Nope, just a simple option to not generate a year inreview. What exactly are you proposing? Requiring the other billion people to opt in?

We don't need our presidents to know how to code, or to be scientists. We do need them to appreciate that coding and science are important, listen to the experts and encourage general public to do the same. I'll take one line of Javascript over "I am not a scientist" excuses right away.

The year in review is just a summary of what you yourself have posted. "Don't show me my own photos" seems like an unrealistic request for a mainstream service. I think the most that can be done is have a preference that people can check if they don't want their year in review. Facebook has plenty of ethical flaws, but this is not one of them.

APK's host files as interpreted by Bennett Haselton would have been a better bet.

You are talking about super regulated markets, markets where governments are heavily involved and declaring that the way they are regulated and corrupted by the governments is something that would prevent a bakery from changing prices on the fly should their market conditions change, for example a giant influx of consumers wouldn't change the market conditions for bakery enough to change prices. I showed that as market conditions change the producers quickly modify their behaviour. I don't know what you are even trying to say, however comparing stable and predictable market conditions to changing market conditions and declaring that changing market conditions do not cause producers to changing prices is too silly.

A swing and a miss.

Still you can't deny that lefties have all the sense of humour of an average lake trout. The best yuks anyone's ever gotten out of them have been at their expense, and so the circle is complete.

Oh I'm not a righty.

Tyrants of any stripe fear nothing so much as laughter.

That's why lefties have no sense of humour.

Of course, if you seriously advocate that people take responsibility for their networks, their equipment, and their decisions and realize the part they play in enabling the problems they complain about, you'll be accused of "blaming the victim".

Still, unlike the harsher laws that vary by jurisdiction (of which some have no extradition treaties), this actually stands a chance of working. On a hostile network like the Internet, nothing other than hardening the targets is going to actually improve security. It would also be nice for the rest of us not to have to contend with botnets and other problems made possible entirely by the clueless who want all the benefits of a general-purpose global network but don't want to put forth the effort to learn how it works and how to use it responsibly.

They strongly resemble the child who wants a pet cat but doesn't want to feed it and change its litter box because that part isn't fun.

That last sentence is false and shows you don't fully understand what you're discussing. The merchant is charged a fee, usually a small percentage of the transaction, each time you use your credit card. Even if you never personally pay interest because you pay in full each month, the bank issuing the credit card is making money from your use of that card.

Incidentally, this is also why some small, local, mom-and-pop stores won't accept a credit card unless your total purchase exceeds a certain amount. The fee they must pay isn't worthwhile to them if the transaction is too small. Larger stores are better able to absorb it and just consider it a cost of doing business.

You are either a full or a liar, Henry Ford's model was not to pay workers so that they would 'buy' anything, his model was to pay more to his employees to reduce turn over of highly specialised professionals, who were becoming very efficient but leaving the company once they achieved proficiency to go work somewhere with less stress. So he doubled people's salary and reduced turnover, keeping the trained employees and doubling his productive output in a very short time after that.

He was NOT paying his people to buy anything, he was paying his people so that they would have hard time quitting the jobs.

The reality is that globalisation requires a real free market environment and that is something people really hate - competing and allowing the best competitors to become much wealthier while raising the overall standard of living in the economy.

You are growing statism, fascism and nazism and you are destroying individual freedoms with every new regulation, law, tax, barrier to entry, license, newly printed paper dollar and you think you can create a prosperous economy based on any of that, well you cannot and the time is proving that you cannot. No amount of natzism (national socialism) will help you because you are asking the wrong question, the answer doesn't matter.

The real question is what is virtue and not how to divide a shrinking pie. The virtue is in non-initiation of force and in allowing true free market economy based on capitalist principles to destroy the old guard, the fascism, the nazism, the socialism, those are self-destructing, corrupt principles that arise from position of desire to dictate to others. What is virtue is the only real question. Virtue is non-initiation of force and it leads to voluntary exchange and freedom, which is the only way to have a cooperative environment, where each works for himself, for his own profits, but the result is a robust wealthy economy.

Your example is false because it does not address real situations that a bakery can face that are caused by changing market conditions, you are looking at stable market environment and deduce that because bakeries in stable market environments can operate without changing prices that it means that those very bakeries would not change prices quickly if market environments changed quickly.

Am I the only one who read this initially thinking that "supercharger" meant a pump that forces compressed air into an internal combustion engine?

Not my choice, we got them in a deal with a VC. And I will tell you from experience that they're not all great programmers. A *few* of them were very good programmers, most of them were OK, and a few were very *bad* programmers. Just like everyone else. The idea that the H1B program just brings in technical giants is pure fantasy. This isn't 1980; if a CS genius living in Bangalore wants to work he doesn't have to come to the US anymore, there are good opportunities for him at home..

H1B brings in a cross section of inexperienced programmers and kicks them out of the country once they've gained some experience. I have nothing against bringing more foreign talent into the US, but it should be with an eye to encouraging permanent residency. I think if you sponsor an H1B and he goes home, you should have to wait a couple years before you replace him. Then companies will be pickier about who they bring over.

I have to say, managing a team of H1Bs was very rewarding, not necessarily from a technical standpoint but from a cultural standpoint. Because I had to learn about each programmer on my team and the way things are done in his culture, I think I became closer to a lot of them than I would have to a team of Americans.

I really hate using frameworks. They're fine as long as you use them for their limited purpose-set, but step outside the walled garden and your delving into a wilderness of minified spaghetti coded black boxyness whipped together over a weekend by people who weren't really interested or most likely able to envision different requirements.

And yes I include JQuery in this. Just learn friggin javascript already, it's not that hard.