Also, to people asking for invites, if you sign up on the list, you will generally receive one within a few days.
Additionally, if you are a student you are guaranteed a free one: https://www.google.com/voice/students (though it took nearly 48 hours for mine to show up rather than the advertised 24 hours)
I got 3 invitations in the first week. I use Google Voice exclusively for all my calls and a decently high volume of my text messages. My invited users use the service heavily and I've been responsible for getting my brother and both my parents using Google Voice, yet I've never been given additional invites.
There's an even easier solution... require confirmation via email. You send the post as an email, you get an email back immediately asking for post confirmation.
edit:
It looks like this is already standard functionality (if turned on, and even if not there is still an email sent with a delete link).
I don't think dustin does a good job explaining why "It is OK" in this blog post, but I think I agree with his conclusion, this doesn't seem like a big deal if a user has opted for the more optimistic workflow rather than the more precautionary one.
I would love to do this without sharing my extension data and bookmarks with Google. They already know what I search for. I don't really want them to know my favorite porn or cooking websites.
How difficult would it be to add a different provider for Chromium sync, or make a small server component that would allow anyone to decentralized-ly be their own provider of a sync repo for their browsers?
Uh, at least among male internet users I am a small minority. I wouldn't worry about my collection, heh. Besides, they're still there and finding is half the fun.
Laziness? Plus I like the fact that it's integrated into the browser itself. That might be irrational though, not sure how well integrated plugins can be in core browser stuff.
Uh, Chromium's open source, it could ask for FTP credentials and then upload them there...? There are any number of ways this could be done without giving any information to Google and only giving them to Chromium.
They don't "know" about your porn bookmarks, it's just stored on their servers, besides the sync is not obligatory you can use the xmarks extention if you're more comfortable with them.
Oh I know, I'm just paranoid and have (yes, even me, the Google fanboy) my limits on what I'm willing to store on others' servers.
I know, I can use xmarks or del.icio.us or whomever, but having bookmarks/extensions or (at least eventually) all of my browser state synced in a single place... that's just unbeatable IMO. Especially because I have a desktop, laptop and work laptop that are used about equally. It's a nightmare to remember, "Oh where did I bookmark that page at?" etc. Not to mention extensions, cookies, etc, etc.
Weave is about the only thing I really miss since switching to Chrome; I ran my own server, but encrypting the data prior to transmission meant I wouldn't have felt terrible about sending it to them. Architecturally, I felt pretty good about it.
"Chip designers are under so much pressure to deliver ever-faster CPUs that they’ll risk changing the meaning of your program, and possibly break it, in order to make it run faster"
Already. The article mentions read, write ordering. That is essentially about in what order other processors see reads, writes being done by this processor: thus if procA does a bunch of writes will procB see them in the order (program order) in which they were done or in a different other order. There can be other interleavings when you introduce read into the mix.
Architectures like the late lamented Alpha (this is around late 90's) had fairly weak ordering requirements so you needed explicit memory barriers to tell the processor that you needed ordering preserved (think spinlocks for instance.) Mainstream processors (x86/x86-64) have always had strict write ordering but not read ordering. Let's see how long that lasts.
Do you like functional programming? One of the nice things about functional programming is that I can see right away what is being done with a collection. Map is applying or "mapping" some translation to the list to create a new one, filter is taking a subset of the collection that meets some criteria. In e.g. C you just have that big dumb for loop. You want to know what is being done to the the collection? Well, you're just going to have to read the whole thing. Every time.
The problem is that there are several different kinds of things you want to do to a collection, but in C you just have the for loop and have to keep writing e.g. filter every time you need one. Over and over.
Apple gives you the functional approach to multitasking: there are a handful of things you actually want to use multitasking for and they're all supported with the api. You're complaining that they didn't give you that dumb for loop so you could just do it all yourself by hand. Over and over.
Apple gives you a fixed set of functions that you can pass to map(). Other OSes give you chance to write your own functions that you will be able to pass to built-in map.
That's simply not the case. My analogy is exactly how I wanted it. What things do you want to do with a service? Run a background thread to completion? You can do that. You want to play music when your app is in the foreground? Covered. Want to receive notifications from the network? Check. What to do certain tasks at scheduled times? Affirmative.
Further, if I'm reading your code I don't have to go "Oh God, they started a thread. What do they think they need it for...", I can just look at what API you used and I know exactly what the goal was. Exactly the same advantage that map/filter/reduce/etc. have over a for loop.
It is basically: what do you want? This or that supplied function covers your need, you can pass it. Sorry, you can't make yours, what would you possibly want?
Honestly? I don't know right now. Maybe I will have earth-shattering idea next week or month, but I don't know right now. The point is, the original authors of map didn't try to envision what you are going to use map for, and provide enum for choosing an appropriate action. They allowed you to pass any function you want, doing whatever you want.
For example, when speaking about Android, the framework contains class that handles things like managing threads for you. You just plug-in the required functionality, just like you pass your function to built-in map. The boilerplate that you are arguing against is simply not there. Just like with map you know, that "this function will be applied for every item in set" or with filter you know "you will get new set containing items from original set for which the supplied predicate is true", you know that "this functionality will run in background". The accidental complexity of managing it is hidden; the functionality allowed is not fixed.
>This or that supplied function covers your need, you can pass it. Sorry, you can't make yours, what would you possibly want?
We've had concurrency and services for decades, we already know every general action you can possibly do with a service. No one is going to come up with some totally new novel use for a background service anymore than anyone will come up with a new general action to apply to lists. Everything you would ever want to do with a background service can be divided into about 5 kinds of tasks and those are covered. Full stop.
If you disagree then please describe some act with a service and I'll explain to you how that already fits in one of the 4 or 5 kinds of things people do with services. Proposing that some day, some where someone may come up with something that doesn't fit this mold is just hand waving.
You can have your app continue to run for up to 10 minutes after it's been closed, so it should be possible to use that time to keep your connection open. If no one has contacted you in 10 minutes then chances are they wont in the next 10 either so it would be better to switch to push notification and let the phone manage notifications.
Keeping SSH or IM connections open is an action of a well known use for servers; listening for updates. And that's covered in the API.
You're wrong. These are the same excuses that people always make for apple, that simplicity and functionality are mutually exclusive. This excuse seems to usually be made ONLY for Apple. Why can't they have their easy to use APIs but ALSO have the ability for real developers who want to write "that same for loop over and over", or who, you know, what to write something like an Instant Messaging application do so?
What are you talking about? What functionality does an instant message application need that isn't supported? It can get push notifications if someone sends you a message. You could even leave your app running for up to 10 minutes in the background waiting for updates if you wanted (which probably matches actual usage pretty well).
What you can't do is have your app sitting in the wait queue for data coming in over the wifi because that would mean the wifi card has to run constantly. Ask Android how quickly doing that can drain your battery.
You get AOL to add support for apple's push server into their Oscar protocol chain and I'll concede.
My battery lasts fine and I'm generally logged into IRC and/or meebo for most of the day in addition to the Google Talk that I leave signed in and my three email accounts that get updates. etc, etc. The battery woes are simply unjustified for the most part.
I couldn't find the article in 30 seconds, but I recall someone from Google, Android or one of the carriers (i.e. someone qualified to talk about it) who acknowledged the battery issue and pointed to exactly this as the culprit.
If a woman said she's interested in you, never calls back, and says SHE will call YOU, you wouldn't have hope and stay interested?
I don't understand why this thread seems to be going out of their way to shit on this guy. It's not like Apple said "eh" and didn't respond, they kept saying they'd get back to him and never bothered.
It's called leading someone on, it's rude, and I'm startled at the number of excuses that are being made for this guy.
I'm an Asker but I don't know why I was downvoted. Two months ago I saw a woman in a coffee shop and hit on her. I invited her to go out with me and see Taming Your Dragon In 3-D. She declined and said it was lame. But she took my number and said she'd call me and invite me to a beach party some time. I never got a call from her, and even saw her again in the same coffee shop, but didn't bring it up. She called me today to invite me out this weekend to a beach party. My point is that you can never predict these things. If someone is giving you the "polite yes" or the "polite maybe" but is giving you bad vibes via body language, then you can use that to help gauge your interpretation.
I see you replied again so I think I should respond, though initially I wasn't going to. (And note that I can't downvote your comment, since it's a reply to mine, so I'm not the one draining your karma.) With that preamble finished:
Perhaps your comment is getting downvoted because your premise seems incorrect? When I first saw your reply, I thought, "Hey! That's not fair! Just because I explained what people do doesn't mean that I excused what they do." I was being descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, I thought your reply was pretty unfair, but I was not going to reply because I felt like it was just splitting hairs.
Now that you're getting downvoted and have replied a second time, I just thought I'd point out that others may have felt the same way about your comment as I did. Indeed, the very same people who are downvoting your comment very well may not agree with the behavior that my comment described as being typical.
Which is why I said excuses being made up and down the thread. I didn't mean to imply that you were excusing it, but many people were saying that Apple was being more reasonable that the developer which is why I spoke out in defense of the developer.
I don't buy your explanation. I'd like to, but all over this thread there are highly upvoted comments that explain that this guy was out of lining by expecting anything at all, even though Apple continually led him on. They could have sent two teeny-tiny bytes 'N' 'o' and been done. But instead they were dicks.
I don't really see why my reply was unfair. If you weren't making excuses for apple, fine, but there were dozens of posters on this topic that are/were.
What we have is a situation where both parties behaved imperfectly. Since it was the outside guy who made the whiny woe-is-me-I'm-a-victim blog post about it, it's everybody's instinct to point out what he did to deserve it.
On the other hand if the Apple engineer were the one writing the blog post everybody would jump on what he did that was wrong.
You're welcome to suggest it, but it's really not the case. If someone did that to me I would be upset. I'm sorry that I have the common decency not to lie to people's faces, deceive them, string them on and then expect them to take it with a smile on their face.
I'm working for the man now anyway. Not much to be upset about really.
Most pathetic downmodding I've seen on HN. This isn't even passive aggressive, this is just being a shitty human being. Fuck you all.
It's really cool that HN is going the reddit route of downmodding comments that they disagree with. Although I don't even think my comments would have been downmodded over there. Because we're all hip and "hackers" at HN we just tolerate and expect people to be shitty to each other in the business world. Real cool guys.
No it's not. Point out what was so "acerbic" in my original reply. I've read it twice now and there's nothing out of line in it.
The only emotion I injected was "I am startled". Yeah, really `acid in temper or mood`. Especially when * ironically* I was addressing the acerbic comments being pointed at the author for ACTUALLY BELIEVING people when they told him they were interested.
Strong words. HN will generally downvote strong displays of negative emotions, especially if it's something purely subjective.
It was also slightly accusatory, saying other HN users were "making excuses" for this behavior. There's some ambiguity as to whether you meant the behavior itself was pathetic or the people "making excuses" were pathetic. I think you meant the latter.
Maybe this is an easier way to understand it: imagine you're in a room filled with people talking about this issue, and you stood up and said what you said out loud. How do you expect people to react? Positively?
I can't believe I'm explaining this in such detail. Haha.
I would call people out for excusing leading people on and lying to their faces. In public. In a room full of people that disagree with me. If I am in the wrong and downvotes (or in our analogy looks of disapproval or murmurs of hatred in my direction) are my punishment I will take them proudly. I think excusing the behavior is nearly as shameful as being the person doing the lying and deceiving.
I can't believe I'm explaining this in such deal. I meant the usage quite literally. I'm shocked that an intelligent community such as HN is excusing the behavior because it's supposedly "normal". I think the treatment and thus the excuses are "shitty" which doesn't have a formal definition for me to rattle off, but suffice it to say I think it covers "unacceptable behavior" which is a category that lying and leading people on generally falls into.
If a woman said she's interested in you, never calls back, and says SHE will call YOU, you wouldn't have hope and stay interested?
No.
Whoever writes Roissy in DC: http://roissy.wordpress.com/ is an asshole but also hilarious. It might be worth reading.
In addition, the reason people are ragging on this guy is because a) the behavior is typical and b) not surprising from the POV of Apple. In addition, the guy is making the mistake PG writes about in Two Kinds of Judgment: http://paulgraham.com/judgement.html .
No, I've lost interest in bothering, I'm pretty much just mocking it now.
My comment just above and the comment comparing reddit to HN, I fully expected to get downmodded. The other comments were simply chastising HN's mockery of the guy that actually believed what the Apple engineer said and IMO do not deserve to be downmodded.
I can't believe the amount of misinformation about Android in general. I know this is a phone and not Android specifically, but in general, WTF?
PCMag is reporting the Droid X and Droid 2 are the same phone, Engadget was making the same mistake less than a week ago. Now MacRumors really believes that it's even possible to have a 720p density screen on that size of a phone, even when the same mistakes were made regarding other phones that called the screen by the camera resolution.
It's just pathetic. These are high profile sites that consistently get information wrong that has been known to ANYONE paying ANY attention for at least a month.
Do you need someone to design/build a website for you? Your current site displays in a very thin column that is difficult and frustrating to read. Not to mention it's a bit lack luster.
No, but thank you. There's actually a full, beautiful site behind that hastily hacked together front page. That's what will go live soon - probably Tuesday or Wednesday.
http://www.queerty.com/andrew-auernheimer-saved-your-ipad-fr...