Nycto

While that may be true, the interesting thing about this article is that it presents a recipe that can be reproduced in an average kitchen. I'm no chef, so I don't know if this has done before, but if it hasn't, it's pretty cool.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. This specific implementation happens to use flash because it's fast and easy, but there is also a javascript/css based way of doing it:

http://www.lalit.org/lab/javascript-css-font-detect

It looks incredibly delicate, but it seems to work.

Also, I blocked their flash script and reloaded the page; My fingerprint changed, but I was still a unique butterfly. An absence of fonts is also distinguishing characteristic.

I believe it actually gets the font lists using a tiny flash app. Check out this project for an example:

http://github.com/gabriel/font-detect-js

The demo really needs to disable autocomplete for the input field: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/How_to_Turn_Off_Form_Autoco...

I know what you mean... I realized about 20 colors in that I seemed to have a different name for each incarnation of blue, but all shades of green were just "green" to me.

I've been using Prototype for, oh, maybe 4 years now. I really like it. However, the rift between it and jQuery is becoming large enough that my company is considering re-factoring our existing code to use jQuery instead. It seems to have Prototype beat on speed, size, community, modularity and compatibility. Any advice floating around out there? Are there any reasons to stick with Prototype?

All the ones that support pre-commit hooks...

I've been a Prototype user for a few years now. I've always kept an eye on jQuery, but my knowledge of it is incredibly shallow. I have to say, I was shocked when I saw that they added the "proxy" method. This description makes it sound exactly like "bind" method in Prototype. Is that a valid comparison? If so, why did it take so long for this to appear in jQuery? At this point, I don't think I could write a snippet of javascript without relying on that method.

A PHP library built from the ground up for PHP 5.3:

http://www.RoundEights.com

You can also get reminders through mint.com

rsync works really well. It's what we use at our company. One trick we have considered implementing is pointing the HTML root to a symlink that points to the current release. When you rsync, create a new directory named after the version. After you have verified the transfer, flip over the symlink to point to the new code base. Doing it like this will make quick roll backs easy and protect you from interrupted transfers or users hitting your site mid upload (it has happened... we spotted an anomaly in the error logs and our "wtf"s per minute shot through the roof).

This article makes me nervous. The author freely admits to a gaping security hole in part 3 of the article. Instead of fixing the code, the author just added an annotation. I just know that someone inexperienced in the ways of PHP is going to copy and paste that code without reading everything thoroughly. I understand the author was trying to keep things simple, but it's irresponsible in my opinion.

Dang... I wish I had seen this two weeks ago. I would love to have purchased something as a Christmas gift for my wife. It's cutting it a bit too close at this point, though.

This looks like a functional (The paradigm, not the adjective) version of the Visitor pattern: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visitor_pattern

It seems like what you are suggesting is akin to credit card skimming:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_card_fraud#Skimming

How is this any different?

Base64 will inflate a list of bytes by 33%. For every three bytes that go in, 4 bytes are returned. Wikipedia has a very good explanation of why this is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base64

While we're on the subject, Ascii85 is kind of a cool alternative. By increasing the number of characters used for the encoded string and breaking a 32 bit integer apart in an interesting way, it is able to reduce the expansion down to 25%. For every 4 characters in, 5 come out. Again, more info is available on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascii85

I had issues loading this site... Looks like Google has a cached copy for anyone else looking for a mirror:

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:http://www.kalzumeus.co...

I completely agree. If Traits are something you really need, you're using the wrong language. If you need a screw driver, get a screw driver. Don't try to use the claw of a hammer. Developing with something like this will only increase the spaghetti factor. If you are a stickler for code re-use, my suggestion is to favor Composition over Inheritance.

It's also worth noting that PHP will most likely be adding Traits into the core language at some point. A patch has been available since 2008:

http://wiki.php.net/rfc/traits

Hell, if you really need traits (you don't), apply the patch. Just don't mutilate your code base.

The key is that sites have to add a meta tag for the chrome browser to be used instead. It is opt-in only. This means that all those corporate sites that require IE won't be affected, but a user can still get the upgraded experience for sites that desire it.

Consider a few of the benefits not mentioned in the article:

- You have reduced the cyclomatic complexity of each class, which makes the code less fragile and easier to unit test.

- When adding a new operator, you are now forced to implement everything it needs to work. If you don't define a method, it won't compile. This is not the case with a long list of if/else statements.

- "You still need a nest of conditionals when you populate the tree..." This is true, but now all the conditionals are in one place, rather than two (in their example, toString and evaluate). Again, this will make testing easier.

The run on sentences make this article hard to follow. The last paragraph of the article even says, "not the best explanation..." Isn't the whole point that this is supposed to be a good, simple explanation?

Wikipedia offers a much better walk-through of what it is and how it works:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffie-Hellman

I completely agree. I equate it to coding standards. Whether I indent with two spaces or four doesn't really matter until both get mixed into the same code base. The point is not that these rules are arbitrary, but that they are standardized. The same goes for the color of code samples in Wikipedia articles: no matter what article you are looking at, the code will look the same.

While I agree with the idea that you should never share your password, you're blaming the victim. Having read a few accounts of their exploits now, this company is manipulating these people.

I was beginning to get perturbed by the inundation of password fields lately, but I actually really like this one. However, I think that it would be more effective as a browser plug-in than a site feature.

I, and probably a lot of other developers, have an immediate, negative, visceral reaction to "gotos". The reason is simple: If a language provides the appropriate control structures, gotos aren't needed. They will only make your code soupy. In my opinion, if you find yourself using a goto, you should be seriously reconsidering your design.

This article was posted a little while ago, and I thought it gave a very good, non-partisan account of gotos: http://david.tribble.com/text/goto.html

I have to admit, these demos are quite impressive for such a small amount of javascript. I was also surprised with how smoothly they ran. However, there is one thing that has been itching in the back of my mind every time I see an article on processing: it doesn't look like it is at all object oriented. Am I missing something?

If Prototype and Scriptaculous are your flavour:

http://wiki.github.com/madrobby/scriptaculous/slider

(though it doesn't look like their wiki has a working demo?)

I couldn't find what version of PHP he was testing anywhere on the page. However, the second test ("Using the =&-ref-operator") makes me think he isn't testing PHP 5. This functionality was deprecated and, if error reporting is turned up, will cause an E_STRICT error to be thrown.

The article incorrectly states that Traits (think mix-ins, for you ruby guys) have been added to 5.3. This isn't true. While a patch has been implemented, it isn't slated to be released in 5.3. Some later version, no doubt.