2,233 karma · joined June 16, 2009
On Lobsters: moderation is public info, and so is who invited who. Downvotes require reasons, and they are undoable.
Send me an email (itistoday at gmail) with your HN profile and temporarily place your email info in your HN profile so that I can verify you.
BTW, the title is "inflammatory" because the situation justifies it. It's an inflammatory situation, as it should be!
Find whatever excuse you want though for not approving this. Whatever helps you sleep.
In an indirect way, you are also helping contribute to Manning's continuing detainment and torture. Sleep with that.
The President of the United States is blatantly violating the Constitution (in one of the worst ways), and nobody cares.
Yet this is?
Show HN: New Fwix Local API (from the team at Fwix)
4 points by goo 56 minutes ago | flag | 1 commentIn Dropbox's case, users can expect the following:
- Data is probably secure from sniffers
It matters little whether "Drew has physical access to our storage servers anymore". Your code obviously has easy access to the keys used to encrypt and decrypt the data. This means all of the following scenarios are possible:
- User's data is obtained via the government (users
aren't necessarily even informed about this)
- User's data is obtained by rouge employee (potentially
leaking to _anyone_ or _anything_)
- User's data is obtained by hacker (again, implies ZERO
assurance of data security).
No, it doesn't.
As a result of a settlement in the case, the FBI lifts the gag on Nick Merrill, the ACLU's client and the first NSL recipient to challenge the records demand.
Certainly that is not HN's place or purpose. HN's purpose is to provide high-quality Hacker News. Its readership gets to decide what that is.
(Sidenote: A side effect of that is, yes, a force that can influence the fate of one project or another.)
If this app is really so outrageously bad, then it seems odd to devote several of the top stories on HN to it; perhaps leave that to Reddit. ;)
Actually, I do know why. It's a depressing disenchantment with government.
They don't understand that government is not going anywhere, and that government can be as good as it can be bad.
The quote zmblum posted is brilliant, and it is an example of what Good Government is capable of. It is not just for your 5th grade civics class. It's for RIGHT NOW. Read the quote, understand and respect it and its authors, and take action. The government is not just them, it's also you, and sitting on the sidelines being cynical is supporting them.
Q: Why doesn't the EFF fund this?
A: Ask them. They have offered to provide some legal help though, which is much appreciated.
Near the start of the uprising, parts of the protest pamphlet were leaked online (http://j.mp/hZf7uY) before the protest was set to take place. The pamphlet explicitly requested secrecy so that the details of the protest would not get into the hands of the government.
I was lying in bed in San Francisco, watching as news of this broke out on my iPhone twitter stream. Many people, myself included, were able to convince the author of the piece to delete his tweet with the link to the post, and while the post itself wasn't taken down, I wasn't able to find it from the publication's front page, and the post itself was edited to include a link to a video submitted by a twitter user of a man being shot and killed by the Egyptian police.
And that's just a small incident I happened to stumble across. I think that illustrates how profoundly the world has changed, where individuals, anywhere on the planet, can influence people and events in ways that can have significant consequences. All that, through a few tweets.
The ability to communicate thoughts, events, instantaneously, as they happen, and from the people actively involved in those events around the world, is unprecedented in human history.
The revolution has been tweeted. It does not depend solely on twitter and the like, but these are not tools to be underestimated.
Just compare the quality of the content you're getting by following people actively engaged in the revolution on twitter, with what you see on CNN. This is revolutionary.
In a truly free country, you would, for example, have the freedom to eat whatever you want (so long as it doesn't impinge on other people's freedoms). You would be able to have sex with whoever you wanted (so long as both parties are 'mature enough' to agree). This too, is not the case in the states. You would be able to marry whoever you wanted. You would be able to do to your body whatever you wanted. In a truly free country, you would have the freedom to do things that in today's non-free country we consider taboo, punishable offenses. Etc.
SQLSTATE[08004] [1040] Too many connections
About as stereotypically Harvard a piece I've seen. It's similar to what one may observe in the wild when birds puff up their bellies to look intimidating. While it may impress a mate or scare off a potential predator, keen wildlife observers know it's just a show.
The substance of the piece did not justify its volume.
Come to think of it, if they actually do release an apology, it will probably serve as an additional boost to the book's sales.
It makes me wonder whether the author of the original piece was just an inconsiderate asshole, or an evil genius who's getting a slice of the pie and planned out the "lie" and apology in advance as a marketing stunt. Either way, there's an idea. Don't recommend it though. :-P
Correct! Your company can fire you for saying something bad about it online, but they can't throw you in jail. No one can throw you in jail for what you say online (with technical exceptions for some forms of hate speech I believe). Companies can't do it, nor can the government. Why? Because of... heh, The Government!
You've got press blackouts in the 1940s, you have the PMRC triggering congressional hearings about musical content in the 80s, you've got crypto laws in the 90s, you've got the DMCA, you've got the DHS seizing domains, you've got calls to have Wikileaks banned. Your all-caps "the government" did these
Yes. Sometimes the government violates its own laws. And when it gets caught doing that, other parts of.. The Government, actually spring into action. This is called the system of Checks and Balances, and you may have heard of organizations such as the ACLU and the EFF making use of it to correct the Government's behavior using... The Government.
The internet, as a whole, belongs to no one. It belongs to us all. In a sense, it is Public Property (on the whole). Protecting it is therefore the responsibility of The People, through the mechanism known as Government.
(Edit: BTW, you'll note that most of the examples you cited happen to be caused by contamination in The Government caused by the private sector, known as regulatory capture (as another commenter pointed out).)
Maybe, one day, regulatory capture will be a thing of the past if The People wake up and learn what that is.
> Regulation = Freedom only in George Orwell’s 1984.
I guess we should stop regulating that whole "freedom of speech" thing. Who protects your freedom of speech? AT&T? Verizon? Did you forget?
THE GOVERNMENT.
Who makes sure your kids can drink from the same water fountains that white-kids drink?
THE GOVERNMENT.
I could go on of course, perhaps quote that god awful regulation known as the Bill of Rights, but I think the point is clear. Unlike a company, its sole purpose isn't to "maximize profit". Its "Board of Directors" (Congress) and "CEO" (President) is elected by the entire People of the United States (or [insert country-name here]). We have the power, every few years or so, to throw these elected representatives out.
Net Neutrality is our generation's freedom of speech debate, and just like free speech, it needs to be protected. Yes, by... THE GOVERNMENT, because that's how you protect the nation as a whole.