Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | pinchyfingers's comments login

- Package management

- Everything can be done via CL in case of emergency

- Switch terminals via F1, F2, F3... if the GUI terminal (F7) messes up

- Use whatever window manager I want with no hassle

- Most distros recognize hw and install drivers automatically (versus needing a rescue disk to install Windows)

- Develop apps locally using exact same environment used on server

- No worries about losing support for my hw (try installing Windows 8 or the latest OSX on an old machine)

- Option to show WiFi password (why the f can't you do this in windows?)

- Fingers crossed for more Steam games coming soon

-----


haha, I just tried M-x spook, I didn't think it would actually work.

Here was my output:

national information infrastructure Ceridian INSCOM supercomputer AIEWS Afghanistan Blowpipe chameleon man sweep M-14 hackers Roswell lock picking codes spies

second time:

world domination cracking Operation Iraqi Freedom IRA Reno analyzer M-14 David John Oates electronic surveillance pipeline INS security Tony Blair national information infrastructure ASLET

""" spook is an interactive compiled Lisp function.

(spook)

Adds that special touch of class to your outgoing mail. """

  ; Variables
  (defgroup spook nil
    "Spook phrase utility for overloading the NSA line eater."
    :prefix "spook-"
    :group 'games)

  (defcustom spook-phrases-file (expand-file-name "spook.lines" data-directory)
    "Keep your favorite phrases here."
    :type 'file
    :group 'spook)

  (defcustom spook-phrase-default-count 15
    "Default number of phrases to insert."
    :type 'integer
    :group 'spook)
--

Looks like it'd be a good idea to update and expand the spook.lines file.

-----


The US certainly has many more prisoners per capita and in total than China does.

Also, the U.S. government is censoring Ladar Levison of Lavabit and others in his situation.

I've never been to China to see anything for myself, so I won't make further comparison, but prison state thing definitely bothers me.

-----


I've never been to China to see anything for myself...

Yep, I can tell. I can tell you haven't read about it either.

-----


Numbers, facts, anything. Please substantiate your comment, instead of adding nothing but snark to the discussion. Here, i'll start: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/americas/23iht-23pri...

-----


Yep. Something is right in the world. The future is suddenly looking really good.

-----


We're going to mass commerialize VR just in time to hide from the reality of the consequences of our police state. /s

-----


It wouldn't be fair to expect everyone to write like E.B. White, he is one of the very best.

-----


I would turn to the Racket community first to learn about creating programming languages, they kind of have a thing for it.

Here's a start:

http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2068896

-----


I would also look at PLAI (Programming Languages: Application and Interpretation): http://cs.brown.edu/~sk/Publications/Books/ProgLangs/2007-04...

It's an excellent free undergraduate-level PL textbook that covers a lot of ground and is informed by both research and practice. There's a 2nd edition linked from there as well.

-----


[Edit: Self-righteous anger caused me to stop reading parent post mid-way through and start replying furiously. Nothing to see here.]

Crazy anarchist.

Because there have been no extremely intelligent, logical, level-headed and productive people who are also anarchists.

Start with this guy and get back to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard

If you said "crazy statist" I could maybe agree, since statism is kind of crazy in my opinion, but I think attacking any ideas by disqualifying with adjectives like crazy is extremely narrow-minded and leads to poor results, even if you're talking about statists.

Just because you've never heard of something, don't be so immature to dismiss it without thinking it through... you expose yourself as ignorant of the hard work of many intelligent people that have come before you.

-----


Since we're now on the subject. I notice that there seems to be a very high turnover of young people from the various forms of anarchism as they get older.

Would anybody who fits this description like to elaborate on why that happened? Found a convincing argument? General disillusionment with humanity?

-----


I was an anarcho-capitalist for awhile. I thought it was the perfect system. There would be absolutely no incentives to do bad things. Anything a government could do, could in theory be done by a voluntary system if enough people agreed it was a good idea or it was a benefit to them to do so.

But I no longer think it's a perfect system. People don't behave like perfect rational market actors, there are edge cases like natural monopolies where normal market mechanisms don't lead to the best outcome, and then there is just enforcing altruism (like looking out for animal rights or children's rights, who couldn't buy legal services under this system, or redistributing income so you don't end up with people starving to death or in poverty.)

Of course the current system we have is so far from a perfect system it makes these problems seem trivial. But at least it seems ok and generally stable, whereas what would happen in an anarcho-capitalist world is a complete unknown.

There still might be a near-perfect system. Robin Hanson's ideas on prediction markets for making policy decisions might be a huge improvement, at least in some areas, and a semi-private legal system for some things might work. And I think libertarian policies in general are better.

-----


> Anything a government could do, could in theory be done by a voluntary system if enough people agreed it was a good idea or it was a benefit to them to do so.

And we call that system a government.

Seriously. Every time an anarchist seriously gets down to brass tacks about how their world would work, there's some agency by 'the people' which does things which have to be done, and it's indistinguishable from a government. It's just a Good Government, a Responsible Government, and, really, an Ideal Government.

Either anarchy has never happened or it's the only thing that happens. I don't know which is more damaging to the case of doctrinaire capital-A Anarchists.

> a semi-private legal system for some things might work

This is called contract law.

-----


(Playing Devil's advocate)

> Anything a government could do, could in theory be done by a voluntary system if enough people agreed it was a good idea or it was a benefit to them to do so.

And we call that system a government.

The problem here is the foolish tendency of English speaking people to use "government" for everything, when we should distinguish the government from the State.

Anarchists are obviously not opposed to having systems of government, but they are opposed to the state (and governments as their executive bodies), and in general to the concentration of power, authoritarianism and repression that emerge from it.

-----


But without a state, governments are worthless. They can't do anything, as we've seen time and again.

-----


"Governments", as in executive bodies, yes. "Governments", and in systems of government, definitively not. There are multitudes of non-hierarchical, stateless mechanisms that arise from communities and societies trying to solve a cooperation problem.

Just four years ago, the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences was awarded to Elinor Ostrom for her work demonstrating how institutional arrangements were developed in various societies facing the problem of resource exhaustion due to overconsumption, without the intervention of the State.

But these are just a few concrete examples of an uncountable number of norms and institutions there are everywhere, and much more there would be if the State intervention didn't crowd them out by imposing its own solutions and banned all others.

-----


It's not really a government as you can't (ideally) force people to participate even if they don't want to (or if you do it's through tamer methods like boycotts or whatever rather than threat of imprisonment.) And it doesn't have to be a central organization. It sounds like a minor difference but it's really not.

Importantly most things that are done by government would be done completely differently and by private organizations. The point is, that if the way government does something is truly superior, then people would still do it that way. They just couldn't force people to participate or pay for it. But you could still have a non-profit with elected officials and all that, if it's really better and can compete on a free market.

Again, I'm no longer certain this is the best system as there really are things where a free market doesn't lead to the best outcome and participation has to be forced (like public goods.) But there are ways of funding public goods without a government that might work, and most of what government currently does doesn't fit in that category anyways.

-----


First, boycotts are a use of force. Everyone ganging up on someone to boycott them (shunning, as it used to be called, or making them an outlaw) is one of the oldest, cruelest forms of punishment, and we're well shut of it now. Putting someone in prison is one thing; kicking them out of society entirely is another.

> The point is, that if the way government does something is truly superior, then people would still do it that way.

Then why hasn't this ever happened in the past? Why is Somalia suffering through what it's going through when self-organizing communes are so much better?

> They just couldn't force people to participate or pay for it.

Then nobody's going to pay for it, and the people who opt out of the laws entirely are going to be robbing everyone else.

-----


A boycott is not the same as ostracism; nobody said anything about kicking people out of society.

Why is Somalia suffering through what it's going through when self-organizing communes are so much better?

Somalia is not some country who had an anarchist society; it's a country which had a state and a government, and where a civil war broke out, eliminating all possibility of a stable society regardless of its political system.

Judging anarchism by the state of Somalia makes even less sense than judging non-anarchist societies by the actions of the Third Reich.

-----


>First, boycotts are a use of force. Everyone ganging up on someone to boycott them (shunning, as it used to be called, or making them an outlaw) is one of the oldest, cruelest forms of punishment, and we're well shut of it now. Putting someone in prison is one thing; kicking them out of society entirely is another.

In order for that to work you would need nearly 99% of the population or more to agree to that punishment and to actively participate. Which is a lot more than required in a democracy or pretty much any system.

>Then why hasn't this ever happened in the past? Why is Somalia suffering through what it's going through when self-organizing communes are so much better?

Somalia is a collapsed society, not really a good example of anything. The same could be said for democracy until 200 years ago. It took a long time even after the first democracy was established for the idea to spread, and the creation of the US itself took a war and a few centuries of cultural evolution before that to get to that point.

The point is that you can't just say "well if it's a perfect system why has no one done it before?" Libertarianism is counter-intuitive for most people, how do you expect them to form perfect anarcho-capitalist societies overnight?

>Then nobody's going to pay for it, and the people who opt out of the laws entirely are going to be robbing everyone else.

People would defend their own property or pay into some private legal system that promised to do so.

-----


> In order for that to work you would need nearly 99% of the population or more to agree to that punishment and to actively participate. Which is a lot more than required in a democracy or pretty much any system.

But it has happened in the past. Never underestimate the power of groupthink to do horrible things to minorities.

> Somalia is a collapsed society, not really a good example of anything.

No better place, then. Nothing for the anarchist utopia to compete with.

> Libertarianism is counter-intuitive for most people

No, it isn't. Not from what I've seen both online and off.

> People would defend their own property or pay into some private legal system that promised to do so.

We've tried this and it didn't work.

-----


> Seriously. Every time an anarchist seriously gets down to brass tacks about how their world would work, there's some agency by 'the people' which does things which have to be done, and it's indistinguishable from a government. It's just a Good Government, a Responsible Government, and, really, an Ideal Government.

Which are these "things which have to be done" that only a government could take care of?

Crime prevention? Does our government police prevent crime, or just punish criminals? I can argue that without any state-established law criminals would be punished, in some way or another.

Medical services? I think that some people really enjoy being doctors and nurses, and they would associate even without state-mandated organization.

One thing is for sure, we're not ready yet for anything like that, since many necessary services and resources are "scarse", and scarsity makes people fight for their survival with brutal results. But we're (slowly) solving scarsity through science and technology.

-----


> Crime prevention? Does our government police prevent crime, or just punish criminals?

Both.

> I can argue that without any state-established law criminals would be punished, in some way or another.

Without any state-established law there would be no criminals, just the much broader category of people that other people don't like. Quite arguably, the whole purpose of state-established law is to limit the scope and severity of punishment compared to what happens in the absence of central authority, and to provide clear rules. This aids in deterrence, since, to the extent that antisocial behavior is rational and deterrable, there needs not merely be an expectation of punishment if you do 'wrong', but a clear idea of what 'wrong' is in the context, and a clear expectation that punishment will not be imposed if you do not do 'wrong'.

Certainly, one can argue that modern states are less than ideal in each aspect of this, but that's very different than arguing that they are worse than the absence of a state would be.

> Medical services? I think that some people really enjoy being doctors and nurses, and they would associate even without state-mandated organization.

The problem here isn't that there would be no medical practitioners apart from a mandate to provide them (after all, most states that provide medical services don't compel people to become doctors and nurses), but that medical services lack features that make it the kind of service modeled well by econ 101 rational choice assumptions, with (among other things) a very high and uncorrectable cost of bad (or even merely incompetent) suppliers.

> But we're (slowly) solving scarsity through science and technology.

We may be reducing the resource costs of some goods and services, but that doesn't solve scarcity (it reduces the opportunity cost of some while increasing the opportunity cost of others, since it is unequal progress, and opportunity cost is what else you could have gotten for the resources you put into getting what you chose.)

Suggesting that we are "solving scarcity" demonstrates a lack of understanding of what "scarcity" means.

-----


> Crime prevention? Does our government police prevent crime, or just punish criminals? I can argue that without any state-established law criminals would be punished, in some way or another.

Sure, criminals would be punished, but in a much more arbitrary manner. Do you really think that would be an improvement?

> Medical services? I think that some people really enjoy being doctors and nurses, and they would associate even without state-mandated organization.

Yes they would, but as people get richer they start to want there to be standards, at which point you need some kind of group to codify and enforce those standards. Over time, these thousands of different groups that are setting rules for their own little domains end up being grouped together, for a range of reasons, and then you have a dreaded 'government'.

Formality offers protection. In all the cases I can think of, weaker government corresponds to an increase in either the arbitrariness or the corruption of justice. This applies both to criminal justice and to the wider sense of an equitable (not equal) distribution of resources.

-----


As they get older, they accumulate stuff and realize the government's job in protecting said stuff. It's easy to be an idealist (in any direction) when you don't have to sacrifice anything for it.

-----


At some point in your life you have your guitar, backpack and whatever you have on you. You have no attachments, nothing to loose, nothing to fight for. You can think freely, you have no need to lie and pretend. You can express your emotions without filters.

And you build your world on that, you see world might work well like that.

Then you get your job, car, house, 2 saplings, wife. You have to defend it, system that supports it and everything that holds it together.

Current system is very well alive, self replicating and with strong immunity, it is living intelligent being, completely different from human thinking and not really communicable in direct way.

It all is very interesting.

-----


PSA: Whenever you're going to use sarcasm on the Internet, don't. Seriously, just don't. Write a straight comment instead. As demonstrated here, when you don't have tone of voice as a cue, sarcasm is just not reliably recognizable.

-----


While there are level-headed anarchists (e.g. William Godwin), Rothbard is a terrible example. He was an anti-semite and thought children were property. He wrote a letter to Ayn Rand about his serious psychological problems.

-----


In your self-righteous anger, you clearly missed snitko's sarcasm.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6089775

-----


Touché

-----


I really enjoy that Carmack speaks so precisely. It makes it a joy to listen to anything he has to say. He truly is a brilliant guy.

-----


I would say I want him to make a podcast (and would pay like $5 a month for an episode), but considering he thinks hes wasting his free time if all hes doing is learning scheme and implementing Wolfenstein in Haskell, I definitely don't want to take away of his time to educate muggles.

-----


Right, but if it made enough money to fund Armadillo it might be worth his time.

-----


This is a good point, why doesn't he crowdfund Armadillo?

-----


The bigger issue here is that people look to governments and religions for pardons, permission and other validation. People that see some kind of meaning in empty gestures like a posthumous pardon (after shaming and chemically castrating the man) are grossly mislead.

Buying into the hype of government is what gives governments the power to commit senseless crimes like what was done to Alan Turing and many, many crimes that are much worse. The correct answer to "should the UK government pardon Alan Turing?" is "fuck off".

I view the gay marriage issue in the same light. I have gay friends that care deeply about marriage equality, but as much as I love them and they are my friends, I simply cannot sympathize. My answer to them is: "Live your life, do want you want to do, don't ask the government or anyone else for permission".

If worried about my status as defined by the U.S. government and the fairness I can expect from U.S. government, I would just kill myself now. Thankfully I realize that government is just another scam for me to avoid to the best of my ability.

-----


Nobody is asking for permission. We are asking for equal protection under the law.

There are dozens of boring issues that are bundled with this issue. For me, repeal of DOMA means that if I got hit by a bus tomorrow, my husband would be able to continue to live in our home and not have to sell it to pay taxes on his "windfall".

-----


> "Live your life, do want you want to do, don't ask the government or anyone else for permission"

That's what Turing was trying to do. It resulted in:

>shaming and chemically castrating the man

>If worried about my status as defined by the [UK] government and the fairness I can expect from [UK] government, I would just kill myself now.

The issue goes a bit deeper than superficial validation.

-----


This is psychotic. In the literal sense of having lost contact with reality.

As much as you dislike the government, you can't just ignore how incredibly powerful it is in people's daily lives. The incidents of legally recognized marriage are very real and very significant. I've met many families separated (or threatened with separation) by immigration law that didn't recognize same-sex couples. No amount of saying "fuck off" to the government is going to change whether you're family members will be allowed to live in the same country as you.

In the case of Alan Turing, no amount of him saying "fuck off" to the government could prevent them from criminalizing his relationship and chemically castrating him. The UK government issuing a pardon is a overdue recognition that they instituted a campaign on suffering on many people, one of whom hand a significant part in saving the country from the Nazis.

-----


>The incidents of legally recognized marriage are very real and very significant. I've met many families separated (or threatened with separation) by immigration law that didn't recognize same-sex couples.

A real-world example of this with a name HN readers will recognize is Glenn Greenwald.

Greenwald has lived in Brazil for the past several years because his partner is Brazilian and Brazil recognizes same-sex relationships for immigration purposes while the United States does not.

-----


I'm not ignoring how powerful the government is in people's lives. I'm saying that it holds that power because the masses of people believe that that's the way things should be. Discussions about useless debates happening in the House of Lords lends credibility to a completely ridiculous way of thinking. I don't think my position is the one that has lost contact with reality... I'd say the House of Lords is where reality is truly forgotten.

The last sentence I wrote was: "Thankfully I realize that government is just another scam for me to avoid to the best of my ability." I don't think people should stop paying taxes or do other things that put themselves in jeopardy, but I think that when people pay taxes or fight for marriage equality, they need to stay aware of what is really going on: they are victims of the government monopoly on violence.

-----


I stopped reading after "This is psychotic. In the literal sense of having lost contact with reality."

-----


You can live your life the way you want right up to the point where you want to visit your husband in the hospital or inherit the estate of your dead wife. Then these legal things start to matter.

-----


>inherit the estate of your dead wife

A well written will would solve that issue.

-----


I would argue the opposite: that empty gestures such as these call public attention to the fact that laws and governments are fallible and sometimes unjust.

Imagine the social significance in the U.S. if Congress officially apologized for MLK being mailed a letter suggesting he commit suicide, or for overthrowing the leadership of Iran in the 50s, any of the other misdeeds that have gone down the memory hole.

-----


> My answer to them is: "Live your life, do want you want to do, don't ask the government or anyone else for permission".

I'm straight, but this is really easy to say when you've never had the experience of not being able to see a significant other in the hospital because you aren't classified as either family or a spouse.

Legality affects many other parts of life as well.

-----


> The bigger issue here is that people look to governments and religions for pardons, permission and other validation.

This statement is vague about how many people are looking to governments and religions and how many people you think should be looking to governments and religions. It wouldn't be reasonable to expect nobody to be looking to them, as there are millions of people and thus there are going to be varied interests. There are also some people who I expect to be looking to them, and those are people who are currently, or were formerly, actively involved with a religion or a government.

> If worried about my status as defined by the U.S. government and the fairness I can expect from U.S. government, I would just kill myself now.

Pure hyperbole.

You bring up an interesting topic, but I think the issue needs to be framed differently.

-----


Those who want equal rights under the law should just “kill themselves now”? Wow. To borrow your own phrase, the proper response to that is “fuck off.”

-----


Yes. Pursuing equal rights is a lost cause. You and Bill Clinton will never be treated the same by the U.S. government.

-----


The position of government on various issues is far from meaningless. It is as close as we can get to a tangible representation of the common (majority) opinion and common will of the mass of people that makes up a country (see below for a caveat). While you shouldn't base your own opinions on what everybody else thinks, it's ridiculous to think that everybody else's opinions will never affect your life.

So, I think it's unsettling that the question whether Britain still thinks what they did to Turing is OK is even an open question. UPDATE: `notahacker` pointed out that this last sentence is an oversimplification. I think this only strengthens the point that it is important that the government clearly state its position through actions such as pardons.

-----

Caveat: Really, government's representation of the common opinion of the masses of people is not direct, and always a bit out of date. However, the government very directly represents what the masses people are going to do with the common resources they share. For example, whether they will use these common resources to persecute gay people.

-----


It's interesting to observe how public attitudes do seem to have changed in response to relatively minor and symbolic changes.

One only has to look at how the UK political landscape has shifted from the massive campaigns around the abolition of an offensive but essentially toothless piece of legislation preventing "the promotion of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship" to being broadly accepting of the logic of gay marriage in less than a decade (interestingly that shift of opinion includes the British Prime Minister). Perhaps it's the benefit of hindsight making the dire warnings of the Right look ridiculous, perhaps the change would have happened regardless of decisions the legislature took in 2003, but either way it's difficult to dismiss the effect of legislative changes that don't make the sky fall in on people's attitudes.

I don't think many people in the UK think "what they did to Turing is OK"; the wider issue is whether a specific pardon is the appropriate response, not least because a pardon implies the recipient is exceptional in deserving it.

-----


Cultural note: That bit of law is called "section 28" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28) - There were worries that it would prevent a teacher from counciling gay pupils, among other things.

While 'toothless' it did have effects:

> As it did not create a criminal offence, no prosecution was ever brought under this provision, but its existence caused many groups to close or limit their activities or self-censor. For example, a number of lesbian, gay and bisexual student support groups in schools and colleges across Britain were closed owing to fears by council legal staff that they could breach the Act.

...even though it was mostly not applicable to teachers.

-----


Agreed. This particular "pardon", if he gets it, is coming 61 years too late. The fact that he saved his country's ass ought to have counted for more than this. The whole case is a definition of ingratitude.

-----


well this is certainly a new one.

complete and utter denial of government's existence and influence. not sure where this one falls on the left/right spectrum.

-----


It falls firmly in the "I'm a 14 year old libertarian" category.

-----


it is another dimension - "anarchy is the mother of order".

-----


Someone should print this out and make you read it out loud when you reach adulthood.

-----


In other words "changing the government is hard, let's go shopping".

-----


Gay marriage is different from posthumously pardoning somebody.

Marriage is not just some meaningless thing, it's a contract, and it comes with all kinds of benefits - lower taxes, visitation rights, medical decisions, common property, etc.

-----


Looks really cool. Great job!

-----

More

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: