A trans woman who is very good at quantum. Check out my newsletter at https://buttondown.email/xgranade and consulting services at https://dual-space.solutions/.
Not to mention that if they did pay for the license, I'm not sure that it would propagate down to forking projects. If you can't fork Firefox, that significantly impedes the utility of its open-source development model.
You can hide the + portion of a Gmail address behind redirects and forwards, if you feel so inclined. It's a lot of work, but it does let you use the "deliveredto" operator in Gmail to automatically sort and discard spam like that.
I'm wondering if it's at all possible to integrate this with OpenID, and how this interacts with previous Mozilla Identity projects to make your identity a part of the browser chrome. It all seems rather tangential to their other efforts, rather than coherent with.
Should add a few, too, like "hope wireless connection works well or that developer properly prepared manifest," or "hope the developer didn't just assume 'web app' meant 'test in Safari Mobile only,'" etc.
On laptops and desktops, sure, where there's enough of a computational surplus that the overhead isn't that big a deal. I'm not aware of a web-delivered version of Angry Birds that can work well on phones, though.
This article seems to basically be a giant troll... if you can't see what problems Google+ claims to solve for a consumer, you aren't looking very hard. As far as I can see, there's two giant issues that G+ addresses and one that's arguably more important, but also more invisible.
1) It's not Facebook. Don't discount how much some people loathe FB as a company, and (in my opinion) rightfully so! They've made a business out of tricking users into accidentally over-sharing, they've engaged in some pretty stunning acts of censorship, and keep changing the UI in drastic steps that shock their existing userbase. (I have some sympathy with this last one, but it is a widespread complaint, nonetheless.)
2) In G+, privacy controls are manifest and obvious. There's little functionality in this realm that FB doesn't also offer, but it's not actively hidden from users on G+, but rather promoted to a primary feature of the UI.
The other thing that I think G+ does right is to get away from the "one-size-fits-all" model, under which every contact is a "friend". When you hear people saying "they're my Facebook friend, but not a real friend," it's clear that FB has flubbed it. G+, like Twitter and other such social media networks, allows for asymmetric contacts, which really lets the user control how they want to use the site.
I've been waiting for this for a long time. I think that the tactile feedback is the main thing holding back touchscreen keyboards from competing with hardware keyboards, for instance. Having this in a tablet would, I expect, make it much easier to type blind if I wanted, or to find buttons when I'm distracted with something else.
There is a kind of uncanny valley to UIs that imitate native UIs. For instance, I remember back when IE6 faked UI controls, they didn't act quite like the native Luna controls, and that upset some users.
Maybe, however, Google is trying to change that. E-mail is a perfectly fine choice for the protocol for such messages, but the UI has to change. Look at what they've done in the other direction, brining Talk and Buzz logs into Gmail inboxes, for instance. Why not reverse that and export certain kinds of mails received in a Gmail account out to the Google+ UI?
In the US, yes, they were: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Copyright_Cla...
It amuses me that the author talked about the Share menu as if it's a special case behavior developed in. Rather, the Share menu is a direct consequence of what may well be Android's biggest strength aside from openness: the Activities and Intents model for UI development. When an application wants to share something, it flags a Share Intent, which any other application is free to respond to. You can see the same behavior with other kinds of Intents, such as the Intent associated with clicking links in a web browser. The YouTube app, for instance, consumes browse Intents whose URLs match YouTube URLs, so that the UI gracefully hands off the Activity from the web browser to the YouTube app. The use of Intents means that applications can integrate with each other, even if they are not aware of each other's existences. There's a lot of power and extensibility to that model, to be sure!
If it's easier for a developer to make interesting things, that can translate into a better user experience as it means more interesting things will get done. That (mobile) webapps sacrifice a bit of usabilty for ease of development and portability doesn't mean that users don't derive real value from their existence.
There's a big difference between saying that something is presently insecure and that it is by nature not securable. I understand and agree that WebGL is not presently secure at all, but Microsoft is making a set of claims far beyond this: that not only is WebGL insecure, it can never be made secure, and moreover, that Silverlight is somehow immune to the problems facing WebGL. That additional set of claims is why I say that MS is being disingenuous, if not outright lying. More than a good-intentioned warning about insecure software (which would be exceedingly ironic, given the source), MS's statement comes off as opportunism.
It would be crazy to ignore MS on this point, yes. It would also be crazy, though, to take them at face value. While there are avenues for attacks via WebGL, I think it's clear that MS is being at least somewhat disingenous about the implications one can draw from the existence of such attacks. I am not enough of an expert to tell lies and facts apart in MS's statements, and so I cannot derive any real value from what they say. I am hence forced to derive my opinions on the matter from other, more trustworthy sources, such as the Mozilla blog that you linked to.
I'm sure it sounds silly, but I never realized that there were so many other HN readers from Waterloo, so I can definitely relate to your disbelief. I was quite surprised to see "Waterloo, Ontario" pop up in Google Reader.
There's a lot more to this town than just RIM. I work, for instance, at the Institute for Quantum Computing, which is just one of the things that UWaterloo is pushing forward with. I'll grant you there's probably going to be some real-estate price crashes, but I don't know if it'll be as bad as all that.
While I want to share that optimism, I worry precisely because of Apple's many flirtations with censorship and their having built an amazing architecture for such on their iOS platform. This patent, whilst it wouldn't make any marketing sense or design sense, seems philosophically quite compatible with modern Apple.
As thin as this article is, it's something that wouldn't surprise me a bit to find out is true. MS practically bought out Nokia with the Elopoclypse, after all.
I'm not so sure I agree. Python in general is very consistent about pass-by-value versus pass-by-reference semantics, whereas MATLAB infers things in ways that are far from transparent. Look at, for instance, the way the `parfor` loop construct differentiates between "broadcast," "sliced" and other such variables, and how fragile that inference is. Maybe I haven't thought clearly enough about this particular issue, but I don't think of MATLAB as being transparent.
I'd love to see similar lists for other languages. I've been coding in MATLAB as of late, for instance, and rediscovered my hatred for the fact that you can't index the output of a function without assigning to a temporary variable. For instance, `foo(args)(:)` causes an error. You have to use `X = foo(args); X(:)` instead. That makes me just as sad as some of these PHP sadnesses.
Interesting, if brief, article. I'd like to know what's meant by "key signing parties themselves generally don't involve computers, since that would give adversaries increased opportunities for subterfuge," though. Maybe I'm not cryptographically paranoid enough, but what's the harm in allowing computers on-site?
I think at least part of the point is that the Law of Leaky Abstractions means you always need to think at least somewhat about the infrastructure, just not as much as they do.
Why? Adams is showing himself to be sexist, and a good argument can be made that he's being a jackass, too. This whole game of ad-hominem gotchas is really getting old.
The quote is still quite valid when applied to the culture of the Internet, however. People create tools ranging the gamut from Tor to MafiaaFire to circumvent and prevent censorship from occurring, even with systems that are anything like robust.