Edward Snowden has been charged with no crime. He is _alleged_ to have committed crimes, but evidence of due process is so lacking as to be non-existent.
Show me a criminal indictment, and I will happily serve as juror.
Until then, any power seeking unlawfully to curtail the human rights of a person based solely upon their uttered words is a power whose charter I reject. Even if that power is itself the U.S.A.
If development is complete 4 years from now, how can they have finished even a single test flight where it worked as advertised?
If by "years ago" you mean sometime after late 2008, then perhaps I agree with you.
In Civilization this is no problem! Build a Factory or an Iron Mine! Problem solved!
I never used to harp on security either. Then one day I got a virus while using Firefox and browsing www.theatlantic.com web site. Some loser in the Yahoo! ad network decided to build a Flash ad that allowed scripting access from domain:*. My browser... screwed.
Thanks, Adobe. Thanks for giving every idiot web dev alive an automatic weapon with no safety training.
Here's a fun game: any time you see the word "faces" in a headline, substitute in your mind the word "feces".
Ah, good times....
This is exactly the sort of question that Stack Overflow was created for....
Many, many paywalls have huge holes in them. I read Salon.com for years without paying -- I just told them I was Googlebot. Works for tons of sites.
I do understand the example. They want document.all for *only* two reasons. 1) So old code can check "if (document.all)" and proceed accordingly, as a form of poor man's browser sniffing, and 2) So old code written against document.all can still run.
Neither one of those reasons is violated by my posting, which in essence says that there's nothing wrong with the spirit of document.all, just the implementation(s).
Cheers....
>> The willful violation of the javascript object model for document.all in HTML5 (see bottom of page) is one particularly nasty example...
Not really nasty to implement at all:
get document all() {
return document.getElementById.apply(document, arguments);
}
That's interpreted code, of course, not native code. But if you're in the business of writing parsers and compilers, rolling that into native code is about a 10-minute operation.
Now... I might agree with you that it's misleading to newbies to design a language such that a potentially ubiquitous and expensive call to an external technology (the DOM) is hidden behind a seemingly innocent property lookup. But there again, expensiveness of such a call is an artifact of how browsers are coded, not a deficiency in design.
In principle, there's nothing wrong with providing a associative-array-like API to an action which performs a flat lookup within a namespace of unique keys [albeit admittedly unenforced in this case]. Python, Ruby, JavaScript and most other functional languages offer this functionality as standard fare.
Pick a different example....
On some server you control, in your "projects" directory (or however you organize your hacker life), do an svn checkout of a small branch of some codebase you care nothing about. Add somewhere a README which is chown root, chmod 600. Maintain your stuff there.
With 99.999% probability your machine isn't going to be stolen by a person who can find the interest to read this, or recursively seek for recently modified files blah blah, much less boot into single-user mode to read it. If you need it remotely, you use ssh of course.
(And if you're on Windows, don't store your passwords there at all. Not trolling -- I have several Windows clients I use daily -- but they're just not the same beast.)
You have all missed the point of the article. It's not that you couldn't have done this 10 years ago with any GPS-enabled tracking device. It's that iPhone users are *doing it now*, and they are *smarter* and *cooler* than you.
Actually, IE has many, many plugins. You might even recognize some familiar names from Mozilla-land, eg. Foxmarks, StumbleUpon, Cooliris,
One picture is worth 128K words.
