edmccaffrey

> I suppose you could find a vulnerability in the app itself, but iPhone apps are themselves sandboxed to prevent installing code without getting an elevation prompt (which is what that "Login with your iTunes account" prompt really is.)

There used to be a site that you browse to in mobile Safari, and it would jailbreak the phone. A potential vulnerability in the app itself is probably what he meant.

> For example, I've never used the events feature that you find so important, and before I saw the NYT design I had no idea that you could create an account. If I didn't know it, maybe there are millions of other people who don't know about it either -- a good reason why the feature might be under-utilized.

And that proves my point. The NY Times redesign dedicates lots of space to a new feature that relies on a feature that no one uses. Craigslist is designed specifically to be anonymous to the point where you don't require an account. Putting something that personalizes an account goes against one of the things that made them popular in the first place.

This reply shows that you are posting on the redesign without doing any research. I don't use the events feature, but if you bothered to do any research before commenting then you would see that it is quite popular.

The most cursory research on what the posts are will tell you that most people use the site to get/get rid of something (e.g., jobs, items, sex), or for the community features.

A design that requires marginalizes one of these things to the least visible location is a disaster.

I'm not experiencing any problem. The NY Times design is a disaster. It banishes the useful events feature to the most obscure part of the page, while giving tons of space to a feature that would only be used by the tiniest fraction of the users. Most users don't have an account and will not take advantage of that feature.

I'm not married to the bad design, and I don't think that a better design would inherently decrease usability; but these specific ones do, and the current design is usable. Uglyness doesn't necessarily mean poor usability.

Those are all terrible, they are all making the ridiculously incorrect assumption that it is confusing. It's possibly the only site that my Luddite family can make full use of, without ever having asked me for help.

The designs that change the layout make it less usable by preventing you from seeing everything it has to offer on one spectacularly ugly, usable page.

The design that kept mostly everything the same but modernized the colors, fonts and spacing is still worse that the current site: the current site has an effect of the design dissappearing behind the content, and the redesign has the colors and highlights push past the links and draw my attention away.

This is just off-topic political opinion.

Atwood's formula lets him make posts when he has nothing to say: http://blog.wekeroad.com/blog/nothing-to-say/

> The real problem is that death penalty does not serve as deterrence.

What do you suggest in order to deter an innocent man from committing the crime that he never committed?

Is it possible to add whatever number Google calls you from when connecting incoming calls to the list of numbers that you can talk to for free? Might be possible to get all calls for free if it's always the same number, until T-Mobile blocks it from those lists.

org-mode works well for managing just about anything.

And then what? You tell the officer that you really haven't been drinking, and that they can trust you?

Are you saying that no sober person has ever been tested? If someone is corrupt enough to manipulate a test to make someone test more inebriated, then they are corrupted enough to make a sober person test drunk.

Looks like a large squid, or some trash.

This is just spam, as is all this account's submissions.

> They get the definition of polymorphism wrong, because their definition ... is also met by compile time function overloading.

That doesn't make the definition incorrect; there are many types of polymorphism.

Function overloading is an example of ad-hoc polymorphism; generics is an example of parametric polymorphism; and inheritance is an example of inclusion polymorphism.

I suppose that I could use some of those drugs.

I'd be weary of any brain drug described as "mind blowing."

It's not targeted at a single language. Just like rake with regards to ruby, I could use this to perform tasks unrelated to haskell code.

The very act of doing that would make them a protester who is more subversive than average, and worthy of taking. And with such an inaccurate weapon, they aren't actually looking for specific targets; they're trying to intimidate.

Getting random people even benefits the leaders. If the population knows that bad things happen to political prisoners, and that the mildest of protesters are being marked as leaders, then some will lose their nerve.

I didn't mean to imply that it is no longer a useful or interesting piece of software; just that it is not a simple migration for some project that specifically use MySQL features.

I did the same thing in SQL Server, too, so it's not a new concept and the other RDBMs with that ability still have a use for traditional stored procs.

My experience with both stored procs and running actual programming languages on the database is that one does not replace the other; but I'll wait with an open mind to see.

Drizzle is not a valid choice for apps that require things like stored procs and triggers, which they removed. Of course, not every app requires what they remove; MariaDB is a fork by the core MySQL team, if those features are needed and MySQL cannot be used.

He sounded very pissed at the start, and lost control when Scotty implied that the job was only important for video material.

If the boss saw the videos where Scotty mocked him then he might be pissed--the binging clients will discover videos of him looking foolish and incompetent.

Twitter doesn't do that--they don't have the legal authority to grant a copyright to someone who is not the owner of the material--they say that what is yours remains so. Fluther is given right to reuse questions submitted, as the submitter agrees when using the site; the original author owns the copyright, even when reposted to Twitter.

Why does he keep prattling on about his site's TOS? When viewing something from Twitter, you're not bound to the TOS of a site that you're not even visiting.

Furthermore, I just posted a question there, and in no way had to agree to transfer copyright ownership to them--only rights to reuse the question. Their cease and desist threats are fraudulent.

"'Right now we’re committed to Hulu being an online experience, and that’s where our vision is today, and I think that will continue.' Right! That is why Hulu released the desktop version."

So desktop apps can't be connected to the Internet?

He even says why they went after Boxee in his article, but doesn't realize it: ". . .can only be used on PCs. Of course, we wouldn’t expect the company to do it any other way — after all, if it ran on set-top boxes, it would dry up the lucrative money stream that flows from cable operators to Hulu’s partners and parents."

Boxee allowed Hulu to be viewed on TVs. Hulu doesn't care that you watched their ads on your computer through Boxee, they cared that people were using Boxee to put it on their TVs.

"The GigaOm article isn't about what you want it to be about. . .Those terms are: where does Wave fit in with the Google ecosystem? What's likely to happen to it? Is it worth an investment of time an interest?"

That's actually exactly what I thought it was about. Your comment, applied to this article, is the perfect explanation of why it is terrible: The presentation isn't about what they want it to be about, but that doesn't make it an arrogant presentation. Google was not doing a product presentation and GigaOm didn't understand it, and got upset when Google dismissed questions irrelevant to what they were presenting.

None of the writers at TweetCrunch seem like creative programmers; they specialize in reporting on actual products, and not underlying protocols, so there isn't anything for them to report. It's not a dodge because there isn't anything to compare; you don't compare a protocol to a product that uses a different one.

I/O is a developer conference; talking about the protocol without an actual product is just fine--the demo was good enough to show developers what basic features they can use for whatever product they can imagine.

That demo just shows what you can do. You can't compare it to any existing product. As terrible as this article is, the author does come to the realization that it will be useful for their actual email and office products, however brushing that question off wasn't arrogant; it was a weak denial--a developer conference isn't the right place to talk about their office products.

The author thinks that wave is a product, but it is a protocol that they demoed with an application.

It is like email--they are both communication protocols. Why would he compare a protocol to a product that uses a different protocol? It's like comparing bittorrent to Firefox.

The creators rightly dismissed the question of monetization because you don't monetize a protocol, you monetize programs built with it. The demo is just one of many potential products that can be built on it, so they can't answer that question based on it.

They rightly dismissed the competition of Sharepoint and Outlook because that was primarily a presentation of the protocol. The demo seemed like something thrown together to show how communication through the protocol looks like, and not the premier application that they will use it for.

I have an idea for potentially using the protocol for a distributed issue tracker that would work well with a DVCS; the protocol is not limited to Outlook and Sharepoint competition.

Most of the people I know will see the image on the main page and think it is some type of specialized search engine, and not come back.

I understand that; what I haven't found is the actual difference between the two. Are there any functional differences between Chrome and Chromium (assume Windows version, since I'm not referring to things missing in an incomplete port), or is it only a branding thing so that the projects that fork and extend it don't use something with Google's brand?