Perhaps I'm having trouble recognising a serious problem when faced with one, but with the current state of wages being: Hollywood Reporter Wages Article I'm not seeing what this piracy problem is all about.
I don't see anyone in Hollywood making minimum wage or less..... especially not losing money because of piracy... Something as simple as a bad poster design is going to be worse for their profits than all those nasty pirates...
Meanwhile, seems everyone who is complaining about how bad piracy is is making a minimum wage with a few zeros (or more) appended to it, and is bitterly disappointed that they aren't making just a few percent more. The industry is positively thriving. Hard to care.
I can tell who wrote it just by looking at the comments
Yeah, my first thought on this was "how accurate would it be if you a) stripped out comments, and b) ran through a code formatter (many code editors auto-formatting to a standard on the fly)"
I think including comments is basically cheating, as they're super distinguishable. You can tell what code I've worked on cause I consistently type "teh", spell words like "colour" with my local spelling, etc. But recognising just the actual code itself, that's more impressive.
Oh, I'm all for more transparency, but I'm not politically minded enough to be sure my ideas are that great, however:
Just using the USA and Google for this example, the amount of money Google should be allowed to invest should be directly proportional to it's number of US Citizen employees.
I figure it'd be a good way to have the amount of sway a company can pull tied directly to their involvement (via employment) to the US economy in the political scene.
Yeah, no doubt it's flawed, however I wouldn't like to see a situation where no matter how much a company is giving to it's government, etc, it has an artificial capped limit.
As for if a drone kills someone I know, I'm going to be blaming the person who instigated it/directed it/pulled the (remote) trigger.
And if it wasn't any person, but some sort of accident, then I'll treat it like I would any other accident.
It's exactly the same as if a car killed someone I know. I'd blame the driver, not the guy who wrote the program that allowed the engine to fire efficiently enough to achieve the speed to achieve killing impact.
This could almost be modded informative, despite the malice in it, but I'd be interested in some references for the statistics.
Just really how many Police Officers die as compared to other professions (and probably need to sub-categorise the police, so we're just looking at beat-walkers and response units here, not including undercover or other higher risk categories, or the desk-bound low risk categories)
I mean I know there's more to it that simply the statistic: cops and garbage men are equal in my opinion, they both provide a service to the community, however Police do have a little more training and equipment to help them to stay alive, that goes hand in hand with the increased power and responsibility
Brown called the app a 'police stalker,' and said being able to identify where officers were located could put them at personal risk
Am I missing something here?
Criminal types could use it to find police?
Really?
Because it's so hard to find police otherwise?
I can think of ways to locate police from simply reporting suspicious activity at a location to... oh, Im thinking of ways far faster than I'll be able to write them down, and won't bore anyone, however:
Crowdsourced information on an app (that anyone including the police themselves can feed with misinformation if they like) doesn't seem like my "go-to" resource if I'm some sociopathic cop killer.... (assuming to be a cop killer you'd be sociopathic, but the same applies to the non sociopathic wanna be cop killers if they're out there too)
Like it or not, the president is an irreplaceable military asset and the area around White House is military airspace (or effectively the same thing).
(emphasis mine)
irreplaceable? I'm not sure this word means what you think it means.....
However the area around the white house being effectively the same thing as military airspace is accurate enough:)
I'm trying to figure out what the odds are that someone within the government or FAA arranged for a drone to be found there purely to give them the media attention to push their agenda forwards....
Or as the seed for a honeypot, as drones over the whitehouse they already have covered.
(I mean, I would not be at all surprised that there's some DARPA weapon that fire some emp device that would be able to take out any small size electronics with negligible risk.... Not like drones can also manage the weight of reliable emp shielding.)
Well, sure, all big companies pour money into the government in their efforts to shape policy. I don't see this so much as a bad thing in and of itself, it's on a case by case of what the company is trying to achieve, and while there's plenty of idle speculation and guesses and conspiracy theories about what Google is getting for their money, the factual stuff I've seen is pretty consistently in tune with what I'd be doing if I were a not-evil google-type company.
If you start a company that is at the forefront of an industry, constantly pushing the envelope, and world recognised (and supported by userbase) and funded enough, you'll might find yourself dumping some money into politics as you're in a position to know how things should be shaped... That's not 'evil'. That's 'doing business and improving society (or attempting to).
You note that google provides infrastructure to the military. The military buy lots of stuff from IT infrastructure to weapons to vehicles to clothing to food to... well the list goes on, probably very few goods and services the military doesn't use. If anyone "providing" a product or service to the military for money is evil, well, evil musn't mean what I thought it did.... And just about everyone I know is evil, including myself.
And...
Google helps drones kill
OK. That's a fantastic one. let's cover a couple of quick things first: Drones killing people == evil
Sure, it can be, but it might not be also. Unless you are of the belief that every killing is evil, in which case, you're gonna have to go down the rabbithole of lesser evils, because sometimes there's a person who is going to kill several other people, and killing them has to be considered as an alternative to killing x others. That's kind of the whole job of the military, making those kinds of decisions. You know, wars and stuff. someone providing something that is used by someone else for killing
Well I kinda covered that earlier, but it should be pretty obvious who is responsible for the evil. Not like Google's going "Yeah, you can use our stuff in your drones, but only if you make sure and kill a bunch of innocent people with it"......
Oh I could go on, but who's going to bother reading this far:)
Ahh hey, I'll cop that. I no doubt do sway to an elitist attitude when it comes to this topic... I started off decades ago with html, and back then there was a lot of endless discussion and opinionating on what was and wasn't programming, and now I can program in more languages than I can remember to list off.
I was trying to lay things out from a more basic perspective, as I know not everyone interested in this topic would be able to follow if I get too specific, however yeah, this is a discussion, I'm a little elitist at times, though, as I saw on a sig earlier, I am 100% right at least 50% of the time, with no more than 50% deviation:)
As for being a dick, well, yeah, to be honest I was aiming for a little bit dickish on that post:)
I have read it. Google rep showed up with a (probably unwelcome) government shadow. Doesn't mean that Google == Government. If they did, we'd never hear about any of these goings on. Google (and many other companies, and individuals) are often required to comply with governmental directives, on a daily basis.
It seems like half the people posting here today believe that Google is giggling and sending private data to the government willy nilly, when the case is they were legally required to, have constantly pushed back where possible against this kind of request, actively help campaign for better consumer protection, and, as soon as they legally are allowed to, inform the public of what teh government is making or trying to make them do.
And as noted, it's not just Google, Microsoft also, in a big way, and many other companies of all sizes.
The common thread here isn't Google and it being evil. The common thread is the government.
btw, I'm not a Google fanboy, or an any company fanboy. I own machines running windows, osx and linux and android. I use chrome firefox and... well I only use others when I have to actually, but if you want to be calling out evil companies, there's some real actual targets like big pharma, tobacco, etc. Google is a veritable choirboy compared to them imho. As is MS and Apple too. They make profits by making life better for us, big tobacco, on the other hand....... All the evil that seems to come out of these big tech companies is pulled out legally by the government, almost always against the companies desires.
No...... That's not Google's evil, that's the government's evil. When men in suits with the the power of the government behind them come to you legally requiring you to hand over a customers information, doing so doesn't make you evil. It makes you a law abiding citizen. And if they also legally prevent you from letting that customer know, that's their evil, not yours.
They were complying with the request from their local government that was legally reasonable, and that they had no place to interfere with, which they are required (just like every other person/entity/company) to do in order to operate within their locality.....
When smaller entities try the same practices in Australia, the Australian Tax Office comes down hard and says the offshore entity is not genuine, but a method of evading tax.
However they do nothing when large conglomerates setup "offices" in tax havens.
Yeah, and that is exactly how they get around disingenuous offshore entities... by putting an office out there with at least 1 employee in it. Then it's legitimate. All the larger companies save far more than it costs to set this up when they do so. Smaller companies cannot offset the cost. But that's purely based on the amount of money your company makes. There's a point where you have to get some tax loopholes, as that's what most of your best competitors are doing, and you aren't going to want to compete with a handicap... But the solution is tax reform, and ianap (i am not a politician(thank goodness)) so getting waaay of topic here:)
How much security he has on his personal machine is secondary.
Hackers/government/whoever will target the big databases with everyone's information in them. That is worth their time. If your information is in there, you suffer also.
Hackers/government/whoever are far far far less likely to be hacking your personal computer, unless you've managed to get flagged already, and become a target through some other means, which sure can happen, but the point is, you don't need to be targeted to have your identity stolen if your identity information is being logged and stored by multiple other systems.
Simply not having/being in those big databases is better than any personal firewall imho.
Triggered...triggered? Dont use that bullshit social justice lingo. You weren't triggered you dont have PTSD. At best you were annoyed
Ran out of mod points, or I'd give you some:) Posting instead:
Always call people on this kind of shit. So many people trying to avoid responsibility for what they say or do these days.... and he was already posting as AC to begin with.....
Ahh, as you said, same mysql interface used in many other languages. The problem was never that "The old MySQL wasn't secure" - I actually think the new mysql implementation is too much hand holding and coddling. I've been writing in PHP using MySQL for over 15 years now, and I did/do my own security on for it, same as I wrote/write my own user authentication, and specify htaccess rules, and set up firewalls (or have the sysadmin do it for me)... The problem with PHP is also what makes it so good: It's easy to get into. And that's great, When interviewing for more PHP developers, it's really not hard to tell which ones are programmers and which aren't.
Whatever the field, it's good to have an easy-access at entry level tool that's capable of, when you learn it properly, full commercial-grade applications.
PHP is a lot like photoshop: Easy to get started in, and make a mess with, and if skilled, and you master it, capable of top quality professional work, but just because there's a lot of "I'm a designer, I've got a mac with photoshop" or similar, it doesn't mean the quality of work is there.
Most other web development languages have smaller "user bases" and higher levels of entry, so the problem is far less prevalent, or they're frameworks that allow lesser skilled developers to produce 'working' product without needing to even think about things like security. But hate the player, not the game:)
Perhaps it's just my circles, however, as a contractor, right now I'm doing work for Verizon, AT&T, Cisco, and others... I've worked with hundreds of designers, programmers, etc, etc, and most of us have done work for fortune 500 companies, and they're all as the grandparent described. Personally I find it to often be even worse in ways I don't have the time to get into.
I'm now curious as to if there are any statistics on where web developer work ends up...
I started programming before the internet existed, and moved from C to PHP when the internet took off, been making websites ever since.
I was (still am) proud of how fast I can build any type of website from scratch, and still get to do small amounts of that occasionally, but I've had to learn multiple frameworks from Drupal (please god no) to Wordpress (please god no) to Cake (please god no) to (please god no)..... I loathe them all, not equally, but no love for any of them (Well, I actually kinda like jQuery now, but can do fine without it). They serve a purpose however, and when clients all want fast development times, and don't mind bloated codebases and inevitable security issues and heavier duty servers to support it, I give them what they want in the timeframe that takes. But I love when I get to write something clean from the ground up.
On the other hand, I love basecamp, foundation, have my own custom css on top, etc, that allows me to focus more on the programming, and less on bollocks like responsive design support... I guess that's a bit hypocritical of me:P
He's making sites from scratch without programming because HTML isn't programming
this is just not true
any time you use code to write computer instructions it is "programming"
he uses CMSMS, which means he only codes part of the site "by hand"
internet coding is not complex compared to coding a first-person-shooter, but the demands of the individual coder are different
i've seen many coders spend 10 minutes writing some executable code then spend an hour figuring out how to get it to go where they want in the HTML page on a website to look right
HTML is structure and layout, not programming.
CSS is structured storing of display values, not programming.
Using a structured specified format to lay out static structural content is not quite the same as "computer instructions" Unless you call using notepad to write a shopping list "programming" (you're using the code of the alphabet to instruct the program to display them in a specific static order.....)
If you need your site to do more than display pages of content, you need something more.
A programming language of some sort.
There's javascript, python, php, asp, etc, etc, etc... All web programming languages.
Show me the pseudocode version of something written in pure html and css, and we'll see how much programming is involved.
Show me how HTML manages mutable variables, and basic logic structures and loops....
Before a government implements policy to go after stone drivers to prevent accidental death, it needs to be shown that stoners cause accidents!
considering that it is already illegal to drive stoned (DUI/DWI), I would say the onus is on the stoner community to prove that it is safe to drive stoned. Nice try to shift responsibility.
By your logic, that'd be like me saying: you are doing X. X is dangerous, so we make it illegal.
Now it is up to you to prove it isn't dangerous, until then, you can't do it. Where X can be anything from smoking pot to eating cornflakes to singing Justin Beiber lyrics in a public place.
The missing piece in the above example, and yours, is that perhaps the issue should be scientifically analysed and proven to be a problem before a law is made prohibiting it. I don't think the law should come first and it be up to the victims to do the research.
Responsibility is the lawmakers. And whoever votes them into office does so based on what they claim they're going to do - well the general public voters think that's what's going on anyway, but still, it's not on the general public to prove that THC intoxication doesn't significantly impact driving accident rates any more that we should have to prove any other arbitrary scenario.
This isn't shifting responsibility, it's leaving it where it belongs.
All it needs to say is "Yes Dear" and give compliments, save me a lifetime of grief.
Of course, it'll also need to learn how to apologise when it's right... That might be a bit trickier.
I think there's a pretty good chance this will cost him more votes than it gains him.
Really, the only votes this will get him is from apple fanbois that care more about their favourite brand than wasteful spending.
People who care about spending, or dislike apple (Which while less outspoken I think are still a majority) won't vote for him because of this, I'd think.
And, in Australia, everyone has to vote, unlike the USA where it's optional, which changes the demographics of voters from just the 'politically minded' to 'everyone', which needs to be taken into consideration.
If google gets, say, a million complaints sent through, and facebook does nothing, then the Google can make public "We forwarded a million complaints, and facebook did nothing", which, if timed correctly, probably as facebook makes some "we listen to our users, if 100,000 people ask for something, then we do it" type publicity, google can trot this out... Not saying they would, or should need to, but it's hanging over facebook's head unless they deal with it. Google is just being the 'big backer' for our complaints, thus giving them credibility.
Sure, perhaps there are better things that could be done, but this is surely better than Google doing nothing?
Try thinking as the manufacturers/distributors/developers.
Assume they don't pay, but you do (as you do pay in increased device/software/app costs, anyhows)
You can watch the VP8 video, or you can pay 2 cents per video and watch the almost-indistinguishable quality (although you've heard on/. that it's better) version.
Sure, it's only 2c, but which do you choose?
Assuming you aren't the equivalent of a 'rich bastard' (you can guess which companies the 'rich bastard' represents), which do you choose?
Yeah, cause Walmart failed so badly and hasn't been much competion in the supermarket industry....
Being like Walmart is surely a sign of failure.
(If your post was genuine masked as sarcasm, not just plain sarcasm, then let my post be a sarcastic agreement rather than counter-sarcasm. Or whatever.)
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps I'm having trouble recognising a serious problem when faced with one, but with the current state of wages being: Hollywood Reporter Wages Article I'm not seeing what this piracy problem is all about.
I don't see anyone in Hollywood making minimum wage or less..... especially not losing money because of piracy... Something as simple as a bad poster design is going to be worse for their profits than all those nasty pirates...
Meanwhile, seems everyone who is complaining about how bad piracy is is making a minimum wage with a few zeros (or more) appended to it, and is bitterly disappointed that they aren't making just a few percent more. The industry is positively thriving. Hard to care.
I can tell who wrote it just by looking at the comments
Yeah, my first thought on this was "how accurate would it be if you a) stripped out comments, and b) ran through a code formatter (many code editors auto-formatting to a standard on the fly)"
I think including comments is basically cheating, as they're super distinguishable. You can tell what code I've worked on cause I consistently type "teh", spell words like "colour" with my local spelling, etc. But recognising just the actual code itself, that's more impressive.
Oh, I'm all for more transparency, but I'm not politically minded enough to be sure my ideas are that great, however:
Just using the USA and Google for this example, the amount of money Google should be allowed to invest should be directly proportional to it's number of US Citizen employees.
I figure it'd be a good way to have the amount of sway a company can pull tied directly to their involvement (via employment) to the US economy in the political scene.
Yeah, no doubt it's flawed, however I wouldn't like to see a situation where no matter how much a company is giving to it's government, etc, it has an artificial capped limit.
As for if a drone kills someone I know, I'm going to be blaming the person who instigated it/directed it/pulled the (remote) trigger.
And if it wasn't any person, but some sort of accident, then I'll treat it like I would any other accident.
It's exactly the same as if a car killed someone I know. I'd blame the driver, not the guy who wrote the program that allowed the engine to fire efficiently enough to achieve the speed to achieve killing impact.
This could almost be modded informative, despite the malice in it, but I'd be interested in some references for the statistics.
Just really how many Police Officers die as compared to other professions (and probably need to sub-categorise the police, so we're just looking at beat-walkers and response units here, not including undercover or other higher risk categories, or the desk-bound low risk categories)
I mean I know there's more to it that simply the statistic: cops and garbage men are equal in my opinion, they both provide a service to the community, however Police do have a little more training and equipment to help them to stay alive, that goes hand in hand with the increased power and responsibility
Brown called the app a 'police stalker,' and said being able to identify where officers were located could put them at personal risk
Am I missing something here?
Criminal types could use it to find police?
Really?
Because it's so hard to find police otherwise?
I can think of ways to locate police from simply reporting suspicious activity at a location to... oh, Im thinking of ways far faster than I'll be able to write them down, and won't bore anyone, however:
Crowdsourced information on an app (that anyone including the police themselves can feed with misinformation if they like) doesn't seem like my "go-to" resource if I'm some sociopathic cop killer.... (assuming to be a cop killer you'd be sociopathic, but the same applies to the non sociopathic wanna be cop killers if they're out there too)
Like it or not, the president is an irreplaceable military asset and the area around White House is military airspace (or effectively the same thing).
(emphasis mine) :)
irreplaceable? I'm not sure this word means what you think it means.....
However the area around the white house being effectively the same thing as military airspace is accurate enough
And here I am watching House of Cards which... ahh ok.... no spoilers :) Worth a watch if that sort of thing interests you, amazingly well written.
I'm trying to figure out what the odds are that someone within the government or FAA arranged for a drone to be found there purely to give them the media attention to push their agenda forwards....
Or as the seed for a honeypot, as drones over the whitehouse they already have covered.
(I mean, I would not be at all surprised that there's some DARPA weapon that fire some emp device that would be able to take out any small size electronics with negligible risk.... Not like drones can also manage the weight of reliable emp shielding.)
If you start a company that is at the forefront of an industry, constantly pushing the envelope, and world recognised (and supported by userbase) and funded enough, you'll might find yourself dumping some money into politics as you're in a position to know how things should be shaped... That's not 'evil'. That's 'doing business and improving society (or attempting to).
You note that google provides infrastructure to the military. The military buy lots of stuff from IT infrastructure to weapons to vehicles to clothing to food to
And...
Google helps drones kill
OK. That's a fantastic one. let's cover a couple of quick things first: :)
Drones killing people == evil
Sure, it can be, but it might not be also. Unless you are of the belief that every killing is evil, in which case, you're gonna have to go down the rabbithole of lesser evils, because sometimes there's a person who is going to kill several other people, and killing them has to be considered as an alternative to killing x others. That's kind of the whole job of the military, making those kinds of decisions. You know, wars and stuff.
someone providing something that is used by someone else for killing
Well I kinda covered that earlier, but it should be pretty obvious who is responsible for the evil. Not like Google's going "Yeah, you can use our stuff in your drones, but only if you make sure and kill a bunch of innocent people with it"......
Oh I could go on, but who's going to bother reading this far
Ahh hey, I'll cop that. I no doubt do sway to an elitist attitude when it comes to this topic... I started off decades ago with html, and back then there was a lot of endless discussion and opinionating on what was and wasn't programming, and now I can program in more languages than I can remember to list off. :)
:)
I was trying to lay things out from a more basic perspective, as I know not everyone interested in this topic would be able to follow if I get too specific, however yeah, this is a discussion, I'm a little elitist at times, though, as I saw on a sig earlier, I am 100% right at least 50% of the time, with no more than 50% deviation
As for being a dick, well, yeah, to be honest I was aiming for a little bit dickish on that post
I have read it. Google rep showed up with a (probably unwelcome) government shadow. Doesn't mean that Google == Government. If they did, we'd never hear about any of these goings on. Google (and many other companies, and individuals) are often required to comply with governmental directives, on a daily basis.
It seems like half the people posting here today believe that Google is giggling and sending private data to the government willy nilly, when the case is they were legally required to, have constantly pushed back where possible against this kind of request, actively help campaign for better consumer protection, and, as soon as they legally are allowed to, inform the public of what teh government is making or trying to make them do.
And as noted, it's not just Google, Microsoft also, in a big way, and many other companies of all sizes.
The common thread here isn't Google and it being evil. The common thread is the government.
btw, I'm not a Google fanboy, or an any company fanboy. I own machines running windows, osx and linux and android. I use chrome firefox and... well I only use others when I have to actually, but if you want to be calling out evil companies, there's some real actual targets like big pharma, tobacco, etc. Google is a veritable choirboy compared to them imho. As is MS and Apple too. They make profits by making life better for us, big tobacco, on the other hand....... All the evil that seems to come out of these big tech companies is pulled out legally by the government, almost always against the companies desires.
No...... That's not Google's evil, that's the government's evil. When men in suits with the the power of the government behind them come to you legally requiring you to hand over a customers information, doing so doesn't make you evil. It makes you a law abiding citizen. And if they also legally prevent you from letting that customer know, that's their evil, not yours.
They were complying with the request from their local government that was legally reasonable, and that they had no place to interfere with, which they are required (just like every other person/entity/company) to do in order to operate within their locality.....
Bullshit.
When smaller entities try the same practices in Australia, the Australian Tax Office comes down hard and says the offshore entity is not genuine, but a method of evading tax.
However they do nothing when large conglomerates setup "offices" in tax havens.
Yeah, and that is exactly how they get around disingenuous offshore entities... by putting an office out there with at least 1 employee in it. Then it's legitimate. All the larger companies save far more than it costs to set this up when they do so. Smaller companies cannot offset the cost. But that's purely based on the amount of money your company makes. There's a point where you have to get some tax loopholes, as that's what most of your best competitors are doing, and you aren't going to want to compete with a handicap... But the solution is tax reform, and ianap (i am not a politician(thank goodness)) so getting waaay of topic here :)
How much security he has on his personal machine is secondary.
Hackers/government/whoever will target the big databases with everyone's information in them. That is worth their time. If your information is in there, you suffer also.
Hackers/government/whoever are far far far less likely to be hacking your personal computer, unless you've managed to get flagged already, and become a target through some other means, which sure can happen, but the point is, you don't need to be targeted to have your identity stolen if your identity information is being logged and stored by multiple other systems.
Simply not having/being in those big databases is better than any personal firewall imho.
Triggered...triggered? Dont use that bullshit social justice lingo. You weren't triggered you dont have PTSD. At best you were annoyed
Ran out of mod points, or I'd give you some :) Posting instead:
Always call people on this kind of shit. So many people trying to avoid responsibility for what they say or do these days.... and he was already posting as AC to begin with.....
Ahh, as you said, same mysql interface used in many other languages. The problem was never that "The old MySQL wasn't secure" - I actually think the new mysql implementation is too much hand holding and coddling. I've been writing in PHP using MySQL for over 15 years now, and I did/do my own security on for it, same as I wrote/write my own user authentication, and specify htaccess rules, and set up firewalls (or have the sysadmin do it for me)... The problem with PHP is also what makes it so good: It's easy to get into. And that's great, When interviewing for more PHP developers, it's really not hard to tell which ones are programmers and which aren't. :)
Whatever the field, it's good to have an easy-access at entry level tool that's capable of, when you learn it properly, full commercial-grade applications.
PHP is a lot like photoshop: Easy to get started in, and make a mess with, and if skilled, and you master it, capable of top quality professional work, but just because there's a lot of "I'm a designer, I've got a mac with photoshop" or similar, it doesn't mean the quality of work is there.
Most other web development languages have smaller "user bases" and higher levels of entry, so the problem is far less prevalent, or they're frameworks that allow lesser skilled developers to produce 'working' product without needing to even think about things like security. But hate the player, not the game
Perhaps it's just my circles, however, as a contractor, right now I'm doing work for Verizon, AT&T, Cisco, and others... I've worked with hundreds of designers, programmers, etc, etc, and most of us have done work for fortune 500 companies, and they're all as the grandparent described. Personally I find it to often be even worse in ways I don't have the time to get into. :P
I'm now curious as to if there are any statistics on where web developer work ends up...
I started programming before the internet existed, and moved from C to PHP when the internet took off, been making websites ever since.
I was (still am) proud of how fast I can build any type of website from scratch, and still get to do small amounts of that occasionally, but I've had to learn multiple frameworks from Drupal (please god no) to Wordpress (please god no) to Cake (please god no) to (please god no)..... I loathe them all, not equally, but no love for any of them (Well, I actually kinda like jQuery now, but can do fine without it). They serve a purpose however, and when clients all want fast development times, and don't mind bloated codebases and inevitable security issues and heavier duty servers to support it, I give them what they want in the timeframe that takes. But I love when I get to write something clean from the ground up.
On the other hand, I love basecamp, foundation, have my own custom css on top, etc, that allows me to focus more on the programming, and less on bollocks like responsive design support... I guess that's a bit hypocritical of me
this is just not true
any time you use code to write computer instructions it is "programming"
he uses CMSMS, which means he only codes part of the site "by hand"
internet coding is not complex compared to coding a first-person-shooter, but the demands of the individual coder are different
i've seen many coders spend 10 minutes writing some executable code then spend an hour figuring out how to get it to go where they want in the HTML page on a website to look right
HTML is structure and layout, not programming.
CSS is structured storing of display values, not programming.
Using a structured specified format to lay out static structural content is not quite the same as "computer instructions" Unless you call using notepad to write a shopping list "programming" (you're using the code of the alphabet to instruct the program to display them in a specific static order.....)
If you need your site to do more than display pages of content, you need something more.
A programming language of some sort.
There's javascript, python, php, asp, etc, etc, etc... All web programming languages.
Show me the pseudocode version of something written in pure html and css, and we'll see how much programming is involved.
Show me how HTML manages mutable variables, and basic logic structures and loops....
Before a government implements policy to go after stone drivers to prevent accidental death, it needs to be shown that stoners cause accidents!
considering that it is already illegal to drive stoned (DUI/DWI), I would say the onus is on the stoner community to prove that it is safe to drive stoned. Nice try to shift responsibility.
By your logic, that'd be like me saying: you are doing X. X is dangerous, so we make it illegal.
Now it is up to you to prove it isn't dangerous, until then, you can't do it. Where X can be anything from smoking pot to eating cornflakes to singing Justin Beiber lyrics in a public place.
The missing piece in the above example, and yours, is that perhaps the issue should be scientifically analysed and proven to be a problem before a law is made prohibiting it. I don't think the law should come first and it be up to the victims to do the research.
Responsibility is the lawmakers. And whoever votes them into office does so based on what they claim they're going to do - well the general public voters think that's what's going on anyway, but still, it's not on the general public to prove that THC intoxication doesn't significantly impact driving accident rates any more that we should have to prove any other arbitrary scenario.
This isn't shifting responsibility, it's leaving it where it belongs.
All it needs to say is "Yes Dear" and give compliments, save me a lifetime of grief. Of course, it'll also need to learn how to apologise when it's right... That might be a bit trickier.
I think there's a pretty good chance this will cost him more votes than it gains him.
Really, the only votes this will get him is from apple fanbois that care more about their favourite brand than wasteful spending.
People who care about spending, or dislike apple (Which while less outspoken I think are still a majority) won't vote for him because of this, I'd think.
And, in Australia, everyone has to vote, unlike the USA where it's optional, which changes the demographics of voters from just the 'politically minded' to 'everyone', which needs to be taken into consideration.
If google gets, say, a million complaints sent through, and facebook does nothing, then the Google can make public "We forwarded a million complaints, and facebook did nothing", which, if timed correctly, probably as facebook makes some "we listen to our users, if 100,000 people ask for something, then we do it" type publicity, google can trot this out... Not saying they would, or should need to, but it's hanging over facebook's head unless they deal with it. Google is just being the 'big backer' for our complaints, thus giving them credibility.
Sure, perhaps there are better things that could be done, but this is surely better than Google doing nothing?
Try thinking as the manufacturers/distributors/developers. /. that it's better) version.
Assume they don't pay, but you do (as you do pay in increased device/software/app costs, anyhows)
You can watch the VP8 video, or you can pay 2 cents per video and watch the almost-indistinguishable quality (although you've heard on
Sure, it's only 2c, but which do you choose?
Assuming you aren't the equivalent of a 'rich bastard' (you can guess which companies the 'rich bastard' represents), which do you choose?
Yeah, cause Walmart failed so badly and hasn't been much competion in the supermarket industry....
Being like Walmart is surely a sign of failure.
(If your post was genuine masked as sarcasm, not just plain sarcasm, then let my post be a sarcastic agreement rather than counter-sarcasm. Or whatever.)