drivebyacct2

Where does that come from? People who have only ever used Java or C#? I mean, there's nothing conceptually about VMs or strong typing that would lead to such a conclusion?

Another HN thread, another half a dozen troll comments spouting inaccuracies about the language, then covering up for gross misunderstandings of the language and then saying "but I'm still right". Gotta love Go threads.

1. If you have upgraded from Talk to Hangouts, outbound calling via Gmail no longer works (there is no longer even an icon for it) since the introduction of Hangouts. So that's a change (though, a reversible one, since you can switch back to the old GTalk Chat interface in Gmail.)

It works just fine, there simply isn't an icon for it. Use the Google Voice extension. This is noted all up and down this thread. The actual process of GV calls being handed off to Talk/Hangouts is the same it's been for years. A tiny icon went away until they flesh out the rest of GV into Hangouts (I have very bold predictions about why they took away the call button temporarily, but I'm keeping that to myself for now)

2. but they haven't done it yet.

Look, I'm willing to take back everything I said, but quite frankly, Google Voice hasn't improved since I started using it 4 years ago and I'm not holding my breath.

Are you kidding me? Or do you just make assumptions and accusations about technologies you don't know about?

"Super star agile developers"? That's the best FUD you can put in my mouth? By the way, you might look up the "superstar" developers behind Wayland: Ctrl+F "The developers": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayland_(display_server_protoco... ..... Huh, that's sure interesting.

Nowhere did I imply that Wayland was better than X simply because it was newer. That's the exact kind of FUD I'm talking about from the X.org crowd that fears Mir and Wayland because they don't understand: the current technologies, the future technologies, the evolution of Wayland, the DEVELOPERS behind Wayland AND the HUGE list of flaws in X.

Stop spreading uninformed FUD, do not put words in my mouth and don't accuse me of being a hipster.

The sad thing is, no one has noticed that Hangouts is invoking a WebRTC plugin in my PulseAudio container, leading me to believe that they're already experimenting with WebRTC.

With WebRTC, a proper signaling protocol (they're probably using Jingle anyway, give the RTC history and the fact that RTC relies and builds on Jingle), and a relay server, there's not much to need to do to interoperate if they wanted to enable it.

This whole notion that they "can't" make it interoperable or that it will "slow them down", is complete and utter shit. Slow them down on what? All I've seen so far is more merging of GoogleTalk+GooglePlus and a rebranding effort. Basically no new feature, no integration with Google Voice, no seamless integration with SMS.

Where oh where oh where did you get that idea?

I think this auto meme that "open standards" = "unable to innovate" is complete and utter hogwash.

Reminds of a project posted to HN a while back that had taken someone a month. I replicated it in the evening using all open source, open protocol components instead of being stubborn and falling prey to NIH syndrome.

Shocker. Protocol issues. Time for another extension! Or to just shoot X.org in the head and quell the FUD surrounding Wayland.

They have not made any changes to Google Voice or GV integration since the rollout of Hangouts. Period.

Gr. I'm on Linux/dev/28 and no dice...

If there were any doubt, I just called my father after leaving my phone in his hotel. Quite, quite convenient!

Or,

1. Use the Google Voice extension. Enter number. Press 'dial'. Your Hangout is now ringing, huzzah

Do you have your cell phone tied into Google Voice...?

I mean, if what you're saying is true, they just broke all Google Voice incoming calls for all users (hint, they didn't).

I answered multiple calls last week in a Hangout that opened itself from my Gmail when the call came in.

No, you've been able to do this.... for years. And yes, it's worked consistently since they launched Hangouts. I often answer calls in Gmail and they have since simply began opening in Hangouts through Gmail.

Works perfectly, no idea why "the dialer went away" means "incoming calls no longer work", but hey, it's Google and it's FUD, should I bother trying to be surprised?

Don't get me wrong, Google fucked their one big chance to integrate Voice, Video, SMS and IM. With Hangouts, I should be able to "Call Someone" and have it negotiate video if we both have and want video, or it should use the next available medium. If both users use Hangouts, then send a Hangout IM. And if not, finally fall back to Google Voice/VoIp/SMS.

The users shouldn't have to ask themselves, "wait, does Bobby have Hangouts?" ever. That is literally the number one issue with G+!

>I honestly don't care what the HN trolls, and the people who upvote them, supposedly "think" about me.

If only that were true, I'd have spent even less time this week on meta-HN-drama.

And I reject or seriously, seriously, seriously lament that "discourse has moved to twitter". That sounds like the opener to George Orwell's 2084 or something.

At the very least, there needs to be a rudimentary troll block. I so tire of HN comment threads littered with discarded opinions from one-off accounts. Make accounts read-only for the first two-weeks and make sure they're actually being logged into and aren't being harvested.

I would have to say the last one is solved, but don't get me wrong, the rest is a joke in the US. My "fake" bitcoins are more secure than my USD in Wells Fargo.

I feel like you didn't read the article.

Bravo. I love seeing those files and the __MACOSX folder in zips. Especially when it's a (relatively) big open source project. I just chuckle, I've owned several Macs, they're a parasite.

I found "compromising" pictures of a friend of a friend on flickr once. That having been said, it was shocking to find it on flickr, I can't think of any other time I saw content anywhere near that "vulgar". Certainly in my experience, flick is like .5% as "porny" as tumblr.

KDE4? Systemd? Experimental? Centralized, versioned configuration? Sounds very, very cool. Worthy of being installed on something around here...

In my mind, it's a much better engineered solution to have a centralized, repeatable set of configurations than to have them spread out wherever in the filesystem.

(useful link, but it's probably easier just to expire it on CrunchBase and generate a new one, if they didn't already do that)

I wrote a few paragraphs but don't want to talk past you, that sounds fine for a secure channel, but are you going to warn users against using Skype for example? I mean, I don't know if someone has tried Google Docs with Skype, but I know I posted a GDoc link somewhere a while back only to have a bot pop into the doc. So, if the same happens with Skype, someone "joins" this shared resource... and you hit "Transmit"... who or what received it?

Of course, Skype's bot won't implement WebRTC.

They'll implement the proprietary blend that they told no one they were working on until everyone else was making serious progress with the implementation that everyone else collaborated on...

http://html5labs.interoperabilitybridges.com/prototypes/cu-r... [hm, they've actually put some money where their proposal is, I'll have to check into this more]

No. No. No, no, no, no. These are two different things.

One is a feature designed to allow them to check URLs, fetch thumbnails, etc. The other is a very pivotal core decision in how Skype works.

Skype has always been primarily node-to-node. Doing p2p connections like that required signaling/directory services. In the past, users' computers were used for that functionality. After their purchase, Microsoft transitioned those signaling/directory services to the cloud.

At worst, this gives Microsoft the ability to see who is calling who, I'll grant that. Worst case scenario, you can't negotiate via STUN and UDP hole punching or UPnP port forwarding, then you will get stuck with TURN and that will route through Microsoft's servers.

So, unless someone has proof of a connection that should have established peer-to-peer and instead the call itself was routed through MS's servers TURN style.... then can we ALL please stop repeating this obnoxious rumor about MS eavesdropping on all Skype calls. Or worse yet tying it to some URL lookup service?

How? The recipients have to manually type in the decoding key? Or they have an account and have been given access internally to the content?

Besides this hair-on-fire title and intro, this is pretty much just yet another rehashing that Skype visits URLs in chats?

(Honestly, if you'd just asked, I would have been assumed this would have been the case anyway)

Skip X, jump to QML and QWayland.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FjuPn7MXMs

Take that and extrapolate. Doesn't seem that "crazy" really. Compiz and KWin both already have window animations you're describing. There was even a Wii-head-tracking plugin for compiz that would give your desktop a third perspective dimension. (Moving your head would reveal the edges/bits of the other windows underneath higher ones).

It'd be a neat demo, but it sounds like a nightmare for daily usability, etc.

Note that I sign transaction offline. To put it simply your address is a private key, from which a public key (the public address) is derived. You can have one client, synced to the Blockchain, displaying your balanced, able to make transactions.

Then you take that transaction to an offline computer or source and sign it, take it back to the online computer and transmit it to the network. /roughly, see the other link for better information