skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
What are you talking about? The constitution is the "highest law of the land".

Have you read the opinion, or even the nytimes article posted here?

> Judge Pauley said that protections under the Fourth Amendment do not apply to records held by third parties, like phone companies.

This judge indeed decided it was constitutional, that is in fact what "lawful" means in this case. A different federal judge in a different district decided it was not. Eventually the Supreme Court will probably decide, especially becaues of the disagreement between two different federal districts, the Supreme Court can make the final determination. (This was in the nytimes article too). But federal district court judges can and do make decisions of constitutional law all the time, it's not only the supreme court that can do that, but the supreme court can overrule the lower courts.

Saying "Lawful ≠ Constitutional" just reveals you don't understand how the US legal system works. And also didn't bother to read the article before commenting on it. You are incorrect.
All pickups use body-on-frame construction (image: http://bit.ly/1cFsxn2). The backbone that bears most of the load remains steel. It probably always will, because the strength requirements would necessitate a huge, expensive chunk of aluminum.

If the bed interior is aluminum, they will have to increase the thickness compared to steel, but it will do just fine at distributing the load to the frame.

Aluminum has a softer surface and will scratch easier. I'm guessing the Aluminum F-150 will come with a bed liner from the factory.
Since you seem to have some expertise, maybe you can answer this question: Is there a work function difference between steel in contact with aluminum, and does it accelerate corrosion in the steel?
Betteridge strikes again! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
Well hey, this isn't Vim/Emacs! False advertising! ;)
This actually looks more like the system working to me. There are now two important judges who disagree in their interpretation of the issue. The system failed when this was kept secret such that it could not be ruled on by the legal system (and I don't believe a "secret court" is a part of a "legal system"), but now that it is being ruled on, it's expected and proper that judges may disagree.
yeah, that line of reasoning totally makes sense. And ~500$ per hour for software ticketing is a reasonable number.
U.S. judge upholds NSA phone surveillance program
I'm a big fan of a lot of Joel's methods. His advice to develop cheap, low cost, portable infrastructure is what we've been building our farm around. As an added bonus, the quality of pastured chicken or ducks or eggs or whatever is unbeatable. We strive to raise only the best quality produce or meat, and by selling the vast majority direct to our customers we can actually earn a reasonable living from it.
No. Apple is about margins, deep down in its DNA. It is a fundamental principal. They just -- as always -- are brilliant at marketing.

They hid all that delicious markup in Xeon and FirePro brands. They know that FirePros are just (1 or 2 generation old) consumer grade with maybe some custom binning and pinout tweaks. They pushed on Intel and AMD to price those parts very well -- in exchange for volume (and not just the MacPro volume, future "Apple" volume), and now every new MacPro owner thinks they got a really good deal.

It is transparent, but also clever as hell.
That's true. But both sides of the political spectrum regularly do these sorts of linguistic end-runs around the Constitution in the name of the ends justifying the mean. The right does it to the fourth amendment, the left does it to the second. So neither side can legitimately call out the other for hypocrisy because nearly everyone is willing to jettison at least part of the Constitution when the stakes get high enough.
Poor review leads to fine
I've reached the conclusion that in order to receive constitutional protection of "my papers", they need to be "on paper". So, I essentially don't put anything on the internet, or even on my computer, unless I'm comfortable with it being on the internet, permanently (meaning until my great-grandchildren retire, in 120 years).

for reference, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I would like to think that "papers" in the text would also refer to electronic documents, but alas that seems to not be the case.

This is one of those cases where the saying "In Theory, Practice and Theory are the same, but in practice they're not." seems to fit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hFWz145aJc
Do we, as the creators of this data, not retain IP rights over it? Are we unable to use the laws written by the other big cartel against the promiscuous use of it?
I use a variant of David Allen's "Getting Things Done" (GTD) system. I wrote a little booklet about my implementation of it, to have a convenient place to point people at when they're curious.

http://gtdfh.branchable.com/
Also, with Postgres memory tuning: you may have to change kernel parameters to permit more shared memory. Make sure you make these changes persistent between reboots!

For example, in FreeBSD, you can set the parameters at runtime via sysctl, but unless you also modify /etc/sysctl.conf, they won't be applied after a reboot.

It's not fun scrambling to figure out what your kernel parameters were after you've applied a security update and rebooted your machine. Not fun at all.

Test out reboots.
Writing Math Equations on Octopress
Look over the checks & balances in this case[1]. He was ruling that the collection was legal under the patriot act. However, the supreme court has the ability to apply "judicial review" to overturn a law / act / action.

A quick perusal of wikipedia should help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checks_and_balances#Checks_and_...
The problem with online ratings
-1 for disabling pinchzoom
This looks really interesting. A very well laid out description of the reasons behind the core decisions made.

Any plans on supporting elixir ? The syntax seems much nicer then plain old Erlang.
Effects in this sense is a synonym for movable goods, that is, physical property. The text of the fourth amendment protects your property. This and other rulings are saying that the records your phone company produces of what calls they've connected are not yours, but the phone company's property. If Verizon gives its own property to someone, government or otherwise, you have no standing to claim any violation of your rights.

A web analogy: the records of who called whom (i.e. "phone metadata") are just like web server access logs. You would like the court to say that the web server access logs you produce are the property of all the individual people that visit your website. The judge is saying those logs, produced and held by your server, are your property alone.
Sounds like the judge is putting the cloud-storage business to death.
My initial concern would be metal fatigue, if they're building the frame from aluminum. But that's a hardware problem and I'll assume they've thought about it first.

The rollout of the EcoMod twin-turbo six-cylinder in the F-150 gives me some faith that they're not the usual run-of-the-mill idiots.
Yeah it's a helix.
Really? Have you ever tried to use good 'ol run-of-the-mill Firefox to browse files, photos and videos? Or open local HTML or JS files? Etc...?

There's HTML5/Javascript IDEs which run entirely client-side which you can install in the browser's cache, or keep the file in your file system. You can give web apps native features and define how it installs/behaves using the App Manifest.

A browser nowadays can do nearly as much as a full OS, even within a full OS.
Your link does not support your claim that little Finland was planning an invasion of Soviet. Only that Soviet claimed to feel threatened(!) and faked a Finnish artillery attack (just like the Nazis did with Poland, btw) so they could declare war.

Sorry, you're just a dishonest apologet for one of the worst dictatorships in history or a troll.
I am our DBA, and, though brief, this is a reasonable list.

A caveat, though: be careful with synchronous replication; it actually increases your chances of having an outage. If your slave goes down with sync rep, the master will no longer accept writes. (To mitigate that risk, have multiple slaves. But that can further increase the latency sync rep introduces, as now the master has to wait for all the slaves to report back a successful write.)
Ask HN: Student loans to fund my startup ventures?
TL;DR: I'm a BME PhD student with $100k in student loans. I have a year left before I graduate and want to do a startup before then. I can get $20k in federal loans. Is it stupid to fund my startup ventures by taking on more student loans?

BACKGROUND: I graduated with my BS in BME from a top 5 engineering school and have been in a PhD program since. I expect to graduate in 2015. I don't see myself working on stuff related to my PhD after I graduate.

I have over $100k in private/govt loans already from my undergrad, but I haven't taken any loans during my PhD since I'm funded. I do feel like I'll be able to land a high paying job if I decide to go into industry. (A complete burn disaster wouldn't be the end of the world for me, but it'd suck really bad.)

PREMISE: The only excuse I've always had for not starting something was my lack of capital. I'm like the Jack of all trades, King of none when it comes to programming, web servers, startups, entrepreneurship, hustling, making stuff happen. I know enough so that people can't take advantage of me, and if I really spend time on something, I can figure it out. I'm in no way a ninja in anything specific, but I am a ninja in getting things done.

SITUATION: I can get $20k over two semesters in federal unsubsidized loans at 6.5% interest. Since I'm fully funded, I got back one refund check of around $10k and will get another check in a few weeks when the semester starts. Is it stupid to fund my startup ventures by taking on more student loans?

I know there are stupid risks and calculated risks. I feel like this is a calculated risk that limits my failure, and I can still succeed if I fail. I want to succeed in this, and I think in this situation, my back is against the wall, my money is where my mouth is, and if I fail, it's on me, which will drive me even more to succeed.
2013 Notorious Hackers
Is there any group of hackers more outspoken online than Anonymous? The group started the year with a legal bang by backing a White House “We the People” petition arguing that DDoS attacks should be protected as a form of free speech, so that they could be used to protest injustice. However, that attempt to hack the Constitution failed to garner the number of signatures required for a White House response.
But that didn’t stop the collective from protesting perceived injustices. Its Operation Last Resort included hacking the US Sentencing Commission website — which establishes sentencing policies and practices for the federal courts — to include a game of Asteroids, to protest federal prosecutors having threatened Reddit co-founder Aaron Swartz with a 35-year prison sentence for downloading millions of documents from the JSTOR archive, which helped drive Swartz to commit suicide. The group also defaced a Massachusetts Institute of Technology website to denounce the institution’s failure to protest Swartz’s prosecution.
Even federal judges need terrorists to justify their decisions?
Vdio discontinued
I really hate working for other people. It's almost always boring, tedious things that I really don't care about. Making something else your primary job, and doing development on the side, would probably make you much happier.

My friend, after a string of really crappy dev jobs, quit, moved to Austin, and is now working as a barista at a coffee shop right across the street. He isn't making a lot of money, but he is going to a ton of meetups, playing a lot of video games, and generally having a great time. A lot of his stress is gone now that he isn't doing something he hates for 40+ hours a week.

If you want to build your portfolio (and make some money) the local business route is a pretty solid way to go. Lot's of small companies still don't have websites, and you can make decent money throwing up a few WordPress sites. They won't cost you a lot of time, or them a lot of money, so they should be willing to take a chance on you. You may have to physically make some rounds, but a nice walk around town isn't so bad.

I have no idea what your expenses are, but if it's like most people, you'll probably have to cut back some. Throwing in a lower-stress, part-time job would help as well. Then you should have enough time for web development and side projects.

Last time I did this, I saved up a lot of money, quit my job, and worked for 6 months on my own projects. It was awesome. I only finished a couple of things, none of which made any serious money, but I had a great time. Freelancing helped me last a little longer than I would have if I just used my savings.

Next year (end of March, almost here!), I'll be leaving for good. Moving to the country, starting a farm (that seems to be a lot more common than I thought, based on this thread), and being a part-time (ha!) farmer and part-time devloper. I love developing, but I'm not happy working in the tech industry.

Good luck, and I hope you find something that makes you happy.
"It's possible to program a computer in English. It's also possible to make an airplane controlled by reins and spurs." - John McCarthy.
This same justification was used for obtaining personal financial information from bank accounts (see US v. Miller, 1976).

My problem with this line of logic is that it can be applied to anything not owned directly by the person under surveillance. For example, let's say you rent an apartment. Can the government force the landlord to install mics and cameras without telling you? It's not your property, so do all of your fourth amendment protections disappear?
This is IBM President Thomas Watson, Jr.'s famous memo in response to the 6600 announcement:

August 28, 1963

Last week CDC had a press conference during which they officially announced their 6600 system. I understand that in the laboratory developing this system there are only 34 people, “including the janitor.” Of these, 14 are engineers and 4 are programmers, and only one has a Ph. D., a relatively junior programmer. To the outsider, the laboratory appeared to be cost conscious, hard working and highly motivated.

Contrasting this modest effort with our own vast development activities, I fail to understand why we have lost our industry leadership position by letting someone else offer the world’s most powerful computer. At Jenny Lake, I think top priority should be given to a discussion as to what we are doing wrong and how we should go about changing it immediately.

Some background:
http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/supercomputers/10/...
I feel like this is a huge decision.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this essentially ruling that everything that you own and store in the 'cloud' doesn't belong to you in the sense that it is not subject to the same protections as other property you own?

I can see this having huge negative consequences for all US 'cloud' business.
The principle that someone else's mistakes shouldn't cost you money.
I think it's worth bringing Perl into this discussion, as a language designed by linguists to to make it easier to express yourself in ways similar to how you think. Thinking about this, it puts the following statement into new light:

Natural languages are exclusively used to talk to people, while programming languages are also used to talk to machines.

We also use programming languages to communicate to other programmers (which includes our future selves). Making clear delineations as above can serve to help define a problem, or arbitrarily reduce your options without cause. I think this is the latter.

Perl has many, many nuances. This is often derided by people that prefer more rigid languages. I like to think that it helps me see the programmer intent and thought process more clearly through the code.

Obviously there are downsides to this, just as there are downsides to overly rigid languages. Again, differentiating them based on what we assume they will excel at early may not be beneficial for us. People that move freely between different language dichotomies seem to have success in choosing the right tool for the job, whether that be algorithm, language or platform.
am not surprised that a "judge" made this decision. From new york of all places taboot. Not bought paid for at all, nope, no sir.
Since the name of the channel she is talking about in the video is different from the channel the video is on, probably not.
Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6970772
I read somewhere that snapchat is thinking about allowing users to replay 1 photo/video per day. They're pretty much telling everyone that they're storing these pics/videos with that feature.
I think you've helped me identify the crux of the problem: "The Supreme Court" is not doing its job of protecting the Constitutional rights of persons in the US with the vigor necessary to counter (check) the Legislative and Executive branches.
Federal Judge in New York rules NSA activities constitutional
Sure.

But it was a strange thing to begin with. Why would anybody trust a cloud provider with sensitive information? Another way to look at the NSA -- they are hardening our security.
> All pickups use body-on-frame construction

Including the Honda Ridgeline? I thought that was an exception. In any case, you're mostly right, and that design is unlikely to change. Folks who actually use trucks in their work often bolt on various different styles of body: contractor bodies with large storage cabinets on the sides, enclosed van-like boxes, dumping beds, etc.

But frames can certainly be made of aluminum. The East company, which makes flat-bed and dumping trailers for semis, makes frames from aluminum. An unloaded, aluminum-framed flat-bed is very noticeable for its pronounced arch.

The scratchable surface of the bed will be paint, just as in the steel models.
If that's how the law works - guess it's time to abandon all cloud-based services. There's seemingly zero protection for anything hosted by a 3rd party.
How to do On-Page SEO for your Ecommerce Site [video]
You're aware that the Third Party Doctrine goes back to at least 1979, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

I'm not saying the doctrine isn't in need of an update, but let's not act like this is some weird new thing the courts just invented.
The real problem is that America is not a superpower it is a hyper power.

Is it? Really?

I can't help thinking that many of the less welcome trends in recent years, security-related or otherwise, could be explained by (a) the US no longer being a superpower in one sense or another, or not likely to remain so beyond the near future, and (b) senior US political and business figures finally noticing this.

From the outside, the modern United States of America looks a lot like some of its long-standing tech giants: some wise/lucky moves in the past brought success and created a vast amount of resources to use today, but if you keep squandering those resources on little things that aren't done properly and then add occasional big misses, sooner or later your fortunes will inevitably change.

US culture has long been obsessed with military matters and more recently with security, and clearly the US is still the world's leading military power in numerical terms. But at some point, you have enough firepower to level the planet a few times over, and adding another 0 doesn't really make any meaningful difference.

Meanwhile, among other things, a substantial part of the US population does not have access to effective healthcare, a noticeable proportion of US children appear to be learning more in school about religion than science (and their parents are OK with that), some of the big businesses generating all that economic activity Gates mentioned also managed to trigger the biggest global economic crisis in living memory, US workers have some of the worst conditions of any first world country (including so little paid time off in a year that sometimes even doubled it would still be illegal in many places), a cavalier attitude to energy consumption and damaging the environment is pervasive in both political and business leadership, and childish squabbling at the highest levels of federal government recently brought huge parts of that government to a standstill with adverse consequences for millions of ordinary people.

I'm not sure more rapid progress toward the US approach to these kinds of things is something any of us should aspire to. If anything, public sentiment and media commentary in other first world countries seems to be turning more to the attitude that the US is toxic and the best thing to do is distance yourself as much as possible, in security-related matters and otherwise. This article is interesting because it's the first obvious, practical embodiment of that sentiment I've seen, but I'll be very surprised if it's the last.
There was a time when studying at university was about more than simply preparing young people for employment. It was about studying something in depth, at a high level. And actually, I don't happen to think it's a waste of time to study art, or history, or literature.

Now that university has become simply about getting a qualification that looks good on your resume, is it any wonder that people don't take it seriously, especially when the jobs market looks mostly hopeless for young people?
This.

I assume all of those records were already being obtained but here is the legal cover they need to do it officially.

The only records that are safe are those encrypted and on your person. Just don't write down the key. Information in your head is still (mostly) protected.
Indeed. Its okay to search your wallet since its not your "paper", like Constitution says. Its okay to search "your" house, since bank owns it, or landlord. Its okay to track your car with no warrant because well its using public roads. Too "bad" Monsato did not win a claim to patent our DNA; in that case you could be stripped down to naked and shoved with a huge anal probe and feds won't have a problem finding judge who would rule no Fourth Amendment was violated.

God Lord -- what is happening to this country???
Yes, and they are not, which is precisely why we have separate laws that explicitly assure us of the privacy of these documents.

As for sibling comments that exclaim that this doctrine contradicts the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, consider that very intelligent people (Supreme Court Justices) who are explicitly trained in interpreting laws and especially the Constitution, and who are selected partly for this precise talent, have thought otherwise. In light of this circumstance, it may at least be reasonable that it is you who are not properly interpreting the meaning of the fourth Amendment.
> Lawful ≠ Constitutional.

¬Constitutional ⇒ ¬Lawful

The Constitution is the highest law, and that which is not Constitutional is, ipso facto, not lawful.

> The patriot act made all these "legal" - but aren't we waiting for a supreme court decision that states that the entire collection is "unconstitutional"?

The Supreme Court doesn't have unique competency in Constitutional cases, it just has final appellate authority. Every decision by a federal court that something is legal includes, either implicitly or explicitly, a decision that it is Constitutional.

In this case, the Constitutional judgement is explicit, not implicit.