Fletch137

If the model were to stay the same, I'd like to see something like stacking-context:break to start a new stacking context with the targeted element as parent, stacking-context:inherit for children. Same as we have now, but with the option for manual control.

Absolutely with you on this - any kind of pagination on the web makes me cringe.

On the other hand, I imagine that if you were someone that liked pagination, this might be pretty nice.

Very interesting, and very well done.

I also cannot adequately express my thanks for putting a mute button on there.

I agree with what others have said, and on the signup front, I think a facebook login might be a good idea. You could then pull the location info that you need, reducing the info the user needs to put in to practically nothing. Authorise facebook and start buying almost immediately.

On the try a demo, it'd be nice if you could have an example email sent to your email address (maybe the form that appears when you click the button now, so that you can do a side-by-side comparison).

It's asking for the address of your website, not your email address (mydomain.com rather than me@mail.com).

Absolutely no problems with any Google services (Drive, Mail, Calendar, Search) for me (Northwest UK).

Nope, tried with Chrome latest and Firefox latest. I wondered the same.

The idea's great, but I think the look of the site could do with a rework. It feels a little dark and cramped.

The most enjoyable part of Curiosity for me was it having the unintended side effect of getting me to learn how to automate my device through the MonkeyRunner framework... which has, in turn, introduced me to Python.

So, all in all, the sheer monotony of the game has been quite a positive thing for me.

It seems that there is not much difference between the gossip magazines and the newspapers any more.

The script that generated the CSS is far more impressive than the image itself, would definitely like a look at that.

As a book nerd myself (and a lover of JS), I really enjoyed that.I think the criticism of Dickens was undeserved, even if it was a quote - but the Shakespeare iteration was spot on, loved it.

IMO A lot of that decline/increase is probably where Bing has bought integration into an existing product. I've seen it a lot lately, "powered by Bing" and the like, but I've not seen a single person actually type Bing into the address bar. It seems to me that this increase is coming from those people who don't know/care and are just being directed to Bing, not making a concious choice of which search engine to use.

Even more performance-intensive than I thought - possibly why it's not been implemented.

Assuming you know that a given password can be used 10 times and there's a database of 100,000 users in your scenario above, how would you work out who that is?

I think that the main problem is always going to be the end users. I'd like to say that fingerprints or iris scans would solve the issue, but they have their own problems (e.g. having a backup password in case prints or scans aren't recognised).

I agree that it really should be the user's attitude that needs to change, but there will always be that one person even if the other 99% of people get things right - so I think that at least trying to build a system to compensate for this is just as worthwhile as educating users.

I quite like the idea from XKCD [http://xkcd.com/936/] of using words instead of letters (but also have a few problems with it), perhaps rather than having passwords, we should have pass sentences that also have requirements (8 words of more, at least 2 punctuation marks, for example) or are generated for the user (could be nonsense sentences or contain misspelt words).

I would expect that you'd just compare the hash, effectively performing half of the log in process to check if the password's okay. I imagine it'd be pretty costly in terms of performance if every time you wanted to create a new user you had to hash the password, then check against a (potentially huge) table to see if that password had been used >X times.

Hopefully I'm being short-sighted or missing something that'd mean this could be done simply and quickly, because in theory it sounds like quite a good idea.

The problem with blocking common passwords is that quite often you just end up creating a new set of common passwords.

I had to set up a management system a while back, and given the sensitivity of the data, it seemed prudent to block passwords such as "password" and "123456". The result? The most common password was "drowssap", even after an email explaining why they needed to use strong passwords.

I could have gone back and added something for permutations of common passwords, extended my exclusion list or any number of other solutions, but it seems like every time you find a way to stop a user being a security problem, they find another way.

Taking the rest of the week off, going on holiday to the Netherlands and working on some long-standing items on my programming to do list.

Just checked and you're right... bad example, I should have checked before I posted. There are, however, plenty of larger companies that did just use a link in the footer (Amazon was one). The day before (IIRC) the deadline for having the law applied, the ICO decided that implied consent could be used, thus making a link in the footer perfectly okay.

It seems that the bigger companies (BBC, Amazon, etc.) have just gotten away with having a link to their cookies policy in the footer, while the smaller guys (e.g. the web dev place I work at) have been scared into placing often intrusive JS notifications that grab the user's attention needlessly.

If the average user were to even understand what cookies were, I could see at least some reasoning behind the law, but as it stands, it's like having a prompt at the petrol pump that asks you if you consent to something in your fuel that's there to help your engine - most people don't know about it and don't want to be bothered being asked the question in the first place.