dstein

76 ms·

661.
by dstein 16y ago
No, it's my personal interpretation of the demand for short URLs. But there were lots of articles when they started jacking the prices of SMS: http://gthing.net/the-true-price-of-sms-messages Twitter is basically the same idea but applie
662.
by dstein 16y ago
commune... be left alone... Bay Area... little cottage... hackers... plow the fields... I don't think you've decided what you really want here. If you want to live in a small, communal, hacker workplace in the Bay area, then you should join
663.
by dstein 16y ago
It's another example of artificial scarcity, a phenomenon that is prevalent in many aspects of our society. Twitter and mobile carriers have gone to great lengths and scales to artificially inflate the value of a byte of data.
664.
by dstein 16y ago
Which naturally begs the question, "would you?"
665.
by dstein 16y ago
The XML is better because when the data types directly relate to tag names it is simple to understand, read, and write, process, and there are tons of XML libraries in every language that do object-xml serialization automatically. With JSO
666.
by dstein 16y ago
No, I think you proved my point.
667.
by dstein 16y ago
It is still kind of mindblowing that the entire Amazon cloud shows up as 231st of the top 500 computing clusters (top500.org). Are all these other systems just sitting around crunching proteins? They should start hooking these bad boys up
668.
by dstein 16y ago
It boils down to JSON being schemaless. In XML the data type is implicitly defined by the tag, whereas in JSON you need to arbitrarily encode the datatype as a property and somehow differentiate between properties and child elements/object
669.
by dstein 16y ago
JSON falls flat when trying to define data types and serialize objects. var foo1 = new Foo1(); foo1.bar1 = new Bar1(); var foo2 = new Foo2(); foo2.bar2 = new Bar2(); If you were to serialize that data using XML you might do thi
670.
by dstein 16y ago
Rocky IV
671.
by dstein 16y ago
You pretty much nail it. But that it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't. From recent news, I am fairly certain all 3 (G,MS,A) have big plans on the table for balls-out cloud-everything infrastructures. Apple is the only one makin
672.
by dstein 16y ago
As much as I love Dropbox I have a feeling they're gonna get squished by competing products from Google, Apple, and Microsoft that integrate into mobile platforms.
673.
by dstein 16y ago
Okay, who else read that as "Wordperfect 7" and got really confused for a second or two.
674.
by dstein 16y ago
The Beatles being made available in MP3 17 years after the invention of the MP3 isn't exactly noteworthy.
675.
by dstein 16y ago
What's really nice about web development (especially mobile) these days is we're quickly reaching a threshold where dropping all support for IE is becoming a very real possibility. Anything Microsoft does to accelerate their own obsolescenc
676.
by dstein 16y ago
It sound like what Google Wave was trying to do, but Facebook might actually succeed at.
677.
China May Surpass U.S. by 2020 in Economic "Super-Cycle"(bloomberg.com)
1 points by dstein 16y ago|0 comments
678.
by dstein 16y ago
Never give away equity (future profit) for a utility. You should have learned this in Parker Brother's Monopoly.
679.
by dstein 16y ago
The tech industry has still not entirely recovered from the first DOT-com bubble burst. Broadcast.com selling for 5.9 Billion in 1999 was a bubble. Startups gets bought for millions is not a bubble.
680.
by dstein 16y ago
have compounded YEARS of knowledge and experience to the point where I can vastly outperform my younger, smarter self. I wish I could say the same thing. I sometimes look through code I wrote over 10 years ago, and think to myself "damn,
681.
by dstein 16y ago
But Gmail has a good spam filter. So, you could use Gmail's POP features to connect to and download your Facebook emails.
682.
by dstein 16y ago
But remember, it's a 10% raise immediately after the company got caught with illegal no-poaching agreements with their competitors.
683.
by dstein 16y ago
I hope Ryan Dahl knows what he's doing, and didn't get strongarmed by his employer.
684.
by dstein 16y ago
Investing based purely on fundamentals works for value stocks held for very long periods of time. I would not consider GOOG a value stock, nor a good long term investment -- which was the point I was trying to make. On both the short, and
685.
by dstein 16y ago
* The question is whether GOOG will be higher or lower next year. GOOG stock right now is making a triple top under the 2007 peak. It's done for. I dare you to go long. I double dare you to buy a call. The bottom line is I would take any
686.
by dstein 16y ago
It's the difference between your stock options being worth $0 (in the case of Google), and they being potentially worth 10X (in the case of Facebook). I'd say 10X is a pretty big difference.
687.
by dstein 16y ago
10% doesn't make up for the fact that GOOG stock already peaked way back in 2007, which means any Google stock options granted at today's prices are worthless to new employees. Google is essentially powerless to compete with Facebook's stoc
688.
by dstein 16y ago
IANAL - is it technically infeasible for Apache to fork the language and call it something else? I think it's getting to the point where if the Java community really wants to continue using this language something drastic must be done.
689.
by dstein 16y ago
It's about moving the generation of HTML to the client. The concept of rendering the UI (using HTML) on the server was a step backward right from the beginning of the WWW. Servers are simply not needed to construct HTML. I predict within
690.
by dstein 16y ago
If you plot a graph of QQQQ between 1990 and 2000, and compare it to the graph between 2000 and today, you'll find that the technology sector is STILL recovering from the first bubble burst. In fact, the NASDAQ could probably rise about 50

More ›