"...on Wired-" Lost me there. Hackneyed attacks on what is probably among the most hated of tech magazines pretending to be more independent than they are aside, this is certainly a good idea, but what's to stop people searching for people whom they have nothing to do with? The information on the site, from what I could ascertain from the article, doesn't appear to be meaningfully secured and is open to abuse.

True; by "classic" I meant "more classic than this new definition, which I hadn't seen before Y Combinator took it up", but otherwise you're correct,

IRC's usually on an obvious port and has a discrete protocol of its own. There's no mistaking IRC. With Twitter everything's through HTTP, so people involved have some small level of deniability, and people are far more likely to notice an odd connection appearing on an abnormal port and look into it than they are to pay any heed to the din of HTTP.

Many phones with touchscreen keyboards have an emoticon keyboard along with the phone-style keypad and qwerty. Many simply with buttons have emoticons on autocomplete or under symbols options. This is simply an upscale. I can't find the source (TFA gives barely any details) but if this is a student project, I like. It would actually sell well. If this is a commercial product, oh god no. Yes, it will sell well, yes.

I take it that they're referring to "hacker" as in Y Combinator's "Hacker News", as in "programmer in general", rather than the more classic meanings of "one who accesses systems without authorisation by means of exploiting vulnerable code, etc" or "skilled programmer with tendencies to the questionably legal".

It's clear that none of Facebook's code was compromised, otherwise other high-profile pages would be being defaced. What's more likely here is that, through some human flaw of easy security questions or simple passwords (I can't see the Zuck or his immediate staff using unsecured wifi), the account was compromised. Ergo, not a hack. That pedantry aside, I'm very much pleased to see Facebook knocked down a peg or two, especially in the area of security.

Were this a market and were the government enforcing similar, or were this an industry and a regulator enforcing similar, or were this the internet and an ISP enforcing similar, I'd complain as you are. But this is Facebook's platform. Yes, it's unnecessarily grasping, or so one would think if Facebook are really as profitable as they're telling us. Yes, this will panic the stock monkeys. But this is not an entire market, this is not an entire industry, this is not an entire content platform, this is one service. Besides, perhaps this will even out competition with the minor developer exodus it'll probably end up causing.

But I heavily doubt that anyone could state TS3 worthy of an Oscar were it not for the drought of good "mainstream" cinema. The rest of the nominees are mostly above average, I'd say, but in no way is TS3 deserving of an Oscar. This is, though, an undeniable step up from last year's glut of cheap action movies and thrillers.

I'm throwing in my vote for Discordianism.

Wasn't the poor reception of the third enough to warn them away from making any more?

Did I ever claim moral outrage? I doubt that many people's reaction to having a film, however bad, made of their life would be moral outrage. I simply stated that Wikileaks, as you agree, is not getting a cut.

...conveniently omitting any mention of Qatar.