nxn

I'd ignore excitement -- if you are actually dying to work on something then put the motivation to fruition. If the problem you're working on isn't fulfilling then challenge yourself by trying to solve it by using a non-conventional approach.

I'm sort of confused, because TLS 1.1/1.2 support across browsers looks to be quite poor at the moment. Especially when given a large number of IE visitors that will likely upgrade to IE11 (first version that will have TLS 1.1/1.2 enabled by default) sometime around the year 2016.

With that said, I was under the impression that sites will need to support TLS 1.0 for a good long while, and if that is indeed the case, would they not be better off using RC4? From my understanding, the RC4 attacks seemed less practical than attacks against the implementation of CBC mode in SSL 3.0 / TLS 1.0?

Trying to pick between omgrofl and lolcode with one life left can be likened to deciding which color wire to snip.

There is an "Oldest First" button that resorts the timeline.

BBC's Tiger Island: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHOxXOeCI0Y

I found a lot of this film incredibly interesting. But just seeing the behavior of wild tigers in the presence of humans (especially compared to what many of us have likely seen in a zoo) was incredible. The look they give to humans just screams pure murder and unexplainable hatred.

Anyway, watching that documentary also made me watch other tiger related ones, of which this one ranked pretty well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LljDuIUtvbQ (Operation Snow Tiger) also by BBC (and I recall correctly it is in 2 parts).

My guesses are: 1) maybe it's a mockery of the redundancy of using "www" in URLs, 2) a clever prank on anyone that attempts to communicate the site's address verbally and doesn't know that the sub-domain portion is optional, 3) a way of making the link catch the eye and create enough curiosity to result in a click.

Just guesses though, I really couldn't find anything concrete about it.

Yeah, it really gets interesting if you compare his recent press conferences on the matter against what his speeches sounded like in 2007; here's an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix4sy25wF-E

Same is true for drivebyacct2

Which is not the same thing as node's modules. There's nothing stopping me from making global variables within a module "pattern". Contrast that with a node.js module where even if a variable declaration leaves out a 'var' by accident, the global will not show up in anything that imports that module. I.e., there is no chance of name collisions because each node module gets its own unique and clean global scope.

I think the author means that it's not implemented in all the browsers that have a significant share of the browser market.

> On WebGL, we can reinvent presentation and styling entirely without sacrificing performance. Maybe keep parts of HTML, and ditch CSS entirely in favour of something better, and use a JS lib to render it all on GLES hardware, the same in every browser

I'm not sure I follow you when you say "keep parts of HTML". Are you suggesting that we should have a canvas element that spans the entire region of the page, store the actual markup of the page hidden somewhere on the page, and then parse and render that markup to the canvas element using JS+WebGl+<some CSS alternative>? Or are you saying that the browser should simply give up on rendering HTML markup, and give it over to your JS App which will render it itself using WebGL?

> We now have many competing programming languages, competing frameworks, and so on, with a few mainstream ones and improvements/replacements all the time. Rendering entire websites in WebGL enables having the same world-wide innovation in presenting web sites and web apps to users.

If the rendering is done in user/app space, I find it hard to believe there would be any uniformity at all. Everyone would end up having their own unique dialect of HTML that behaved and displayed differently in their own customized WebGL based rendering engine.

EDIT: Disregard that last bit, I misread what you were saying to imply that it would be more uniform than what we have now.

Not sure if this is relevant these days, but the Emscripten FAQ mentions the need to use "-s ASM_JS=1" as an argument to emcc in order for it to actually output asm.js style code. See "Q. How fast will the compiled code be?" from: https://github.com/kripken/emscripten/wiki/FAQ

If I was in charge of Toptal's marketing department I would have responded with a new set of ads featuring shirtless Fabio lookalikes.

Similar question and answer on another site: http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1jfufh/the_entir...

It's the same figure which was in the leaked documents from 2008 that points to some NSA/CSSM 1-52 document from 2007 as a basis. Perhaps they feel that this is the only justifiable piece of "statistics" they can provide at the moment. Though since the document was apparently OK to relay to foreign nations, this is likely another case of the "least untruthful" thing can say.

Reference 1st and 28th pages of: http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jul/31/nsa...

What do you mean by query? Are talking about using the 'keys' command to figure out what data you need? Because that's completely discouraged for everything except maintenance tasks, and for those I think it makes sense to keep an extra slave instance that is not used by any apps that connect to redis (i.e., keep it out of the pool they can use).

If on the other hand by 'query' you mean, for example, using operations like diff, intersect, and union on sets that store keys (for the purpose of knowing what data to pull) -- I actually haven't ran into performance problems yet. If what you're saying is "it's important to spend time to think about HOW you're going to be determining what data to access", then yeah, I'll completely agree that this is crucial. However, I will also point out that this will be true even if you're using a relational database -- though those are expected to be "queried" so perhaps designing a feasible solution is a bit less demanding.

Delete your nytimes.com cookies, refresh.

This "rant" is exceptionally incoherent/convoluted -- at times arguing against itself:

> The fact web browser technology are mostly the same across browsers is great for developers, but users never cared: because the market leading web browser defined the technologies people could use. And the people using the market leading web browser were unaware of the compromises other web browsers used.

What is being said here? That respect towards web standards is not important? Sure, when Internet Explorer had over 90% market share and was in the actual position of defining what the web looked like users didn't care. And they continued not to care for over 5 years as IE stagnated the entire world wide web due to the simple fact there was no competition and therefore no reason to innovate.

The author thinks today's browsers are bad? Without Firefox causing Microsoft to wake up you'd probably still be using IE6 today. At least with standards in place it's possible to have some reasonable balance between browser competition and an actual functioning web.

> My other problem with Safari is that they are doing fuck all with it. It gets updated, what, twice a year?

That's what I mean by "incoherent/convoluted -- at times arguing against itself".

The rest of the rant is just assigning opinion based importance to certain features over others. I personally couldn't care less about sharing my tabs across devices -- in fact, with my personal workflow that would often end with my cell phone automatically trying to load 50+ tabs that I left open at work while researching a problem. While on the other hand, I could not get by without a searchable browser history, even if it is just to find some news article I read 6 hours ago. The author claims this feature is useless because of Google -- yet I don't find Google to be a sufficient answer when trying to find content which was only posted a few hours ago.

I must say, I quite enjoy how so many countries are eagerly playing a game of "pass the Snowden" by throwing him over U.S. reach. It just goes to show that the behavior of the U.S. post 911 isn't winning over many friends -- in fact, it is a bit ironic to see us go from being hated by a few groups of extremists/terrorists to feeling like the whole world is, quite frankly, becoming sick of our government's actions and attitude.

Strange, I believe I tried that after receiving a bunch of gift cards for Christmas -- I even tried entering in the exact title that's below the CC number on the card, but had no luck.

Most online services, in my experience at least, will reject credit cards that are not associated with a name.

Depends on the type of game, the field is very broad. For example, if I had the intention of creating an online card game, I think SVG via d3.js would actually be my very first choice.

My concern, in this particular case, is that foreignObject isn't exactly a new addition to this spec, it's been mentioned in SVG specs since at least 2001, and the IE team apparently made the deliberate decision of not implementing it. I'm not sure what their rationale is exactly, but it doesn't appear like they will be changing their minds about it anytime soon.

I actually implemented a very primitive word wrap function specifically for wrapping text in SVGs about two weeks ago. I took the approach of keeping an single canvas object in memory (completely detached from the DOM, 1x1 pixel dimensions) and using its "measureText" method for calculating string lengths. This made the algorithm fairly simple, and if you set the font on the canvas context correctly, the results will actually be fairly accurate -- though you might have to take into account any scaling that you have applied on the SVG.

This approach did not cause any noticeable change in performance, at least not in my use case where there are at most around 100 nodes of text that needed word wrapping. I can't really compare it with other approaches since I saw no need to take multiple stabs at the problem when my first attempt proved to work well enough. I would guess that it might be faster than actually creating SVG text elements and then trying to get their widths since you're eliminating a lot of overhead in the pre-calculation phase. Also, as far as desktop browsers go, anything that has SVG also has canvas, so there were no worries there about browser compatibility issues.

EDIT: But yeah, I'm just mentioning this in case you find some use for it. Looking at your link I would say you're much better off just using foreignObject.

That only gives you the option of how you'd like to see it clipped (ex: ellipsis, an indication that the full text is not shown), it will not enable you to wrap the text onto another line. As per word wrap itself, the spec states it is not supported in the intro, and makes a few suggestions (two are essentially doing it manually, and one isn't an option if you'd like IE support): http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-SVG2-20130409/text.html#Introdu...

I am not sure if I am more upset at this not providing any native means of word wrap, or IE not supporting foreignObject. Seriously, a large use case for using SVG on the web is data visualization -- where you will often find yourself displaying labels which need to wrap to a given size in order to display cleanly. Add to this the necessity to move other text around based on the height of other text elements and you're looking at a mess of ugly alignment code.

Isn't Windows 7 in a large way a refinement of Vista where they did get the "details" right? It's probably overkill to say that Microsoft never gets the details right, but I do agree that their first version product which introduces their inovations is generally rough and unpolished to say the least.

I loved metro when I first saw the build videos in 2011, but that's because I looked at the demo apps as early and unfinished examples of the direction they were taking. Now over a year later I see almost nothing has changed and the same level of quality I saw back then is what is being released now. A lot of things are unintuitive, apps have awkward layouts, the icons are downright awful, etc.

There was a lot of promise for Windows 8 back then, and to some extent I still expect them to refine the UI and make it into a better user experience by the next version of Windows -- but by then the feeling of "innovation" will be gone and they will have missed their chance to make the big impact that they needed and would have otherwise gotten.

Hmm, I actually really like the "Metro as an add-on" idea: If you're buying a touch based device the add-on would just be pre-installed on the device for you (since it actually makes sense on those devices), but you'd still have the option of getting the plain old Windows 8 without it being mangled with UI features that aren't relevant to a keyboard + mouse setup. Windows RT could have then simply been the most minimal core components of regular Windows to get the Metro add-on running.

In fact, with the exception of the Start menu mess up, most of the Metro UI features already do look and behave like add-ons when in desktop mode. Also, if I recall correctly, all the Windows Runtime libraries are pretty standalone and layered on top of Win32 as is.

It's unfortunate for Microsoft that they did not take this approach, it would have probably prevented most of the negative reception their new OS has gotten thus far. I understand that they wanted to force the Windows Store into every device possible, but they seem to have overlooked the obvious fact that if people don't like Metro on the PC then they wont buy Metro apps on the PC.

Sorry, I added a more complete explanation in an edit.

To reiterate though: the only thing the user would have to learn is to forget about having to close apps themselves because it will be done for them as needed. This would not prevent you from working on something over a period of multiple days, on and off, so long as the developer implemented their app correctly. The app simply gets a clear request to save it's data to disk so that when it gets resumed or re-launched it can load it back and pretend it was running the whole time. This whole thing is pretty much transparent to the user with the exception that you might see the "splash" screen when going back to an app you haven't used in a while. I have not used metro extensively, but I have not experienced any problems with this approach when playing around with win8. If anything I actually kind of liked not having the care about having too many apps open and doing "cleaning" sessions like I do with regular running applications I stopped using.

Anyway, said behavior only applies to metro apps, desktop apps still operate as you'd expect.

If I'm not mistaken they don't expect every day users to learn that on account of metro apps automatically being suspended and then closed for you based on your usage.

EDIT: This describes a metro app's life cycle: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/hh46492...

The basic idea is that if you aren't using an app it receives a "suspend" event allowing it to save its state so that it can resume where it was. If the system is low on resources it will start terminating suspended apps that you have not used -- though as far as I gather they should still have the ability to re-launch and read in whatever they saved at the time they were suspended.

So the general idea is that closing apps isn't something you should be concerned about as a user.