route66

The situation you describe seems very recognizable througout a lot of european caitals or bigger agglomerations. During my last searches I encountered all the points you mention in Utrecht/NL, I hear comparable things about Amsterdam , Cologne, Frankfurt, Hamburg or Paris.

So, welcome to a european capital! 1 hour travel to work, 5th floor without lift is the way to go: older houses far outside of the big cities. The suburbs are already filled with locals who do not want/cannot afford to live in the centers. I'm completely unaware of the situation in Denmark, but just looking on google maps tells me that maybe Roskilde or Farum could be places to look for.

Also: you move to another country: other habits. If it's the situation on the housing market I cannot tell, but the million ways of being (un)friendly or (not) answering mails/letters, dealing with business transactions etc are the things which makes relocating difficult at heart, they are not just annoyances. I live in "another" country for some 20 years and will move to another one this month: I expect (and already experienced) a lot of impedance mismatches which could trigger a "considered harmful" post, but in the end I will have to adapt to enjoy the good things of it.

Good luck anyway!

And the ground stations have a different potential with respect to each other, so their reading of elapsed time could differ. That's what I understood from another article on that subject.

As the author also explains in the introduction, the compilation is based on the earlier compilation by Eric Pement, available as .txt files on his website.

http://www.pement.org/sed/sed1line.txt

http://www.pement.org/awk/awk1line.txt

Knuth's TAOCP covers it in vol III of recent editions. (http://www-cs-staff.stanford.edu/~uno/taocp.html)

Strictly speaking ruby, private only forbids calling the method in question with an explicit receiver.

object_instance.private_method is obviously prohibited, but so is self.private_method when called from another class method. The latter one is fine when private_method is called, without the self. To circumvent privateness in the other case ("calling an underscored method") you would have to say object_instance.send(:private_method).

At least Israel is a recurring participant at the european song contest[1]. This might have influenced wired's judgement profoundly.

[1] http://www.eurovision.tv/page/dusseldorf-2011/about/shows/pa...

Schneier does not tell so much here, instead he links to this article giving more details:

http://ashkansoltani.org/docs/respawn_redux.html

"lie", "things that are irrelevant" ... Opinionated words. I have not read the pragmatic programmer, but I fear that you just gave it a bad rap.

Right, I see this as the third way: stating transitivity which must not be asserted explicitly. The question arises what one would want to reach with a call to transitive(descendant).

(aside: the X =.. [F,A,B] is the prolog way of saying eval("F(A,B)"). and make it callable)

The problem is that transitive builds up a relationship between a functor and it's variables by trying to unify them with already known facts. But no new fact is generated.

     transitive(Functor) :-
       Rel1 =.. [Functor,A,B],
       Rel2 =.. [Functor,B,C],
       Rel3 =.. [Functor,A,C],
       call(Rel1),call(Rel2),call(Rel3).
 
     descendant(a,b).  #fact1
     descendant(b,c).  #fact2
     transitive(descendant) ;; says 'no'
     descendant(a,c).
     transitive(descendant) ;; says 'yes'

This functor only tells us if the database has a transitive relationship recorded.

If one wants the truth to be derived from the first two facts one would have to say

     transitive(F,A,B,C) :-
       R1 =.. [F,A,B],
       R2 =.. [F,B,C],
       call(R1),call(R2).

which derives transitivity from the first two facts, the last relationship (R3) is what we want to conclude, not what we want to find in the database.

Neither call though, will derive from fact1 and fact2 that "descendant(a,c)." is true. To arrive there you would have to "assert" these (new) facts explicitly in the transitive(...) definition.

But Prolog is not my comfort zone, there might be (and probably is) a way out of that dilemma.

No.

I would consider it helpful if there were more people in the industry who would know what a binary tree (or whatever comes to mind) is and when to use it. all means to get there are welcome as far as I'm concerned.

This l'art pour l'art accusation comes back once in a while, often in language bashing ("elitist lispers" I read some days ago). As a former musician I recognize it in the shape of "technique ruins your soul" or how one would like to phrase it.

I think that the dichotomy is just wrong. It's not detailed knowledge versus pragmatic solution. I spent a great amount of my time in environments where the "shipping it" dominated "understand what you are doing", and I also spent time with drummers who could not keep the time because practicing would ruin their soul. It's knowledge vs. ignorance.

What concerns software development: the essence you want to get back to smells to me like the vbscript world I was happy to turn my back to. I would like to see more capoeira, less hash-tables because they are built in.

To follow up on your analogy with martial arts: I practice fencing once in a while, a rather ritualized sport, (for some 100 years already): I would not like to inflict maximum controlled damage to my opponent, or the other way round: I'm not training to kill. You might call it a kata I'm working on.

Your point "it's not necessary to know all of them before..." I cannot argue with. I would think the same. But the inequality "written by a programmer who cares about knowing his craft" != "people don't want to use" follows not from that statement nor from any other point you are giving.

That's my point: For an attack I just send my php 4.1 patchlevel nnn specific script I just bought to 200.000 webservers on some it will work. This is indeed the majority of attempts I'm seeing. So it would break only attacks which do a switch on version specific information. My guess is that it would nor lower the number of attempts nor the success rate, a target will be found anyway, version information or not.

I would guess that scripts which bail out humbly in absence of version information are not in the majority, but I could be wrong.

Hmmm .. Security by obscurity?

When I look at my server logs I see lots of attempts to crack into software, components or programming languages I do not use and which can't be found on the server. The common cheap hacking script doesn't even care if it's a windows box when it's dumbly requesting the isapi.dll.

I wonder if the effect is the same as grinding the lock-makers label off my door locks.

I sincerely hope that folktales and sayings about groups are not the common source of judgement on HN. Nice also that you also have "leftist lunatic" as an explanation for any possibly contrary opinion.

previously discussed here http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2615096

raganwald has some nice thoughts and code devotes to our feathered friends.

https://github.com/raganwald/homoiconic/blob/master/2008-10-...

Don't get scarce!

I remember Erik Naggum calling out this "citation requested" calls as being passive aggressive, On HN I see them mostly coming along when the view of the other is not accepted. The radiation levels and the finding of Pu in the ground, leaking out radioactive water and the like have already been reported to death.

This call for sources, at the same time demanding they be sensible and have to use sensible definitions in this kind of discussions has an unfortunate "get off my lawn" tone to it.

Clearing the area is also already openly discussed by the Japanese governement. By contrasting "overzealous safety organizations" with "sensible risk based analysis" you put excatly no argument forward but already indicate what you would do with any such source.

It's indeed precalculated. Right now the official site of the train service lists blocking construction work on some routes, no train is riding there. On the map though they are still on schedule. Nevertheless a nice piece of work, but not really "live".

Think of all the good that could be done for open source if the company requiring their hires to contribute would be required to contribute themselves or to facilitate contributing under work time.

Touring? Robert Penrose? You must both be human! (only the messenger, not the downvoter)

As the problem lies often not in the data leaking out but in the conclusions someone else draws from it, I'm convinced that incompetence and stupidity only can make matter worse.

As for the mountains of data: how many HN'ers for instance would love to climb them for no other reason than to use some BigData tools on them without questioning that cause?

Finally HN turned into a political forum. (Tongue in cheek)

The downfall of most parties is due to the fact that they do have no distinct marks anymore. For many socialdemocratic parties in Europe this began with embracing neocon agenda's. Christdemocratic parties turn to nature preservation, ecological parties advocate engagement in afghanistan ...

Tells me that the era of differences is over, calling parties extreme left or right in european parliaments is mostly uninformed bogus.

How do you conflate a tabloid campaign with "telling facts"?

Put that way your point is more clear. You compare with languages from the last 40 years, I took some issue with "current".

Still I cannot see why this is a cultural issue that keeps developers away. Missing things like good string-libs, or ",;." syntax hassles, ok. But stability-features?

The point you address for C is , in a way, also valid for Erlang. It's your program which has to be stable, the language just offer you supervisors and independent processes. "Write it correctly" is the only way to achieve that goal, Erlang does not help you with that. Could be that messing up an OTP behaviour is as easy as dereferencing a null pointer... (disclaimer: I'm no Erlang developer)

If everybody just made better stuff they would not need imports from germany anymore. The motivation of trade has always been imbalance. I fail to see how those imbalances would smooth out. (Leaving out the perfect world scenario that every country would have some unique, equally valued tradeable thing/service/whatever, a fair starting situation so to speak. This would be ideology)

Ubuntu 10.10, Chromium 9.beta. When I log out from gmail and login through your front end I get the same problem. Incognito mode gives me a "you don't have cookies enabled" message from google.

In chrome I get a redirect-loop warning... (being logged in in gmail at the same time)

I must have missed the current common language "philosophies", at least what concerns their opposition to focus on stability ... what are these? Can I avoid them?

That's the marketing.