(Also see [remarkable][], the markdown parser created by the author of this cheatsheet)
The reason why you might get certificate errors in Ruby 2.0 when talking HTTPS is because there isn't a default certificate bundle that OpenSSL (which was used when building Ruby) trusts.
Update: this problem is solved in edge versions of rbenv and RVM.
$ ruby -rnet/https -e "Net::HTTP.get URI('https://github.com')"
net/http.rb:917:in `connect': SSL_connect returned=1 errno=0 state=SSLv3
read server certificate B: certificate verify failed (OpenSSL::SSL::SSLError)
You can work around the issue by installing a certificate bundle that you trust. I trust Mozilla and curl.
#!/bin/sh | |
#http://getpocket.com/import/instapaper | |
set -x | |
cat >> /tmp/import.html << "EOF" | |
<!DOCTYPE html> | |
<html> | |
<head> | |
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /> | |
<title>Instapaper: Export</title> | |
</head> |
/* | |
Given a date, tzAbbr returns a short, friendly name for the | |
user's time zone on that date, or an empty string if their | |
client's Intl support is missing or incomplete. | |
For example, a user in New York might see: | |
tzAbbr(new Date()) // => "EST" | |
Time zones are locale-dependent. Users traveling outside of |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> | |
<beans xmlns="http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans" | |
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" | |
xmlns:jdbc="http://www.springframework.org/schema/jdbc" | |
xmlns:tx="http://www.springframework.org/schema/tx" | |
xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans/spring-beans.xsd | |
http://www.springframework.org/schema/jdbc http://www.springframework.org/schema/jdbc/spring-jdbc-3.0.xsd | |
http://www.springframework.org/schema/tx http://www.springframework.org/schema/tx/spring-tx-3.0.xsd | |
"> |
/usr/bin/plutil -convert xml1 -o - ~/Library/Safari/Bookmarks.plist | grep -E -o '<string>http[s]{0,1}://.*</string>' | grep -v icloud | sed -E 's/<\/{0,1}string>//g' |
mkdir demo | |
cd demo | |
wget http://www.magentocommerce.com/downloads/assets/1.8.1.0/magento-1.8.1.0.tar.gz | |
wget http://www.magentocommerce.com/downloads/assets/1.6.1.0/magento-sample-data-1.6.1.0.tar.gz | |
tar -zxvf magento-1.8.1.0.tar.gz | |
tar -zxvf magento-sample-data-1.6.1.0.tar.gz | |
mv magento-sample-data-1.6.1.0/media/* magento/media/ | |
mv magento-sample-data-1.6.1.0/magento_sample_data_for_1.6.1.0.sql magento/data.sql | |
mv magento/* magento/.htaccess . | |
chmod o+w var var/.htaccess app/etc |
// convert 0..255 R,G,B values to binary string | |
RGBToBin = function(r,g,b){ | |
var bin = r << 16 | g << 8 | b; | |
return (function(h){ | |
return new Array(25-h.length).join("0")+h | |
})(bin.toString(2)) | |
} | |
// convert 0..255 R,G,B values to a hexidecimal color string | |
RGBToHex = function(r,g,b){ |
This is a post by Joel Spolsky. The original post is linked at the bottom.
This is such a common question here and elsewhere that I will attempt to write the world's most canonical answer to this question. Hopefully in the future when someone on answers.onstartups asks how to split up the ownership of their new company, you can simply point to this answer.
The most important principle: Fairness, and the perception of fairness, is much more valuable than owning a large stake. Almost everything that can go wrong in a startup will go wrong, and one of the biggest things that can go wrong is huge, angry, shouting matches between the founders as to who worked harder, who owns more, whose idea was it anyway, etc. That is why I would always rather split a new company 50-50 with a friend than insist on owning 60% because "it was my idea," or because "I was more experienced" or anything else. Why? Because if I split the company 60-40, the company is going to fail when we argue ourselves to death. And if you ju
I was at Amazon for about six and a half years, and now I've been at Google for that long. One thing that struck me immediately about the two companies -- an impression that has been reinforced almost daily -- is that Amazon does everything wrong, and Google does everything right. Sure, it's a sweeping generalization, but a surprisingly accurate one. It's pretty crazy. There are probably a hundred or even two hundred different ways you can compare the two companies, and Google is superior in all but three of them, if I recall correctly. I actually did a spreadsheet at one point but Legal wouldn't let me show it to anyone, even though recruiting loved it.
I mean, just to give you a very brief taste: Amazon's recruiting process is fundamentally flawed by having teams hire for themselves, so their hiring bar is incredibly inconsistent across teams, despite various efforts they've made to level it out. And their operations are a mess; they don't real