skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Clearly, "commerce is a right" and "a right cannot be taxed" are not axioms, because people (including, evidently, you) disagree with them, and therefore they are not accepted as true without controversy. They are just my premises.

When I say "cannot be taxed", I mean that the taxation destroys its status as a right.

Matters related to the Supreme Court are distracting from the core argument. I withdraw any claims I made regarding the SCotUS. They were only made as a matter of rhetorical convenience.

As a result, this is the argument:

1. A right is any activity that members of a society agree to protect unconditionally. (definition)
2. Therefore, if conditions are placed on an activity, it is not a right. (contraposition)
3. Voluntary commerce is a right. (premise)
4. Taxation represents the addition of a money-based condition to an activity. (premise)
5. Voluntary commerce includes one or more buyers, and one or more sellers, wherein the sellers transfer ownership to a good or provide a service to the buyers, and the buyers transfer ownership of a quantity of trade currency to the sellers. (definition)
6. Sales taxes apply to commercial activity, when the seller transfers ownership of goods or renders service. (by definition)
7. Income taxes apply to commercial activity, when the buyer transfers ownership of trade currency. (by definition)
6. Therefore, if commerce is a right, application of sales or income taxes would destroy its status as such.

The logic is sound, so only the premises are assailable.

I should clarify that when I said "external impediment", I meant that such impediments can only be created by actors with moral agency. If a mountain stands between you and the marketplace, it is not an external impediment to your right to commerce; it just increases your overhead costs. A highwayman that robs, kidnaps, or murders you on your way to the market is, in that he made a choice that ultimately prevented you from trading. I don't know of any more precise term to describe this. Antagonism, perhaps?
I went back to school at 33 to learn about programming. It worked out for me.
Interesting how this inadvertently showcases modern browsers redrawing the page content based on what has actually changed. Even though each "frame" is a new page, you only see a flash where the new image is being shown or replaced.
“Inbox is an email company. Google is an advertising company. This product is our focus, and will not be ‘discontinued’ unexpectedly.” Burn!

Very amusing. But for all we know they will be acqui-hired, maybe even by Google, and then shifted to a different project.
> But the larger goal with Inbox is not just to offer a suite of developer tools, but to create a new email standard. That means, Grinich says, the company has to provide the fundamental infrastructure as an open source package.

I really am at a loss to think of something that email as a standard (and SMTP as a protocol) is lacking that requires a replacement.

There are a lot of things that I would like from an email client, but almost all of that can be done over IMAP using an MUA, and that would allow interoperability with literally every other email server out there, no matter how old the software is.

Replacing e-mail (and/or SMTP) as we know it would be a change on the order of magnitude of IPv4 → IPv6, in terms of how disruptive it would be to daily operations and how much extra work it would require just to handle the changeover seamlessly.

Unfortunately they don't go into too much detail with what they hope to do[0], so I'm left with no understanding of what they want to do that's so advanced that it requires a new standard altogether.

[0] At first glance, everything they talk about can be done using IMAP and makes more sense to implement client-side than server-side/embedded into the protocol.
I hope that there will be some standardisation in these efforts. First there was Fastmail's JMAP, then Google's announcement of extending GMail's APIs and now this.

IMAP has a lot of shortcomings, but at least it is a standard.

That said, Inbox' approach seems nice in that it wraps a new API around 'legacy' protocols as well.
> I'm not sure how we could explain to avoid it - where would the explanation go?

You could put the instructions on pages that many people visit regularly, true security through obscurity. For example, put the instructions in abbreviated form in a box in the footer of your front page (or in the footer of every page).
The biggest cost is the machine. High precision and exotic materials are usually involved, and they're usually hand-crafted in small numbers, and require gigantic tooling and facilities. And there's lots of testing and QA: since you don't get it back, you can't really test fly it.

Imagine if you were flying people to China via airliner. One way. The majority of your ticket cost would not be in fuel. (A 747 is about $350M; fuel across the Pacific is on the order of $100K.)

Note that reusing your vehicle solves a lot of those problems. But it's hard to do. Imagine that your 747 can just barely make it all the way to China, even if it's only carrying First Class, and there's no gas stations there.

Volume solves the rest of the problem--but that means we need to figure out a lot to do in space that's worth the cost.
I'm a pedestrian, cyclist, and driver (not necessarily in that order). I totally understand this, but I also think it's a general misunderstanding. Many (most?) pedestrians have extensive experience driving or at least riding in motor vehicles, but few have the same amount of experience cycling. Thus, pedestrians trust cars (even though statistics suggest they shouldn't) to stop or avoid them at crosswalks and driveways because they know they do it, too.

A cyclist may run a stop sign and ride through a crosswalk very close to a pedestrian. They do not consider this dangerous behavior, because they are in control and they know it. Pedestrians (even those with biking experience) may not have inherent trust the cyclist is in control or aware, and this instills fear. The cyclist rides away without even knowing they scared the pedestrian, while the pedestrian feels they were endangered. These interactions then reinforce stereotypes.

My point is that _everyone_ is acting selfish at intersections [0], and nobody thinks they are a threat because they believe they're in control. I think things get most heated with (against) cyclists because while most cyclists are also pedestrians and drivers, the reverse is not true.

[0] http://vimeo.com/24572222
I would personally much rather PAY for a centralized system that works better than "good enough".
Strengthening the back muscles is one preventative cure, but can also aggravate an existing injury or inflammation. First thing is to recover.

Proper diagnosis is also key. In my case, I had joint irritation from flat arches, and also tight hamstrings with a stronger side from sports. My back took a lot of hits over time, and my muscles would pull them out of place.
Zero fatalities per 15 million miles is not a great metric. For one thing, cars boast less than 0.3 fatalities per 15 million miles, so if anybody dies between now and 45 million bike miles that will not be a great statistic.

I'd wager that 1 million bike miles represent far more trips than 1 million car miles, though, since obviously bikes are (usually) used for shorter trips than cars.
:s/lies/simplistic generalization

If by 'we' you thought 'me', then you're absolutely right. But for my parents (for example), they're bound to be at the mercy of someone... Google is probably a better sysadmin than themselves, or myself at 3a.m. and halfway around the globe. Whether or not this is an improvement is another matter.
You Don’t Have To Make Money On Every Customer
Personally, I want someone to tell me if I've said something offensive. If the offense was unintentional, I then can decide whether saying that thing was important enough to me to warrant upsetting someone else. Maybe it was. Usually it's not. I suppose some people might prefer living in a bubble where they never have to think about how what they say impacts other people, but I was glad to go to Hacker School where that wasn't the case.
> The one thing is that 99% of my focus is on dealing with the 1-ton boxes of death metal traveling at 60KM/h and not on the 150lb squishy humans going 5KM/h.

That's not a good attitude. For those 150lb squishy humans, you are a 180lb of mostly the same, but moving 20km/h. Moreover, you are almost totally silent and much harder to see than a car. Add that to the fact that non-cyclists may not be able to instinctively predict what you are going to do next.

I'm also a commuter cyclist in SF, and find that it's not that hard to be considerate of pedestrians.
I agree, but peds who never ride bikes don't realize this and I don't think you can expect them to. They're used to interacting with cars, where there's not enough room for both (a car and a ped) in an intersection, so their reaction is to avoid sharing it.
It's not a stupid question. The problem is twofold: Any place that's nearby is already too expensive to make the move worth it; and any place that's cheap enough to be worth it lacks either the coastal climate or proximity to civilization, or both. Or worse (or better, depending on your perspective), it's a place where the Coastal Commission won't let you build anyway.

So, in practice, you're asking "Why doesn't Google just pack up and move to Nevada or Kansas City?" Such a move would probably be highly disruptive to business (probably at least two months of lost productivity (even if you pay relocation consultants to handle everything) for all employees being moved, and you're talking about moving substantially all employees).
It's 'conditioning' to be polite and think about what you say. It's sad that you think that's a negative.
Please tell me one thing that a user (power or just every day user) really needs that is not supported by a reasonably recent email client?

Sure, here are some ideas I'd like to see:

- Effortless encryption

- Verified identity

- Pull model rather than push model (like twitter, requires verified identity, would eliminate spam and work for many email addresses which you don't want to be public)

- Attachments which are uploaded once, not duplicated and sent over the network

- Better filtering (this one isn't bad currently, but can always be improved)

- Integration with other forms of messaging

- Better support for public messages like mailing lists or mass mailings, e.g. URIs for messages or parts thereof (attachments etc).

- Single signon (get rid of passwords on websites by producing an email replacement so awesome people use it as a central identity)

...etc. There are plenty of possibilities, and the ones at the top of this list I think would benefit a lot of people and make things like spam a lot harder.

I'm not sure this particular service is going to succeed (it reminds me of app.net in that it targets developers, which is probably a bad idea for mass-market tech), but there are plenty of things we could improve about email and email clients.
You wrote this:

>As long as the DOJ are allowed to essentially lie to the public like this, why shouldn't it be fair to factor [the purported 35-year maximum sentence] in when trying to get an idea of how Swartz felt? . . .They lie to the public and exaggerate to the accused, in order to instill fear, prop up careers, and coerce the accused.

That's what I am responding to. Beyond that, it sounds like we're not disagreeing much, except for this small point: it is true, as you say, that being convicted of any felony at all is a huge deal. And probably even more so for Aaron Swartz. But that doesn't mean that the difference between a six-month sentence and a 35-year sentence is not also incredibly significant!

I sympathize with those who think that this debate over the length of Aaron's potential and likely sentences misses the point. But I think that is just another criticism that ought to be leveled at media outlets and activists who continue to repeat the 35-year number without explanation or qualification. Those people repeat the 35-year figure precisely because they do regard it as significant and, often, reiterate it as a way of inflaming people's passions. I think this is a dishonest way of framing and spurring the debate. I, like you it seems, think that we would be better off reevaluating what is criminalized in the first place than flailing about, speculating about how long Aaron's sentence would have been, what the government "threatened him" with, etc.

In short: I take issue with the 35-year number not because I think that, in reality, the sentence was so short that Aaron had nothing to worry about, but because it is a misleading (because it is misinformed) starting point for any meaningful discussion.
It's had quite an adventure! http://www.npr.org/2014/03/18/289628696/space-thief-or-hero-...
You are getting downvotes because people presume you've read the article, yet you end up with "the entitlement is a little out of control". If we apply the same logic to car drivers, we would have marines deployed in the city by now to fight these menaces.
Show HN: Chuck Norris Geeky Facts
I read the title of this article and thought "HN is now a parody of HN."
That's what "National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace (NSTIC)" is for:

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/ns_tic.pdf

It's a national smartcard identity program that Obama admin has been pushing for a while.
A few thoughts...

1) Current US roads infrastructure is not designed for bicycles. If we are serious about getting people to use bikes, then we have to re-think how we design roads and re-build the ones we currently have. Same goes to the traffic laws.

2) Personally I feel that not stopping on a red light or a stop sign is far more dangerous than going over speed limit in the flow of traffic on 280. I do understand why bicyclists don't want to stop. We should re-think the roads and traffic laws to fix this instead of accepting the fact.

3) While this is true that the number of deaths from bike is not even close to the number of deaths from cars, this comparison is not fare. We should look at the total number of accidents with death or a hospital stay and factor in the number of bikes/cars on the road. Not sure if this kind of research exists.

4) Lastly, the bikers on public roads need to be regulated. Right now there is an implicit assumption that all bikers are also car drivers and they know the rules. However, it is not really the case anymore. Moreover, bike rules ARE different.
Uuuh, hi there! Thanks for the effort you all put into making leaking safer for sources.

Other possible approach: load the landing page everywhere and show it with Javascript when the user clicks their way to it. I think it's an improvement on the iframe without drawbacks. How does it sound?
This is one of those posts that makes me want to sit down and learn to make a game in my free time. Maybe I'll get around to it some time.
What about DC pedestrians? Are there assholes among them, too? Is everyone in DC an asshole?
Yeah I recently discovered enet through Emscripten (which emulates UDP on top of SCTP. SCTP is the protocol used by WebRTC and supports reliable and unreliable packets like enet and RakNet, though I believe Emscripten's UDP emulation only uses it in unreliable mode (since UDP is unreliable).

Apparently SCTP can be tunnelled over UDP if native support is unavailable (which seems very likely), which means I've ended up with the crazy stack of:

enet, which uses UDP which is emulated using SCTP which is tunnelled through UDP.

Crazy but it works. Bring on the real time web games!
> It's unreasonable to expect people to act contrary to their incentives.

It's actually unreasonable to expect drivers or cyclists to obey traffic laws that have no sound basis. Many stop signs are in place because they're misused for speed control, or are installed in places where a yield sign would suffice, or they're in place at a T-intersection where it's plainly obvious that there's no traffic to yield to, and so on.

What we really need is remove a lot of stop signs and replace them with yield signs. The only intersections where they should stay in place is where visibility of oncoming or cross traffic is limited.
GitHub Enterprise 11.10.340 Release
> .... where they can behave like cars sometimes, then behave like pedestrians when convienient. To me this needs to stop. Cities need to police bad bikers, and maybe have some training course/licensing for cyclists. There is a right way to behave on the road and I've seen alot of good cyclists, they just have to be more of them.

Biked in Europe for 20+ years, and now live in North America. The problem is exactly your attitude: that there is only one "road", that there is one right way to behave on it, and both drivers and cyclists should follow it. It's like North Americans can't wrap their head around the fact that driving is just one mode, cycling is another, walking is yet another, trains are yet another, etc. and what you call "the road" is the disproportionate part of the pavement that you dedicate uniquely to drivers.
I agree, but there's this other thing:

I'm a pedestrian and in the crosswalk. A cyclist is speeding toward me and doesn't stop. They either swerve around me or make me jump out of their way. A woman was killed last year in SF when she was hit by a cyclist in the crosswalk (she had the right of way, not crossing against the light).

So, even when there are consequences, cyclists act horribly.
What bout proving that your crazy ideas about methane were right and be aquihired by SpaceX to put 72 methane engines in a Falcon9Prime?
The threat here isn't only proof that is acceptable in court:

* Your actions could put you on a shortlist of people to be more thoroughly investigated.

* Your actions could tip off the people whom your information threatens; maybe they stop communicating with you (or worse) to shut off the leak.

* Per the Snowden release, the NSA tracked the communications of people within something like 3 degrees of their targets. With standards that low, it's not a stretch to think someone would track everyone visiting the Washington Post's secure drop box.
Right, so now all of my email can go through some third party's systems. That's exactly what we need in a post-Snowden world.
Github repo: https://github.com/inboxapp/inbox
It is true that some things you just need to test, but nullability isn't actually one of them. Many languages—including SML, Haskell, Rust, and Swift—encode nullability in the type system, so those languages can guarantee at compile-time that functions never receive null values.
That argument works even better for cars. Cars are much heavier. It's far more effort to stop a car and get it going again than for a bicycle. It would dramatically improve gas mileage if cars could ignore stop signs.
Try Testing the DX (Developer Experience) of your Code
I was putting forth a credible resource that pretty much exactly addressed the topic, not trying to argue with what you said.

I guess a useful government regulation would be to require estimates of the energy consumed to make certain energy products available. It would be pretty much impossible to do at the point of sale for things like retail gasoline, but a given fuel distributor shouldn't have too much trouble calculating their average for some period of time (especially if they are getting reasonable numbers from upstream providers).

I talk about gasoline because I think it would be interesting to have numbers for more than just solar panels and liquid fuels are probably one of the more complicated places to do such a calculation. It should be relatively easy for pv manufacturers.
But personal experience affects decisions people make. Sharing it is useful.
Alexandrescu talked about D at Boostcon a few years back, and as I recall he was planning to make it compatible with C system libraries.
Part of this is likely that many Americans do not have an easy way to type the accented 'e' character. (Short of copy/paste, I'm not even sure how I'd do it. Friends who have Macs have it easy.)
Very cool application. I agree with MangoDiesel in that I found myself going through about 20 profiles with averages and then another 10 without, which makes for a poor experience. Intermixed would have been better.

Also, can't wait to see more users onboarded and see what people will guess on my own profile :)

Out of curiosity, what will your monetization be like?
...how does that change the OP's position?
> A huge percentage of motorists flaunt the law every single day. They fail to signal, they fail to yield when they're supposed to, they blow through red lights, they exceed the speed limit, they drink and drive

People complain about these infractions all the time. All the time. Just because something is "normal" doesn't mean people are happy with it.
Swift is being used by a lot of people. I'm using it. There are a lot of Swift projects in GitHub. Just because the App Store doesn't contain any Swift apps yet doesn't mean such apps are not being actively developed.
I'm sorry, I don't understand your comment.

Are you trying to say that the field of technology development in general or programming specifically would be toxicly harmed if certain groups of people, identified by "gender, race, age, religion, nation and many more", are allowed in to it? Or are you trying to say that objecting to people attacking others on the basis of gender, race, age, religion, nationality, etc., would be toxic to the culture of the field?
What is the justification of this post being pretty severely downvoted? It's not intemperate or off-topic as far as I can tell.

Go ahead and downvote me too for metacommenting but it seems like slaps being handed out so freely just degrades community by making people reluctant to comment.
I always found the number of stop signs in the US to be pretty crazy. Where visibility is good why not just have a "give way" instead?

Also the car needs to use even more energy to get moving again so this would have financial/environmental benefits too.
Google Co-Founder Says People Shouldn't Have to Work So Much
Sadly that is not the case. Major problems with chip and pin:

- the chips used (32kb 90s-style smartcards AIUI) are simple to read and save, making chip and pin readers susceptible to the same social engineering attacks as magnetic stripe cards (btw, in the UK there have been skimmers for chip and pin for some time)

- most terminals on the market transmit the pin in the clear from one part of the unit to the other, so it is trivial to doctor a legitimate chip and pin unit

- it is difficult for the consumer to verify the trustworthiness of an unfamiliar chip and pin unit

- in the UK, people often still try to walk away with my card, just as when we had magnetic stripe

- transactions can be conducted offline in most configurations (true for example in the UK, but not in Germany)

IMO the main selling point of Chip and PIN to UK retail banks is that they allow banks to reassign liability to for fraud to the customer. When your signature is forged, existing law clearly says you are not liable. When you PIN is discovered and used to send transactions, existing law is unclear and currently this allows banks to convince the customer to accept the liability. IIRC, American consumer fraud law is pretty strict, which is why the US has been slower to adopt the machines than eg the UK.

In the UK, Chip and PIN seemed to cut fraud for a while, until attacks like skimming were applied. Now fraud is back on the rise :(

There is good coverage of this in chapter 10 of Security Engineering 2nd edition by Ross Anderson, a book I highly recommend!
How to play Street Fighter: a fighting game primer for everyone
Sorry to be a cynic, but:

"Promising to take a job with a particular firm can create a conflict of interest for an investment bank analyst, especially one assigned to work with private-equity firms on deals, bankers say."

Really, I don't think there will be too much hand wringing for these folks.