every feature ... leaves another possible angle of attack for hackers
Hm, I think the point is that some features are worse than others (larger attack surface, more bugs exposed), and WebGL is particularly bad.
143 karma · joined February 21, 2011
Hm, I think the point is that some features are worse than others (larger attack surface, more bugs exposed), and WebGL is particularly bad.
I'd pick a Monday.
1) the household contribution to algae creation is negligible - That would be the good result of this policy limiting the use of harmfull chemical, and not a reason to remove it.
2) the scientific evidence on the issue of algae's effect on fish runs in all directions Piles of dead fish are not a subtle effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology)
and the whole thing is filled with this bizarre idea that the sole purpose of governement regulation is to hurt people. I'm sure that there are lots of good, bad and trival drivers of policy, but pure sadism is unlikely to be among them. If anyone wants to understand what's actually going on (ecologically or politically) this article has absolutely nothing to offer.
The first para at wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trisodium_phosphate ) is more informative, which is a damning lack of reasearch.
The point is, if your business starts off as "we sell books" (and expands to "we sell books and stuff") and you get a lot of users that way, you can mix in some social recommendations on the existing user base and thereby sell more books and stuff.
If your business is "we do social recommendations" you're screwed.
Go looked to me like a c-language guy's take on very simple OO with a few functional and parallel features. On the whole the API looked terse to the point of being cryptic, which is a throwback to the 1980s.
Can you sell it to me? What's the best part? Is it something that's not in any other language, or some way that the parts combine?
Many other languages have loose, duck typing and a few others (notably erlang) have the lightweight parallelism.
Past a certain point, that stops mattering. Does iPhone have 1 million apps available, or is it 10 million ? I don't know and I don't care. what I do know is (assuming that I had an iPhone not android)
- 90% of them are crap. Sturgeon's law.
- I would install fewer than 100 of them.
- There's probably an app for it. For any it. e.g. Today I found and installed an app for my local airport, so I can keep track of an upcoming flight.
- There are several good twitter clients, but I'll only install one.
- Between maps, twitter, facebook, calendar, email and angry birds, there's 95% of my app usage accounted for.
And you could say roughly the same for WP7, even if there's only 10 000 apps avaialble.
Func<int, int, int> sum = (x, y) => x + y;
Of course, once the type is known, you could do
var sum2 = sum;I hope he's exagerating the examples for effect. It can't really be that idiotic, right?
You don't? How parochial. I recommend tht you study a good functional language for a while. It helped me understand coding on a "far deeper level".
But it couldn't handle "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" Maybe I'm not pronouncing it quite right.
Is Menu|settings|About phone not enough for you?
Edit: See also -
of course you aren't. We know this because you say you aren't. What you are is making a nuanced distinction between what you mean when you say "stores hashed passwords" and what is commonly meant by that.
The simple rule is that the larger the scope of the variable the longer the name - i.e. the more widely references to the var occur, the further they are from the definition, the more descriptive the name has to be.
var foo = new Dictionary<string, int>();
You are splitting hairs. It outlaws passwords where only the (salted) hash and not the plaintext is stored, which is the whole point of what's commonly known as "hashed passwords".
store the hashed value with your live database ... and store the plain text version in ... a separate system
Call that seperate system "the moneypot". I'm tempted to suggest that people just try that and see how that works out for them, given the inevitablity of failures of security and vigilance. But for the sake of the rest of us, let's not.
We're used to electronics getting cheaper as we find ways to make smaller and faster chips. We get change driven by Moore's law.
Getting to orbit is governed by simple lifting against gravity, and that hasn't changed at all. ( It's still 9.8 m/s^2 ) A Falcon rocket looks a lot like a Saturn rocket, so desipite a lot of ideas, a radically different and better design hasn't been commericialised yet.
Oh, come on. You're just spliting hairs. I'm not jealous of it, but in no way is it earned.
Which suggests that even sites with a medium-to-large internet presence, which dominatre thier niche, can do so with "uninteresting" architecture.