ary

Now just imagine it being used at political events or to suppress collection of evidence of abuse at demonstrations.

Edit: Probably worth noting that were this to take off it would probably also be embedded in every TV out there.

> If you did not have specific plans for 285 domain names (which would cost over $2200 to register for one year), you normally would not purchase them.

Clearly the author has never worked with a content company on the web (writing for a blog aside). This kind of thing happens all the time. Purchasing domain name permutations related to your brand en masse is still usually cheaper than going through the legal process of taking ownership from another party.

It has been speculated that MS has lost their backwards-compatibility religion, but you still see vestiges of it in their strategies.

Maybe they don't have the discipline to ditch Windows for tablets, but they certainly have the willingness to steal (borrow?) ideas from their competitors. Putting the OS from Windows Phone 7 on lower power hardware (à la iOS and the iPad) is clearly the right decision.

It honestly looks more like a problem with pride and less like a problem with discipline.

Never noticed the Github 404 page until now. Clever.

https://github.com/eveonline/eveonline

It makes me sad to say so, but this looks like trolling.

First off, I never said the entire value, but meant to point out that their potential stake could be worth far more than $65 million. According to the linked article they're claiming Facebook lied about its value at the time of the settlement, and they they're entitled to an amount promised based on its true valuation.

Your point about what they hired him to do is closer to what I was getting at, but I suppose that point seems clear enough given that they came to a settlement.

I'm not sure that the surge in membership has anything to do with it. Even at my karma level I still can't down-vote, so new members certainly aren't bringing me down. Seems more religious to me.

Since pointing fingers at the Winklevoss twins is a common theme in these threads I'll just post at the top.

Regardless of who's side you're on in this you have to accept that the value of what's contested (who came up with / owns / started Facebook) is worth much, much more than ~$65 million (the original settlement amount). Call it greed or call it white-collar entitlement, but these guys seem serious about seeing it all the way through. Who wouldn't? No sane lawyer is going to advise them to settle for a fraction of what they might actually have a legal right to. Too much money is on the table.

The crux of the argument (for me personally) is whether or not these guys hired Zuckerberg to build the original version of what became Facebook. I've not read up enough to be convinced either way, but again, lawyers will weigh the options and advise accordingly. At the end of it there will at least be some more case law around who-owns-what under similar circumstances.

Care to share what you think it is?

Let's be realistic. New product announcements from Apple happen at planned press events. The 10th anniversary of their first store will probably just have fancy new store displays and a give-away.

Edit: Disagreement probably warrants a reply, not a down-vote.

Basically because Apple wants to control the whole experience from turning it on to turning it off. Not saying that everyone cares about that level of integration, but if the past is anything to go by then Apple does.

Because there is a layer of UI/UX between the screen and "their box" that Apple traditionally hates. If there is an Apple TV with a screen (and I'm not saying there will be) then you can be sure the input switching madness, weird motion interpolation, iron-maiden remotes, and shitty setup experience will all be gone. If it ever comes to exist, it will exist to close that final gap between Apple/iTunes and your couch.

Compare the traffic in an American mall on Thursdays to the weekend and you have your answer.

Could we perhaps just give sub-threads a descending rank (starting at 1 for the highest voted comment) instead? Comment scores were never an indication of accuracy, so validation may be the wrong word. There do seem to be more than a few people (myself not included) concerned with an indication of consensus so a middle ground solution that brings that data back could be useful.

I was hoping something like this would eventually happen with node. This is interesting from a technical perspective, but I think even more so from a business one. Creating more of an overlap between the technology used on the server side with that of the client just makes it easier to find developers who can do both. Personally I'd love to see the term "front end developer" lose some steam.

Immediate up-vote for the flagrant flaunting of Godwin's law.

Ack. I must have missed it. I'll ditch this one.

You need to reword this as a top level comment and repost. Some will say that having to make such a request is proof that scores need to come back, but I'm just concerned that everyone on the "pro" comment score side will never see it.

Having done some redesigns of HN to see my own reaction towards the concealment of scores and other elements I have to come out in full support of concealing comment scores. After playing with a layout that concealed the scores for comments and stories I'm also a big fan of ditching score display for stories.

My experience was what I think common sense dictates. Since I couldn't see a score I couldn't let that color my opinion of a given comment and had to read it. This point alone has significantly increased my engagement in the threads I care to read and made me more carefully consider the top level comments on a story. Since pg turned off comment scores I've wondered if the primary reason people have reacted negatively is due to losing a positive status indicator. This is to say the score might have nothing to do with one's own engagement with HN, but with one's concern for other user's perception of their comments.

One other change I experimented with was moving the score of stories and comments to the far right top of the story/comment so that it wasn't the first thing in my line of sight. This helped with my bias as well.

At the end of the day this all anecdotal, and your mileage may vary.

Perhaps the names on a particular thread in the discussion could be revealed once you vote or comment on that thread?

Please experiment with not showing comment or story scores. Just show a user's total karma on the profile page.

I'm fairly certain WWDC tickets are not transferrable.

> Conference badges are not transferable. The full conference fee will be charged to replace a lost badge.

http://developer.apple.com/wwdc/faq/

Edit: Nevermind. Just read the CL post. Wonder how long that code is good for.

This is a whole load of conjecture, but the product announcements coming out of Apple for the last few years seem to be converging on a pattern.

1) Update on success / market share / etc.

2) Possible update on retail.

3) Compare product that is about to be obsoleted with its competition while putting said competition in an unfavorable light.

4) Make the magic happen and take the press to their happy place.

#3 intrigues me. I can't help but wonder if casting the competition in a negative light is just an excuse for being able to talk about the competition at all. Given the possibility of government interference in any industry it is in the best interest of most businesses to maintain the perception of healthy competition. What has struck me about Apple's portrail of their competitors is that they preset what appears to be a finely tuned mix of recognition, disdain, and paranoia. It's almost as if they want you to remember that there are others out there. Any company that mops the floor with their competition is going to have to deal with the losers running off to the FTC, Congress, etc and whining about anti-competitive practices. At times Apple's presentations seem to be attempting to preempt that sort of thing.

Let me preempt any emotional responses by pointing out that I'm not saying Apple/iOS is better than Google/Andriod, etc, etc. I'm saying that in terms of financial success and overall market/mind share they're doing some serious winning (and not in the Charlie Sheen sense of the word).

I was taken aback when I tested this for myself as my initial reading of the PHP docs lead me to a very different conclusion. You are indeed correct, and in my opinion that is very broken. Touché.

Your PHP example is possible to write in a way that is nearly identical to the C# you provided. Why are you prefixing Namespace\MyClass(); when you declared your namespace scope in 'use \My\Namespace'? Your assignment can just be:

  $var = new MyClass();

This brings it pretty much in line with your C# example. Have you read the PHP docs on namespaces?

http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.namespaces.basics.php

Curious as to why you think PHP's namespace feature (I'll assume you mean the real one introduced in 5.3) sucks.

It seems like you didn't read the whole RFC. The configuration is actually very simple (just the command line options), and not meant to be a front-facing HTTP server.

That's not exactly true. You still need an HTTP server to proxy to the FastCGI back-end. This could be useful for a number of things outside of local development instances. One could avoid having to setup Apache/nginx/whatever to pick up the HTTP request from a reverse proxy and instead just spin up PHP on its own.

Agreed. Judging from banter on the web the iOS notification system is approaching "Fix The F Finder" levels of frustration.

They never say in the specs. We'll have to wait for someone to corner an Apple rep at the hands-on or iFixIt to tear one down.

I suspect that when iOS 5 is announced there will be more to say about the iPad 2's abilities. We'll see I guess.