gthank

H.264 is not new. All those Flash videos? They're almost certainly encoded in H.264.

In fact they can, but it has never happened. The relevant text is here: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article5. The basic idea is that 2/3 of the state legislatures must call a Constitutional Convention, where the Amendment(s) will be proposed and sent to the states for ratification.

http://www.vimeo.com/ ?

The scenario explicitly says he didn't show up to drink with the other nine.

No, they weren't. According to the "Release Notes", they were using a DES-based crypt scheme. Read up on tptacek's (http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=tptacek) comments on the matter.

They were using a DES-based variant of crypt (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypt_(Unix)#Traditional_DES-ba...), not actually encrypting the passwords.

Removing the GIL was one of the explicit goals as originally conceived, but was dropped when it was realized how difficult it would be (source: http://code.google.com/p/unladen-swallow/wiki/ProjectPlan#Gl...).

Does anyone know of startups that put this advice into practice?

I think the point was not that the government is preventing a Wal-Mart-level success story, but that organized crime was preventing a Wal-Mart-level success story.

Say what you want about Wal-Mart (I avoid them like the plague just because I find the shopping experience actively repugnant), but to go from inception to world-dominating monster in ~40 years is impressive.

Sorry about the misunderstanding. At a guess, I'd say they mostly just mean J.D. and M.D. degrees. Those are the ones most commonly lumped in with Ph.D.s, probably due to the amount of time you need to spend getting them.

It's all subjective, but for me the usability enhancements of GMail are far, FAR more than evolutionary.

Professional degrees are degrees that are designed to prepare you for a specific profession. Those professions typically involve government regulation, with said regulation commonly requiring the degree in question. It's often used to indicate M.D. and J.D. degrees, although it also includes a slew of others, e.g., nursing, accounting, education.

Given the context of the discussion, it only seems fair to remove all the products they acquired from your list.

The CDN is a different subdomain; can Adblock not handle this?

The theory is that they know your entry-level and do some mentoring, code review, etc. to teach you about those sorts of things. That sort of depends on you getting a job with a good company, though.

Cooperative Eduction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_education) is another great option. I think it gave me a huge leg up on the students who didn't participate.

I could have sworn that was the submission where I found the comment, but I couldn't find it again for my reply, so who knows?

Discussing "the proper valuation for a company" is pretty much begging a regulator to at least investigate price-fixing.

Actually, I posted it because somebody linked it earlier today in a comment and it was the best (and earliest) explanation of the Bike Shed phenomena (in a software context) I'd seen.

Maybe there were, but I haven't found them. Maybe the title should be "The Earliest Bike Shed Email I've Seen". Also, it gives a pretty thorough explanation of the history behind it, something left out by most references I've seen.

Firefox on the Mac is a decidedly second-class experience. I still use it from time-to-time because of extensions, but Chrome, and especially Safari, are far more pleasant out-of-the-box experiences.

A lot of people have these things they call lifestyle businesses: if they're meeting payroll and expenses, and loving what they do for a living, they've 100% satisfied their goals.

I'm not sure that's what is going on in Scribd's case, though.

While there is a straightforward way to implement Back and History, the point is that traditional web dev technologies give it to you for free, so it's one more thing to think about.

Compile time definitely gets better if you reduce the number of targets, but it still totally dominates most people's build times.

Not needing to recompile in dev mode is definitely a big win.

While I agree that it's not a good idea to hand GWT to a bunch of <snip>enterprisey developers who "don't like working in the browser"</snip>, I think that's exactly how it gets used by a lot of companies (based on the questions I run into on the web).

One thing about your final point: you should probably be asking yourself why you need a web application that doesn't act like most web applications. If you don't have some really compelling story that you just can't (reasonably) tell in traditional HTML/JavaScript/AJAX applications, there's a fair chance you're just going to piss off a lot of your potential users, who expect a web site to act like a web site.

I think it depends on your perspective. If you like being a web developer, then I strongly suspect GWT is not for you. A (non-comprehensive) list of things that are likely to bother you if you're a web dev (and like it):

* Things like progressive enhancement and semantic markup might not be totally impossible, but they're definitely not the focus of the framework.

* The back button is broken by default; there's a work-around but you're probably used to getting that functionality for free.

* The GWT compile cycle is LONG.

* You pretty much NEED to be using Eclipse (or possibly IntelliJ) instead of your text editor of choice.

* The final product probably won't feel like most web applications.

To be fair, people have written things like [quake2-gwt](http://code.google.com/p/quake2-gwt-port/), so you can get something pretty awesome in exchange for these tradeoffs. Also, if you loathe HTML and JavaScript, but you still need to get something up on the web, then GWT might be just your ticket.

I used to love the "Clean" light until I realized what you pointed out: you'd better want to put away all the dishes right then, which is a problem when you just need a spoon to stir the soup, etc.

That does sound like a much better approach.

People have a problem with this for a number of reasons, including but not limited to:

1. They feel duped. They gave some money to a person because they thought that person was down on his/her luck, then find out that they were played. People don't like being defrauded.

2. They are intellectually outraged because the beggar has made a career out of taking money in exchange for nothing of value, although some might argue that the warm fuzzies provided by the act of giving count as something of value.

3. They are angry that these beggars are destroying good will toward other beggars who are begging because they really do need help.

Of the ones I discussed, I image #1 is the biggest factor.

You need the pick your homeless person carefully if you do this. There's a nontrivial chance it will result in verbal harassment and/or a confrontation.