orls

To my knowledge, sharing folders can only be done through the Web interface.

The NGINX contribution has been noted now; https://github.com/ry/http-parser/commit/8dabce6ec7142319bc5...

Interesting. Not really sure how much mileage there is in an XML representation of MIDI, other than as an implementation detail for bigger packages. I'd venture a guess that 'end-user' adoption is low? In the sense of, for example, people exporting as midi-xml from their sequencer to email to each other?

To be clear, I was more enthused with the collaborative potential and the extremely low barrier to entry, rather than with the notion of a text-file-based representation of sequencing. This project seemed more immediate, hackable, 'tactile' in a way, and more shareable than other formats/tools that I know of; although of course much less powerful.

Can't wait till people are composing full songs as a series of YAML files and samples, then publishing them on Github.

After all, there's not a huge amount of difference, conceptually, between remixing and forking!

Valve consistently anger or frustrate their core fanbase (e.g. the hot-air boycott over Left 4 Dead 2, the almost decade-long whining about Counterstrike game mechanics, and of course the frustration over HL3 / HL2:ep3).

But the fans never seem to leave, and their zealousness and numbers only ever grow. Even with the historically poor SDK support and release cycle, there's still has a solid, active modding community even as the Source engine starts to look a little tired.

And at the same time they're pioneering digital game publishing and distribution, providing really interesting services to their competitors (Steamworks), pushing the frontiers of their core game niches, and are astoundingly profitable.

That's an amazing example to aspire to.

I firmly believe that to be a decent web programmer, you have to have gone through phase of writing your own web framework.

In some ways, I don't think you truly appreciate the value of (and how best to use) any given framework until you've tried doing it yourself (whether through ignorance, hubris or curiosity)

And judging by the number of (largely abandoned, or single-serving) web frameworks out there, many have come to the same conclusion...

You can see the changeover quite clearly by comparing the two against each other: http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=fuck%2C+suck&...

If we assume all pre-1800ish mentions of 'fuck' are definitely meant to be 'suck', it still features much more prominently in the corpus beforehand than after.

Any ideas why that might be? E.g. certain types of text that were more common before that era, or other (less, er, 'suck'y) types of text that came after, 'diluting' the corpus?

Great resources, I remember Flipcode fondly (if fuzzily) from 3D game engine dabbling in the past.

I think it would be really interesting to see a reappraisal of these articles from a '10 years later' perspective, to see how the state of the art has (or hasn't) progressed.

I might go with "Structured Javascript Applications", or something similar, as your chapter titles indicate a degree of concern for structure/robustness/non-spaghetti-code apps.

Or maybe I'm just seeing what I want to see.

Exactly. I am constantly amazed at how oftem people tack the word REST onto things that are clearly not RESTful, and in some cases (like this one) specifically unRESTful.

Please, people: REST does not simply mean "HTTP is involved somewhere".

"When your only tool is XML, every problem looks like it's a schema declaration and a few XSLT transformations away from a nail"

This almost exactly describes a Project Manager I've worked with -- he has had experience with a CMS system that was entirely XML-document based, and sees almost every problem as solvable with XML/XSLT, and pushes it one his teams.

Which is a good example of why project managers shouldn't be allowed (or at least not depended on) to make technical architecture decisions. We've ended up doing a giant site search project based on huge XML indexes...

This is actually a really, really well put-together platformer! Fast, just enough of a challenge, cute and fun, and brilliant music too.

Fantastic!

Same -- it's taken me almost two years of reading HN before actually signing up, because everything I feel like saying has normaly already been said much better than I could.

A hypothesis is any testable, falsifiable conjecture. I can hypothesize that gravity is negative at one particular spot in your back garden.

As I understand it, a theory is any hypothesis that is believed to hold (at least for now, under the conditions it's thus far tested under, or based on the evidence we already have). In other words, a theory is a hypothesis that is provisionally considered true.

Thus, my hypothesis about your back garden could turn into a general theory of conditions under which gravity turned negative, if observations were made which supported it (which is, admittedly, unlikely!).

I'd agree with the Sacramento example above, i.e. that the only things we can consider facts are things that we've agreed upon/defined. This is a smaller set of things than people normally call facts.

In my (limited) exposure to the think tank "industry", it seems that many make a fair chunk of their bottom line through memberships; companies buy memberships to receive publications & analysis, newsletters, networking opportunities and a voice in any policy processes the think tank can get involved in.

Some member companies will pay, partially or fully, for their memberships with services rendered; which means the think tanks have ready access to good and plentiful legal representation & financial advice/management, which must help lower costs quite a lot.

The official site has it via http://soe.stanford.edu/alumni/cerf_lecture.html (sadly, requires Silverlight)

Aside from any discussion of the spin, 1st-world do-gooding etc, the absolute bottom line for whether this actually does any good is cost (closely followed by distribution/organization).

There's a veritable glut of seriously awesome designs designed to bring benefit in the developing world -- two of my favourites in the last decade are ColaLife (http://www.colalife.org/ ) and Josh Silver's liquid adjustable glasses (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/dec/22/diy-adjustable... ). While both are incredibly neat, both seem to have have had poor traction (the glasses are, admittedly, doing well, but there's 20 years of work and still only a relative handful in the wild.

In the CNN interview they mention it's provisionally "Not that much more expensive than a regular high-end soccer ball". Sounds like they plan to use the XO get-one-give-one plan.

Unless they can lower the cost, and come up with a funding scheme that doesn't rely on a few nice folk in rich companies buying what will essentially be a useless novelty to them, I don't hold out too much hope for this changing any lives very soon. Sadly.

That's really very impressive, I can imagine coming back to this as a rapid-sketch tool in a way that I never could with SketchUp.

One suggestion: To aid camera/scene navigation, you might want to consider hotkey + drag to temporarily flip into camera move modes, even when in draw mode; many desktop 3D/CAD tools offer this. I'd opt for ctrl/⌘+drag for rotate, and allow your existing shift+drag for panning to work in draw mode.