5 ms·

You say god is dead? There's an app for that

5 points by joubert 16y ago

ck2 16y ago
I know this is OT but did they seriously register nyti.ms ? Shessh. It's like watching your 60 year old parents try to be "cool".
- TorKlingberg 16y ago
  It's much better than using some url shortener that doesn't tell where the link goes. No reason to use these here on HN though.
- mkramlich 16y ago
  when i saw nyti.ms in the browser status my first reaction was that it may be going to a typosquatter/phisher/malware site
- samdk 16y ago
  Google has goo.gl. The New York Times has nyti.ms. They're not trying to be cool. There are serious practical advantages to controlling your own URL shortener. People are going to shorten your URLs whether or not you have one, and having your own lets you collect data about how people are using it.
mkramlich 16y ago
i wish there were less so-called iPhone apps that are basically just text and images. i have a sneaking suspicion they could have been done as web pages accessible in the built-in Safari. They would also be much faster to market, cheaper to develop, immune to Apple censorship and banning whims, more portable to other platforms, more future proof, instantly updateable, cause less store clutter/noise, allow a wider variety of payment methods, can be done with any language/tech mix you want, and, and... that's enough for now. :)
- pkulak 16y ago
  But then you couldn't charge $0.99 a pop.
- glhaynes 16y ago
  >allow a wider variety of payment methods But I bet it'd see far far fewer purchases. Unless/until there's a widespread essentially one-click purchase capability for ~$0.99 content on the web, web text/image content will have to remain ad-supported.
autarch 16y ago
Best line in the story ... "Indeed, the new phone applications seem to promise hours of unrelieved, humorless argument."
jeromec 16y ago
Both sides come to the discussion with fixed ideas, and you have what amounts to a contest between different types of fundamentalism Sorry, I can't let that go without correction. Fundamentalism is interpretation of every word in sacred texts as literal truth. There is no sacred text for atheists by definition. Atheist beliefs can change, and indeed would change, if verifiable proof of a diety was forthcoming. Fundamentalist beliefs can't change -- big difference.
- DLWormwood 16y ago
  > Atheist beliefs can change, and indeed would change, if verifiable proof of a diety was forthcoming. How do you know this, when many simpler things in life have “proof”, yet many still are in denial about them? (Read: the moon landings and the Holocaust.) Stubborness is stubborness, regardless of origin of belief. Whether or not a text is considered “sacred” or not is irrelevant if people dogmatically follow what is written anyways. For the record, I consider myself agnostic. I tried being athiest in the past, and found their writings, Internet fourms, and discussion culture just as poisoned and tedious as the “born again” types I spent much of my life around. A plague on both your houses!

5 points by joubert 16y ago

ck2 16y ago

I know this is OT but did they seriously register nyti.ms ? Shessh. It's like watching your 60 year old parents try to be "cool".

TorKlingberg 16y ago
It's much better than using some url shortener that doesn't tell where the link goes. No reason to use these here on HN though.
mkramlich 16y ago
when i saw nyti.ms in the browser status my first reaction was that it may be going to a typosquatter/phisher/malware site
samdk 16y ago
Google has goo.gl. The New York Times has nyti.ms. They're not trying to be cool. There are serious practical advantages to controlling your own URL shortener. People are going to shorten your URLs whether or not you have one, and having your own lets you collect data about how people are using it.

mkramlich 16y ago

i wish there were less so-called iPhone apps that are basically just text and images. i have a sneaking suspicion they could have been done as web pages accessible in the built-in Safari. They would also be much faster to market, cheaper to develop, immune to Apple censorship and banning whims, more portable to other platforms, more future proof, instantly updateable, cause less store clutter/noise, allow a wider variety of payment methods, can be done with any language/tech mix you want, and, and... that's enough for now. :)

pkulak 16y ago
But then you couldn't charge $0.99 a pop.
glhaynes 16y ago
>allow a wider variety of payment methods But I bet it'd see far far fewer purchases. Unless/until there's a widespread essentially one-click purchase capability for ~$0.99 content on the web, web text/image content will have to remain ad-supported.

autarch 16y ago

Best line in the story ... "Indeed, the new phone applications seem to promise hours of unrelieved, humorless argument."

jeromec 16y ago

Both sides come to the discussion with fixed ideas, and you have what amounts to a contest between different types of fundamentalism Sorry, I can't let that go without correction. Fundamentalism is interpretation of every word in sacred texts as literal truth. There is no sacred text for atheists by definition. Atheist beliefs can change, and indeed would change, if verifiable proof of a diety was forthcoming. Fundamentalist beliefs can't change -- big difference.

DLWormwood 16y ago
> Atheist beliefs can change, and indeed would change, if verifiable proof of a diety was forthcoming. How do you know this, when many simpler things in life have “proof”, yet many still are in denial about them? (Read: the moon landings and the Holocaust.) Stubborness is stubborness, regardless of origin of belief. Whether or not a text is considered “sacred” or not is irrelevant if people dogmatically follow what is written anyways. For the record, I consider myself agnostic. I tried being athiest in the past, and found their writings, Internet fourms, and discussion culture just as poisoned and tedious as the “born again” types I spent much of my life around. A plague on both your houses!