HN user
I didn't make a claim if they were trustworthy. Google has leveraged their properties to force people to trust them with the rest of the internet, regardless of if you think they are trustworthy or not.
That's a different issue, and doesn't address what I wrote.
"If you are building products that intends to connect to a Google property moving forward you need to at a minimum include the above Root Certificates."
The foundation of a more secure web apparently requires you to trust Google with the entire internet, using their properties as leverage to force it to be so.
I've noticed this just starting to happen to me much more aggressively in the last few days. Now the Gmail app will pop up that same modal box in your screenshot every time I make the Gmail app have focus (from the home screen or from the square-button-menu), and every time I open any email.
None of the Google apps respect me. The maps app makes me disagree to giving enhanced location tracking every time I turn on location. The music player has a big bar constantly at the top that says "Downloaded Only," which if I accidentally tap it turns off downloaded only mode and kicks me to the store. If I leave location on accidentally, the camera app will sometimes use location to guess where I took a picture and ask me to "share" that. I don't use Google search, but I can't remove the giant search bar from the main screen or the shortcut if I accidentally hold the menu button.
Those are the only Google apps I use, and they all disrespect me. I only use a bit of Google but it's exhausting to even use just that bit.
Comcast (a BB sponsor) is holding a contest in which you design your own virtual apartment in "Comcast Town." They invited Boing Boing to judge but, even more fun, they asked us to suggest some Boing Boing furniture that people could use to decorate their pads! Above is the living room I designed. (I'm obviously not eligible to win. Sniff, sniff.) Notice the steampunk computer, carnivorous plant, and Flying Spaghetti Monster statue. I think the illustrator did a terrific job. In fact, I wish it was my real living room! The grand prize winning design gets a real-world room remodel, 40-inch HDTV, a new laptop, and a digital phone. I'm just helping select the ten finalists -- then it's up to The People.
4. Also missed two other Starbucks in University Village, including one of the busiest in the world.
Strings know their length in the CLR because they are represented as BSTRs
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2011/07/19/strin...
This lets them interoperate with OLE Automation.
Thanks Louis :) I've put so many hours on NGG it's ridiculous. Childhood and current favorite, great full-package game at its best. Set it at a steep pitch with no outlane post and Fire Down Middle on. Full throttle, ignore the wall!
They are fascinating :)
Also, flipper EOS switches are leaf switches, not microswitches.
Through the early 90s the flipper button switches were also leaf switches. In the early 90s some time after the introduction of the Fliptronics system by Williams/Bally, they switched to using a plastic opto-interrupter and U-shaped opto(s) rather than a leaf switch.
Games with upper flippers often used ganged leaf switches and later dual optos to allow independent "staged" control of lower and upper flippers on the same side of the machine. That allows you to press the flipper button in half way to engage only the lower flipper, and then all the way to also engage the upper flipper(s).
I think of a time slicer as an rtos - a simple one :)
And Visual Studio.
It's at least available to view the source:
http://referencesource.microsoft.com/System.Web/xsp/system/W...
What does the article say to advance "single page apps" as the "best thing ever" over other application models that use a clean interface and separation of concerns between client and service?
I haven't directly worked on Roslyn (although I work in another area in Cloud and Enterprise) but my understanding is that by providing its client an abstract representation on semantic C# source, Roslyn allows applications like this to be developed.
If a traditional compiler has an API of "source files and configuration flags in, object files out", the Roslyn API is completely different. Roslyn is about designing and providing a semantic API over C# language analysis and compiler services.
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=230702
Some of the features of the reference source website enabled by Roslyn's semantic understanding of symbols (assemblies, namespaces, types, members) are color-coding, search, browse, jump-to-definition, and deep-linking.
For example, I can deep-link to part of WPF like so:
http://referencesource-beta.microsoft.com/#PresentationFrame...
I can see which assemblies depend on it, which assemblies it depends on, and browse the source of the assembly in a tree view either by source file or by namespace -> type -> member name.
Again, in the linked slides....
The article itself was basic and didn't really talk to the specific Toyota case, but the linked slides did... if you're going to speculate about the trial, look at Barr's slides, not that article..
I didn't read the linked article but I did look through the slides, which were very interesting and talked about
- the abhorrent state of the engine control module code,
- the RToS's design,
- the critical data structures right above the stack,
- that those critical data structures weren't mirrored to detect corruption as is standard and as they did for other data,
- that single bit changes in that critical data structure right above a stack can cause the death of tasks in the RToS whose failsafe capabilities were located in those same tasks, and whose death was tested and confirmed to cause unintended acceleration consistent with accounts and descriptions of the event
- that the failsafe monitoring CPU was not designed to detect this failure, and in fact Toyota outsourced its design and didn't even have the source code to it...
Great job putting together a prototype. Although I'm going to list specific complaints, I appreciate the effort in creating and risk in sharing, so good job and thanks.
- I don't follow the circle photo fad. It seems like an unnecessary complication (implementation and design element)
- By moving information to the back, you're assuming that the facilities which create these badges have the ability to do double-sided prints on the badges, and if they have the technical ability that it won't increase the time or work required to print a badge.
- You're assuming that the badge printer can print completely to the edge.
- Removing the "Employee" text and relying on the blue color is an accessibility problem (color-blind people need this information)
- Customizing your badge photo adds security policy complications.
It's less "in theory" and more "in practice" when lots of people are telling you it's not funny, it's offensive. Also, it's not funny, it's immature, it's offensive.
You can continue to be as oblivious and boorish as you want, I can't control your behavior. But I'll be blunt in telling you it's not funny, it's offensive, because you seem to have a self-indulged ignorance that people who feel that way exist in any meaningful way. It's true that those voices aren't as loud and may not exist in your echo chamber, but you can't feign ignorance and claim that everyone telling you it's stupid, not funny, immature, and offensive don't exist/are a vanishingly small minority.
> Isn't it way more offensive to assume that women are such dainty delicate creatures that like, they won't get the joke?
> If the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it,
How does it handle latency?
Set a header where (on which request from whom to whom?)
There's lots of liability you can't skirt by saying it's implied that the other person consented. It seems like saying someone consented to waving the accessibility rights afforded under the ADA because it was a condition of patronizing the store.
And I don't follow why you think once you have a reason to use data for one purpose, you automatically have the right to use it for any purpose.
What I got from reading the excerpt of Judge Koh's response in the article was that she was maintaining a vertical separation between the business / activities of sending and receiving mail and other business activities. From my following, I'd imagine that filters and priority inbox and other details would be related to the business of sending and receiving mail.
If Google can win the argument that the way they're using their interception and reading of messages in serving personalized ads is a part of their everyday business activities, it seems to completely undermine the purpose of the law. Google, with G+, is trying to itself be a single unified product with all of these features. Social networking is a feature, videos are a feature, websites, blogs, instant messaging and email and targeted advertising. If Google can say that displaying targeted ads is a part of their normal business activities, then what activity does the law against wiretapping actually protect against?
If Google can read your email for the purpose of enabling a tangential feature of displaying targeted advertising to you, how does that same logic not apply to me if I claim my normal business activities are delivering your mail while opening it, reading it, and selling useful information I find inside of it? I could say it was essential to my business, because I actually deliver for free and just pay my bills with the info I sell.
Dow Jones data for 2000 - 2013 was directly below the graph you referenced. And in fact, a kind of important point the author made in the text...
I think the meaning was fairly obvious at first glance, and it read as a fine way of conjoining expressions, where multiple if statements should be preferred, because it doesn't rely on the arbitrary subexpression evaluation ordering rules of binary operators.
Imagine for a moment that a character ends up deleted at the end of one of those && expressions. I don't care how, perhaps you just dropped your Warby Parkers on your keyboard or something. Not only is the code now broken, but it still compiles. With if(...)s, it would fail to compile and the error would be caught immediately.
The moral of the story is that syntax is your friend, not your enemy. Use syntax as much as possible to catch errors. Especially with strictly-typed languages, you have an incredible tool for automated verification of certain portions of your program. Use it.
I'm obviously outside of the audience this is for, and probably most other commenters since only one other person mentioned performance.
Perf??
And of course, this follows the "include a script tag to our server" cloud product web API pattern. This isn't setting off giant alarm-bells for anyone else? This gets past the sniff test?
The fact that this doesn't fail the sniff test for most people is probably why most web-apps feel like most web-apps feel, instead of like http://prog21.dadgum.com/.
In the Fairchild case, additional volume brought marginal cost below price. In this case, the price is zero.
Perhaps I'm approaching this from a different perspective which is why I think my comments came across more abrasive than I meant them.
I'm certainly not trying to blame users for ignorance. I personally, however, have a strong aversion to coupling myself to tools and services whose future I have low confidence in. What I was trying to impart to mnicole as a consumer was this aversion. The lesson I'd send to the rest of the development community is that if you structure your tool or service in a way that it is not possible for me to either have a low dependency on you or a high confidence in your future, you fail the sniff test.
I'm simply trying to point out that there are decisions you can control and decisions you can't. You can control what your life takes a dependency on, and how tightly coupled you are to particular products and services.
For different types of products and services, you have more or less control and confidence about the future of those products and services. For software that you own and run on your box, that control and confidence is higher. For services on which you are completely dependent on software running on someone else's box for which you have no contract or service level agreement, that confidence and control is lower.
You have control over whether you want to complain and whine when a service you've tightly coupled yourself to makes a change you find objectionable. You don't have control over that change. Understanding which decisions you do and don't have control over is useful.
> Getting tired of this response.
Respectfully, stop putting yourself in a position to keep hearing it? You can't control others' actions, only your own.