txWS is the best twisted-based framework for websocket: it does not assume that you want to combine it with a web server, and allows you to wrap your existing protocols into websocket
AutoBahn is an absolutely top notch implementation of WebSockets for twisted. It's probably one of the most complete and robust implementations on any platform, and their test suite is currently the gold standard against which other implementors test their own implementations.
I wrote the websockets implementation for mongrel2, and just as an FYI, it only supports the more recent websockets standard (they made some incompatible changes around draft version 7). The good news is that the only browser that ever had the old version on by default was chrome (firefox and opera defaulted it off for security reasons), so there aren't too many browsers out in the wild using the old version.
If you're interested in a easy-to-use hosted solution, you could try Pusher ( http://pusher.com ). It would be the fastest way to get up and running and you wouldn't have to worry about the details.
The NFL's lawyers stated the NFL competes in the "entertainment marketplace" (http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?renderfor...) and operates as a single entity, not as 32 teams. The NFL makes a large portion of its revenue from television, and ratings are higher on close, competitive games.
What prevents owners from keeping the games close or trading wins/losses now to help a storyline in exchange for markers for future wins when they're on a championship track?
While it is illegal to fix sporting events for gambling purposes, evidently you can fix sports for entertainment purposes. The All 22 footage would make this more difficult because this type of stuff would be easier for fans to detect.
The only way the NFL could hope to come anywhere near fixing a game is the either a) change the rules to benefit certain team makesup (as they have done to make passing/scoring easier) or b) get the refs to call fouls more against a certain team.
b) is watched frequently and doesn't seem to be happening statistically a) has occurred but it's not secret and all teams know the rules. It's not really 'fixing' as much as it was the NFL wanting more scoring overall.
There is no way for the NFL to do mass game fixing because that's just too many people that have to agree to doing it. Keep in mind this means they would need current players, ex-players and the ex disgruntled players too all agree to not talk. I've talked to players from all 3 groups at the gym and fixing a game is simply something that doesn't happen. Some of these guys are very negative on the NFL and would have loved to say it's fake if it was true.
Problem is, a lot of memorable and important moments probably couldn't be faked if they tried, like the catch against the helmet when the Patriots lost to the Giants.
It would most certainly be a scandal, likely illegal or jeopardizing the NFL's Congressionally granted monopoly if it were fixed. One precedent is the quiz show scandals of the 50's.
Anyone else get the feeling that all of this "hacker" stuff in the media is serving to raise the profile of "hackers" and position them as the new "terrorists" in an effort to create an environment of fear that will lead to support for upcoming Internet regulations?
A few weeks ago I had a situation where Facebook contacted me about a job, and it appeared that Facebook may have been reading (or at the least mining) private messages related to my startup (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3035376). A Facebook employee replied to the thread but wouldn't provide details.
(I am neither a Facebook employee nor can I speak for them.)
I really think that was just coincidence. Considering how many people talk about startups over Facebook messages and how many people have been contacted by Facebook recruiters, there's bound to be at least one person who was contacted by a Facebook recruiter a day or two after talking about startups. It'll seem mighty suspicious to that person, and they'll blog about it. Congratulations, you're the lucky one.
Companies that big just generally don't do things like read private e-mail, because they know it'll get out somehow - disgruntled employee, whistleblower - and the damage to their reputation is totally not worth whatever they can gain from it.
What data sources does Facebook use to trigger the email?
And are emails manually approved before they go out? If so, does that mean a Facebook employee looks at the data source that triggered email, which in some cases may be the user's private messages?
It seems to be a large leap to go from "sends lots of emails" to "automates finding people to recruit." There is a similar leap from "automates finding people to recruit" to "uses private messages as signal."
Google is a private company that controls your site's reputation via PageRank -- assuming most of us have a personal site/blog, how is this that much different?
While it's true that Google is in a sense a gatekeeper to people's personal sites, it doesn't claim to be an arbiter of your page's (or your) reputation. Rather, it only claims to be a judge of a page's relevance to the terms a user searches on.
Google absolutely is an arbiter of your page's reputation -- you can see the 0-9 logarithmic scale on Google's Toolbar.
In the early days of Google/PageRank, the SEO world was abuzz with talk of Google's reputation score for each website, and everyone eagerly awaited the Google update to see how the scores changed.
I stand corrected. I still think it's fair to say that the public doesn't view Google as an arbiter of a page's reputation, though as you say they are certainly aiming to be this.
