skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is vulnerable to frequency analysis, though the paper says "nope". If you encode each word separately, like they suggest, you can very easily do frequency analysis based on word frequency. If you don't split up the blocks by words and use any other fixed-width blocking scheme, you can still do frequency analysis on blocks of that width.

The "key" isn't a key because it's sent with the message, and uses pretty much the same method for "encryption", so the same problem applies. Given that there is no "key", chosen-* attacks don't even make sense. In cryptography you always assume the attacker knows the algorithm but not the key. The "key" is completely determined by the plaintext and algorithm.

I doubt this is a serious paper. Probably an assignment for an intro course that somehow got published. I mean, the description of the algorithm involves "Data.txt"...
Do you have ideas about why it failed?
I've implemented the exact same thing once, and found out later that it really doesn't work.

The problem is that the caller cleans up the stack in the 32-bit ccall calling convention.

For example, when main calls write_stdout("foo", 3) it will push 3 and "foo" to the stack. The generated stub pushes 1 to the stack, and jumps into the write() function. After write() returns, main() pops off the 2 parameters it pushed, and now the stack is misaligned since no-one popped the parameter pushed by the generated stub.
If it really works it's amazing. But I won't believe it until more information is disclosed and some independent experimental data provided.
Which isn't true of everyone, or even of most people.
take this efflux wind at 15mph back to the top again

you need energy to do that, so perhaps by the time 15mph wind gets all the way up to the tower influx, it's less than 2mph
Was there an "Occupy Old Money" protest I didn't hear about?
The long term plan of Google is "the skynet of terminator movie". Larry Page has always said it: http://blog.beacontechnologies.com/google-ai-artificial-inte... , http://www.artificialbrains.com/google .
It seems to lack any kind of physical explanation of why it should be more efficient than traditional turbines? All it says is that it uses a smaller turbine - are those more efficient? I would have expected larger turbines to be more efficient (just on the grounds of larger fans in PCs making less noise...)?

It seems irrelevant if the turbine is sitting on the ground or not. "Accelerating" the wind also seems kind of irrelevant - they can't create energy that way. However, if they manage to drive a turbine with little wind that way that would otherwise not have worked, perhaps it is a win.

Maybe it is a good technology, just saying that I don't see any reason in the text of why it should be. At least they could have written "small turbines are x% more efficient than large turbines" or sth like that.
What if extracting one million is enough, and he can do the rest over several years span?
Hate to be that guy but sounds a little too good to be true.
I had the same impulse, and then it struck me: maybe, just maybe, trying to replicate my hand-written signature on an unknown website that's obviously doing it's best to capture hand-writing is not the absolute best strategy, security-wise.

Not saying the author of that pad is evil or anything, I just questioned my own impulse. And stopped drawing. :)
Fluids move faster in a smaller tube.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli's_principle
(Search for [18] in the Wikipedia article. Note that if z and p decrease from the air being lower and in a smaller pipe, then v increases.)

The reason to make it go faster is that you can't spin a turbine to generate electricity if the wind is 2mph, unless the turbine is really, really big.
I'm no expert, but the area subject to the wind seems quite different, the total amount of area moving is the same, it just goes through a smaller hole.
Nope. I only run non critical stuff on DO like my personal email and web which to be honest I don't care if someone cracks or breaks. Once I've changed my ISP I'll move it all in house and use an old ThinkPad as a server (built in UPS and console!). We have colo dedicated kit and VMWare (die!) for the production stuff - it's the only way.

DO turn SELinux off on their kernels and take ages to update so I can't really take them seriously for production to be honest. Also they appear to be VC backed which is usually a sign of shortcuts taking priority over proper due diligence.

Then again for $5/month, pay peanuts, get monkeys. Not bad monkeys for the money. I've paid 3x the amount and got worse monkeys.
You're absolutely right. I think this way of commenting is just awful.
Top Ceylon language features I wish we had in Java
Please explain to me what view you think Ben was forcing upon the community, because I do not think the view you and others nerd-raging here is aligned with reality.

Ben was forcing the view that the commit policy had not been followed, which is a view that the rest of the community agrees with. This all got blown out of control when someone misinterpreted Ben's actions and started a bikeshedding tempest in a teacup instead of figuring out why Ben considered it a trivial change.

I don't know about you, but everyone who went off the deep end in that thread basically joined a lynch mob based on misunderstanding and failure to seek clarification for the commit reversion. The burden was on those who were upset to seek clarification instead of brandishing pitchforks and torches.

I don't think anyone who has contributed to the NodeJS repo joined because they wanted to bikeshed over gender issues. I'd be surprised if anyone (other than the author of the commit that started all this) joined to commit with that as a primary intent (or secondary, tertiary, etc.).
eBay search for laser engraver and you'll find units in the $600 range. They use CO2 lasers and seem to do ok, though you'll typically find yourself laser etching a painted surface off stainless rather than engraving the stainless itself.

Most people don't mean engrave when they say engrave, though if you really want to remove hundreds of microns of thickness, you'll have to spend far more.
If the windspeed is lower than required for the wind turbine to operate, you can get + infinite % more kwh with this technology.
I think I'd prefer if they made the plug genderless. Reversible is convenient, but genderless would mean that we need fewer cables/adapters.
How do you know that no one approached him privately?
The Venturi effect makes speed inversely proportional to pressure - I'm assuming there isn't enough pressure [as the turbine generator harvests most of it] to take the wind back up into the intakes.

Also I don't know how much gravitational forces are at play with relation to winds - but bear in mind wind is nothing more than the movement of gasses and as such can be treated as a fluid, so I'm assuming gravity aids the Venturi effect, but must be fought against if you want the wind to go back to the intake.
Node.js needs a new home
I wouldn't expect any of my Python code to just run in the browser, whatever translation layer I am using (ok, maybe small snippets, but not any code that does anything significant). Its basically a whole different platform you are coding.
Maybe one day, but not while wealth and political power are so concentrated.
HackerNews for learning?
Some years ago, HackerNews was here to learn. Now it's to learn ( a little) and to get traffic to a certain site (or web application).

Are there any old hackernews-like sites you know of?
> Society does not pay any banker 500K. Their clients and employers might.

Bailouts.
You say "profit driven" like it's a bad thing.

I thought this was a forum about startups.
have a source on this?
Two reasons:

1) Your 15mph wind would slow down the 45mph wind going in.

2) Retarding the exhaust in any way will reduce the power output of your turbine.
IEEE Automaton Blog: http://spectrum.ieee.org/blog/automaton

RoboHub: http://robohub.org/

Hizook: http://www.hizook.com/

Everything Robotic: http://www.everything-robotic.com/

These are the main robot-centric ones (disclaimer: I run Hizook). There are lots of other websites that are mixed (robotics and other tech).
They say they can generate electricity at much lower wind velocities already, long before a normal big blade could.
According to my old aeronautics professor, 2-blade turbines are the most efficient when pointed directly into the wind. They've tested 3-blade, 5-blade, and vertical turbines and couldn't get the same amount of output. These experimental turbines look great on paper but rarely scale up.

The reason why 3-blade is the most common design is 2-blade turbines induce a lot of harmonics at high speed. 3-blade cancels it out but are slightly noisier from the blades slicing through the spoiled air.
I routinely read "she" in documentation to refer to the developer/user. I notice it the first time it appears in a text and then I don't anymore, it doesn't bother me in the least.
both loops should fit in the loop buffer, which is after the u-op cache, and so wouldn't suffer from the 18-uop limit mentioned above

Both loops should fit, but I think the same limits for micro-op density apply. The Optimization Manual says the Loop Stream Detector requires that "All micro-ops are also resident in the Decoded ICache". I took this to mean if something can't be cached by the Decoded ICache, it can't be streamed by the LSD.
Life Hacking - Sleeping on the airplane - SOOMLA
Even in community (free, open source) edition you can use the Haxe plugin, which will allow you to work with latest (3.0) Haxe version.
If I look at http://sheerwind.com/technology/field-data it seems to me the 600% improvement is highly deceptive: that huge funnel tower gives up to 600% (average 300%) more output than the same tiny turbine inside it when it's just placed on top of a pole.

If you want to use this technology to boost the output of a modern 100m diameter turbine by 300%, you'd need to build a funnel tower that's over 1km high. I kinda doubt that's cheapter than building three of those turbines.
I believe the output side should as wide as possible while still preventing turbulent flow, as would exist if there were no output tube.
What's wrong with "sed -i"?
It turns out there is a project - the safe C library - that implements strcpy_s and friends as an open source library (MIT license). so this header can be used with the Safe C library.

https://sourceforge.net/projects/safeclib/
Find that hard to believe, and that doesn't answer my question.
I know a few crowd funding websites that place an authorisation on your card, but release it if the campaign is unsuccessful.
I had to dig into that one too. I lost where I found it, but it's actually "up to 600%." Range is 85%-600% with average of like 315% or something.
This is the kind of thing that helps me understand why people don’t want to contribute to open source:

You can get flamed just for making code public [1]. Contributing to someone else’s project and missing the bar for quality is one thing, but this person _shared some potentially useful code_ and several Internet-famous people took a dump on her project. Wrapping your head around software is already hard enough without having to worry about getting trolled or potentially destroying future opportunities.

Or the case we have here: a couple of actions get taken out of context and have meaning read into them where there wasn’t any, and now people think you’re a misogynist.

Why contribute and deal with all of that potential noise, when you can do _just about anything else_ and not have to worry?

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5106767
Yep. Joyent's new corporate strategy: hunting witches. Nailed it.
Personally, I'm wondering about "fascluckery".

I think Ben is being poorly served by his defenders, who are gleefully bringing in their MRA hobbyhorses.
It's a good thing for the startup, sure. But it's definitely a very bad thing for a third party choosing to use nodejs as a critical part of their infrastructure. You guys might take nodejs off on a direction that is beneficial to you and not to me, and I'm not in a position to fork the project myself if that happens.
I think it's a bit ironical that you seem to be acting "butthurt", threatening with internet mobs and such (and the gloomy prospects of someone losing their job if they don't bow down to your pressure).
There's less energy in the wind after it leaves the turbine (by necessity, energy is transferred into the turbine to make it turn). If you were to expand the air moving at 15mph to the same size as the inlet its' velocity would decrease in the same way that funneling it down increases that velocity. Plus losses from viscosity and turbulence.

Technically speaking, you could add a second stage turbine to it but you'd be getting a lot less energy out of it and it's probably not worth it. Something similar is done in the natural gas turbine world with combined cycle turbines, where a natural gas turbine is operated at very high temperatures and pressures, producing a lot of energy, and the exhaust (for comparison: the air/gases coming out of it) is still hotter and higher-pressure than atmospheric air. This exhaust is fed to a steam turbine which manages to capture some more energy out of it on its' way back into the atmosphere, where it leaves lower-temperature and lower-pressure than it did from the gas turbine.

Also, for any real-life physical system involving airflow, even if you had perfect turbines that cost zero dollars, everything creates viscous drag with the air that lowers velocity/energy/etc.
Didn't they collectively lose more than they ever made in 2008? (and didn't they do so in 1987 already?)
How exactly was the free market at work when the government bailed them out?
I'm not normally one to complain about headlines, but I think the editorializing here does a huge dis-service to the blog post. It implies there is such a thing as one true best language, which is pretty obviously false. I almost didn't even bother reading the post because of it.

EDIT: If it gets changed, the submitted title is "Why Scala is the best language available today"
I am not an expert in wind turbines, but I am technically an EE, so I have seen a thing or two. I have mixed feelings about this.

On one hand, the principle of operation superficially looks OK. The weird shape probably gives more flexibility in the design (I say probably because I honestly don't know anything serious about fluid mechanics). The data they provide seems usable.

That being said, the website is fairly scarce in terms of actual details (e.g. the "collected wind is channeled to pick up speed" doesn't seem to be explained anywhere -- how exactly is that done, and how much speed would the wind gain?), and the only paper they published looks rather meagre -- from the works they cite to the dubious editing of the paper (e.g. last sentence before "Conclusions": "The total energy production of INVELOX over 8 days is about 314%" would not have made it past decent peer reviewing).

I don't know enough about mechanics to make a proper assessment of this, but my bullshit detector is bleeping, though shyly.

Edit: BTW, the website also seems to casually glance over what the (up to) 600% improvement improves upon. If I read their article correctly, it's an improvement over using the same turbine, but without the funky tunnel. In that case, I kindda doubt the economical feasibility of this design.
I'm not specialist in fluid dynamics or wind, but isn't some energy going to be robbed by the intakes on the sides not receiving the brunt of the wind? I would imagine that the passive sides would rob the tunnel of pressure.

However, if this problem exists and does reduce efficiency, I reckon it's an easy fix that just requires adding dampers for each of the channels and opening them for the ones receiving wind and closing them when not receiving wind.

Out of curiosity, what's the fluid dynamics equivalent of a parabola for energy rays? i.e what shapes are known to concentrate and accelerate fluids best? I know a venturi nozzle is one such shape for acceleration of already collected fluids. What's the best collector shape?
You could even allow backing out and limit trolling by adding a small cost to back out.

This works in the economic sense, not necessarily in the regulatory.
I still feel you're radicalizing the question too much. Some jobs are already banned by society even though clients would pay a lot for them. That doesn't make society a dystopia...
The speedup comes at the cost of the decreasing the cross-sectional area of the flow. The input is 2mph x [big cross section], the output is 15 mph x [small cross section].

So if you take the cross-sectional area into account, the speedup does not violate conservation of energy.
You don't think NASA wouldn't have cut the feed on the Challenger disaster if they could have?
Would turbulences be prevented if 3 radial blades (3 so the 45:15=3fold amount of air can pass without problem) divided the wind from the turbine into 3 funnels as large as the input funnel?
The mechanical power carried by wind is normally a cube function of its speed, which suggests that the surface area to generate substantial output from slow winds have to be enormous.

This doesn't seem to be the case here. Until there's an independent confirmation (and there seems to be none so far), I'd file it next to cold fusion folder.
Scala is not C++. Scala has much better features to keep complex pieces of code separated from the simple pieces. Also C++ design philosophy was totally different from that of Scala's - C++ values performance over everything else, while Scala's top priorities are correctness and type-safety.
I would not be surprised to see StrongLoop fork node.
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-reddit-got-huge-tons-of...
Yes it does, if the wind is too slow for a normal turbine the normal one outputs 0 kw/h and this one more then 0 and therfore if you let it do its job it will naturally produce much more power then the one which doesn't produce anything.
The Unix system family tree: Research and BSD
There is a little bit of hyperbole involved when you have an issue with them cutting the live feed on one of their missions and then claiming:

"SpaceX seem to cover up any hiccups or issues they have and always present this saccharine sweet 'flawless' report of their missions. "

You may want to dial it back a few notches - trust me, I tend to reach for the hyperbole a little too quickly myself.

(Note - I read subscribe to Elon Musk's twitter feed, and he's a lot more balanced on SpaceX than he is on Tesla)
It should be, otherwise it would be easy to attack the network
You could do this without having to "move" the exhaust back up to the top I think.

Just stack them in a line at different elevations so that one's exhaust turns into the fuel for the next one. If speed of the exhaust increases after a cycle you'd be creating stronger "breezes" as you go down each step.

It wouldn't be 'perpetual' but pods of 3-4 like this might be able to increase the yield substantially.

Then again I don't know much about this and I'm just trying to comprehend it all.
But the miners are also enabling and protecting the bitcoin network so that transactions can take place.

As such, how much does it cost to run the US military everyday to back up the US dollar? Then comparing the value of actual commercial transactions that take place, I wonder what is more efficient? I haven't done the math.
Hacker News is open source; I'd imagine they're just literally running the same code.
Goodbye iPhone, hello BlackBerry: my week with the Z10
> UNIX time is simply an indicator of where you are in relation to the event of the epoch.

That is true except in the case of leap seconds, in which case UNIX time is not monotonic or continuous.

> Leap seconds are just our immature way of dealing with time dilation.

Leap seconds have nothing to do with time dilation. TAI, on which UTC is based, is defined as the passage of proper time on Earth's geoid. This gives a stable base that is not influenced by the frame of the observer. UTC does not change based on where you observe it from. It is the same on Earth, in space, etc. regardless of your frame. None of this has anything to do with leap seconds.

Leap seconds compensate for the fact that a mean solar day is slightly longer than 86,400 seconds, and can vary slightly due to irregularities in Earth's rotation. Leap seconds are added to keep UTC noon within a second of mean solar noon at the prime meridian.

> You can always add or remove time as an observer to conform to whatever your view of time is in relation to that older fixed point.

UTC is defined at the geoid, and everybody uses UTC seconds even though they are slightly shorter than seconds as observed by most people on Earth.
What can prostitutes teach us about leadership?
Also, the longer tube you build the less effective the system becomes because the pressure at the top has to move the entire column of [viscous, turbulent] air down the pipe. I haven't done any math on this but I'd imagine it would not take that much height to hit a point at which point piping losses become overwhelmingly large in proportion to the energy you're producing. The turbine and the inlet need to be close together.
The way I saw it, there was one blowup when bnoordhuis rejected the initial PR, but it magnified hugely when he then reverted isaacs's commit applying the patch from the PR, "chiding" him in the process. According to the IRC log, isaacs made the commit "acting fast to prevent it from blowing up further into a whole big thing."

Looking at the IRC log, here's a weirdery: The initial patch (47d98b6) and the merge commit isaacs made (5812e19) both appear in the IRC log. bnoordhuis' revert (804d40e) doesn't. In fact, the revert isn't discussed at all.
JVM doesn't support reified generics for legacy reasons, it's said when need for compatibility slows down progress :(.
Completely agree with the last sentence.
I was told bailout are necessary to save the economy, not to pay the bankers. By the same regulators btw. Could it be the regulators lied? If so, why would you want more liars in charge?
really? I think they were obligated - in the interest of not losing face among the hacker community after Shubham's post. If anything this was just a PR move more than anything else.
Have I been pwned? Check if your email has been compromised in a data breach
if you output one into another, the resistance would back up into the first one and reduce its output, or else the pressure would push the air backward out one of the other tubes of the 2nd device and not spin the rotor.
Click on "Investors"?
The largest homeless camp is in the middle of Silicon Valley
I don't work there, I just know them.

Bot & Dolly is half robot technology, half creative consultancy and they have a very cool office in SF.
You could write off both in theory. However, writing off student loans is not profitable to the people who can write it off, whereas writing off savings accounts is.
> Gemfiles _are_ bundler's dependency resolution mechanism

No, Gemfiles are the dependency specification protocol. The resolution mechanism is the algorithm which turns that into a set of gems to install or, if you're feeling particularly crazy, require.

Right now I can have a Gemfile which bundler accepts, and rubygems barfs on. That's the incompatibility.
Why is the funnel intake octagonal? Making it circular would be more aesthetically pleasing, or is there a technical reason why having 8 'separate' entrances is required?

Secondly, paint the funnel intake and top section green, and the 'trunk' brown, stick these on top of a hill, and from a distance it could pass for a tree. Much more visually pleasing than a traditional wind turbine.
Why make the implicit assumption that investment banking is at most socially worthless? The scale doesn't end at 0 here. When evaluating the utility of things (could also be technology) than the cumulative effect can be negative as well.