kpanghmc

FYI Google recently reversed it's decision on real names: http://www.zdnet.com/google-reverses-real-names-policy-70000...

That's correct. Note that I never said it was the FCC's job to prevent protectionism in other countries. I was simply answering deciplex's question of how net neutrality could harm the American economy if it were only enforced in the United States.

While that scenario is certainly better for American consumers, it's not better for Netflix. Both companies will have to innovate and compete in America, but Braziliflix will essentially get the Brazilian market for free.

It affects American businesses and therefore affects the American economy.

For instance, let's say Brazil's telcos started throttling their citizens' access to Netflix, but not to Braziliflix, a hypothetical Brazilian version of Netflix. That could prevent Netflix from gaining traction in Brazil. Meanwhile, Braziliflix would be free to compete on an even playing field for customers in the US.

Disclaimer: I work for Google.

For what it's worth, I felt the same way when I first dogfooded the new multi-column layout. I couldn't figure out how to read my stream. While reading a post, I kept getting distracted thinking about where I should focus my attention on next. It made scanning my stream more stressful and I was confident that I did not like it. This was before they added the option to switch to a single stream view, so I couldn't do much but submit my feedback and deal with it.

Then, one day, the G+ team added the option to switch back to single stream view. I thought "great!" and immediately went into G+ to switch back to single-stream mode. And I hated it. I hated having to scroll so much. I hated not being able to scan a large number of posts with a quick glance. I hated all the unused space on either side of the stream.

I'm not saying the same thing will happen to you, but maybe give it a week before giving up on it. You may just find that it grows on you.

Learning the following keyboard shortcuts for formatting bullet lists made the transition to the new compose UI much less painful for me:

  ctrl + shift + 8 to create a new bullet list
  ctrl + ] to indent right
  ctrl + [ to indent left

The title is a bit sensationalist. None of the famous animal ones were destroyed, just some of the straight line ones. It's ridiculous that a company felt that they could just quarry over part of a UNESCO world heritage site, but the title makes it seem like they're all gone when that isn't the case.

No, people should not, and do not, have the right to do whatever the heck they want with their property, especially when what they're doing puts other people's lives in danger. That's why we have laws against things like drinking and driving.

That's not to say that I think Glass should be outlawed while driving. But lawmakers certainly have the right and responsibility to question whether it should be.

Very cool. Although now it's going to be even more difficult to tell whether someone is talking to you, their Bluetooth headset, or their augmented reality glasses.

I'm hoping they build in Google Translate into these things. They could be the real life version of the Babel fish.

My non-programmer friends and family are always bewildered when I tell them that I hope my daughter doesn't grow up to be a programmer. The reason why is because I'm afraid her life would be like the OP's. There is indeed a subtle sexism in our industry. That's why things like yesterday's Sqoot screwup happen so frequently.

Of course, every workplace is different and I'm sure there are plenty of places where women don't have to deal with the bullshit described in this article. However, they are far from the norm. I can see why the OP would want to leave the industry rather than be the person constantly reporting people to HR and lecturing them about proper behavior. It may be the right thing to do, but it's also extremely uncomfortable and just as likely to create an even more hostile working environment than before.

You clearly have not experienced discrimination before. It's not just the act of being discriminated against, it's the memories that it invokes and the reminder of how little has changed.

It's not just that women reading this flyer wouldn't be interested in showing up, it's that they are instantly reminded of how the programming world perceives them and their place in the industry. It reminds them of the sexism they've endured their entire professional careers and it reminds them of how little has changed.

"Lots of hot men serving beers" isn't a very comparable example because male programmers haven't been discriminated against (at least, not professionally). A better example would be if the flyer were changed to "lots of Mexicans serving beers" or "lots of African Americans serving beers". Wouldn't that offend you even if you were able to somehow derive how the marketing people arrived at this approach?

Sad, but inevitable. I owned a copy growing up and it was an invaluable source of information. I remember flipping through the volumes and marveling at how much information I had at my fingertips. For whatever reason my computer has never given me that same feeling of awe and wonder. There's just something about staring at a bookshelf filled with those tomes of knowledge that triggers my thirst for information.

What's to prevent Egor from setting up a new account and using it to exploit the vulnerability he's found?

From the Wikipedia article on Dryococelus australis [1]

"The ultimate goal is to produce a large population for re-introduction to Lord Howe Island if the project to eradicate the invasive rats is successful."

I wonder what the 347 residents of Lord Howe Island think about this? It's an amazing story and all, but I sure wouldn't want a bunch of these insects introduced into my neighborhood.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dryococelus_australis

"But we have the technology, Google has the technology, we have the brainpower in this country, we certainly can figure it out."

Even if this were true, just because Google has the capability to do this doesn't mean every company does. If it costs Google $X million to prevent online piracy on their sites, is it reasonable to expect every web startup to do the same?

That would solve the problem of people accidentally buying fake Chanel products. Is that really what Chanel is concerned about here? When I first read this article, I assumed that Chanel was trying to cut down on the number of people who deliberately purchase fake Chanel products since they cost a fraction of the price and are not easily discernible from the real thing.

The safe withdrawal rate -- that is, the rate at which you can withdraw from retirement accounts without too much risk of running out of money eventually -- is generally considered to be around 4%. With $900,000 saved up, that means the OP can spend about $36,000 / year from his nest egg without too much risk. The article states that they live as if they made $35,000 - $40,000 / year. So the income from their retirement combined with their side business should be enough to at least sustain their current lifestyle. I have no idea if their $35,000 - $40,000 estimate covers health insurance, so it's hard to say whether they are at risk of being wiped out by medical expenses.

Does anyone know what they mean by this?

"we will remove iGoogle's social features on January 15, 2012. iGoogle itself, and non-social iGoogle applications, will stay as they are."

Are they referring to Google Chat or are they referring to iGoogle widgets that have "social features" (e.g. Twitter widgets, Facebook widgets, etc.)?

Maybe the neutrinos that appeared 3 hours before the event are from another event altogether (one that occurred even further away, whose light particles haven't even reached us yet)?

While I agree with the sentiment in this thread that developers aren't going to be flocking over from GitHub anytime soon, at the very least this should help keep GitHub motivated (not that they've given us any reason for concern thus far). Competition is a good thing.

I never said that there wasn't a problem. I'm simply saying that the solutions we've come up with so far have not yielded a net gain. If anything, the site owners that I know who have incorporated OpenID / Facebook Connect / etc. into their sign up / login forms have said that they have to answer more questions from users having login issues than ever before.

BrowserID only fixes those issues if it ends up as the only game in town. Otherwise, it's simply going to be tacked onto the end of a daunting list of other OpenID / BrowserID providers that users will have to choose from.

Am I the only one who kind of wishes we never went down this "let's fix authentication!" rabbit hole? It feels like we've just replaced one problem with another.

Now, instead of simply having to remember what username/password combination I used, I have to remember which (if any) OpenID provider I used, how much information about myself does said provider expose, and how to merge my accounts when I inevitably end up choosing the wrong provider and create a duplicate account on the site.

It seems like Google would be a potential buyer. They've made it no secret that they're interested in getting into the social network game. Purchasing MySpace would be a nice way to bootstrap their service with users.

Right, but content providers at least have some control over their RSS feeds (e.g. adding advertising or truncating it to the first X characters of the article to force users to click to read more).

Interesting project. I agree with the others who say you definitely need some sort of demo to convince users to sign up.

Question though: how did you guys get around the copyright issues? It sounds like you're grabbing the content from these links and displaying them in their entirety on your page. Won't the content providers complain about this?

Or DataMapper if you want to keep using a relational database as your persistence medium.

I've used NHibernate (which is the .NET port of Hibernate) and Rails ActiveRecord.

The biggest difference to me is that Rails ActiveRecord encourages you to work from the database first. That is, you define your database tables and columns which are then used to generate your classes. In contrast, NHibernate (and I'm assuming Hibernate as well) encourages you to design your classes first and worry about persistence later.

There are merits to both approaches. In general, I'd say that Rails ActiveRecord is much easier to use and get started with while NHibernate allows for more flexibility in your domain model.

While I understand Twitter's motivation for doing this -- and no, I don't believe it's about consistency -- I think they could have expressed at least some token of appreciation for the devs who helped get them to where they are now.