skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I really do think that most people have a deep love for government

I believe that the examples you give, to the extent tht they are valid at all, support my idea (that people take government for granted but have positive or negative views of government doing particular things) more than yours (that people love government).

> People love taxes (although they often think the taxes on themselves are too high),

This particular one I think is garbage. People tend to think that some level of taxation is necessary, because they think that some government functions are necessary. That's different than "lving taxes" in a general sense.

> they consider government to be virtuous ("who would take care of the poor without government")

Thinking that government is an essential mechanism for a desirable function does not mean that they think government is "virtuous". Or that government qua government (as opposed to particular governments or particular people in goverment) is even the kind of entity to which "virtue" or "vice" could meaningfully apply.

> and they believe that (and are grateful that) they are completely dependent on government for their own welfare and safety

I've certainly observed some people believing that certain government functions are desirable because they contribute to welfare or safety, but I've never encountered anyone that both viewed themselves as completely dependent on government for anything that did not resent that complete dependence, nor have I seen many people that show any signs of feeling completely dependent on government for welfare or security.

> It's very common to hear phrases like "democracy isn't perfect, but it's the best system there is,"

That's not a defense of government, that's a statement that given the inevitability of government, one particular way of organizing government is better than the alternatives.

> or "if you don't like something, you can vote to change it,"

That's a statement of an route of problem resolution available in a particular form of government, not a statement in favor of government qua government.

> or "government represents the people,"

I've never heard that statement made in a general sense (the closest is the observation that all governments are ultimately limited in power to what those subject to their power will tolerate), though I've heard similar statements about particular governments or forms of government, or as normative statements about what government should do.
Long bubbles are bad because usually they are prolonged by government pumping assets to the rich to cushion their fall under the pretext of stability before letting the carpet out from under the unconnected.
When you become sure what the future price of BTC will be, please, do tell.
At the time of the reward. This is implicitly stated by the fact that he didn't specify the number of BTC. $500 is still a ton btw, two months ago a Bitcoin was worth $200.
The U.S. has played dirty against the Saab Gripen before. See the Norwegian section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_Gripen#Failed_bids
Isn't it kind of weird to license a slideshow under the MIT license? I'd use CC0:

http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
I think there are several vastly different levels of "rich people." While I think Bitcoin right now mostly benefits the middle class with disposable income, I also think it is, at least conceptually, a huge threat to the very rich, specifically the people in the financial sector whose wealth comes from their close ties with the governments that control the world's monetary systems and economies.
What's actually relevant here? Call me back when someone makes a commercial display capable of synthesizing an accurate light field for each eye.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5XS4-hFgCs
Cryptography Snake Oil Warning Sign #9: Cracking contests.

https://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-9902.html (1999)
Well it's $200,000 today, $386,000 tomorrow, $120 the day after that...
If you read the other comments I have made today, you'll see that I am not particularly "bullish" on bitcoin...

Anyway, I don't think you have understood the comment you just responded to. My point is that you have crossed your "morality/right" and "capability" wires. Stating that "you cannot stop the cocaine trade" is not making a statement about the virtue of cocaine, or stating that pro-cocaine conferences or startups are a good idea. These are entirely orthogonal concepts. You can be very anti-cocaine while still recognizing that cocaine cannot be eliminated.

In other words, if there were lots of pro-cocaine conferences and cocaine peddling startups, the statement "cocaine cannot be eliminated" would not be any less true. That statement is a statement about the nature of law enforcement in a free society; not a statement on the morality or virtues of cocaine.
Yeah, it's probably against the rules of the competition and will get you arrested if you try. But I think if someone does break into their central server and wins the competition that way, they should still be paid out.
I have no idea who these people are that you're talking about, but I don't think I've ever met a single one of them.
I just took it as written, but agree.
I never claimed that Coinbase, the company you seem to be referring to, was anti-authoritarian: only that the idea of Bitcoin itself was. Coinbase is, as you said, very much a product of the existing framework.

Bitcoin's creator satoshi wrote extensively about economics and politics and, to my understanding, its invention was explicitly anti-authoritarian.
Do you have an iPhone 4? My girlfriend got an iPhone 5S and it has no performance issues in iOS 7.
Thanks for the clarification, I'm guessing I worded it poorly.

First, a nit pick, I said "oil" (not petrol) but petrol is a product made from oil and mentioned in the article so its not a big deal.

My claim is that we can make "petrol" out of the air if we want [1]. It does not violate any laws of physics (or thermodynamics). Using petrol to make petrol this way is not effective since the translation leaves you will less petrol than you started with. Using power supplied by a nuclear reaction (as an example) to make petrol this way will convert locally generated nuclear power into transportable "chemical" aka "petrol" power. As most of the energy in the fischer-tropsch process is heat you can use concentrated solar just as easily. the electrical energy used is primarily in running the cooling pumps. Given that "oil" (and from oil, petrol) can be made out of renewable feedstock (CO and H2), I claim we won't ever "run out".

The economic principle I was alluding too was substitution, where an equally effective good at lower cost replaces a good at higher cost in the market. If petrol is $10/liter, cars powered by electricity will replace cars powered by petrol. That is an economic substitution of equal function at a lower cost.

On the Algae process. At least the NASA version required much less heat and cooling the the fischer-tropsch process and in the NASA case no arable farmland (you can grow algae in clear tubes bolted to the sides of buildings if you want). Providing yet another alternative to acquiring long chain hydrocarbons that are more cost effective to create than using a nuclear reactor connected to a Fischer-Tropsch reactor. The challenge of algae systems has been capturing a low marginal cost of additional oil from a process that was not continuous (you want to make a gallon you pay the cost of running the cycle for 1,000 gallons regardless). If however you can make a gallon for the marginal cost of producing an extra few gallons of algage scum, then you can amortize your costs more effectively and carry less risk. Both of these things encourage adoption and production.

Is that clearer? And for the record I don't think I've changed my argument at all here, just filling in the bits which you might have missed.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process
The humor isn't beyond me, but this will never happen. Blizzard is too big to be on Steam. They have no reason to profit share with anyone.
This is such a sham. Here, I'll offer $2000 to break my plaintext crypto. Every morning, in the shower, I'll say a secret word. Email me the secret word and I'll send you $2000 in BTC.
Be #4 at Crowdhoster, Crowdtilt's rapidly growing open-source project
If you don't like BTC and other cryptocurrencies, we will be happy to transfer regular 200,000 USD to you after you win. It's up to you.
> conventional wisdom said there was at least no way to deactivate the warning light. New evidence indicates otherwise.

I thought this was old news.
Cryptograhy Snake-Oil Warning Signs (1999)
ABIN can't arrest people.
A better discussion from him on the topic is linked to from this page:
https://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-9812.html#1
I felt it was a little hard to follow honestly. To me it felt more like a piece of creative writing than really trying to get at anything, politically/economically/philosophically/whatever. Nice writing, but it hasn't change how I think or feel about bitcoins.

Though, even the recent events that have caused the price to crash hasn't changed my views. I still think bitcoins show a huge amount of potential and 2014 is going to be a big year for crytocurrencies.
In addition, it has to be at a university that's applied for a "tax-exempt area" (the university has to make the application). This is still interesting, but not a blanket no-tax-for-startups program. It's closer to something like the way some countries set up industrial parks or Special Economic Zones or Free Trade Zones with special tax incentives. Except, any university in the state of NY can apply to turn itself into such a zone, rather than it only being a specific port or industrial park.
PLEASE edit the title saying $200K in Bitcoins and not real $.Otherwise it seems link-bait (misleading).
But there's a big difference between advising against wistful investment in Bitcoin as if there's guaranteed payoffs, and denying that Bitcoin is a significant breakthrough in technology.
People need to realize that companies like Boeing, GE, etc. are hardly even viewed as "American" overseas. We (Americans) like to think they are, but these companies are decidedly multinational with huge operations in many, many countries that employ thousands. They also make lots, if not the majority, of their revenue in non-US markets. Their headquarters may be in the US (not always), but they could easily migrate elsewhere, and would, if it were in the best interests of the corporation. In fact, as the rest of the world develops and grows economically and the US becomes a smaller share of the global pie, many may choose to abandon the US market if it's no longer worth the hassle should an oppressive regulatory scheme develop.
Expanded here: https://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-9812.html#contests
Having money is not a license to act like an entitled, materialistic douchebag. I don't know the guy, but between this post and his instagram, that's the impression I've got of him. Hopefully some outside perspective will be useful to him.
Flaws found in mandated aircraft safety system
Your assumption is that the crash was caused by the repeal. Another possibility is that the infrastructure and power structure was rotten and over leveraged anyway and the repeal catalyzed the process, because the gsa merely served to conceal the mendacity of the banking industry.
Small chance that the driver can be installed remotely.
This is their protocol header

<Magic Number (Nonce?)> . <Magic Number> <Number of bytes + 1> IN/OUT <Ip Address>
same here nothing shows on firefox but that is a small issue

the demo is extremely well done!
Don't blame the government. There is only one cause for market irrationality and inflation: human greed.

The government has the job of trying to shape society. Deciding that home ownership is a good thing and giving people tax breaks isn't the same as telling people to buy houses that cost more than they can afford. Encouraging people to go to college doesn't mean that harvard should charge 100X what they charged fifty years ago. It's the role of government to provide incentives and penalties. It's the unfortunate role of the market to pervert and distort those things to maximize profit at the expense of society.

It's easy to think of regulators as some Other that has come in and destroyed our economic eden. The fact of the matter is that things were significantly worse for everyone before we had government regulation. Inflation [1] and economic bubbles [2] existed before the modern financial system. Price gouging, monopolies, child labor exploitation...all reduced by government regulation.

We may not agree on the role of government, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to use them as a boogeyman that is responsible for all of society's economic ills. The idea that mankind was in a perfect state of nature before modern government borders on being religious. The system isn't perfect, but I hope we all can agree that there is plenty of blame to go around.

[1] http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/fallromeeconomic/a/econof...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
> But most people will adamantly defend the goodness and necessity of government in the face of any undesirable action or aspect of a particular government.

You make that sound like a bad thing, but it really depends what the discussion is like. If someone criticizes the government and someone else responds with a smarmy comment like "hey, stop whining or move to Somalia" then yeah, that's just blind patriotism.

On the other hand, if someone says "The government did X wrong, therefore government is bad and should be dismantled," then I would say it's perfectly logical to respond with "Government also does Y and Z, which are both good, so maybe it's worth trying to reform rather than demolish." I wouldn't consider that blind patriotism, but rather a "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" style of reasoning. I'm not trying to take either side here (what kind of government we need or don't need is a valid open question), but arguing that government is still necessary despite failures in the system does not make someone a shameless government apologist; it can also be seen as a pragmatic position.
I'm with you on all the stuff about why banks are awful. They are awful.

The problem is that it is an incredibly difficult leap to even imagine a potential universe where Bitcoin is better for the people currently victimized by banks. At present, it is massively, catastrophically worse for them. The volatility is only one of a numerous set of problems that apply there.

I'm still interested to see how it will get used to solve real problems, but the protocol itself is at best a single tool that can be used to construct a system that actually helps the poor and the underbanked.
My ThinkPad for the paranoid (X201i) has none of those devices at all...
Yeah, what happened to the units that were supposed to ship in November 2013? If you are shipping something almost a year late, you've borrowed those persons' money incredulously. It's in their right to file a class action lawsuit for that kind of false marketing.
Likewise the unbanked may not consider it a "learning experience" to lose money to a typo or hacker.
I do it now for compilation and rendering by pushing the source data to a cloud server, rendering there and then bringing down the result. Latency isn't a problem although total data size is potentially. More cores doesn't increase my latency at all, it just goes faster.
I've inferred from some info I've heard that some known abusers keep abusing the flag feature -- it seems like it would be disabled for them, or disabled for submissions matching certain keywords.
President’s Panel on Intelligence and Communications Technologies: Full Report
I'm firmly convinced Bitcoin is a lunacy of greed, and they're firmly convinced that they are rich. What's to debate?

The discussion has reached a place of little common ground--a sign, perhaps, that maybe soon the universe will actually hand down a ruling and we can put down our HN accounts and go home.

All of the debates on this issue have happened already. There's nothing left but vitriol and broken dreams.

If I were to step aside and look at the current ground in context, I think we're seeing the effects of China's rebuff, and I think we're seeing Bitcoin fail on the global stage.

There's only so much cheap faith in the world, and every time Bitcoin lets people down that rich resource is depleted. We've seen Bitcoin build up attention in the tech world (initial crash way back in the day), in the financial world (the most ludicrous crash, back in the spring), and now in China.

What's left?
That sounds exactly like the kind of wishful thinking the OP is railing against. For "retail" folk who are having trouble navigating through regular life without getting screwed by their regular bank account, what does bitcoin offer? Less than nothing. Bitcoins may have their uses, but it is primarily an advantage to very sophisticated persons (or criminals).
Startups in DC are exempt from many taxes for 5 years (and no capital gains on holdings older than 5 years). Makes sense that states would be competing for entrepreneurs.
x-post from comments:

There is an analogy here but it's not that you're playing poker against investors. As a startup founder, you are the house. You are trying to attract players who will place a bet. If your startup is a good bet you want to attract poker players who will play against each other and bet big based on the odds. If your startup is a bad bet, you want to attract roulette players who will play against the odds and bet against you.

Good poker players play based on statistics and pot odds. They want to bet the same way they would if they had all of the information in front of them and could calculate that the exact odds are in their favor. If you have a great startup, a.k.a. a favorable hand/game for making an educated bet, you want to show as much information as possible and attract poker players. It's okay to let dummies play, too, as long as they're not reckless drunks, and you have nothing to lose in showing them all of the available information, too. And the winning outcome is when your poker playing investors win their hand, and tip you big as the dealer.

If the odds are stacked against your company, you need to deceive players into thinking you're a good bet or attract players who don't know any better. That requires either hiding information or, worse, bluffing. Roulette players have the odds stacked against them and are just gambling, either because they believe in getting lucky or lack the ability to play a game of skill. So, if you have a bad startup, you're trying to attract gamblers and give them less information so that they think they have a chance of winning even though it's a long shot.

Basically, you're not playing poker against the investors. You're just trying to attract players. The kind of players you want depends on the game you're offering. If your game is a good one that educated players can make money at, give them all of the information. If your game is stacked against the players, attract drunkards and don't tell them how bad their odds are.
Reminds me a lot of this: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/rat-breeders-meet...
Mirian Leitão is anti-governist and one of the main economical commenters of Brazilian media. She says that it was the NSA that kept Boing off the deal: http://oglobo.globo.com/economia/miriam/posts/2013/12/18/com...
Dropwizard can do templates and views too. What are you missing?
I feel that we're arguing semantics here. You've already said that any regulation requires state coercion, it seems we're just not seeing eye-to-eye on the "full force" portion of the statement.

When men with guns show up to lock you in a cage against your will I don't think it particularly matters if it was the "full force", half the force or a tiny percentage of the force of the state... the end result is the same.

As for the second part of your response, I suppose the level of necessary regulation and enforcement is another topic altogether and one which I didn't attempt to address in my initial comment.
What about Income Tax and Payroll Tax? That is more important for employees.
But you do recognize that people are buying Bitcoins using the day-to-day authoritarian tools, right? This is the equivalent of popularization of denims as a statement of rebellion from the 1970s; or the prevalence of Che Guevara tees in capitalist nations. Gives you that warm fuzzy feeling, but, in reality, it is no different from anything else.
Excluding an entity like the NSA, who cares nothing for $200,000 (literally a rounding error in their budget), but everything for the information available for the taking.
I can't believe this is the top comment on this story.

You have got to be kidding me.

Networking events are invaluable, especially to new graduates. It's important to know how to interact face to face with other human beings. It's important to show you can have a real human conversation with someone, understand body language, understand emotions and social cues.

I realize these skills aren't highly valued on HN for some, but if you really want to be successful they absolutely are.

Also - Elon Musk and Steve Jobs networked their asses off. Homebrew computer club. Speaking engagements. Hustling investors. That's all networking.
Nail on head.
Yes it can, I know that for a fact.
It doesn't normally do it because it would blow the agents covers and so they rely on "Policia Federal" to carry out arrests.
America Could End Homelessness in One Year by Doing This
If minor abuse turns the flag link into a NOP, then I don't see any extra utility in removing the link if they keep it up.
Because we have ways of making energy that have enough fuel for 'forever' [1]. Solar energy is just nuclear energy where the reactor happens to be 1 AU away and only useful when the planet is blocking access to it.

[1] in the literal sense forever here is 1000's of years, the exemplar is a either a breeder reactor (demonstrated) so thorium reactor (proposed)
One would assume that's the point of paying in Bitcoin rather than any other method.
> If a judge thinks that you deserve a larger penalty as a deterrent then that's not bias, he's doing his job.

There is no un-biased method of determining that the OP is likely to tag a building. Every single factor pointed to this being a one time event.

The only factor that you can pin a maximum sentence on is being indignant towards the process. He believes the process needs to be improved, and put himself in there intentionally to observe.

Doing it intentionally points to a harsher sentence, but going beyond the initial arraignment already put him into harsher sentence. The prosecutor asked for several times the typical punishment as well.

Although it is always possible we are missing something, typically it is the case the most obvious truth is the correct one. The judge thought that purposefully tagging a building was an afront to the justice system and punishable to the full extent of his power.

Not exactly acting like a judge is it?
Eulogy For a Good Server
A sweet farewell to a much loved box
Then again there was the person (actually, over 6 years, 2) I interviewed who thought we were a completely different company in a different industry (we were a broadcaster, they'd confused us with a bank with a similar name). A bit of basic research is not a bad thing.

I'm more impressed with people (for web dev jobs anyway) who've taken the time to poke around on the site and figure out our technology choices, even at a pretty basic level.
Could these be great money-laundering opportunities as well ;)? Establish a chain of start-ups, convert black money to white, tax free!