muaddirac

This idea (or at least, where this idea could lead) is actually a far more RESTful approach to the web. REST services should offer a single entry point - the root url - and the rest of a service's content should be navigated to through hypermedia affordances.

The advantages are clear: the user never hits a broken page (theoretically) or finds that content has been relocated.

The disadvantages are also clear: no more bookmarks, no more simple sharing.

Hypermedia APIs attempt to address this problem to a degree with various forms of CURIEs[0]. It could be interesting to see a web based on that (imagine href="hn:threads:buying-the-url").

[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CURIE

This looks great! I wanted something sim(ilar|pler) for inspecting psd iOS mockups (to extract size/font info, etc). This is clearly geared towards web, but looks like it would work well for any sort of design.

I think it's a misplaced modifier:

"Comcast, as well as every other ISP for the last two decades, has a multiplicity of agreements just like the one Netflix approached Comcast to negotiate."

Related observation: I have an hour/hour-and-half commute, and I've noticed in particular that it doesn't pay off in any noticeable way to speed (~10-15 over) on the interstate. At best you shave off a few minutes, but those saved minutes can easily be eaten back up by traffic and traffic lights in the non-interstate parts of the commute.

Looks interesting!

> you never have to learn some silly separate query language again. A query language which just attempts to be some DSL to RPC another machine into doing the same query you could have already written in half the time it took to learn the query language.

Not sure I agree with this sentiment - most programming languages aren't declarative like query languages are, and that seems especially useful for, well, querying.

I would suspect that it's because a ruby ARC would require thinking more about references (the strong/weak paradigm would, I think, need to come into play) which isn't really a concept in Ruby. I think it would be difficult to ensure code written without arc would still run properly.

But I agree with you. I much prefer ARC over any GC I've come into contact with.

"In addition to PDF source files, MS Word®, PowerPoint®, and Excel® files can be converted to the PDF format, then saved, viewed, and annotated on Digital Paper."

Don't worry, though, in addition to PDFs, you can convert other files to PDFs!

True, but that's nothing that couldn't be done in either a separate file or in the .m?

The separation is nice, but does it need to be done manually?

Couldn't a simple compiler take in .m files and output compiled code + .h files?

This happened to me too! I thought chrome had somehow silently updated while I was playing.

Looks great (haven't read all of it yet).

Have you considered using something like Ipe to make diagrams for you?

This is a good overview of a config pattern. I'd personally have preferred it without the TDD stuff, seems to get in the way of the explanation.

If I could give it a shot... (Good translation but it looks like you missed a sentence)

> In the case of x86 Android, Intel plans, among other things, to allow file operations to be monitored by virus scanners by way of hooks. Such hooks would allow new files to be scanned, for example, without the Anti-Malware and Operating System having to go through what were, until now, the usual paths over the filesystem.

Enjoyed it, but man does it make the laptop run hot.

That's what I thought they were using, because of this:

"A simple Hubot command can reroute our traffic to their network which can handle terabits per second. They're able to absorb the attack, filter out the malicious traffic, and forward the legitimate traffic on to us for normal processing."

I'd be interested to know who their "DDoS mitigation service provider" is.

> Despite such demonstrations, Perlman has been unable to tempt venture capitalists with the technology. “They invariably bring in experts who say it doesn’t really work,” he says. “I am showing them a demo, but they remain convinced that it’s something else.”

Then it's not an adequate demo?

If I had to guess, it's because C lets them model their software closely to how the hardware is designed.

This is about laptop keyboards, but there is a huge diy scene around improving keyboards. I have an ErgoDox (http://ergodox.org/) which is very well thought out and open source (and people are iterating on it - see: http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=44940.0 )

I disagree. Software development uses many of the same processes as mathematics, with the requirement for rigor often relaxed severely.

The presentation is almost completely illegible

I agree, if I'm reading this correctly.

From the article: "Pauley is essentially saying that the targets of the order have no recourse to challenge the collection of their personal data because Congress never intended for targets to ever know that they were subject to this sort of spying."

I don't think that's true...I think the judge is saying that the targets of the order have no recourse to challenge the collection of their personal data because there's nothing to challenge (it's legal), regardless of whether or not Congress intended for the targets to know about it.

Am I misreading it?

I got more something like: "I love writing a cli in a nice, expressive language like ruby, but ruby is a pain to distribute. I wrote this library for Go that lets me write simply and expressively, and I still get the advantages of Go's portability."

Not a groundbreaking revelation, but his point, I thought, was the expressiveness of the syntax PLUS the portability of the code.

An ex of mine edited a wiki article and added false information to it. I think that sort of thing is very harmful, so I removed it. A day later the edit was reverted. I tried a few months later. It, too, was reverted.

I had someone else try. It was reverted. I tried once more, probably two years later (after the "fact" had time to propagate throughout the internet), and it too was reverted.

The reason it was reverted every time? Apparently I didn't sufficiently explain the edit. It didn't require explanation: it was an uncited, demonstrably false fact. It asserted the existence and publication of a book (in recent history) that was never published. It is impossible to find a copy of it. It does not exist. I didn't know how to explain it any better than that.

A few months ago, I saw that someone finally noticed it was fake and removed it for good.

> and more incentive to do research

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the entire point of tenure was so that professors who have proven their worth have the freedom to do the (perhaps controversial) research that they want to without fear of retribution from their employer.

Edit: And now that I think about it, the point is also to prevent "dead weight" from being fired. Because it'd be easy to classify a professor as dead weight who is simply working on something unpopular, or contrary to consensus.

Pandora for tv? It sounds like a solid idea.

I don't understand how any of this is useful.

- he samples only his own writing

- he has a far bigger sample of "medium-length" articles (how big are his samples of 100 word posts? 2000 word posts?)

- the title seems intentionally misleading, making it seem like it was actually a scientific analysis, and that a positive result was actually found

- content isn't controlled for. How are retweets a useful metric for measuring optimum length? Wouldn't that have far more to do with content?

- doesn't take into account the presentation of information

- doesn't take into account his audience

- etc, etc.

Also a user. Another big use case is developing for mobile against the planned API while the API is still being developed.

And for systems where the API is provided by several different apps rather than just one, it's nice to have a centralized spec for everyone to conform to. Eventually it's supposed to test your api against your spec, which would be nice.