about the end of that thing, is a sustainable thing, nor a healthy thing, nor a long-term-good thing.
Probably because the horses are used for moving the blade more than the mower.
That is a very good point, if the author knew that there was a demand for mysterious documents they may have created one to fill that demand.
Ah; the US has 50+ frameworks of self-defense, given our federalism.

What do you not find sensible about Florida's? If you accept Zimmerman's account of the incident, which we presume the jury did, he only resorted to lethal force after he was in legitimate fear for his life, and he never had an opportunity to retreat (states vary greatly on duty to retreat vs. stand your ground).

What do German courts require?
I like to view pids as a special case of a channel. A pid is just the one-and-only channel of a process, and a process cannot create more. If I'm not mistaken, Erlang advocates creating processes for very specific tasks, so most of the time one channel is enough. But if you ever find yourself writing processes that check the "type" of an incoming message and dispatch that to different handlers, then consider if it could be easier if each message type came in on a different channel.

The security implications of channels are neat too, you can treat them as capabilities to specific parts of a process' API.
Will the Death of Windows XP Increase Windows 8 PC Sales?
We want privacy from the government, but we're an open book on social media
Ctrl+b or eqivilent selected text iirc.
Let's assume for a moment that there exists an individual who (via unknown mechanisms) knows about 90% of the hidden affairs of marriages in the world.

Should that person "blow that whistle", as it were, suddenly turning almost all relationships "honest"? Or would it cause widespread havoc and upheaval?
Does shred work with SSD drives?
That is more like front door access but still.
{snipped}

EDIT: Thanks to lub1be for pointing out my error!!
Do you think this could be steganographic text? I wonder if they just post poem content but are really hiding other text.
I get irritated when people claim that free markets are a silver bullet for the ills of society.

Even if you ignore the cruelty of not providing healthcare to people who can't afford it. How does the free market deal with community impact of untreated health problems? For example, highly infectious diseases which are relatively easy to treat but people may not be able to afford treatment for (post-exposure treatment for rabies, scarlet fever, etc)? Do we just quarantine these people until they die or someone pays for treatment? If we treat these people for free, we're now subsidizing health care. Where do you draw the line?

Why don't we apply free market principles to law enforcement, fire services, and utilities?
> and he never had an opportunity to retreat

He had the option to not follow someone, and to stay inside his vehicle, as he was advised to do by the police he called.

Poking someone with a stick and then killing them when they respond is a bizarre use of self-defence.
Why do we want to make things easier for compiler writers? Make things easier for developers and once its solved in the backend (by one team) its done.
Nothing More than a Theory
I believe the problem here is that you're dividing us into "tinfoil hat people" and normal people. This would be a useful designation if the world would remain static. However, we're clearly seeing that what used to be "tinfoil hat people" are right now just sensible people, so then you have to distinguish the really tinfoil hat people from the previous bunch, and so on. It's a moving target.

The key problem from all of this is the injection of distrust into the entire stack caused by state security. I'm not getting into the BTB and pipelining, this article is just a symptom of the problem. The entire technology stack is up for grabs, and authors are going to get a lot of mileage out of taking it apart.

So, to me, there are two questions here. 1) Can you demonstrate an attack that uses some weaknesses yet undetected by the average nerd? If so, that's news. 2) Can you speculate that with the resource of a nation-state, such an attack might be made? If so, to me that kind of qualifies as nerd gossip. It may turn out to be true, and it may just be a lot of hand-waving. Some people like this stuff. Some people don't. I never liked the hero-worship crap or the latest from famous author X, so if I had to choose from piles of crap I'd prefer this.

For the average person, the only choice right now is to carry on or not. That does not make the situation acceptable or tolerable, that's just how it is.

And I really like the word kerfuffle.
> and run it in an FPGA (or if you're rich, an ASIC)?

An FPGA contains way more junk than just the gate array these days.

And I don't know why you would trust Xilinx or Altera (who are way more dependent on government orders than Intel) over Intel. Or any fab, for that matter.

I think it's reasonable to be paranoid, but at some point one should do a cost-benefit analysis of the measures one is willing to indulge in. Because ultimately you will have to trust someone blindly, and that is true for both people and machines.
Well if you are an entrepreneur with a high net worth we'll give you citizenship, no need for a visa. That said, I could imagine a competition where the 'sport' was something very much entrepreneurial bot I think the P-1a is limited to 30 days or some other reasonably short time. The interesting thing is, as I understand it, allows you to "earn money", in the US while you're here. As opposed to tourists who are only supposed to "spend money" :-)
People use Chrome, that is the ethical issue. As long as we're not pretending that we're ethical hackers then that's fine with me. I find it extremely hypocritical to claim to be an ethical hacker and sell exploits at the same time.
I disagree. Hiring a executive from one of those areas won't give OP what he needs. It will give him someone with a lot of experience in those disciplines and a lot of life experience, but no direct experience in what he needs. I know, my company did that and the person helped with the day-to-day management of things that we didn't know about, but that's really all. It also created a lot of friction because the person didn't understand our business at all, and really didn't want to either. He was near 60 and had left that "learning new things" phase of life.

I'm in the "the OP needs a mentor" camp. His team is clearly doing a lot right and a mentor can give them the confidence to do the rest of it right.
You basically get lossless music left and right these days - that is if you look beyond iTunes & Co.

Quobuz, Boomkat, HDTracks, Bandcamp, Bleep and others all offer lossless music - obscure and indie music, as well as major artists.

I won't buy anything that isn't lossless and can't remember the last time I had trouble finding an album in my format of choice.

Gladly availability isn't a problem any longer.
You mean Thomas[1]? That's not Thomas Pornin[2].

[1] http://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/9210/technical-fea...

[2] http://crypto.stackexchange.com/users/28/thomas-pornin

Edit: Guys there is no need to downvote him for making a simple mistake. I actually also assumed that at first before remembering that Thomas Pornin uses his full name as display name.
No, you shouldn't be worried about RdRand particularly, not more than about any other function, as long as you use it properly. If you don't use it yourself, others already did the right thing for you, so you don't have to worry: The present discussion here on HN showed that it is used properly on Linux. It's not the only source and there's a seed used separately:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6040912
> Wearable Fitness Devices Let Others Monitor your lack of sex life.

FTFY
I haven't looked yet but I would like to see experiments that look at how varying amounts of HFCS cause extra weight. It could be that even a small amount (over time or not) damages something and then causes weight gain or it could just be that they have more accessible calories.

I'd also like to see an experiment about the reversibility of the weight loss. If you get them fat on HFCS and then switch to regular sucrose do they end up looking like the rats that had sucrose the whole time.
This is an old problem.

Cameras also let others monitor your sex life.

Of course, that's only true if you take pictures while you are having sex and then share those pictures with others... just like with wearable fitness devices.
So get on kickstarter, use the money to pay to rent a recording studio and for an audio engineer to fix the recordings. Pay 50 bucks to get on CdBaby. Assuming 10k to rent the studio and pay the sound guy then you need a thousand true fans to pay 10 bucks and that should be doable.
SELinux works well nowadays. You'd know that if you hadn't disabled it.
There are some good notes here, but they're relatively desktop oriented. For the truly paranoid desktop user https://tails.boum.org/ accomplishes much of this out of the box.
Once again, if you believe this is a real issue, you're logically enjoined from using practically any hardware cryptography, including the AES instructions or any HSM.

Why is true? Let's assume that a chip has hardware AES support, and the team which designed the AES module is working for Eve (the standard generic attacker). What can Eve do to compromise the AES encryption without getting caught?

She can't have the AES module encrypt the data with a known key, because then it won't decrypt correctly. She can't leak the key data, because we already know what size output we're expecting. Basically, AES is a well-understood function, and as long as we control the inputs, we can verify that the outputs are correct. It's not a 100% guarantee, but the risk to the attacker (and the chip vendor) are enormous.

But a hardware RNG offers some especially nice features for attackers:

1) It's an essential part of many security algorithms.
2) If a weak random sequence is fed through a stream cipher, the output is indistinguishable from a very strong RNG.
3) It's possible to generate weak RNG sequences by "accident", which would allow the chip vendor to deny wrongdoing. It's like writing 'if (uid = 0)' instead of 'if (uid == 0)' in an obscure kernel security check—it looks accidental but leaves an enormous backdoor.

So there are ways to deniably and almost-undetectably sabotage a hardware RNG, and by doing so, you could vastly reduce the keyspace of anything from cryptographic keys to SSL sessions to TCP sequence numbers.

Personally, I use AWS all the time, but that's because I understand the threat model. If I can't accept the threat model of AWS, then I encrypt data on a local machine using keys generated from /dev/random. Different applications demand different threat models.

Besides, the costs of feeding a hardware RNG through an entropy pool are relatively low. So why not do the professional thing, and in the process, protect against backdoored or buggy hardware RNGs?

Now, if your chip vendor is willing to engage in high-risk attacks with no plausible deniability, then you're pretty much hosed.
He apparently (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/signed-bda0df3c/) uses GnuPG, this article is yet another lame attempt to advertise software.
I know your situation is becoming frustrating and that we're unaware of other pressures, but I firmly believe that if an employment gap sends your resume to the trash, you should be happy to let it stay there. I wouldn't be happy at a place that couldn't evaluate me for my talents.
You don't even have to go quite that far up the scale. A small NAD integrated amp (or even the 7225 BBE receiver if you really want a tuner) paired with, say, a pair of Paradigm Titans (or the equivalent-range PSBs or similar) and the sources of your choice would be quite satisfactory at about the same price as the Acoustic Wave with CD changer. The problem is that now you have to pay attention to placement to extract what the system has to offer. That, in a nutshell, is where the Bose all-in-ones make their living — they're nearly oblivious to placement. Imaging? Not great by any stretch of the imagination, but as long as you'r in the same room as the system, it has some. There's no sweet spot, but there isn't a sour spot either. Same deal with interference suck-out.

$5K-ish, spent the right way and set up properly, will give you a system that will let you imagine you can tell whether or not the stand-up bass player had a beard. But to really get to that level, even with an unlimited budget, you really have to care about the system as much as the music it plays. Placement matters. The room matters. And I'm as willing to play that game as anybody (nobody who isn't would ever have bought a Basis Debut Gold Standard turntable with a Wheaton Triplanar tonearm mounting a Koetsu cartridge back when it mattered), but I understand that arranging your speakers, your furniture and your life around the requirements of a stereo system isn't for everybody. Frankly, a Bose box (or, in a time long past, a set of 901s instead of "real" speakers) gives better results in most cases when placement is an afterthought (if it's ever a thought at all). Does it cost more than it "should"? The markup over materials may be high, but it sells well enough at the price that nobody's been inclined to reduce prices, so I'd say not.
Yes, absolutely. If we're going to shout to the world that we have a moral high-ground then we should put our money where our mouth is, otherwise we're just two-faced crooks and liars.