skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> because of bullheadedness in the maintainer who managed that part of the kernel. Instead he built a half-baked implementation that never worked. I have no idea whether that bullheadedness was natural, or was enhanced or inspired by NSA or its stooges.

Who knows, maybe he was paranoid of others because he was incompetent. He could look at your code and its complexity would astound him, therefore you're trying to confuse him and mislead him into accepting your code without knowing what it was doing. He may have already known that there were NSA employees in kernel development.
In school we learned VHDL. I found it EASY to adapt.
However you have to ditch the notion you are working with a programming language.

So either build your own CPU in VHDL specifically optimized for you problem. Or "code" it like you would build hardware!

This means taking a different look at things:

for example storing in an array: you create a bus: address bus, of the width you need, data-bus of data width you need to write (keep it reasonable, or you run out of routing), and a write/read bit. Then hook your counter up to that, increment the time and databus, and have fun.
> HDL code is describing the blueprint of a house textually

... combined with features for simulating dynamic loads, say by modeling a party full of people jumping around.

From what I've seen of SystemC, I thought it was basically the same idea but with a different syntax - the entirety is available for simulation, but only a subset of the language constructs are synthesizable.
Obviously hardware development looks hard and weird to software people, in the same way C++ looks weird to an EE.

It's slow only because the synthesizer makes huge efforts in the optimization of the design, trying to pack the logic in as little resources as possible. Shut down optimizations and suddenly its blazing fast (like icarus verilog).
I'm not saying its impossible, but decades of public cryptanalysis have failed to produce a significant dent in the security of 3DES or AES. On the other hand, we've seen a total discrediting of LFSR-based schemes and a steady flow of issues resulting from the block modes (padding and timing oracles).

We should be paranoid, but mostly that we might be not worrying about the right things.
Most of that is pretty standard. However, this part seems overly broad:

license to utilize all copyright rights now in
existence or that may arise in the future
with respect to your User Content

So if someone published an article on Medium speculating on what would happen if a United State Marine expeditionary unit was unexpectedly transported back to Rome in the time of Augustus Caesar [1], Medium could write a screenplay and shop it around Hollywood, and if it sold they wouldn't even have to pay the author anything?

In the United States, the copyright owner of a copyrighted work has these exclusive rights [2]:

1. to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies.

2. to prepare derivative works based on the copyrighted works.

3. to distribute copies of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.

4. to perform the copyrighted work publicly.

5. to display the copyrighted work publicly.

I can see Medium needing a royalty-free, transferable, sublicensable license to do #1, #3, and maybe #5.

I don't see a need for them to have any #4 rights. For example, if someone publishes a play on Medium I don't see why Medium would need the right to perform that play publicly.

I don't see any need for them to have #2 rights. I can see that they might want to do things like publish collections of the best of Medium, but doing that would require exercising the copying right (#1) and the distribution right (#3), not the derivative work right (#2). When you include a copy of a work in a larger work, such as an anthology, you are not making a derivative work--you are making a collective work [3]:

A “collective work” is a work, such as a periodical
issue, anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number
of contributions, constituting separate and independent
works in themselves, are assembled into a collective
whole.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Sweet_Rome

[2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106

[3] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101
I am not letting my daughter go mad on the net when she's 5, I think she'll need guidance and therefore, my browser and my attention will be hers when she starts netting away
Cool. His friends like him and wrote a blog post about it ;)

I still think history will judge his administration as being 8 years of screw-up, class warfare, and embarassment. Note that I am not saying that about his Dad, Ronald, or Richard....
This article has its own very naive bias: Thinking that every phenomenon must have a "root cause" - ie, a simple cause-effect explanation - and that if you don't find the root cause, you can't control the phenomenon.

Take for example serotonin reuptake inhibitors. It's not important to know if a deficiency in serotonin is the "cause" of depression. All we need to know is if increasing the levels of serotonin correlates with an improvement of the condition of the patient better than placebo.
How is this new, or news? Headlines and titles have always mattered in the media. Even in the world of blogs, haven't we seen folks like Buzzfeed and Upworthy demonstrate the value (sometimes dubious, though) of catchy headlines?

On a lighter note, here's a Twitter parody account of Techmeme Headline writing: https://twitter.com/nottechmeme
just run 2 browsers man
Oh -- I do believe he had a better marriage than Bill Clinton. Who cares? He was still a laughable fuckup as president.
Google does not accept "paypal" anywhere in its username
"Rabble rabble rabble!" Oh the little people and their tiresome concern for freedom and dignity.

It's not absurd, or hysterical, to be concerned about people being interrogated for reasonable, completely normal forms of expression.

The slippery slope thing isn't nonsense. Society changes incrementally. Over longer timeframes continual incremental changes in a certain direction become recognizable trends.
Here is a good exposition of one of Coase's main breakthroughs: http://www.thebigquestions.com/2013/09/03/rip-ronald-coase/
Similar relative results, except that method 1 is always the fastest and even better than method 6. Ran loop count with large numbers (10 million & 30 million) to reduce measurement noise. Profiling was with cProfile on Core i3 2.53Ghz, 6 GB ram, Python 2.7.3 on Ubuntu 12.04

for 10M loop count, method 1 -> 1.599 s, method 6 -> 1.91 s

for 30M loop count,method 1 -> 4.967 s, method 6 -> 5.871 s

Summary: The KISS s1 += s2 always wins
Now I am genuinely curious: at what point did the standard game definitions of security become widespread/presented? Because given those it is obvious that CTR is secure given a PRP, which any block cipher should be to be semantically secure when encrypting a single block.
Nope they are not the enemy, they are perverts.
This just makes them very naughty, and should be punished for it. It's happening in small scale: some people are avoiding US products.

At this point we can probably trust China better, even though the US feared them saying. We have a saying in Belgium: Zoals de waard is, vertrouwt hij zijn gasten. (Like the inkeeper is, he trusts his quests.) Meaning, if you are spying you suspect the others to spy to. Guess the saying IS actually true!
>Personal anecdotes are not data.

Um, yes they are. Are they reliable data? I'm not convinced they're not.

>If you're depressed, you're statistically likely to not be depressed in six months time, regardless of whether you seek treatment or not. In these circumstances, it's easy for a completely ineffective treatment to look like a miracle cure.

Because never in the history of medicine has a treatment for depression had an immediate effect?
How about using Python 3.3.2?

I did many kind of performance tests when implementing my PyClockPro caching lib, even if I don't use strings in it.
Before you dive in to hard problem, don't you need to create certain basic CS foundation? For example, can you start working on database kernel without studying even basic algorithms like red-black trees and B-trees? It would be interesting to know what are your go-to books for CS and other resources you use to dive in to particular topic? For example, do you start with Arxive or plain old web searches or taking cues from expert you know in person or look for books on Amazon or attend conferences?

Another thing is that creating algorithms are easy, especially the ones with bugs :). The difference between a joe-the-programmer creating an algorithm and a CS PhD creating an algorithm is that later produces a proof of correctness and performance while former relies on intuition for same thing. This is the hardest and most critical part of being a CS researcher. It would be interesting to know your approach for acquiring these skills.
> yet people just don't seem to care enough to do anything about it

What can we do about it? I honestly can't think of a single thing I could do, or 100,000 citizens could do that would make a lick of difference.
Yeah, I'd like to see a fully open HSM design, where the design can be audited by anyone, and the components are standard and/or easily inspectable by users. Attestation keys and final assembly are done by a trusted entity -- in the case of a bank, that might be ABA; in the case of Facebook, probably Facebook or maybe an industry association or EFF, and in the case of my personal server, me.

Fuck the FIPS process; if you made a decent design which was actually useful, a lot of non-FIPS-requiring entities would benefit from it. Design-to-meet, but let only those who actually need FIPS go through the process of assembling and certifying their particular instantiations of the open design for FIPS. For personal use, I'd consider an open design which never touches NIST to be more trustworthy than SafeNet or Thales products.
Probably to prevent phishing.
Just chiming in with the standard Lisp response: HDL's can be done in Lisp, and have been done in Lisp. You just define a DSL for it.
Does anyone has a list of what is considered unsafe now ?
My reading of Obama is that he is nearly
terrified about being blamed for anything.

If the OP is correct, then this is some
blame that might stick to Obama. In this
case, my reading is that he will rush to
correct the situation.

So, first step, pin the blame on Obama,
and then let him suffer with it until
he changes it.
Why I'm moving on from freelancing and getting a job.
Genetics are more fundamental than behavior or cognition. The prediction of a biological outcome using genetics tends to be more damning than if the predictor were something else. Genetics carry a lot of weight, you cannot teach them away, nor think them away and still in 2013 you cannot replace them. You are damned by them.

Plus, you cannot genuinely critique a revelation based on an article aimed at the general audience. That is a cheap shot with the potential to mislead self.
Let's play a game:

--- False Medium or Real Medium !?! ---

1) "Yes, Vagina, There Is No Such Thing as Normal"

2) "I Tattooed My Friend’s Name On My Head…And Then We Broke Up"

3) "Living With a Cracked iPhone Screen"

4) "Changing Condom Culture"

5) "A Night at the Laundromat"

6) "In which the NSA and I freak each other out on LinkedIn"

Some of these are really from Medium, some are from the parody FalseMedium [1]. Can you guess which ones are fake?! (Answers [2])

[1] https://twitter.com/FalseMedium

[2] http://pastebin.com/Kh7B1b9C
lull them into thinking that Plan 9 is Just Another Unix.

From what I read, Plan9 has its own concepts which are not Unix analogues, thereby discounting Unix knowledge due to divergence.
My suspicion that posts from Mediam are being upvoted by buch of their stackholders may not be entirely false. Looks like any anti-medium comments gets promptly downvoted without explanation.
I'm worried about privacy. Even scientific papers need to have reasonable privacy before publication, that you do not have by using somebody else's hosting.

More useful would be using latex and some form of source-control like git or svn hosted by you or your organization.
Chinese market will also be demanding Chinese leads... when will that happen?
Connect to the Internet only through public WiFi hotspots. Run a sandboxed browser with all cookies deleted in each session or no cookies at all.
My impression is that it was NSA/NIST's AES specification process that made it "officially OK" to stop worrying about known plaintext.

But really we need to ask some the folks older than I am. It would be a good question for the randombit or metzdowd crypography lists. Also, I'll tweet at Bellovin.

Edit: https://twitter.com/marshray/status/376600321637638144
It's telling that they don't know (or do know, but don't see the benefit in) RESTful interfaces. Which isn't a dead-end for the interview, it just leads to more questions to see what they understand about HTTP. I'm not expecting a particular answer, I'm using a question to understand where someone is at and then using the following discourse to understand how they arrived there.
Medium makes me laugh the same way showing up at an open-mic night full of amateur "poets" at the coffee shop makes me laugh.
Most health disorders are self-limiting. By and large, the body heals itself, except when it doesn't.
They are unnecessary in all other cases. For example, for your (key, value) example:

But the Java 'foreach' loop is just syntactic sugar around iterators, and your fragment will expand to:

for (Iterator<Entry<String, String>> iter = map.entrySet().iterator(); iter.hasNext(); ) {
Entry<String, String> entry = iter.next();
...
}

For this reason, the foreach-loop requires that the object that you loop over implements the Iterable interface.
We don't need just better crypto, but some way of doing encrypted computation in the cloud and anonymous routing. We need technological protection against the cloud vendors just as much as we need to protect the backbone from being spied on.
I believe his ASVB scores were higher than Kerry's. Not checking, on my phone.
I'm a scientist at heart. I know how important it is to be very accurate. So I made sure to report exactly what I experienced.

My home IP address is presently still banned (or at least the arc process is refusing to send data to it). I verified that it fails to load both in Chrome and Firefox, ruling out browser issues.

When that happened, I started Tor browser and HN loaded fine. I logged in. It logged in fine. I continued using Tor for awhile. Then after about 30min, I changed Tor IPs and tried to log in. The login failed, redirecting me from /login to /null upon successfully entering my password. It continued to fail in that manner. I tested it from at least three different Tor circuits; probably five.

I then created sillysaurus3 and made a comment here. You should be able to see that comment. The account was hellbanned very quickly; maybe instantly. Does using Tor get your account hellbanned?

I then created "sillysaur" which I successfully made a comment with. I verified the comment wasn't hellbanned. Then I checked again 20min later and it was hellbanned.

I tried logging into sillysaurus2 from about three or four different Tor circuits. All of them redirected me to /null and hence continued to deny me access. Then after an hour or so of continually checking it every 10min, it suddenly started accepting my login successfully and not redirecting me to /null. The only thing that changed on my end was my Tor circuit.

I unbanned my IP using /unban. It reported "unbanned". That failed to have any effect.

I am above all an honest researcher, and these are my honest and accurate experiences, so something very odd was happening Arc side. And I didn't do anything to trigger getting IP banned --- I use a private IP address and I don't run any crawler.

From all of this, I infer it's not accurate to say that nothing changed.
Google interprets 'djvu' as torrent
What is Love? - Bob Marley
Human brain and learning
I thought Chrome did both HSTS preload (CA pinning) and real public key pinning. I trust key pinning a lot more.
The article has an interesting argument structure. First it undermines the science behind psychiatric drugs by referring to their discovery as serendipitous. Then it proceeds to point out that there is no good theoretical understanding for how the drugs work, even if there is understanding in what neurotransmitter levels are effective. Then the author proceeds to drop the "not better than placebo" results.

Without knowing any psychiatric science, this narrative nevertheless seems suspicious. First of all, it is entirely irrelevant whether a discovery was made serendipitously or as a result of incremental science, as long as the effect is clear enough to be repeatedly found. This is not true in well understood fields, such as physics, where the theories are mostly not changed every now and then, but in complex fields, such as medicine and social sciences, the fact that something matches pre-existing theory is no evidence per se. The problem is "bumpy" enough that any theory is likely to flatten every bump that is not directly observed, even if that bump would be very useful in practice. This leads to most discoveries of any value being serendipitous. It also leads to incremental research failing to advance rapidly most of the time.

So the lack of theory and serendipitous discovery are not problems in themselves. The finding that psychiatric drugs would not be better than placebos is indeed a problem. It does raise the question, of how the serendipitous discovery was ever made. Did it arise out of spurious correlations, so that when the drug was first discovered there happened to be a big incidental recovery in most treated patients? Then in later retrials people managed to trigger a sufficient placebo effect to get the whole thing going. It does seem a little unlikely, but one would have to examine how the first trials were performed.
You are right that padding/timing attacks on block modes and weaknesses in PRGs form the bulk of contemporary cryptanalysis. Nonetheless, if there is one single backdoor transform with a unique key on AES substitution-permutation network which would make further attacks possible, it would be nearly impossible to devise a adversary/challenge to reveal it using current cryptanalysis techniques. The standardization history for AES, and the organizations involved does not give much hope neither.
SpaceChem teaches a lot of programming concepts, even if it's not explicitly a "programming game"

http://blog.gashlin.net/?p=415

http://www.spacechemthegame.com/
i operate a VPN server in switzerland for me and a couple of friends; feel free to contact me via j8BILqZHb4MLSBFF@burnmoney.trillianpro.com (valid for 1 week; spambox.us) to work something out :)

no logging and quasi-unlimited traffic. it works on my iphone so i am assuming there should not be a problem with android...
1) I've made a typo, not "at least", but "at maximum", meaning that each server can store up to 5TB of data, it's 2x3TB hard drives servers. The density is very low because we use cheap hardware which fail regularly and such a small data amount means high recovery speed. 5TB is a soft limit and can be different for server groups, but it is not at the moment. Each group of 3 servers has a total capacity of 5TB because data is mirrored.

2) We have a centralised replicated metadata layer which is stored on the same servers as the data itself. All object chunks are stored at one servers group at the same time, so there is no need to connect to multiple servers to serve a file, it is enough to connect to one server from server group to get all the data. Metadata may be stored at different server group though.
All chunks are replicated to 3 servers at the same time using a sequential append-only log to ensure that all servers has the same data. This may introduce replication lag and if it is too big for some server then it is removed from the server group until replication lag back to normal (1-3 seconds usually).

Actually, it is much simpler than I explained, data layer with replication, data consistency and sharding is completely transparent to the application layer and it is really-really small and simple. Email me at support@s3for.me and I'll share with you software details and you will understand how simple it is.
> “The government says, ‘We’re not targeting U.S. persons,’ ” said Gregory T. Nojeim

And again, the foreigners' right to protection of their privacy is not even up for discussion.

I'm tempted to say this is un-american. But thinking it over, it seems to actually have become the new "american".

In any case, this kind of attitude can not come from nation that sees itself as "the best country in the world".
If you can get a decent prof (not necessarily the most famous or well-published) to take you on to do a M.Sc., that beats the hell out of doing another B.Sc.. (Caveat emptor: Choosing a bad prof will bring you nothing but pain! Your supervisor is not just another prof. He will have an insane impact on you!) B.Sc.'s are the Honda Civics of academia. Universities mass produce them because they bring in the most cash per head. Grad school is more like a bespoke roadster or F1 car. The resources universities spend on grad students and research are disproportionate compared to what they spend on undergrads. Also, just as you learn more than just the core knowledge of your major in undergrad, you learn a lot of additional things in grad-school. Teaching, speaking, etc.. Above all, grad students are placed under pressure to actually think instead of just regurgitating. If you do another B.Sc. you'll be repeating a lot of stuff you already know.

A good prof will figure out where your knowledge is lacking and give you the resources to catch up fast. You'll likely be thrown into some grad-level courses that are way outta your league and will have to work like a crazy bastard to catch up with students who have a CS B.Sc., but you'll have great student-teacher ratios and your best teachers will actually be the other students. You'll probably have to TA material you'll be learning the night before, and teaching something is a fantastic way to learn it well. Eventually, you should do some research, and hopefully you'll have chosen a prof doing something you're interested in. Do NOT do a course-based M.Sc., as those are just upgraded Honda Civics!

You'll be under intense pressure to learn a lot fast, but you'll have the resources to do it. A B.Sc. will likely take longer and you'll spend a lot of time slacking off because undergrad courses are pretty damned easy. Also, a M.Sc. is a better credential to have than another B.Sc..

When you're choosing a prof, talk to the other grad-students. DO NOT just choose the guy who was nominated for a nobel prize. As the saying goes, "Happy students never won anyone a Nobel!".
I don't think the article mentions causation in any way, and if so the journalist is probably overemphasizing the point.

The fMRI studies do not imply causation, but they are evaluated as a tool to predict successful therapies which is very valuable. No need for a cause and effect dualism yet.
Shocked to realize that I really don't get much spam anymore
Graphite-ng: A next-gen graphite server in Go
Database PX: CIA and German secret services worked together on secret project