cliffu

Link: http://wengu.tartarie.com/wg/wengu.php (right?)

It's fine to link to your stuff especially if it's useful/educational/etc.

"When three men are walking together, there is one who can be my teacher."

I shall now interpret the opening sentence to mean "any Dao whose rules can be enumerated is either inconsistent or incomplete." Thanks, that's a fun connection.

Nice; a classic "if you've got nothing to hide" with a bonus gender role shaming.

You can't find one because hating on such poor basis is irrational and foolish.

+1'd a gay rights group, have fundamentalist parents.

What do I need Google for? DDG works ok for discovery, subreddits and HN aggregate news, and SO handles all of my programming questions.

No, I like making comments about it on social networks. If I get even one person on board with freedom it's a win. If I get enough people on board that Apple feels pressure and I can use unjailbroken iOS without these restrictions that would be great, I actually like iOS when it's jailbroken. I know that's a pipe dream but whatever.

I think being excited for colored enclosures is Gruberian fanboyism.

But I will say buying an overpriced iPhone is 1. kind of a status symbol, and that 2. for most people it is safer to have an iPhone because they don't know (and don't care to deal with) policing every single Android app's permission settings. So it's not like Apple's making a fool out of them (even though I see it that way and you seem to also).

I'll be excited about an iPhone as soon as I am able to sideload an app, install a white/blacklist. I'd be quite excited if I were also allowed to run arbitrary apps in the background (listening to sockets even when not VoIP), and add arbitrary interactive views to the Notification Center.

A plastic colored body does not appeal to me in the least.

I think your point is muddied by "celebratory" and "special occasions", which is too bad because it's a good point; but it's going to be lost on people who have a beer or glass of wine with dinner, even though we probably all agree that drinking a "big gulp" beer at work is inappropriate and maybe we should feel that way about colas too.

I vote yes. Formal verification has great benefits for software security and it's the "final form" (if you will pardon a redditism) of unit testing. It's one of the top skills I would like to learn.

You might be interested in L4; there's a variant that has been formally verified (but I think it's closed source?).

Yes, I'm being flippant with the terminology. I know that to be true but strongly disagree that we should have no reasonable expectation of privacy for emails. Telephone calls go through a third party and they are covered.

They sure scope creeped with the CFAA, though. Downloading too many PDFs is a felony. Changing your user agent is a felony.

And then against the First; sharing links to websites that stream videos is a crime once we get you extradited here. Writing a tasteless joke online is a felony that warrants half a million for bail. Sharing a link to documents we don't want you to see is a felony.

Maybe they're not always oppressive. But it's reasonable for us to assume the possibility of scope creep. And it's reasonable to not want them to have all our communications stored against the event.

No, congress and the tech companies have the incorrect understanding that phone calls and emails going through a third party gives that third party consent to share them with the government.

I started out writing disagreements to your points, somehow having misread them as being arguments you support for Rubists preferring dynamic typing, but then during editing I re-read that you think it's productive in spite of dynamic types. I agree totally.

I don't think Java-style typing is that much of a hindrance. It's irritating boilerplate, but people using those languages can slam it out very quickly.

I don't think reasoning about runtime types is any more difficult than reasoning about compile-time times, it's in fact a higher cognitive load because you cannot ignore it and rely on a type-checking phase that covers all your paths without explicit test cases.

I personally found Ruby to be productive[1] due to the expressive metaprogramming, how easy it is to make DSLs, blocks and yield for CPS, generators, and co-routines, and how everything is re-definable. I don't know how much dynamic typing factors into that, but I think if you could get the same things with equally expressive syntax, Rubists would still like it.

[1] It used to be my favorite. I still like it (and love it for scripting), but prefer GADTs and pattern-matching on type constructors now.

I guess you mean young-earth creationists? It's easier for them to swallow than evolution because it doesn't so directly threaten their beliefs. And it doesn't need to be a total rejection; they can disregard tons proof of the age of the universe and still know enough math and engineering to make, say, microprocessors.

Of course you must have read claims like "the speed of light changes over time" and "all that light was created en-route 6000 years ago". This allows them to believe a ridiculous premise but still participate in reality and use their GPS with a clean conscience.

But I think there are many creationists who can reconcile their differences with reality by believing the seven days of creation are a metaphor or some sort of measure in "God years", so they can reject evolution like they were brainwashed to, but they have no problem believing in the speed of light and measurements of distances between stars.

You can factor the prime numbers in a list of arbitrary large primes and composites too[1].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primality_test#Fast_determinist...

You could use a computer that doesn't try to run arbitrary programs from the USB stick for a start.

They are crowdfunding a speculative application. That's already mailing envelopes of cash. Although the users read that they are funding development and not buying software, Paypal grabbed it all and said they're worried about fraud.

Bitcoin lets the user assert that they trust the recipient. Or they could trust a third party escrow recipient. There's no payment processor to restrict who a crowdfunder wishes to trust.

If it were me, I'd say if the prosecution really has enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did a crime, an initially positive bias isn't an actual problem. In fact that's how the justice system is supposed to operate (innocent until proven guilty).

Yes I am sure in their community no children would ever fight in front of their parents, and they only meet up with their friends during homeschool hours. "Times up, junior, let's return to our cloister and shutter the windows for the night."

An educated and intelligent parent taking personal interest in a child's education vs. an overworked or underperforming (cannot be fired, unions) teacher lecturing to the lowest common denominator of 30 students at a time. I know which one I'd bet on.

It shows a severe lack of critical thinking if nothing else.

No it doesn't, it shows a presence of severe cognitive bias.

I would be skeptical of any other opinions they hold regarding biology, geology, and morality but they probably don't have any preconceived notions about math, or physics.

Well it is true that a fair trial is only possible with an unbiased jury, and having a lot of media coverage can create a bias. But doesn't that only apply to bias for the prosecution? And anyway they manage to find juries for high-profile cases (like OJ even after the car chase).

But no, let's throw out the First Amendment instead.

I guess I should have wrote infants that are unable to stop crying. I'm fine with children if they can manage to not kick the seats. Upping the cost enough would prevent parents of infants from flying and it would be wonderful.

It's also an appeal to authority to think because he is an expert at infosec, he's also some sort of expert on presidential review groups :) I agree with tptacek on crypto and as it turns out very little else.

That's the real solution, charge more for small children and use the extra charge to reduce prices of the seats nearby. It should be prohibitively expensive to bring a crying child on the plane.

Forget the moral panic, generative porn is a legal minefield; use one 17.99-year-old's image and you're a (probably undeservedly) sex felon. Other accidents could deservedly make you a sex felon.

Right; if the author applied common sense he would have noticed that the unsolicited rant is just as welcome as the unsolicited redesign, leaving a free slot on HN for something worthwhile.

I thought the Ruby VM already did invalidate() on things rather than checking, and that was a common practice on dynamic languages (doesn't the Objective-C runtime do this also?). I am really excited for this but agree that it is bittersweet the project is owned by Oracle.

Well at least you don't think it was supposed to create death panels :) it was indeed supposed to make healthcare affordable and force insurers to cover everyone, but it also makes health insurance mandatory. There's subsidies for people that cannot afford it, but it's still potentially more of a financial burden to lower income earners than a Socialist-style healthcare system. The US has basically the worst cost:success ratio of anywhere and the insurance rates reflect that.