oddevan

Fair, but I think most of the things being suggested here are open source, so the truly curious can use them as a starting point.

Alternatively: it's good to see what's out there so that when you do (inevitably) write your own, you know /what you want/.

It does. I run it on my local machine and use Hipstadeploy to render it to static HTML and send it to Amazon S3.

(I'm the kind of weird person that actually likes using a database and fancy backend to write/organize my posts, so I didn't want to use Jekyll.)

Should be noted that in most cases your employer would cover most of that premium. My insurance went from $10/month (with my employer covering $580) to $590/month on COBRA when I was laid off.

I definitely recommend deploying static pages (either GitHub pages as people have mentioned or a static website through Amazon S3/CloudFront). Personally, I use Ghost and Hipstadeploy:

http://ghost.org/ https://github.com/proudlygeek/hipstadeploy

And demo: http://www.oddevan.com/

I would also say "necessary" controversial title, but because as a relative newbie to GitHub I might have made this mistake without thinking about it. Now I know, whereas before I didn't; and if the title wasn't engaging/controversial enough for me to click on it, I wouldn't.

Which also emphasizes the point that Apple wouldn't ship this sort of code on iOS if it wasn't properly secured.

Agreed. The article doesn't have to mesh with our own personal experiences in order for us to learn from it.

And to the last 5% that use the "Log in with Twitter" buttons in order to avoid creating another (probably weak) password, 2-factor is invaluable since it protects not just our twitter network but any accounts that it has been linked to.

I realize this is a tl;dr summary, but none of these points are very strong, particularly the last one:

> 4. reclassification .. will create a huge cloud of uncertainty over the entire broadband industry, thereby retarding investment and innovation.

There is a huge cloud of uncertainty over the entire internet NOW because the one government body tasked with keeping the internet free lacks the power to do so. THAT is the reasoning behind Title II: giving the FCC the power to actually do something.

I'm not sure myself, but I'd wager it's when the brainstorming and iterations are getting less significant. When you're changing less and less through each iteration, then you know it's getting close to being done.

That being said, at some point someone (preferably someone wise and smart) makes the decision to ship. And they do need to make that decision.

I also wonder if there were other issues on-board that required their attention or otherwise diverted on-board brainpower.

Not to mention they had a limited amount of equipment on-board, so they basically had ONE CHANCE to get it right; no room for trial-and-error. There was a surplus of equipment on the ground, so they had more of a chance to make mistakes and get it right before directing the crew on-board.

So yes, they would have been able to figure it out if needed, but I think there are other reasons besides NASA's (infamous) bureaucracy.

I think the point of the job postings was to point out how those postings can be seen as biased even when they weren't intended to be.

A child doesn't get picked for an entire class and loses out to a student that doesn't have his hand raised. Sounds like bias to me.

Added costs, though those costs are MUCH lower than the amount per subscriber the broadcast channels currently receive (due to additional licenses to carry other channels/on-demand content), so even with the compulsory licenses Aereo can still undercut cable on cost/service.

Excellent. Somehow I've managed to call a side project server here "Toothless".

OK, I suppose a list of common, easy-to-pronounce words is ok...

I use Pokemon. What do you use?

I'll second that with some hope: if this is a standard system library like it is on iOS, then they should be able to at least have an "edit in Pixelmator" extension for the system photo library.

I would imagine it has to do with the level of respect afforded. If I suspect that someone is just cold-emailing everyone who fits [x] query, then I'm going to treat that email with as much time as they gave it (in other words, enough time to file and ignore it). On the other hand, if it's obvious that someone spent even 5 minutes looking at my GitHub or my blog, then I can certainly give them at least 5 minutes in return (a quick "not interested" or "can you tell me some more").

> At the same time google should be extra careful that it does now allow good websites to be penalized by activities from even shadier SEO types that turn around and use these facilities against their competitors (rather than to avoid being penalized by it themselves).

That seems to be what people are most upset about.

The problem is when the unsolicited attention becomes a distraction. When you have engineers that can have their work process interrupted by something as trivial as workplace banter, an overzealous recruiter that calls incessantly, spams your email with job listings (for "anyone you might know looking for a new opportunity"), and in general doesn't know when to stop is something most developers would rather do without.

I've worked with a few good recruiters, but even over a 5-month job search and talking to every major recruiting firm in town, I got zero actual job offers (and only one real promising lead that fizzled out on the company's side). There's a LOT of inefficiency in the system.

That is certainly the most plausible reading of that phrase, but it still seems like it could be put into a licence pretty easily, along the lines of "User of these patents hereby relinquishes all claims of infringement against Tesla Motors for any patents the user may own or license".

I feel like (again, until clarified) it's more broad than that. "Wants to use our technology" certainly implies to me that I can seek out Tesla's patent applications and attempt to build using them.

Agreed. I was hoping for a link to a BSD- or Creative Commons-style license, but this was only a reason for not [suing anyone] using the patents (as welcome as that is).

[edited for clarification]

Is there a better way to test a tech than to make a product with it?

Probably has to do with the way we interact with RAM (memory addresses?) vs persistent memory (file system). Can those two be merged, or is the whole system like a giant RAM disk?

I'll go ahead and say it won't happen that way. Whether they can or not, they will say something to the effect of "It happened on your network; you're responsible unless you can prove it wasn't you."

I wouldn't necessarily say "never." The author says Apple has no interest in open source projects, but there is precedent with WebKit and the LLVM project. So while no one should hold their breath waiting for Apple to open source Swift's standard library and LLVM components, I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen (and wait for the inevitable Rails-like framework to sprout up. "Bullet Train" anyone?).

I can imagine it too, and I'm sure Netflix can as well. But nearly everyone making high quality/premium video TODAY requires DRM.

Edit: To clarify, if someone wants to make a service like Netflix and have it actually ship today (or any time in the near future), then yes, DRM is "needed."

Thanks for the data. I'll back it up with a personal anecdote: I was at least a grade if not 2-3 grades ahead of my class by the time I got to kindergarten. My parents (and the full-time babysitter) read to me. I had "Goodnight Moon" freaking MEMORIZED from how many times it was read to me; the actual reading came soon after.

I believe it is to make new ones and/or extend the current iPad app to the web to reach more people.