toki5

This is why his grievance wasn't with the text but the title.

You know, I know it's 2013 and all, and things like this shouldn't amaze me, but the fact that you can get data from Australia to Brazil in _minutes_ is still kind of astounding to me.

>A big part of professionalism is avoiding certain low-value behaviors because some people you might like to get along with are bothered by said behaviors.

Which is something I personally wouldn't expect at a hacker-culture convention.

>Problems are multiplied when people want to relax standards of professionalism on some axis but maintain it on others

This, I think, is the main issue he's bringing up -- that the PyCon Code of Conduct (apparently) doesn't really match its current atmosphere.

Nobody's questioning it. I'm not sure where that impression came from.

I think your tone here is a little more combative than the article deserves.

>If anything, I hope talking about it reduces these sorts of incidents without anybody feeling like their rights are being reduced as well.

This (along with >I'm not fighting the decision to ban me) read to me like a guy who wants to spark a dialogue on what should be considered appropriate at these events.

Context is a huge issue here. I wouldn't come into any hacker-culture event with an expectation of professionalism and maturity -- maybe I'm not the majority.

What is the majority for PyCon?

Seconding step 2 -- vim environments, to vim-heavy developers, are a little like office spaces to me. Each has its perks; each person likes a different desk calendar; I like my door open and my coworker likes his closed.

It'd be awesome if you extended your site such that I could upload my vim configuration and plugins to share them with others -- and then discover someone who has done me one better!

Because there's a semantic difference between "SimCity" and "SimCity Online."

SimCity's been a single-player offline experience since its inception. It's reasonable to believe in a vacuum that a newly-released "SimCity" game will be the same.

Lots of people are in such a vacuum -- a LOT of people hear "A new SimCity game is coming out / has come out" in their periphery and, having enjoyed its past iterations, rush to buy the new copy. Their surprise in finding that it's an entirely online experience is reasonable here.

Calling it "SimCity Online" could have dampened this effect, causing some -- if not a lot -- of people to stop and think "Wait, what makes it Online? Oh, it's more like an MMO."

What about them? Maybe I'm dense today, but I don't see how what you said relates to what he said.

His mentioning DRM was ancillary to the main point, that you don't buy digital goods in the classical sense, but instead lease the right to use/play them. This applies to every form of software that has paid-for licensing, even those that don't have DRM attached to try and protect it.

> But launch still eludes them. I've purchased every game through Diablo 3, but that put me off the whole thing. Heart of the swarm will be the first Blizzard game i just don't bother with. The launch will be a disaster.

This seems to me a bold claim to make. Diablo III's launch was, in many ways, a huge new service for them, a new infrastructure to test and maintain, and they were quick to fix issues with it. Compare this to the launch of The Burning Crusade expansion pack -- it was a rough launch! -- but over time, they managed to smooth their systems out such that now, even a content launch as huge as Mists of Pandaria went smoothly.

WoW is a different game, but it illustrates their iterative healing process. Since the Wings of Liberty launch went smoothly, I wouldn't expect anything less of Heart of the Swarm, as it's being released on a system that's here, ready, polished, and tested. We might see a few hiccups, but nothing close to Diablo III.

I'd hardly call Battle.net an infrastructure that Blizzard is "just not competent to build or manage."

I don't like this sort of thinking.

It costs us -- the collective -- nothing when someone makes a grid, or a framework, or a library, or anything, that they think might be useful to someone somewhere and uploads it to the internet for all to use.

I agree that this space is a little "crowded," but even that notion is misleading in this might-as-well-be-infinite internet, because it's really just perception. Every time I see another CSS grid showcased, I admit, I think to myself "another one? Really?" But good on them for showing me, I think, just because I've probably forgotten about it two minutes later doesn't mean that everybody has.

This thinking should be reversed -- we should all say, to everyone, "show us what you've got."

Where you see malice and oppression, in this article, I see insensitivity and maybe a little ignorance.

There is a big difference between a dumb question, which I think her friend asked, and a personal attack; that difference is intent. Considering this was one of her "best friends," I really doubt that that was his goal here.

That's not to say she shouldn't have felt hurt -- a dumb question can still sting -- but please don't make this specific molehill into a mountain.

I came into this article thinking that it was someone at Twitter, probably as part of the interview process, that told her this. Maybe it's just me, but I feel like the title is a bit misleading.

I'm not sure he was talking about copyright -- if I scan (or manually reproduce) something in the public domain, I of course own that copy and can do with it as I please.

I just can't go and prevent other people from copying my copy.

I like the idea! One bit of knee-jerk feedback for you -- on Firefox (don't know about others), the "What our clients are saying" is moving really fast. Messages with longer text fly away before I'm done reading them!

If possible, I'd also like to see a simulated demo. "Watch users interact with your site" is very intriguing, but I'd like to see that in action, even before I commit to the first-is-free trial.

Edit: Expanding on that -- I signed up to see what the testing experience is like, and I see you guys have a stock website so you can confirm a tester account as legitimate. Why not take an example video from this process (one of yours, or maybe a tester's, with permission) and provide that as a demo so that people can see exactly what they'll be able to expect out of their site's review?

As an aside, out of curiosity, what's the point in having varied pricing plans if they all cost the same per unit? You have '5 for $50' or '10 for $100' or '15 for $150' -- why not just say "each test is $10" and let us choose the number of tests we want?

+1 to everything fusiongyro said.

Additionally, a personal note -- I'd like to see a shuffle system.

90% of the time I use any of those services, it isn't really to pay attention to a show; it's for background noise. The same way I'd put on one of my favorite movies or leave the television on HBO while tidying up or making dinner, etc -- on any online service, I'd like to say "from this [list|category|favorites], play random selections of shows and/or movies until I tell you to stop."

/results?utf8=✓

This made me laugh aloud.

I don't know why it didn't even occur to me that the editor could be a third-party library. Duh :)

Thanks for clarifying, and great work!

I'm a touch confused -- http://www.jsoneditoronline.org/

Is this your site as well?

It's still a warrant, though, reviewed by eleven (?) judges, who are appointed for non-repeating terms.

I definitely agree with Wyden's proposal -- that there be more transparency in this process, even if it's heavily redacted. Even he and his colleagues recognized and respected the need for keeping at least some amount of secrecy with cases like these, where they can't be brought to a regular (read: public) court. I found his suggestions to be sane and level-headed, and I think that if it hadn't been left to the last minute they'd have had a much better chance.

What I do not find sane is articles like this that declare that there aren't warrants involved, that there isn't probable cause. I think that that's misleading and sensationalist.

I'm confused by the title of this article. Do FISA warrants not count as warrants?

This does seem dismissive to me.

The entire point of this exercise is to address zaidf's use case, which is trying to attach importance to messages that are outside the realm of Facebook's "important" data points. If they aren't your friend, and they aren't a friend of your friends', but they still have an important message -- how can we identify this?

The obvious hope here is that they can identify important messages by attaching a small (but real) cost to them, while limiting abuse by way of rates and maybe tweaking the cost.

You may not want these messages, but the fact remains that there are important messages that go missed because they can't smartly be deemed "important" in the Facebook ecosystem. Maybe there are sinister intentions beneath the surface, but this is still a legitimate attempt to solve a legitimate problem.

I realize there's value added to that it's specifically targeted spamming, but, yes, $1 per message is several orders of magnitude more expensive than normal spamming.

The article says that at the moment (realizing that this is still very early), users are limited to one message a week. I imagine that this will rise, but if they keep a relatively low limit on the amount you can send, I should think that spamming would be infeasible.

It's also (again, currently) "not available to Brands."