hawleyal

19 ms·

1. 151.▲
   by hawleyal 12y ago

   Agreed. I am fast, but refactor constantly, so there really is no "final" code or "finished" result. The current form is continously honed and refined. My cycles are very quick, however the design is not rushed but rathe
2. 152.▲
   by hawleyal 12y ago

   Not free at all.
3. 153.▲
   by hawleyal 12y ago

   There are thousands of record companies inside Itunes.
4. 154.▲
   by hawleyal 12y ago

   Now you are talking about obscurity, not security. In my opinion.
5. 155.▲
   by hawleyal 12y ago

   I don't want BBC iPlayer, ITV player, 40D, Fox Sports player, HBO player, Showtime player, Paramount player, Miramax player, Comedy Central player, AMC player, NBC player, Sony Pictures player, et al. It doesn't matter if they are
6. 156.▲
   by hawleyal 12y ago

   They can directly point to Comcast as the problem. They can lobby lawmakers just as Comcast can. In my opinion, this is going to be a problem for them, and any of these content providers have way stronger voices than a single customer.
7. 157.▲
   by hawleyal 12y ago

   Maybe back in th 1980s. I haven't had usage based pricing in the same area code for decades.
8. 158.▲
   by hawleyal 12y ago

   Agree. However, admins and devs often have competing interests. Admins want stability and ease of maintenance. Devs want features, agility, and speed of development. Admins often disregard or downplay technical debt in light of "has be
9. 159.▲
   by hawleyal 12y ago

   I'm not sure that's a good argument for usage-based pricing. Also, common carrier phone services only had usage charges for long-distance service. Someone else just needs to come out with better and cheaper services. Comcast sucks
10. 160.▲
    by hawleyal 12y ago

    This is going to get major pushback from all content providers like Netflix, Pandora, et al.
11. 161.▲
    by hawleyal 12y ago

    In-house is the problem. I don't want 200 separate media apps.
12. 162.▲
    by hawleyal 12y ago

    Security-wise, if they are both vulnerable to trivial exploits, how can you say one is "more secure" than another?
13. 163.▲
    by hawleyal 12y ago

    Because encryption with SSL without trust of the SSL cert is meaningless. It might as well be not encrypted.
14. 164.▲
    by hawleyal 12y ago

    They can. Fear is the only deterrent.
15. 165.▲
    by hawleyal 12y ago

    This is just the same as your car, your phone, or anything else that can be tracked being used to suppose that you were at those locations personally. It's not certain, just probable.
16. 166.▲
    by hawleyal 12y ago

    Or realize promising things like this is like a student council president promising everyday is pizza day and no school on Fridays.
17. 167.▲
    by hawleyal 12y ago

    I think it's not actually how the activities of governing are carried out. It's more about how personal representation is authenticated yet anonymized. That's the reason the author brings up voting.
18. 168.▲
    by hawleyal 12y ago

    REST was in the original HTTP spec. Most people were just doing it wrong the entire time until recently when it became trendy to go back to the root REST ideals. And by most people I mean everyone involved in SOAP and RPC and other nonsense
19. 169.▲
    by hawleyal 12y ago

    I agree, that is what I was trying to say. If you are doing things correctly (fully absorbed the concept), everything will be fine and no one has to argue about REST, HTTP, and URIs.
20. 170.▲
    by hawleyal 12y ago

    LOL A line of Ruby is worth a <INSERT-RAGE-HERE> lines of Java.
21. 171.▲
    by hawleyal 12y ago

    I disagree. Of course designing mobile-first is considerably easier than trying to do it later. However, I would also say that designing mobile-first is actually easier in general, even if you never plan to target mobile specifically. The i
22. 172.▲
    by hawleyal 12y ago

    I see what you're saying, but it's not redundant, it's just a synonym. By redundant I meant that there are keys that are not necessary. /artist/{artist}/albums /albums?artist={artist} AlbumsController#inde
23. 173.▲
    by hawleyal 12y ago

    The relationships in URIs are abstractions anyway. The data is not actually stored at /artist/8/albums or /albums?artist=8. Both are abstractions of whatever underlying system is used to store the relationships.
24. 174.▲
    by hawleyal 12y ago

    Agreed. Nested routing is fine, as long as it doesn't become redundant. Do: /artist/8/albums /albums/9 Don't: /artist/8/albums/9 Using query filters versus nesting are virtually synonym
25. 175.▲
    by hawleyal 12y ago

    URIs matter and REST matters because people have been using them incorrectly for so long. Common mistakes like putting verbs in URIs instead of using HTTP methods. You are correct though, about the design of verbs don't matter (outside
26. 176.▲
    by hawleyal 12y ago

    400 Bad Request is often a better, albeit generic, option.
27. 177.▲
    by hawleyal 12y ago

    Not to mention systemic torture and abuse.
28. 178.▲
    by hawleyal 12y ago

    LOL, as if RIM does shit correctly.
29. 179.▲
    by hawleyal 12y ago

    Accepts no responsibility, gets paid, goes home.
30. 180.▲
    by hawleyal 12y ago

    Laws belong to us. We change them all the time.