nicholas_tuzzio

Said torrenting sites are by and large against the laws of the US and many other nations and shouldn't be compared to the NYT.

I'm a really big fan of reddit in some ways and I have been following this drama very closely. I just don't think it's appropriate for HN.

I really wish people would stop posting about this most recent bout of reddit drama on HN. Are people not noticing that every article so far has been deleted?

This comment is an excellent summary of my problems with reddit. I spend way, way more time than I should arguing with people who think that "it's just a joke" is a defense of anything. Or with people who treat the pointing out of sexism as worse than sexism. If you don't think /r/CreepShots was exploitative of women, we have very different opinions on this subject. And finally, you defend /r/jailbait, going as far as to blame the people in the photos.

I hope people upvote you just because you provided such a concise summary of every bad argument used to defend reddit.

One should not speak ill of the dead in places where people have come to pay respects.

I also read the Wikipedia article on blackmail, but I then proceeded to read a bunch of other articles on the web as well. The purported blackmail act was a demand that /r/CreepShots be closed or else information about the moderator would be made available. From what I've read, blackmail doesn't only have to be about money- it can be anything of worth or value, and one could argue this has worth.

I'm on the side of Gawker and the admins, but I'm still interested in anything illegal that might have happened.

This has certainly been an interesting act of an interesting drama, with unsavory players on either side. Not mentioned in this article are purported acts of blackmail which led to the initial closure of /r/CreepShots, which is what I've been most interested in so far as that seems like the most likely part of this drama to result in some sort of legal action.

Spoken like someone who hasn't had to deal with casual and/or institutional racism much.

I bet you've been eagerly awaiting the moment when you could bring up Homestuck and the Kickstarter on HN...unfortunately, you didn't read the article and jumped the gun.

It was automatically blocked by my work filter as porn. First time I've even noticed a .xxx extension, and I didn't notice it until I noticed it was blocked.

Hey look buddy, I'm an engineer; that means I solve problems. Not problems like 'Why is lying wrong?', because that would fall within the purview of your conundrums of philosophy. I solve practical problems.

I care if he's lying because his story was re-printed in The Guardian, where I read it, as truth. If it's not a true story, it's wrong to present it as such.

I'm not sure that makes a lot of sense. Stuff like what's mentioned in this article, weird PayPal stuff, or random Google account banning doesn't get fixed unless it gets publicity and outrage. There's good reason to believe that Kickstarter would ignore this unless/until people start to get upset about it. The whole point of this being at the top of HN is to get Kickstarter to say/do something.

Convincing people to stop using such a flawed language when there are so many viable (and in nearly all ways preferable) alternatives.

Problem is, they aren't going to have comparable yields at the same time. The newer tech will have a lower yield.

I agree with you in that people seem to be making waaaay too much out of the fact that one of the two did it first.

Trusting Intel and trusting your fab are different problems. Intel creates a design and sends it to the fab. Intel has to trust that the fab will not alter their design, but in general that is an extremely difficult attack to carry out and would most likely require the fab to have a much more in-depth understanding of the IC design than they likely have. However, Intel can put whatever they want into an IC and it would be incredibly difficult for anyone to find it.

Also, trusting your compiler is different from trusting your CPU because one is much, much easier to check than the other. You can build GCC yourself, look at the source code, manually check the output. You could even write your own compiler. In general, we can't make our own processors or verify their internals, yet.

This touches on what I think is one of the more interesting technological problems that we have to worry about right now. As a disclosure, most of the reason I think that is because I'm a PhD student doing research on hardware security. Anyways, there has been a lot of interesting discussion on the topic. DARPA has had at least two programs dedicated to trying to solve this problem, IRIS and TRUST [1]. Both of them seemed to be more interested in tampering by third-parties, perhaps because it's not in their best interest to accuse the people designing their ICs of attacking them.

In the long run, verifying the functionality and intentions of software and hardware are probably roughly the same problem, with no clear solution to either in the foreseeable future.

[1] http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/08/problem-from-hell/