There's always nano :)

It's useful in a very small handful of circumstances. The main one that comes to mind is checking the time in a meeting or other situation where it would be inappropriate to haul out a phone (although the social expectation of not playing with your phone in these situations is eroding fast).

Mainly though, it's a piece of jewelry. I know some people are repulsed by the very idea of wearing anything more than the most utilitarian of cloths, but I like wearing one. Mine has a clear faceplate showing off the intricate mechanical workings, which is something I find cool and suits my personality. Other people get something out of the workmanship that goes into those $2000 watches.

Not everything needs a practical purpose. Some stuff is just cool.

Or after I hit submit.

There is no case where a user is going to want a tag (or an accidentally created tag) deleted. It's always something the user does not want. There is no valid reason for a user to intentionally enter something in the assumption that it will be removed for them prior to being posted. Warning the user that invalid tags have been removed from their post (or would be removed from their post) seems reasonable.

This I could at least understand as a cultural thing. A fun gotcha left that way intentionally.

If they actually added new features like this to beta, rather than just making a shittier and less functional wrapper around what we've currently got, it might give beta a reason to exist.

It's not about broken tags.

It's about instinctively typing <some required parameter> when describing the syntax of something and having it unintentionally treated as an (invalid) HTML tag, causing it to be disappeared.

My point was that some kind of warning might be more helpful than just silently deleting the content.

It's a sad moment of realization that I actually like getting cloths for Christmas now. Mainly because I suck at picking stuff out myself and hate shopping for cloths in general.

Having a job, a fiance, hell owning a house (or well a gradually increasing piece of one) doesn't make you an adult. When someone gifts you a tonne of socks (sister works at a Marks Work Warehouse and gets some ridiculous employee discounts) and you think "awesome, I really needed these", I think that's the moment one realizes they are an adult.

In my completely impractical approach, it would be up to the user (or whoever controls the gateway) to decide what data the device can send.

So you also have an IDL that describes the fields, potential values, and update rates for your earthquake monitoring, that a user can either allow or deny.

Obviously it starts to become easier to slip in data covertly, but this idea is impractical anyway, so what the heck!

You really do highlight the problem though. There is a great amount of legitimate useful purpose for this kind of stuff, but there is really no easy way to control that data once it's gone.

Clothing doesn't just provide obscurity.

It provides warm, and soaks up sweat. Imagine wearing the same shirt for say.. a month. That's probably what will happen to your couch, and it's a lot harder to throw the sofa into the washing machine every day.

* houseOnFire=<yes|no>

Random thought: slashdot obviously filters html to a limited subset of allowed tags. Why not warn the user that "you've got some invalid html there bro!" I know this is my fault for not previewing, but still, this seems trivial and I can't be the only one that makes this mistake occasionally.

Most us hate this stuff, but it's the way everything is heading. Much like social networking, it's going to become increasingly difficult to live a "normal" life while abstaining.

So with "just don't use them" off the table, how do we at least make this more secure. My first thought would be to approach it the same way we approach it when wanting to connect two computers we can't trust and provide a limited subset of functionality. Things like well defined IDLs that define a precise message set, and gateways that are trusted which verify that only conformant data passes. In other words, let the nest have a billion sensors, but the only message your infrastructure will allow it to send out is: houseOnFire=.

Obviously completely impractical for even a geek audience. So I'm at a loss.. any other brilliant ideas?

Where'd you get that from?

I don't disbelieve it, and it would certainly make a lot more sense, but I don't see this mentioned in either article, and the blog post linked seems to imply that they went straight to C&D.

I find it very strange that they are continuing to allow them to use the trademark/trade dress with the non-commercial condition.

I don't understand trademark law, but I thought it didn't matter whether money was being made or not.

The problem is resolution.

If you think about it, even with the greatly improved version of the dev kit, you are still only dealing with 960 x 1080. I imagine this would make it terrible for reading text or fine information spread out over a large visual area. You'd end up having to move your head just while reading one screen, let alone be able to see multiple screens effectively at the same time. At that point, you may as well just use virtual desktops and switch between them.

In real life, this problem happened to me with 6 actual monitors. Yes I could add more, but then it becomes more effort to move my head to see the additional monitors than it would be to just flip to another virtual desktop.

And yes, monitor space is one of those things that you never have enough of. Most of the time I actively use 3, but once in awhile I get into something where I'm comparing stuff together or monitoring something in real time, and I find myself running out of space.

At least with software, it can usually be explained at a high level.

Sure, people may not know what a context object is, or dependency injection, but they can understand "this program will process a bunch of data about shipping times and rates, and figure out the most optimal way to get a package from one location to another based on selected criteria".

The kind of ultra-abstract project being talked about here, not so much.

Actually never mind, slashdot appears to be flattening out parts of this thread for some reason.

Ignore last.

(also I totally agree with your post).

I uh, think you are replying to the wrong post..