skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Agreed. This is a lie. Plain and simple. Even of you don't know any of the particulars about this issue, the post just contradicts itself. This is a textbook example of how not to own up to a security issue - if anything, this response makes the entire thing worse because you realise the actual problem (their approach) isn't being fixed, only this specific manifestation of the issue.
No. It's not ridiculous. What's ridiculous is that they're even trying to claim no data was leaked when it demonstrably was.

There are many ways to securely scrub an SSD without subjecting it to a full write. They were outlined in the original thread.
One tip: Ignore everybody and keep creating. If I'd done that at 15, then I wouldn't have started to doubt myself and stop working on ideas that later turned out to be very prescient.

The most important thing you should do is the thing that's most important to you. Be sure it's not defined by other people's opinions.

There will always be people in life like the guy who replied "While it is impressive to see another 15 year old programmer (I've never met one in real life even though I've been to three schools in two different countries (I'm a expat kid) ), the actual programming skill required to make games like these are little to none and truthfully i'm not overly impressed."

Ignore 'em and keep working.

EDIT: Oh, I should also mention: don't let the praise go to your head. Another mistake I made. In general, it's it's a bad idea to compare yourself to anyone else -- whether feeling smug and superior that you've accomplished all this at 15 (surprise, I know your secret!) or feeling weak and inferior that you're not as talented as some other person. They're not you, and you're not them. Relative comparisons like that don't matter one bit. Instead, it's far more advantageous to always be comparing your current self to your past self. That's how Carmack became so incredibly good, for example. He didn't wait for anyone to surpass him; he did it himself. That's only possible if you believe you're not as skilled as you could be, i.e. having no ego. Nor did he let people convince him he was wasting his time back when he was working on his early projects.

It's complicated. Just keep working.
I think it's pretty weak, both to politicians and to common sense, to use the fact that these bombers failed as an argument to reduce security. They were able to bring bombs on planes. Given enough opportunity, eventually an attempt would have succeeded.
What are we trying to prove with this witch hunt in China?

It isn't a "witch hunt." There's reason to believe it's a violation of federal anti-bribery laws, in the SEC's view.

That we are such a pure and law-abiding democracy?

You're changing the subject.

This kind of thing really hurts American companies doing business overseas, while accomplishing nothing useful.

If by "this thing" you're referring to the bribery practice itself, rather than the investigation of it, then I definitely agree.
Customers should not be able to access other customers' data under any circumstances.
I disagree completely. I'm over twice your age and started programming when I was 12. My birthday present for my 14th birthday was a $99 retail copy of Microsoft Visual C++ 4.0. Back then I wrote a notepad clone, cab archiver (zip was a fad, really!), and various other utilities. I remember thinking how cool it was when I was 14 to have over 50,000 downloads. I've been a professional programmer (big corp, consulting, etc) for 15 years mostly doing web and desktop applications for businesses.

I can't sit down and write a pacman clone or an asteroids game. Therefore, I can say that it takes more skill than "little to none". I am impressed.
"Could that literature review be wrong? Sure."

"Is eliminating airport security politically untenable? Maybe"

"Would this increase hijacking? Probably."

LOL
inteligence != smartness

Some people are smart but not inteligent. And some are inteligent and not smart.

Someone might go great lengths of inteligence to create something utterly complex. While others might go the smart path and create something else. Both creations can become successful or unsuccessful. If one is complex and the other is simple doesnt mean one is better then the other.
> You could have made a useful comment

It was useful to me. I was curious what languages/framework the OP did and I had no idea what scirra was until this post.

> and been polite.

Seriously? I don't see any types of aggression in
tmikaeld's post.

> Something you could likely consider every time you open your mouth, and I don't mean that in a mean way. Hacker News helped me better modulate what I say.

This post just reeks of elitism. It's like immediately discrediting a comment simply because of one grammar/punctuation mistake.
> And yet this combination was effective in limiting the number of casualties in the recent Volgograd train station bombing

It just shifted the site of the attack to a new bottleneck: where everyone is in line to go through the metal detector (which many people also have pointed out is a ripe target for an attack in the post-TSA US).
A question (maybe a nitpick) about the word "liberal"--wouldn't it be more "liberal" to be against gun control since less control means more liberty?
I disagree. Facing bankruptcy is facing bankruptcy. Politicians can make it sound as complicated as they like, but at the end of the day, if you owe a man $20, you're going to have to pay him. It doesn't really matter who is at fault.

I don't know enough about the NHS to say with any certainty, but I imagine the way the hospitals stay open and patients get their drugs is by the NHS going into more debt (please correct me if I'm wrong).

There's a difference between impending doom not existing and kicking the can down the road. Ultimately, the taxpayers will end up paying the debt. The question is when.
Tie yourself to the mast: Ariely on New Year's resolutions
I think there's a similar story about Fedex being the highest throughput network provider.
I read that they acknowledge they made the default to not scrub...

"As a result, we switched the default mode away from scrubbing to improve performance, given that customers would have complete control over this action themselves."

Also, I think they presume a leak to be qualified by the data being sensitive which would not be leaked had it been scrubbed, for which they provide an option. This has to be assumed, otherwise one would never need to scrub.

Still, certainly looks to be a pretty big mistake in communications.
>Is the D scope + unrecoverable error different from Go's "defer" and "panic"?

D's scope guard is similar to "defer", but it has three forms: "scope(exit)", "scope(failure)", and "scope(success)". So instead of a deferred function that tests "if r := recover(); r != nil {...}" you just do "scope(failure) {...}"

D's unrecoverable error is just a matter of having an exception hierarchy where "Exception" and "Error" are separate subclasses of "Throwable", and by convention you prefer not to write "catch (Throwable t)" or "catch (Error e)".
What Does Deleted Mean? Politwoops 2013: Best Twitter Deletions
I disagree. It is an attempt to put the OP down. The tool may not have people writing code, but they are programming. They have define algorithms through the use of data types, loops, conditionals, etc. What the OP did is noteworthy because he/she was able to create cool games with the limitations of the tools (and went as far as adding his own JS).

No software these days is run or built without the help of others. Why make such comment? It is not constructive nor does it aim to develop the conversation.
This has nothing to do with scrubbing, or SSDs. This has to do with them providing my data to third parties without my consent.

They've leaked customer data between VMs. Their claims that this isn't true are false. Look at the screenshots!
NSA Analyst: "We Could Have Prevented 9/11" [2012]
I was listening to a radio show this past week (All Things Considered, I think) that recounted the history of airplane screenings. It was fascinating. Before screenings, hijackings were much more common and the airlines liked to negotiate themselves to keep things quiet (and, to their thinking, reduce passengers' fear). Hijackings were much more common, but generally dealt with quickly and quietly.

It wasn't until a hijacked plane threatened to hit a Tennessee nuclear power plant that their thinking changed. No longer was it just the plane that was a hostage, but potentially a much bigger area, allowing for much bigger demands ($2Mil, to be exact). [1]

The next year afterwards, though? Flying was up 15%. Turns out people liked not getting hijacked, and were willing to trade a (minimal) security check for that. Of course, the TSA is a much bigger beast today.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Airways_Flight_49
I have to play devil's advocate here: I finally have enough bandwidth for my server, so now that it's working I should reduce it. This makes sense? You've said that now it's working we should start to take it away?

I for one kind of like the fact they have all failed. I would like to keep this track record up since I spend a lot of time on planes. Just my 2c.
+/u/dogetipbot 1000....oh, wait. wrong subreddit. ;)
The NSA has nearly complete backdoor access to Apple's iPhone
My MBA had an entire course on the Toyota philosophy.

One of the biggest points put forward was (paraphrased).

> At Toyota we don't automate. Well we do automate, but we wait as long as possible to automate. Why would we build a machine to do a process that we don't understand? The machine won't improve the process, it will keep doing whatever broken thing you tell it.

Basically treat all of your employees as the assets they are, and get them to help improve the process.
In general, frogs will jump out of slowly heating pots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
I remember watching Two Guns and thinking that it was an entertaining fiction flick. When I read this story, I couldn't help but think that maybe it was a bit more realistic than I gave it credit for.

On another note, how can these tactics not be construed as entrapment?
As well as the enterprise, don't forget the non-technical home market, and non-technical small businesses. Windows is much more common there, and they also don't have a short upgrade cycle.
This is really a great point. Python 2 is stable and probably never going to die off. This implies that it can be stably and productively used without worrying about the language developers breaking it down the road. This is great. :-)
That's the idea. There were more people waiting for trains inside the station than waiting in line at the metal detector. Russian officials claim that the barricades reduced casualties.
> more likely to die to your own gun than you are to protect yourself from some bad guys.

You need to be careful when applying statistical trends to specific individuals.

For example, if we suppose hypothetically that impoverished people are more likely to commit robberies, it would be inappropriate to tell a particular impoverished person that they are more likely to commit robberies. Who knows, it could be that they are impoverished because they are a monk who has taken a vow of poverty (and therefore has essentials, such as food and housing, provided to them).

In this particular case, while it may be true that gun owners are statistically more likely to be killed by their own gun than by a criminal with a gun, it does not follow that this particular gun owner is more likely to be killed by their own gun. It is possible that most gun owners are dangerously unfamiliar with their guns and basic safety procedures while this particular gun owner is not.
I would love to see more on how you do marketing, for sure.
> Both of which show some good sponsorship. Heck, on the first page, under "resources" there is mention of a magazine called "male nurse magazine"

You are either not serious, or seriously blinkered. What, two links that go to the same "American Assembly for Men in Nursing" association, a magazine for male nurses and a link to some history are equivalent to sponsorship from some of the biggest and most popular software employers (Google, Intel, Microsoft)? As I said, show me something visible like Sloan Kettering, or the Harvard Medical School sponsoring male nurses, or offering free courses to them.

> This is poor reasoning. Just because there are initiatives to help one group, and there aren't - for whatever reason - initiatives to help another group, doesn't mean that the initiatives that do exist are a problem. An attempt to solve one problem does not invalidate the other. Nor does the lack of solution to one problem invalidate attempts to solve other problems. It's like this: my software has 2 bugs. I spend a week fixing one bug. My boss doesn't complain that I didn't solve both bugs, but rather praises me for fixing one and says "now fix the other".

No, but if there are two bugs (say A and B), and one of them (say B) is similar to another one that is marked INVALID or WONTFIX, your boss might complain that you're spending a ton of time on B. In this analogy, attracting more low-income men into tech would be the WONTFIX bug, since no one is rushing to fix it. Look at this story (http://www.girlswhocode.com/about-us/#section5). Note that this is a girl who is also more likely to go into college and get a degree (60% of all college graduates are now women). A 15-year low-income male in the same situation? Tough luck, no "Boys who Code", or even "People Who Code" initiative for him.
I don't really see what's wrong since they're exploiting the way the Chinese do business.

What's "wrong" is that it appears they may have been in violation of federal anti-bribery statutes. In particular this thing known as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

The original article was pretty clear about this point, so it's hard to see how you don't "see" it.
Unhackable System Claimed: Could It Be True?
Well right now people can buy super cheap $9 a month DSL service that provides very basic speeds. The difference right now is that the user of that service can decide where and how they use that bandwidth (assuming it's all legal).

So if all they need is IRC, Email, and Github, then that's perfect for them. Why would I let them (ISPs) decide how to bill me for the places I want to go on the internet?
(She's rich. She's almost certainly richer than most programmers, and that includes quite a few SV stars. Her complaint is that her personal wealth and financial success is largely due to largess granted her by her family's wealth.)
Is this much more libertarian: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ2QFmJ7h0A
It probably depends on whether you believe guns are more likely to create liberty or destroy it.

There are some very reasonable arguments that guns destroy more liberty than they create, and thus it is liberal to be against tools that make violence so easily accessible.
Getting funding for an open source technology
I was thinking if anyone has any experience with raising money to fund an open source project/technology?

Personally I think that investors might be more hesitant in making such bet. Unlike other startups where you can iterate fast and push changes out quickly to the users (say it's a web app), development of OSS seems to be much slower and you need some sort of code stability before it can be used by other people, which increases the time period for potential ROI, if any.

I appreciate all comments, ideas and contacts :)
I don't disagree that what the ATF doing is wrong, but as a gun owner who appreciates both the value of my gun rights and the seriousness of my responsibility to use them safely and wisely, I'd like to suggest an alternate view on where the picture is wrong: you trusted the gun store to be a reliable guide on what can be bought and sold.

Now, I like to get advice from my local gun store as well, but it's purely informational. As someone who possesses lethal weapons, I verify EVERYTHING about what my legal obligations are, what is safe, and what is effective for home defense. I strongly recommend that anybody else do the same. A lot of people believe strongly in the 2nd Amendment, but such a freedom comes with this responsibility.
A motivated individual will always be able to find a way. Thinking otherwise is what motivates the security theater we currently have.
At first I was "Ohhh, favorite hacks" but then i was "facebook.com, really... it's almost 2014" so I didn't click. Anyone have a mirror of this on a non-privacy-devastating website?
Your claim about more likely to die to your own gun is often a misleading statement. The leading type of death caused by firearms in the US is suicide, by a large factor. The leading method of suicide in the US is by firearms. Therefore, if you remove suicide from those numbers the chances of you dieing by your own gun is reduced significantly. Sorry, but this is one of my pet peeves whenever I see a statement like that tossed out without context. Without context, it sounds like you will be killed by your own gun by factors beyond your control, which would be rare indeed. Using it as a way to discourage gun ownership is misleading, unless they have suicidal tendencies.

Also, you don't need your cellphone to defend yourself; you can toss it whenever you choose.
I wish the airlines would make it clearer to passengers the fees they are paying. If every passenger was reminded just after going through the TSA that $5 of their ticket actually went to the TSA for the procedure, I suspect there would be a lot more pressure for change.
1. The government doesn't care where you are at any time. Individuals might, but that's why there would be a warrant required to access the system that monitors GPS trackers on guns. There is GPS in your phone and in your car, what's the difference?

2. Of course many would. If you make it slightly more difficult to remove then many would not (and would get caught easier) or would opt to not steal the weapon.

I've known many guns to be stolen in a random burglary and even someone who lost their gun. Criminals might be able to remove the GPS tracker, but they would need to take the weapons somewhere first then remove them, and that would be tracked. It wouldn't be too difficult to require a grinder of some sort to remove the GPS tracker, depending on how it was made and attached.

My main point is that there would be more benefits than drawbacks, but people would fight a bill like that to the bitter end, just because they "don't want the government track them", which is already easy for the government to do if they want to. I support the right to carry a weapon, you can't trust that everyone you meet will not try to harm you, that's just a fact of present day society.
It's for this reason that I'm strongly in favor of body-mounted surveillance cameras for all public servants. The key is making sure that everyone has access to the data, not just some surveillance team in a back room. For stings and such like this, the footage would be held until the end of the operation, but would be required to be released immediately at the end of the operation. "Missing time" would be rigorously scrutinized.

If we really believe that our law enforcement and other public servants are serving the public, there should be zero opposition to allowing anyone to review video archives of officer-mounted cameras at any time via an anonymous, no login needed, web interface. Sunshine is the solution.
I don't want to sound like a nutcase conspiracy theorist but to be quite honestly if the government had always wanted an excuse to violate basic human rights, 9/11 was probably the best thing that happened for them.

After 9/11, they were able to convince us that we NEED to be felt up by strangers at the airport and that we NEED to invade a country and that ITS OKAY to just kill thousands and thousands of civilians "by accident" all in the name of National Security and when some civilians try and kick out these strangers that invaded their country and killed their family, they're the nut jobs, they're the bad people, they're the real terrorists.

I honestly think the US is a bigger terrorist that Osama ever was. Now, after 9/11 people we're living our normal lives normally; while in Afganistan, families everyday are terrorized, scared, afraid that this might be their last day. Today might be the day their father doesn't come back. Today might be the last day they see each other.
> I haven't developed any games I have created a RSA secure chatting social network website and app for it too which could communicate between each other using websockets and a node.JS server

I would avoid talking like this. To me it sounds like you only vaguely know what you're talking about. To non-techies you sound like you're trying too hard.

As someone who started freelancing as a sophomore in highschool I hope I can lend some advice I learned the hard way. You have a head start, which will seriously come in handy when you do something amazing. To get there you have to leave the ego at the door. Your success will be more centered on how you communicate with people, not machines.
Damn! now I am depressed. What more can I say the first sentence says it all. Adding to my comment would be pointless.
Facebook’s Report To Partners Reveals First Country-By-Country Mobile Stats
> If you want to carry a gun with you, I support your right to do so. But it's the objectively wrong play.

Have you lived in SoMa or Oakland?
Well, because obviously if something is wrong in the world, giving a bunch of professional liars selected by people 10% of which disagree on whether it exists and how to fix it and 90% of which do not understand the problem and vote on the looks of the guy and the fact he wears the colors of the team their granddad rooted for - giving such setup maximum power seems like a brilliant idea. If that doesn't fix the problem, what else would?

It's like somebody being wrong on the internet, only you can feel you did something about it. Like empowered somebody who doesn't know how to fix it and has abysmal track record in fixing hundreds of other things, to do whatever it takes to fix it. That can't ever go wrong, can it?

And we can be sure we can totally trust them with this power and they won't think about usurping this and taking it way beyond original purpose and trying to control everything everywhere. It's not like we're living through the wave of revelations showing how far the government can go subverting privacy, undermining security and expanding its powers in very short time. It's not like we have an agency that has an official logo of globe-encompassing octopus on top of the slogan "Nothing is beyond our reach". Calling for more control of the internet for those people would be indeed a bit myopic. But that's not what is going on here, right?
That plainly is not what the SEC investigation is about. The article makes this very clear. You might want to give it a closer read.
This might be true... but if all they are trying to do is bomb the plane, what makes a plane bomb that much worse than, say, a bus bomb? You can ride greyhound without going through rigorous screening, and yet no one has planted a bomb on a bus.

The excuse for the airplane security has been that they can use the plane as a missile. If this is no longer the case, than planes lose their special status as something that needs to be extra protected. If we feel safe getting on a bus without going through a metal detector, a plane should be no different.

Yes, people can do us harm at any time. They could shoot us, bomb us, stab us, burn us with acid, etc. We accept those risks every day, and almost all of us get through life without those things happening to us. That is because the number of people who want to do bad things to us isn't nearly as great as some would have us believe. We don't need more screening to protect us from very unlikely threats.