Pheter

I havent tried the app so I'm not entirely familiar with how it works, but surely right clicking on the folder and coping will copy a link to that folder. If however, you right click on one of the files within that folder and select 'copy url' then it will copy the url that points directly to that file.

It sounds like it should be fairly simple to design.

I don't use JS, but in PHP you can add a comma after the last item, which I usually do, and therefore I don't have the problems that you encountered. Of course, I believe that people should do what works best for them, and if you find comma first easier to work with, then great!

Edit: And in response to your first comment about your IDE not supporting this: Is it not trivial to identify a syntax error in JS when you attempt to run it? Surely the intepreter (browser?) will notify you of the line that the syntax error occured on?

"Note how the errors pop out in the comma-first style."

So what? Any decent IDE will highlight this error for you anyway.

Automatically copying the URL to the clipboard could irritate some users. They may be using the clipboard for something else. A couple of alternatives:

* Right click on an item in the list and have an option to 'Copy URL'?

* Hover over an item in the list and a 'Copy URL' button appears? (Similar to how more information is provided when you hover over a youtube comment.)

I specifically prefaced my comment by saying "regardless of the whole Apple/Flash issue".

However, i'll bite. Why would I be gullible for believing that HTML 5 (and by extention, the APIs such as canvas and offline storage) is newer than Flash? Acording to Wikipedia, the first working draft of HTML 5 was published in 2008. Flash has been around for a lot longer than this.

Exactly, and if support for flash dwindles, then developers will move to other platforms that "most people can experience well".

Regardless of the whole Apple/Flash issue:

Refusing to support older technologies helps encourage people to start using the newer technologies. If everyone dropped support for flash (obviously this wouldn't actually happen) then developers would be forced to use alternatives. If flash continues to be supported then developers have less of an incentive to replace their current solutions.

I find it much more comfortable to use Google now that the results are nearer the middle of the page. I feel my eyes moving slightly to the left, but I recon that this is just an artifact of using the old Google for many years. Only time will tell, but I recon that this will quickly become a non-issue as I get used to the new design.

I still find the new design to be dissapointing, but i'm glad that the results are now pushed closer to the middle of the page; it's where the content is on most websites.

Sure, paying for an internet connection means that they are willing to pay for access to media, but that could be because there is no alternative. If there was a way to 'pirate' an internet connection then what's to say they wouldn't do that too?

And taxing internet subscription revenue is a terrible idea. Many people who pay for an internet connection do not pirate media, and in fact don't rarely purchase media whether physical or digital. Taxing these people for something that they don't want is unfair.

Piracy is something that will always be around but the way to tackle it, imho, is to make obtaining it legally a more attractive option. Steam is a step in the right direction; if you pay for a game then you get a number of benefits that you otherwise wouldn't have if you pirated it.

Not from a legal perspective.

How about this: Don't use Facebook if it scares the shit out of you.

That wouldn't work very well because it may add scrolling to your page when it isn't necessary.

I'm proud of the joke I got my brother to fall for. I redirected all traffic from his computer to this page: http://i.imgur.com/IUSuQ.png

"So, keep calling for online APIs. But ask for downloadable datasets too."

It is not a case of one or the other. APIs are useful, but so are datasets. Why not provide both?

That hadn't occured to me. On a large scale operation like producing Coke wouldn't these costs be quickly diluted by the large volume of containers that they are producing? Or do Coca-Cola contract many smaller companies that would have to change equipment individualy?

I'm not entirely certain what manufacturing process is used to make Coke bottles but if they use blow moulding, which is very common, then it is simply a case of making a different shaped mould. I don't see why that would require any more effort, and it seems unlikely that it would require any more power/"carbon".