Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | the_me's comments login

There was a 1 hour interview where Karl Popper's ideas were investigated on "Ideas: How to think about science" from CBC.ca. http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/science/index.html#episode2... is the link.

It was the most intellectually stimulating interview I've heard in years. Pretty much all 24 hours of the series actually. I highly recommend it.

As an aside though, I have some criticism about this text:

>It is not only social scientists who would have to change their approach under elective modernism. If we are to choose the values that underpin scientific thinking to underpin society, scientists must think of themselves as moral leaders. But they must teach fallibility, not absolute truth. Whenever a scientist, acting in the name of science, cheats, cynically manipulates, claims to speak with the voice of capitalism, the voice of a god, or even the voice of a doctrinaire atheist, it diminishes not only science but the whole of our society.

Science's motto is "On No Man's Word".

> Science, then, can provide us with a set of values — not findings — for how to run our lives, and that includes our social and political lives. But it can do this only if we accept that assessing scientific findings is a far more difficult task than was once believed, and that those findings do not lead straight to political conclusions. Scientists can guide us only by admitting their weaknesses, and, concomitantly, when we outsiders judge scientists, we must do it not to the standard of truth, but to the much softer standard of expertise.

Science is not about moral values. Science needs to be regulated by moral values. Science is like a self assembling jigsaw puzzle. It needs to be directed. Just like we can make a conscious choice to investigate technologies of destruction instead of stem cell research. Just like we can subjugate genetic research into Monsanto's killer seeds.

I think all in all, I am paraphrasing ideas put forth in the afore-mentioned interviews...


Don't get it. If you are interested in the low level communications, why wouldn't you simply use a socket and send your own application defined commands over port 80?

HTTP exists so that any browser can access any web server, it doesn't re-implement or otherwise allow the usage of TCP/IP.

As a corollary, I don't see why I need to know about your application's communication protocol, let alone adhere to it because it's now a standard.


We are talking about bi-directional communications between the client and server. Specifically, server initiated requests to the client. So the major issue that you can overcome with this would be overcoming some NAT/firewall issues.

This proposal would be to convert HTTP from being a client making requests to a server to (effectively) a server making / receiving requests from another server. So your browser would also be a (mini) server, handling requests from the main server.

This is largely for people that want to use HTTP as a message-passing protocol, but use it in a bi-directional manner between possibly NAT'd hosts.


"This is largely for people that want to use HTTP as a message-passing protocol, but use it in a bi-directional manner between possibly NAT'd hosts."

That is exactly it. You've got it.

HTTP makes an almost ideal message passing protocol: it has a rich and battle-tested addressing model; it is asymmetric in a helpful way (really! the response codes are similar to ICMP messages, where the requests are similar to IP datagrams); it is widely supported and deployed; it is content neutral.

It doesn't even have to be inefficient ;-) (http://www.lshift.net/blog/2009/02/27/streamlining-http)


Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact