dejan

There is also the https version on https://syncfu.heroku.com

Well, of course it's on Heroku! :D

For the design, I believe a web app should be a web app, not a website. Minimal images, minimal views, straight to the point.

Safari feels much more thought out I have to say, but the feature/bug mentioned here seems just a result of full space tabs while in FFox/Chrome they are acting as fixed width.

Rule of UI: count on and compensate for human errors and behaviour. Safari wins there for me (UI wise).

Surely I think it is a good step forward, but there are two sides of the equation, maximizing profits and providing fair value for the price.

If the company wants to maximize profits they might just as well start with highest possible price as tybris suggested. However, price has always been related to scarcity, and if there is no control of the same, the offer gets commoditized , hence the real and perceived value is not appropriate. The book Experience Economy talks a lot about this.

EDIT: In any case, the one that is concerned with fair value has a sustainable advantage over the one that is looking for ripping off customers. Dynamic pricing should involve many variables, such as time since marketed, total sales, stock, discounting, revisions etc, but I would keep all of this information out of the sight of customers as it may appear very confusing and irritating for the conservative ones.

I am not sure whether they are doing it right here, but I have great respect for experimenting. Behind every great invention there is an exploded lab :D

IMHO, more discussion there is on ideas, more people are willing to cross the threshold and actually start working.

However, as Novash says - a reason: "that was faster", "couldn't find a good one in this language", "friendly enough", that seems to be missing. It was there long time ago when they started (for those of you who remember), but today everything shifted. I don't go building theories anymore on the statement that the world is flat?

So stop attacking me because I gave an opposing opinion and suggestion for improvement. It is great what they do, but I am sure like any other programmer, they too would like their code and idea used, not forgotten.

This was not about productivity or stupidity of projects, so reread my comments before you burst. I also do stuff all the time just to see if it can be done. Don't all of us? But again, "if it can be done" solves a problem. Redoing same things just because, now that's something worth discussing.

These are first steps to gain control of the drugs market, and a sign of government greed They want people to consume more, as they have a great stake in it. This will also mean easier transport to the US, as dealers will be spread on every corner. The crime threshold has just been raised.

The governments are not against drugs, ethicality and that sort of cr*p. What they are pissed of is that they can't regulate such a $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ market. These are the first steps towards that. If the government says it is ok, then I guess it is? Next thing will be complete legalization, with government taxing. Drugs will be toys for the very rich ones, and in some 50 years, I am sure we'll be able to get them from the supermarket shelf. History repeats itself, the modern prohibition.

Makes me sick.

I don't see technological, logical, or knowledge progress in the attempt to write complete OS in assembly (anymore). I've done it myself, in high school, just for fun, a 16bit. That is also when MenuetOS came out. Now I spend my time more wisely. I've actually went on doing things that benefit the society the technology and the users.

Not that menuetOS is bad, but I suggest they reorient them selves so that there is that usable part. And I can see space for it, in embedding computing f.i. Far from having no respect for their work, which I have my hands in from day one.

Maybe it is interesting for embedded devices, but seems they've lost their purpose. It was never meant for business, but again, what's the point?

I like the questions you are raising. I have written about them before and have started playing with my own approach. It is a big project, but unlike yourself, I would not be concerned much about applying to YC with it. YC is not a research incubator but a business, and no matter how cool the people seem to be, they're after the money. Nothing bad, it's just capitalism. YC makes most of the money from the VCs, so they need you to have something that will sell (to VCs). It's a very smart business model that they're running.

If you are really passionate about these issues, you need to build a prototype or specification and throw it out on the web as an open source to get support. I see the possibility of a viable business model in the authentication scheme.

That said, I disagree with your approach to tackling the problems you listed. Your issues are valid, but not the most important. You have not identified the core problem. Consider this. You publish something on the web, the website goes bankrupt or decides to shut down. Your data goes down with it. Your article, your comment, your photo, blog post, this comment I'm writing. We've given all the power of data preservation to the web sites. The web is not preserving it self. If we see it at the biggest library of all, just imagine this, every day a part of it gets burned down.

Making data independent of servers will solve most of the issues you raised. Your address book and contacts belong to servers and web apps, as you said, so you don't manage them. If you were to own the data yourself, and the webapps only managed and used your data, you would have a single point of authentication, single address book, single stream of your produced content.

Think of the desktop vs web app paradigm. We need a platform for applications on the web that will be based on user content. You own your data, but the webapp only uses it to add functionalities. You install a webapp onto your data just as on the desktop. You delete an application (or detach from your data). This would be a new paradigm of the web, where all the control is with the user, the user base is unique on the web without clustering, and applications are just that.

Emails are nothing else but user generated content. We tend to see it differently, but it is absolutely the same, the servers own it. I wrote recently an article about emails describing how much we don't have control over them:

http://www.aleveo.com/ideas/decentralized-email

You do not own your emails. The problem I want to stress is that, as long as someone else owns them, you don't. If no one owns them, you might claim full control. It is the benefit of decentralization.

If you take a route of making another central point of aggregation and data control, you have simply contributed the system you want to change. I would suggest you start thinking in the decentralized direction.

As you said, the web has issues, but you can't build on top of it if you want to change, you need to go lower.

We can take this further if interested dejan dot strbac at aleveo dot com, I will publish the whole thing on www.aleveo.com when I am done with the draft.

I wish you much success with the YC application, I couldn't agree more that such fundamental projects need to be supported rather than useless web bubbles.

Well, "twitter style" :) with the @ signifies an address. Without the @ it could be used as a universal login for other applications.

I am thinking that the domains have less and less importance, and that our data should be more integrated across the web. I am aiming at unifying the web data of a user just as it is available at local storage, and applying the desktop usage habits to the web.

It's just some thoughts passing, and I'd appreciate opinions.

What do you think? In the mean time we can build some prototypes on different platforms.

The real reason why we don't know how and if this interaction model would work in practice - is the obvious absence of implementations.

Indeed I haven't. I have to change that, thanks for the tip.

This is why I over stress the need for use cases.

The reasoning behind this idea is how I use my files, the intuitive processes to organize and later find, the flow of thought and command.

This was my biggest concern, to be backward compatible with legacy apps. And it is possible.

"C:\Program Files\X\Y\Z" - "C"+"Program Files"+"X"+"Y"+"Z" "/usr/local/files/" - "usr"+"local"+"files"

The only thing is that "usr" owns the file and so do "local" and "files" but the app doesn't care about that.

Legacy apps do not access the files directly but through the filesystem. If the filesystem knows how to convert these conventional paths into sets, there is no problem.

I started playing with tags on Aleveo for that reason, maybe I should take it further on a separate test project. It makes a big difference using it and thinking how it would be used.

Also, I am not sure what would be best for executables but how are those currently seen - as having an "+x". Having an executable tag is not much different. That also means, tags are a bit "smarter" than the regular ones seen on the web.

I am mostly thrilled by the ability to see the relations of files and folders to others. Those are not folders anymore as "storage units" but "meanings".

Also currently a file can exists only in one place. Having symlinks is cruft in my opinion, compensating for the need of multiple context presence of data. Symlink is a separate file, a pointer different than the original. Windows is excluded completely :) I think file can be in several places depending on the need. After all this is not the physical world.

but that form of structuring has been imposed by the nature of directories/files. I am not sure what the right solution would be for that case, perhaps internal tags for a set, but that would make things complicated.

In the nature of sets, maybe this could be done: "Source Code", "Shared With XYZ", "Application1"

Sharing could be defined on the set, "Shared With XYZ" is a tag that when defined could have the permissions etc. When a file is "placed in it", it is automatically shared.

We need to get detached from hierarchical thinking to see the possibilities, which is difficult as it is all present.

What I want to say is that Documents -> University or University -> Documents is the same, thus it makes sense. In real life the order doesn't matter.

Thus it opens a path for better HCI: computer, give me all documents from the university (all university documents)..

I am curios in what perspective you see this failing?

It is not the funding that is the main reason for applying. Although some small amount of money is great to cover living costs so that you can devote full time to your project, it can be handled differently. What I think most of the people here are interested in is the post funding period - getting big investments and connections through those that already did the talk and walked the walk. Note that I am not referring to YC only, but also to all those that YC helped or involved. There is a lot to learn from such condensed entrepreneurial community.

However, don't idolize YC. They are not best. They are not even the first ones to do so. They are just best known and publicized.

I would highly recommend doing a criticizing and constructive thesis. That is - seeing the shortcomings of YC and suggestions on how to do it better. Your question to HN should be how to do it better?

Such thesis is benefiting to all then, YC and other that are copying the model, but most of all - us :)

Very interesting!

http://www.aleveo.com/ideas/voluntary-price-suggestions

Yes I do indeed. Wanna visit south of Italy around Naples? Or maybe residents of Grdelica, south of Serbia?

The waste is exported to other countries to deal with or just dropped on them through "bombing" or buried under the ground. Inform yourself or go for a road trip with a geiger counter. The volume is not what really matters. Nuclear waste isn't recyclable.

Misinformation?

Yes you are right. I also think A. Graham Bell was an idiot not using a cell phone instead, as well Morse not using binary codes. =)

I think you should visit the building behind the second out of the two identical Tesla seated statues (first one being in Niagara).