Disqus - Latest Comments for clint

Re: Tons of updates to Webkit's Web Inspector

clint — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:14:37 -0000

Thanks again, I can't wait for the additional updates :)

Re: New Condo Walkthru. Shot this with my iPhone, so... — Officially Lucky

clint — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 22:00:35 -0000

thanks everyone! :)

Re: This tiger is amazing. Also check out the giant... — Officially Lucky

clint — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 22:00:12 -0000

LOL I hadn't noticed that :)

Re: Email Client Popularity: iPhone now "bigger" than Gmail — Officially Lucky

clint — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:59:29 -0000

Huh? I'm making a specific observation about the iPhone client and Gmail, I didnt say anything about Outlook.

Re: Officially Lucky, a blog by Clint Ecker

clint — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:36:47 -0000

I forgot to mention the meaning of the big gap. That's when I went to WWDC and to Wichita for David's wedding ;)

Re: Officially Lucky, a blog by Clint Ecker

clint — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:40:38 -0000

Thanks everyone. I'm shooting for 200 eventually ;)

Re: Officially Lucky, a blog by Clint Ecker

clint — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 20:53:11 -0000

haha yeah, this is a photo of me forgetting the umbrella, actually

Re: Python Google Analytics Client: How to use it and how to help make it better

gallard — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:43:21 -0000

I gave it another shot and it still wasn't working. I sent a message to the google group and got a response from someone at google. It is a feature that needs to be implemented and it sounds like they will prioritize it since a few people were requesting it. http://groups.google.com/group/google-analytics...

Re: Python Google Analytics Client: How to use it and how to help make it better

clint — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 13:40:46 -0000

The client has proper multiple dimension support now, you might try it again and see if you meet it with better luck!

Re: Python Google Analytics Client: How to use it and how to help make it better

clint — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:06:54 -0000

It looks like that is something called "EntranceKeywords" and doesn't seem to be exposed through the API yet. I thought maybe you could combined pagePath and keywords too... I would think that would work... not sure why it didn't but I'll look into it.

Re: zc.buildout for an established Django project?

carljm — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:19:24 -0000

That's a good post from Jacob (not linked above, but in a later followup), but it still leaves me unclear what I'd actually gain over pip+virtualenv, which does a lot of similar things for me, with a lot less fussing about with arcane and poorly-documented configuration. That's why I'd be particularly interested in your take on it if you try the switch.

Re: X-Rev-Canonical on Ars Technica

clint — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:44:01 -0000

See my comment above. Some posts will still be using X-Rev-Canonical until they are rebuilt (we publish static PHP files for each article which are rsyncd to web frontends).

Re: zc.buildout for an established Django project?

clint — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:42:15 -0000

Check out that post I linked from Jacob above. It's good shiz.

Re: Officially Lucky, a blog by Clint Ecker

clint — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:41:41 -0000

Does guy Kawasaki use Twitter to arrange his drug-fueled orgies?

Re: My Google Profile

clint — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:41:12 -0000

Hehehe :)

Re: Officially Lucky, a blog by Clint Ecker

Mister Snitch! — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 03:22:49 -0000

Yes, I agree, Clint. Surprised and shocked, but he can't exactly afford to be offended (or miffed), and he KNOWS it. He's calculating enough to know that, if he truly acts offended, that clip will go 'round the world in a heartbeat. As it is, he's getting plenty of heat over this. He needs to take care not to reach for the gasoline right now.

Re: X-Rev-Canonical on Ars Technica

samj — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:52:04 -0000

"The value "alternate" signifies that the IRI in the value of the href attribute identifies an alternate version of the resource described by the containing element."

Furthermore:

"[The rel] attribute describes the relationship from the current document to the anchor specified by the href attribute. The value of this attribute is a space-separated list of link types."

So what you're saying is that the "alternate" and "short_url" link happens to be the same, while specifying that link. Clearly this is not what you're intending to say so you should first of all drop "alternate" - it's an alternative link to (approximately) the same content, not a link to alternative content (e.g. a PDF or text version). I'm not sure what kinds of breakage this will cause, but it's quite possible that it could interfere with search, newsreaders, etc.

Then there's the whole debate about whether we should be using short_url given the confusion over underscore vs dash vs space, and then uri vs url. The best solution we've managed to come up with so far is "shortlink" which is both obvious and impossible to get wrong.

Sam

Re: X-Rev-Canonical on Ars Technica

clint — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:39:06 -0000

I personally do not use rev=canonical on Ars. I use rel="alternate short_url". We do not serve up the page under the short URL, but 301 redirect to the full URL.

This post is not about that however. Rather, an HTTP header for clients to pull with a HEAD request.

Re: X-Rev-Canonical on Ars Technica

clint — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:36:13 -0000

Chris, I updated our code today. Should propagate through eventually.

Re: Officially Lucky, a blog by Clint Ecker

clint — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:26:41 -0000

I think his exclamation of "holy shit!" is what makes me think it surprised and shocked him.

Re: Officially Lucky, a blog by Clint Ecker

clint — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:40:38 -0000

Heh. Yeah I was thinking about something like this and you went and wrote something that did the job! :)

Re: Officially Lucky, a blog by Clint Ecker

clint — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 17:09:12 -0000

True! I would be willing to pay into a Fund that /only/ went towards improving the roads for the purpose of cycling. However, it kind of goes against my liberal socialist leanings! :D

Re: Officially Lucky, a blog by Clint Ecker

clint — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 17:09:07 -0000

This dovetails into Malcom's comments, and I typed all this out in a Google Reader comment but I thought I'd put it here too:

Well I think its only obvious that a biker riding the same amount of miles on the same road will cause a measurably less amount of wear and tear on the roads. If that damage were only linear in proportion to the weight of the vehicle you'd see an amazing difference. Cars weigh anywhere between 2000-4000 and probably much more for bigger SUVs. Average bike weighs 20-40lbs. That's anywhere between 100-200 times less damage. If you factor in that bikes are only two wheeled and those wheels are much thinner make much less contact with the road (in proportion to vehicle size and weight), there's undoubtedly even less damage caused by bikes.

As for traffic density, its pretty easy to mentally imagine why this is the case, but check out this awesome graphic demonstrating the % of a street required to transport the same amount of people via automobile, bus, and bike: http://www.treehugger.com/amount-of-space-requi... — It's pretty astonishing.

As for the root of all of this, the Federal Highway Admin tells us that 92% of the fund that go toward maintaining local roads come from property, income, and sales taxes. So yeah, we already pay all that.

Some more interesting things from this article: http://www.stlbikefed.org/Advocacy/Cyclistspayt...

"""Bicycles have a very low impact on the roadway. One study found that bicycles impose about 0.2 cents per mile in roadway costs. Bicyclist pay no user fees so the entire 0.2 cents/mile comes from the general tax fund [clint: a fund that all cyclists pay into with sales tax, etc...].

What about motor vehicles? They impose an average of 3.9 cents per mile in roadway costs while paying an average of 2.5 cents per mile in user charges such as fuel taxes and motor vehicle registration fees. The difference--1.4 cents per mile--comes from the general tax fund. So both bicycle and motor vehicle road use is subsidized from general tax revenue. This is fair, since both bicyclists and motorists pay into the general tax fund."""

"""But bicycles have such a low impact on the road that their subsidy is actually quite low--the general tax revenue subsidy for a cyclist who rides 5000 miles per year is only about $10.

Now let's do the math. Figuring a quart of Gatorade and a Power Bar for every 20 miles, my calculator tells me that to cover that 5000 miles the cyclist is paying at least $500 in food and so (at a 5% tax rate) $25 in sales tax. That sales tax covers the $10 road impact cost with change to spare."""

So ultimately, in nearly every measurable component, Bikers not only already pay for their share of use of the roads, they actualy overpay in most cases, AND if you work it out, less damage = longer lifetimes for infrastructre = even more cost savings in the future.

Re: The StartupSchwag reddit photoshoot

kn0thing — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:11:44 -0000

That's exactly why StartupSchwag did the shoot. Mission accomplished.

Re: The StartupSchwag reddit photoshoot

clint — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:57:37 -0000

I have a perfect idea of how I would look in one of these t-shirts now :)