Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more flyinRyan's commentslogin

Keep in mind this was in Germany and it doesn't read like native English. I.e. you're almost certainly reading a translation.


Actually im german myself and by reading the translation i immediatly realized it was someone from germany translating that ;) But its more about the general tone that comes across a bit rude..Anyway OP clarified so its fine!


The FBI still uses the polygraph? I would hope the FBI would be looking for the kind of people that know a polygraph is near worthless.


How does this deal with [1]? Also, how do you know that your disassembler isn't compromised?

[1] http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/184874/is-ken...


Disassemblers produce assembly code, not the HLL code, so they are many orders of magnitude easier to write from the scratch than modern compilers. They typically expect human involvement as soon as there's non-trivial assembly-level engineered self-modifying code. Hopefully there's no much of such code in the results of the compilers we use.

Also if you check the whole discussion you'll see I already discussed Ken's work.


Ok, I appreciate this information (and I'm trying to follow the discussion but I didn't see you talking of Ken's work).

But I'm still curious; even though you can write the disassembler by hand, how can you be sure that you're compiling it with a non-compromised compiler? Or do you mean write it in e.g. ELF format directly (and that's assuming the OS isn't involved in filtering offending code, though it seems extraordinarily unlikely that the OS could be generally modified in such away without detection)?


The more general and diverse the tools you use, the less likely they are all compromised in the same way, and the more likely any compromise will show up in other contexts. Using tools at different meta-levels may also be worthwhile (machine-code vs. interpreter).


write a disassembler in machine code, of course :)


>Yeah, I know: it's not Javascript that's broken, it's the DOM.

No, JavaScript itself is a ridiculous language. Every time I have to deal with it I grit my teeth. Right now I'm dealing with dates. Luckily JS has a built in Date class! Which, of course, does nearly nothing. If you call "getDay" you get a zero indexed number representing the day of the week. So since there's no formatting functions to print out dates, how do you get the month-day number? Oh, right, you call getDate...

If I didn't know better I would think this abomination were created by someone who thought the secret of PHP's success was being horribly defined.


Try this: date.toLocaleDateString("en-US", {month: "numeric", day: "numeric"});


I want a specific format to our proprietary systems. In C# I can just say "date.Format("dd.MM.YYYY")" or what ever I want.


Granted that's a bit tidier than doing this in JS:

var myProprietaryDateFunction = function(dt) { return dt.getDate()+'.'+dt.getMonth()+'.'+dt.getFullYear(); };

But in JS, you can pass that function around like a village bicycle -when I think back to my C# days, it makes me wonder how I ever did without functions as first class objects and a slew of other really great things about JS. A lot of those things are brainbangers at first, to be sure - but when you finally grasp them (for me, at least) you start to see that the things that make JS "ugly" to the novice are the same things that make it powerful and elegant in the hands of a master. To each his own - and there are things I do really miss about C# from time to time... but for me, I am all too happy trade the tidier date.Format() for the more powerful underlying functional constructs any day.


when I think back to my C# days, it makes me wonder how I ever did without functions as first class objects and a slew of other really great things about JS.

C# has delegates, events, lambda function, properties and async function as language constructs. This is as "first class" as it gets. It also has LINQ.


You forgot to add 1 to dt.getMonth(), because months index 0-11 :)

(and be careful not to accidentally concatenate that 1 instead of add)


uh, this won't have leading zeroes like DD.MM.YYYY format would have


>Either something is okay, in which case it's okay to do with a machine, or it's not

Actually, if you follow someone around everywhere they go, even in public, unless they've famous and you're a paparazzi you're likely to get charged with stalking.


Why on earth do you live in France? It sounds like you don't believe in anything that makes France France.

And health care is most definitely more expensive in Switzerland than France. It's privatized but there are strict regulations on how much money insurance companies can make and all citizens are required by law to have insurance.

> Not for subsidizing movie producers

France makes great movies, but they could never compete against Hollywood financially. I for one am quite glad that France does what they need to to make sure good, original French movies (ok, not all of them, but much better than Hollywood) don't lose out to fast-food garbage the US is pumping out.


>Because the more profit Google and Amazon make, the more value they produce for society as in more work, better technology, better life etc.

Yea, because trickle down economics works fantastic: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/business/12scene.html?_r=0


The problem is that Hollande is very left wing, yet France already had one of the best income equality ratios in the western world.

It might have been better if France got someone very conservative like Obama and the US got someone from the true left like Hollande (though he wouldn't get a single thing done in the US, it would be fun to watch people like Rush Limbaugh literally die on air).


You're correct. If you're married and file joint I think that number is $130k. So if a dual income family makes $180 that means paying tax, a portion of which was made by someone who isn't and was never American.

Even the Mafia was never so cheeky.


>So if the foreign country has a higher tax rate, you will never pay US tax.

If I live and work completely in a foreign country why would I ever pay US income tax under any circumstances at all? The US is one of two countries on this planet that expect people who's only tie is being a citizen (perhaps never having set foot there and not speaking the language) to file income tax and potentially pay a portion of their income.

Even worse, the US expects you to file with them the way you file in your country of residence. File join in the country you live in? You're expected to file joint with the US then. Which means your foreign spouse who has no ties to the US of any kind (outside of being married to a citizen) will potentially have to pay US tax on their income.

And worst of all, the tax is mostly an annoyance. The true problem is that you have to report every account you have signing power over. That includes pension fund. That includes your companies bank accounts that you manage (which is why an American will never hold such a position in e.g. Switzerland). Lots of banks also won't take Americans on as customers. They don't get enough to warrant dealing with US bureaucracy to report information on these accounts.

>You can always renounce your US citizenship

Which is what many people are doing. The US is one of the few nations on earth that people give up citizenship from.


Yeah, I was only challenging the dual taxation claim. I agree that the rest is draconian.

Out of curiosity, what is the other country?


I can never remember. I thought it was North Korea but lately I heard it was somewhere in Africa. I only know the US is one of two places and the other isn't part of the developed world so it's not the best company to be keeping.


Eritrea.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: