Or if you want to be avant garde, I suppose you could begin the numbering at zero *blames wine*

{1:"a",2:"b",3:"c","foo":"bar"}

Sure it won't create an instance of Array, but if you're using an Array to also be an associative array then really I think JSON is the least of your worries.

I imagine that using trig tables for multiplication would hold you back, yes.

An example of the block graphics: German Teletext porn!

If you're running your own mail server, YOU get to choose what CAs you trust. If you want to do something nefarious, you only trust the one that you and your terrorpedo cohorts set up.

This is the third story about this vulnerability.

"OMG - some software has a vulnerability!"
"OMG - someone's written a proof of concept attack!"
"OMG - someone else has done the same!"

This is even more ridiculous than stories about Bitcoin or the Raspberry Pi. Well, maybe not Bitcoin; that's just fucking retarded.

If you put "each" "word" "in" "quotes" then it works as intended. It's fucking ridiculous that you have to, mind. The other thing that's starting to piss me off is the auto-correction. Now it's brilliant that if someone searches for "diarea" it'll offer you pages about bum gravy. But (and I can't think of any real examples, so just play along) I hate that if I search for "cat food" it'll say "showing results for 'dog food'" and you have to explicitly click to tell it to search for the words you typed in the first place.

tl;dr: Google search is starting to suck.

Then I suggest you dont' (do) read this: http://www.amicistours.com/wineswirling.html

Then buy a firewall whose interface only lets you open one IP at a time? Or even one IP/port at a time? If you're using iptables or pf from the CLI then a) you should be capable of configuring a firewall properly and b) it's perfectly correct and desirable that you should be able to tear a goatse in your security for a given IP/subnet/port/interface.

That NAT won't let you do this is a weakness of the technology, not a strength. Protecting a user from themselves is an interface issue, and one that should be possible for an experienced user circumvent if needed. Otherwise you may as well say that Bash shouldn't allow globbing - after all, a user might accidentally type rm * in the wrong directory.

Yes, he said you need a NATing Firewall. I said that there is no security benefit to NAT. What is your point?

It makes perfect sense to design an internal network using RFC1918 addresses, but that doesn't mean the hosts can't all present to the outside world with unique public IPs.*

A downside to NAT for a small home network? How about when you have two or more servers both listening on port 22, and externally you have to remember which port you plucked from thin air in order to be able to get to it? This of course being multiplied by the number of servers and number of services being run on them. It's not the end of the world (for a small network) but it offers no benefit except for conserving IPs.

*(Yes, yes, yes, I'm well aware I've just described one-to-one NAT, but I think it's pretty clear that that's not the type of NAT I'm arguing against.)

There would still be a gateway. There would still be a firewall. From an external point of view, the only visible difference is the number of IPs that route through the GW.

Wait, you think that NAT is a good thing? Well I suppose there has to be one.

NAT solves ONE problem: more devices than public IPs. Any perceived security benefits are purely incidental and can be solved (better) by a firewall.

If your preference is for a full-on strongly typed language then PHP is a poor choice for you. However there are things that can go some way to providing this sort of safety - you can use type hinting to specify what types must be passed to a function (including support for polymorphism, interfaces as you'd expect). But this is still a run-time feature as there is no compile phase. I honestly don't know whether there's a static analysis tool that can use this data along with type-inference techniques to provide "compile-time" type safety, but there may be.

But I reiterate: PHP probably isn't the language for you. I understand your position, as I'm completely anal about code being free from all warnings too. However; I'm also of the opinion that strict type checking actually provides comparatively little benefit. When I fix bugs in our codebase it's almost never due to type mismatches, in fact I can only think of two instances ever where I've thought strong typing would have prevented a bug. On the one hand you may claim that's two bugs too many, but on the other hand that's several years of IMO faster development gained by not having to jump through hoops.

I've yet to use a language with a full type inference system, but it seems like that may be a pretty awesome compromise.

And when they don't in fact do that, are we expected to be at all surprised?