True investigative journalism is a remarkably expensive process with little chance of recouping overall costs. Even after the initial draft, an extraordinary amount of fact checking and editorial requirements/standards are applied to the piece. Some of it's for reputation reasons and a lot of it is for legal reasons: slander suits aren't cheap.
I hope papers start providing full 'Credits' to what goes into a piece so as to better inform the reader how many people in the chain it takes to arrive at the final copy.
Apparently uninstalling apps is only easily available currently for Windows and Mac. You have to go through a somewhat manual kludge currently for Linux varieties.
-You find value in strong static assurances.
-You find value in generics.
-You want to learn functional programming, not 'functional' programming (and you should).
-You value succinctness.
Pick Go if:
-Compile times matter (of course it does).
-You find value in easier deployments (at the cost of potentially more deployments).
-You don't want to learn D ;)
Ha...love the last line. If I were in the market for something that solves the problems that Go attempts to solve, I would learn D. I just wish DMD was fully open source...it is awesome when you go to try a new language and all you have to do is "sudo apt-get ...".
I believe that very small sounding issue has played a huge role in D being as uncommonly used as it is. It seems like a trivial thing, but the ability to just pkg_add languageX is incredibly important for adoption.
I don't think this is a small issue at all. I love reading through an interesting tutorial, and being able to apt-get install the language or libraries I need to work along with it. But if you make me jump through a bunch of hoops just to work through a tutorial, forgetaboutit!
I really don't get a sense of what NiDIUM actually _does_. Is it a framework? A platform? A library? Where does it run? How am I supposed to deploy it? What use case does it solve that doesn't already have existing solutions?
Infocus tip: You can easily scroll through the images with the keys 'j' and 'k'. And seriously consider checking out the other infocus galleries; Alan Taylor curates well.
I really wish all news sources provided high resolution photographs with their articles. This is 2013, I should not have to squint at a 250px wide photo.
For me, knowing they are unsanctioned keeps the memories of reading calvin and hobbes completely pure: this isn't them as they were intended to be, but bastardized facsimiles for the purpose commercial gain. It's somewhat poignant; there were many a C&H comic concerning the evils of advertising and marketing - to see subject to it as well completes the message quit succinctly.
I'm with you: I like good old dead tree books for so many reasons such as writing in the margins. They should follow Manning books philosophy and also discount physical books as well, a feature which has resulted in my acquiring 10+ books by them.
I'm a bit more worried about the security aspect of it.
Let's say that we are running a server on a port which uses this option to allow multiple processes to bind to it. What's to prevent a rogue process, perhaps with malicious intent, from starting up and siphoning off requests willy nilly? Sounds like a great way to implement a hard to detect MITM attack.
What would be nicer, I think, is if socket reusing was bound not only to the same uid but also to the process listening to it.
Since I spend so much time in deeply nested source trees (shakes fits at Maven) with multiple different languages at play, I was finding it tedious to jump around to different files, or discover where a method/class was defined. I wrote this tool to let me jump around easily using the index file generated by ctags.
I've found it to be a real productivity booster and figured it to be worth sharing considering previous discussions of hacking directory traversal.
I genuinely don't get this line of thinking. This isn't about Google or Microsoft, rather it's about the end user who is essentially a customer of both parties. IMHO, Google aren't just screwing MSFT, they are screwing users, which doesn't really hold with the image that they like to portray. It's actually rather spiteful.
How is it spiteful to the 7 people who own Windows phones?
This is Google saying "because of their behaviors, we don't want to allow them to consume our services." Microsoft is trying to weasel this into good PR for themselves, but the fact is this: Google has no obligation to people that are not making them money. It is not their responsibility to keep people buying Microsoft phones.
> "How is it spiteful to the 7 people who own Windows phones?"
That is a snide comment that reveals much.
> 'This is Google saying "because of their behaviors, we don't want to allow them to consume our services."'
That right there. That is spiteful. It's not Microsoft that they are restricting, it's Google users; the very people that use YouTube. It's certainly not the behaviour of the company that Google projects itself to be. I totally agree that Google owe Microsoft nothing, but this has the potential to do much harm to their image. A good check is to switch the protagonists around and ask yourself how you would react then. I'm not suggesting for one minute that were Microsoft to do the same it would be OK (or that indeed it is or was OK). I'm suggesting that there appears to be a double standard being applied to Microsoft from more that a few parties. Google cannot have their cake and eat it, as the saying goes...
Edit: Cleaned up my shameful grammar and spelling...
How so? It's not that popular a device.[0] If you work at Microsoft or have a significant interest in them not failing, you might want to divulge your bias here.
>That right there. That is spiteful. It's not Microsoft that they are restricting, it's Google users; the very people that use YouTube.
You're treating YouTube as if it's water. It's a business.
>A good check is to switch the protagonists around and ask yourself how you would react then.
If Microsoft cut off access to Bing from Android Phones (and if, for this example, if Bing was as ubiquitous and useful as Google Search) due to Google flagrantly violating ToS, I'd understand and be mad at Google for selling me a device and then fucking me over by locking me away from a good service through their posturing.
Microsoft is becoming less relevant, but they're still trying to act like the big bully of yesteryear.
If you can't see it, there is no point explaining. There are significantly more than 7 users.
> You're treating YouTube as if it's water. It's a business.
You are semantically correct. 2 issues though. If it's business, surely developing a version for the device is worth the ad revenue. Also doesn't this directly contradict the benevolent and altruistic business image that Google like to project. Microsoft are trying to provide access to a popular service. Google are blocking it on frankly extremely spurious grounds and refusing to develop an app of their own (that I don't take issue with). For the final time; it's about users.
>If you can't see it, there is no point explaining. There are significantly more than 7 users.
I can see it. But you're acting as if Google just blackholed orphans from getting food.
>Microsoft are trying to provide access to a popular service. Google are blocking it on frankly extremely spurious grounds and refusing to develop an app of their own (that I don't take issue with). For the final time; it's about users.
Microsoft is trying to access a popular service while breaking the terms of service. What guarantee does Google have that Microsoft won't try to pull more shit in the future, requiring Google to take action in response (at a cost to themselves)? Everything is opportunity cost; why should Google spend any more time on Microsoft's phone's relatively small user base?
Edit: Also, Microsoft phone users could just open a webbrowser.
And if it'd been Microsoft (or for that matter Apple) doing the blocking there would've been an enormous outpouring of indignation and scorn from the Open Source crowd. Suggesting otherwise is disingenuous.
> "But you're acting as if Google just blackholed orphans from getting food."
I disagree. My indignation is firmly rooted in Googles bare-faced hypocrisy. http://www.google.com/intl/en/takeaction/ This is hypocrisy. This is what Google want you to believe. Their behaviour suggest that this is marketing bullshit on their part.
From where I'm standing Google are essentially harming their own users for what seems like nothing more than malicious reasoning masked as T&C's. It is they and no-one else who are getting fucked in all of this. I couldn't give a shit about Microsoft. Do they deserve it? Yeah probably, karma and all of that. I do give a shit about the utter hypocrisy exhibited by Google and their fans however. The double standards on display in this and other threads on the 'net are astounding.
> "Also, Microsoft phone users could just open a web browser."
Indeed they could (funny, but when that was the response to the lack of Flash on iPhones, it was mocked...). Or Google could just stop being hypocrites and practice what they preach. We'll see snow in Hades first.
I hope papers start providing full 'Credits' to what goes into a piece so as to better inform the reader how many people in the chain it takes to arrive at the final copy.