divtxt

You're quite right. Switching from a db to a log as the "master" loses the simplicity of the app-to-db model.

As the article says: "For now, a better option is to extract the log from a database" - i.e you use some tooling to generate a log from the db.

Indeed, you can now see tools that go in this direction usually by using the replication stream. (eg https://github.com/shyiko/mysql-binlog-connector-java and https://github.com/xstevens/decoderbufs)

Have to agree - despite the good reviews, the keypress on the 4000 feels wrong.

I was on the Microsoft Natural Elite for a long time. Unfortunately it's been discontinued so I need to find a replacement.

if it turns out to be negligence on Apple's part, I'll be very angry

I doubt you'll need to get angry - because if it's negligence, you/we won't be told.

I just polled some friends on chat:

- iPhone + Vodafone Bangalore - SMS notifications - inconsistent frequency

- Galaxy Y + Airtel Bangalore - SMS alert only

so it seems carrier/plan dependent to me!

> it sends whenever there's 3G transaction and the usage period ends

Sure - what I was guessing is that sometimes the phone is on a "single" 3G connection all day & there's no alert, and some days the phone makes "many" 3G connections & there are lots of alerts. (or perhaps it does not work this way & there's some other cause - not a telecom expert!)

[EDIT: oops both friends say they get SMS not USSD alerts]

I have to say that it's (mostly) the carrier's fault.

I have the same issue sometimes with Airtel India, and I'm pretty sure this notification was turned off 2 years. [edit or maybe i just had a good data connection then]

Also, this issue is not consistent. I'm guessing what happens is: carrier sends usage alert when you "turn off" data + bad connection that keeps dropping => many notifications even though you never turned off data.

There are a few apps that convert USSD alerts to notifications - try these - but it would be nice if this was a built-in feature.

I & millions of others will be proving you wrong this winter.

Though I can afford a $500-700 device, but I can't justify it. Meanwhile, one of the big battery life tips for smartphone owners is to disable 4G. So, no Google has not screwed up.

And callback "events" have been renamed to... "events".

I'm going to have to agree with the parent here. Without example code to compare, how is this different than MVC? (or "MVCE")

"Tech press ignores expected next phase of ICANN's gTLD sales."

would be a more accurate title.

Like a public good, the dilution costs of issuing gTLDs is externalized and paid by everyone (other than ICANN).

ICANN has an exclusive license on this valuable virtual real estate, little accountability and a well demonstrated intention of making all the money they can.

Don't blame smart buyers who get in early - they're not the ones who created the situation.

Also, take my money, Showtime!

Texts - a Markdown editor for Mac & Windows - http://www.textseditor.com/

I like that it's a true wysiwyg editor in that you actually edit rich text instead of typing the markdown syntax.

Better to ignore revenue and be thought worthless, than to attempt to make money and remove all doubt.

(paraphrasing)

Possibly similar: I accidentally had flashblock disabled, and a malicious flash ad on wired.com performed many MB of requests and then redirected me to another site after 5-10 seconds.

Cmd-` only switches windows of the current app. So, even if you see your window, you can't switch to it with Cmd-`.

The window is the unit of focus (not apps), so I can rightly argue that switching focus should work on the unit of focus i.e. windows.

Note that I'm not arguing against having an app concept or a "switch app" action. The problem is killing the "switch window" action.

> Having the application's functionality split across two completely separate menus does not constitute a usability improvement.

That's putting it mildly. A split menu may be correct from some design point of view (e.g DRY principle) but from a usability point of view, it's recipe for frustration.

On a more general note, does no one else consider Mac-style "alt-tab switches apps" and "global menu" usability mistakes? (on grounds of being modal)

With both Unity and Gnome adopting these, I no longer have a compelling reason to switch from Mac back to Linux.

Which is a pity really, because Gnome 3 is one of the prettiest and most usable desktops I've seen: I love how the windows key gives you access to the dock, all windows, workspaces and search at the same time.

Thank you for pointing me to X-Frame-Origin!

So, in the context of this discussion, why don't the browsers make X-Frame-Origin: DENY the default behavior?????

I don't want the legitimate uses prevented. The default behavior should be to prevent, and the legitimate uses should explicitly opt-in. That way, you only have to do security analysis for those explicit points.

I have no problem with cross-site GET requests because I know GETs should behave as 'read-only' anyway for lots of reasons.

What I don't get is how arbitrary cross-site POSTs with malicious values are allowed. As far as I can tell, anyone can post this form:

<form action="http://bank.com/send_money><input name="to_account" value="SCAMMER-1234"></form>

Worse, one article will tell you to only allow Referrer == "bank.com", and then another will tell you that even that is no longer enough?!!!

Why can't we change the browser or the web server layer to prevent this by default?!

CSRF is like a kafka-esque joke.

Here's my take away from every CSRF article:

A malicious site will load your site in an iframe, fill in your form and post it. Fixing it requires some a token in your form, but I can see you don't understand how an extra hidden field in your form will make a difference so you're clearly not going to handle it correctly. You're screwed. Go home.

As far as I can tell, CSRF should have existed since javascript & frames. How have the browser vendors not fixed such a huge insecure-by-design flaw?

The real short answer seems to be: encryption is done client-side by Javascript.

I'd worry about the extra attack vectors because of that - man in the middle, snooping browser extensions, etc (or even just strong-arming them into silently changing their javascript do no encryption)

To his credit, he writes about this as well:

> On a trust scale, is it better to use PGP or PrivateSky if you want to be 100% sure that no one can see your data? Answer: There is no question that [...] a system such as PGP is better [...]

> There is only one problem. PGP and the current state of the art are too damn hard for the general population at large to use. [...]

What I meant was: I wish they had gone with at least 2 copies offsite. Sorry for the ambiguity.

And you're right - 2 copies would mean 1TB out of 3TB.

I wish they had gone with At least 2 copies offsite - that was one of my first thoughts too.

Then I remember that I used to do backups at most once a year until I moved to the Mac and Time Machine.

(edit: clarify sentence)

Yes, bandwidth is a concern, but it should be easy to let users choose bandwidth limits. The question then is whether the product is still useful if it takes 10/20/30 months to fill the hard drive. I suspect that there's a segment of the population for which it will.

Off-screen buttons ruin the "touch the app" magic of touchscreen direct interaction.

The screen is the app and the app is the screen. Therefore, any button outside the screen is not part of the app!

BTW, I used to agree with you but experience changed my mind: I once used an Android timer app for months without pressing the menu button.

I had written off Unity partly because of the top-bar menu decision. This post shows me that they do have a grand vision to justify that change.

> power users say things like “every GUI app now feels as powerful as VIM”

A UI designed for keyboard power-users? I suddenly care about Unity again!

Unit testing is another simple topic that provides insights into how a person thinks about code.

Exercise: give them a class with empty functions, and some unit tests. Ask them to write the class and add some more tests. Also, one of the tests you provide must be subtly buggy.

Pretty nice! Too bad a non-trivial segment of the population won't be happy with 13. You might as well call the new month Deviluary. :D

My bad - "the world has moved on" was too strong.

I meant something like: other languages have risen in popularity because they are better than C++ for many types of projects.

> He explains that the languages should have been merged into one, so that C would have been a subset of C++ instead of nearly a subset of C++.

Thank the stars this didn't & won't happen!

Bjarne has been stuck in "C++ is the best & only language anyone needs" long after the world has moved on to Java, C#, Python, Ruby, JavaScript, etc.

C occupies a sweet spot combination of:

- low-level with "no magic"

- small enough for most people to "hold in your head"

C++ matched these conditions for a brief time in it's life - the early 90s aka "Stroustrup 2nd edition" - when the only "magic" was basic virtual functions, and templates where just a promising experiment in an appendix.

> What does "definite" mean? ... Either you made it to orbit or you didn't

The difficulty of defining what probability is is not a defense.

People are able to calculate a value called "probability of launch success" and use this number for useful things like pricing the insurance of the satellites being carried. I assure you that no one involved expects part of a satellite to go up.

> SpaceX's record is abysmal, and you forgot a few facts.

Your facts seem to be (angry) critiques of Musk/SpaceX, but none of them address the original point of discussion i.e. that a new rocket platform had launch failures.

Let me skip to what seems to be the important bit...

> A few years ago, we had the era when Google could do no wrong, and any criticism of Google would not be tolerated by its many fans. Now, that same mindset applies to Musk, except this time, people will die.

If that's what bugs you, here's my criticism:

- Electric cars: can't take off until there's a breakthrough in battery tech. Oh, and the breakthrough can't use elements which are rare/expensive.

- Mars: we don't have enough energy and raw materials to send more than a handful of people.

I still admire Musk for his combination of genius & entrepreneurship. He's attempting, rethinking and achieving way more than most people.