skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That quite a narrow definition of what it means to be civilized and what it means to understand other cultures. The tribes in mountains of Pakistan value their way of living, their religion, their ideologies, their decentralized governance, their barter economy, their local food production, their way of dressing and their way of dealing with internal feuds as much as you love your civilization. To claim that their ways are outdated or unfair to certain sections of their society is fine. But to claim that they have nothing to lose is so effing narrow sighted that I wonder if you being sarcastic.

And I say this being citizen of a country that has suffered from terrorism longer than most civilized countries and paid significantly higher costs.
It's a grey area - Mosaic theory stipulates that material information gleaned superior analysis of public non material information is itself classifiable as public and non material (ie not inside information)!
Scam Alert -- Fake US Telecom
Maybe people should maintain tallies of easily avoidable deaths:

Starvation, Poor infrastructure, poor medication, poor parenting, etc.

Lots of it is preventable. Should we keep tallies just so we know how (young) people are dying?

You know why people don't make a big deal about those greater tallies? Because it's not a political message which aligns with someone's particular politics. Not because they would be harder to influence.
If it was organic!
Do you suppose that a government team "responsible for identifying, recruiting and running covert agents in the global telecommunications industry" might be able to steal a private key from one of Google's many data centers? Without forward secrecy, the theft need not even go undetected for it to be useful for decrypting all the data that has been storing.

Or perhaps the Bullrun project had something to do with Bull Mountain, Intel's random number instruction (RDRAND), which was used by the Linux kernel for a while as a primary source of entropy (causing Matt Mackall to resign as maintainer of /dev/random, later reverted by Ted Ts'o). If RDRAND is indeed compromised, then keys generated on a machine that trusted RDRAND would have very low effective entropy for anyone knowing the secret. How confident are you that proprietary systems do not trust RDRAND or have other backdoors that could compromise their available entropy? (That could be an interesting reverse-engineering project.)

Whether or not there is any truth to either of these scenarios, I think they can no longer be considered conspiracy theory paranoia, and indeed have entered the realm of downright plausible.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/one-key-rule-them-all-...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6336505
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1173350/focus=117...
I'm not sure what your point is. If you don't want your email accessed, don't send it unencrypted from your client, and definitely don't send it via a service that has features (search, spam, google now, etc) and is payed for by a system (contextual advertising) that explicitly accesses the contents of your email.

Download Thunderbird and a PGP client[1]. Boom, done.

Use another email service. Boom, done.

I'm not objecting to the idea that you'd find it objectionable to have your email contents used for advertising. I'm objecting to a useless quote that tries to turn this into a soundbite-off instead of an actual discussion (little hope as this thread has).

[1] https://support.mozillamessaging.com/en-US/kb/digitally-sign...
I have tried all extensively (except ConTeXt), what I can tell you is that I now use LuaLateX, because it's the natural successor to the other implementations, which have all a really hard time with unicode, ie. with "→" and many other unicode characters. I know about different hacks like embedding a pdf document with the required symbols etc. but that's just reflecting how ignorant the LaTeX architecture is. The algorithms built-in may be clever, but the actual code-base and annual release-cycle is archaic and unmaintainable. The cross-dependencies are so deep, that updating one small package could break anything anytime. Spaghetti-Code Deluxe. Guess why no distribution ships "tlmgr" - the TeX package-manager.

I'm thankful for anything that helps to free us from the *TeX compilers. It's surely hyped too much. Do you believe me when I say that just because you wrote a document with LaTeX, it isn't auto-magically typographically perfect? Look for PDF Documents compiled with LaTeX, many of them have really ugly Typography, because people love to customize things to their own likings and many LaTeX templates even force ugly Typography on their users.
I'd like to point out that my first point was specifically towards reverse proxying...

This page should be all the proof I need:
http://www.apachetutor.org/admin/reverseproxies

where as reverse proxies in nginx:
http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/using-nginx-as-reverse-proxy.h...

So maybe you could make a case for nginx being less modular (or obviously so) -- but 1 config files with the right magic spell beats downloading x module and setting up x directory PLUS the magic file.

Also, I think that in general, nginx fits more into the many-apps-different-implementations-same-server vision of the modern day web app.
Given that government has access to this much information and is not using it to hunt down tax dodgers etc, does it mean they are actively protecting the rich?
Against the NSA? The same NSA we ask to intercept Russian, Chinese, Japanese, German, and Iranian encrypted Internet traffic? (To name a few. I'm sure the French are in there too.) Russia and China, I am sure, have enough smart people working on their cyber defenses that the NSA would have to be very, very, very good to penetrate those defenses. And if indeed they are, then do you think Google stands a chance?
Depends on the type of auction. In a Vickrey [1] auction you bid to the point of indifference but pay the second highest bid, that way you potentially capture some utility surplus.

[1] I said "Dutch" but apparently that technically refers to something else.
According to Wikipedia:

"NSA's domestic surveillance activities are limited by the requirements imposed by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; however, these protections do not apply to non-U.S. persons located outside of U.S. borders, so the NSA's foreign surveillance efforts are subject to far fewer limitations under U.S. law."[1]

As you mentioned in another one of your comments, the Fourth Amendment applies in the U.S. even to people who are not U.S. Persons. So this would seem to imply that warrantless eavesdropping on people's communications within the U.S. by the NSA is not permissible.

Also, regarding FISA:

"In sum, a significant purpose of the electronic surveillance must be to obtain intelligence in the United States on foreign powers (such as enemy agents or spies) or individuals connected to international terrorist groups. To use FISA, the government must show probable cause that the “target of the surveillance is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power."[2]

This does not seem to permit going after ordinary criminals such as drug dealers, and it does not seem to permit indiscriminate gathering of all internet communications (since there would be no probable cause for the vast majority of these communications).

"Suppose we know there are two Belgian spies in New York, are you telling me the NSA isn't allowed to listen into their conversations?"

Sure they are, if they go to the FISA court and get a warrant.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nsa#Domestic_activity

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla...
Don't worry, your wording is also off, something can be theoretically impossible but practically possible. Things can not be impossible but also practically possible, but for every theory disproved, there was a contrarian thing possible :)
I guess. There are plenty of other people in this thread who have brought up the fact that if your email service can read your email you are inherently vulnerable without quoting the plaintiff's attorney in a suit about the practice talking to ABC news. Talk about your lowest common denominator.

I didn't come here to be propogandized at, so, yes, I will object to the dumbing down of debate to appeals to emotion (especially on a subject that's obviously already so emotionally charged).
I think of PHP as a templating language, to be honest. I like it (I still think the LAMP stack is cool), but the kind of code that it forces you to produce is often focused around document generation (as was the majority of the internet for a long time).

Maybe it's just the wrong tool for this time, and it used to be right tool in the past.
I suggested to IFTTT that they support Glass as a target, but I haven't heard anything about it yet. (They have a form for suggesting channels, rather than anything like User Voice.)
They're not forcing you. You can give them that or you might consider the benefits not worth it and you won't, it's not an NSA type issue.
Well, it's all about the implementation. In theory, the implementation is flawless. In practice, it never is. It's sort of like saying there is software with no bugs: It's exceedingly rare.
My point is that you're wrong. It's not (or at least it was not) the banks that demand the government take the risk away from banks, it was voters, you and me.

And I'm positive that today, a vote would turn out the same.

So this whole too much risk followed by bailouts process is exactly what the average voter wants (in the sense that it's what he'll vote for). Sure they'll complain about the bailouts but faced with the prospect of losing their savings (as they will naturally be when a bailout is proposed) ...
Tahoe and Tor: Building Privacy on Strong Foundations
Interesting. I really liked the solution for writing C bindings.

Given the syntax looks similar, could it run Ruby source, unaltered?
I think it's too late. Google has shown that it can't be trusted, especially about privacy.
So you don't think there is a problem in the code base, but you say: " legacy code is so high and you have to keep compatibility with lots of existing user code". That's a contradiction.
Waiting for digital ocean to give me some free upgrades =)
CDYCOTS if the code above doesn't work anymore.
The Awl is a prose-y site (for want of a better word). You either like it or you don't. I like it a lot.
The feds pay for 60 percent of Tor’s development. Can users trust it?
Diluting the expectation of privacy about e-mail in general has implications under constitutional law. The 4th amendment only protects against unreasonable searches by the governmnet. The use of mail connotes private communication. As in contrast to post (which is presumed public). Implied consent to forfeighting the right to stop 3rd parties reading your e-mail is not something the public has an interest in establishing. Regardless of the purpose of such 3 party incursion. I don't want to get into a side-bar explanation or legal debate TBH, but its not mindless fear mongering.[1]

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/07/us/politics/legislation-se...

“This has been the stuff of wild-eyed accusations for years. A lot of people are heartbroken to find out it’s not just wild-eyed accusations.”
We didn't accept many no-idea applications, and on average those groups have done worse than regular applications.
So other than the price being wrong (whatever your price is, it should beat the Intel NUC), I think that you need to add more pricing options for the campaign. $5, or $350 is way too big of a jump.

I mean, you could offer a $20 level for a mention in the installer/release, as a supporter, at the very least?

To be honest, I might approach Intel (at least send an email) about licensing the NUC and maybe getting at least a cheaper price on it, and using it as the base of your platform (if you're looking for something cheap & x86, with a little bit of power.

Disclaimer - I work for Intel, but I do not speak on behalf of Intel the corporation or of any of it's employees, rather I give this comment on my own behalf.
Luckily there are a lot more jobs for coders than for computer scientists. Thank you computer scientists for making that possible.
That doesn't mean this development is meaningless and should be dismissed, it mitigates real concerns. As for the human element, that is probably the hardest to defend against but enacting sound engineering solutions is more than half the battle.
25 people, $100/hr each, 1 day.

Client is a $10B company, remember.
Let's hope this becomes a felony when the drone laws are updated in 2015.
Something like a t-shirt and a donation to the EFF, EPIC, or something? Stickers maybe?
Um, you do realize that pretty much every single mail service provider is "scanning" their customer's email to screen out spam, right? That's also an algorithmic analysis of the body of the e-mail, and it's providing a service that most customers appreciate (since the generally don't want to swamped by hundreds of Viagra and "make money fast" emails every day)
Having tried both C# and Go (both having functions as first class citizens), I'll chose Go.

Mono always seems to be behind the M$ release of .NET and I'd rather not bother.
Can't be worse than Why. (Go ahead, I dare you to find it!)
San Francisco launches tech incubator to transform govt.
Does ZFS use some sort of last-used eviction to purge the cache? It seems like differentiating between random/sequential IO is a bit different than LRU.
As someone whose last 8 years of professional work have been largely split between...C# and Ruby, I have to disagree. I do agree about C# being quite nice; it's all the things Java should be but isn't. And it's evolving quickly in all the right ways.

But it isn't really like Ruby with static typing. The language isn't Rubyish (no mixins or blocks, for example). It makes you put everything in a class, a la Java. It can verbose and is occasionally downright clunky (though syntactically it's categorically slicker than Java). The .NET ecosystem doesn't have the Ruby characteristic of lots of small, fast-evolving libraries that are easy to use. In fact, the C# open source ecosystem is kinda poor in general and not a huge part of most developer's lives, whereas Ruby's ecosystem is vibrant and an integral part of its coding culture.

Another way to put all that is that if C# were purely dynamically typed, it wouldn't feel anything like Ruby.

I do see what you're saying: LINQ feels like a static (and lazy!) version of Ruby's Enumerable module, the lambdas look similar, C# actually does have optional dynamic typing, and C# is increasingly full of nice developer-friendly features. In general, I'm a fan. But switching between them doesn't feel like just a static/dynamic change.
Some of the worst estates in the entirety of the UK are around there, though. Do you really want to live in Toxteth? Honestly?
I'm not saying Reuters can't sell their information however they want. (Well, I'm not entirely sure about this).

But what I am saying is that they need to make customers aware that they may get access to the data after other customers. It should be public when others get access, but I'm not willing (yet) to say that open access should be mandated.

Depending on how the original contracts were written, it may be an FTC issue if everyone thought they were getting the information as soon as possible only to find out now that others were getting it earlier.
Ok. Maybe you came to the wrong place then. Or maybe your perspective is off... Who could know such things?
magicalist: It was a widely reported national headline because it came from AP. It was not a story by some perma-tanned fake news-anchor. Alternative sources, same headline. This is also very much a PR war, on both side (google, NSA, etc). In case you haven't also icked that up. Everyone is in the business of manufacturing headlines.

http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2013/09/google_argues...

http://news.yahoo.com/google-argues-continue-scanning-gmail-...

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/google-argues-right-continue...

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24021944/google-argue...
We'll probably treat single founders the same as we usually do. We don't automatically reject single founders, but we have a higher threshold for them.
Ditto for Google Drive, encrypt it with something like Syncdocs[1] to keep files private.

Encryption keys are like car keys - you need to own them, not Google.

[1] http://syncdocs.com
Hey quick question, maybe you should use map instead of filter?

http://www.dotnetspeaks.com/DisplayArticle.aspx?ID=117
(random site with example)

map is the functional equivalent of what you're trying to do there, not filter.
No, I heard it confuses Echelon. /s
Its source code is available for audit and scrutiny, so yeah. If you're looking to spread FUD do that to the closed source stuff.
Sounds promising. SSDs have good potential as a cache for bigger backend spinning disks.
Because I didn't consent to it.
The NSA doesn't need a backdoor in Tor when they can do traffic analysis on a large portion of Tor nodes, either by eavesdropping on at least one link between each pair of nodes, or just running the nodes themselves...

<conspiracy>Maybe that's why they continue to fund it...</conspiracy>
Okay, now I kind of want them to make it an annual event where we go fly some cheap throw-away styrofoam drones[1] and everybody gets together and shoots them out of the sky like skeet. You, know, safely, with minimal drunkenness. Anyway, it would be great if it became so popular that the FAA had no choice but to issue a TFR over the town for the event.

[1] like the kind you make for RC dogfighting
Completely off topic but trying to scroll the way HN handles 'quoted' / 'code' bits is terribly painful. Has anyone solved this? I'm using 'Hacker News Enhancement Suite' but this problem still make me unhappy and constantly causes me to rewrite such blocks in my own posts.
Have you been on Digital Ocean for a while? How do you like it so far?
Oh, you never know who might show up to hunt game like that http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/01/17000-linux-powered-r...
Very impressive! At first glance I thought you made a typo under <random>.

for (auto int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {

After a Google search, I read that there's apparently no difference between 'auto int' and just 'int'. I've never seen this before. Why write both?
But that assumes that the feds don't have any aces hidden in their sleeves that you don't know about, like some backdoors or something.
Do we think that Google (which boasts among current and former employees: Joshua Bloch, Guido van Rossum, Sebastian Thrun, Luis von Ahn, and that's just off the top of my head) might have some superstar cryptologists in there with equal or greater talent than people working for the Russian government? Why would that be so unbelievable?
Er, yeah, that's kind of the point :)

For London in Autumn/Winter will have a surface normal of z~=60-70 degrees to the Sun. Much greater than 48.2 degrees, so the peak insolation must necessarily be less than 1kWm-2.
They are not forcing me yet they are still tracking me, with dirty tricks like this one:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-bowdon/why-has-google-been...

yeah, the are clever when is about getting your info.
Wow. You have to quote "the why programming language" before you even get a trace. It's not even in wikipedia's alphabetized list.
Open source isn't a guarantee of safety for two reasons:

1) It's highly possible that there are federal government agencies with knowledge of encryption and security beyond the current state of the art in academia. There could be deliberate vulnerabilities that even the most highly regarded researchers/academics in the field could not detect.

2) Even if you trust the source, the source can be compromised elsewhere in the toolchain (the compiler could turn safe code into malicious code). Unless you trust every element of your toolchain, you trust nothing (from a mathematical sense -- of course it's much more complicated, and thus less likely, to compromise Tor through its own source code rather than gcc's source code).
I can't believe traffic between data centers wasn't already encrypted.
loud and silly is all that this audience can perceive

Jesus, is there some bad blood between HN and Top Gear? Or is this the bad blood, the Tesla thing?

On second thought, I could see that being it. HN pretty much idolizes Musk after all.
_NSAKEY crypto key in MS Windows
The author is riffing on Shakespeare:

Full fathom five thy father lies;
Of his bones are coral made;
Those are pearls that were his eyes;
Nothing of him that doth fade,
But doth suffer a sea-change
Into something rich and strange.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Fathom_Five_%28Tempest%29#...
What's happening in Go tip (2013-09-07)
There are now three major MPMs:

Prefork - if you want to use mod_php, you're stuck with this. I think this is what you're referring to as "the process model"

Worker - Uses threads to handle connections. A big step up from prefork, but not as awesomesauce as nginx.

Evented - The new MPM which use epoll

It's been possible to run PHP(-fpm) under "worker" (via FastCGI) for years, and it performs adequately. I never benchmarked, but I was using this setup back when nginx was still too bleeding-edge for my tastes, and it certainly beat the pants of prefork/mod_php
@mjcohen weird, I use qute on Linux (Gentoo), there's even an ebuild for it. However it's not hard to built it yourself on linux, actually dead easy. I also use pandoc writing Markdown and compiling to latex → pdf