skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
For many of these people, science and religion simply deal with different realms. Science deals with natural causes
for natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs
that are beyond the natural world.

I think scientists are too quick to diffuse the religion vs science arguement.
Maybe religious scientist can enlighten me on this. When one bases beliefs on essentially nothing ('gut feelings', apparitions, what someone wrote down 1000 yrs ago), how do you reconcile the use of evidence for establishing belief in one domain, and then not require this in another? We have absolutely zero credible evidence of a creator, an afterlife, or Santa Claus. Pick your religion, what method do you use to evalute it's 'factualness' vs some other religion? Usually the answer is that it's what you were first exposed to. This world would be much better off without the concept of an afterlife. Focus on the here and now, it's all we get.
All the telecom companies, which cooperate fully with law enforcement, charge for their services. It's perfectly fair to bill time and materials that you can no longer use to improve your business and generate revenue.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/04/03/these-a...
He also died from pancreatic or bone cancer at age 51
Well, it's a might bit hard for the SSA to collect if the guy is not alive. You would be surprised how a local judge can muck with a federal agency.
You're a programmer, right? A lot of people on here are.

You know how when starting something completely from scratch, there is so much foundational work to do, making frameworks, helper libraries, classes, etc. You have to do all that stuff before your program can do much (assuming no third party libraries).

Well, once your code base (or just your knowledge of existing libraries) is advanced enough, you can more easily combine pieces of it with relatively small changes to the code. You can mix and match parts and the result will be something very complex that may be based on person-years worth of work while only taking a few minutes to assemble.

Pieces of code can be removed from the final product with a one line change. While the code still exists in the final product, it isn't referenced anywhere.

These are a couple of analogies that help me think about it. They don't explain everything, but it should be enough to make clear that just because evolution works by "stepwise" changes that doesn't mean one step can't create huge differences.
There used to be an IM application in the '90s called Odigo that was tied to your browser window - it would create a sort of ad-hoc chat-room based on your browsing. The problem was that it didn't intelligently parse URL paramaters so you had only "this exact URL that nobody else sees because of some hyper-specific stuff in the URL" and "everybody on the same domain" which was worthless for, say, Geocities.

I'm sure somebody is working on a modern web-ish version. You'd want to properly hack it for popular sites to parse URL parameters so that it would create rooms at the correct granularity.
Suggestion #4: Integrate it into a bug tracking tool.
They attempt to measure the theoretical concept of generalized intelligence, known by psychometricians as g. They're obviously not perfect, but they're better than anything else we have.
Imagine all the crimes you could get away with.

"What is your defence sir?"

"I'm dead, so I couldn't conceivably be guilty of doing any of these things"
actually firefox took off because it wasn't IE :) remember that those were the days that you either used IE on windows or nothing since netscape was dead and there weren't too many choices out there for a free browser that worked well.
Interesting. I saw the link here, but somehow never noticed it on Reddit (I'm assuming you posted to r/programming and r/linux?).

Also, I haven't taken advantage of it yet, because what am I going to do with 50 gigs? I only need like 5 :)
I know, I did write this :-) http://rationalblogs.org/rationalwiki/2013/02/13/if-humans-c...
On the other hand, if you're dead they wouldn't really have to bother with a trial, would they?
I don't see how you are blaming the government for this. Why not just give out the same social security benefit any old time to anyone who asks? That's what you're going to do when you formalize this as a loophole for getting benefits.

When someone is discovered alive, obviously that should automatically reverse their 'death status' - not to mention that they do not forfeit rights as a citizen because they were thought dead.

Instead of even thinking about the legal issues you are making this about your own emotional reaction to what a bad man he is and how bad the government supposedly is.
Because that's how these things work. Why should anyone have to work for the Feds for free? Google, Yahoo, Apple, Microsoft, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc etc all get paid for costs incurred to aide law enforcement. It's actually a tidy little business.

Also, $3,500 isn't worth discussing. The hearing to deny the motion cost more than the money involved. The Feds simply wanted access to more data than they were wanting to officially claim.
There should be multireddits these days made for that purpose, but I haven't explored the feature enough to be able to provide the answer.
Couple of other hints for subreddit discovery: if you find one interesting subreddit, check out its sidebar as many have a related subreddits section there. Also check "other discussions" tab for interesting links to see what other subreddits it has been posted on.

Picking your subreddits is a neverending task, I'm couple of years in and still keep finding new and old interesting subreddits.
You need the myths for SEO.
The man is alive. Federal law and federal courts do not care if state law decides to ignore the patently obvious. They are not bound by state law.
oops.
I just couldn't resist...
So, nothing exploded and created everything? How come?
Why assume that the testimony of dead people has any legal force?
You cant be bothered the four extra lines it would take to properly salt and hash these before storage?
I don't think I'd characterize it as a loophole per se, since it requires being legally declared dead in the first place.

That is a pretty big hurdle to have to jump through!
I used to reddit a lot before I got hooked on to YC (usually the tech subreddit). I love the format but try to stay away from cat pictures.
Up voted. Although 16 exabytes is less overhead if you are memory mapping persistent storage rather than just RAM which makes increasing sense with SSDs. 64bit addressing is still plenty for most scenarios for some time to come though even if this approach is taken.
I've been in interviews where the interviewer had me play the guess-what-answer-I'm-thinking-of game, and that may be what j_baker is afraid of. I don't want to do that either when I say "get a look at how you think"; I want to see that you can attack a problem, not necessarily that you'll try the same things I would.
I'm not sure how our differing opinions about the morality of reporting someone to law enforcement over drug sales is relevant to the question of the justifiability of having someone killed.
I would be interested in hearing about other hobbies / interests / past times / etc have decent subreddits (beyond programming / hacking).

My current obsession is skydiving and r/skydiving is a pretty good discussion forum and link aggregator for the topic.

My previous obsession was starcraft 2 and r/starcraft was very interesting to me.

I've juggled for years and occasionally swing by r/juggling and tend to find interesting tid bits.
Quote from the article: "Asterank is almost entirely open source." That "almost" might be important.
Any bets he wants his SS# reinstated so he can try to draw benefits?

He seems likely to be roughly about that age now... and he's apparently done just fine for many, many years without a SS# or drivers license, so I'm wondering what exactly is precipitating this (likely high-risk request) and collecting SS benefits is what's staring at me.
That should be covered by 'fraud' related laws and he would have to be jailed and pay his dues to the society. Not by keeping him still labelled as 'dead'.

Recovery of the defrauded money (life insurance, social security benefits etc) from the family/beneficiaries is a tricky one. The law/judge would have to look into the knowledge/involvement of the family regarding the fake 'death' situation. Also any benefits they would have received from state (like child support obtained from state in lieu of a paying spouse, unemployment benefits that the spouse would have earned for the family had he been 'present' and unemployed rather than fakely dead etc) if the person were not fake dead but rather just "unemployed and/or unable-otherwise to pay child support" should not be recovered from the family.

Life insurance payments are to be considered 'windfall' and would have to be recovered from family to as much extent possible without making them any worse off than they were just before the person fake died.
The EdTech Hackathon 2013
Yes, it did. It's not like only one thing is responsible for all geopolitical happenings. The UN acts like a pressure-release valve, allowing countries a forum to air their grievances. It helps reduce the tension.

Think of all the things that the security council has vetoed. In the old days, those things would have had a decent chance of being tried anyway, which in turn may have had the event escalate to something truly horrible as one of the great powers tries to save face. Things like the Cuban Missile Crisis would have happened again and again.
The site is up again :)
I think brain can be thought to behave like a muscle and skeleton. If you put it under stress(learning) and let it recover(sleeping) it improves and grows stronger. Similarly if you let it idle, atrophy hits and it weakens. Just like muscles and bones do. Both can be trained with consistent and proper effort.
This is why I'm an engineer instead of a lawyer
The biggest misconception about evolution is shared both opponents and proponents.

Most often the discussion is about whether evolution is true or not.

Evolution is not true. It's not false either and any discussion about it being that is missing the point.

Evolution is the best model we have to explain how life and species interact and evolve.

There are no finite answers in evolution, only observations of phenomena. But those observations best describe the biological world.
Ah, so akin to a Penrose tiling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_tiling
Curios, did your bots simulate connection issues as well?

This isn't my line of work but it would seem simulating 50,000 bots in an environment is not quite the same as 50,000 humans from all over the place with their various connections speeds and/or issues.

Plus, you'd have to teach your bots to try to do incredibly stupid things that humans tend to do, willingly or otherwise.
Basically in agreement with rayiner's sibling comment, I'd say morals don't exist in the physical/concrete sense that gravity exists, but they do exist in the cultural/behavioral sense that beauty exists. For them to exist more concretely requires some sort of codification and system for enforcement, at which point they effectively become legal rights. Also, in the absence of a specific objective, the concepts "should" and "should not" aren't useful. If we are acting towards different objectives, then our "shoulds" and "should nots" won't necessarily align.

To rephrase this, the sort of absolute existence which you seem to be implying for morals and natural rights is only obtainable within the framework of an axiomatic system. And, the process of codifying one's morals within an actionable axiomatic system transforms them into legal rights.
In particular the milk adaptation: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/070401_lactose
I check it out sometime, but most of the time I'm grossed out by the comments and/or content even that on the homepage.
I'm not sure about the details but supposedly most were already held by Call of Duty. I'm not a gamer but highest revenue generated by an entertainment product in 24 hours and the fastest entertainment property to gross $1bn seems really big... for a game.
Nope, he is still legally dead. Logic outside the law has little effect on logic inside the law. Unless the SSA decides to challenge the ruling (doubtful) or he wins an appeal or other avenue, he is dead.

"They are not bound by state law"

That's not really true, the US Constitution has a different interpretation, the state still has rights and areas of responsibility.
I use ColdFusion (well, technically I use Railo) and I love it.

I agree that the owner of the website here needs a <CFERROR> tag, which tells the server what to do instead of showing that big error message.
So if most the members of a church attend a football game after it, it means that the football game is christian?
Complex systems can originate from simple environments. If you're mathematically inclined, I invite you to read Wolfram's book "A New Kind of Science", it does a great job of showing processes like this, for example with cellular automata. The key take-away is that complexity isn't necessarily the product of an even more complex birthing mechanism, but that complexity can and does frequently arise from simplicity, a notion most programmers should be familiar with as well.

> How do systems with interdependent processes and parts get produced by a process that seems to proceed stepwise?

Slowly, and in very small steps. Not every step produces a "useful" change, either: most mutations are fatal, the rest is by and large neutral.

The initial biosphere was relatively simple, but after hundreds of millions of years, the system has grown huge and complex.

You can visualize evolution by imagining a search space, being explored by a myriad of different configurations (of organisms or machines). Configurations that survive, survive. The others are filtered out. Surviving configurations get to explore more of that search space and the process repeats. Over time, this leads to some pretty neat architectural advances (but any biochemist will agree there's a lot of horrible, unfixable spaghetti code in there as well).

We only get the impression of very high complexity and lots of interdependent processes because we look at a very mature ecosystem. Things would be easier to grasp if we were restricted to looking at very early microbes. The principles are the same, though.
Samsung launches Galaxy Round with curved display and $1000 pricetag
De-elect Your Representative
Any startup or startups related to social media?
Every day, I train my memory by memorizing a pack of cards. I started because I had lousy memory and I wanted to improve it. I have been going at it for a few weeks now, memorizing and shuffling a deck of cards (twice a day). I can now memorize a deck of cards in just a little over 3 minutes (I started at a painful 19 minutes). Have I noticed am improvement in my memory? Yes, and much much more.

What I've come to realize is that memorizing a deck of cards trains so much more than your memory. The way I memorize is to associate every card with an object and its corresponding action, and memorizing the deck of cards is a matter of creating a sequence of events that corresponds to the sequence of cards. So by memorizing a deck of cards I'm actually training different parts of my mind: recalling the item that is associated with the card, coming up with creative stories on the fly when I see a card, and holding the story in my mind as I add 52 objects into the story one by one.

Each of these steps was painfully difficult in the beginning, but now I'm starting to see the fruits of my training. I almost never misplace my things (keys, wallet, etc) anymore. Mind blocks like, "what was the company's name? I used to know it...", happens less frequently and I can recollect facts much faster. Most importantly though, I have seen a dramatic improvement in the speed I learn and understand things. I'm not 100% sure, but I think that the rapid association of cards to objects and creatively creating a story have somehow improved my ability to comprehend and grasp new knowledge.

I whole heartedly believe that the brain is a muscle that can be strengthened through exercise.
If someone kills him, is it not murder?
5 Things You've Done That Are Probably Crimes
Well, not to be pedantic, but in this case it actually matters - he's being satirical, not ironic. It's not supposed to be ironic. He wants the debate to be about the modern penal system, not about corporal punishment.

It would be ironic if his intention was to point out how awful corporal punishment is, but that's not his point - it's kind of a given that corporal punishment is generally viewed as barbaric (see the opening paragraph). Corporal punishment is just used as an exaggeration to expose the stupidity of the modern penal system ala eating babies in "A Modest Proposal".

It's slightly more subtle than AMP, which is why I inferred you might've missed the point (though I can see that's not the case now, so my apologies) - but for example, if we were talking about AMP and your original comment was:

> Is he being ironic or is he trying to justify eating babies? <sentence about why eating babies is wrong>

you can hopefully see how I might think you were confused a little.
This doesn't really answer your question specifically, but one helpful way to think about it is to invert your process. Most people create content and then try to find a traffic source for it. The most successful marketers I know find traffic sources and then create content for them.
Complex organs have developed from simpler organs in a series of small incremental improvements, while the organ all the way have been fully functional.

Think of it like iterative developing a program by adding or modifying one line at a time, while still keeping the program runnable. You can start from a simple program and develop it into a complex program with this method, although it will be a very tedious and inefficient process compared to if you were allowed to rewrite multiple lines in one go. But evolution works in small increments.
I've actually noticed the your advertising. You posted on http://redd.it/1o13ry less than a day ago and http://redd.it/1ngwk1 a little more than a week ago. However, neither of your posts did not seemed highly related to Git. They seemed like a very obvious, unrelated plugs and neither post garnered any comments. I think this might be the reason you did not get much of a response. The posts seemed like ads and people may have just ignored them offhand as they do most advertising. Perhaps you could tweak the advertising copy to contribute more to the subreddits where you post them?
Not bad. Also could for plausible deniability of use of encryption. Or I guess to use our governments' newspeak "parallel construction".

"So Jon, you use tor a lot. What's going on?" --"Hmm, well I like women wearing high heels stepping on tomatoes alot.." ---"Ok, well that's 10 lashes for you" (Instead of decapitation for conspiring to overthrow the government).
Sure, Product(RED) is designed to help you feel better about buying stuff you don't really need, but the high marketing spend is hardly much different than other charities. It's a "why not?" but don't assume you're done helping others for the year since you bought a (RED) iPad!

If you want to donate efficiently, may I suggest typing :help uganda into vim?
> Heck if I wouldn't be tempted to break a law if I were him. Then appeal it as undue process because the officers of the court refused to identify him.

Of course, the simple solution there would be for the cops to just shoot him. File in the police report that the suspect was "Dead on Arrival".

There's not enough information in the store to tell, but I think that he is not being held liable for abiding the strictures of the government. There was no comment about him being asked to pay the back child support he owed. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he's been working off the books and not paying into Social Security (hence remaining dead for so long).

I'm not saying that this ridiculous legal status is a good thing. I've been on the reverse side of this - we're still getting various agencies to recognize my father's death, despite his cremation. However, my suspicion is that he'll find legal resurrection far less enjoyable than his current state.
"Get back in the ground, zombie."
Perhaps the funds should go into improving and auditing these projects?
You should contact the author/editor to suggest a correction.
> the headline makes it seem like Levison was willing to sell out everyone for money and that FBI explicitly wanted everyone's data. Neither of these are the case. The FBI just used a very large sledge hammer to get data for one account

Levison made an interesting claim that in fact the FBI systematically collects encryption keys to expand the US intelligence agencies' wiretapping capabilities:

> We know now that the N.S.A. has been systematically cracking encryption across the Web, and it has built a database of encryption keys that automatically decode messages ... Levison suggests that his case also illustrates one of the ways in which it collects them: by secretly compelling companies to turn them over.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/10/how-l...
I use it mostly to procrastinate and look at kitty pictures.
I'm subscribed to ruby, rails, programming and the main "hacker" subreddit, which sometime offer nice articles I don't find on HN (I rarely go further than front page).

A friend had a really good experience with a side project that made it to one of the programming subreddit front page and it brought thousands of visits that day.

I think HN still offers more quality, but some subreddit are close.

Just my 2c :)
I don't know the answer to this either, but I've seen this kind of compartmentalization in lots of very smart folks. I know a guy who's a brilliant optics engineer and has had success both in business and academia. He's not sold on climate change as a fact.
There are many more reasons than that. Getting a deterministic binary is a achievement in and of itself:

http://gitian.org/
All of these questions are at least as pressing in the physical world as they are in the online one. So you're asking philosophical questions about the nature of government and the rule of law that I'm not properly qualified to answer.

I think there has to be a socially defined code of what behaviour is allowed and what is not - even without written laws, lynch mobs would enforce some kind of rules. Since people don't all agree on such things, many people will inevitably disagree with parts of that code. The question of how we decide on the code - both the written laws and the social conventions of overlooking some violations of those laws - is difficult. But we can't put society on hold and wait for the philosophers come up with a perfect system.

To take an example which almost everyone here will see from the same perspective: the UK government recently pushed for a form of opt-out web filtering. To HN readers, it was a clear sign of out-of-control government censorship, championed by politicians too out of touch to understand the internet. But plenty of other people were quite happy with the idea of web filtering. You may deride them as 'think of the children' types and media industry lobbyists, but that's how democracy works. You don't get your way just because you say your opponents are stupid. You have to persuade and educate people to get support for your position.

To be clear, I agree that the web filtering plan was a bad idea.
He is, but just for what it's worth, ChaCha20 (and Salsa20, from which it's derived) and Poly1305 aren't based on elliptic curves, and the TLS ECC features aren't based on Curve25519/Ed25519.