susi22

Wow this is a flash in the past for me. Where I worked at in 2005 we shipped several Automotive Embedded software stacks. We had to support ~60-70 uC platforms with a combination of about ~50 different compilers. All kinds of different versions, sizes etc..

We had a Makefile project in place with about >10k LOC that was modular enough that after it was pre-processed we had a functioning Makefile environment which was fast and did all kinds of things. It worked and maintaining and debugging it was actually not too bad since Makefiles are just rules.

Ever since then I just kind of love Makefiles.

Interesting article. Though I think in most serious production environments there is an NGINX or varnish in front of node.js which handles all these cases (and more)

Same here. I do a

    (ssh -fqN -o "StrictHostKeyChecking no" git@bitbucket.org >&/dev/null &)

with bitbucket and github in my zshrc and bitbucket stays open but github is getting closed at some point. It used to stay open however.

Yes, the later chapters are tough. But I'd definitely say you don't need much preliminary discrete math in the first couple chapters. Let's say up to chapter 6 (Special Numbers)

Offtopic: Concrete Mathematics is the best book I've ever read. If you have a chance get it. It requires very very little pre knowledge of math.

Nothing exciting here to see. He/She also forgot many many things. Updating the system and enabling automatic security updates should be the very first step. Also generating SSH host keys. But there is way to do.

Please consider making the font color higher contrast. Not everybody has a super bright LED display. It's hard to read for me.

I really like this since the source code is well documented and explains everything right in the code.

Not like todomvc which is supposed to be for beginners yet have almost no comments...

https://github.com/tastejs/todomvc/blob/gh-pages/architectur...

I don't want to have to think when I read a book. The author has to lead me through and follow a path. The auther has to make sure I get a decent introduction and he should make every sentence count.

This is nice to play. And maybe even has it's applications such as documentation where quick browsing helps. But if I had to read a thesis/book like this I'd be a very unhappy person.

I'm slightly disappointed by the article. It's a novel and interesting topic but wired fails to explain the details of how this works and doesn't even try to explain the physics behind it. IMO it wouldn't be too difficult, since the idea is actually quite simple and can probably explained to a non-technical reader in a few sentences.

In my opinion the Figure A in this PDF really explains it well:

http://acg.cis.upenn.edu/papers/ieeemicro13_responsiveness.p...

(page 3 of pdf)

CTRL+Space "ful" <enter> ("Toogle full screen")

Admittedly, that's not too user friendly

Will likely be out after 8-8.5 years:

https://twitter.com/ColMorrisDavis/status/370188695833280512

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Davis

Source? There seems to be more at the bottom.

I know only of these guys:

http://www.kroll.com/

HTH

One thing that this kind of low level "interface" allows is a very rapid development of coding tools. How long until we see a context-context sensitive auto completion pop up? These language features would even allow more complex hints. Language analyzers can find bugs and note them right when writing code.

Of course, this is nothing new and already done in a few languages. But these features will make it easier (and hence faster) for the IDE to have some awesome coding features.

The problem is that you have been ingrained the picture of terrorism to be a bomb blowing up, killing people or crashing planes. This is how probably 99% of all people would define terrorism (me too). However, laws cannot just talk about a common word without defining it. Everything needs to be made precise. That is what this law is doing in their very first sections. It defines what terrorism includes. And I quoted that in my first reply which you may re-read. It does define terrorism differently.

As has been noted by others, Miranda had potentially national security related material which can be interpreted as (a) or (b) of above.

This will be my last response.

Laws are not black and white. If they were, judges had a far easier job. Laws are made by the legislative and are interpreted by not only the judiciary branch but also by the executive branch.

What has David Miranda done which violates that law? Miranda was not charged with anything, he did not violate a law. He was brought in for questioning and seized of his property. This is allowed since the law is aweful and can be interpreted this way. If it was unlawful the prosecution could prosecute the police that did this. They likely won't since the law is fuzzy.

Again, I'm not supporting any of this. I'm just trying to shed some light into this since most comments her on HN are simply complaining about UK/US without digging deeper and asking themselves why this is possible and why nobody has been charged with anything yet.

Law are not black and white

Too bad Jusben1369 is getting downvoted. He made a point. It's also that the Terrorism Act of 2000 defines Terrorism very very broadly [1]

(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government [or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [, racial] or ideological cause.

It looks like the officers in London did act according to law. If that law makes sense or not is an entirely other discussion.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2000

The Julia team has made it a convention to end functions with a '!' that alter your input variables.

http://docs.julialang.org/en/latest/stdlib/base/ (4th point)

Stephan, sorry for using this thread to ask you a question:

In the last ~5-10 year everything has moved more an more to the web. HTML5+JS have pretty much replaced Flash,Java and other proprietary stuff. ~10 years ago it was almost all PHP, ASP. Then came Python etc.

If you look at the speed that libraries were developed for node.js (and now Go), it seems like the web-dev community can really push forward a technology if it can be used to serve web content.

Q: Is there anything done in Julia, to actively attract web-devs for it? I think that if Julia were "promoted" to also be perfect use as a web-server it would attract much more developer and speed up library development.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a web-dev, but would use Julia to replace MATLAB, but I think it might be a good strategy for Julia to speed up the development (especially for libraries).

nytimes.com has been down for >80Min

More about it here:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/592620/check-if-a-program...

James,

did you guys consider (or try out) Eureqa [1] to get a good model for the estimate? It works very well with such kind of data.

[1] http://creativemachines.cornell.edu/eureqa

As with many data analysis posts: Give me more information about the data. In this case it could be particularly interesting. You have correlation and you estimate the temperature through indirect measurements. The important word here: estimate

As with all estimates I care about the error and not much else. The only error measure provided is mean absolute error which I find a little bit unsatisfying. It gives only very little information about the behavior of the error.

The easiest is to compute the error for every sample and then show a histogram of it.

Why you might wonder? In this case we deal with varying -though often over time stabalizing- data. This means that sometimes the error is actually greater and then very little. If you take the absoluate value of it and take the average (MAE), you might underestimate (resp overestimate) the error at times. In this case I might expect a tri-modal error distribution if we consider positive & negative errors.

A histogram is much more expressive (and oh so simple to generate) than a simple MEAN, STD DEV, MAE or MSE.

Don't call it "server manifest". It'll confuse people. You mean "inventory". You can dynamically populate "facts" and "inventory". See:

https://github.com/ansible-provisioning/ansible-provisioning

http://jpmens.net/2013/06/18/adapting-inventory-for-ansible/

Especially for ec2 there is many modules that allows you to do that too. You can easily specify an inventory file which you populates dynamically.

There is also a lot being done about this in v1.3.

HTH

This blew up more than I expected. It is the front page story now of Spiegel Online (one of the top German newspapers).

Serious question: Could they build their IT center on big boats like casinos?

Sure, the traffic would still go through US, but that can be encrypted (with something better than SSL).

See...

This is exactly what I'm trying to tell people here on HN. A few weeks back there were discussion about SmartOS, then Zones, Containers, Virtualization, Para-Virt. etc. etc..

Most people here on HN had very little knowledge about Zones/Containers a few months ago. Right now people seem to think Containers are just as good as Virtualization (and can replace it) but have a better IO performance due to all having one Kernel. The problem is: It is _not_ going to replace Virtualization any time soon since the security is missing. It's very very easy to break out of a Container, heck even a Zone.

This is exactly what I'm trying to preach. You can put different users on Containers (what we do with ~1000 Users) but you can't give them root or you've compromised the entire host.

The first link to suse.com should be valid enough. If you want to know the details about security and if it can be done, I'd suggest mailing the lxc user list.

I'm just trying to debunk this myth that Container are just like super fast and easy Virtual Machines. They are not (at least not yet).

I do know those things. It doesn't change the fact that you can _easily_ break out of a Container and compromise neighboring Containers. No matter how much to harden the system you implement.

Who is using LXC in a _shared_ hosting environment?

IF you have root on the container, you have root on the host. This is a HUGE difference and probably one of the main reasons LXC isn't in huge use for VPS.

This is, btw, different than Solaris Zones, which give you a complete new user management for each container. They're very isolated. Zones have had some exploits to get out of the Zone, but they're pretty secure. LXC has started moving towards a more secure design but it will take years (IMO) to get LXC actually in production for _shared_ hosting.

See:

https://www.suse.com/documentation/sles11/singlehtml/lxc_qui...

Security depends on the host system. LXC is not secure. If you need a secure system, use KVM.

http://www.funtoo.org/Linux_Containers

As of Linux kernel 3.1.5, LXC is usable for isolating your own private workloads from one another. It is not yet ready to isolate potentially malicious users from one another or the host system. For a more mature containers solution that is appropriate for hosting environments, see OpenVZ.

http://lwn.net/Articles/515034/

"Containers are not for security", he said, because root inside the container can always escape, so the container gets wrapped in SELinux to restrict it ... A number of steps have been taken to try to prevent root from breaking out of the container, but there is more to be done. Both mount and mknod will fail inside the container for example. These containers are not as secure as full virtualization, Walsh said, but they are much easier to manage than handling the multiple full operating systems that virtualization requires. For many use cases, secure containers may be the right fit.