I really, really dislike clicking on the try-it link and getting a fullscreen-ish popup. Someone, somewhere that knows something about design must have a list that includes "Don't change my window size, unless you're a musician."
Um, meh? I don't see much past gmail's sidebar reimplemented in outlook, but otoh, that seems like it could be a decent niche. Perhaps most surprising is that I've actually heard about them, which is an impressive marketing push.
I don't like the logo/pronunciation, the bar over the "o" implies "xohbni" (a long "o"), but whatever I guess.
Feedreader on PC, only because some of my feeds require passwords, and online ones don't seem to support that too well. Used to be bloglines before that requirement.
The only concrete assertions I see there are that regular expressions are error-prone (fine, if you really think so, don't use them), and that data in Perl aren't s-expressions (I'm assuming that's what he's ranting about when he's implying that all Perl is good for is massaging input formats).
So pretty weak: CPAN is the supreme, far-and-away, no-other-reason-or-language-comes-close (at least in 2000) to use Perl.
This is exactly what I was thinking when I read the article about naming phones with cryptic numbers earlier. Random strings of vowels in non-words are just as memorable as KR344-a I'd say.
Hmm, maybe I should register kr344-a.com just to be safe though.
The "20%" hunch kind of made skim from then on, but:
What's the definition of computer, exactly? Even without any magical circular reasoning, the computer built on atoms and physics that we're being simulated in is just as deterministic as the computer I'm using, so I'm not sure I even see a difference.