skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's about paid customers and not only friends. Paid customers expect a smooth service. At the moment I have multiple (virtual and physicall) servers around the world to both host and deal with nameservers. This solution is time and money consuming, so I am moving to a different approach.

A single shared nameserver does not grant a 100% uptime and costs 2x the price of the business plan that company I linked earlier is offering. I call this an expensive and badly implemented solution.

A single self-hosted nameserver does not grant a 100% uptime and requires a fitting internet connection and an old box to run bind on. At the moment I do not have an old box or server to run bind on, and even if I had it, the box could die and I would have to deal with the downtime (single nameserver), buy spare parts, lost time to fix the box and at the moment I do not have a fitting internet connection.

Godaddy's dns hosting is utter crap, it seriously hurts my eyes and needs a bazilion clicks to accomplish a simple task so I am looking for valid alternatives providing more than one nameserver, with uptimes close to (better yet: matching) 100%, to save money and time and keep paid and free customers happy.
Erm, the font-face property was originally a proprietary IE property and Microsoft have supported it since IE4, the snag being you need to convert fonts to OTF format to use them.
For investors, you give three sets of predictions - The best-case scenario, a standard scenario, and a lowball scenario, and show how you can make money with ANY of those scenarios.

Usually, they shake their heads and say "They'll make money no matter what."

At least, that's been my experience.

I financial model my numbers based on all the possible inbound factors and growth rates. Just build it in excel with the input factors and change them based on logical assumptions.
Have been using dnsmadeeasy.com for some time. Reliable so far and have heard good things about them.
Achieving Grace
Look, I'm not questioning their contributions, just the current state of affairs.

If Red Hat vanished tomorrow, Linux would still be developed and maintained, even though it would suffer a setback. That's because there are many other companies and communities that help with that.

The problem is that only Red Hat earns serious money directly from selling Linux licenses, although it relies on contributions of many other companies and individuals to do so. The other companies only earn money from complementary products and consulting services ... services which don't scale unless you're a superstar developer charging $500 / hour or you have lots of resources to hire lots of people to answer support calls.

Although they shouldn't care since they are a company, and I do appreciate their contributions, the culprit is from my pov the GPL license ... and the perfect open-source license is LGPL-like ... that's all I tried to say.
Right.

I was tempted to say that our pace was somewhat reduced (not to 50%), and our code was greatly improved, because that was our impression. We did not adjust old estimates to account in any way for pairing, and we saw a trend toward improvement in |actual - estimated| costs.

Then again, every feature/bug and programmer is different. We didn't have many old estimates for unfinished work. We didn't consciously account for pairing in new estimates, but we didn't have any sort of experimental rigor. The non-pairing programmers definitely wrote worse code, but they were the weaker programmers in the first place. Maybe our improved estimation accuracy was because our product was maturing.

There are some reviewed papers covering experiments on pairing. Laurie Williams [http://collaboration.csc.ncsu.edu/laurie/] is an author of many of them. Here's one not by her: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1145293.
We use everydns.com here as well. It is free, but they do ask for donations. If you donate I think it is at least $15 they will remove the restrictions on the number of domains you have. They have an easy to use web interface and are extremely reliable. Overall we couldn't be happier with them.
Seems like your main criticism revolves around being chained to a newbie as half of the pair - I'm not sure pair programming is designed to work well in that setup. It's pair programming, not pair mentoring, and if there's a huge disparity in skill level, then it'll feel like a drag. Yes there's an amount of mentoring in good pairs because everyone's at least slightly better in at least one different area than their partner, but similar enough in skill sets that you can build upon the differences when needed, rather than constantly bringing the partner up to par.

The places I've seen it work seamlessly has been where it averages out the work to a consistent level, whether all intermediate coders that no longer make rookie mistakes or all advanced ones that no longer slow down for newbie speed bumps. I've even seen pairs attack projects in programming languages they've never worked with before. I was brought in to Pivotal for an afternoon or two to give Flex/actionscripting advice to the programmers working on a friend's prototype site and they didn't need my help at all, I was happy to see that they knocked it out just fine.

On a side note, I just tried out pair designing this week (instead of programming) and it was a really interesting experience. You could see that we each had different focus (me = interaction designer, partner = visual designer) and that helped compliment our work rather than act as a source of friction. And not to get into a toolkit debate but we also shared similar philosophies about hating Photoshop and long design cycles, loving Fireworks and quick clickable prototypes, etc.
He said (paraphrasing) they could make money today, but they are opting for building a longterm-business (read: big thing like Intel, not somewhat big thing like Blogger).

If you take his qualifier into account, yeah, maybe he could be right.
I thought "web 3.0" meant context-aware search and things like that? Such as being able to search for string "hot cars in Detroit" and the search engine be smart enough to search for dealerships in Detroit, interpreting substring "hot" as being an adjective for "cars in detroit", i.e., as a string to look for on dealership sites, for example. Search and XML representations that are more linguistically aware, in other words. That is web 3.0 as far as I understand, so it seems reasonable that things like this could arise at some point, especially given progress made recently in the field of chatbots, such as at the Loebner competition for example.
To what extent you may or may not like to hack does not depend on any external judgement, does it?

I think it's reasonable to judge that a fooer is someone who often engages in fooing rather than someone who has fooed once, for a number of values of foo — a dancer is someone who dances frequently, presumably because they like dancing, not someone who has danced once; a gardener is someone who gardens regularly, probably as a living, not someone who once pulled a weed; and similarly for values of foo including "paint", "box", "bricklay", "drum", and "hack". In none of these cases does it imply that the status is contingent on somebody else's judgment.
Thank you guys, I'll try it out
Since when was running named on a pair of servers (put one on linode and one on slicehost for redundancy) not work for all but the larger companies? And by the time you are that large, cost of name servers is so insignificant as to be round off error.

I always used to think that I was missing something special about DNS - I mean, it can't be as simple as configuring named.conf for a master and slave, creating a zone file, tossing an SOA plus some Resource Records into it, could it? Perhaps it's because I keep a 500 page copy of "DNS and BIND" on my desk, and perhaps it's because large deployments of DNS _are_ complex - but for the vast majority (and certainly anybody simple enough to outsource there DNS to a hosting organization) - it's a pretty straightforward, solved and inexpensive problem.

The one reason to do this, I guess, is if you just are done with the "part-time-systems-administrator" gig, and would just like to wash your hands of it. But, if you have to do some of it already, the incremental cost of running for multiple organizations is pretty insignificant.

I realize, btw, that this is off topic - and you are actually looking for guidance on out-sourced DNS servers - I just couldn't restrain my fingers when I caught your paragraphs noting the cost of parts and servers. $40/month buys you two servers, one with slicehost and one with linode.

There are a lot of reasons to hand your DNS to a third party (Nice interfaces, handling the customer service, hassle-of-managing) - but cost of servers/internet isn't one of them.
The premise is a basic misunderstanding of HTML. <div align=right> does not parse as HTML because HTML-parsers are pragmatic and obeys Postells law. It parses because it is syntactically correct HTML. HTML does not require quotes around attributes if the attribute values are alphanumeric.

But if you write syntactically incorrect HTML, like forgetting to match a quote (<div align="right>) you will have a problem. The parser will not show an error, but the following content may disappear. Worse, the result might be diffent in different browsers. In the one you test with, things render like you intended due to the browser-specific error recovery rules. In the browser used by most of your audience, everything on the page until the next quote (in a different tag further down the page) disappers without trace.

HTML is a more complex grammar than XML which makes it harder to implement correctly. XML OTOH was designed with the KISS-principle. Clearly some characters needs to be quoted - eg. equals-signs or whitespace in an attribute value simply cannot be parsed unambiguously. Rather than having rules about which characters require quotes (does an underscore in an attribute require quotes? Does a dot?) XML just requires quotes always.

The poster argues that a parser should be able to parse malformed input, since there might not be an easy way to get the producer to conform to the spec. This is a good point, but there is no simple solution, because invalid XML is by definition ambiguous. In many cases it is possible to guess what the producer intended, however it basically have to be decided on a case by case base. You can't write a parser that can parse random invalid XML and always reconstuct the data structure that the producer intended. This would require that the parser was able to read the mind of the producer, and if that was the case, XML would not be needed at all.

In HTML5 there is activity to define canonical parse rules for almost any kind of malformed input. This allows more interoperable parsers, but the price is an extremely large and complex specification. Note also that this does not automatically fix mistakes. An HTML author might forget one of the quotes around an attribute value; with HTML5 there might be an official correct parse for this case. However there is no guarantee that this parse is what the author intended. There is simply no fool-proof way to fix content bugs on the client side. Postells Law have clear limits.
From this description, the mainstream view seems to subscribe to the discredited Lamarckian view of evolution, i.e. the idea that traits acquired during parents lifetime (e.g. bigger brains from eating meat) can be transmitted to offspring.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_of_acquired_charact...
Economic crisis 'is as bad as they come'
How would that fix the problem? If you receieve invalid s-espression data - e.g. with unmatched parantheses or an unmatched quotation sign - how would you parse it into the structure that the author intended?
The Rise of the Mega Data Center
On the record: FedEx CEO Frederick W. Smith
The web browser is outstanding.
> There are a lot of reasons to hand your DNS to a third party but cost of servers/internet isn't one of them.

Alright: it's USD480/year (plus administrating those two servers) vs. USD58/year but no, "cost of servers/internet isn't a reason". Ok, great.
The web has always been 2.0 ... this potential of the Internet could've been seen since the early days of Usenet.

The problem with websites was that companies couldn't wrap their head around the many-to-many communication and collaboration systems we see in use today ... and when O'Reilly coined the term suddenly people became aware like flies spotting honey :)
These moves can and do yield serious profit - present we will outline a simple method to get them.
Sure, maybe. I've found Java much easier to deal with when I do everything from scratch instead of letting Eclipse handle it. (This basically means setting up Tomcat myself, making an Ant file to build everything, and then editing it all in emacs.)

Java is still unpleasant either way. What takes ten files in Java would be ten lines in any other (real) language. Also, the standard library is horribly, horribly designed. If you read the implementation, you'll see it's clear that nobody writing it has any idea what OOP is, which makes me very very sad. Anyway, this idiotic design makes writing Java even more difficult, IDE or not :)

Hopefully I will never have to write Java again.
I would make a bigger difference between a free and premium account.
$8.84 CPM? thats is really high, how many visitors?

Anyway excellent job.
Apple's not really targetting netbooks - I mean, they might release one of their own, but they really aren't interested in calling up Dell and saying "Hey, let's cut a deal to install OSX on your next-gen netbook." So it's not strictly a fair comparison.

That said, yeah, it seems like Ubuntu is moving really swiftly these days. Swifter than Apple even, but let's not forget that only a year ago, people were complimenting Apple for being so swift-moving when compared to Microsoft.

My, how things change.
I use slicehost for their VPS, but they have a nice restful API for their DNS servers in addition to a web interface. Their cheapest VPS is $20/month, so with that you could get your DNS.
dd24.net
Yes, I've heard similar. Although, more along the lines that you tell your computer "I need to have my teeth cleaned" then the computer goes and looks up dentist ratings, finds a sampling of good ones, gets their availability schedules, cross references with your schedule, determines how long it will take you to get there from your each appointment, books the appointment, and makes an entry in your schedule with a map and then reminds you to brush your teeth really well on the day that you have the appointment.
Why is it always the Mac users that get upset over "dick waving contests"? When someone tells me "Linux sucks" or whatever, I just kind of laugh at them and move on. But if you say "Macs suck" to a Mac user, you get a long lecture about the experience and how awesome it is to use a computer like it's 1995 and blah blah blah (or something, I usually zone out after the first sentence).

Anyway, Mac users (and people that use Linux "to be cool") tend to behave like members of a religious cult. Instead of providing actual reasons for anything, they make up some emotional bullshit to justify their strong feelings for something not worth feeling strongly about.

everybody sees their computer in different ways

Maybe, but it's possible you have settled on something that's acceptable, rather than "the best". Reminding people of this from time to time is not necessarily a bad thing.
They are all replying to my comment a few lines up :)
Revisiting high school economics, making your price and value hew to each other as closely as possible is called extracting consumer surplus.

Your customers are not stupid. It's already difficult to get a pilot project implemented. When they see that the 501st user is going to cost them 50% more than the 500th, the pitch will go in the circular file. No number of clever graphs will justify your price to the customer. Humans are finely tuned to reject "unfair" proposals in negotiations, no matter how big a net win they are for both parties.

This is a good pricing model, just not one you can ever show to your customers. You would need an Oracle-esque sales force to feel out the customer and generate tremendously complex sales quotes.
Writing a Compiler for Python
So it's not strictly a fair comparison.

I think the point of that comment was to say: "Netbooks are really popular. Apple is ignoring this while Ubuntu is embracing it. This is making Ubuntu popular, while Apple has pretty much maxed out its popularity."
Sure, but only the most vehement fanbois use Apple or Microsoft servers.
Useless article. I want to read about ideas how to get out of it, don't bore me with your doomsday speeches. We already know this is "bad". It's in the news every day.
Is it weird that so many of these designers use the default OSX background?
I wish someone had invented YAML before SGML existed.

Then maybe we wouldn't have this problem.
Don't you know? If you put a bunch of parentheses near each other, they form an AI that can parse invalid S-Expressions. I thought everyone knew that!
old box at your house on a static ip, old box at your friends house who uses a different provider.

Cost $0 if you have some old stuff lying around + the power they use.

Cheaper and just as good. The chance of both providers going down at the same time is pretty slim.

Heck, I'll host your secondary if you want it for free, it's not like I'll notice the bandwidth. Primary is different because you'll need access, secondary is just a bunch of lines in a conf file, it'll update when your primary does.

mail me at j@ww.com if you want to take me up on that offer.
How to make your first billion--with free software
Snark: Insult as injury
Then check out http://guides.rubyonrails.org/
Excellent, high-quality, up-to-date documentation for almost any Rails topic you can imagine. Even the API docs have improved leaps and bounds -- yes, send_file is documented as well.

And FYI: send_file has been around since Rails 1.0.0. It's not exactly "state of the art".
web 2.0 is a catchphrase, as it dies people will come up with another term for it. Lately it seems to be "social media"
Anyone using lighttpd might want to check out mod_secdownload (http://redmine.lighttpd.net/wiki/lighttpd/Docs:ModSecDownloa...) as an alternative. Nice and lightweight.
Another Way To Look At Terms Of Service Agreements
Alexa rankings are bogus
why does it have to be mutually exclusive? why can't they do both?
<sarcasm>
"Web 3.0 apps are different from 2.0 apps in that they're native to the web, and you can do things with them that simply were not possible before."

An example would be taking a 2.0 app previously thought to be unmonetizable and making money with it such as monetizing Twitter or Facebook.
</sarcasm>
A School Where One Size Doesn't Fit All
Will This Crisis Produce a 'Gatsby'?
we need a separate court system for the web. A judge and jury that are web knowledgeable .
Tech composes the music of fish
Rails seems to change on a daily basis.

Not to worry, though, because almost a quarter of the changes will be mentioned in a blog post. Somewhere. Eventually.

grumble, grumble
This blog post put me off of Coding Horror forever:
http://blog.wekeroad.com/blog/nothing-to-say/
Finding the lost city: Does the Amazon jungle conceal a vanished empire?
The better definition I have heard of technology cycles (via Jared Spool).

The numbers do not map to Web 2.0.

The first generation (1.0) is all the technology. "Hey, check out out my Motorola cellular phone. It weighs 5 pounds and is a true portable"

The second generation (2.0) is all about the features. "Text messaging, pictures, ringtones, games, address book, MP3 player, J2ME, comes in pink". Windows Media Center (1st release)

The third generation (3.0) is all about the user experience. The iPhone
I dont really understand this argument, 1

1. <div align=right>Hello, world!</div> is not easier for end users than <div align="right">Hello, world!</div>, I would say its harder

2. a tool can tell the end user that the former is right, if you depend on a variation of permissive parsers, you cant be told wether it will be accepted.

3. end users shouldnt be using any of these, they should really be tool generated.
Just Say No to a VC Bailout: A Green Government Venture Fund Is a Flawed Idea
idk I think as a language it's fine enough for what it does
well. I wouldn't even trust Tomcat personally though.
The NIO library for example is fantastically well designed.

>> "What takes ten files in Java would be ten lines in any other (real) language."

Come on now, it's not quite that bad. Also, I don't really buy into the whole 'all verbose languages are bad' thing.
I guess official statements at timed intervals would do. As for gossip snippets like that, I don't know. Suppose you would be the first to get hold of such information, would you feel a duty to society to publish it? Or is publishing it more of a vulture thing to do?
might interest you to know that Neil is on Hacker News [neild I think]

He's also running a cool [albeit expensive] conference with Joel from Fog Creek.
I use FastMail to manage DNS for my family domains. In addition to email, they provide an easy to use DNS interface as part of their business/family package. They don't really promote this aspect of their service but it works well.

http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/faqparts/VirtualDomains.htm
I don't think this is a Rails-related issue, as it applies to everyone writing persistent web applications. (Admittedly it is less of an issue if you have non-blocking IO or real threads, but I still use X-SendFile when I have those tools available. The less my app has to do, the better.)
I have an old Asus-8G. Windows XP runs really slow on it. I installed XP for VPN/work access. It constantly sits there and the disk I/O goes. I've been considering wiping it and going back to the default Linux install.

I really hope that they would allow previous generations to change to Android.
Interesting video. This makes me wonder what the next truly disruptive technology will be. First there was oil, then the semiconductor, then internet.

As a materials scientist, I have to wonder whether the next disruptive force will come from something in the physical form or take a virtual form. Of course these things are impossible to predict, but its fascinating to look at how technology is innovating within my field.

For example, one idea that I hear often is a shift from the printing paper industry (which I agree is a dead industry) to a printing electronics industry. There is no reason why this technology cannot be re-used to innovate another industry that is taking another form. There is huge potential in organic electronics and printable displays.

Similarly, I believe optics are poised for an "it works" button, as Andreesen says. We've already seen the benefits of fiber optics as tremendously fast information travel, but we're ready to see optical computing and other advanced imaging techniques come into the mainstream.

Lastly, we're going to see much more intelligent applications of past ideas. In the past, people would keep to their respective disciplines and innovate within them. Now, everyone is adopting multiple disciplines. We're seeing people who use quantum chemistry to make new materials, intelligent computing and statistics to organize information, and old materials techniques to revolutionize medicine.

If you don't re-train in multiple fields, you will be left in the dust. This is how innovation will continue in the future.
I don't know how useful it is to worry about this. Isn't this what happened to Yahoo in the late-90s, early 2k?

The market will always respond to correct abnormalities. As in, when Google stops innovating, somebody else will.
I think they were just cleaned up for the pictures. They are designers that use Macs -- anything unclean in a photo would be unacceptable, dontcha know ;)