The Earth wasn't supposed to be able to support half the current global population.

Then Norman Borlaug came along, and turns out we could support more. Who knows this time around?

Amazon gives you a unique address for each instance you spin up.

How is this different than stealing your car, taking it for a spin, and then putting it back in your driveway?

Would you respond "Learn to install a better alarm and not allow your car to be hot-wired so easy"?

You don't have to install an unbreakable lock to be protected from theft in the eyes of the law.

Apple could have the same infrastructure cost if they use bittorrent to distribute their content. The Pirate Bay still has to pay for it's servers.

We could argue about the cost of producing music for ages. I will bet dollars to donuts, however, that a negligible fraction of your download price from apple goes to actual production costs.

You know who lets you download your songs as many times as you want?

The Pirate Bay

As the article points out, an 'app' is very different from an 'application'. I have never heard someone refer to an iPhone program as an 'application' and I have never heard someone use the term 'app' to refer to a stand-alone desktop software. This would seem to imply that they are distinct terms, and one is not merely shorthand for the other.

This is not the misappropriation of one term, but the creation of a new one. Sure, the word app has its root in the word application, but there are lots of words that come from old words (in fact, most words have their roots in other words that mean different, but related, things).

I think the only time that anyone should complain about the misuse of terms is when it is unclear which version of the word someone is using. An example from the article is the misuse of 'download' for 'upload'. If someone says download when they mean upload, it can be confusing. If someone calls something an 'app', no one will think they are talking about a desktop application.

Also another complaint with the article: applications have always referred to more than just 'a self-contained piece of software installed on a PC or Mac'. All other operating systems have applications as well.

Facebook won't even let you view their site with javascript off (you can try for yourself if you like). They will tell you to enable javascript, or you can use their mobile site (which does not have the same functionality).

You aren't going to get Facebook users to turn off javascript.

In this case, what the actual problem is is that the users weren't using SSL. The ISP was injecting javascript directly into the HTTP response.... this can't happen if you are using SSL (properly).

Facebook doesn't default to https; you have to explicitly decide to use SSL. Most users don't know enough to know to use SSL, so a better campaign than trying to get people to turn off javascript (which will hinder the user experience) is to get them to only use sites that are https (which will have no negative effect for the user).

In fact, your solution to only allow javascript for certain sites would NOT fix this problem.... users would naturally turn on javascript for facebook, and since the ISPs were directly injecting the javascript into the HTTP response, the javascript was running under the facebook domain.

It also shows that Google has lazy programmers... they can't regular expression out a comma?

Yeah, because they put CRACK in their chicken nuggets. Have you had them? There is certainly SOMETHING highly addicting they add.

Yeah.... it is like these guys never played Sim Earth as a kid or something.