skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
These are pretty minimal for most of the work I do, but what would be nice is if they had a separate section in the docs that tracked all the cross-browser gotchas in one place (let me know if that already exists and I missed it). We are fine with abandoning IE 8. 4% of our user base uses IE8, and I think by 8-12 months from now that will have dropped to below 1-2%. Any major features that don't work, we can workaround (like using respond.js to support media queries on ie, or hacks to support placeholder attribute in IE, etc).
How do ASLR and DEP work?
More useful than a comprehensive list of all queuing libraries would be a comparison of the best ones with tl;dr summaries of how each works, pros & cons of each approach, and some consistent benchmarks.
Howto:

git clone https://code.google.com/p/developer-omniboxes-for-chrome/
Open: chrome://extensions/
Enable Developer Mode
Choose path to [the-repo]/src/client/[the-addon-you-want]
Add it
Repeat
Parent poster expressed an (unpopular) opinion in a civil way. Your response purely in snark and invoking Godwin (two posts in!) is unwarranted.
I agree with you, except where you say "I'm pretty sure you will change your mind once you'll effectively feel the consequences. "

No, actually, he won't.
20 years from now, when things are much worse, he won't complain then either.

While what they say about boiling frogs is patently false for frogs (they will jump out), it's completely true for humans.
Personally I have some sympathy for the argument that possessing child porn should not be criminal. There are arguments for this. They satisfy urges and curiosities without victimizing real children. They are documents of abuse that could lead to more victims being discovered and perpetrators being prosecuted.

We do not, for instance, ban rape porn (yet) because there is no evidence it harms society. Cp is somewhat different because the children can not legally consent, whereas in produced rape porn the acts are consensual.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22803502
> You miss the point, why don't we have thousands of animals with the ability to hibernate that don't need them

Because a tendency to hibernate is likely negative for survivorship when it's not necessary - if lots of other animals are moving around and you aren't, then something is more likely to come and kill you.

On the other hand, lots of animals have other varying traits that aren't obviously useful, but don't exact a significant enough toll to cause them to disappear.

> But why would you already have the ability to hibernate efficiently if you don't need it

Doesn't that assume that bears were transported into Canada and survived because they could hibernate? Isn't it perfectly possible that they moved further north gradually, increasing their tendency to sleep in cold conditions as they did so?
As someone who shelled out for the N770/N810, I can't help but engage in a bit of schadenfreude w/r/t Nokia's decision to drop Maemo in favor of the Windows phone platform and their subsequent adoption rates.
I think it comes down to something that people don't like to say outright: Many of us want the ability to evade the government. We are afraid of the government being too good at their job.
Another right bites the dust.
Investment houses are an investment. Your primary residence is not an investment.

Case in point: I lost over $100k on my previous primary residence. I couldn't write that off on my taxes because it wasn't an investment. If it were an investment property, I could've.
In my experience, NodeJS was slow. I first write a boxcars-like server in NodeJS; http://github.com/azer/door

and here is the benchmarks of it; https://gist.github.com/azer/5946227
Must be nice being an SV company and receiving the adoration of your government and the American people while blatantly dodging taxes and locking customers into a severely restricted platform.
>A few years ago, a young pro named Phil Galfond published a crucial refinement to Mr. Sklansky's point. He showed that the right way to analyze a poker decision is to consider your opponent's "range"—that is, the full set of different hands that he could plausibly have, given all the actions that he has thus far taken.

I find it impossible to believe that concept of a "range" was (a) invented a few years ago and (b) invented by Phil Galfond. This article is disappointing.

Edit: In fairness, the article's sentence is literally correct. But I cringe at its implication.
I'm somewhere between meh and concerned about this. One one hand, this is nothing new. Police have used airplanes to catch speeders for a long long time. But the breathless, OMG we're in a police state pushes me, for some reason, to take the contrarian stand.
>Bluffing still matters, but the best players now depend on math theory

This is a silly byline. If anything, the best and most mathematical players bluff more than the older generation of typically more conservative players. Bluffing and math are NOT opposed principles.
I first came across GiveWell when their principals engaged in dishonest behavior to pump it up on MetaFilter, an incident which is described here:

http://mefiwiki.com/wiki/Givewell

Since then, seeing GiveWell mentioned anywhere leads to an immediate feeling of distrust.
https://spacebox.io/ would be a beautiful and simple way to go. its built on top of Stripe.
(School) teacher aren’t researchers. So, yes, them telling bullshit to children in class should get them fired pronto. They do not get academic freedom nor should they. It’s not their job to push science ahead, it’s not their job to do any research at all. If they think that’s their job then tough luck. They picked the wrong career. And that’s it.

If school teachers teach crazy and not generally accepted stuff they are doing it wrong and deserve to be fired.

Maybe I could have some sympathy if you were talking about university education – but school teachers? I mean, what the fuck?!
last time i checked...anyway my gentle way of suggesting to the author to reword that line...aside that looks great.
If there are specific policy goals that we'd like to accomplish, it's probably best to make a very simple taxation system (tax the total of everything, using the best appraisal tools we have), and then add specific provisions that address such goals directly. One simple approach to the retirement issue might be to have marginal wealth taxation rates (first $100k are exempt, e.g.), or have (as we do now) limited tax-protected retirement funds (EDIT: e.g., IRAs -- "accounts" might have been the better word).
Probably, as even fictional images are illegal in the UK.
Well written code except around //Check Quota . Scope for better readability there. Thanks!
My company's internal mail goes through gmail so I decided after recent news to setup GPGmail and s/mime.

I identified a couple of usability issues, which where fixed. I'd say all in all its very good.

Regardless if you believe or care about the NSA issues, simply the idea of routing clear text email through mail exchanges, and advertisers should give you enough reason to follow the few steps it requires to generate a key, and start encrypting and/or signing email. Except for post cards we don't do this with our regular mail, so why are you ok with it with you email (and your email is far more machine readable).

GPGMail is not quite Grandmother ready, and unlike s/mime it doesn't really have an incremental value[1], but it is far more secure, and very easy to use once setup. Plus the other tools in the toolkit are useful for general encryption.

s/mime is another option, here are some pros and cons:

s/mime pros

integrated with many mail apps
usually plays nice with mailing lists (adding a footer doesn't invalidate a sig)
works on iOS devices (perhaps others?)
has an incremental value even before all your contacts are using it[1]

s/mime cons

based on a certificate authority model
cost money depending on the cert you get
requires a 3rd 'trusted' party
does not seem to be secure in some respects:
(web cert generation, no rules regarding sigh/encrypt/sign[2],
does not make use of a certificate request so anyone who has
even momentary access to your email can generate a cert to
masquerade as you)
your identity is associate with your email address not you
(you will need certs for each email address)

--

GPGmail/tools pros

Based on web of trust instead of CA (web of trust is not required)
You can revoke your key if it is compromised
Based on you not your email, so you can use the same sig with any email address
You can even associate your picture with your key
Optional Anonymity
Strong cryptography
Use the same keys for non email encryption
Free

GPGmail/tools cons

Less widely integrated.
Does not work on devices yet.
May break email lists (adding footers may change the sig, I haven't tested though)
Can't help much until your have other people to use it with.

[1] With s/mime you can sign email documents even if your friends don't have s/mime that can still see your signature is validate.

[2] See the answer by Adam Liss (not the accepted answer) for the security issues http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13512026/how-to-check-if-...

[Edit: formatting]
If you release your software under copyleft, and someone else can't use that in another project because they chose an incompatible license, the "hindrance" is entirely their fault, not yours.

Now if someone takes your permissively licensed code and makes it proprietary, THAT is a real hindrance to users of that software, and while it may not be your fault directly, you had the power to stop it because you are the copyright holder and could have copylefted it. So permissively licensed software actually has more potential than copyrighted software in allowing a license to "get in the way."
I love the use of the word "adapt" with no attached meaning while making the same claims about Darwin. I'm not sure what offends me more, the whole misrepresentation of Darwin or the lack of an internal logic in the argument. At least make sure your argument is internally consistent.
Correct. I realize that I've been talking about this book a lot on HN lately, but Ken Stern's With Charity For All discusses both the promise of Givewell and the challenges—specifically, few nonprofits actually measure, or want to measure, the efficaciousness of outcomes. I'm a grant writing consultant who works primarily for nonprofit and public agencies, and by and large I tell clients not to worry about evaluations because funders don't care about them in a substantive way: http://blog.seliger.com/2008/04/24/studying-programs-is-hard....

Yesterday, j_s asked about Dan Pallotta's work, which is in the same vein; if you're interested in this subject, follow j_s's links: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6104569.

(I wrote more about With Charity For All here: http://blog.seliger.com/2013/06/02/with-charity-for-all-ken-...).
If it's based on crime statistics, this software would be heavily oriented toward black communities. My guess is that will be regarded as racist / profiling. I think even more than a Constitutional issue, you're going to run into social sensitivities around profiling.
That was far and away the easiest and fastest walk through from download -> sending an encrypted and signed email that I've ever seen. Obviously, it only covers one platform, but it's a great start.
I second the PDF option. Create a PDF of your article and sell it with Gumroad's 'pay what you want'/flexible pricing feature. You can select the minimum pricing to even $0. So, people can pay whatever they think your advice is worth.

Another advantage of this is, you get to collect the email addresses of people who purchase. You can easily email them later if you update your tutorial or something.
Yes, I've heard about the Matasano's Crypto Challenge, but want to recommend Coursera's Crypto courses too:
https://www.coursera.org/course/crypto
Hi Hrundi. Great! Ideas, design tweaks etc all very welcome.
> If you’re reading this, you’re probably a red-blooded American programmer with a simmering interest in cryptography. And my guess is your interest came from Bruce Schneier’s Applied Cryptography.

Yep. I read it at... age 16? It was old by the time I got to it, since I'm relatively young, but I still loved it. It didn't give me a spark for crypto, I had the spark when I ordered the book, but it did a very good job of nurturing and kindling it.

> The biggest problem with Applied Cryptography isn’t the technical content, but the tone. It can’t decide whether to be a tour guide or a handbook.

That's a good summary. Personally, I've always thought of it as a hands-on encyclopedia.
> Your response purely in snark

I listed supporting arguments to the contrary..

> and invoking Godwin (two posts in!) is unwarranted

I expressed an unpopular opinion in a civil way, and your response is pure snark. I didn't mean to offend you by saying the G word. Maybe I'll talk about another over-reaching police force. Would that be more palatable for you?
Bluffing is one facet (often romantasised and therefore sometimes over emphasised) of a good mathematical strategy. Like you say they are not mutually exclusive of one a other.
Have you by any chance seen the async keyword in C# 5.0? It allows one to write event-based code without callbacks obscuring the control flow. From what I've heard Python is in the process of copying this feature. Iced Coffescrip does something similar also.
I believe that Phil Galfond was one of the first "new-generation" players to explain the strategy with modern media (youtube, podcasts) in a way that it could be taken and applied in your own game without too much hassle.
Fixed-wing aircraft are pretty common. Okay.

Would you have protection from guvmint agents on stilts? I'm not being snarky; this is going somewhere.

What about cameras arranged on poles, aimed at backyards, with ubiquitous deployment?

It's a shame that this "no expectation of privacy" stuff is divorced from "a freedom from observation" (which is really what we're talking about).
Exactly. That's the point I'm making in my other reply. The problem isn't that the government is watching... it's that it claims to have jurisdiction over too many issues that it shouldn't be involved in.
This was 17 years ago, so it's not like it's a really recent occurrence.

For example, nobody who was on the supreme court then is on the supreme court now.

Nobody has cared so far ....
The original poster wasn't coming from that perspective either. He was basically Grubering for Android, which is about as interesting and insightful as when Gruber does it for iOS.
just tried replacing the css files with the new ones , navigation and many things broke ..but any how I like it, I will integrate it after checking out docs ..
This is a bad example too, and is pretty much the same example I already refuted. The point here is that there is no such thing as "covertly following" if the police are disobeying traffic laws. They'd have to be close enough to keep track of the suspect, and that means the suspect will see that someone else is "matching their violations". In this case, many police departments will not pursue because a chase endangers too many lives (I don't have a reference handy for this, but I believe I read about here on HN some months back).

Yes, zero tolerance is stupid, and this remains a bad example.
Just curious why you aren't on github. Surely there's a reason worth sharing?
I LOVE ipython and its notebook! It is seriously one of the best things to happen in the last few years for scientific computation and teaching! So amazing!
I think you're misinterpreting what Dijkstra said and getting it almost backward. His point is that testing is inadequate: only a convincing proof of correctness is sufficient to conclude that software works without error. In his words:

> program testing can be a very effective way to show the presence of bugs, but is hopelessly inadequate for showing their absence

But proofs are hard. Therefore he advised that the program and its proofs (he didn't say tests) be created together so that the program could be constructed in such a way as to make the proofs easier.
Could someone rephrase this piece in the form of one or more "Instead of __________, we should be doing ________" statements?
COMBIN3! - (visual logic puzzles) - Online demo: http://combin3.com/demo/
Couldn't you say that about anyone, not just the wealthy?

Also, reforming tax systems seems extremely hard to do. How would you propose a motivated millionaire go about it?
For those unfamiliar, this free usage limit is much more relaxed than Google's Geocoder, which limits you to 2,500 free requests per day.

https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/geocoding/#...
Did any of you actually read the article? Despite the sensationalist title, they're only admitting to 10 incidents since 2006 including one where a young boy's life was possibly on the line. I'm as anti-spying as anybody, but ~1 incident per year seems like a reasonable rate to me if a serious threat is motivating it. This is a far cry from pervasive Big Brother in the sky.
You acknowledged it, so forgive yourself and move on. If you're over 35-40 I think a slip is understandable.

I've been in computers (IT, data analysis, programming) for 25+ years and although women have made inroads they're still quite the minority. Same thing goes for hunting, which is one of my sports but in socializing it was frequently assumed it was my husband's. Also the idea of the female's career moves driving the rest of the family is still in the minority.

Not saying that this is acceptable these days, just that a mistake is understandable.
I think glebm implies the same: "iframe code can access `frames[0].document` cross domain" means through translate.google.com and "modifies target page on another domain" modifies page with same domain but rendered on another domain
Harrington had explained the concept of evaluating tournament situations based on a range (although he didn't necessarily call it a range) in his Harrington on Hold 'Em books.

Galfond's gbucks article, maybe not the first mention of it, brought the concept of equity against a range into the mainstream.
Right, but my point is that there's no magic that makes the government act within its jurisdiction. We should try to force it to limit itself to that (and then some, but that's another discussion), but we shouldn't assume we'll succeed.

Generally, I do agree with you. No expectation of privacy. Generally, this doesn't particularly bother me. Which means I would guess (from a very lay point of view) that there's no justification to require warrants for flying drones. Anybody should be able to fly a drone. However we should arguably be fighting against this anyway, to keep the government from being too good at its job, since we can't trust it to do the right thing with whatever power it's asserted.
Max Hastings: Why I believe it's wrong to pardon Alan Turing
To be fair, what their website says and what their sales people might be saying in the field could be two different things.
I think the issue goes deeper. Not enough people are willing to look at the root of the problem: the monopoly on the issuing of currency and credit in the US that is held by private interests. When private interests control the volume of currency, they control the material life of the country, including the government. The growing imbalance of wealth and income is a direct result of this cause.

Tax reform is a good idea but it's meaningless if it leaves the nations's ownership of currency and credit in private hands.
Hardest? Are you kidding me? A computer can solve these quite easily.

If you want really hard logic puzzles, get puzzle books from Peter Winkler (such as Mind Benders or Connoiseur's Collection). These sometimes even contain unsolved puzzles as well.
With regard to constitutional issues, the article refers explicitly to stops (temporary detainments) which require 'reasonable suspicion'.
The last version of GPGTools I looked at had the irritating habit of always installing its own copy of GPG into /usr/local and not letting me use my own version (e.g., from Homebrew). Is this still the case in version 2?

It would be far cleaner if it was more self-contained (e.g., included GPG inside its installation bundle), and then let the user pick an alternative OpenPGP installation in the preferences.
Doesn't a wealth tax encourage immediate consumption? And how do you measure wealth? Would the government hire thousands of wealth assessers to value old houses and cars and furniture?

I've always thought that economists consider a consumption tax the ideal tax.
This sure is a lot more Bootstrap-slick than LibraryThing.

And a lot pricier. LibraryThing is US$10/year, or $25 for a lifetime membership. Libramatic is US$6.50/mo for 1000 books, or $40/mo for unlimited books/users. I presume your target market is libraries, rather than individual users, with prices like that.
There are hundreds of EWDs and I haven't seen a single one where Dijkstra would talk about making programming languages simple to make comprehension straightforward, this is something that modern programming "gurus" are more likely to say. The reason Dijkstra wants simple programming languages, and most EWDs are more or less about this, is because he wants to prove theorems about programs, which is possible only with a simple language. Not only that, as I said he wants to reduce program development to well defined transformations on a specification of a problem in the language of mathematical logic. His stance is very nicely summarized here:

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

You have to understand some mathematics and mathematical logic to really understand Dijkstra however, you cannot look at it from a pure software engineering background because you will only take away platitudes from what he says without actually understanding him. If you have some background you can read about his real technical ideas:

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

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

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

This is the area Dijkstra worked most on during his research career. Those ideas actually go back centuries before anyone ever thought about structured programming. For hundreds of years there has been a fundamental debate ongoing on whether all kinds of reasoning can be reduced to some kind of calculi with well specified rules, which would be equivalent to being able to construct a (at least theoretical) machine for automating it. This is where computers come from, this goes back to Charles Babbage, to the works of Leibniz, Boole, Turing etc.

Dijkstra is in the same historical tradition. The program I understand Dijkstra has for Computer Science is similar to the program Hilbert had for mathematics with what is now called formalism, from which the work of Goedel and Turing sprung off. When programming was still mainly done by mathematicians this has been a lively research area, there were various systems of proving correctness invented, various ways of deriving programs, there has been a very heated debate on when proofs are needed and to what extent ordinary programmers have to master them etc. You can find loads of books and monographs written in the 70s and 80s about this. Now as far as research goes program derivation seems to be an almost dead topic, but there are still people today championing it in some alternative form. Richard Bird wrote a book called "Pearls of Functional Algorithm Design" where he derives algorithms using algebraical properties:

http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/people/richard.bird/

Alexander Stepanov has been advocating something similar and wrote a book called "Elements of Programming":

http://www.elementsofprogramming.com/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih9gpJga4Vc