I'd ignore excitement -- if you are actually dying to work on something then put the motivation to fruition. If the problem you're working on isn't fulfilling then challenge yourself by trying to solve it by using a non-conventional approach.
I'm sort of confused, because TLS 1.1/1.2 support across browsers looks to be quite poor at the moment. Especially when given a large number of IE visitors that will likely upgrade to IE11 (first version that will have TLS 1.1/1.2 enabled by default) sometime around the year 2016.
With that said, I was under the impression that sites will need to support TLS 1.0 for a good long while, and if that is indeed the case, would they not be better off using RC4? From my understanding, the RC4 attacks seemed less practical than attacks against the implementation of CBC mode in SSL 3.0 / TLS 1.0?
I found a lot of this film incredibly interesting. But just seeing the behavior of wild tigers in the presence of humans (especially compared to what many of us have likely seen in a zoo) was incredible. The look they give to humans just screams pure murder and unexplainable hatred.
Anyway, watching that documentary also made me watch other tiger related ones, of which this one ranked pretty well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LljDuIUtvbQ (Operation Snow Tiger) also by BBC (and I recall correctly it is in 2 parts).
My guesses are: 1) maybe it's a mockery of the redundancy of using "www" in URLs, 2) a clever prank on anyone that attempts to communicate the site's address verbally and doesn't know that the sub-domain portion is optional, 3) a way of making the link catch the eye and create enough curiosity to result in a click.
Just guesses though, I really couldn't find anything concrete about it.
Yeah, it really gets interesting if you compare his recent press conferences on the matter against what his speeches sounded like in 2007; here's an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix4sy25wF-E
Which is not the same thing as node's modules. There's nothing stopping me from making global variables within a module "pattern". Contrast that with a node.js module where even if a variable declaration leaves out a 'var' by accident, the global will not show up in anything that imports that module. I.e., there is no chance of name collisions because each node module gets its own unique and clean global scope.
> On WebGL, we can reinvent presentation and styling entirely without sacrificing performance. Maybe keep parts of HTML, and ditch CSS entirely in favour of something better, and use a JS lib to render it all on GLES hardware, the same in every browser
I'm not sure I follow you when you say "keep parts of HTML". Are you suggesting that we should have a canvas element that spans the entire region of the page, store the actual markup of the page hidden somewhere on the page, and then parse and render that markup to the canvas element using JS+WebGl+<some CSS alternative>? Or are you saying that the browser should simply give up on rendering HTML markup, and give it over to your JS App which will render it itself using WebGL?
> We now have many competing programming languages, competing frameworks, and so on, with a few mainstream ones and improvements/replacements all the time. Rendering entire websites in WebGL enables having the same world-wide innovation in presenting web sites and web apps to users.
If the rendering is done in user/app space, I find it hard to believe there would be any uniformity at all. Everyone would end up having their own unique dialect of HTML that behaved and displayed differently in their own customized WebGL based rendering engine.
EDIT: Disregard that last bit, I misread what you were saying to imply that it would be more uniform than what we have now.
Not sure if this is relevant these days, but the Emscripten FAQ mentions the need to use "-s ASM_JS=1" as an argument to emcc in order for it to actually output asm.js style code. See "Q. How fast will the compiled code be?" from: https://github.com/kripken/emscripten/wiki/FAQ
It's the same figure which was in the leaked documents from 2008 that points to some NSA/CSSM 1-52 document from 2007 as a basis. Perhaps they feel that this is the only justifiable piece of "statistics" they can provide at the moment. Though since the document was apparently OK to relay to foreign nations, this is likely another case of the "least untruthful" thing can say.
What do you mean by query? Are talking about using the 'keys' command to figure out what data you need? Because that's completely discouraged for everything except maintenance tasks, and for those I think it makes sense to keep an extra slave instance that is not used by any apps that connect to redis (i.e., keep it out of the pool they can use).
If on the other hand by 'query' you mean, for example, using operations like diff, intersect, and union on sets that store keys (for the purpose of knowing what data to pull) -- I actually haven't ran into performance problems yet. If what you're saying is "it's important to spend time to think about HOW you're going to be determining what data to access", then yeah, I'll completely agree that this is crucial. However, I will also point out that this will be true even if you're using a relational database -- though those are expected to be "queried" so perhaps designing a feasible solution is a bit less demanding.
This "rant" is exceptionally incoherent/convoluted -- at times arguing against itself:
> The fact web browser technology are mostly the same across browsers is great for developers, but users never cared: because the market leading web browser defined the technologies people could use. And the people using the market leading web browser were unaware of the compromises other web browsers used.
What is being said here? That respect towards web standards is not important? Sure, when Internet Explorer had over 90% market share and was in the actual position of defining what the web looked like users didn't care. And they continued not to care for over 5 years as IE stagnated the entire world wide web due to the simple fact there was no competition and therefore no reason to innovate.
The author thinks today's browsers are bad? Without Firefox causing Microsoft to wake up you'd probably still be using IE6 today. At least with standards in place it's possible to have some reasonable balance between browser competition and an actual functioning web.
> My other problem with Safari is that they are doing fuck all with it. It gets updated, what, twice a year?
That's what I mean by "incoherent/convoluted -- at times arguing against itself".
The rest of the rant is just assigning opinion based importance to certain features over others. I personally couldn't care less about sharing my tabs across devices -- in fact, with my personal workflow that would often end with my cell phone automatically trying to load 50+ tabs that I left open at work while researching a problem. While on the other hand, I could not get by without a searchable browser history, even if it is just to find some news article I read 6 hours ago. The author claims this feature is useless because of Google -- yet I don't find Google to be a sufficient answer when trying to find content which was only posted a few hours ago.
I must say, I quite enjoy how so many countries are eagerly playing a game of "pass the Snowden" by throwing him over U.S. reach. It just goes to show that the behavior of the U.S. post 911 isn't winning over many friends -- in fact, it is a bit ironic to see us go from being hated by a few groups of extremists/terrorists to feeling like the whole world is, quite frankly, becoming sick of our government's actions and attitude.
Strange, I believe I tried that after receiving a bunch of gift cards for Christmas -- I even tried entering in the exact title that's below the CC number on the card, but had no luck.