TheEskimo

In regards to the 180 degree spin, this demonstration shows exactly the opposite of what you say. At about 1:34 (elevator in portal 2) he performs a 180 with a single swipe from left to right.

That is not true. The people who contributed the original Shunway code own the copyright to it. They are choosing to license it under Apache. You cannot change that since you do not own the copyright.

They may choose to "relicense" it under GPL if all the contributed agree.

What you suggest cannot legally be done. However, Apache is GPL compatible, so it can still be used in a GPL project, though its license will not change.

IANAL

Doubtlessly he's bemoaning the lack of support for linux.

I would also like linux support, but it still looks like an impressive suite regardless.

> I don't fully understand why

It's pretty simple - Apple owns the hardware and software they're pushing updates for. Sure, they don't own the carriers, but that's not the problem.

In Google's case they neither own the hardware nor all the software because each third party phone manufacturer slaps in its own stuff and maintains its own fork of android.

Microsoft might own the software, but they don't fully own the hardware. Microsoft is a lot closer to managing it than Google though.

This isn't that Apple has more power over carriers and it isn't hard to understand - it's simply that they have more ownership of all the devices and there are far fewer types of devices (very limited set of software/hardware combinations).

SpiderOak does have one problem. It has no arm build for linux (and they apparently have no plans to make one soon). If you frequently use a Raspberry Pi or linux on an arm Chromebook then you'll be out of luck on syncing your files.

I wish they'd release simple sourcecode for a headless sync client or that someone would reverse engineer it enough for that to happen. As it is, you can sshfs mount a folder synced by one of your x86 computers, but that's definitely not ideal.

Other than that complain I've enjoyed using SpiderOak and it's a great piece of software.

I personally use keepass and keepassx (the alpha compatible with keepass2.x) and sync my passwords with SpiderOak. That's worked pretty well for me, and I don't actually have to trust a website with my passwords. Even if there's an insecurity in SpiderOak, they'd only get my encrypted keepass database which they'd then have to also decrypt.

I definitely recommend keepass over lastpass.

I've always felt ghostery is the poor-man's noscript. If he wants to know about all external calls (which he presumably does) then noscript will actually do that while ghostery will let 'good' ones by untouched.

This is a bad idea. I believe that hn actually will weight every comment you make based on your total karma to a degree. I've certainly heard people make anecdotal claims that if they have a lot of karma their comment, even if not heavily upvoted, appears near the top frequently.

This algorithm makes sense. Since upvotes are supposed to mean something like "I want to see more comments of this type and quality", it is giving the majority what they want to promote people who typically make such contributions.

As soon as you try to value an upvote as something different (here as an impromptu poll) you damage the entire system. What if I would dream of this but don't want to see more comments like yours since it's effectively spam? What if I like the idea and want to upvote it for visibility but would 'never dream' of this somewhat specialized idea?

The point I'm trying to make is that this is a bad idea without even going into how incredibly inaccurate such a poll is. This comment will not give any useful data, actively "abuses" hn's value system by asking for upvotes, and doesn't breed meaningful or intelligent discussion. Good for you I can't downvote yet :-). (notice how I added a smiley so that it would seem childish but friendly? Excellent tactic!)

If you want to do a poll I believe the polling option google docs provides will be much better suited (if perhaps slightly tainted by evil).

Well, the "Featured Systems" tab conveniently lists the GPU. It happens to be a GeForce GTX 645 on the cheap end and a GTX 660 on the high end. A 660 costs roughly $200. In addition, if your 'scientific computing' includes hashing or any of a number of other things, it will be orders of magnitude slower than an AMD card.

Overall, it's slightly overpriced. In addition, OEM hardware is invariably uncustomizable (no extra PCI-E slots, lowest end power supply possible). If you wanted to do scientific computing then there would be much more efficient options. This is no better an option (and probably worse) than other run of the mill OEM hardware. I especially like how your comment began with "I don't know anything about <related topic>. But...".

This is windows 7. Notice that neither of them are maximized. The behavior you talk about only occurs when you maximize the window, not when it is "half-maximized" as shown.