masterzora

That's a good change, but that's not my point. My point is that things don't automatically become unprivate because there's a share button. Somebody has to make the decision to share these things, and they still have the ability to do so without a convenient button. The point is that users should still maintain good sense about what they post.

Because that would simply be untrue. My subscription price is unchanged.

My use case is very similar and, as such, I agree with you. Unfortunately, given unlimited plans, heavy usage like ours tends to be subsidised by people who aren't anywhere near the average usage but still pay the same amount. I'm generally in favour of such subsidies (even for services where I'm an underutiliser), but I don't believe this to be a popular opinion since it's "unfair".

I don't know about Netflix in particular (their TOS is pretty impenetrable), but it's pretty easy depending on what terms you agree to. What are their views on having me stream in San Francisco while my brother in Portland only uses the DVD queue? (Hypothetically, of course. My subscription is streaming-only but I'd be surprised if similar situations weren't fairly common.)

Yes, any user that can see your post can reshare it to people you did not originally share it to by clicking the share button.

They could also just tell person A or repost it if there wasn't a share button, though. Just use good sense.

> but doesn't that bring some logistical challenges? how does the reviewer look at your diffs and code if your changes haven't yet been committed?

The easiest method is just passing around diffs, though more sophisticated tools exist. Review Board is one I know of off-hand, though my experience with it was not overly great. I've personally just tossed together a decent diff-viewer with a couple different view modes to account for when, say, a quick patch is sufficient vs. when you really need to see the code in context.

But this is only one solution of many. I actually have seen solutions that involve source control systems, but I've always found them to be too hacky even for me.

I'm curious as to what set of the features you use, because I seem to have chosen a set with the opposite experience: responsiveness is often spotty, polish is lacking, and the offering seems to be getting weaker if anything. That said, maybe the new offerings will help fix some of that, but I'm not particularly sanguine.

Maybe the bike circle as a whole exists as a place to ask questions ("My chainset is hosed! Anyone have recommendations for a new one?") but he only actually goes out biking with people he doesn't work with. More to the point, why does it matter why he doesn't want to share something with them in this particular example when it's really easy to construct good examples?

> I do wish that, when people slate a platform for not having certain features, they would actually do a little research instead of assuming.

I do agree with this, obviously, whole-heartedly. But, at the same time, I feel like the lack of research in this case is kind of making a point of its own. The circles feature has garnered a lot of praise from people while it seems that very few people even know about Facebook lists and even fewer even use them (if the articles and discussion on HN are any indication). A feature nobody knows about is as good as missing and I'm sure their designers are going to have some fun if FB decides they need to emphasise their lists more.

I'm not one such person (although I've never used DH's services for other reasons, even while I was employed by such), but I could imagine a reasonable person saying "if they take part in bad practice X of which I know, what other bad practices might they take part in of which I don't know?"

I've personally been sticking with verbalising "Plus" and writing "G+".

Disclaimer: I am an ex-DH intern and my information is only as good as August 2010, but it is likely to still be accurate.

At the very least, DH does not store passwords as plaintext, but it's only very marginally better than that. Passwords are stored using a custom-rolled symmetric encryption algorithm created by... I never found out if it was a founder or just one of the earlier admins, but that doesn't really change much. For what it's worth, I never ran across the key to this, which is at least somewhat good in terms of security, but it's quite possible that this is true only because I never actually went searching for it, especially given that all of the devs and dev interns have root on most of the systems.

> That's the thing, a domain squatter's sole intention is to profit from buying and reselling domains, while a startup's intention is to profit by creating external value through a service utilizing that domain.

This is my problem with your solution. It seems to think that there are only two groups registering domains: squatters and startups. Even if we expand "startups" to "companies", this is clearly bullshit.

sent

I decided to check it out and take a look around and I'm already running into my first issue! It won't let me update my location at all.

Running Chrome 12.0.742.100 on Maverick.

Unrelated feedback wrt the dating settings: restricting the gender identifications to male/female and most definitely restricting the "looking for" to male XOR female leaves a nontrivial number of people in a bit of a bind.

> I'd rather see everyone start with 1 or 2 invites, and let things expand organically for a while, then add more invites to everyone when the capacity is there.

No, no, no. This is the problem I have with Diaspora. They gave me 5 invites. I used my first since I got mine as part of an invite chain. I have no clue how to best utilise the other four so as to maximise the usefulness of Diaspora (i.e. grow my own social network maximally). End result, I haven't used any of my other 4 invites due to analysis paralysis and my social network is basically dead.

Google+ seems to be off to a pretty good start so far. I'm not exactly sure how the invite structure works, but somehow a significant portion of my social network seems to already be involved. I'm assuming this just means I know a lot of connected people (most of my network is from college and we all know people who do or have worked at Google), but it means that, even within the first 24 hours, activity has been pretty decent.

> but on the other hand, we do end up turning away a few otherwise qualified candidates.

I've had to turn down several otherwise-qualified candidates recently for culture fit reasons. While it would be awesome if all qualified candidates were created equal, their technical qualifications are only one piece of the puzzle.

In reality, the culture fit and the ability to work with the rest of the team is key in a small company. Everybody has to deal with everybody, so if anybody has issues dealing with anybody you can run into some major friction that'll cost you more than you gain.

At the end of the day, the way to look at it isn't "they're qualified but they don't fit the culture", but rather "they're not qualified because they don't fit the culture". It goes a long way toward eliminating the mixed feelings.

> Rakudo, while a nice name, is also too easy to mistype - even core committers (me included) have frequently misspelled its name in commit messages etc.

I agree with the principle of this, but you do have to compare this to Pearl.

How do you define "online service creation"? Does my personal blog qualify? What about the period of time where I didn't serve anything to the web but was using my server to run a personal email & jabber server? What about the time where I didn't even do that and was using my server as a remote shell for me and a couple friends? What about when I was running it just for me?

Should it matter that nobody else should have any interest in masterzora.net since I've (almost; there are a couple silly outliers) uniquely held that handle for over a decade?

Every "simple" solution I've heard for the squatter problem is only simple because it's focusing on a simple case.

As someone running a personal .net, I much prefer the $10/yr I'm paying right now. I might be able to afford $200/yr now that I'm working, but I certainly would not have been able to keep that up in college. I don't think cutting students out from being able to have personal domains is at all a good solution.

They still have to be okay with the significant probability that they end up having worked below market value. Many of the smart people I know working at startups are perfectly okay with this because they love what they're doing and the potential big dividends is just a really nice bonus.

If we follow that reasoning, all early-stage startups are screwed since they don't have any smart people working for them!

Section 115 of the Copyright Act of 1976 includes a specific provision mandating a compulsory license for covers of songs.

The argument is, as has been stated many times between the two posts "fair use". The fact that it obviously came from a copyright image does not disqualify it for fair use; it is required for fair use to even make sense. Commercialness is also not a requirement for fair use.

The main argument, that would likely pass in court, is that this use can in no way be mistaken for the original image, nor can it replace it or have any effect on its market value. It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the gist.

> Settlements may not technically be in court, but they are the result of the court existing.

I want to begin by explicitly letting you know that this is not an attack on you, but rather a suggestion that is applicable to many, many HN members.

Being wrong is not a crime. If you happen to be wrong some time, it is better to admit your mistake than to try to twist your original words to be right from a certain point of view.

The need to always be right, to argue until some point of view can be reached where you are established as right, is just ridiculous and unbecoming. I struggle with this, too, because I'm far from perfect, but letting go of that "need" is a big step toward more productive conversation.

In this case, the settlement may be the result of the court existing, but that does not, in any way, mean that the court figured it out.

I'd guess because they'd have an audience including potential new customers with an app like that whereas anyone following them on Twitter or Facebook is already a customer.

I always liked my algebra professor's way of getting to the same conclusion of \mathbb{N} including 0:

The natural numbers are how we count things. How many moons does Earth have? One. How many eggs are in the carton in my fridge? Twelve. How many elephants are in this room? Zero.

Incidentally, all of my professors agreed with this and most of them used 0-indexing unless some insight or ease of work was exposed by a different indexing scheme.

I apologise if you have mistaken my meaning! I certainly hope we don't take wider scale encryption to be untenable, but it is very certainly untenable for a single person to use the web in a meaningful way with normal people while maintaining that every single email needs to be encrypted.

That's not exactly true. You just need to be super-paranoid and make sure that everything of importance is sent (on both ends) encrypted.

That's still wholly untenable for the real world, but not all paranoid people live in the real world per se.

Even if you're not in the correct location, you might be some time. I've got a friend who's going to be in SF from out of state tomorrow and he's decided to check out Uber because of this.