CoreDumpling

Because it's actually a decent language when you take away the DOM cruft?

It's actually remarkably similar to Scheme [1] with very flexible arrays and real first-class functions.

[1] http://www.crockford.com/javascript/little.html

I wonder if they are complying with GPL. The "secret cyber-weapon" can't be so secret if they are also supplying source code, right?

Then again, I'd imagine it would be tough to put legal pressure on the DPRK when the combined diplomatic efforts of the West can't get them to budge....

I wonder how this will affect Flash apps that I deliberately keep in the background. It sounds like Pandora, Grooveshark and their ilk can probably survive intact, though it might be harder to load a Youtube video and listen to its soundtrack only.

I would say that the postscript of that license is the one thing that I consider missing from the original WTFPL. If I'm giving away my software for free without restrictions, I sure as hell don't want to get sued over it.

I'm curious: what do you mean by "casual research"? Do you see Duck Duck Go as the free alternative for individuals who don't have a spare $10k lying around for a subscription to LexisNexis, ProQuest, etc.?

Practically speaking, JavaScript is already a requirement to get Flash embedding to work correctly across all browsers without the headache -- hence tools like SWFObject, flashembed.js, etc.

A stackoverflow for medicine could have enormous benefits, but considering how much "blind leading the blind" goes on there I'd be terrified if this is applied to a field with immediate consequences to people's well-being.

Aside from the ones that took something that was correct and turned it into something blatantly wrong, you do raise an interesting point. However, I'd maintain that if you end up with linguistic inconsistencies and it's affecting your bottom line, then that's "worse" in my book.

I've learned that it must be made clear to the translator exactly what the target audience expects (I've had to tell British translators to use U.S. spellings, mainland Chinese to use terminology that's specific to Taiwan, etc.). The most experienced ones know of these distinctions and make sure to observe them. The ones who don't (or can't) are better reserved for the jobs that are matched with their background.

> Most online places charge about $10 per trade.

I think the OP is talking about index funds, not stocks. If you invest in the fund that your broker manages, there usually isn't such a "purchase fee" for index funds, only some of the more risky funds that want you to demonstrate that you're willing to eat some losses in hopes of a bigger payout later. The bigger fees tend to be associated with more active management, which generally doesn't apply to funds that simply track an index.

I've never been charged this transaction fee on Fidelity Spartan 500 (or whatever it is called now), for example. Vanguard also has a pretty good reputation for their low- or no-fee funds.

I've even had trouble when I asked someone else to review the translation work. Sometimes these people have a tendency to want to justify the cost of hiring them, so they will go through the document correcting irrelevant "mistakes" and otherwise try to prove themselves smarter than the original translator. In fact, I've had a few who made the translated work demonstrably worse.

Could this be intentional? There might be a legitimate reason to select/copy/paste the text here.

RE: Firefox text selection -- there is a browser-specific CSS rule that controls for that: -moz-user-select

https://developer.mozilla.org/en/CSS/-moz-user-select

Of course, this has no effect in other browsers, like Opera which I'm using right now.

In the past, I've been able to circumvent this problem by overlaying any text with a 1x1 transparent gif which captures the click before it can hit the text. Not sure what web devs use to deal with this problem these days.

As someone who has worked with many incompetent translators and often had to completely redo their jobs, I'm a bit surprised that you're willing to risk getting total crap from these random people. Perhaps this isn't a problem for you if you are getting very low-value articles translated, but I don't see how this scales to "real" translation jobs.

A good translator will proofread his/her work and make sure everything is covered. They will ask you when they need clarification instead of skipping over a passage or assuming they understand it (their assumptions very often being way off base). Unfortunately, I've worked with plenty who are simply out to make a quick buck, hoping that whoever is paying them doesn't actually know the language and won't bother to check.

It might be an "oops" from a single programmer, but I thought a high-profile site like this would at least go through some basic code review. The bug isn't that subtle, either.

From what I've seen in the US, a lot of Chinese medicine is actually FDA-approved as "beverages" -- supposedly they are safe to drink, but it's up to the user to believe whether or not there's any medicinal effect.

Placebo or not, I can say that 板蓝根 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isatis_tinctoria) has pretty consistently made me feel better when I had the flu or sore throat.

Related:

"... Thus there is a 1.8% chance that none of the molecules you are (still) holding in your lungs came from Caesar's last breath. And there is a 98.2% chance that at least one of the molecules in your lungs came from Caesar's last breath."

--John Allen Paulos, Innumeracy (1988) [1]

[1] http://econ161.berkeley.edu/movable_type/archives/001392.htm...

On the one hand, I have to salute them for diversifying their offerings and broadening the reach of the Flash platform. Like it or not, there is still a lot of Flash content that's actually worth having on mobile devices.

On the other hand, I can't help but think that Adobe is sacrificing depth for breadth, and spreading their resources thin across all the areas where they are trying to compete. Considering how poorly Flash runs on Linux and OSX, I'm nervous about this devolving into yet another "write once, debug everywhere" nightmare.

As someone who supplies $400 hammers to the government I assure you that $395 of that is the cost of all those man-hours needed to produce all the docs and ppts needed to explain why they need that hammer, what kind of nails it can pound, why we built it the way we did, and how it is intended to be used. It's not nearly as much of a ripoff as most people with an agenda would like to think.

Your tax dollars hard at work, I suppose.

Personally I find it amusing that after all these years, storage has surpassed CPUs in terms of the ratio of price / volume occupied. I wonder how this will trend in the future.

But if it's procrastination because I'm trying to avoid it (because I'm not good at it), isn't that the perfect opportunity to bring in the "marketing guy/gal" cofounder to do that work for me? Ideally, you would then only have to actively "sell" it to one person who can pass it on to the rest.

What's being called procrastination here, I'd prefer to call specialization. But I'm probably being naive about this.

Some of us don't quite have the luxury of fixing our tools (MSVC++ I'm looking at you). Considering the sheer complexity of languages like C++, it's unsurprising that there will be problems here.

I've been a blamer of tools as well, but I've convinced myself that it's ultimately wasted effort to do so. Better to simply come to terms with the fact that there do exist bad tools, that they ought to be avoided when reasonable, and that they should be used with care when necessary.