aneth4

I do get your reference. I was a java developer since 1996. 2000 was 13 years ago and ruby is far older than Java was then, so hardly a valid comparison.

I am a ruby developer and ruby is dog slow.

I call bullshit.

It's almost impossible to argue that the public benefit of Groklaw is outweighed by the risk of the site receiving emails that will be exposed. Using the same position, every site on the internet should should shut down, people should stop sending all postal mail, using phones, and we should all go live in caves. This is really signaling surrender to the anti-freedom terrorists who occupy our national security department, and I think it's counterproductive.

If I'd had to guess, Pamela was ready to stop publishing Groklaw and wanted to go out making a big statement about a major threat to our future. I can thank her for that, though I think the message is somewhat muddied by the grandstanding defeatism.

Sort of takes away from the "power" and "beauty" of the language when you need to dissect your code and understand the runtime to get reasonable performance.

So make an account without personal information. What's the big deal?

I'm not sure why, but the word rubyist always irks me. It strikes me as pompous and egotistical. And I've been a ruby developer for 7 years.

I have no idea what you are trying to say for all Americans, but as an American, I'm pretty sure you're not speaking for me.

This is an excellent example of angry, prudish anti-sexism being sexist.

Americans need to get over themselves and recognize that sexuality and attraction are part of what makes life wonderful. Persistent sexual harassment and coercion are not acceptable. Appreciation and recognition of beauty are life affirming.

That said, I think the ads are in poor taste, not because they are women, but because they are quite obviously intended to be sexy. If it were a man in a tuxedo winking in the camera I'd feel the same way.

I don't think they should be banned. Toptal should eventually figure out they are getting horny men clicking on their ads instead of funded companies.

I think LinkedIn recognizing that the presence of women were the problem is abhorrent and they will be issuing apologies shortly.

Beautiful project. I agree with others who don't think this will drive conversion - who knows...

I would be concerned about reducing conversions though. Unfamiliarity can be scary.

One annoyance for me - I can't hit Command-A to select everything and start over. I'm also annoyed generally by auto-advancing text fields, though this implementation seems to work around some of the issues.

The resulting code may be the same. The resulting repository and history most certainly are not.

So your making the argument that enough time has elapsed in which the car maker could have fixed the problem. In other words, you are not making an argument supporting publishing freely and immediately. You are implicitly supporting restraint for at least as long as some subjectively determined time it should take for the manufacturer to fix the issue, and support publishing as a method to pressure the manufacturer. This is entirely different from supporting free speech at any cost.

You then go on to say there is no ethical imperative to withhold information that may harm others, which is both wrong and contrary to your prior implication - that publishing is ok after a window has passed for the issue to be resolved.

This reasoning is contradictory and flawed.

Personally I have some sympathy for the argument that possessing child porn should not be criminal. There are arguments for this. They satisfy urges and curiosities without victimizing real children. They are documents of abuse that could lead to more victims being discovered and perpetrators being prosecuted.

We do not, for instance, ban rape porn (yet) because there is no evidence it harms society. Cp is somewhat different because the children can not legally consent, whereas in produced rape porn the acts are consensual.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22803502

Yes. In the future when child abusers are liberated from political oppression we will look back shamefully on these offensive popups suggesting they seek help.

By the same token, google cares less about child abuse than the competition? Or maybe they just have a different view on when their intervention is appropriate or helpful.

Who's to say malicious people DON'T already have the codes? Clearly Volkswagen and the court believe they do not.

I agree that a perpetual ban is not acceptable in this case. Industry should have to fix the situation and the keys should not be predictable from this hardware.

The argument you are making - that the keys are already available - is not being made elsewhere here and is probably untrue. If it were true, there would be no reason to ban this publication nor would it be anything other than folly.

Given that Volkswagen spent significant effort to block the publication, I have to presume you are just making shit up.

Even if what you say is true, the argument being made here on HN is that the keys should be published regardless of whether they are available already - which is, quite simply, ethically indefensible.

I am surprised not to find a single response supporting restraint from publishing these codes. Is this community really that foolish? First, of course if there is a flaw, it should be studied and fixed inasmuch as possible. Reasonable people can debate whether it's appropriate to publish methods and flaws, though the free speech question is more murky here. However publishing the actual keys - as opposed to the methods - is madness.

Let's consider parallel situations not involving protecting rich peoples' luxury posessions, which seems to be clouding everyone's judgement here.

Some examples where an encryption key is discovered or reverse engineered, and a scientist wants to publish them:

- a key which can shut down every ventilator

- a key which can remotely control the throttle on high speed train

- a key which can explode a nuclear warhead

- the key to your bitcoin stash

- the google master ssl private certificate

There are an infinite number of such examples. I'm shocked and disappointed that the HN community finds publishing keys, as opposed to systematic flaws, acceptable.

Presumably the cognitive dissonance arises from a distaste for rich people. However even if this mostly results in mere car theft, it could also easily result in the innocent being harmed.

Free speech, even under the US first amendment, rather clearly does not apply to publishing private encryption keys, particularly ones that can cause grave harm.

Shame on the HN community.

What if the headline were:

Scientist banned from revealing codes used to control school bus brakes

You represented that TSA treats you like a criminal, which implies a vastly different type of treatment than what actually occurs.

TSA have always treated me and everyone I know decently. Airport security is basically the same as it was 30 years ago. It's really disgusting and irresponsible to attack the TSA for carefully and respectfully enforcing regulations. I have no problem attacking idiotic regulations and regulators.

I have no idea what The H is, however they seem to have a strong community?

Have they tried the "we need money and to rails $50,000 before x or we will shut down" method? That seems to work for many popular sites, where people are happy to contribute $10-$100 for the value in their lives.

You still don't have control over the UI....

What evidence is there that google will ever stop supporting IMAP? What makes you think another provider is not going to stop supporting IMAP, or stop existing at all? What's so hard about switching providers if google does drop IMAP, particularly if you're using your own domain?

Indeed, and I'll repeat:

"It's rather clear you have no idea what criminals are treated like."

I don't find the experience of the TSA remotely like being a criminal. It's rather clear you have no idea what criminals are treated like.

Generally the TSA x-rays my bags looking for weapons and makes me walk through a metal detector, then I go on my way. Sometimes the line is 15-20 minutes, though usually it's less than 5. Sometimes there's a millimeter wave body scanner that some might find intrusive - personally I couldn't care less if a TSA employee sees my junk, and those that object can opt for a pat down. Those that object to being touched might be better served by a therapist than a plane ride.

This objection to flying because of the TSA is a psychological problem on your part and has nothing to do with reality. Unless you are carrying prohibited items - knives, liquids, etc - you will almost never encounter a problem with the TSA. Sure, the rule may be arbitrary and ridiculous, but they are not particularly onerous or oppressive either. I certainly make comments on bad policies and advocate for change. The system is nowhere close to the gestapo crazies seem to make it out to be.

Of course, you're likely psychotically obsessed so this will mean nothing to you, but get some help.

Are you suggesting everyone write their own email client?

Because filters and labels are so fun to manage.

Why is this always brought up? I fly several times a month. While the TSA is an annoyance and has silly policies, they have always been curteous and efficient. The only consideration I have for the TSA is that I can't bring knives on the plane and I need an extra 15 minutes for the line. Other than that they are innocuous to me.

That UCSB review is extremely amusing as is the other one linked.

Thank you for those.

http://hep.ucsb.edu/people/bmonreal/Null_Physics_Review.html

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~fiski/ouu_review.html

I agree it seems like pseudoscience.

Actually I did look for information to discredit the theory about a year ago. There appears to be more out there now. At that time I did lose interest after reading about problems with tired light.

Regardless, it's an interesting theory from a philosophical perspective, even if it has major problems.

At the very least you should probably look at the theory before claiming to discredit it. The "radiation" is lower energy microwaves which are quickly scattered.

As for your other questions, these are addressed in the theory. How about reading that first.

I became extremely fascinated by null cosmology, which explains red shift as the result of light losing energy to [background] radiation as it travels. That [background] radiation becomes essential in the cosmological cycle involving the endless birth and death of galaxies via black holes.

While the theory seems to be collecting dust, I've not found anything to fully discredit it.

http://www.nullphysics.com/pages_cosmology.php

Update: I'm writing from my iPhone and haven't looked into this in a while. When I said radiation I was referring to low energy cosmic microwave background, which is easily scattered. Read the FAQ if you have questions. I do not claim to fully represent the theory in the above paragraph.

So, the fact that I would speculate that the fundamental make-up of the cosmos might (not "must" as you mis-quote) be related to how consciousness is an emergent property of the cosmos is bizarre?

I think your discounting of such questioning and speculation is bizarre.

Consciousness is either entirely made up of "particle physics" or it is made from something even further into the field of speculation. Why would speculating about a connection between particle physics and consciousness be remotely "bizarre"? It seems quite likely to me that quantum mechanics is at least in some way involved in consciousness, given that that quantum physics governs the behavior of the matter of our brains.

Stop the press. Device designed to record all of your behavior reveals what you are doing all the time.