HN user
You mean WUXGA. I also detest the shrinking of vertical pixels and the manufacturers pushing it on to consumers. Even on desktops, the prices for non widescreens (more vertical space) seem to be priced excessively to drive people to get widescreens.
Being cool was Justin's answer for starting up. While it may be honest, he could have added other thoughtful answers. More details on his first YC interview would also be interesting, instead of saying that he didn't say much at the interview.
Looks good for starting out. Reminds me, has anyone heard back from startuppack.org?
JL efficiently didn't delve into #1 monster of cofounder disagreements. An insightful point was about the large company corp dev monster.
Another must watch is Joel's talk: deciding and knowing what kind of venture one is in, so that one takes the more appropriate actions when situations arise.
His talk was mainly what he has given before. I found this which is pretty close: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-LBSqm3xh4&sns=em
Sloppy work by affected companies since RFC was unambiguous. But why didn't RFC keep it consistent by requiring verifiers to only work with the same minimum key length?
RFC 4871 (sorry for formatting but ipad issue) " signers MUST use RSA keys of at least 1024 bits for long-lived keys. Verifiers MUST be able to validate signatures with keys ranging from 512 bits to 2048 bits, and they MAY be able to validate signatures with larger keys. Verifier policies may use the length of the signing key as one metric for determining whether a signature is acceptable.
Factors that should influence the key size choice include the
following:
o The practical constraint that large (e.g., 4096 bit) keys may not
fit within a 512-byte DNS UDP response packet
o The security constraint that keys smaller than 1024 bits are subjec to offline attacks..."