Skalman

Good point. I think the only usability improvement is:

  button, html input[type="button"], input[type="reset"], input[type="submit"] {
    cursor: pointer;
  }
  button[disabled], input[disabled] {
    cursor: default;
  }

I believe that all of the CSS in there is the default CSS in at least one browser. It really intends to only normalize between browsers.

I also really enjoyed the interactive numbers - I thought that it'd be overkill and not at all useful, but you're really more likely to try things out if it's dead simple.

It's definitely clearer, simpler, easier to connect to Google. Good choice.

I have no clue. It does seem like it's blocked selectively as guns seems to have it working from linode.

Edit: It also seems to work from an Amazon instance that I have access to.

Edit 2: It seems like it works from my university (Lund in Sweden).

Wikileaks has been having DDoS issues for quite a few days now[1], and wikileaks.org (88.80.2.33) is not available with my ISP in Sweden.

[1] http://www.technolog.msnbc.msn.com/technology/technolog/wiki...

Not if you use a master password.

They still have it in the tab. Don't worry - the favicon won't disappear!

Yes, that works in my Firefox 16.

https works well for me.

Only in Chrome. Not in Firefox, at least.

Because it's not unheard of to set * { box-sizing: border-box; }. In the same way, you shouldn't assume margin, padding or font-size to be anything in particular.

I think the greatest advantage of the SI system is that it's exponential. I don't care that much about what base is used, but switching is just confusing (12" = 1', 3' = 1yd).

To be fair though, the author warns about this several times.

It doesn't work in Firefox (only -webkit- prefixes :-( )

Regarding CHAR/VARCHAR: At least in MySQL VARCHAR only has one byte of padding, while CHAR is a huge waste of space if you don't use mostly full-length strings.

Edit: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.6/en/char.html

The article Virgin Killer was blocked for four days because of "child pornography".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Sexual_content

Nope, no need to install Firebug, as of Firefox 10. Just right-click -> Inspect Element -> Style, and edit away!

I'm sure the assembly code is shorter than the JavaScript code, right? Cause it makes no sense comparing the compiled/minified versions...

Yeah - that sucks, but is actually also necessary for optimal performance for users as well. I don't think it's excusable to have two HTTP requests for page content. (and hash bangs are just as bad when loaded directly)

With pushState you can actually push a URL without the hash. It looks like I'm GETting /about, while it's really just / with the content of /about fetched via AJAX.

A HTTP GET /about should of course give the same content as the AJAX version.

Thanks for the clarification. I've mostly been using it to find some quick, obvious errors, such as tag mismatches.

There are a couple of differences that make your reasoning invalid:

- Women having a lower salary isn't as visible or as visibly wrong as men hitting their wives

- Hitting one's wife is an action, while not negotiating salary (well) is a non-action

Both things are wrong, and we need to try to inhibit both on the society level (by trying to raise responsible men, and women to negotiate salaries).

Though, I'm very certain that I, as a man, also need lessons in negotiating salaries - I'm quite gullible/trusting.

Firefox actually has partial validation built-in: view source and see if something is red.

This validation is future-compatible, meaning that it won't find all errors (such as unknown tags or attributes).

Flashblock (for Firefox) does this.

I'm not entirely sure, but I think Mozilla will continue to support Fx 3.6 until they have a better solution for large companies. I'm not sure what that better solution would be, but I believe they're trying to solve the problem.

By accomplishments, do you mean Apple's current products? Of course. If you mean Apple's concept videos - I don't know, since I haven't seen any.

Concept videos usually aren't realistic, or even preferable, since they have to convey what the technology can do simply through video. In reality, it'd probably be more discrete and easier to use. The advantage concept videos have is that they simply demonstrate possible uses of possible technology.

That triggers a few questions if you're creative: Is this possible to achieve with today's technology? What problems would things demonstrated in the video solve? Is it possible to solve the same problems, or sub-problems, with today's technology? Can I develop this concept further, take it in a more useful/fun/futuristic direction?

As a student (in user experience/computer engineering) I enjoy these concept videos, and they help me get inspiration for future projects. Companies that release them are much more likely to be viewed in a positive light by me, and I'd much rather work for a company with a creative mindset than some company that I feel is behind. This is a great way to communicate with future employees.

It's also an inspiration for the various design challenges/competitions that some of those companies do.

I think it's a wonderful use case, even though I'd be too annoyed to use it. When somebody else is looking at your screen and you quickly switch desktops, they might not understand what's happening. The cube shows what's you've done quite clearly.

What I've been doing for quite a while is fairly similar. Instead of simply using a salt for each password I also have a random "site salt" (file system nonce), as follows:

  hash(password_plaintext + salt + site_salt)

Assuming an attacker can't access my site salt, is this less secure than using HMAC+bcrypt? (my hash function is fast)