FlemishBeeCycle

It makes sense though. You're essentially allowing your user-base to feed itself - they generate the content and then consume the content. Nobody knows what the audience wants better than the audience themselves.

There's a huge difference though, you can't buy thousands of plots of land at once for zero-investment cost ( aka domain tasting - did ICANN ever fix that?) and then see if someone expresses interest. Most people who speculate property invest more time, energy, money and research than the average domain-squatters do.

Furthermore, stuff that's common practice amongst squatters is expressly forbidden in other areas. At least in the US, you'd have a very difficult time trademarking an software company spelled "Microsoff", but typo-squatting is _rampant_.

There's a massively disproportionate amount of risk/reward for property speculation than there is for domain 'speculation'. If I find out about some new product coming to market and squat the domain - the company could potentially lose a huge amount of revenue, whereas I'm risking the cost of a latte.

I'm glad he didn't. Purchasing domains in hopes of selling them to people who want to _actually_ utilize them for legitimate purposes (read: not spam) is one of the most irritating and selfish practices around. People who do that are contributing nothing by skimming off of other peoples' ventures.

I've found that I rarely need additional actions outside of the canonical six, though I do firmly believe we need a 'delete' action analogous to 'new' and 'edit'. Sticking to those actions like DHH mentions, allows me to stop worrying about where something belongs and get things done. Considering that most apps are simply fancy CRUD guis over a db ... it works very well.

Routing is decoupled from those actions. You are not forced to use 'example.com/categories/1/cards/5', you can have (in this case) the #show action mapped to 'example/foo/some_card' if you want.

I've heard they're targeting RailsConf - but it's really anyone's guess. The frequency of commits doesn't seem to be decreasing.

In most modern browsers Array.join and += are about equal in performance for most use cases. Depending on the length of the strings and/or the number of segments joined - performance varies. Wouldn't worry too much about it.

I was more alluding to the deluge of very-similar opinions on a single topic in a finite period. While the iPad is a new thing, Facebook has been around and been engaging in the same behavior that gave rise of these complaints for some time now.

I've always been interested in these kind of data. Are women earning only 77% of their male counterparts because

a) They are primarily employed in occupations that pay less

b) They take maternity leave and/or extended vacations/time off (taking care of children etc.)

or

c) Women are just paid less for the same work?

So last week, complain about the iPad? This week, complain about Facebook?

His main complaint was finding selectors ... so, if we're going by the article that shouldn't work fine.

But really, if you plan your CSS instead of applying edge-case band-aid over edge-case band-aid, this becomes a complete non-issue.

Reader base meet article.

Combination of low-hanging fruit plus inflated idea of twitter's usefulness (much like other people largely unfamiliar with today's technology culture)?

Like you said, the distinction between meaning and information is largely superficial and arbitrary. Letters are symbols, symbols carry meaning - a particular squiggle only contains information because it has meaning (outside of models and other artificial systems). If I don't read Sanskrit, one letter contains zero information/meaning for me.

"If something is more probable, it contains less information." I don't understand, why would "ee" contain less information than "hh"?

I'm also wondering where his comparison of English to Japanese came from:

"For instance, we could compare the number of bits per character in Japanese versus English (it turns out that English is only 60% as compact as Japanese, which explains why Japanese book are always around two-thirds the size of their English counterparts...)."

Are we talking about kanji or hirigana/katakana? If we're talking about kanji, we're talking about thousands of pictographic symbols (a lot of which are multi-syllabic), which are fundamentally different in nature than English letters (as for the 60% more compact bit, citation please?). Based on his own assertion, "Let’s say that there are 32 letters and punctuation marks... each character represents 5 bits of information ... a total of 5*16 = 80 bits of information." There's somewhere between 2000-7000 kanji ... so each character would represent...?

Cautious excitement: How long until $EVILCORPORATION tries to get it appealed?

Also varies on where they are in their monthly cycle

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559901/

As far as I know, Fuzzy Finder Textmate only works with Fuzzy Finder up till version 2.16.

Not to downplay your contributions (thank you), but just letting people know about other options:

FuzzyFinder Textmate http://github.com/jamis/fuzzyfinder_textmate (Unfortunately only works with fuzzyfinder up until v2.16)

and more recently

Command-T http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=3025

I like to use "neurotypicals" when referring to "normals". Slightly more condescending, but not quite as hair-ruffling as "troglodytes".

Plus, the /euro/ syllables can be stressed for extra condescension points!

The fact of the matter is the phase, "normals" used in the article is just a way of referring to a large group of average consumers in a succinct way.

The question posed in the title differs somewhat from the behavior described. I've known people like that, and they are terrible people, and when I say "people" I'm using that generously - they're much closer to automatons. This one guy, if you talked to him about anything other than the acquisition of wealth or the acquisition of womens' lady bits - would give you a blank stare, take a second to reboot and then begin talking about one of the two aforementioned topics. They differ somewhat than the prototypical "cut-throat" business people. You know, those people who justify their behavior with faulty circular logic: you have to be ruthless in business, because business is ruthless. _Rarr, I'll eat your company_!

Like orangecat(http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1184986) mentioned, they exhibit classic sociopathic behavior. To be fair, we all use people - you use friends for friendship, significant others for significant-othering. However, it is the complete lack of empathy from these sociopaths that makes their behavior abhorrent. Though we all use others, the implicit social contract that is normally entered keeps the exchange amiable.

Obviously I have no data other than anecdotal evidence to support this claim, however, I would conjecture that the personality traits that lend themselves to acquiring wealth quickly at a young age, may also engender development of bullish personal decorum.

When I was figuring out what a monad was the biggest impediments were:

1) Superfluous analogies

2) Usage of do-syntax rather than bind and return.

Do-syntax, which sweeps the best example of how a monad _actually_ works under the rug, used in conjunction with the phrase "inside a monad", can cause beginners over-complicate and mysticize the idea of a monad.

I have not yet read the above tutorial, but the best one I have seen to date is http://ertes.de/articles/monads.html

Everytime I hear about a startup being acquired by Google I think of http://suicidefood.blogspot.com/. As the ultimate goal of the startup seems to be, being devoured.

I've used Linode for many years and have always been pleased with their service.

Comparison between Slicehost, Linode, Prgmr, Rackspace, Amazon: http://journal.uggedal.com/vps-performance-comparison

The chances that someone will see a potential benefit in being exposed to information on a topic of interest for zero-investment cost is fairly high.

Stick to niche subjects and you'll get a niche audience. Everybody eats, most people cook to some capacity.

Start a twitter account about "The Archaeological Assessments of Classic Models of Sociopolitical Types in Oceania" and I guarantee it'll feel like a close-knit community for nigh onto infinity.

People usually point to the BSD license and better code-base as the main selling points. Then they point to vertical split (which you can patch screen to do).

Bottom line is, if you have a screen config you like - there's not much point in switching. If you're just getting into terminal multiplexers, it's worth a look.

Although not directly related, I found this to be an interesting read (I believe it was posted here a few days ago as well): http://reason.com/archives/2006/03/01/why-poor-countries-are...

It would seem to me that focusing on only one aspect of the hardships suffered by a people is like you said, going to give rise to many unintended consequences. Granted "improving infrastructure" isn't quite as sexy as "providing vaccines", it would probably make more sense to focus on a holistic approach than an isolated problem.

"As an intellectually mobile loner, scene-setter, systems lover, obstinate rebel, techno-prophet, sensual philosopher, courteous progressive, close listener, gentle heretic, sound planner, adviser explorer, pedant and slick conceptual salesman..."

I stopped reading after this.

Works for me with JS disabled - maybe you're not looking for the right effect / not impressed?

  The ultimate power in life is to be completely self-reliant, completely yourself.

Why do these authors seemingly ignore the very obvious contradiction there? The idealism that this piece espouses is directly dependent on the support of other people. If 50-cent, and Vitamin Water did appeal to the averages then they would not have the revenue that they claim to have attained "by themselves".

There are countless people out there who could do exactly what they want, for themselves and never see these kind of returns simply because their product does not appeal to the averages. Getting by through life "completely self-reliant" is at best a joke and at worst myopic denial of reality.