1,165 karma · joined April 18, 2010
At the moment it looks very v0.1 though. I'll wait for the release version.
'Raise a bug' ->
http://www.bitbucketcards.com/samtardif/bitbucket-wallboard
-> 'Error: Couldn't find that repository.'
* (Of course, if Fog Creek hosted git repos I never would have been a BB user in the first place..)
"I'm here to destroy [Google]" -- Steve Jobs[2]
Maybe not the coziest of cartels.
[1] http://battellemedia.com/archives/2005/09/ballmer_throws_a_c...
[2] http://9to5mac.com/2012/04/05/biographer-disputes-google-ceo...
Taken literally, this is a pretty absurd claim. I think your post would be more convincing without it.
“The U.S. government is involved in espionage against other governments,” he says flatly. “There’s a big difference, however, between the kind of cyberespionage the United States government does and China. The U.S. government doesn’t hack its way into Airbus and give Airbus the secrets to Boeing [many believe that Chinese hackers gave Boeing secrets to Airbus]. We don’t hack our way into a Chinese computer company like Huawei and provide the secrets of Huawei technology to their American competitor Cisco. [He believes Microsoft, too, was a victim of a Chinese cyber con game.] We don’t do that.”
“What do we do then?”
“We hack our way into foreign governments and collect the information off their networks. The same kind of information a CIA agent in the old days would try to buy from a spy.”
“So you’re talking about diplomatic stuff?”
“Diplomatic, military stuff but not commercial competitor stuff.”
-- http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Richard-Cl...
(Note: He's talking about the US government, not about any other US-based entities.)
I basically guarantee that that statement carries no weight at all.
raganwald: 50's nothing, get back in the game.
America: The Cold War is over. There is no Death Star to blow up. You can't fight for freedom anymore. You can only create it.
---
To be clear: I don't mean to ridicule the point of the post. Bad laws are bad. But the status quo cannot last forever. It is a peculiar feature of the current discourse around IP law that it is the so-called entrenched interests (e.g. holders of large copyright portfolios) that are disrupting us and the way of life we hold to be normal, natural and good. It is our failure as a populace to get over the shininess of our new technological toys and actively build the futures we want, that allows these people to portray us as reckless children in need of a firm hand.
Hackers are, by definition, exempt from this generalisation. We know the world is messy. We like it that way. We want what doesn't exist yet, so we make it. Vague appeals to stale, simplistic and belligerent pop culture allegory should be beneath us.
"If you have phishing and malware protection enabled, then Google Chrome will
contact servers at Google within five minutes of startup, and approximately
every half hour thereafter, to download updated lists of suspected phishing
and malware websites"[1]
[1] http://blog.chromium.org/2008/11/understanding-phishing-and-...
Interesting...
'then that town-dog is mad in earnest, and he begins to strain and weep and swear, and paw the sand higher than ever, and reach for the cayote with concentrated and desperate energy. This "spurt" finds him six feet behind the gliding enemy, and two miles from his friends. And then, in the instant that a wild new hope is lighting up his face, the cayote turns and smiles blandly upon him once more, and with a something about it which seems to say: "Well, I shall have to tear myself away from you, bub--business is business, and it will not do for me to be fooling along this way all day"--and forthwith there is a rushing sound, and the sudden splitting of a long crack through the atmosphere, and behold that dog is solitary and alone in the midst of a vast solitude!'
Beep, beep.
Pretty sure I covered that point.
> Giving ad time or ad space directly to candidates, as Joel proposes
He didn't actually say that. He said giving ad space to a 'political campaign'. Spolsky also, and quite rightly I think, steers clear of the idea of tech companies directly spruiking friendly candidates. But you could have a PAC whose sole function was to allocate ad inventory evenly between a disparate field of candidates, for example. Google could even run it algorithmically off their own system.
There are lots of ways to do it and, as demonstrated, no real regulatory barriers. The only thing missing is political commitment on the part of internet companies. I agree with Spolsky that there is huge untapped power in this idea. I'm just not sure that it would be beneficial to society over the long term to have it unleashed.
'In 2010, the landmark case filed by Citizens United changed the rules regarding corporate campaign expenditures. This ruling made it legal for corporations and unions to spend from their general treasuries to finance independent expenditures. Direct corporate and union contributions to federal campaigns, however are still prohibited.'
'The 2010 election marked the rise of a new political committee, dubbed "super PACs," and officially known as "independent-expenditure only committees," which can raise unlimited sums from corporations, unions and other groups, as well as individuals. [...] Super PACs are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or political parties since they are "independent".'
You may have to add your own to the list:
hXXp://www.google.com/search?q=%s&le=en&start=0&tbs=li:1
That statistic presents a somewhat circular logic, with drug abuse (mainly alcohol) and mood disorders (depression: uni-/bi-polar) making up the bulk of the 'mental disorders' figure (FTA). Since feelings of worthlessness and suicidal thoughts are used to diagnose depressive disorders in the first place and since drug abuse is acknowledged to often be a form of self-medication for undiagnosed depression, blaming 'mental disorders' clearly begs the question in a large number of cases.
The literature shows that environmental factors play a major role in causing and aggravating these illnesses and behaviours. I believe this is the point that VladRussian was making and it's not so easily dismissed with 'numbers'. Likewise, the very large proportion of suicides which come after a clinical diagnosis (and presumably some kind of treatment) doesn't inspire much faith in the 'just go and get yourself sorted out' line of advice.
I find it disturbing that in a discussion on this topic, someone advocating being kinder to people in general, and perhaps certain people in particular, would be subjected to the kind of insults that Cushman has used.
Clearly you're not aware of the CADIE incident a couple of years ago.
http://www.google.com/intl/en_us/landing/cadie/
Be sure to check the blog.
(By far my favourite piece of Google whimsy, for the detail and number of teams involved) (You're right, muro)
I believe so: the importance of open data.
This finding is a perfect example of the fascinating insights you can get when you combine big, seemingly disparate datasets.
I'm not sure where you would go to get an equivalent dataset for "restaurant reservations".
In the sense that it uses readily-available crime data to make inferences about possibly correlated phenomena, this analysis is another iteration on Adrian Holovaty's original mashup:
From Walt Mossberg's version of the link I posted above:
I don’t own a single share of stock in any of the companies whose products I cover, or any shares in technology-oriented mutual funds. Because of this, I completely missed the giant run-up in tech stocks a few years back, and looked like an idiot. However, when the tech stocks crashed, I looked like a genius. Neither was true.
-- http://allthingsd.com/index.php?atd_ajax=authorinfo&fiel...
Obviously, those who adhere to this principle are not saints. It just goes with the job.
No, what's laughable is expecting your readership to rely on your characterisation of your relationship with your editor as a guide to the editorial standards of your publication.
The magic at TechCrunch happens because the writers have very little oversight. Instead, the emphasis is placed on hiring the right writers in the first place
Indeed.
Quite often, you never even see what he brings. But it permeates the entire site.
As readers we have a robust yardstick for presuming bias in reporting: financial interest in the subject. It's important that we do have one and writers who claim otherwise should know that they're demanding a serious indulgence. In contrast to Siegler's tantrum: hxxp://allthingsd.com/author/kara/#kara-ethics
Edit: Strange, the 'ethics statement' content block has to be revealed by manual click. The link is in the article tools menu at the top of the page, in faint text.
Edit2: Traced the content from the AJAX loader to here: http://allthingsd.com/index.php?atd_ajax=authorinfo&fiel...
Well I let my pointless comment sit and read some of Doctorow's piece and that made it all worthwhile. So now I'm saying that.
[detail]: http://www.edn.com/blog/PowerSource/40511-Philips_LED_bulb_T...
The yellow plastic of the Philips bulb not just a bulb-like cover
over the LEDs, but the phosphor itself. ... The bulb is able to
make use of the remote phosphor’s characteristic of emitting light
omni-directionally and uniformly, rather than as a point source
such as in a standard white LED.[1] http://venturebeat.com/2011/07/21/apple-declares-war-on-adob...
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Alarsj...
At first I thought this was kind of overkill for such a 'simple' function but the example of Github shows how important effective presentation of a file list can be. To the average web user the default Apache listing can look 'broken' whereas I would have no problem directing a client to the URL of an index that looked like this.
BTW the in-place edit features remind me a lot of this[1] use of Deface[2] in Spree[3]
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjgQHzYcxIQ