There are few better ways to damage someone's credibility than alleging rape, even if the allegations don't hold water.
His lawyers have pointed out that it's not a valid one since an EAW requires criminal charges to be filed first (and thus no EU state is obliged to pay it any attention and there's no chance whatsoever that it will result in an extradition).
And the Swedes have refused his offer to meet them both in Sweden and in the UK in the past eight weeks...
However, tarring and feather his political/espionage/leaking work with personal allegations seems wrong to me. His work at Wikileaks and drunken party happenings don't bear any relation to each other. Pursue him for being reckless with stolen diplomatic materials and prosecute him for it if there's a case under the law. Don't tar and feather his reputation like this, I think it's the wrong way of going about it.
I thought the criminal corrections system was about rehabilitation, not Hammurabi-style eye-for-an-eye justice.
I'm a political science student and a web developer, and though I don't claim to be an expert on either, I think a lot of you seem to think that the world is a whole lot simpler than it actually is. I've said it beforeâ"I think a lot of what makes geeks great at conceptualizing data and logic makes them terrible at understanding nuance and subtlety, and without the ability to see shades of grey, you're always going to have simplistic, naive understandings of the world. How do you operate on a day-to-day basis when you think that the government is out there to take away your freedoms and cover up conspiracies at every turn?
"BankSimple account plus BankSimple debit card replaces your existing personal bank account. Make deposits, withdraw cash, pay bills, earn interest, and more.
However, BankSimple is not a "bank." We partner with chartered banks who provide FDIC-insured products, leaving us free to concentrate on designing the complete consumer banking experience, via the web and your smartphone."
From the looks of it, it appears as if Bank Simple is going to be gathering deposits for the actual banks they partner with. In exchange, those deposits will be fenced in and administered by Bank Simple via the online and mobile presence.
The mention of debit cards at first made me think that maybe they would be able to split fees, so Bank Simple would get a cut of the interchange fees that occur whenever a debit card is used... but those fees will go away because of the Durbin Amendment (this is putting the squeeze on every major bank in the US and will result in an increase in fees for customers -- see Jamie Dimon's comments at the recent Barclays Conference).
Maybe the partner banks will split some of the interest they make off of the deposits? Presumably, Bank Simple's value proposition to them would be that they are providing something that is slightly more than zero cost funding but less than a CD rate. So they could earn a little bit in that area.
The only thing that is left then, that I could think of, is that Bank Simple will mainly try to make money by cross-selling products. Bank Simple Brokerage Accounts. Bank Simple Mutual Funds. Bank Simple Pre-Paid Debit Cards. That sort of thing, where they'd be able to gain market share. This would work out pretty well I think.
For reference, the average American uses 16 different financial products, with about 2 products per bank. A good bank like Wells Fargo boasts a ratio of 5.5-6 products per customer. Your typical bank earns its money on an 80/20 split, where 80% comes from the interest spread (borrow at 3%, lend at 6%, net 3%) and 20% comes from fees (overdraft, interchange, fees for other products). But a trust bank will have a 60/40 split, where they earn extra fees by offering wealth management services to the majority of their wealthy customers.
Mint got away with this by simply being a front-end, and never touching your money. BankSimple should try a little harder to prove that it's not just a company that can identify why banks suck (not all that hard, really), but a company that can actually be relied upon to safely handle your money.
* I know that BankSimple are putting all your money into an FDIC bank, but as the intermediary and the company you are doing business with, the buck stops with them (pun somewhat intended)
Did this happen to anyone else? In any case, best of luck to BankSimple. I can't wait to actually get to try the service. :)
(its explained at the bottom of the page)
He begins by positing that conspiracy and authoritarianism go hand in hand, arguing that since authoritarianism produces resistance to itself -- to the extent that its authoritarianism becomes generally known -- it can only continue to exist and function by preventing its intentions (the authorship of its authority?) from being generally known. It inevitably becomes, he argues, a conspiracy ...
the most effective way to attack this kind of organization would be to make "leaks" a fundamental part of the conspiracy's information environment. Which is why the point is not that particular leaks are specifically effective. Wikileaks does not leak something like the Collateral Murder video as a way of putting an end to that particular military tactic; that would be to target a specific leg of the hydra even as it grows two more. Instead, the idea is that increasing the porousness of the conspiracy's information system will impede its functioning, that the conspiracy will turn against itself in self-defense, clamping down on its own information flows in ways that will then impede its own cognitive function. You destroy the conspiracy, in other words, by making it so paranoid of itself that it can no longer conspire ...
The leak, in other words, is only the catalyst for the desired counter-overreaction; Wikileaks wants to provoke the conspiracy into turning off its own brain in response to the threat. As it tries to plug its own holes and find the leakers, he reasons, its component elements will de-synchronize from and turn against each other, de-link from the central processing network, and come undone.
... he quotes Theodore Roosevelt's words from his 1912 Progressive party presidential platform as the epigraph to the first essay; Roosevelt realized a hundred years ago that "Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people," and it was true, then too, that "To destroy this invisible government, to befoul this unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of statesmanship."
How valuable the disruption of communication is in fighting a "regime" depends on how you model that regime. And, of course, in practice you will find that reality is some bizarre chimera of any group of models. My intuition is that Congress (plus lobbyists) act more like a decentralized bureaucracy, executive administrations act more like dictatorships that fight against each other for territory, and that the closest things we find to Assange's "banal conspiracies" are small, ad-hoc, opportunistic alignment of objectives, much smaller, less powerful, and less stable than the government as a whole.
 In fact, lack of coordination could help a bureaucracy grow by fostering redundancy.
A long quote, yes, but I could not think of a way to shorten it without severely hindering its meaning.
This is a perfectly articulated description of how I initially felt about cable release. Wikileaks (and necessarily, at this point, Assange) is not trying to reveal a huge scandal, to embarrass or to destroy connections. If one or more of those things happen then so be it. The goal is to reveal, to expose the standard type and content of information that is traded like currency amongst the few who govern the very many.
The leak is an attempt at provoking forced honesty; if Wikileaks exposes a vast amount of cables enough times, the veil and shroud of secrecy that governments use as a personal cloak will continue to shrink and shrivel until it is non-functional. And voila! Now governments can no longer act in complete isolation from its people and governments such as that of the United States, which promise to be of and for the people, are forced to live up to that promise, out in the open. If you force the government into that situation harshly and fully enough, eventually it has no choice but to act that way. And finally it can be held accountable for its actions, positive or negative.
In short, the goal with all of these leaks is first and foremost to poke and prod through the secrecy and conspiracy until there is a large enough hole for the public to be able to view what its own government is doing on its behalf. Whether or not you feel that this is morally or ethically correct is up to you; this is just my take on the rationale.
When did we start thinking that we can have democracy and freedom without accountability?
It isn't about conspiracy theories. It's just common sense that some people will abuse their power if they can't be held accountable.
Anyone expecting the public to be shocked and outraged by a revelation ought to temper their hopes by reminding themselves how much publicly available information they find extremely shocking, and how different the typical voter's response to that information is.
Yes, this article is good; yes, some robots are incredible; as far as titles go though, it's a distasteful use of rhetoric.
It might work both ways: complete openness and complete falseness.
I don't see what purpose is served by releasing internals memos about what some diplomat located in Germany thinks about certain German politicians.
There's nothing evil in having a negative opinion about German politicians and communicating it to your boss. The People certainly don't need to know such micro level details. OTOH it does harm your diplomatic relations.
This is kinda like somebody hacking your Gmail account and releasing all your work emails to your startup's investors, because, after all, they're your investors, they deserve to know what's going on?
Peopel are always raining on each others' ideas
"Oh, what, you're going to make a myspace clone? Bahahahaha." (facebook)
"Oh, what, you're going to make a facebook clone? Bahahahaha."(twitter)
"Oh, what, you're going to make another dating website? Bahahahaha."
"Oh, what, you're going to make another social bookmarking website? Bahahahaha."
(Reddit, digg, hacker news, etc.)
This sort of "You can't improve on an existing design" rhetoric is usually coming from the same people who champion companies like netflix and say things like "The RIAA suing downloaders is like wagon wheel manufacturers suing car tire manufacturers! GET WITH THE TIMES, HELLO!"
You want to make a better dating website? Awesome, I hope you do and I hope it's better than okcupid! If it fails, guess who's going to come out the other side better than they were when they started?
You want to make an abstract machine learning system? Good! I hope you do! Guess who's probably going to be learning a lot about ML when they come out the other side?
You want to make a craigslist/ebay mashup? Good! Do it today! Start it right now and, if it's better than craigslist, my friends and I are all going to use it! How much are you going to learn about interface/UX design in the process?
You want to apply gaming mechanics to exercise? Good! Do it and tell me about it! That sounds awesome! Make an iPhone app for it, make a facebook app for it, let me pick random strangers across the internet to challenge at it. Make leaderboards and lots of badgers, and blog about it. If you fail, write more blog posts about why you failed.
I'm sorry, I'm sure the author of this blog post had good intentions; trying to help other geeks, but I find this sort of "don't even try this because it's a stupid idea and you're going to fail" attitude extremely harmful.
The first project I ever did was called http://newslily.com it was a fark/reddit/hn/digg clone. Did I sell it to google for 2 billion dollars and retire to a yacht somewhere just east of anywhere on the planet? No. Did I go from knowing absolutely nothing whatsoever about web development to being able to turn ideas into things? Yes.
My current project is called http://thingist.com . Have people said "oh, psh, you're making a twitter clone...boorrrrriinnnggggggg."?
Guess who doesn't care? My daydreaming about having 50 millions users is forcing me to learn about scaling, and how to use mod_python (oh, and if I get super crazy, maybe nginx as a web cache for my 10 users!). In a year, or two months, or six weeks, or however long it takes me to decide that, yeah, well, it's just another twitter clone and isn't going to get more than 10 users, I'm going to be 1 twitter clone closer experience wise to making something people love. (Although I still think that thingist isn't a twitter clone).
My advice: make 10 twitter clones and 20 abstracted ML frameworks. NOT doing this is like a running coach advising their runners not to waste their time jogging around their neighborhood because they're really not going anywhere anyway.
1. A better bug/issue tracking system
2. A custom CMS
3. A code library/platform for easily building Business CRUD apps.
4. A word processing app that has only the 20% features that 80% of Word users use.
5. A better classmates.com
It's pretty well-established in a number of professions outside tech, e.g. in law, a partnership of four or five lawyers will all get rich if any case that any of them took hits the giant-settlement jackpot.
- A social-networking site that totally respects my privacy and lets me own my data!
- An app store that lets anybody sell their digital stuff to anyone, not in some walled garden!
- A drag and drop interface that lets you make any program you want...totally code-free!
I could go on and on...
For example, the Craigslist killer can and has worked. The guys at RentHop and AirBnB are both attacking pieces of Craigslist's functionality.
The problem is that most nerds don't have the ability to pull these ideas off. Heck, most people in general don't have what it takes to build a successful company. There's a big difference between hacking on something for a weekend and building a company out of it (although you can't build a company without starting somewhere).
Overall, a lot of people (including many successful YC Founders) start out with stupid, unfocused ideas, and morph into something that's focused and solves a problem that people need solved. It's all just part of the process - if you wait for the perfect idea to hit you, you might never get started.
Dating sites, social travel (social anything), and Craigslist killer all depend on network effects.
A common argument for starting a new business is that "hey, someone else already has this idea, they've mapped out the market and proved it can make money." This works really well for things like restaurants where there is no network effect, no incentives for new users to go with well-established providers or disincentives for existing users to switch providers.
In the social/dating/craigslist space, you don't just need to build a better X, you need to convince people to leave the old X (or pray that they've never heard of the old X before and won't consider it) and sign up for your new X.
In terms of dating, social and craigslist at least you're only dealing with one type of customer. As soon as you turn to local events/businesses you needs to do this for two (the people looking for events and businesses, and the promoters and business owners).
Cable networks are similar businesses, but I think the key distinction is that they charged money for their services. Somewhat paradoxically, I think this makes it much easier for people to switch than if all the services are free - there is the immediate incentive of "save $10 a month!"
I think this is why AOL and Prodigy managed to make so much money. Then all the free (ad-supported) online services came along and basically wiped out the paid services, and intensified the network effect and its disincentive for switching to better services.
There's a YC company that does this in a general way but I would not label their use cases as "purposeless".
Anyone who loves to travel and wants to get out more, but is stuck inside writing friggin code all day gets this idea at least once. "Wait! How would I combine writing code with travel? I know, I'll make my own travel recommendation site." The irony is in reality I traveled wayyy less as a result of committing to this idea. Bummer
textbook swaptodo listdorm ratingapartment/roommate rating/reviewlocal business rating/review something to hack the stock marketbetter pet sitebetter dating sitebetter wedding site
I have seen real money spent on something along the lines of "Hey, we're in accounting business! Let's make a Facebook of accounting where accountants will create profiles and publish their annual and quarterly reports." (details changed to protect the guinnocent.)
Let's get empirical for a moment. If we are sifting through applications for funding, do you think that there is a significant correlation between whether a business is on this list or not and its eventual success or failure?
If the other factors driving outcomes--founder quality and so forth--have higher confidence levels, this kind of list isn't very useful.
There's nothing more pathetic then that guy who is the born skeptic and can't see beyond his own inability to find success, constantly putting down every idea his friends give him. I'm told that's what it's like trying to do a start-up in England.
* There's a sort of thing that there are many implementations of (website logins, say)
* Having many implementations is confusing, one canonical one would be better (Hey! Let's make OpenID!)
* They make a new one, announce it, everyone sees that it's not as mature as what they already have (Provider? XRI?)
* Nobody else adopts the new one, now there's one more competing implementation for the next never-gonna-work idea to contend with.
Note: I don't want to pick on OpenID, it actually works pretty well, but I needed an example.
Once you start looking for this pattern you see it everywhere: Linux distros, OpenSocial, OS X package managers, etc.
I suspect that the real value comes from execution of the idea, perseverance, and willingness to let your idea evolve until you've created something that people want. Often folks fail to recognize that the ability to execute and evolve (and be willing to fail) are traits that we don't all have, and so it's very possible that it couldn't have been them.
While there are probably some ideas that are doomed to fail, I don't think that label applies to any of the ones from the original post.
Other hard things of dubious utility people work on:
1. Local events
2. Local business directories (I was once removed from this space by working at a company that provided an integrated directory/SEM buying product to various Yellow Page companies around the world; the cynic in me thinks this is a great way to fleece small businesses, although if you try it really can drive a lot of business)
3. Microsoft Access for the web. Dabble DB tried (acquired by Twitter), I tried, http://formlis.com/ HN user warrenwilkinson) is trying. There's probably a bunch more. Google Forms and Wufoo seem to be the most successful with the least functionality. The hard part here seems to be getting people to know about the service. Companies typically contract these apps out, and the contractor companies are more interested in $30k contracts to build custom form apps and making busywork for PHP drones than reselling a solution where the customers or other contractors can cut them out as middlemen. Actually the more I think about it, the more I want to try this again.
The article sketches ideas that have promise and long odds. Five years ago, most people who were trying to create "yet another social networking site" looked dumb. One doesn't now.
There is are many reasons that most of the cool ideas people come with brainstorming late at night don't work. But it's not that they are bad ideas. The factors for failure include the distance between idea and execution, competition, the need for good design, etc..
It's just a question of whether you want to make an easy bet or a hard bet.
If I were building a dating site, it wouldn't be anything like what the original author suggests. Rather than focus on matching algorithms or ways to stimulate initiative (okcupid is already reasonably good at that), I'd focus on providing value after the initial connection has been made. I don't know of any dating site that does that well, at the moment.
I keep hoping that wikitravel will thrive but it's never very good...
as an outsider, with many west coast friends, it appears that both start-ups and investors move in herds. for example, six months ago it was location-based check-in services?
Machine learning: I hope Directed Edge is doing well (YC startup).
Social Travel: what are some good social travel sites? I don't know any.
(yes, I spent a long time creating a social network, no it went nowhere special :))
Made this but never followed through with it.http://brandonpaton.com/demo/
Why not? Technologically, or socially?
"headjs :: possibly the most important script after jQuery"
I'm all for cocky and confident attitude, I just think it has no place in a presentational web page/docs
So far I'm checking out LABjs, RequireJS and now apparently headjs. Unfortunately I am not so sure which will suit me best. Has anybody had any luck with any of the aforementioned three?
This will be, in the end, a net loss for the perception of Wikileaks in the public eye.
We're under very heavy load now.
Date: Tue Nov 30 01:34:15 2010Pseudo: mjflick - Savannah Hacker Comment: re: HappyCrow,
Only one project was targeted in this attack.
Second, a postmortem will be forthcoming, as well as more information shortly from the FSF staff, who are planning on making an official announcement about this.
Original issue date: August 13, 2003
[X] Reset passwords [/] Fix SQL injection and look for potential others [ ] Implement crypt-md5 support (like /etc/shadow, strong and LDAP-compatible) hashes [ ] Implement password strength enforcement
It illustrates how much of a pain SQL injections are, if they can affect the GNU project which has some of the most incredibly talented hackers worlwide...
Props to them for having a working backup strategy though.
Bag-of-words models perform pretty well at classification and search, and the main thing you need to improve search is to boost scores when words are close together.
You might think you could improve performance by using semantically better defined features, but even 92% accuracy adds enough noise to foil your plans.
It's a big problem in A.I. systems that have multiple stages. You might have 5 steps in a chain which are each 90% accurate, but put them together and you've got a system that sucks. Ultimately there's a need for a holistic approach that can use higher-level information to fix mistakes and ambiguities at the lower levels.
It's still fun to remember how quick and easy something like this is though. Any interest in similar articles on named entity recognition, sentiment/topic classification and spam filtering? I've been meaning to do a few for a while, but you know how it is.
Here are some questions:
- What happens when we change the language model? - What happens when we intersperse language models (English phrases within Chinese)?- What if someone were to just say "i love apple"?
This post title is also very misleading. The 92% accuracy reflects only one particular use case. How about attempting to disambiguate hundreds and thousands of terms?
It is a testmanet to NLTK that this can be accomplished in less than 100 lines.
Has anyone else seen this elsewhere? It's new to me and I was surprised by how obnoxious it was given that the web isn't exactly a stranger to obnoxious flashing content.
You know, I'm not actually against that so long as I can verify the end site in some way. Perhaps all traffic over this .p2p network should be SSL? And perhaps someone somewhere can hold a verifiable list of certs.
Basically, who in this arrangement can I trust to route my request to the right site? How do I know they won't lie? I know that applies now too, but DNS is based on trust and that generally means the roots are trusted and they won't risk that trust. In this decentralised world, who can be trusted?
For example, how will they protect against domain poisoning by someone hacking their client to send out fake entries which redirect a domain to something they own?
"By creating a .p2p TLD that is totally decentralized and that does not rely on ICANN or any ISP's DNS service"
Sadly, the acronym p2p is tied with media piracy. If this alternate DNS system relies on the .p2p TLD, ISP's will have an easy way to filter this traffic. Beyond simple blacklist blocking, similar to what Comcast is doing to Level 3, it would make more sense for ISP's to simply charge extra (a lot extra) to access the .p2p side of the Internet.
A similar conversation was had years ago around the .xxx TLD discussion. In the end, the Internet needs to be open and priced at a level where everyone can access the information contained within it. If the US, China, etc start to impose drastic, unresonable restrictions then we will have no other choice except to create alternate systems. Eventually, this will create a fragmented, disjointed Internet completely different from the one we are using now.
However, instead of supporting standard registrations my idea was more similar to Tor's .onion namespace:
You first generate a RSA keypair and build a hash of the public key. This hash is your domainname.
Then you timestamp your zonefile and sign it with your private key. Afterwards, you store the result in a DHT under the key of the hash generated earlier. DHT nodes responsible for your data verify that your signature corresponds to your public key and that your public key corresponds to the hash.
As a last step you need a way to retrieve the data: The first possibility is to use your own local resolver on your PC that queries the DHT. An alternative would be to have several public resolvers that make this data available under different subdomains.
Supporting non-hash domainnames is somewhat harder due to security problems (if you want to have a fully decentralized solution). However, it might be possible to do this with an approach similar to Bitcoin's, where a block-chain is used to store transactions.
Cool, so, uh, /etc/hosts?
I'd assume that anything of this nature needs critical mass more than anything else. Like Google Public DNS/OpenDNS supporting it on day one, or the next version of BIND (whenever /that/ happens!) having it built in.
I envision future where individuals and companies are free to buy/sell services and goods from each other, without government sticking in its nose.
Also, I envision p2p marketplaces, where online ads and other goods are sold and bought. Can anyone come up with an open source p2p AdSense killer? Do we really need Google to do it for us?
The page they meant to link to, within the normal dns root is:
>>>>>> http://wiki.opennicproject.org/dotP2PTLD <<<<<<<<<
update: what I wrote still stands, but it has been fixed in the article.
zk = suspended cymbal
bschk = snare
pv = brush
bk = bass
tk = flam1
vk = roll tap
kt = flam2
kttp = flam tap
krp = hi hat tap
pv = short roll
th = better hi hat
thp, ds = instant rimshot.
Edit Okay, there are Flash âListenâ buttons you can't see if you don't have Flash installed.
And yet, even in a browser with Flash, I hear nothing. All I see is a button that turns light blue and dark blue. Which is âplayâ? This is why I always rant about piss-poor UX from Google.
I still don't hear anything. Anyone have an MP3?
say -v cello d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d
edit: correction fr|fr => de|de
Can I pay to see it?
Both is.gd and safe.mn mangled it, I think it's the pipe characters. Thankfully bit.ly works...
It seems like in other languages it just reads out the letters.
Paying for transits is easy to understand, and in a complicated topology paying for bytes-in as a peer makes sense because they may be transits.
For a leaf node network like Comcast, whose customers pay to receive bytes and pay to have their connections installed to then demand payment from producers for supplying those bytes seems unjustified.
The author tries to hang this on the relatively higher build out cost per customer Mbps of residential nodes compared large commercial drops, but that is just different businesses. The residential providers already charge many multiples higher for bandwidth, this is just haggling about the multiplier.
From digitalsociety.org: "Digital Society is an independent 501(c)3 non-profit organization, funded by donations from Jon Henke and from Arts+Labs."
From artsandlabs.com: "Arts+Labs partners include entertainment companies, software providers, telecommunications providers, artists and creators committed to delivering innovative and creative digital products to consumers." (including NBC Universal)
From Wikipedia: "As of August 2010, Comcast's proposed acquisition of a majority stake in NBC Universal is pending government approval."
Comcast is charging Level 3 because they can.
It's technically impossible.
Even without netflix, the download to upload ratio is huge.
comcast is a customer of level3, not a peer. even though marketing has blurred the lines (i blame overly ambitious hosting companies), there is a very large difference between peering and being a transit customer.
what applies here is a transit agreement, even though george ou completely skips over that in his analysis by assuming comcast is not a customer.
to be redundant: this is not a peering spat, because comcast and level3 DO NOT PEER, comcast is a level3 customer.
I think he means contractually rather than legally, very big difference and suggests that this story is a beat-up. There is no way in the world that Comcast (a dedicated end user provider) was almost equal with L3 (almost dedicated to providing first-tier backbone to private networks and colo)
Peering is interesting in that you can get a lot of free hosting if you find a company that does a lot of inbound but no outbound. We hosted all of the OpenBSD, FreeBSD and 100+ other projects au mirrors for 10+ years for free hitting peaks of gbits+ because of the provider having to make up peering arrangements. I imagine Comcast would be the same (we did it with a similar company - home broadband provider)
This is definitely a case of Comcast attempting to double-dip and feeding a story to a journalist to get their side of the argument out (the journalist even put a hit on one of his competing publications for 'getting it wrong')
Comcast:"L3 you want to connect to all my cable customers fast and you don't want to pay even more to get to me through AT&T so lets make a deal."
It makes perfect sense that Comcast should be paid for access to their customers.
This is all sausage making details that go on all the time and shouldn't and probably still won't actually involve you.
Take it to the next level; design this for Mechanical Turk (https://github.com/aantix/turkee), and make this offer; for each prediction received, get a nickel. If you're on the right side with your prediction, receive an extra nickel. If you're within 0.5%, receive an additional nickel.
Not enough people utilize the "bonus" feature of Mechanical Turk as financial incentive to increase the quality of data they receive. You don't have to pay everyone the same. Reward better input.
What'd be really interesting would be if you got a couple thousand speculative plays on there, and allowed people to only submit on the industries they knew something about. Although that'd probably just lead to people only submitting their pet stock as "going to the moon!"
Nice job in any case though.
Don't try to beat the market.Don't try to beat the market.Don't try to beat the market.
A cunning strategy to discover Mary Meeker's HN account name.
In a way it seems like the fee to register is a freedom of speech issue. Pay an inconsequential tiny fee to run a blog, or potentially suffer huge financial losses. Kind of like the old Poll Tax from years ago.
It seems like being proactive as builders and maintainers of the internet, and getting a new field added to the WHOIS data for a DMCA takedown email addresses would make the process easier to administer for the complaintants, and more in keeping with Freedom of Speech that the United States is founded on.
Although I can understand that for larger sites that is not feasible - but for personal blogs, avoiding the $109 would be nice...
Just sounds like an infomercial to me.
Can't be more succinct.
My suggestion is that as soon as you've written one chapter you're sort of happy with, put it on HN for for feedback.
Now who will step up with a "Hacking for Designers"?
If anyone clicked on the link looking for information, I posted an 'Ask HN:' a while back on the same topic. Loads of people responded, with some great advice. It's here:
Problem: Site is disseminating information that you view as confidential at a slow rate.
Solution: DDoS / otherwise stop the site.
Catch: The entire archive of unfiltered content is already widely disseminated via a non-DDoSable channel and in the event that you ever actually manage to succeed at your stated goal there is almost certainly a dead man's switch to trigger distribution of the cryptographic key to unlock said information.
It seems to me that by pushing this option you just bring the "enemy" closer to the nuclear option of simultaneous, mass, unfiltered release. Unless you think they're bluffing with the insurance file, I suppose? Doesn't sound like a good risk to take.
The connection is open for the period of the delay. This might a viable attack vector for a DDOS? (If you cannot connect to FTP or ssh, you cannot upload files).
Note: Wikileaks is hosted on Amazon AWS Ireland. You're telling me the US government doesn't have the ability to pull an AWS server in Ireland with a phone call? Oh please. Wikileaks is a poor attempt by the US government to unleash an attack a group that funds its political opponents - this will occur in the near future.
tsl@crabapple:~> time curl http://wikileaks.org/ > /dev/null % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed 100 5837 100 5837 0 0 20684 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 30087 real 0m0.298s user 0m0.003s sys 0m0.005s
tsl@crabapple:~> dig wikileaks.org A | grep -A 1 "; ANS" ;; ANSWER SECTION: wikileaks.org. 2517 IN A 184.108.40.206 tsl@crabapple:~> dig -x 220.127.116.11 PTR | grep -A 1 "; ANS" ;; ANSWER SECTION: 18.104.22.168.in-addr.arpa. 300 IN PTR ec2-184-72-37-90.us-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com.
3 rtr-border1-p2p-core1.slac.stanford.edu (22.214.171.124) 0.796 ms 0.433 ms 0.400 ms 4 slac-mr2-p2p-rtr-border1.slac.stanford.edu (126.96.36.199) 0.371 ms 0.415 ms 0.400 ms 5 sunnsdn2-ip-slacmr2.es.net (188.8.131.52) 0.668 ms 0.709 ms 0.676 ms 6 sunncr1-sunnsdn2.es.net (184.108.40.206) 0.808 ms 0.842 ms 0.823 ms 7 eqxsjrt1-te-sunncr1.es.net (220.127.116.11) 1.231 ms 1.268 ms 1.247 ms 8 equinix01-sfo5.amazon.com (18.104.22.168) 1.930 ms 1.780 ms 1.516 ms 9 * * *
3 te2-7.ccr01.jfk07.atlas.cogentco.com (22.214.171.124) 0.564 ms 0.575 ms 4 ntt.jfk07.atlas.cogentco.com (126.96.36.199) 0.664 ms 0.659 ms 5 ae-2.r22.nycmny01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net (188.8.131.52) 0.760 ms 0.731 ms 6 ae-1.r20.asbnva02.us.bb.gin.ntt.net (184.108.40.206) 31.672 ms 7.974 ms 7 ae-0.r20.sttlwa01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net (220.127.116.11) 90.576 ms 98.458 ms 8 ae-4.r20.snjsca04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net (18.104.22.168) 93.544 ms 85.011 ms 9 ae-1.r21.plalca01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net (22.214.171.124) 90.292 ms 108.205 ms 10 po-2.r03.plalca01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net (126.96.36.199) 78.070 ms 82.080 ms 11 xe-3-3.r03.plalca01.us.ce.gin.ntt.net (188.8.131.52) 91.133 ms 91.491 ms 12 * *
3 vb1300.rar3.dallas-tx.us.xo.net (184.108.40.206) 4 msec 0 msec 4 msec 4 ae0d1.cir1.dallas2-tx.us.xo.net (220.127.116.11) 12 msec 0 msec 4 msec 5 dap-brdr-04.inet.qwest.net (18.104.22.168) 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec 6 snj-core-01.inet.qwest.net (22.214.171.124) 44 msec 44 msec 44 msec 7 snj-edge-01.inet.qwest.net (126.96.36.199) 48 msec 44 msec snj-edge-01.inet.qwest.net (188.8.131.52) 44 msec 8 184.108.40.206 48 msec 44 msec 44 msec 9 * * *
I wanted to spend more time with my family.
WHAT!? Yes, really. I had just gotten married, just bought an apartment, my wife was about to have our first kid and I started a business so that I could work from home and be with them more. I start at 7.30am and finish at 4.30pm. I usually work a half day on the weekend, and occasionally allow myself to take a weekday off to take my family to the zoo, or go shopping or whatever it is we feel like doing.
We're not rich, and we're always keeping an eye on the budget, but in exchange I've spent every day of the first two years of my sons life with him. In may we'll have our second, and I hope to achieve the same for him (or her!).
It IS hard work. I DO have to be disciplined. But with a careful balance of contract work and "Startup" work, we're doing ok.
We may never hit it rich, but whenever I hear my son cracking up laughing, I can walk out and see why and join in. That's worth more than any startup will ever be worth.
This is a gem:
"So, next time you read an article with the media glorifying somebody starting a company and working 168 hours per week, don't assume that's the only way or even the best way. It's just one way. It's just as possible to have your startup and friends and family too."
I went into the whole situation telling them "I've been through this before, and I will absolutely work hard, but not at the expense of my work/life balance". They agreed, and we got to work.
Sadly, they were shocked after about a week when I actually followed through and refused to work through the night, every night (we would definitely pull all nighters when it was necessary, but they wanted me to pull 12-14 hours a day every day as the sole technical co-founder). This issue became a large reason why I ended up needing to leave the team, regrettably.
Do you know right now that you need a balance between your work and your life? Sure you do! If it's your first time in the start-up game, will you actually put that into practice? In my case (and I would be willing to guess that a lot of you are the same), the answer is no. Some lessons must be learned the hard way, and this was one of mine.
I can attest to this and I think it is something that a lot of management types may not understand about the engineering work culture (at least in my experience). When we're in full steam our job's don't naturally lend themselves to down time like a game of golf with Gary from Sales might.
It's definitely a problem that I am still learning to deal with effectively and am always looking for tips/experiences from others.
When your head is constantly bouncing between code, product, algorithms, problem sets, tests it's hard to break away and focus on your family and financial obligations. If you don't though, you really do risk terrible burnout.
The best piece of advice I can give to anyone who feels they work too much is to learn how to say "no." It's easy to say yes, and it's very difficult to learn when and how to say no. The second best piece of advice I can give to anyone nearing burnout is learning to delegate. If you're a one-man show you can delegate to your todo list instead of to another person. Either case requires followup though.
Not everything is an emergency and maintaining your sanity should be your #1 priority throughout all that you do.
Suppose some games where the players choose a sequence of 3 and the game goes up to 4 tosses max. For any sequence of 3 there are going to be 4 possible ways to win. Let's suppose player one chose THT, the ways of winning are:
HTHT - game ends after 4 tossesTTHT - game ends after 4 tossesTHTH - game ends after 3 tossesTHTT - game ends after 3 tosses
Now, as player two, you know that any combination you chose will also have 4 ways of winning, so in order to beat player one you need to rob them of one of their ways of winning by picking a sequence that appears before their winning sequence.
You have no options in the latter two cases, player one wins after only 3 tosses, but you can beat them in the first two cases. Both HTH and TTH appear before THT, but in the third case THT appears before HTH. So HTH won't work, you both take one of each other's winning conditions leaving you both with 4. But there are no cases where TTH appears after THT, so you have 4 ways of winning while player one only has 3.
In the discussion a link was provided to a non-scribd version, so here it is. It's a 1.8MB ZIP of a PDF.
The idea is that it counts backwards in sleep cycles from the time your alarm has to go off so that you wake up during a light phase of sleep. Waking up in light sleep (vs deep sleep) will let you wake up feeling more awake, alert and refreshed.
If you're interested, the URL is http://sleepyti.me
I'd love to hear any comments or suggestions about the page, so if you have any feel free to let me know!