white_devil

> FiveYearItch supports the US, Australia, Canada, the UK, Israel, and India.

Why is supporting the EU more difficult than supporting any of those countries?

> Inmates have restricted free speech.

In other words, they don't have free speech?

> Last I know Sweden is not doing too well compared to Finland.

I don't know if that's the case, but if so, it just might be related to Sweden having shitloads of more Somalis than Finland.

> In your little world everything comes from the government, as well as your ideology it seems.

I suspect we may well share some sentiments, but you're coming off as needlessly argumentative. Yeah, sometimes I do too :p

> That's certainly your privilege and right but surely you have to recognize it automatically makes any discussion of politics with you impossible or at least, deeply unproductive.

Why can't he have worthwhile things to say about politics even if he's given up on voting? Actually, I suspect he'll have even better ideas now.

> It's just that lumping them all together as equivalent seems so utterly naive and simplistic and wrong that why even bother discussing politics with anyone?

Tell me, what exactly was the distinction between voting for Obama over Romney? How would life be different now, had Romney won? Would it be better? Worse? Would Romney have done something to actually help with the economy, unlike Obama?

What about jobs then? Would Romney have "created" jobs better than Obama (as if jobs could be created by central planning anyway)?

Lumping Obama and Romney together as roughly equivalent is exactly what someone who sees things for what they are would do.

But Somalia has a government. It's just not very effective at maintaining order, or interested in it. The point is that Somalia is just not a good argument for why life without governments would be bad, especially since it does have one.

Exactly. I wonder how many here manage to pry their eyes open.

Well, it's somewhat comforting to know it's mostly about user input. Thanks! Not that it's easy to secure input handling either.

I've seen that kind of timing attack discussed somewhere, and the solution there was to do some kind of byte-by-byte comparison that would always take the same amount of time. It makes sense.

Our economies are finally about to collapse under the weight of their impossibility, and that's likely to cause some kind of upheaval. That's not about Ethnic Group A hating Ethnic Group B, even though something like that may well happen all around Europe, for example. Economic rebalancing/calamity will come first though.

> In the US there is not such a distinction. If we suffer an economic collapse (whatever the cause), we're taking the world with us.

You could also argue that if Europe collapses, it will take down the US too. It could go either way, or there may be some kind of localized collapse. All continents have their Powers That Be, and those of other continents might well be able to detach themselves from one continent going down. All that really matters is order, and the ability to keep things chugging along.

> We need to spy on the government as invasively as the government spies on us. We need to legalize that globally.

The problem with this idea is that governments themselves would have to legalize "spying" on them, whatever that would mean after it's been legalized.

> That way no leader will ever have any real power to do anything.

That's a nice thought, and if you take it a bit further, you may end up thinking there should be no government at all.

> humankind will always enjoy subjective perspectives and interpretations of reality

Sure, but that's a bit different from Keynesian economics being taught as gospel for decades.

It bugs me that apparently, everything I'll ever host can just be "owned" at will by some random bunch of hackers doing whatever they feel like doing. Is it feasible for a "mere mortal" to stay safe?

Don't get an economics PhD. As some have pointed out, a lot of the "status quo economics" is just hand-wavy nonsense, and there might not be much demand for that stuff five years from now.

> You seem level-headed enough about your points, and I can agree with them with the caveat they tread very close to the dividing line between politics and race

Yeah, I know. You're a bit confused. Originally you wanted to call him a racist, but then he changed his tone to be politically correct enough to make such accusations look foolish, even in the eyes of other hypersensitive sheeple.

You need to come to terms with reality. For example, the implications of a room full of Muslims going apeshit over a video should be clear to anyone, even if they reflect negatively on a group of people.

> I don't approve of generalising about religion and people like this

You may not approve of "generalizing about religion", but they did, in fact, go apeshit exactly as predicted (through a filthy generalization, no less).

> and I don't agree with the points you're trying to make.

Then perhaps you think going apeshit over a video and attacking people is suitable behaviour for a civilized society? Or perhaps your reaction would have been the same?

> The video also seems like a carefully crafted media stunt designed to make a point.

That's right. The point they successfully made was: "These people are not fit for a civilized society.".

> yours is not the first time I've heard a European utter the notion as if it's the most natural conclusion in the world.

Perhaps you remember our little debate about Somalis in Finland? Do you remember losing it?

You still don't get it. Europe has no problem with immigrants who come here and support themselves and adapt to our societies, but Europe does very much have a problem with Muslim immigrants.

They come here because they know they can just waltz in and start living on welfare. But they don't want to adapt to their host countries. Instead, they want the West to adapt to them. Here's a bunch of Muslims in Sweden, being shown a video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHsTIDekFGM .. Can you guess why it started with police officers present in the room? -Why that's precisely because the organizers knew the video would make Muslims go apeshit.

And go apeshit they did. Right away. Listen to them frantically shouting "allahu akbar" and think about what's going on. What's going through their minds? Is this kind of behaviour suitable for a civilized society? What would your reaction to that video have been? Do you think it warranted raging and attacking people?

This is not about racism. It's about facing reality and seeing it for what it is, even despite our governments' efforts to hide it. Again, we have no problem with immigrants who support themselves and behave in a civilized way. It's just that we have way too many who don't.

Why US only?

If "high-intensity electromagnetic emissions" from cell towers kill people, I doubt making them safe is just a matter of placement.

If you want to place some in the middle of a city, they will be close to a lot of people, and if their emissions kill people, it's probably not a good idea to place them near lots of people. But they have been placed pretty much everywhere. It appears that either you're overstating the dangers, or we're both about to die any second now.

> @stekenwright We’re sorry to hear of your issues and would love to engage. Please message us so we can help

Translation: "Your blog post detailing our scuzzy spammery is getting seen by lots of people. We're uncomfortable with that, and would like to get you to say we're not so bad after all."

Didn't a few people voice their concerns with Dwolla recently on HN? Something about trouble with getting their money?

A collapse offers even better opportunities!

> The flipside of that in anecdotally I've heard that companies that really /should/ die limp along from a long time and get more funding in the US. Is this true or just a myth?

Banks that get bailed out are companies that should have died.

Is the talk's central idea that abstractions are bound to leak and we'll just have to deal with it? I did skim through the beginning of it, but then Youtube's player suddenly skipped to the end and stopped, and I moved on.

The thing is, SQLAlchemy's SQL Expression API is a suitable-level abstraction: high enough to be useful, but not high enough to guarantee leaks. I'm happily making queries with one-liners, and haven't had to circumvent it yet, but I bet I'd have run into trouble with any ORM already.

Look, I'm willing to believe that SQLAlchemy is the bad-assest ORM on the planet, but I'm not convinced I'll never need to circumvent it to get something done, and I'm free to consider that a problem (along with other commenters, it seems).

As I mentioned, I'm very happy using SQLAlchemy's lower level API. It's a helpful and elegant abstraction over queries and table definitions etc, and I've never needed to circumvent it yet. I'm also convinced that the delightfully flexible/powerful Mako is hands down the best templating library for Python. You, sir, Rock. But you come off as needlessly argumentative in this thread.

Have you ever tried Opera's Mouse Gestures? Trying to use another browser is a similar experience to you helping your colleagues with IDEA.

The problem with ORMs seems to be that they're a leaky abstraction. I've been very happy using SQLAlchemy for quite a while now, but I'm intentionally only using the SQL Expression API. Based on my experience with Hibernate, there's always something you want to accomplish that necessitates circumventing your ORM.

Not only that, but typically you end up balancing between stuff being unavailable because of lazy-loading, and one pageview taking 30 seconds because the ORM collected all the dependencies.

He meant that if your goal is to make money with a business, then you should start with businessy stuff like figuring out if there's a market for what you want to build.

You're free to start a business by building the product of your dreams, but no matter how much you personally like it, there's no guarantee people will pay for it. In other words, if you want money, but start with building a product, you're likely to have a bad time.

But if you just want to build an awesome product, and don't care about whether you make any money with it, then there's no problem.

Don't worry, it's just a PR-stunt. Just sit back and watch CISPA pass.

> Source? Do you have ANY evidence of this whatsoever?

Sure, let me just dig up that link where the Swedish government says the whole case is a sham!

> Are you suggesting, because Logica is big, bloated, makes "shitty" software, or makes tax software, they should be open game to hackers? You are ridiculous.

I implied that tax records were mentioned because someone seeing everyone's tax records is bound to make a lot of people feel uncomfortable. In other words, mentioning tax records in that context was done to shape the public opinion on the case.