hakaaak

I think it is B.S. when hackers take down an easy target for no apparently good reason.

I respect those that take chances to risk their freedom for the good of humanity. For example, if a government were lying to its people about something that was negatively impacting them or their future, and only bad was coming from that information being restricted, then I could not argue with those that took on risk to release that information. I could not support doing anything illegal, but I would at least respect it. But, busting on MIT has no value I can see, and in-general attack-oriented hacking is just as bad as the Cobra Kai.

I have to agree with this post to some extent. Years ago we had an MBA from a local university apply and it actually made a negative impact on the interview when we saw that on the resume- and this was for a business analyst position.

But, I think if you are geniunely interested in business, there is nothing wrong with getting an MBA anywhere. Just couple it with starting your own business. You don't even have to list it on your resume if you think it will hurt. Just be aware- it is NOT cheap, and you are lucky if your company will fully fund it; the last place I worked would fund only the cheapest in-state MBA program and they wouldn't pay for books or associated fees, so it would have been thousands of dollars a year out of pocket I couldn't justify.

I absolutely despise crapware, google or ask toolbars, etc. that are bundled with installers, however if there is a market for it and there is no law against it, it will happen.

And once Google/etc. one day has everyone's credit card info and charges us more often, I could totally see items starting to be added ala Vistaprint (if you've used Vistaprint you almost certainly know what I'm talking about) like magazine trial subscriptions, etc.

The more the economy sinks and people are less willing to spend, the more crap will get dumped on us. Fact of life.

Here is the reality. Serious concerns will get few votes. Things such as building a death star that are completely stupid and not serious get lots of votes.

So what this is really saying is, "We're going to raise the threshold so we won't have to waste effort replying to your death star petitions, and btw we don't give a fuck about the little man and never did. Fuck you. Case closed. Now if we can get the media to sponsor some petition we really care about like banning all assault weapons or raising the debt ceiling, then you can vote on that, and we'll be glad to tell you why you have a great idea."

It isn't laziness.

Change is disruptive. Disruption during instability (such as the economic condition of our country, political instability due to polarized nearly 50/50 political split of the people) is dangerous. But more importantly, estabilished lobbying powers inherently tend to equalize change unless one or more become significantly stronger and change the balance of power. And if those lobbying powers are not in favor of the change, it won't happen. Finally, change can lead to a great deal of uncertainty. Uncertainty is risk, and risk is typically bad when it comes to politics.

Amendments to the constitution could happen of course, but this would be an unlikely time for them.

It is more likely that the interpretation of the constitution would change. And that has changed very much over time.

One problem I've had is uneven neck (and probably shoulder/back) muscle development, because I don't sit staring and facing straight at the monitor. This is a warning to those that are younger and haven't noticed this yet.

Great response. Please keep posting.

The more laws are bent and disregarded, the less any law (not just those laws) will be followed. Ask any parent.

I think that we may be better off if those that are willing to give up all power to the government to disregard the constitution would just run their own country, and leave the rest of us out of it. For someone that writes for an organization that makes its living off of the 1st amendment to advocate throwing out that which provides it that 1st amendment is moronic at best, and suicidal and murderous of a free press and a free people at worst.

I think it is a good title for 2012/2013 also. They could have called it "Barf" though, and I'd be excited about it.

To the OP: thanks for the post, but the font is nearly unreadable for older guys like me on smaller devices.

Another related problem is called "golden handcuffs". Many work in jobs that provide great salary and/or benefits and would like to leave, but they think that they will sacrifice their family's well-being by leaving. I was like that for years and recently switched to a new job that is a lot better for me. It is still far from perfect: I am more stressed-out, and I work more hours. But, the pay and benefits are better, and my skills and marketability are improving. I want a job that I love, and I'm still working on finding that, but if you have "golden handcuffs", don't fall into the trap that you can't do better. If you are aren't struggling and learning and you are unhappy and spreading unhappiness, you are a drag on yourself and everyone else. You can't always be unhappy, in fact you may continue to be unhappy (I am, or at least I tell myself that I am), but if you find yourself making others unhappy and feeling that they should realize that they are unhappy as you, that is not a good situation, and you need to change. There are plenty of other opportunities out there, but you won't find them unless you are looking for them. Just decide what you want, and do your best to make it happen. Don't buy into the self-help books either. They make promises they can't keep.

I would bet that if you did this same things with many history books, similar words would come up, but I do not think that it is a fair summary.

It would be more interesting to see the most searched Google queries coming from these countries (assuming that many use Google). Finland is Ilta Sanomat (The Evening News), for example: http://www.google.com/zeitgeist/2012/#the-world

Unfortunately, Antarctica is not represented in Google Zeitgeist, nor are many others, but perhaps you could contact Google for that data.

The tl;dr version: The net is a gun that we will shoot ourselves with.

...to power the Infinite Improbability Drive.

Backbone is not like Sinatra. Backbone is a hell of a lot more work than Sinatra. Backbone is a framework that more easily can fit atop existing design and services, however it takes so much time and in the end you just have even more complex spaghetti for someone else to maintain when you leave.

Why start with Backbone.js? Why not use AngularJS instead and decrease implementation time? The primary reason to use backbone would be that you are trying to retrofit some existing page or services, and if you are doing that, you are going to spend a hell of a lot of time that you could just spend rewriting it all in angular and have less code when you are done.

This looked like a title of something I'd see in the Onion. No country can revamp cybersecurity in 5 years, especially not one as bureaucratic as India.

You don't have to install RVM, but it does help. It was never that difficult for me, but I use OS X for Ruby dev mostly.

And there may be a variety of ways of doing things, but that's because (1) Ruby has been more well-used than Go, and (2) it has more flexible loops, etc. to make it less verbose, and yes there are a variety of ways to add methods, attributes, etc. but after you spend a little time to understand how the Ruby object model works, you'll understand why- almost everything is an object. Also, the language has evolved, so there are some differences in syntax between 1.8 and 1.9 but you can still use 1.8 syntax in 1.9.

I was interested in Go because of its brevity, speed, and because Rob Pike wrote it.

Reading this I see a lot of the reasons I like Ruby: no worrying about different constructors or needing to worry excessively about types. If only Ruby treated everything, even the little bit that is syntax, as mutable objects, it would be near-perfect (and it would basically be Lisp). But, it's close enough.

Maybe if Go could become Ruby...

> Ah, good to know. That wasn't clear to me from my first reading of the docs, but you're definitely right.

Might be a good idea to continue honing that post. It is already useful and could be much more so.

I think "dreadful" is really harsh. Every site should not look like default bootstrap. That would be incredibly boring.

But, that said, I think it would have been better without everything between the font change and the color scheme change removed. For example, the icon is an additional unnecessary visual element- either use text or an icon- if you have both it means that one or the other is insufficient on their own and that is a bad design smell -> simplify! Textures are ok, but a bad example- the only change I could tell was the missing horizontal rules/grey lines. The alpine background- meh, even for a ski lodge- this isn't a cheesy blog. The CSS change I could barely tell.

Depends on the browser. Mobile browser URL limits used to be much shorter.

> is it possible that now would be a good time to simplify / clean up haskell?

No, that is usually the worst time. Don't pile change on change. That doesn't make it easier.

Dave was awesome. If you don't have "Time Out" in your collection, that's shameful. College wouldn't have been the same without it.

The problem is that there are central points that any government can control because we communicate over wire and fiber-optics. By decentralizing the net and using mesh networking, we would regain and retain control. We need to develop the technology needed to have a world-wide mesh network.

Yep, they made this mistake with flight search also. Let everyone know about a service with crappy data, then everyone thinks it is crappy and never go back to it. Brilliant, from the minds of geniuses. It worked for Gmail because users didn't need data to begin with, but it doesn't work for services that require a lot of data to start with to be viable. And even if you have data, it better be good; ask Apple about their maps.

5.2% of the worlds top 10,000 websites use it, as of July 11, 2012: http://royal.pingdom.com/2012/07/11/how-popular-is-varnish/

So the question is- if it is so great, why only 5.2%? I'm not being sarcastic. This is a totally serious question.

Developing REST API per definition of REST cannot be done pragmatically in the way described, so you are going to screw a lot of people if they think this is the last word on REST.

1. REST is a hypermedia API that (somewhat) describes its own services by returning URLs to resources, etc.

Most people don't understand what REST was meant to be that can drive how REST clients were meant to be developed. Some of the major players with "REST" APIs don't either.

2. REST does not have to be versioned if for internal use.

I actually agree with the versioning part, however I've also been on two teams over the past 10 years that developed versioned APIs and neither time did versioning matter, because those APIs were for internal use.

3. This is not a RESTful requirement, but, practically, you shouldn't design an API that allows any querying of resources beyond what should be needed.

This is because of the memory required for caching responses (in a large application), because it therefore can be an easy target for attacks (lets throw a bunch of query params on here... mwhahahahaha), and just because it opens up security holes. Be explicit in what is allowed in your code and your documentation.

4. The querying and filtering I see in this document is insufficient for some applications and interfaces.

It didn't take us long to run into the limitation of the search functionality described in this document in our current REST API based app.

I think that the Twitter analogy was awful. It implies that you have to have an incredibly large team writing Java to be "enterprise", somewhat implying that Java is needed to handle load. It isn't. Facebook is a great example of a company that still survives uses a scripting language, and GitHub is as well. I worked on an excessively large Java team, and the main highlight was slow progress. I'd argue that the better way to look at it is that you often need to be fast-and-dirty in development in the beginning, but later you just need to slow down and be more careful and thoughtful- language and team size aren't equivalent to success at later stages.

Very few will be this tenacious, so if you have a startup, don't get your hopes up unless the pool of workers is really desperate.