That's the most hideously-designed site I've seen in a long while.
In order of increasing goodness:
1) Microsoft makes no promise about encrypting data whatsoever
2) Microsoft encrypts data weakly, keeps code proprietary
3) Microsoft encrypts data strongly, keeps code proprietary
4) Microsoft encrypts data strongly, open sources relevant code so community can validate it
So Microsoft announces they're going from 1 to 3. You're paranoid and saying maybe they're going from 1 to 2. Fine.
But here's the thing: it's still IMPROVEMENT. Maybe it's not as much improvement as you want, but people are posting in this thread as if somehow Microsoft got worse. But they didn't. They got better.
So to answer your question:
If Microsoft told you they were implementing security and it turned out they were using DES with a key hashed from the word 'Scroogled', would you be pleased?
Yes. Because that's better than them making no promise whatsoever about data encryption, which was the situation a week ago. I am pleased. Thanks for asking.
No, they made a conclusion not supported by the data available. What they *should* have done is expanded the study to include more and more diverse test animals to firm-up the conclusion. They could have retracted their study and re-done it while retaining some dignity.
What they did instead is throw a hissy-fit and then blame a new editor, which strikes me as extreme paranoia at best.
1) A lot of times, job listings to the public are a required formality when there's already an internal candidate wanted for the position. In this situation, the job description will be written to fit that specific internal candidate's skills as precisely as possible.
2) Job descriptions are crap anyway. If you think you can do the job, apply. If the company doesn't give you an interview because they asked for 5 years C# experience and you only have 4 years, you don't want to work for them anyway. That kind of hellish determination to strictly follow paperwork never leads to a fun work situation.
My experience is that most Nintendo players don't play/try other consoles, and that they really have *no idea* whether other consoles have "fun games with lots of depth". They just say stuff like that to reinforce their myopic viewpoint with other Nintendo fans.
Right. You can play Mario. Or Zelda. Or Metroid-- oh wait Other M killed off Metroid for the time-being. Great selection.
But wait! You can also play Rayman Legends!
You realize that "undefined" doesn't mean "it crashes the app" or even "it doesn't do what the author expected"?
It just means undefined. That's anything from, "it works exactly like the author intended" to "it causes the soft soap dispenser in the ISS to squirt soap on the spacesuits." It's undefined; it could do literally anything or nothing at all.
And Diablo 3? And Titan Quest or whatever that one was?
I get you need a hook for your article, but maybe not choose a hook that's 100% blatantly false.
After watching the axe body spray + coffee tumbler grenade, all I could think is, "this man badly needs a windsock for his camcorder mic."
TeX doesn't even have a useful GUI yet. It's not even 1/10th the way to "done".
It'll be "done" when you can hand it to a random person on the street and they can quickly and easily figure out how to use it to produce a complicated document. The only reason you think it's "done" is because you've pigeonholed it into a tiny niche.
Perception is reality.
The Japanese were already slaughtering Chinese for the most petty reasons long before Doolittle engaged their help. (Hell, since 1937-- before WWII technically began!)
I don't think the raiders can be held responsible for that.
I hate that story... no matter how many free energy robots you have, they can't build you a home on Lake Washington if all the lots are already taken. Nor can they arrange 50,000 people to *all* have the front row at a popular concert.
The economics of it make no sense.
My most recent Firefox experience was finding out that they broke their own Jetpack AddOn API, making it impossible to build an AddOn that works in both Firefox 17 and Firefox 24.
That wouldn't normally be a big deal, but 17 and 24 are both LTS versions-- meaning our client was moving directly from one to the other! And it was impossible for us to make a single
Mozilla's a clown college now, I can only assume any real software engineer with talent has long since moved on.
Even Windows Phone 7 and 8 won't run ActiveX. It's been deprecated by Microsoft for years, and I believe it'll be canned completely when IE7 runs out of support.
Which means either Korea or Microsoft is going to have to do a lot of work in a little time.