It's impossible to pass around functions without arguments in Haskell, because there are no functions without arguments in
Haskell. It looks like the same is true of Gluon. (So you don't really pass around the function name: you pass around the variable which contains the result of evaluating the expression.)
In languages where there can be functions with no arguments, if referring to the function without parentheses calls it, it can be inconvenient to get a reference to the function itself.
Anything which passes "iface" through without sanitising it.
The argument to exec is executed in a shell, so it can execute just about anything it likes, such as dialing out to a host under the attacker's control and giving it direct shell access.
Context is king. In this thread, RMS criticises Github as a place for hosting GNU projects.
RMS, who leads the FSF, which owns GNU, thinks that GNU projects should not be hosted on services which encourage users to run proprietary software on their PC, or which don't encourage users to use the FSF's preferred license.
To me, this stance does not seem at all nonsensical.
His actual point, in context, was that GNUstep shouldn't be hosted on GitHub because in doing so the GNU project is effectively inviting users to run GitHub's non-free software on their computer.
Whilst "what a VC-funded startup should be burning money on" is something that the investors should have input on, I don't think random people on the Internet get to be the gatekeepers for what a company is allowed to do with their investors' money.
Legal dictionaries are useful for looking up legal terms of art, but they are not binding on courts. After all, anyone can publish one.
In the US at least, courts prefer to use the common meaning of words whenever it's reasonable to do so. If the common meaning doesn't make sense in context, they won't simply fall back on a legal definition, but will look for evidence of what the parties actually intended the words to mean.
In the case of disparagement, several courts have held that the common meaning of "disparage" is what applies to non-disparagement clauses.
> it seems most developer prefer to build complex systems using simple languages, rather than build simple systems using complex languages
According to TIOBE, 1% of programmers are using Go, whilst 23% are using Java or C++.
If that is to be believed, developers do not appear to prefer simple languages. Or, Java and C++ are simple languages. Or, language selection is not based on preference.
If we must make this comparison, most actual companies are totalitarian dictatorships.
> We can all opt out of Facebook.
Can we? What is the practical effect of doing so? Will they stop tracking us on the web? Will they stop gathering data about us via people with whom we are associated?
Facebook is a crowd-sourced global surveillance program from which there is no real opt-out and over which there are no checks and balances because most of the people running it don't even think they're running a surveillance program.
But, receiving, storing, and/or processing personal data without consent is, in most situations, likely to be against the the Privacy and Electronic Communication Regulations and the Data Protection Act. Additionally, information about political affiliation.
The key point in this case is that CA didn't have consent. CA don't dispute this, but say that they believed at the time that they did. It is a defence to show that you "exercised all due diligence" in complying.
ICO will be looking for not only evidence of the actual use of personal data, but also evidence regarding whether and to what extent CA were knowingly or recklessly non-compliant.
I think package URIs should include a secure hash of their contents.
Although you won't get updates without asking for them - I'm not sure that's a bad thing - you can be assured that you'll either get the package you were expecting or no package at all.
Major companies think the current situation isn't anywhere extreme enough. Their customers have some rights, and some courts will even let them exercise them: that's unacceptable.
There's no chance Disney will be happy with any solution which involves losing any level of control over any copyright they currently own (or will own in the future).
Although they would, I'm sure, be happy for other people to have to pay to maintain their copyright, making it easier to plagiarise poorer creators.
> Do you go into stores and demand they take down the displays that you don't like while you're shopping?
No, but stores are usually happy for me to not look at the displays if I don't want to. Staff don't follow me around putting up displays in front of the shelves I'm looking at, sneaking things I don't want into my basket, or following me after I leave the store to keep showing me displays. Nor do they outsource these things to unvetted lowest bidders, and swear off responsibility when the people they've contracted steal my car whilst I'm in the shop.
In languages where there can be functions with no arguments, if referring to the function without parentheses calls it, it can be inconvenient to get a reference to the function itself.