425 karma · joined December 6, 2011
Good relationship with parents.
I'd say that is a lot to give up, in order to take the risk of being a whistleblower.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1...
Not a commonly used acronym, at least in my circles.
I searched the article for a "first use" definition or expansion, to no avail. I guess the readership knows it well.
Wonder why CoD has not caught up with the times.
See picture of the apartment here: http://estaticos03.elmundo.es/suplementos/imagenes/2006/05/0...
Original article in Spanish newspaper El Mundo: http://www.elmundo.es/cronica/2006/549/
Translated version here: http://www.ibaibarriaga.com/reportages-detalle.php?id=11
By the way, that is about 10% longer than the average prison sentence for bank robbery in the US. See http://www.popcenter.org/problems/robbery_banks/4
(I am not affiliated with them. I just downloaded it a few months ago and have been tinkering with it.)
http://jerzygangi.com/why-silicon-valley-funds-instagrams-no...
Best spend the money (USD 500K+) on SEO, or on simply improving the content and freshness of your existing site.
So a password with different salts will result in a different hashes. Therefore you have to know the salt in order to guess the password (for offline matching against a dataset of hashed passwords retrieved from a target site). Ideally, every password will have a different salt, and the dataset of salts is stored separately from the dataset of hashes.
Or am I missing something? (Genuine question, because this is not my area of expertise).
Since 2006, the travel.travel registry has sold 200,000 .travel domains. I am a heavy user of travel sites (Expedia, Hipmunk, hotel sites, etc). I have never, in the course of my online usage, ever run into a .travel site.
This is why gTLDs are likely to fail. At least for users and for purchasers of subdomains, not necessarily for the registrars.
EDIT: added Wikipedia link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.travel
Nowadays, there's a lot that can be done with modern CSS that in the past required Javascript code -- from dynamic menus to 3d effects to responsive web design. This is a good thing.
Code is a breeding ground for bugs (especially dynamic code with callbacks, evals, unusual inheritance model, unconventional scoping rules, etc) in a way that declarative rules are not.
It is possible that some more complex UI elements (say a Calendar) will have to be done in Javascript, but that seems like a worthwhile tradeoff for simplicity, efficiency, and maintainability.
The whole point of HTML and CSS is to be declarative, non-procedural ways of specifying presentation and UX behavior. The rationale is that designers writing CSS rules is safer than developers writing Javascript code -- for those cases where the desired result can be achieved with either approach.
So why turn back the clock and go back to messing with code and debugging it? Unless I am missing something, heavy-weight pages with potential for bugs does not seem like a win.
> 9/11 caused the loss of 430,000 jobs
Actually it is possible there were net jobs gained, when you add the increases to national security apparatus.Not covered by the poll is the fact that your living expenses will likely more than double, especially if you have to use a car to get to your job. Your vacation time will be cut in half. Health care expenses may rise. Bottom line is be prepared for some decline in your current standard of living.
At the same time, you have the possibility of lottery-style winnings if your employer becomes the next Facebook. Hmm, perhaps you might be better off buying a real lottery ticket.
HTML is data. It has value in not requiring programmers to write it. Instead it can be written by designers, or generated by other programs, including visual tools. Yes, code can also be generated by tools, but writing code to generate code is a more difficult task than writing code to generate data. Except for Lisp of course, where code and data are the same.
1) That English is the poster's native language
2) the poster did not use auto-correct
One related example is the sculpture in downtown Portland, Oregon, called Portlandia. The City owns the sculpture, but the artist owns the rights to any images of it, and he does not allow pictures to be taken and reproduced. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portlandia_(statue)
Regarding Jony Ive, I disagree that he has been very open about his work and process. I think he rightly has become a legend, but it has happened without him seeking the spotlight. The spotlight has found him, instead.
1) They tout 2 successful exits out of 22, and feel compelled to say that one of those exits was "1.5 times the organization's initial investment". Seems like lackluster result rather than shining success.
2) They mention Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (a government agency?), that has "contributed $1 million to our organization". If it is a contribution, can this be viewed as another 11% (of the total $9M fund) on top of the 8% fee?
And perhaps a subtle label on the surface, for someone who notices that the container does not really have sloshing-around liquid in it: "No water required"
Right now, Sublime seems to be the only one. Anyone care to try TextMate?
> your opponents are unable to rebut them all because
> 1) they have day jobs and 2) they have limited space
> or time to address them in any particular forum.
There are plenty of people on the right whose day jobs involve addressing the issues that Chomsky addresses.
They do not lack space, either in terms of disk storage on Web servers, and column-inches on hard copy publications. What they lack are logic, facts, and a cohesive conceptual framework.