And, correct me if I'm wrong, they've been delivering that level of convenience for many years and without any need for iframes.
All due respect for Stripe, iframes are a potential security hole waiting to happen. iframes open many possibilities for exploits. I doubt we've seen all of them yet.
Maybe opting out is not how to stop this abhorrent practice of selling personal information. There is much more at stake than sites just selling email address lists. There is much more detailed information involved.
Perhaps what would work better is flooding these marketers with false information. This is what hampers email lists. Most the addresses do not work.
As it stands the few (or many) people who fail to "opt-out" (or fail to use proxies) may make this sort of personal information sales market worthwhile because the information gathered is detailed and reasonably accurate. It's not just a list of disposable email addresses. It's higher quality.
I'm too lazy to install Go just to try this (I would need to, right?) but reading through the docs this looks far more appealing to me than tent.io. Nice work, at least with respect to the general design. Flexible.
Cheers. I have installed Go before and messed around with it. I agree it's pretty good as far as being self-contained and straightforward. I just don't have the energy to keep chasing a moving target. For my purposes, I'm more interested in stuff that is stable and rarely changes.
If you can produce binaries for UNIX (Linux, BSD, etc), OSX and Windows, I'll be impressed. That's something I was interested in doing with Go (is it possible to cross-compile?) but never managed to learn.
Since the Go1 release, Go is not a moving target anymore. Stable releases are rare and there are binary packages available if you are so inclined.
Go compilers, being derived from Plan 9, are always cross compiling. To cross compile you just set and export GOARCH and GOOS to your target, for example:
GOOS=windows GOARCH=386 CGO_ENABLED=0 go build foo.bar/baz
Would build foo.bar/baz for 32 bit Windows from any system that has Go and ran make.bash --no-clean with those variables set. More interesting is building for ARM:
GOOS=linux GOARCH=arm CGO_ENABLED=0 go build foo.bar/baz
What are those acronyms developers like to use? rtfm, utsl, etc.? :)
There is a link to the court rules in the article. This is the definitive source, besides knowing clerks personally.
There is some cynicism in this thread about whether this rehearing will amount to anything but I think this shows the system is definitely aware of what the media is saying about software patents, and what you are saying in online forums. Does the USPTO read stackexchange? I think we all know the answer to that.
The link to the court rules [1] is a good start, but is not actionable unless the reader is a lawyer. You sound like a lawyer, so that may be fine for you, but most of the HN audience is comprised of non-lawyers.
If you are indeed a lawyer, would you (or any other lawyer here) be willing to draft a template that software engineers can customize (the interest section), sign, and mail to the court?
Bilski v Kappos is a case that dealt with similar subject matter. The FSF[2], SFLC[3], Red Hat[4], and Google [5] filed amicus curiae briefs lamenting software patents. Surely there is something reusable here, especially from Red Hat pages 12-19.
Have you even looked at the rules? Paper sizes, fonts, lengths, deadlines. Do you need to be a lawyer to understand rules like those?
You are only interested in what they say about amicus briefs.
Anyway, I'm not even sure you can file amicus briefs for this case as a developer worried about software patents. But there's no harm in reading those rules. They are boring but that's what everyone has to follow. If you want to send stuff to the court, then you'd be wise to read those rules first. Take the initiative. Ask questions.
Maybe some weathly developers will call their lawyers and ask them what can be done? What are the chances of that?
Not sure if it's relevant but one of the major "DNS providers" (that preceded Google) also chooses to domicile their operations in Ireland. They could just as well locate anywhere, but I doubt they chose Ireland for tax purposes. That just wouldn't make sense, right?
Have they changed it? ITA used to be very popular with the FlyerTalk MR crowd. I used to use it for the searching flights stage (getting info but not booking).
I think the best matrix would be something like OAG, listing all flights that each airline is currently offering, but also listing prices on each flight.
The biggest problem I see that has plagued software design and the neverending quest for features as a means of recruiting users is...
Large, monolithic do-it-all programs.
Users too often have no choice over what functionality they can acquire or reject. If they want one feature, then in order to acquire it they are often required to accept numerous other features they don't need and maybe don't even want (because it makes the software more complex).
Whether intentional or not, UNIX design addressed this problem by separating functions into small, discrete, and often trivial programs.
But there is still a very strong general idea among developers that to acquire one thing, you must accept everything. It's an interesting psychology. This goes beyond features in programs and applies even more generally to how working materials (code, docs, etc.) are made available. Packaging eveything together is good when you want everything and do not want to have to acquire each part and assemble them yourself. But it can be counterproductive when you want only one or a few parts and not everything.
Examples of this are everywhere.
Frameworks. Combined source trees. Huge tarballs of many disparate programs form various sources packaged as a "system".
It is possible to separate the parts but not always easy. There is often an implied expectation that you will not try to separate them. This type of kitchen sink packaging often makes extra work for anyone wanting to just obtain one part and not the whole enchilada.
One of my favorite examples is multi-GB Microsoft downloads in order to obtain a few commandline utilities of several KB, e.g., WAIK.
I have seen one person attempt to solve this by mounting the ISO over HTTP and then extracting the desired given KB-sized program. This is slightly less than "convenient".
When things are packaged this way, it can make the job of tackling complexity just a wee bit more challenging.
IMHO, Bargh should redo some of his old expts himself. If he's so sure they are repeatable, then why not? His stuff is foundational to the entire field.
Yeah, that's usually how it'd done. But from what I've read (not just from the Nature article, I did actually read his papers years ago), this guy basically founded the entire field of what became "priming". It's all on shaky ground now, whether that's justified or not. I'm not sure it would hurt for him to question his own conclusions, in addition to having others repeat some studies. Time to swallow the pride.
Studies are supposed to be repeatable. But in practice a lot of research never gets repeated. I'm sure he must feel a little insulted to have his life's work called into question, even if the cause is other investigators who were fraudulent or incompetent, or even if the questions are arising only indirectly because of unrelated research that happens to use priming.
IANAS, but psychology is obviously not the hardest of the sciences. I think in other areas like e.g. chemistry and biology, it's more difficult to pass off methods and results that are not repeatable _if_ they are going to be foundational and used for lots of future research by others. If some other lab can't get the right results using your methods, I would think they will make some noise. They might first think they are themselves at fault, but they would probably make contact with others outside their lab and make it known, in some way, that these methods were not working for them. Whereas I can't see that as being as common in psychological research. It's too easy if some method is not working to just "make it work". ;)
I can corroborate the (gp?) note above regarding numbers of PhD students dropping out because foundational research results that do not appear to be correct in molecular biology. It's just anecdata, but biology and chemistry, especially the expensive and difficult kinds (>1-2 years to attempt to repeat) is probably not reproduced as often as you'd like, and as far as I am aware, it's hard to get a PhD if you have identified serious shortcomings in important, but foundational, research. We may be wasting a lot of talent this way.
> As an ignorant non-scientist, I assumed it'd be better for someone else to replicate the studies, to avoid the same biases; wouldn't it?
Not at all ignorant. It is a given that a replication should be carried out by a disinterested party, one neither an advocate of, nor critical of, the original work.
All due respect for Stripe, iframes are a potential security hole waiting to happen. iframes open many possibilities for exploits. I doubt we've seen all of them yet.