Only if you are not being managed properly.

A well managed team will be using processes such as code review to ensure that there is a sense of shared ownership of every line of code written. It is not your code, it is the companies. You all work for the company (you may also own shares), but ultimately everyone should know they are part of a team and what matters most is the team, and the shared team goals as defined by the company.

There is no need to have a recognised formal education to be a good developer (although it sometimes helps you get your first graduate junior developer job). Far more useful is a few years spent contributing to open source projects and getting used to getting your code reviewed.

Once you have been programming professionally for a few years it is all about your previous roles, nobody gives two hoots about your academic background if you ace the interviews, do well on the technical tests and have at least 2 or 3 years solid commercial experience.

If code needs comments your probably doing it wrong. Code should instead be broken down into small units with meaningful method names and tests.

There are certain edge cases where you need to include a comment because you might be doing something strange then the comment can explain why you doing, for the most part though the code should be easy to follow just by reading through the method names.

Oh, and while we are on the subject, as soon as you use And in a method name really try and split it into two seperate functions.

  Change:

function doThisAndThat(...)

Into
function doThis(...)

function doThat(...)

Even if both of those methods will always be called together one after the other for the rest of eternity that it still far than the alternative which is that some fool after wards comes along and changes it into: doThisAndThatAndTheOtherThing(...)

Actually the problem is that the idea of doing stuff on a web page, then clicking a submit button and reloading an entire page just for a few pixels to change is a clunky old way of doing things that deserved to die.

Javascript lets us create a richer, more responsive experience that most users prefer. We can provide instant feedback on a field within a form that will fail validation, we can instantly tell people their chosen username is already taken, we can guess ahead at what the might be about to search for and autocomplete for them in a more intelligent way, we can create graphs that track data in real time.

  The possibilities we get from intelligent use of JS open up so many things we simply couldn't do otherwise without native apps. Most users embrace this in one way or another, even if they choose to restrict it to sites they trust.

It worth remembering that these "assholes" are not going around hacking websites and forcing their tags onto them, website owners are adding third party tracking websites and ad networks to their site to cover the cost of running a website. Instead of bitching about ad networks, just stop using ad supported sites.

Running a website costs money, like everything else in this world.

Sorry to rain on your parade but this is shit on AMD cards too. The closed source driver AMD just discontinued (or not updated so it can run on fedora 23) actually worked better on my work Dell E6540 laptop. Some people I work with who started just before me are lucky enough to have the Nvidia version of this laptop and this works better with Linux.

If you could load your own firmware you would probably be a little bit closer to being able to bypass HDCP (High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection). Chances are Nvidia have signed a crap load of agreements that prevent them from letting you do that. They could probably invest a load of time in letting you run your own firmware, but have the windows driver scan for that and disable HDCP in this case but even this may prove awkward if it made it any easier for you find a way around the HDCP in older cards (I bet they took short cuts on making their older cards as secure as they should have)

If HDCP on nivida was seen to be a weak link, then Netflix and the like would just bump old cards that were vulnerable off the list they approve for playback just to be sure (they probably have commercial agreements in place that would force them to do this). That would seriously hurt Nvidia as there are far far more people who care about watching netflix on their PC than there are who want to screw around with firmware or even drivers.

The reality is that modern hardware is just too encumbered by things like this, and a few guys who want to tinker running their own firmware is just such a tiny part of the PC graphics market for Nvidia to really care that much. Other companies like Intel probably have architecture that makes it easier for them to open source more of it by having trust chains built in at more levels, it would not surprise me if Nvidia keep this to a minimum in order to make sure graphics performance is always as high as it can be.

In light of this signed software is not a "hostile statement" it is just the embodiment of the Nvidia contractual obligations that custom firmware would have to be treated differently unless it was known to not pose a threat to protecting content owners content from digital piracy.

It is worth remembering that the US entertainment industry generates a huge amount of revenue and employment for many people and without these protections Russia would shaft the shit out of that industry (hey, they produce nothing anyone cares about enough to pirate anyway so why would they care).

Reinforced cockpit doors do sod all. Even without a reinforced cockpit door the crew could have kept them out of the cockpit if they wanted to using a co-pilots foot .

What has made us tons safer after 9-11 is that now there would be reasonable quantity of the passengers who would challenge the hijackers, as recently shown on a French train. Previously most air hijackings were about taking hostages and using them to plead for some worthless chum of yours to be released, as soon as it became clear that the hijackers were never interested in your survival or their own it made trying to subdue them the safest option, no matter how dangerous that seemed.

If you wanted to fly a plane into a building now you would have to steal an empty one first.

Here in the UK I can bet sent to prison for 5 years or something for not revealing a password or encryption key if a warrant orders it, which is why I answered "... if you send me a nice warrant first". I am not willing to risk 5 years in prison since I have a family to support.

This makes no difference to me though since I lead a pretty boring existence and nothing I use passwords for would be of any interests to the authorities anyway.

As someone in the UK where we have had chip and pin for years it does not change online purchases one little bit.

All chip and pin does is replace the bullshit signature with entering a pin. This is important because it prevents two types of attacks that used to be commonplace:

1) Have a friendly guy in the shop who didn't look too closely at your signature in return for a couple of quid.

2) Have a moron in the shop who didn't look too closely at your signature.

Both of these are pretty common place when you realise that working in a shop is basically a McJob with no real future. done by kids mostly paid barely minimum wage. Even if you get fired for repeatedly not noticing you took a stolen card you will get another job in some other shop in no time.

The reality is that you guys in the states have to start using chip and pin, or you can forget ever travelling to Europe where most of our terminals and moving to PIN only. Within a few years most retailers over here will have blanket bans on signature transactions, quite a few do already.

Oh, and I know it is not actually that much more secure, if it is at all as now the pin is stored on the card in encrypted format and not sent to the bank but that does not change anything. The attacks you can mount it are fairly high tech ones, which will always be an issue and not the banks priority. Chip and Pin is designed to beat the low tech, commonplace attacks I describe above that are done en-masse by thousands of chancers that cost banks a fortune (here in the UK banks are liable for this sort of stuff, unless that can prove you were negligent).

Then your estimates are crap. You should multiply them by 4 then they will be at least in the right ballpark.

I am not sure what RubyMine is like, but certainly for me I would have had to stick with PHPStorm regardless as there is just nothing that compares to it that I have found that runs under Linux.

I certainly do not agree with everything the Gaurdian prints, but it is worth remembering that as it is a UK publication they have printed this knowing that if they can't prove every word they would be sued into oblivion for liable under the strong laws we have in the UK. We also have a slightly more regulated press than the you in the US in terms of a body that overseas them and force retractions if they print anything that is utterly made up.

So with that in mind you can be fairly sure that there is a fair amount of substance to this story unlike half the crap that the right wing press in the US run with where your free speech laws allow them to just make stuff up. All you have to prove in the US is that although you printed a pack of lies you did not do it "maliciously". Since that maliciousness is almost impossible to prove in court the you can get away with far more.