Why do you think the average politician wouldn't find killing innocent people awesome?

It doesn't work like that. Assuming both sides are highly competent, securing something is a fundamentally harder problem than breaking in. To break in, you only need to figure out one vulnerability. To secure something, you need to make sure every component - as big as a data center and as small as every single instruction sent to the CPUs - in your system, is invulnerable. Hiring hackers would only help if the engineering team is highly incompetent to start with (like, they aren't even aware of basic things like why strcpy() to a fixed buffer can be a very bad idea).

Half Life 2 doesn't have a emotionally deep backstory anyway - you get dropped into a situation and you kill monsters. Your character doesn't even get to say a word about all the crazy things happening around him. A "Please, somebody help" in Half Life 2 doesn't give the same kind of feeling as in the real world - all it does is telling you that something dangerous is approaching, ready your crowbar.

n/t

Because we're not powerful enough to control and manipulate the laws of physics, and mathematics, yet?

If you think about it.. most people's image of God is quite a bit less powerful than what's needed to fit their definitions.

I used to work for a major open source project at home for 2 years... it felt awesome for the first 6 months, but after that I felt terrible being at home alone all day long, every day. I have a few other friends who experienced something like that, working at home for large tech companies for various reasons - it's awesome for the first few months, but you'll feel really bad after a while.

It doesn't even take 20 engineers over 3 years to make such a mistake. It only takes one - even you can and will do it. Just imagine yourself doing simple addition with numbers in the range [0, 10] every day - and you do 1000 such stupid math questions on a good day and 10000 during crunch time. And you keep doing that for 3 years. There has to be one day, you do one of these additions wrong - not because you're bad at maths - but because you're a human. I understand perfectly that you'll use an ORM or at least SQL bind, or whatever method you prefer to prevent SQL injections... but just as it's possible to leak memory in Java or any GC language, you're bound to find an uncommon or plain stupid way to make a mistake after a while.

The thing is, if you have 100 engineers working on your code, and they write or modify 200 lines of code every day - it's very hard to guarantee there's not a single line of vulnerable SQL code written over 3 years. It only takes one mistake to get your server compromised.

Just in case you're not the guy who pays the bills of a company... H1Bs are fucking expensive, ok?

We don't even have fire. My tribe fling mud into the air for signals.

That has already happened, at least on the mobile front. Take a look at PhoneGap.

You can expect the APIs on this kind of thing to become standardized in a few years.

You're not getting what I'm saying. Whether something is in a bunch of draft standards or not.. is of academic interest to some people only. If you're actually coding something, you don't care - you can try to stick to the "standard" way but it will always breaks at some point. If you don't believe me, just look at a bug tracker in any popular FOSS web project - jQuery, extJS, jQ Mobile, CKEditor, etc. etc. If you want a specific example, read jQuery Mobile's fastclick branch, read the code and the commit log and see what the clusterfuck it is to simply handle "tap" events in mobile, "standard compliant" browsers.

And with the malleable nature of HTML5 right now... a bunch of usable features that breaks all the time in practice and has to be tested on different browsers on a case-by-case basis, is all what it means to a software developer. I guess what you're focusing on is the academic kind of correctness - whether W3C published it or not. Having W3C and WHATWG publish it has its uses... but at the end of the day, unless you're someone working at W3C, it doesn't really matter for you.

No. In common usage means when you actually go and code web-related projects like jQuery Mobile and CKEditor. When you're actually coding anything non-trivial for a few browsers, you'll find that the standards don't really work perfectly and that 100% rating on ACID3 is meaningless. There're always minute differences between browser implementations even though they all tell you they support X.

IE9's support for newer features is poor - that's a fact. In none of my previous posts have I even mentioned Microsoft. I mean.. what the heck is happening?

And that's why I said, "in common usage". Nobody cares what the committees say in practice. If all commonly used browsers support WebGL to some degree, then it's a "standard", and people will use "HTML5" as the buzzword. Fact is, a lot of things that are included now in HTML5 (e.g. web workers) were not part of what the committees published some time before, and HTML5 is still a work-in-progress. So the standard right now is still a very malleable thing.

HTML5 is still a draft standard and in common usage it usually refers to a bunch of stuff like an in-browser video codec, WebGL, DOM data storage, canvas, geo location data support, etc. - almost all of which are not uniformly supported across all "HTML5" browsers - and that's especially true for IE9.