ra88it

I totally agree. But, like you illustrated with your comment, outsiders (perhaps because they are outsiders) occasionally come up with good solutions. Or at least new ways of thinking about the problem.

Are you saying that Apple vs. Flash started with 3.3.1?

For me there is one single data point that shines brightly through all this noise: we are well into 2010 and nobody has Flash running well on a mobile device. Not even the mobile companies that want it.

From the article:

"I hear Asus is coming out with an Android netbook-style tablet in June. Sign me up. I bet it's a nice computer. Android of course is just as immature as the iPad."

If Android is just as immature as the iPad, then why does he "bet it's a nice computer"?

scalper: someone who buys something and resells it at a price far above the initial cost.

DA stands for District Attorney.

Do you know that you can tap and hold on a hyperlink to bring up a context menu which offers the option "Open in new page"? Where 'page' is functionally equivalent to 'tab'.

3. Give me an alert notification based on my GPS coordinates (ie., remind me to install updates on my parents' computer next time I'm at their house)

Worth checking out if only for the entry from Fake Steve.

I was expecting to find a listing a which sites were being visited by iPads. (In addition to where the iPad requests came from.) Am I missing something?

The iPad is a genuinely new web user-agent. It will have an impact, possibly major, on the way the web is consumed. It's about to embark on its initial adoption curve. These early usage patterns should be interesting to hackers, especially web devs.

Flash is not The Next Big Thing (it's been falling from prominence by almost every measure for quite some time) and I'm not convinced that any significant segment of the market is actually demanding it. I've heard more iPhone owners applaud its absence than complain about it.

Google Voice could maybe be The Next Big Thing, but Apple can still (technically) get on that train. Much different than the hardware constraints facing Nintendo when the cd-rom format took off.

I suspect the word "fork" was deliberately excluded from the article because it would be less provocative. Atwood appears to be more interested in starting controversy than actually solving problems.

[edit: Ok, so it does appear in the quote taken from a mailing list, but Atwood does not explicitly address the idea.]

I guess not - it worked when I followed your suggestion. Thanks!

I was naively cranking out a bunch of tabs in Firefox really quickly. :) I guess Firefox doesn't make concurrent requests when it's the same URL...?

The 'Hello World' example (at the top of the front page of the Node.js website) is a server that listens to http requests, waits 2 seconds, then responds 'Hello World'.

The server is supposed to continue responding to incoming requests even while it is waiting 2 seconds for previous requests. So I figured that if I quickly queued up a bunch of requests (say, over the course of one second), they would all respond just as quickly after the two seconds was up.

However, each response came a full 2 seconds after the previous response. I increased the wait argument to 10 seconds just to be sure.

This seems functionally equivalent to blocking. Is this the way the example is supposed to work?

Are we still talking about Numenta? Their website links to several papers that address all of your questions:

http://numenta.com/for-developers/education.php