6,372 karma · joined September 27, 2009
<terms> site:itunes.apple.com
and then using that to drive their app search results.
[1] To be precise we should also take out Apple's incremental (not fixed) costs for delivering apps, but I suspect those are negligible on a per-app basis.
[1] Ironically, I think the pervasive sideloading third-party app stores on Android require is a bug, not a feature. I'd much rather see an official way to add "known sources" so that, after the initial install, you didn't need to leave sideloading enabled in order to use them.
and one developer has already gotten some basic notification functionality working: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DIIYmVSc9Yw
Second, you cut out the rest of the comment:
"If that causes great hardship for anyone and you want to do the work to figure out what's going on submit patches to fix it, I can provide pointers for where to start looking and code reviews for the patch."
Since that comment has anyone done anything other than updating their kernel and/or complaining? If not, why would the Chromium team think this issue was important?
He lost his job and got a new one "right away" (according to the article). She also lost her job, was bombarded with all kinds of threats (death, rape, etc.), had to go into hiding and still doesn't have a new job (at least as of her interview for the piece).
I'm sure she could improve her image if she were better at faking some empathy, but I understand why she wouldn't feel much.
I understand why Apple uses mockery (better publicity, more memorable, firing up fans, etc.) but, at a minimum, Apple (and their defenders) should expect well-earned mockery in return, especially given their pattern of flips.
1. How vehement their condemnation is (especially since, in retrospect, they're already busy working on exactly what they're condeming),
2. How quickly and comprehensively they flip the story when their version is ready and
3. How predictable this pattern is for them. Given past experience, I almost expect Apple to be working on actual toaster-fridges in a skunkworks project somewhere (in addition to the metaphorical ones I'm positive they're working on).
You may not like circular smartwatches (I certainly don't), but that just means this watch is not for you. Plenty of people want them (see the pre-release excitement over the Moto 360, for example). This watch is for them.
While reading some of them I wanted to shake the authors and scream: "A website can't stop a user from saving a password! All you're doing is making them save it on a Post-It instead of in their password manager!"
As others have said, the single-basket concern is perfectly valid. The reason you're getting pushback because you have a single-minded focus on that one concern and vehemently deny the possibility that there might be tradeoffs. That comes across as an irrational attachment to a single issue, even if what you're really trying to say is that your assessment that enough other baskets have hit a good-enough baseline that diversification is a good strategy. The latter is something you could have a productive conversation about. As for the former, you can insist that multiple baskets are the only thing that matter until you're blue in the face, but I doubt you will convince anyone.
If I click on http://foobarbaz.com anyone who can successfully mess with that HTTP connection (a much wider universe of attackers that I have less visibility into, especially if I frequently use different networks [home, work, mobile, etc.]) could have been responsible.
I took a look at a Fullscreen API attack ( http://feross.org/html5-fullscreen-api-attack/ ) and found it pretty creepy even though I knew exactly what to expect and what to look for. Tighter controls over that sort of thing seem like a great idea to me.
If YouTube isn't making money, then of course they're going try to alter their deals, no matter how many indie musicians it pisses off.
As a web developer, Google would have to use Touch Events because that's all that Apple supports. Chrome already supports Touch Events. That covers the overwhelming majority of their touch-enabled users, with code they already have. Rewriting that to use a newer modern standard everywhere is one thing, but writing a second implementation with no path to sunsetting the first is much harder to justify.
Coming full circle, if Google's web developers aren't going to use Pointer Events for the forseeable future, it is hard to justify Google the browser developer putting them high on their priority list.
It feels like I can almost hear the screams of the engineers explaining why a black-box removal tool is nowhere near enough.
Full disclosure: I'm pretty sure my wife is owed a reimbursement over this.
Unlike the "right to be forgotten", a lot of effort has been put into harmonizing copyright law worldwide. While the mechanics of the takedown process may vary from country to country, if the content at the end of a link is infringing in country A, it is probably infringing in country B (with some limited exceptions like historical differences in went into the public domain). Given that, there's a serious rationale for applying copyright takedowns worldwide that isn't Google uncritically applying US law worldwide.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday [2] http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecac...
Instead, German wanted to lend to Greek banks / Greece because they got slightly more interest in return for debt that they believed (or, more accurately, hoped) had essentially the same implicit guarantees as the German equivalent. Given how the crisis has played out, that gamble paid off. It probably shouldn't have, but then there would have been downstream issues (German banks collapsing, etc.).
I understand how that happens, but, given the subject of the lawsuit, it's still very ironic.