Hacker Newsnew | comments | ask | jobs | submit | jorgeortiz85's commentslogin

Kafka uses Linux's zero-copy transfer to move bytes between the network and the disk without going through user-space, let alone the JVM.

There's still GC from objects allocated by Kafka in the JVM, but the actual message data doesn't even go through the JVM.

-----


Which MUD were you on?

-----


If you're in a US timezone, Stripe is looking for experienced devops candidates. Most employees are in the SF office, but we have a sizable minority of remote employees.

Send me an email, I'd love to chat: jorge@stripe.com

-----

toomuchtodo 64 days ago | link

Very kind of you Jorge, I appreciate it. I'll have an email off to you shortly. Thank you.

-----


Read the article. The Senator defines spying very specifically. So specifically that it's already clear the answer is "yes".

-----

leeoniya 110 days ago | link

> So specifically that it's already clear the answer is "yes".

would you like to put a wager on "yes" being the response he receives?

-----


It's not about risk, it's about overcoming obstacles. Dealing with US visas is a pain, but it's nowhere near as painful as everything else you need to do to make a startup succeed. If you're going to give up because of a visa obstacle, you're not cut out to be a founder.

-----

saryant 118 days ago | link

I was talking specifically about working in the US illegally, not overcoming visa troubles themselves.

-----

argonaut 117 days ago | link

Those two issues are one and the same.

-----

NhanH 117 days ago | link

How viable is it to legalize your stay after staying in the US illegally for a while?

-----

argonaut 117 days ago | link

The point is that the government does not know you're staying illegally.

-----

NhanH 116 days ago | link

I meant that since you have to eventually legalize your stay (say, you have a big exit for the company), how much would being illegal affect everything afterward?

-----

argonaut 116 days ago | link

The government wouldn't know you were illegal, that's the point. Is it that hard of a stretch to think of answers to your questions before asking them?

-----

NhanH 115 days ago | link

I misinterpreted your answers. My question was under the assumption that the government wouldn't know about you being illegal until you tried to do something related to immigration. At which point the USCIS would know after doing their due diligence. I guess that was a bad assumption to make.

Under that assumption, trying to think of answers isn't any better than a random guess. And I was asking the question for that specific situation, even if it's unlikely, just to know how things could potential be. Furthermore, in the case the government doesn't know about your staying illegally, you would be the same as any random non-citizen trying to immigrate to the US, and it's fairly safe to say that the task is non-trivial (paperwork-wise). In that case, it would still be helpful to know if a founder-but-can't-tell-government would have any advantage at all.

Not every question can be answered by just thinking hard enough, especially those related to laws - that's why there is a whole profession dedicated to it. And it will serve you well to be more careful before going passive-aggressive.

-----


Well, yes, I'd wager this is his first (and last) federal offense. He is exactly a rookie.

-----


Inflation means that the value of 100 pesos in the future is less than the value of 100 pesos now. In countries under hyperinflation, supermarkets will raise their prices several times a day.

"During the Brazilian inflation of the earl 1990s, for instance, supermarket workers reportedly spent half of their time replacing old price stickers with new ones." -- Essentials of Economics

-----

jamesaguilar 177 days ago | link

I don't see how it matters if your asset position is identical in either trial.

-----


Nah, the Mexican government imposes a $100 tax on all international flights.

-----


I'm a Foursquare engineer. We have explanations of our API policies here: https://developer.foursquare.com/overview/community

We'll be contacting this researcher to ask where they got this data and whether it conforms to our policies.

-----

nicholassmith 197 days ago | link

Thanks for responding, I didn't realise Foursquare actually gave so much of their data away freely. Which makes it slightly more seedy someone has scraped the rest and dumped it online.

-----


My takeaway from today's articles: they've backdoored the software, they've backdoored the hardware, they have a database of stolen private keys, they've tapped all the cables, they have zero-days for pretty much everything.

-----

MichaelGG 230 days ago | link

Yes, that's the speculation, that they've been doing this, and that's not a new speculation either. At least on the keys, cables, and 0-days (and some folks believe Windows has been backdoored for a very long time). Backdooring, as noted, is a tricky problem for all parties if found. Even with Windows, I'd expect various people inside Microsoft could verify with independent builds. (If they compile the bootloader or crypto.dll and use a disassembly tool and the output is functionally different from what's on the ISO...)

But if there's solid evidence, why don't they publish it? If they really have broken into Google, then publish the details. I'm sure Google would like to know, too. If they've backdoored Windows, Office, VLC, whatever - same thing. Or are we talking more stuff like "we knew Debian couldn't generate keys properly"?

If it's just stating that the NSA possesses heavy offensive capabilities, well, yeah, you'd expect that. Actual evidence of an NSA-backdoored common software or hardware would be a major story. (Not saying it's not possible, just speculating gets us no where.) If Schneier and Greenwald want to be taken seriously, then step up and speak out. Generic "the NSA is powerful" isn't much help.

-----

jorgeortiz85 230 days ago | link

I don't believe this is the end of the disclosures. The gradual, step-wise release of information about the NSA's surveillance capabilities has been quite effective in two different ways.

First, it has kept the NSA in the headlines for almost three months now (quite a feat when you consider our cultural attention span is usually measured in fractions of days).

Second, it has let officials make denials and give reassurances come back to haunt them and tarnish then credibility when further disclosures are made (consider that Senator Feinstein, chair of the Intelligence Committee supposedly providing Congressional oversight of these surveillance programs, who spent weeks claiming said oversight was quite robust, admitted to not knowing about the internal NSA audit finding thousands of privacy violations).

I'm pretty confident there will be more disclosures. But given the realities of the news cycle and the political process, they are much more effective if they happen gradually.

-----

bradleyjg 230 days ago | link

They talk in the Times article about the government asking them not to publish at all, and them refusing but agreeing to omit some details in response to concerns that officials raised.

I don't know much about The Guardian, but The Times, for better or for worse, has always self censored based on its own perceptions of the trade offs. It considers itself a responsible part of the establishment -- the loyal opposition if you will. You aren't going to see a wikileaks-esque dump from them.

-----

trevelyan 230 days ago | link

Enough with the anti-Wikeaks crap. They reviewed and redacted and if you don't know that you just come across as ignorant at this point.

And if you DO know it, then suggesting which specific document was unethical to release would be a good start.

-----

bradleyjg 230 days ago | link

They redacted for a year and then released everything. Allegedly inadvertently, if that makes you feel better.

In any event, you misunderstand my intended tone. I'm not saying the New York Times' establishmentarian leanings are great, just they have them.

-----

conradev 230 days ago | link

This paragraph from the ProPublica article:

> Intelligence officials asked The Times and ProPublica not to publish this article, saying that it might prompt foreign targets to switch to new forms of encryption or communications that would be harder to collect or read. The news organizations removed some specific facts but decided to publish the article because of the value of a public debate about government actions that weaken the most powerful tools for protecting the privacy of Americans and others.

-----

harshaw 230 days ago | link

Agreed - and there isn't proof (yet) of any breakthrough in cryptanalysis.

-----

nileshtrivedi 230 days ago | link

And they have agents working at important positions at big tech companies.

-----

MichaelGG 230 days ago | link

As we'd expect other other governments and possibly corporations to have. Find someone with access to whatever, perhaps with foreign relatives, offer them a world of money, problem solved. Or groom and plant someone. Corporate espionage exists, doesn't it?

-----

More

Lists | RSS | Bookmarklet | Guidelines | FAQ | DMCA | News News | Feature Requests | Bugs | Y Combinator | Apply | Library

Search: