snlacks

It's easy to act as if Google, Apple or MS came up with obvious solutions... Samsung, Google, Apple, HTC and Microsoft are very well funded and mature players. They all contribute a lot to technology, If they have a valid patent, it deserves to be protected. It's not like any of those players is sitting and not using their funds to research more. This is what these companies do. Edit: spelling.

One company spends billions researching, building consumer products, getting feedback, developing software and interfaces for over a decade.

Another company (or two, or twenty) comes along, builds off of that and spends billions on advertising...

Isn't this exactly what patents ARE for?

I find it hard to agree with a lot of this, but it'd obviously be someone who's written a lot of code, thought a lot about how to write code, and reads a lot of code - even if we didn't know who it was. There's a lot to learn from reading stuff like this, if you take it all with a grain of salt... or if you're contributing.

I laughed too. He makes a good point about the amount of indentation in code.

As someone who spends most of their time in JavaScript, I see how hard it would be to fit our code to this, and at the same time how much we'd all benefit if we tried to.

I just looked at the random JS file on top of my editor... have some refactoring to do.

I think you have a good thing going here with or without questions. I was half joking. It might lead to "shopping lists" which is what I find is the greatest hurdle when hiring people. I need someone who can do what I need them to do/would want to be hired for what I can do.

Costs are so high as these become more challenging, seems like Socialization with subsidy of incentive-based private funding (bonds, VCs) would be a better model.

I have nothing bad to say about this.

Does it take into account relationships between tags? Like if someone puts in CSS3 will it put CSS in the listing?

Is there going to be a "questions" section? :P

7 Rules for making designs that adhere to principles that have recently hit their peek of popularity.

Rule 4 - Apple's started blurring backgrounds. You should too.

I do agree with the spirit of the article, if you want text to be legible, then you should make it legible.

They renamed it "in flame graphs."

For the audience, this was originally titled: "Node.JS in Flames"

If the NSA buys an exploit in Windows, does the NSA's contract preclude VUPEN from selling that exploit to Microsoft?

Guys was referring to the companies. "Ours" meaning private businesses and individuals.

I'm sorry if my comment implied "vulnerabilities from the NSA" these are vulnerabilities in everything else, being sold to the NSA, then kept secret by the NSA from the people they are supposed to be protecting.

If I accidentally left a door open on my house and a police officer that knew who I was saw my house left wide open, I'd hope a) he'd let me know or b) not do anything. I hope he wouldn't just go inside and take pictures of my private affairs for using against me later when it's convenient.

This is opposed from him seeing the door with indications of a break in, that'd be different, but again, I'd hope he doesn't go in.

This isn't out of fear of illegal activities being discovered (I have none, I'm boring), instead it's from the fear of someone using their position of power to take advantage of me for personal or professional, or the protection/enforcement of political ideologies.

Sounds like part of my summary's issue was grammar/word choice. I definitely understand the problem now and will be more careful.

New summary: The governments (plural) hire these companies (as opposed to "guys") and may, but don't always, keep these software vulnerabilities secret in order to collect information on people/targets. This is sometimes done with a warrant and in other times is done without the need.

I don't see how the governments and these companies aren't keeping the vulnerabilities in the software we rely on secret, I need more convincing.

I really appreciate you taking the time to flesh it out with me, even though it's unlikely we'd end up agreeing (just from hints in the tone we're using), I'm glad it won't just be over poor writing on my part. Thanks!

That doesn't matter, people will up or down vote. It was, indeed a question loaded with my preexisting bias, but also a genuine question.

Cool, what's a better summary?

Edit: Thank you for the feedback.

I just want to make sure I have this right.

The government hires these guys and then keeps the vulnerabilities in our software and our businesses' software secret?

They then use this to launch attacks and record our communications and actions?

I, of course, would have an opinion on this, I just want to make sure I've got this correct.

Edit: punctuation.

I don't really mind, but I see why people do. What bothered me is when I opened an incognito browser to look at Home Depot, then moved to Amazon, the latter was showing me a bunch of tools and MAN STUFF (weights, leather jackets, etc).

That's a really important aspect, are desktops going the route of developer only? (Non-web) Designers and other white collar probably don't need it, but they use machines that wouldn't notice the difference...

With FFOS, Android/Chrome, and MS there's a conscious effort to eliminate the difference in development between desktop, tablet and phone. With more people using computers, not as many people need or want desktop apps and those features on all of their desktop apps. If I suddenly need to edit an image, I don't need PS or even Gimp, I'm often fine with a web app.

Funny story came to mind: You ever have a client accidentally hit F12, then tell your boss that your product was broken because there was a weird thing taking up half the screen?

Seriously: My guess would be download size, performance, maintenance. Especially with Moz aiming to target super cheap hardware with their OS.

This would probably start the trend of the dev features being reduced in regular browsers, I'd guess. But you're right no one is taking it away yet.

Anecdotal evidence: I work in an office with a lot of our companies non-technically inclined folks, and I would say: Yes, that is exactly how they feel. They want one password, and they want all their bookmarks and customization exactly as they are on every other computer they log in on without giving the computer or the software running on it any thought.

For work especially, calendar, email, hangouts, docs/drive... it saves us from needing more IT or training.

Edit: added "Anecdotal evidence:" to show awareness that I do not represent all cases. Also removed snark.

Yours is funnier than mine.

Now try WhoIsThat?user=

Reply to self: Of course, as relationships grow, we know our clients better and they trust us to make the right decision or fix it quickly on production.

This clause sounds more like it has to do with changing features that a developer may see as an improvement and a client may see as a "holy crap, what happened, now I have to retrain my staff."

We're agile, working with established businesses. We have to take in our clients real world needs into account. Agile is a set of principles and a guide, not a set of physical or economic rules. Sometimes the tool isn't the best for the job, sometimes two conventions (client's work, developer's work) contradict.

Adding a fee would be a material change, and would require further consent... also, the clauses about deleting content and restricting access are all made with future cash charges as a possibility.

Said another way: these are set up with the ability to charge you later in mind.

What if they find out that you just linked to a "deep-link?"

Seriously though, is it made unenforceable when the usage by both parties (linkedin and users) actually encourage this? (Share this on facebook!) It sounds like a "catch-all" "don't like you" clause.

I wasn't really referring to the generally people, I meant "imminent to businesses."

But as the threat becomes imminent, the appearance of "externalized" cost diminishes and the value on protecting those resources increases and they are no longer external.

We're already seeing this as several big companies and funds are suddenly putting real money into "green energy."

It'll always be harder for for-profits and bottom-line driven funds to pay to not have action, but nations are now apparently doing this. I wonder how much of that is accounted for in known corruption. (In the U.S. we call it lobbying.)

Edit: trying to clear up the "externalized" sentence. What I mean is that "external costs" aren't so external at a certain point.

I'll check it out, thanks. It might come in handy after I read a couple other books.

Wow! Thank you.