ajays

Meanwhile, it's perfectly OK for Netanyahu to keep threatening to bomb Iran: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/02/brief-history-...

It's perfectly OK for the US/Israel to attack Iran's industrial infrastructure with a virus: http://www.wired.com/2014/11/countdown-to-zero-day-stuxnet/ (an act that Obama said would be an "act of war" if done to the US)

It's perfectly OK for Israel to kill Iranian nuclear scientists: http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/US-pressuring-Is...

And it's perfectly OK for people like John McCain (who came this >< close to becoming POTUS) to sing about bombing Iran: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

But hey, Ahmedinajad says one sentence that's dubiously translated, and that's not OK.

> Maybe cannabis smokers smoke less frequently than cigarette smokers; but maybe they inhale the smoke deeper and hold it longer.

I'm guessing it's probably because you don't have to smoke as much as tobacco.

Also, anecdotally: I have yet to hear of someone getting lung cancer from smoking pot. Heck, Willie Nelson has been toking up for decades, and apparently his lungs are just fine.

And then there's this: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthpr...

> It's a bit frustrating that anyone who expresses any concern about cannabis is written off as a propagandist of an oppressive government.

That was not needed.

We're talking about 102TB of data (6TB x 17), so a cache won't dent this figure too much (especially, given that each of those disks is one of 45 drives in the pod, which means the cache is shared across all of them). Then, each of the drives will also be serving files (or storing them), which means disk heads will be seeking around all over the place while rebuilding the failed drive...

FTA: "If one of the original data shards is unavailable, it can be re-computed from the other 16 original shards, plus one of the parity shards"

So you would have to read 17x the data to recreate it. Given disk latency, network bandwidth, etc. I'm guessing it'll take quite a while to recreate a 6TB HDD if it fails.

Maybe because the younguns today don't know what a "station wagon" is and what "tapes" are... ;-)

(I jest)

He's a "VP of online marketing", not a VP of UX. He wouldn't know what went wrong.

MySpace had a horrible UX. You felt _dirty_ after browsing a few pages. Everything was all over the place; the form (UI) destroyed the function (social network). It was like Geocities and Friendster had a love-child that was addicted to LSD.

The WFH policy literally impacted about 1% of the people. And of those impacted, many of them got an exemption (based on performance) and continued to WFH. It really was made out to be a much bigger deal in the media, than it really was.

> in which managers were forced to put a % of employees in under performing buckets

... except other managers, of course! ;-)

I'm an ex-Yahoo, and I feel that Yahoo has too many layers of management. Marissa would be well served by reducing the ratio of managers to engineers to something like 1:10 (currently I've heard it's close to 1:3, but that's just rumor and speculation).

Are you sure it's 2000mg, and not 2000mcg? There's a 3 orders of magnitude difference!

I grew up in India, and TV was very new to where we lived. But they used to put on Star Trek (TOS) on Saturday mornings, and I religiously watched the show. I soon gravitated to Spock, and consciously modeled my thinking after him: trying to be extremely rational, not showing emotion, etc. My friends even started calling me Spock. :-)

He touched so many lives...

This sounds intriguing. Was he given a special phone that the NSA could not intercept? The size (credit-card sized, thin) also sounds very interesting.. is it possible to build a phone like this?

What's the point of the gondola, then, if you can't step out? If you just want to sit in a metal cabin and enjoy the view, you might as well go in a plane.

This is pretty rich, coming from A123, since they stole their ideas from Professor Goodenough.

> they would need to send 200 texts/hour (which is pretty easy/trivial if you are doing this full time).

Context switching would take a while. You can't just reply with random phrases a-la Eliza[1] . In the article, the "boyfriend" responds to a specific question about Downton Abbey. Sure, in this instance the responder may be a fan of DA; but in the general case, it'll require more than 18 seconds (@200/hr) to just type up an intelligent, context-relevant response.

I think he has something big coming up tomorrow: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/01/spacex-dragon-crs-5-l...

Unfortunately, the chapter(s) on Deep Learning haven't even been written yet.

> In reality, there is hard epidemiological data showing that selling raw milk (edit: e.g. through the normal store channels) can lead to serious harm including deaths.

I'd love to see the evidence, and see it compared to other food sources.

I grew up in India. There all we got was raw milk from the cowherd; in fact, even today, my parents send the helper to get milk in a pail from the cowherd. It's always been raw milk, warm and fresh from the udder. And the first thing they do is to boil it.

If I were to conjecture, it's that the "no raw milk" diktat forces farmers to go to big distribution companies with the requisite facilities for pasteurization.

Oh lord, not this "break into the house" fallacy again.

Your FB profile is not your house; it is just some data you have shared with FB. FB decides what to do with the data: how to share it, where to share it, when to share it, who to share it with, etc.

Everybody knows that FB _already_ manipulates the feed to change your mood: to make you more engaged with the site; to make you click more on ads; etc. It's been doing this basically for ever.

But they _already_ manipulate the feeds with the specific intent of increasing user engagement: to get more views, to get more ad clicks, more time spent, etc.

I'm puzzled about the outrage.

FB _already_ filters out updates based on some blackbox algorithm. So they tweaked the parameters of that algorithm to filter out the "happier" updates, and observed what happens. How is this unethical? The updates were posted by the users' friends! FB didn't manufacture the news items; they were always there.

I detest FB as much as the next guy, but this is ridiculous.

The answer, near the end: "Yahoo ... has little to lose by shutting down an also-ran competitor like Blink"

There you go.

Yesterday I logged in to LI after many months. Now, I've been around long enough to know not to give access to my GMail to anyone; so I've never done that. I also haven't installed the LI app on my iPhone.

And yet, among the "people you may know", LI had a few email addresses that I am sure don't have LI accounts, and would never have them.

So how did LI get those addresses? I was logged in to my GMail account in another tab; could it be some CSRF or such bug? I found it very creepy.

This post is next in the sequence of HN posts after a large exit: comparison with NASA's budget, cost of trip to Mars, etc.

Typical sequence:

   - news of the large exit, submitted repeatedly
   - hastily written blogs about why it doesn't make sense
   - hastily written blogs about why it makes sense
   - cute stories about the company's past: founder(s) living on Ramen, etc.
   - comparisons with NASA's budget, Mars exploration budget, Gates Foundation budget, etc.
   - and finally, breathless "news" about the slightest change in the acquiree's ToS or some such silly news

I dunno... given the perpetual problems with Flash, the password leaks, etc., I wouldn't hold up Adobe as a paragon of excellence.

It's all about advertising.

Being able to deliver rich, full-screen stories to you implies being able to deliver rich, full-screen video ads to you. And that's where the money is.

> "As an organization, they've acted within the bounds of the law and done exactly what they were supposed to do."

Do you get paid to write this stuff, or do you actually believe it? It is obvious that the NSA has been creatively interpreting the law to acquire more and more data on innocent citizens. This report says so. The President's panel said so too, albeit a little more politely.

> the NSA currently has the support of the people and the people's representatives... The issue is 50/50 at best among the people

Know what? Slavery had the support of the people. Segregation had the support of the people. Anti-miscegenation laws had support of the people. Opposition to gay marriage has the support of the people. When it comes to rights, it doesn't matter if the majority of the people support it or not; rights are rights.

And, by the way: members of Congress themselves have asked for help from the Snowden documents[1], because the NSA has not been truthful with them.

[1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/01/today_i_brief...

"would you agree that wiretaps (with warrants) can be useful?"

Nobody is arguing against that. What people are complaining about is, among other things, the bulk collection and retention of records; the gathering of records upto 3 degrees of separation from a suspect; etc.

"Not one American has been found who has been demonstrably harmed by any NSA program."

As an American, how would I know? It is against the law to read my mail; but if the government has been secretly reading my mail without my knowledge, then by your logic (and I use that word lightly here) I have not been harmed, since I didn't know about it?

Do you even know the meaning of the word "rights" ? My rights have been violated; I don't have to demonstrate harm.

I've dated around on OKC since the early days. His lack of success on first dates points to a problem with him; maybe he was too picky or had some other issues which turned women off. If he was looking for that Hollywood-style instant spark, he was mistaken; that doesn't always happen.

When I was on OKC, about 1 in 20 messages would result in a first date; but you bet that more than 50% of first dates turned into second dates.

When women first meet you, it's almost like they're going through a checklist in their heads: is this guy a creep? A rapist? A jerk? etc. etc. (this is just the impression I got). If you don't trigger any of the alerts, you're golden.

One of the biggest mistakes nerds (like myself) make on their profiles and on dates is that we try to impress the woman with our encyclopedic knowledge of some esoteric subject. That's a sure turnoff.

Maybe we should have an "ask HN" on dating ... :-)

And Trevor Perrin's response: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.irtf.cfrg/2337

I concur: Kevin Igoe should resign, if nothing else then to remove the cloud of suspicion, given the revelations of NSA sabotage.