joemoon

Friendly advice:

I would really like to find out what revisu does and how it works without signing up. An intro video would be ideal, or at least a much more detailed feature list and screenshot walk-through.

> The point being, it is really, REALLY, hard for someone to be invisible while browsing the modern internet.

Agreed. If anyone is interested in a bit of (slightly terrifying) evidence, take a look at evercookie: http://samy.pl/evercookie/

> except maybe that guy from Full House who specializes in "clean comedy."

Wait, was this a subtle joke? Bob Saget's humor is very vulgar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctHArXFxu9A&feature=playe...

Not my cup of tea, but there it is.

By "looks an awful lot like" WadeF actually means "looks exactly like"...

I had to really concentrate to see the difference.

I suspect you were being downvoted because you don't understand what REST is. I don't mean this as an insult, most people that talk about REST haven't actually read Roy Fielding's dissertation. It's a good read; I highly recommend it.

If you do give it a read, you'll find that his paper isn't about "shoehorning into HTTP". Actually, the title is pretty clear: _Architectural Styles and the Design of Network-based Software Architectures_. After doing a great job of classifying different types of problems and possible solutions to these problems, Dr. Fielding describes REST as a solution to a particular kind of problem. To quote (from his blog):

> REST is intended for long-lived network-based applications that span multiple organizations. If you don’t see a need for the constraints, then don’t use them.

It's fine if you don't want to use REST, but it's obvious from your comment that you don't understand what REST is or when you might use it.

I'm genuinely mystified by your response. Art is an entirely subjective endeavor. You seem to think that you can decide what is and is not art. Frankly, you're not qualified for that task (read: no one is).

> A large subset of photography isn't art

> a thousand sunset pictures, while maybe pretty, aren't generally art

Seriously? Because you get to decide? Your response just seems incredibly egocentric. You can define what art means to you all day long, but you can not define what art means to everyone.

I strongly disagree that extensive training is required to create art. Art comes in many forms, and it's a quite myopic to imply that only professionals can create art.

I guess we'll just have to disagree.

> Empathy should have nothing to do with your ability to evaluate facts.

Frankly, your original post was extremely light on facts. The only relevant fact that you presented is that you think the MCP exam is easy. You wrote:

> the hype is widely unjustified

You really don't have enough information. You're looking at a single fact without context, and saying that it's nothing special. For some context, check out khalidmbajwa's comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3467046

I understand your general thesis, but your statements about art just seem completely off.

> You can't have art unless you constrain yourself somehow.

> They could just take a photograph of a setting, and that photograph wouldn't say a thing to anyone.

While I realize that art is subjective, I'm very surprised that you would put these conditions around what you consider to be art. Especially since it seems to be a condemnation of a large subset of photography.

I agree that it sounds like a bad idea, but you're just having a knee-jerk reaction. You don't have enough information to make that judgement. How do you know this wasn't a well crafted exercise designed to teach certain elements of social interaction? I guarantee you a good teacher could use a situation like this as a tool to teach the class something valuable.

Hell, it could be an exercise to teach students the dangers of group think. It would be intellectually dishonest of the author to frame the situation in the way that she did, but we have no idea of the context. Did the author watch the whole class and speak with the teach afterward, or did she just observe the class for a few minutes?

Without more context you just don't have enough information to make such a damning judgement.

For anyone curious, this a reference to Demolition Man: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFiDoOgRTpk

Exactly. The OP's version can be described as these choices:

- A 10% chance of losing (you don't get any money).

- A 10% chance of winning (you don't lose any money).

These two are options are in no way equivalent. In your version, you have:

- 10% chance of losing (you don't get $1,000).

- 10% chance of losing (you have to pay $1,000).

These situations are comparable and can be used to test the framing effect.

From the post:

> They provide COPPA compliant email accounts for children under 13 from their Apps for Education domains.

The capability is obviously there, and apparently COPPA has a way for parents to provide consent.

You are conflating two completely separate issues. The amount of time you spend with your child has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not your child is spoiled, undisciplined, pampered, sheltered, etc.

Bad parenting (for lack of a better phase) is what causes these issues, not spending time with your child.

You are trying to make a connection between the two ideas, but I you are just recklessly generalizing your own personal observations of bad parenting.

As a counter example, I spend as much time with my daughter as I can (which is really only a 2-3 hours a day during the week due to work schedule and bed time) and she is absolutely respectful, not spoiled, and has plenty of friends.

I'm sure I'm biased regarding my own daughter; you'll just have to take my word for it.

I've just subscribed. Where can I see an archive?

Wow, this is really dramatic.