This is true, but it's JavaScript we're talking about. Project requirements are rarely scoped and developed from the ground up. Most apps and sites are dependent upon bloated frameworks and libraries that are not tailored for mobile capabilities; said frameworks were developed for the desktop.

Not to mention very few JS developers know how to properly manage memory.

It's not racism. It's resentment and entirely justified. From my experience, here's how it grows:

1) Bids and proposals are submitted to American client 2) Middle management of said American client decides to go with lowest bidder (typically from India) 3) Lowest bidder can't satisfy contract due to incompetence 4) 1 year later, project still can't satisfy requirements. 5) American client back peddles to find American developers to fix and complete project 6) American developers review the code... it's a steaming pile of shit. 7) If American developers have sense, they decline the project and quote the client for the whole project

Now, if you're working in-house, the same thing happens except that you can't politely decline the project and are forced to deliver on a steaming pile of shit and you have to have your name attached to garbage.

It's not racism. Developers are objective; if it were good, quality code there wouldn't be any pushback or resentment.

Torture. Amiright?

Most of the developers I've met in Silicon Valley

What's the age range of the developers in Silicon Valley these days? I suspect they aren't old enough to remember *why* we needed web standards.

I'm a web developer and have taken JS & CSS for common for years and years now. Spent about 6y working at a small local web design shop and it just wasn't feasible to double contract amounts to make sites work without JS.

Sounds like a management problem, not yours. It is feasible to double contract to create JS-disabled fallbacks. Your company needs to address this in their proposals under accessibility.

This is not what Apple does. Safari has an option in the main preferences pane to enable "Show Develop menu in menu bar". For the past several years, Safari's developer tools have been the most advanced. Other browsers, especially Chrome, have mimicked their GUI and toolset albeit as a dumbed-down implementation.

The following troll got mod points. No wonder all the intelligent contributers are fleeing /.

Great point.

... from a snarky invalid.

Idiot.

+1 Idiot meet idiot.

You write in broken English; best guess is that you haven't read a single book in your life. That's easy to dismiss if you weren't a troll.

I presume you are posting for affirmation because the answer is blatantly obvious. EE and military background is the best complimentary experiences you could have. You don't have to market it, let it speak for itself. Your experience is well sought after.

As others have suggested, looking for a defense contractor is an obvious start. Continue to add to your EE background and your options will grow exponentially.

You are in a position that no other civilian has the opportunity to be in. You could even find yourself working at NASA in a few years time if you applied yourself.

Best of luck, and thank you for your service. You won't have any trouble landing a job.

Recording, uploading, and using the video can be illegal without the individual's consent especially if they are identifiable. There are exceptions, like being among a large crowd, participating in a public forum.

What this kid did was illegal *and* on private property.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people

"The right of publicity is the right to control the commercial use of one's likeness. The most obvious example of this is advertising (whether or not the advertisement is for commercial purposes). This right concerns the subject of the photograph and is distinct from the photographer's copyright licence which may impost its own terms or grant freedoms regarding commercial reuse. All images hosted on Commons must allow free commercial reuse from a copyright point-of-view, but the subject of the photograph may still refuse permission or demand payment for such reuse. This right does not affect the hosting of an image on Commons; might rarely affect the use of an image on a Wikimedia project; and is most likely to affect commercial re-users. In some countries and states, the right of publicity may persist for some time after death."

The primary issue is intent. The people being videotaped without their consent can file a lawsuit. It is arguable the video is being used for commercial purposes (i.e. he is publishing under a perceived trademark). Under most jurisdictions, that requires a permit and proof of insurance. There is very little difference with what he is doing and what portrait photographs do.

People would second guess their impulses, both bad *and* good.