nice work!

iam love twitter and right now iam watching a show called #domian and iam looking for that hashtag and there are per minute about 30 tweets and i dont see them on your site. iam from germany.

or did i just overlooked something?

I think the biggest problem is that there are many many bad tutorials/book about javascript and only a few good once.

Often people wane code javascript like language X but javascript isen't language X! You must learn it like every other language! But if often see people doing javascript "when they need it". Nobody writes C just cause they need it... Normally people just sit down and read a book about C.

The "best" JavaScript-related book, as chosen by the community at large, is generally considered to be "JavaScript: The Good Parts", by Crockford.

While the most widely respected books for other programming languages teach one how to use such languages' features effectively, "JavaScript: The Good Parts" basically says not to use large parts of JavaScript.

That alone should show just how poor of a language it is. You don't have to ignore, or actively not use, so much core functionality when using a good programming language.

Also there is this resource, and the first sentence says it all: http://bonsaiden.github.com/JavaScript-Garden/

why such article gets so much up votes? 90% of the apps he is referring to are working on "linux" the same way...

Linux is just the Kernel... and Mac isen't an OS too...

We will fix nothing if we don't change the OS on that we are running...

OS = what we see(input) and what we do with that knowledge(output)

We can Install this software and this firewall and this make things easy tool but at the end we still are on the same OS.

there alternatives to skype that are open sourced and you can look up what security features they got. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_VoIP_software

Skype is popular because it just worked, even through funky firewalls. The replacement would need to be better than Skype to gain traction with non-technical users.

Skype's overall quality has been on a very steady decline recently. From call quality, to call drops, to offline contacts showing as online and vice versa, to privacy concerns - Skype's position has never been weaker. It still got an obvious momentum, but it is actively pissing of a lot of its users.

How did the internet get so dumbed down? Cloud this and web app that and now nobody knows how to research or install any normal software. Or do anything that isn't shiny packaged at $10+ a month?

skype just uses an http tunnel cause mostly the 80 port is open so no magic here(it does some more tricks but this is on).

I dont think skype is easy just look at the UI... i dont like skype for linux it never works on my laptop...

It's a bit smarter than just using an http tunnel.

Skype is capable of direct client-to-client connections, despite intervening NAT. It's pretty clever -- with the server's help as coordinator, the clients both initiate the connection, causing their own NAT routers to accept the inbound packets from the other side.

That's also called STUN, I believe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STUN (or probably a variant)

I think that's called hole punching http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hole_punching

I'm not keen on some of the recent changes to Skype but I don't really consider "Skype for Linux" to actually be Skype. Skype is actually the only reason beyond dev testing that I keep MS Windows.

Skype for Linux is the only software I've installed in at least 8 years, AFAIR, that has crashed my desktop session.

I wish all it did would be to crash my session. Mine would go into an endless loop or something, consuming 100% CPU. Everything would still appear to be working fine, only I couldn't make any calls, my chats wouldn't be delivered, etc. This happens around once every five minutes, and I have missed important meetings because Skype had hung and I was wondering why the person I was waiting for hadn't logged in yet, only to be asked where I was later.

It's the worst sort of bug, because it leads you to believe it's working fine, when it isn't. Skype for Linux is the reason I don't use Skype any more.

I'am on a Asus Zenbook Prime ux31a with ElementaryOS Luna(Cool Ubuntu Distro). It's a 13,3 Ultrabook with a 1920x1200 Resolution. I'am a webdeveloper and always on the go. Somepeople say it is a Macbook Air Clone but it is not ;)

i payed about 1050 euro for my version

It's 1920x1080 (Full HD).

this Article is about that the richer People are getting richer and the poor people poorer...

and this is a problem!

I live in germany a "rich" country you may think... There is a growing part of people how have a fulltime job but they are getting not payed enough and must go employment agency to get subvention from the state...

if you got 100 000 cakes that you must eat them all in 1 month and i take away from you 10 cakes or even 1000 did it really matter to you? if you got 2 cakes for a month and i take away 1 does this matter?

>> "Does 1 cake really matter"?

All of these "100 richest people" probably give away more than 100x what you earn in a year already. Are you honestly going to call them selfish?

If you are, then you are saying everyone should give away as much of their "cakes" as possible. Can you afford to give away an extra "cake"? Probably. Then you are selfish too, by your own logic.

and you know ALL the 100 people and they ALL give away so much? this is a fact for you? and you know that i don't give away my cake? this is a fact for you? what logic? you are just guessing...

A quote from Charlie Chaplin:" The way of life can be free and beautiful. But we have lost the way. Greed has poisoned men's souls, has barricaded the world with hate... has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed."

In some traditions it isn't how much you give away but how much it costs you personally that counts.

>All of these "100 richest people" probably give away more than 100x what you earn in a year already. Are you honestly going to call them selfish?

Yes. Charity is a feel-good hypocrisy (or worse, just a tax saving measure).

Nobody made huge tons of money without other people's blood under it. And especially not the top 1%.

Even a record artist that makes money from his songs (so he doesn't hurt anyone personally) is taking advantage of a huge system of that makes possible the money his audience spends (e.g from the stealing of the native indian lands to the US invading other countries for cheap oil, to the domestic market taking advantage of sweatshop labour in third world --that the colonial powers have first razed--, etc).

>If you are, then you are saying everyone should give away as much of their "cakes" as possible. Can you afford to give away an extra "cake"? Probably. Then you are selfish too, by your own logic.

Maybe. But:

1) being selfish for your 1 extra cake and being selfish for 1,000,000 cakes is hugely different.

2) being selfish is a personal moral issue that is insignificant compared to the systemic problem of mass wealth accumulation.

"Nobody made huge tons of money without other people's blood under it. And especially not the top 1%."

Overly dramatic sensationalism - ripped straight from a first year college pamphlet on how to be angry at the man - at its best.

And all it warrants is a simple: prove it. Such an extraordinary claim, you should do it the justice of demonstrating it as fact.

>Overly dramatic sensationalism - ripped straight from a first year college pamphlet on how to be angry at the man - at its best.

No, actually pretty much pragmatic and casual. That's how the work works (at least as it is).

Unlike your ad-hominen attack, which was childish ("oh, a stereotypical fake college revolutionary", etc).

>And all it warrants is a simple: prove it. Such an extraordinary claim, you should do it the justice of demonstrating it as fact.

Nothing extraordinary about it.

And you even missed the example I gave. Here are a few other examples, barely scratching the most obvious facts:

(1) Large part of the Southern US GDP was for centuries based on slave labour. Today's fortunes, nicely paved streets, etc.

(2) The wealth of European societies has been subsidized from 1500 to 1950 from colonies and occupated land all over the third world.

(3) If you have a home anywhere in the US, is because some people back in the day took the land of previous inhabitants.

(4) Cheap oil in the West depends on military and political pressure (instead of open market exchange) from toppling Iran's elected government back in the day to invading Iraq et al.

the first point is the most matching. "Ideas are easy, execution is hard."

I often get requests of ideas but they are so hard to execute that you would need a bigger team to do it and a lot more money then the idea holder has...