<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for sh1mmer</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/sh1mmer/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/sh1mmer/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 18:49:04 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Filip Tepper</title><link>http://filiptepper.github.com/2012/05/24/polyglot-image-processing-performance-shootout-with-ruby-nodejs-and-go/#comment-538733369</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I'm not expert on Ruby or Go, but my understanding is Go, JRuby and Ruby all support utilization of multiple cores, but Rubinus does not. Node.js requires you to use the cluster API in order to fully utilize the cores on the machine. You are not using this Node.js API, so comparing it with the Go example seems somewhat unproductive. I would imagine this is why you can't achieve a higher concurrency rate.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I'd also suggest trying to test over a network rather than loopback. Running the test script on the same machine as the server is often ineffective. The reasons can very from CPU/core utilization to file descriptor usage.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">sh1mmer</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 18:49:04 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: http://marcovhv.tumblr.com/post/1400176786</title><link>http://marcovhv.tumblr.com/post/1400176786#comment-89977337</link><description>&lt;p&gt;That's the iPad retail packaging. &lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">sh1mmer</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:12:33 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: What is the Open in an Open Standard or Specification?</title><link>http://kid666.com/?p=351#comment-3908510</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Hey Tom,&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;You are right the W3C publishes "recommendations" I think these are perceived as "standards" by the industry. I didn't want to confuse the wording with yet another term.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It seems likely that more informal groups will start to push specifications up the chain to a more formal process to expand their reach.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;And yes, San Francisco is great fun! &lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">sh1mmer</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:33:50 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Security; AJAX; JSON; Satisfaction</title><link>http://kid666.com/blog/2006/12/23/security-ajax-json-satisfaction/#comment-796436</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Valid JSON is an anonymous Javascript object. As such to be syntactically correct it requires assignment to a variable. This is why including raw JSON will create a syntax error.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Arrays on the other hand got a bit of syntactic sugar added to make anonymous arrays valid to allow for multidimensional arrays. This means including an unassigned array object is valid Javascript (but not JSON).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted though that 3rd party Javascript needs something like AdSafe or Caja to make it safe before you can consider using it on your page. 3rd party scripts can overload Object constructors or other functions to get access to private data.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">sh1mmer</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 05:36:00 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>