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