validating

This sounds much more sane than "node is 20x faster than rails", thanks for validating the assumption most of us were making.

Lean startup validating an idea? History shows that simply shipping and having something that users can try to use is more than enough.

The biggest argument for not validating email addresses shouldn't be that "it's hard". It should be that email providers don't always follow RFC guidelines.

I view deep dives in college as a warning sign that you might be validating yourself against a model that has little practical impact in the larger world. I really hated to admit that, because I deeply love education.

So Markupwand, thanks for re-validating the idea, and I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought the idea was worthwhile. I can see that I need to enhance my service/business model/add relative CSS positioning as an option.

It might be looking up similar users, sending out notifications, validating data, de-duping, etc. The more I think about this the less sense it makes.

I'd feel a lot more comfortable if there was a security blog explaining how they are validating that I indeed sent the email and it wasn't simply spoofed. Edit - I did this from Gmail which I presume authenticates all of the emails via dkim?

With auto-orientation matching, and documenting/validating this entire system. Hmm. Let's see if there is an easier way.

Their business is also based on validating trustworthiness, which I think would also make them vulnerable to allegations of criminality and abuse of process. This is not a job for your typical small town lawyer.

If there's a bug, it's not in bash, but in apache and the other internet facing programs that call bash without properly validating and controlling the data they pass to bash. It isn't easy to validate and control data against an unknown magical feature in one of many possible shells.

The self-validating quality of increasing prices and valuations really does works well for a while - like it did for all the other bubbles - and can then can be expected to stop working - like it did for all the other bubbles.

It's surprising how rarely we encounter good critics in our lives, everybody is focused on supporting and validating and has little practice at really challenging, reviewing, evaluating. I don't really see a problem with PG driving, I see a problem with not being ready to clearly and concisely differentiate.

Institutional investors made the mistake - again, and again, and again - of validating Mark's duplicitousness by pouring literally billions of dollars into his company, and then billions more into startups seeking to emulate it. Some of their investments created out of thin air industries that contribute absolutely nothing to, and in many cases even detract from, society.

Talking to Brian and Ryan on Twitter yesterday, I proposed that someone generate a list of questions to ask of a TLS codebase --- "what's the code path from first ClientHello to validating the public key signature in a certificate", or, "what's the code that determines which extensions are enabled" --- and we'd take a shot at answering them for NSS, SecureTransport, and OpenSSL. My bet is that the answers to those questions will be more favorable for NSS, even with the crappy certificate handling. Maybe a fork of NSS would be a better plan.

Below the browser you have the userland driver components, which do things like further shader verification and initial stages of the compilation, validating index buffers, and simplifying the command stream. Below that you have the kernel components, which largely trust the userspace to have done their job properly, then do things like compile shaders for the specific hardware and put things into the proper form to send it off to the GPU, as well as handling synchronization and locking and all that.

The nearest the author got to validating it was: "[... ] only a small minority of the fifty hyper-organized students I interviewed reported procrastination as a serious problem" I don't know how this study was carried down, but it seems as self selecting as it could possibly get.

Is handled by an "Action", and you are able to compose multiple actions together and come up with some nice implementations for say validating permissions. For instance, I needed to validate that a user had access to edit content for a giving dynamic domain and came up with a easy way[6] to just do def updateProfile = Authorize { implicit artist => implicit request => } and have the associated artist and request all accessible without having to fetch the artist in my controller for example.

The blame lies in small part on them, for setting naively optimistic expectations, but in large part on the mainstream media and technology media that trumpeted them, for validating those ridiculously optimistic expectations. It also lies on people like you, speaking in ridiculously epic proportions about them "taking on Facebook" and giving serious credence to the idea that a few extremely junior programmers had the skills and wherewithal to produce a distributed social network, much less take on Facebook.

> If there's a bug, it's not in bash, but in apache and the\nother internet facing programs that call bash without properly\nvalidating and controlling the data they pass to bash. It's absurd to think that a transport layer should be responsible for "validating" all possible contexts in which the data it transports could be used. How is apache supposed to know the difference between using a magic string and simply mentioning it? How is apache supposed to know what magic strings apply to all possible subprocesses of sh that inherit environment variables? A program that receives user data has to be responsible for validating that data, and it's not productive to characterize the lack of validation as a "feature" just because it can be used to provide functionality.