udoprog

Loved this article. I would love to see a simliar test around polyphasic sleep (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphasic_sleep).

I've actually tried the Uberman sleep schedule for three weeks. This is where you sleep 20 minutes for each 4 hours, totalling in a whopping 2 hours sleep each day.

The time gain was insane, and the transition period aswell (between day 3-5 I actually hallucinated due to sleep deprevation). But around 1.5 weeks something strange happened. The 20 minute period that you are allowed to sleep seemed like hours each time, and I would wake up like clockwork on the 20 minute mark.

The whole routine is not just a sleep routine, it affects your entire lifestyle. No stimulants, including sugar, high degrees of fat, caffeine. No sedatives, alcohol, drugs (!). And the fact that you are awake during the night when the whole world seems dead is one of the hardest social aspects to handle. What do you do with 6 extra hours each day?

Of course there's the aspect of finding somewhere to sleep every 4 hours (was at school at the time), and if you ever missed out, you would have hell to pay.

I eventually buckled on a skiing trip with an open bar, had a nice weekend and decided to going back to normal sleeping patterns. Partly because it was not socially acceptable to sleep 2 hours a day (my father threatened to beat some sense into me). But also that there was very little foundation that this kind of sleep pattern was even safe. A couple of million years of evolution had other idea's of when and how long it is necessary to sleep.

Other than that, the foundations that I gathered up from this was that when changing your sleeping pattern. The body frantically tries to adapt. By sleeping extremely short periods the body would effectively increase the amount of REM sleep (and yes, I dreamed a lot during these sleeping periods), however, it has not been proven that you don't need the other types of sleep.

This is probably a lot of rumours, and a lot of wishful thinking. I personally wish there was some solid backing behind this kind of reasoning (more time awake is awesome!), There are a lot of buzz out there (check google and youtube), but I've been unable to find anything reasonably solid.

The week would not be complete w/o a Linus rant.

Yes yes yes. The compile part of the argument is a bit subjective (sure wish c++ compilers were faster) but learning memory management. Especially with classes in c++ which tends to bitch-slap your mind so hard the first time around that you'll never forget the implications of an improper memory strategy.

Should be called Process Slaves .

In order to relate to your field like this, you need a lot of experience. Typical chicken vs egg :P

I've always wanted to be a games programmer. Even wrote a few game engines and one or two completed poc games. The point that I find the most intriguing is that It's one of a precious few fields where a programmer could get widespread exposure for something creative.

Everyone can relate to a game compared to "a clever implementation of x doing y with z".

It was just a comment. I did not disagree with international politics being an anarchic system contrary to chaos. Just the UN bit. I do in fact see it as a very clever observation.

Yeah, if Twitter were RESTful the client would not be reliant on server state to function. And the media type would have to be documented and adhered to. Meaning e.g. that multiple vendors could be used simultaneously without conflict.

Being RESTful would just increase interoperability. But that's not Twitters game.

Well little is a relative term. UNs had a big impact on politics in my country. I also found the quote a pretty amusing and quite valid tidbit, given that Anarchy simply means a gov. without ruler.

Indeed, It's not as if the anon community will be more fragmented after this, someone else is just gonna step up and be the next loudmouth.

Setting up a service with gabriel is as simple as:

    gabriel --cwd /var/run/service -- /bin/service

Killing the service:

    gabriel --cwd /var/run/service --kill

The main difference between this and daemontools is that this is more ad-hoc and in place. If cwd isn't specified, the current directory will be used to setup the necessary set of files to start/stop/restart a persistent service.

It's also possible to specify a kill pattern which governs how the process should be forced to shutdown (similar to start-stop-daemon in gentoo):

    gabriel --cwd /var/run/service --kill-pattern TERM:10:KILL:10 -- /bin/service

Send TERM, wait 10 seconds, send KILL, wait 10 seconds. Shutdown no matter what.

So Gabriel does not require and explicit structure, much is left to be handled by sensible defaults.

My favorite approach to using groovy in projects is with the groovy compiler plugin for maven. Compile and bundle the resulting byte code. All you have to remember is too bundle the groovy runtime and remember how groovy interacts with Java natively.

The one thing that disturbs me about groovy is that overloaded methods seems to only be signature checked at runtime, which results in an exception when invoked with the wrong parameters - not a compiler error.

Thanks. I've been looking for something like this for a long time, and I've implemented around 3 different solutions for doing this (pure bash, python, c) but none has been as instantly useful as this.

I wanted something like DJBs daemontools but with less configuration and setup. And I've seen nohup, daemonize etc. But these loose ownership of the running process, and you eventually have to do hacks if you want to do stuff like auto restart or signal degradation.

I honestly believe that you should avoid multithread support and instead focus on the current single threaded reactor pattern. Any developer found easily just attach something like a zmq ipc queue in order to support multithreaded handling, given that the request object is thread safe. This approach would just leave you with work which ensures that the protocol parser doesn't trump any I/O overhead.

This looks very cool, thank you for sharing.

Sounds like a feature request. Some type of daily digest scheme ranked by each posts total popularity would be nice.

However you currently have access to the RSS feeds, which I believe gives you a permanent link. Even if the article has been archived.

Cracker, not hacker!

I can understand techcrunch getting it wrong, but we on HN should at least set the record straight.

Except in most cases validation cannot be complete on the client side, anything related to server side logic has to be additionally checked.

Validation is also two different concerns if you compare serverside vs clientside.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/162159/javascript-client-...

Basically: Client side validation is about user experience, Server side is about security. I'm hard pressed to believe you can get both with the same code.

I also don't see how localStorage is relevant to code sharing between client and server.

Server side logic is usually radically different. And given that you usually share information between the server and the client in a language agnostic manner (e.g. JSON) and that the client (browser) cannot be trusted with other than view logic, I see few cases where implementation specific code sharing contributes greatly.

The server and the client has such different concerns that code sharing probably wouldn't contribute that much.

Date and time representation has always provoked an incredibly uncomfortable itch in me. But I've accepted the fact that represented time will never be exact.

However, by just using relative system times and language specific time/date procedures, there is a good chance of future proofing, no matter the outcome of this.

Buzzword BINGO!

It's interesting how you can predict bias depending on ordering of the title. Throw in native event loops with twisted and compare.

The notability requirements do not sufficiently cover "expert" subjects like PLs. Chris mentioned this himself, yet used it as a justification for these articles, this is known as Doublethink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink) and clearly indicates a second agenda.

Not anyone can invent a programming language, it's not comparable to your pet rock band. Chris, you clearly displayed that you are not capable of handling this subject satisfactory and you've displayed arrogance in response to peoples distress.

Simply put - marking the articles for deletion was rash, and in the larger sense unjustified.

"...Unicode has been standardising CJK character sets" - CJK characters sets are complex, and will always face opposition, besides, this is less related to how the characters are encoded, and more how to choose and composite your code points.

"I think the author has confused the fixed-length UCS-2 and the variable length UTF-16." - No, in the same sentence you are quoting he mentions that utf-16 is limited to 0x110000 codepoints, contra utf-8 that is specified to expand up to 6 bytes.

"Not true. NUL is a 16-bit character in UTF-16. Use a C compiler that supports 16-bit char width." - I won't be converting my source code into utf-16 any time soon. Besides, C is not a good example where this is an actual problem, the "unicode strings" will still just be represented as binary blobs - different depending on which encoding you choose. It's more of a problem in e.g. Python, where the native string is an array of characters, not just a null terminated blob. I wouldn't encode my source code in utf-8, however, if my editor my default happened to support utf-8, this wouldn't be an issue unless I enter an non-ascii compatible code point. I see this as a big plus.

"The proof assumptions mean that there may be faults remaining in the kernel that could be classified as implementation faults below the level of C. They will not be faults that are properly visible on the level of the C programming language (which is our main claim of correctness), but they could still be serious faults that make the seL4 kernel misbehave." -- http://ertos.nicta.com.au/research/l4.verified/proof.pml

This just seems to be a case of someone running their mouth a bit too liberally and Hindustan Time jumping the gun. The actual project, which unfortunately is quite proprietary, has a much better overview of the whole ordeal. I would however like to se how their 1:1 strict C/haskell conversion actually looks (and why they decided against just modifying the something like the ghc :P).

You were right in not trusting the paper.

Great, cudos. They just seemingly discarded the part about peer-review. Where is the spec and the code? Given that I would believe this claim (which I don't) there has to exist means for independent third parties to verify this. Otherwise it's just a pissing contest in space.

First I thought this was a replacement for irb, which would have been welcome.

Firstly, this will never have the adoption of bash, sit down on any Linux and you will be familiar. If you get used to shell and a normal human being which will have some delay context switching it will be a performance hit (same argument I'm sticking with qwerty for now)

Secondly, bash uses a domain specific language to tangle your fillesystem, simple things are simple, and unfortunately harder things Gerald blinked in the process. This comes with the overhead of learning some unintuitive things about ruby (blocks anyone?).

The Article only mentioned it's string restrictions, but I'm still interested in how they formalize and implement their schemas. It's granted that xsd is pretty messy, but exposing a schema like this - or with alternative definition languages - goes a long way in helping client adaption seeing as there are a trillion autopwn validation and binding tools available.