skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
These aren't meaningful rebuttals.

The AUMF was a declaration of war. The Constitution doesn't lay out the specific form of a "declaration of war"; the Korean War, for instance, was fought under the aegis of a UN declaration. Wars fought under informal authorization by Congress date all the way back to Jefferson and the First Barbary War.

It's a popular myth that we're fighting an "undeclared" war against al Qaeda, but unfortunately, that's all it is. We really did declare war against al Qaeda, by name, in 2001, and because al Qaeda is a brand name and not a nation state, at war we will remain until Congress repeals the AUMF.

The comparison to WW2 is simple: during WW2, scores of German-Americans traveled to Europe to fight on behalf of the Nazis. We didn't read them their rights before we killed them. American citizenship did not shield them from the consequences of armed conflict. If al-Awlaki wanted to prosecute his cause using the mechanisms of due process, it was a decidedly stupid idea for him to take up residence in territory controlled by AQAP, where the only reasonable mechanism the US had available to it to stop him from killing innocent civilians was an airstrike.

Also, you're wrong about the President's authorization to kill whomever he labels a "terrorist". The President does not have a blanket authorization to use the military against "terrorists". He has authorization only to strike against al Qaeda and those persons and organizations who assisted in the attacks on 9/11. The President cannot authorize airstrikes against, say, Basque separatists, or the Tamil Tigers.
The problem with time and timezones
the parent doesn't even live in the United States

Nor did Benjamin Franklin for a large part of his life, too :)

I won't ask how you know…
I had no idea that draught is pronounced draft. I always thought that whatever I heard was always "draft", and that draught was some word that I only came across in written english.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
Well, in some sense it is moot. Driverless cars are a substantial shift in efficiency, so there is a strong economic pressure to adopt them. The fears you describe will only get traction in some markets. That will slow adoption, but it won't halt it.

Over time, the statistics about how there are far fewer deaths in driverless markets will shift the dialog.

Think about Ireland, where drunk driving deaths are understood by the public to be a legitimate public health crisis. If Ireland allows driverless cars and the UK doesn't, then the forcing function will be in place and the UK will eventually bend.
Yes, in my assessment, and in the assessment of female developers I have spoken with, women are being driven out of the tech community. Why do you think that it is a vocal minority?
Napoleon's Triumph is a brilliant, but mind-bending design. Take a look at Guns of Gettysburg by the same guy. Also brilliant, and feels more intuitive. Longer, though, if you play out all three days. At least the board is smaller. :)

Twilight Struggle has a great period feel, although some of the mechanics are a bit clunky (realignments seem mostly unused, and yet the map is made for them). Haven't tried the COIN series (Labyrinth et al); the design seems really solid, although people should probably note the slant in the "politics" of the game. But that shouldn't bother too much even if you disagree on the emphasis, since gaming is all about what-if's anyways.
> I don't see how we can ascribe the difference in productivity to dynamic versus static type systems

My personal opinion/observation/"gut feeling" is that dynamic typing has helped, but I haven't done any kind of concrete study to figure out its impact vs, say, removing the compile/link phase. I observe some of the code being written and definitely see programmers taking advantage of the dynamic nature of the language.
Resoloved: There's nothing stupid about using the iPad as a camera.
You can be even more secure by not using the web in the first place!
My Standing Desk
Apple programmed a feature that cached all location data on a file on the iPhone. GCHQ's linked PowerPoint says "If it's on the phone, we can get it". Ergo, GCHQ and the NSA certainly had access to your cached location data if they wanted it. Maybe Apple intended this to be the case, maybe Apple did not, but the mere fact that the file existed is enough that it most certainly could have been scooped up by spooks.
Original article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428621.800-neutrinos...
Sure thing - just drop me a line (email in profile).
This is also a good post, along the same lines: http://mechanical-sympathy.blogspot.com/2012/10/compact-off-...
You mean like $ SCCS %G% %M% %W% $ ?
People who used tormail with their real name and/or without PGP are naive and have clearly no idea in what they were into. If the NSA has a huge amount of PGP's well... who cares? :-)
Curriculum, semantic listening for groups
It's not surprising at all that the press releases are written in advance of arrests. Preet Bharara, the US Attorney responsible for this, is a symbol of everything that is wrong with the US justice system. His every action is designed to maximize his PR and advance his political career. If on occasion he happens to perform his actual job in the process, that is only incidental. If you look closely you'll see that he actually has professionally applied makeup during his press conferences - these are manufactured dog and pony shows. He was looking for a case that would allow him to ride the PR coattails of Bitcoin, and he found one.

In my opinion, prosecutors like this are as despicable as many of the people they prosecute.
Don't tesla make you throw 1000kg battery pack away?
The 2nd article you link specifically says it's just a euphemism that was coined by tax advisers to avoid the "pejorative term tax evasion". In common usage, "tax evasion" refers to attempts to evade taxes, as the English words imply. All of those should be illegal, but some aren't, in part because the corrupt motherfuckers who coined the phrase "tax avoidance" have lobbied, and in some cases paid off, legislators to create loopholes.

I'm not going to defer to a bunch of corrupt scumbags coining newspeak when I choose how to use the English language.
Those are 'anonymous' types. I wasn't talking about them.

ExampleClass ec = new ExampleClass();
//ec.exampleMethod1(10, 4); // compiler error

dynamic dynamic_ec = new ExampleClass();
dynamic_ec.exampleMethod1(10, 4); // runtime error
1. This is not an argument, this is refusal to address the argument by repeating a platitude. The fact is that the argument "criminals can use it, therefore it must be tightly controlled" is applicable to anything. Yes, it is not currently applied to anything, because of political constellations and expediency and current needs of various power groups. But if you support this argument, you are supporting it wholesale, or abandoning logic and resorting to "I like this, but I hate that, logic be damned". You'll be in a big company with the latter, but it is nothing to be proud of. Same argument you are using for money can be applied to information, people, etc. What you are saying basically that everything should be controlled by the government as soon as the government feels it wants it. This is a consistent viewpoint, but you should not be refusing to admit it.

2. I never said money laundering laws and bitcoin are incompatible. What I said is the properties of bitcoin which make it attractive now as money (as opposed to speculative commodity, for example) - i.e. independence from government, anonymity, etc. - are incompatible with those laws and with the motivations that lie behind those laws. Just as we discovered that secure communications are incompatible with government's need for surveillance, and the secure communications lost.
FUSE bindings for JavaScript and node.js
If you have an assigned spot and the federal government is paying for the recharge spot it may not be too big of a deal.
It's the HWLENADDR you're talking about? It's placed as the last byte in (not in: after) the string. Down in the final product the edx part ends up BA B1 80 04 08 (0x080480B1). It's a pointer to that '14' stored 13 bytes past the start of the string ("hello, world\n" is 13 bytes). The ecx points to (0x..A4), exactly 13 less than B1.

edit: You're probably thinking it should be placed as an immediate value. It's hard to say exactly how many bytes it'd take up that way, so using an address to an immediate value is a bit simpler.
Ecards That Are Funny For All Special Occasions
Sure, you can call that structure the design, or the architecture, or whatever you like. Either way, it's a fair question.

As a point of semantics: TDD generally stands for "test-driven development," not "test-driven design," though the article here does make the claim that TDD helps with design.

To reduce my personal philosophy to a near tautology: if you don't design the system to be testable, it's not going to be testable. TDD, to me, is really about designing for testability. Doing that, however, isn't easy: knowing what's testable and what's not requires a lot of practical experience which tends to be gained by writing a bunch of tests for things. In addition, the longer you wait to validate how testable your design actually is, the more likely it is that you got things wrong and will find it very painful to fix them. So when I talk about TDD myself, I'm really talking about "design for testability and validate testability early and often." If you don't have a clue how you want to build things, TDD isn't going to help.

If you take TDD to mean strictly test-first development . . . well, I only find that useful when I'm fixing bugs, where step 1 is always to write a regression test (if possible). Otherwise it just makes me miserable.

The other thing worth pointing out is that design for testability isn't always 100% aligned with other design concerns like performance, readability, or flexibility: you often have to make a tradeoff, and testability isn't always the right answer. I personally get really irked by the arguments some people make that "TDD always leads to good design; if you did TDD and the result isn't good, you're doing TDD wrong." Sure, plenty of people have no clue what they're doing and make a mess of things in the name of testability. (To be clear, I don't think the author here makes the mistake of begging the question: I liked the article because I think it honestly points out many of the types of mistakes people make and provides a reasonable approach to avoiding them.)
What do you mean by TV Broadcasting
Man vs. Animal
At debate, inasmuch as there was a debate, was the rights you have in work done on top of gpl vs bsd style codebases.

Bsd gives you all of the rights you mentioned that gpl code does and more.
Using a GPS requires poking at your GPS screen -- have you ever been in a cab with a hands-free GPS? Do you think that when a cabbie without a current fare gets radioed with a pickup location, he pulls over to enter the address in his GPS?

Ideally, cabbies and Uber drivers make all their necessary communication noodling while stopped, in between fares. In reality, both frequently distract themselves with both the necessary navigational/fare stuff they have to do with phone/GPS/meter and unnecessary calling/texting besides.
[ ] { } and / are harder to reach on de_DE than on en_US. I once learned the en_US layout, but after that I had problems with de_DE and when I visited Paris, I also had trouble with fr_FR, altouhgh I knew azerty and qwertz quite well.

I have never ever heard about Colemak. I use Gentoo with the KDE destop, btw.
Exactly this - I remember my parents had a Volvo with similar seats and my brothers and I loved sitting back there. We always imagined we were in the gun turrets of the Millennium Falcon shooting down cars.
They can now declare how many National Security Letters and FISA requests they get in increments of 250.

That's absolutely ridiculous. It's no better than not stating at all. They also still can't state if the request is relating to terrorism, or industrial espionage under the guise of alleged crimes. For now foreign companies have to assume the worst.

It's pretty depressing knowing that the United States has one of the best, and most clear constitutions ever written. You can't misinterpret the First Amendment, and yet it's now completely void.
The best environment for writing code
We Tried Baseball and It Didn’t Work (2006)
In addition, most of those other countries charge VAT.

The whole point of VAT is to reduce tax evasion by charging tax at every step of the production chain. Thus, countries with VAT tend to have lower corporate tax rates, because they have replaced part of the corporate tax with VAT.

American corporate + sales tax rates are substantially lower than the equivalent corporate + VAT rates in most developed countries.
How to rock a lame blog post with essential tweaks
Your tone here is frustrating, pointing out that a word has a strong implied meaning doesn't really invite a lecture.
I'm afraid it's much worse than that, even. You don't even need to use the internet.

You can be walking down the street and an hour later, unbeknownst to you, your picture makes it to the front page of reddit. It could be that you were skipping work that day, and told your boss you were sick. Or perhaps picking up an engagement ring.

This sort of free-for-all will only get worse as technologies like Google Glass and the so-called "Internet of Things" become mainstream. Your life is now a commodity for internet voyeurism and, possibly, witch hunts.

The tech is ripe for turning citizens against citizens. "Turn in your neighbor for un-American activities" sort of stuff.
That's why I didn't simply drop the word infinite. There are cases where it is appropriate. What is the cardinality of the natural numbers? Infinite... "unbounded" is definitely not right there. But when we use infinity in proofs, we are more often using it to mean "unbounded" rather than truly a "manifested infinity", to use a sloppy phrase; we're using it to get rid of the nasty edge case, not because we expect a real implementation of whatever the proof is proving to actually require infinite RAM.

Also, by "we", I should clarify I mean discrete mathematicians and computer scientists, who are usually dealing in the discrete case. In the continuous case, infinities come up "for real" more often.
"Test-driven design", as it is commonly understood, does seem to be a mythical beast. I've hunted it with both logic and experience and come up empty-handed.

That said, i do still find that while test-driven development doesn't itself create good design, it is a useful tool to help me create good design. I have a bite-size piece of functionality to write; i think about what the class should look like; i write tests to describe the class; i write the class. The key thing is that the tests are a description of the class. The act of writing down a description of something has an amazing power to force the mind to really understand it; to see what's missing, what's contradictory, what's unnecessary, and what's really important. I experience this when i write presentations, when i write documentation, and when i write tests. The tests don't do the thinking for me, but they are a very useful tool for my thinking.
Sorry man, but this is just incorrect.

Taking a short position on a security is a strategy.

Buying Puts is a tactic. Short Selling is also a tactic. Both accomplish the same goal of holding a short position -- making money when the price drops.

If you want to take a short position, you can buy Puts. And to wit, if you're a retail investor wanting a short position, this is most often how you'd do it.

Trading the derivitive here is a smarter play for precicely the reason I mentioned: It limits risk. Liquidity on the options market doesn't matter at all because if the price rises, your Puts are worthless anyway. And if it drops, you don't need to sell the contracts, you can execute them (on margin if necessary) and unwind the position that way.
Sure, it implies they're scum! That was intended. I'm not going to correct it by using some newspeak bullshit that no regular humans use, like "tax avoidance". This isn't a corporate prospectus! I have never heard a regular person use the term "tax avoidance strategies", only consultants who are trying to differentiate their brand of tax-evasion (technically legal!) from the other brand of tax-evasion.
From remote vacuum cleaner to my weather station
Looks like I may win $100 if I don't screw up in the next 2 hours.
See, I think the whole "remote hired livery car" things was brilliant, works around the hailing rate limitation, and it's only the subsequent forays into UberX and Taxi hiring that have brought the unsavory side of things.

Before the push to dethrone taxis, I think they were a reasonably priced upmarket good, priced north of taxis, but infinitely more convenient and flexible than hiring a car service. That's not a 10+x multiplier on investment though, and it's not a high-margin business, especially if you want to retain good livery drivers. That said, the pressure probably would've provided a few things:
a. a graceful decline in medallion prices
b. catalyst for change in Taxi markets

I don't know where they want to go with the service, but I know that the decided anti-regulatory push, combined with the tone of Uber's public statements has pushed me towards more traditional taxis (who in Boston actually have e-hail).
Wow, it's like an EnterpriseBridgeAdaptor for JavaScript!
Reminds me of the fantastic game based around random street view: http://geoguessr.com/
That would be remarkable. At least three, in the same thread, and they didn't make more than a trivial change to the text. I was kind of hoping that the original source of the comment would be revealed.
Yep, it's even linked on the front page of Haskell.org.
That actually makes sense, it is more "grepable" even if it is less easy to reason about. I find it a lot easier to reason about "a" because my brain doesn't try to reason by association -- what could vublu mean, why would they name it vublu?
interesting to note where the inflection point is on that chart.
Eh, typical HN hip technology framework ;).
We had a tradition of playing 1960 on election night. Great game, and complex enough to play it as 2v2. With running mates.
As I mention in another comment, I am specifically referring to the fact that when we computer scientists or discrete mathematicians use the term in proofs, we were more often interested in the "unbounded"ness than something with "actual" infinite cardinality... the fact that I understand the difference is precisely why I tended to start saying unbounded more often. Using infinity to mean unbounded is really too powerful, and a proof should use the least power necessary. (It was only an intuitive feeling at the time; I have a much better understanding of that fact now.)

When infinity is the relevant concept, use it.
I don't think that he meant that the computer would use any way possible to contact the person, but rather that you'd be presented with the option to contact the person with any known/configured method.

I'm not saying that I like that method, but I don't think that it would be an automatic thing.
Stations seem to vary between 4 and 10 bays each. The "cross-country" route has quite a few rural stations with only 4 bays each, and sometimes several in a row.

Maximum 192 cars can thus pass the narrow part of the route each 24 hours.

Actual real-world capacity is going to be less, of course. Maybe a quarter of that (50) before you start running into waits. At 100 per day, you could almost guarantee a wait.

It'll be a while before there's 50 Teslas going through Mitchell, South Dakota per day. But 50 is nothing compared to the amount of other cars going though there right now. Tesla will be fine at their current level, but a large amount of electric cars with similar charging needs would require a lot of infrastructure. I think you'd need 800+ bay Superchargers to handle a modest 10,000 cars per day across a corridor. About the size of a WalMart Supercenter lot. I don't even want to calculate the power feed that'd need.
It's been a long time since I worked building ECUs responsible for RKE (Remote Keyless Entry) and SKIM (Security Key IMmobilizer), but IIRC, only one of the three used ciphers and systems that I recognized (it was an RC4-derivative).

They all had features to disallow brute-forcing though. The RKE system would track the number of requests for each authenticated FOB. If the FOB had too many requests or had been pressed too many times (either the stored count or the sent count being off), various features would be frozen until the FOB was repaired (by synchronizing via insertion into the key cylinder and/or successfully starting the engine).

Nobody talked about how good the encryption was or wasn't. I wasn't doing cryptography and we were just given things to implement. The protocol also wasn't really up for discussion, as we were just implementing a spec given to us.

It doesn't surprise me to learn that you can break this. We noticed a bunch of vulnerabilities during validation that required some knowledge to expoit (implementation details that you'd have to gain via fuzzing).

Another scary part is how lax ECUs talking on the CAN bus were w/parsing network messages. I'd like the opportunity to spend some time attacking various controllers on common systems (does GM still use their Common Architecture? if so that'd be a gold mine), but I'm now in a different field without funding or resources.
It is a political question. What happens if the government restricts access not only to drugs, but phones without key escrow, or media players without DRM and uses the money laundering tools to go after the "pirates and tax evaders" who for some reason don't want to share their every communication with the government?

And there are plenty of people who would disagree with you about the morality of the government doing anything but enforcing quality-control and truth in labeling when it comes to what molecules adults want to put in to their bodies.
It's Tesla that has defined the problem with electric cars as road trip refueling. Most EV dealers offer free loaners for road trips, or you can rent a car. Even vampire loads at airport parking in low temperatures is of higher priority for most drivers. They're misdirecting from the main issue to one that they can solve cheaply.

I'm saying this as someone who owns two electric cars. The infrastructure can be solved eventually, and some cities are looking into it, but even in the suburbs there are problems [2], which is why hydrogen is still out there as an alternative (albeit an immature and inefficient one), but for now, a large portion of the U.S. population cannot buy an EV.

[1] http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/Demand-EVSE-Access-Gara...

[2] http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24947237/charge-rage-...