svlla

so you think if you buy you can't have complaints? interesting world you must live in.

idealist or totalitarian?

It means that Stallman likes being disgruntled even when the stakes are so low. Stallman calls BSD advertising clauses "obnoxious"[1] but apparently his obnoxiousness over similar issues of attribution and influence are righteous. Lulz.

[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html

My reaction is more like... $126m? That's it?

"IBM won a $244 million DARPA contract in November 2006 to develop a petascale supercomputer."

Amazon will open up Kindle for the web and then whatever value-add Apple supposes they are adding will simply vanish.

the stuff between the two is pretty important

the least important or interesting parts of a db are its api and storage format

substrates matter.

"This is technically backwards-incompatible, but the security risks have been judged to outweigh the compatibility concerns in this case."

Good choice. I wonder when weak password hashing in Django will be given the same exception.

about as 'key' as twitter I'm guessing...

that's really the problem. Adsense doesn't factor into it... but it should. negatively. truth is, Google has created a superb "signal" that a website is crummy: Adsense. it would be funny if it wasn't so sad. and they can't do anything about it, since it would hurt the bottom line.

the issue is one of priorities and it is clear to me that supporting python 2.3, or remaining batteries-included, or backward compatible, or whatever other excuse you can come up with is more important than having modern password security. perhaps if it seemed remotely likely that a patch that met most but perhaps not all of your requirements would have a chance of being accepted someone would do it. as it stands it seems to be futile given the unrealistic requirements.

next step is to make this the default. unfortunately the django overlords think it's not important enough to be default.

great, maybe now I won't get email or InMail from Google recruiters who employ "passive recruiting" techniques anymore...

that's not an argument about twitter, that's more about the internet and global communication. it would be different without the internet. it would not be different without twitter. even so, the internet only played one piece -- communicating what happened in Tunisia. there were so many other factors in place in Egypt that has brought it to where it is now that have nothing to do with technology, despite how much you seem to fetishize it.

you know that egypt has had the internet cut off for some time until recently right? twitter simply does not matter here. not one iota.

maybe we'll finally get kindle for the web out of this.

In USA, start-ups say yes to DoD money...

w3c does a better job at standards than marketing.

this seems impossible for item pages due to how continuation ids are used for replies

perhaps continuations could be used more judiciously as well

not to mention that one thread per connection is, well, extremely outdated.

Bristol's dancing is also seriously offensive but we didn't put her in jail.

But... Google is putting in resources toward integrating Flash into Chrome. The Chrome Flash version is actually different than what is even publicly available from Adobe. My version of Flash that comes with Chrome is 10.1.103.19. The latest version available from Adobe directly is 10.1.102.64.

So Google puts its own resources toward a plugin (Flash) that, itself, can play H.264 video. I find this interesting to say the least.

No point in updating the iOS app unless there's going to be hardware support.

Chrome ships with Flash. Flash plays H.264. Thus, Chrome still supports H.264, now it just has to go through Flash.

There are Android phones with H.264 hardware support. There are no Android phones with WebM hardware support (software support, yes).

So... there is no point to converting YouTube videos to WebM: it doesn't benefit Android, it doesn't benefit Chrome. It would be a pointless waste of space.

There's a difference between hardware designs and actual hardware... Google doesn't offer indemnity for use of the format so why do you think they'd be the only defendant? If Google's so smart like you say, if they're so kind hearted, then why aren't they offering indemnity?

I agree it's pragmatic, it's just not enabling "open innovation" like Google claims. It's just enabling more dependence on Flash.

I take it you are a Flash supporter? Because Flash plays H.264, and Google ships Chrome with Flash. So Google Chrome has not lost the ability to play H.264, it just does so through Flash now. If Google were to stop shipping Chrome with Flash that would be saying something.

Yes, Flash, which also plays H.264 video...