mjuhl24's comments

1. Most obviously, jQuery is completely encapsulated, whereas Prototype extends the DOM and pollutes the global namespace fairly rampantly.

2. jQuery is designed for ease of use. It is concise and understandable. Its learning curve is lower.

3. jQuery is becoming fairly ubiquitous. More people use it, which means more developers know it like the back of their hand.

4. The community, availability of plugins, extensions, tools, tutorials, and so on is much better for jQuery.

This is an outdated resource, but many of the facts still stand: http://ajaxian.com/archives/prototype-and-jquery-a-code-comp...

I agree that Eclipse isn't the ideal IDE for PHP (or anything that's not java), but I don't mind it too much. Maybe it's just because I've gotten used to forcing it to do what I want.

There is no evidence of mass abuse, but that doesn't mean there wasn't the potential for it. If a security hole affected one fan page, it seems likely that it affected every fan page.

It's interesting that he downplayed the idea that Google is competing with Apple and Facebook. Does this show that most of the Google/Apple competition is fabricated by the respective fanboys?

"...an API "bug" that allowed unauthorized persons to post not only on his page but those of an undisclosed number of other users." [read: a lot of other users]

Any suggestions on an alternative IDE?

I'm finding that they are less relevant than they used to be. We are beginning to have more consistency across browsers, fortunately. I've been working on projects lately that don't employ them with very minimal issues.

These are two instruments that you can do a lot with on your own.

I learned to play guitar [mostly] on my own, with information I found on the internet. I would recommend that you pick up a decent acoustic guitar and google 'beginning guitar' and start from there. It's really helpful once you've piddled with it some to have someone else who plays decently listen to you. Guitar lessons are usually rather cheap, too, if you want to go that route. Even just a few lessons could really get you started.

Piano is a little more complicated. You can do a lot with a piano if you have a good ear and good coordination. For me, personally, piano is a struggle and has taken a lot more work/patience/practice. Most likely, if you want to play piano you'll definitely need lessons.

The good thing is that there are always a lot of people who play these two instruments, and a lot of them give lessons for reasonable prices.

On keywords: "ES4 allows the use of keywords in contexts where they were prohibited in ES3, e.g., as field names in objects: {function:37}, o.try, and ns::catch are all legal." (http://www.ecmascript.org/es4/spec/overview.pdf, p35)

It really depends on the instrument. While there are many instruments that are fairly easy to "teach" yourself, in almost all cases it is good to have someone guide you in the learning process. There is so much information available on the internet for free, and with instruments like guitar it is easy to get started on your own - but even then you should seek advice from someone who plays. Most professional or even intermediate musicians will be able to give you some good tips just by watching and listening to you for a few minutes.

If you're looking to learn something like viola or trombone, you will almost definitely want to take lessons.

One great resource is undergraduate music students. They are generally desperate for income (I know from experience) and would probably be willing to take a few minutes to help you out.

You can do a lot more than that with twitter:

1. Read Tweets 2. Write Tweets 3. Read direct messages 4. Write direct messages 5. Follow someone 6. Unfollow someone 7. Create a list 8. Add to a list 9. Remove from list 10. Delete List 11. Edit profile information/avatar ..etc...

This is cool, but no one should ever use this. I've used the google translator frequently, and while it's good, it always requires me to use my knowledge of the language I'm translating to in order to create a more correct and meaningful translation. If you really want a site or app that is multilingual, you need a human with good knowledge of the language to do your translations.

Not good for whom? Potential investors or Facebook (the company)?

In any case, I think it will be quite interesting to see just how much revenue facebook is generating from it's various sources.

This is not a new technology, but new for me this year was working with MVC frameworks for web development. My workflow has vastly improved because of it. Specifically, the Play Framework (java/scala) and Rails 3.0 (ruby) have been great new additions to the many available.

Culture was probably not the word I wanted. There is a global "community", or "connectedness" that did not exist in the 12th Century. While there may be many people who don't participate in this community, they are still affected by it (directly or indirectly) and the world operates in an extremely different way because of it. In the 12th Century, information traveled one way (by foot), and the printing press wasn't even invented and wouldn't be for several hundred years. Now we can share information instantly across the globe, and if I really wanted to, I could hand deliver a letter to someone half-way around the world tomorrow.

I wanted this article to be interesting, but it's quite flawed actually. The comparisons are weak, at best. You can't ignore how much more ubiquity there is in the world today. The Middle Ages were a time of discovery, in many ways. There was no global culture like there is today. This is due, in part to the fact that the globe is much more accessible, in terms of physical travel and information distribution (thanks, internet). This article is a great attempt to make the facts fit the assertion, but that doesn't make the assertion true.