rwolf

"Last I checked, you have been in the business of finding other people's digital information on the web, aggregating it, and offering it up as your product for more than a decade."

I believe there is an important difference between indexing Mocality's content and the things that Mocality is upset about. I believe is is reasonable to expect Google not to call your customers and pretend to represent a join venture, lie about your offering to them, and to pressure them into buying something.

<joke>For one thing, that doesn't sound like a very scalable crime model.</joke>

"I'm being downvoted so people must not be thinking critically."

I'm curious if you were redirected to the mobile version of the website. When I visit plus.google.com on that same phone, it redirects to m.google.com/app/plus, which looks like a iphone-ified version of my stream.

My favorite answer. You can even leave out the "" around the numbers. I'm surprised the lower case fizz and buzz passed--the directions definitely say "Fizz" and "Buzz" (I got a 503, so I haven't been able to get to the unit tests).

As a junior developer at a major company, it sure feels like I'm receiving training. Since major companies are hiring both junior and senior developers, are you suggesting they stop hiring senior developers?

The first subheader of the linked article is "Kickstarter for Open Source?"

I'm nervous the only thing good enough for me to pay for on the internet will go away. I will have to spend that $7 on coffee again, I guess.

On a tangent, does it really take 15 years before you can start tossing about the phrase "senior"? The only job ads I see asking for that kind of time appear to be aerospace/government, so I'm curious if it's just the startup bubble making me think 7 years is fine?

I'm not trying to push a viewpoint--I'm trying to describe the current use of a phrase. How I feel about licenses does not change the way the phrase "open source" is used here and elsewhere.

I think it would be more productive to promote the licenses whose values line up with your own than trying to police the language. For my part, I will keep pointing out the ridiculousness of saying "$neologism != $foo, because $blog_post says $nelogism = $bar."

That's a good question. I thought Zed Shaw had licensed lamson under those terms, but I see nothing about that on his github right now.

While I can't find a use in the wild, an example of a license I would consider to be: * open source * prohibit for profit use is: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

You are welcome to say that creative commons is not open source (many people whose opinions I value highly feel that way), but it is commonly described in those terms (or at least it was when it first came out while I was in college).

Also, here is a plug for the world's greatest license (I'm tragically not affiliated with the author): http://davispj.com/2010/02/19/agpl-not-awesome-gpl.html

None of the groups mentioned control the definition of "open source." I cannot control what looks foolish to you, but the phrase "open source" is tossed around a lot more casually on this site than you seem to believe.

You can also specify which circles see the entire blob of contact info. I would prefer to send each bit to a different circle, but it's 1 step up from the permapublic name field.

I came in swinging to tear apart yet another oblivious security article, but you actually taught me something.

Looking up X-Frame-Options and X-Content-Security-Policy now--thanks!

Assuming you're not using jQuery because of the heft, I suggest: https://github.com/ded/reqwest

The conspicuously absent feature from shred is the nice sugar for handling status codes.

Mentioned in the article.

This story was on the HN frontpage 20 days ago. Why is it back? Has the post been updated?

Could you provide an example outside of apple products, to make your distinction clearer? With the examples given, the difference is colored by my feelings about the companies involved.

The only stated reason I've heard is "the code is ugly," which was found to be... unconvincing here on HN. Are you aware of another reason, specifically one which would be convincing?

It seems to be a large leap to go from "sends lots of emails" to "automates finding people to recruit." There is a similar leap from "automates finding people to recruit" to "uses private messages as signal."

If it links to the Amazon store, does that mean Apple is getting a cut of all sales made through the app?

The bots used the quotation site to generate dummy content, not for scaping.

One major problem is that Facebook's privacy model for a long time was "trusted with everything"/"trusted with little", and the criteria for entering the inner circle was "the user adds you as a friend." Combine this will social pressure to reciprocate friend requests, and you have a mess.

I wonder what effect allowing assymmetric contacts will have. Will users get used to people "subscribing" to them without reciprocating, or will we all try to achieve the ultimate high score by "friending" everyone we can get ahold of?

A friend has brought to my attention that the tone of this comment is racist. The comment is too old to edit or delete at this point, but I am sorry for the offense I have caused.

Thanks for clarifying. I'm not sure how I missed that when reviewing the example code.

After poking around little bit, it appears you need to poll for updates. To clarify, when you say "real-time" you mean "changes are reflected quickly" and not "changes are pushed to clients"?

Fair point.

Given that you have to enumerate the topics ahead of time to create an A/B test, I'm not sure how this can help editors see outside their city center.

Personally, I don't read newspapers and greatly enjoy blogs with tiny ivory towers over which the author has a large amount of experience/insight. I can see that that may be a uniquely "internet kid" point of view.

I'm not disappointed about anything.

You're on the front page of HN today, so whatever your regular audience, your audience today includes a number of tech bloggers.

For newspapers: you will not be catering to your audience, you will be catering to the people who clicked on those ads.

I was not suggesting you did not care about your topic.

I was not suggesting it was in any way improper for you to mention adcenter. But it's funny, you just parroted what was in the news and instead of useful trend data about the popularity of adcenter among bloggers we just have more noise.

Please do not do this. Everyone has a tendency to write about whatever's in the news today anyway--we will spot your over-topical posts a mile off.

Have an interesting point of view, or some experience your audience lacks. Be helpful, be opinionated. If you don't care about the topic why should we?

This is the second article on the homepage to mention adcenter, which I had not heard of until today. HN reader/writers: I'd be interested in an adwords comparison that did not boil down to "less eyeballs, cheaper."

You give them a field lableled "Name" they can type something into when they leave a comment. Now they are not anonymous.