mburshteyn's comments

We're working on this at CryptoMove: https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/news/2017/03/29/n...

Our CTO and my co-founder at CryptoMove (also, my dad) created the Hello distributed programming language recently.

From the white paper, some of the problems Hello aims to solve are (1) Repeated re-coding of the same distributed primitives; (2) Challenging development process due to the combination of a programming language and extraneous library; and (3) Inefficient and unreliable distributed code.

Here is the white paper and reference guide if anybody is curious:

White Paper: https://docsend.com/view/zfcz7sh Reference Guide: https://docsend.com/view/65tbeht

Edit: Thank you [email protected] (email edited) for the feedback. We have email capture by default because we use DocSend for sales collateral, but we've turned it off for these white papers. They're downloadable too, if you just want the PDFs.

This comment made me feel bad, because it sounds like you have cool friends. :) :(

The 9th circuit, followed by the 4th, has been limiting the CFAA's scope precisely due to the concern about prosecutorial abuse and criminalizing simple unauthorized system access. I wonder if this case would have moved forward if the alleged events happened in San Francisco.

From US v. Nosal, 676 F. 3d 854 (9th Cir.):

"The government assures us that, whatever the scope of the CFAA, it won't prosecute minor violations. But we shouldn't have to live at the mercy of our local prosecutor. Cf. United States v. Stevens, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 1591, 176 L.Ed.2d 435 (2010) ("We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the Government promised to use it responsibly."). And it's not clear we can trust the government when a tempting target comes along. Take the case of the mom who posed as a 17-year-old boy and cyber-bullied her daughter's classmate. The Justice Department prosecuted her under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) for violating MySpace's terms of service, which prohibited lying about identifying information, including age. See United States v. Drew, 259 F.R.D. 449 (C.D.Cal.2009). Lying on social media websites is common: People shave years off their age, add inches to their height and drop pounds from their weight. The difference between puffery and prosecution may depend on whether you happen to be someone an AUSA has reason to go after.

In United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 108 S.Ct. 2751, 101 L.Ed.2d 788 (1988), the Supreme Court refused to adopt the government's broad interpretation of a statute because it would "criminalize a broad range of day-to-day activity." Id. at 949, 108 S.Ct. 2751. Applying the rule of lenity, the Court warned that the broader statutory interpretation would "delegate to prosecutors and juries the inherently legislative task of determining what type of ... activities are so morally reprehensible that they should be punished as crimes" and would "subject individuals to the risk of arbitrary or discriminatory prosecution and conviction." Id. By giving that much power to prosecutors, we're inviting discriminatory and arbitrary enforcement."

*disclaimer: I am not a lawyer

Santa Clara held a conference on potential solutions to the software patent problems a few months ago. The proposals ranged from abolishing "computational idea patents" (Stallman says even calling them software patents is flawed) to fee-shifting. It's pretty interesting if you have a few hours to spare.

The video feed is here: http://ammsweb.scu.edu/webcasts/mmedia1/20111014-083613-1e_o...

Wired op-ed series based on the conference presenters: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/14cb0c/im_snoop_lion_a...

Facebook, brought to you by Microsoft Windows.

Ctrl+F Tesla, SpaceX, zero results. Really? I'm excited about these companies.

This was on reddit all day.

I'm saying these arguments may sound reasonable, but they can also be viewed as a tactic to derail conversations about oppression and marginalized groups. The fact that "it looks like a list of reasonable things to say," as part of our dominant discourse about topics such as gender, is exactly why they're such a powerful and effective tactic. Until a discussion can move past using derailing tactics in these conversations, marginalization and oppression won't really be challenged.

Applies to many of the comments on this thread, so just posting it separately. TL;DR the language we use to discuss and analyze these kinds of issues is not neutral.

http://www.derailingfordummies.com/complete.html

That's the point.

There is a whole lot of derailing going on here.

http://www.derailingfordummies.com/complete.html

You may be interested in reading this: http://www.derailingfordummies.com/complete.html#proveit.

Mistook the E La Cart logo as Fla Cart.

I usually just look at yelp/chowhound on my phone for pictures and recommendations while checking out the menu.

it worked

Nice thereunto.

They may be a distinct brand, but Instagram is still owned by Facebook, the company openly attempting to shift society's views on privacy.

So many cords and things to install. I've become really lazy when it comes to games. Part of me just wants to play a game without putting in work to do so.

I've been dying for something like this. Since switching to Apple laptops, I can do nothing but listen wistfully as my friends talk about how much they love Steam. The screenshots of Skyrim I see in online reviews don't look anything like the game I play on my Xbox360.

The problem is, I can't imagine playing video games on any screen but a TV or in any setting but the couch. I could probably build a PC box and hook it up to the TV on my own, but I'd much rather just buy something ready to go out of the box. A console with current hardware and a PC-like gaming experience is just what the doctor ordered!

Student loans don't discharge in bankruptcy. Also, the odds are not decent of landing a "sweet job that lets you pay [loans] off much more easily and have plenty of money to spare." Take a look at the bimodal distribution for starting lawyer salaries.[1] In 2011, less than 6% of graduates got jobs at large law firms paying $160k.[2] I don't know current attrition rate stats, but generally most of the entry-level class at a large firm is gone within 5-7 years.[3]

It sounds like the people you know may have gotten lucky pursuing a high-risk gamble, whether they knew it or not.

[1] http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2012/10/five-stag...

[2] http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legalwhiteboard/2012/07/a-p...

[3] http://www.law.com/jsp/llf/PubArticleLLF.jsp?id=119494824709...