Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | login

OCaml objects are pretty neat, although I rarely ever end up using them. Although I also rarely ever use OCaml for that matter.

One issue with the article - the author confuses duck typing and structural typing. While they are similar, there are important differences. OCaml uses structural typing (which enforces type at compile time) and not duck typing.

reply


>a lack of political diversity that was every bit as dangerous as a lack of, say, racial or religious or gender diversity.

The lack of young-earth creationists in science is very worrisome.

-----


10 years of links to previous blog posts.

-----


HN isn't reddit, and jokes/puns generally aren't well tolerated here. The comments are supposed to be reserved for more serious discussion about the article and providing supplemental information.

-----


Perhaps jxf should have written "dunk your hands up to the elbows". If you are washing clothes with gloves on, you can expect at least some water to make its way in through the top.

-----


>I hardly think that office disagreements are the sort of thing the advice is meant to deal with.

Actually I think that's exactly the sort of thing the advice is meant to deal with.

-----


The constitution makes a distinction between "person" and "citizen" and is careful to grant rights to "people" and not just "citizens". This is why freedom of speech applies to illegal immigrants and visitors and not just US citizens.

-----


This is why freedom of speech applies to illegal immigrants and visitors

Not if we read the text:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Extracting the relevant bit:

Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech

Illegal immigrants and visitors "have" free speech because no laws may be enacted against it, period.

-----


You're missing the forest for the trees, but if it will make you happy, "congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble".

Illegal immigrants and visitors have the right to assembly because no laws may be enacted against people assembling, not just citizens assembling.

And perhaps more significantly, let's look at the 14th amendment (which I really should have started with in the first place):

>All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Here there is a clear distinction between citizen and person

-----


Here there is a clear distinction between citizen and person

Yes, there is. There is also a clear distinction between which persons it applies to and which it doesn't;

> ... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

-----


There is also this Reuters blurb: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/02/us-crime-silkroad-...

-----


Then change your password to something that you don't actually know.

Generate a random password before your trip and print out a few copies. Take one with you and secure the remaining ones. Before you fly through the UK, change the password on your computer to the random one and destroy the printout. When you get back home use the remaining printouts to change your password back and then destroy them.

-----


I haven't studied this law in detail, but it expect it is worded to avoid precisely this sort of manoeuvre, because the implication is quite clear - you have no right to privacy. If necessary they'd just confiscate your device and detain you on suspicion of perverting the course of justice etc, etc. they can hold you for 3 months for refusing to answer any questions they ask, including questions on your encryption scheme and how they can defeat it. They can also image all your hardware for future decryption, compromise it before returning it, etc.

I think the safer solution is not to travel with hardware you intend to use again.

-----


I haven't studied this law either, but look at what happened to David Miranda who was in a situation very similar to the one I proposed - he was transporting information but didn't know what he was carrying (and given the people involved, the hard drives were probably encrypted).

He was detained for 9 hours and threatened with arrest during that time, but this was under terrorism laws, not encryption laws. And ultimately he was let go (sans equipment).

-----


People have been jailed in the uk for not giving up their password. I suspect Miranda was released because they had the devices/data and had made their point, plus of course it would have become a major international incident given the news organisations involved and their involvement in the story. If he didn't have embassy staff and the guardian lawyers demanding his release, it might never have happened.

-----


Does the UK not have anything similar to the 5th Amendment in the US? Could they ask you "Did you still a hot dog from that hotdog stand"? And force you to confess, or be faced with charges of lying to an officer?

-----


Under normal law, yes there is a right to remain silent, at the border, no, because they have passed laws (schedule 7 of the 2000 terror act) saying they can imprison you for three months if you fail to cooperate in any way or answer any questions.

-----


These sorts of techniques make great comments, but are nearly useless in reality.

First of all, even if you're being truthful, saying "I don't know my password" will likely not be believed. Explaining the process you went through to safeguard your password will merely elicit suspicion by a border agent. Why would you go through such pains if you had nothing to hide? And once they are suspicious of you, you will almost surely be detained and have your equipment seized.

Yes, the government might not be able to decrypt it for years, but they still have your laptop, and they are still in possession of your data, encrypted as it may be. So, I ask you, who won this little battle? It sure wasn't you.

IMHO, the only valid approach here is to host everything on an external server, and VPN / SSH into it to do your work. Don't store the connection info locally, and don't store any passwords / keys locally. Make sure no confidential files ever touch your hard drive, even in a cache. Most agents have no idea how that process works, and unless you have a shortcut on your desktop / home directory labeled "connect to home fileserver" they probably won't even think to ask you for any further info.

EDIT: Stupid spelling error. Thanks, recursive.

-----


> Why would you go through such pains if you had nothing to hide?

Why would you not want a camera in your bathroom, if you have nothing to hide?

-----


Please note that I personally hate the phrase "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." I was using it in this case because many people still operate like that and because, for better or worse, I assume all 'police type' people fall into this category.

I merely figured the HN community would pick up on the sarcasm.

So please do not patronize me.

-----


The assumption is that you are okay with having your laptop seized.

Obviously the best approach is to just not have your laptop.

-----


FYI elicit

-----


At this point, why are you even bringing your computer along, if you have no way to log into it?

-----


This obviously depends on your travel plans. For the US, for example, CBP can only search your belongings on entry into the US. If you are traveling from the US -> wherever -> US then you only need to secure your laptop for your return flight.

-----


usr originally contained user files (http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/notes.html). I'm not really sure why or when that changed, but supposedly "Unix System Resources" is a backronym.

-----

More

Applications are open for YC Summer 2015

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Y Combinator | Apply | Contact

Search: