apg

That's a nice reference. Perhaps ironically, and definitely IMO, vanilla-js looks to be the simplest. Followed by jquery.

With the right case, I don't see how this would withstand Supreme Court review. The Ninth Circuit doesn't seem to like it (Drew/Duval). My guess is the the SCOTUS wouldn't approve of private parties drafting their own criminal laws.

You could also say that the agreement is void w/r/t a minor, because they don't have capacity to contract, via Statute of Frauds. Of course there are plenty of times when they can contract, but TOS in general seem completely obtuse and not actually conducive of anything worthwhile.

From what I can tell the biggest issue you (and many others have) is the environment/culture issue. The stuff you see or some of the ways that you are expected to code with C# in many .NET shops will make you want to claw your eyes out. (And though I don't have any first hand experience, I reckon it's the same way in Javaland.)

F# is a mighty fine language but introducing that into an established shop just isn't going to happen. It's personally my favorite language but there is a very steep learning curve coming from C#. For my projects I use Windows & Linux, C#, Python, JS (client), and F# all over the place. I keep the programs small with a service orientation so it's easy to switch languages.

Anyway, all frameworks have their problems. It's hell to make a program of any appreciable size in Python. Javascript/Node turns into callback hall of mirrors. Avoid creating a mammoth framework with these and it all works out great. And while it doesn't have everything in the world like the Python ecosystem, .NET OSS ecosystem, which is really coming around. And Microsoft itself is encouraging exploration of other frameworks, e.g. NodeJs and WinRT's first class Javascript support.

My take is the problems usually aren't framework/tech related. It's about people and process. Diving into a new framework really isn't about the tech, it's about learning the tech, and thereby giving your brain some much needed stimulation.

I have a morbid fascination with articles like this, and it bug me. Even though a few ideas in the piece may feel intuitively correct, this is mainly just anecdote driven journalism; no evidence, no statistics, just a handful of observations from what is (probably) an elite-mid atlantic urban neighborhood. Parents may seem hyper-competitive and hyper-protective in her neck of the woods. In mine, not so much. It's pretty lame to say "American kids are brats" based on the handful of interactions the author has had in her community.

Who knows. I'm sure there is some crotchety French expat in the Netherlands bemoaning the state of French kids today.

I'm not so sure that the need for touch is really that great in a desktop environment. It's probably cool for someone looking over your shoulder and wanting to take control of your computer. But for sitting at the computer and making something happen... I don't think the usability needs to be 'equal'. And in the desktop world it should favor the keyboard/mouse.

Here's an anecdote for touch vs. mouse/keyboard:

Pretty sure I'm not - nor is my family setup - typical of a windows user. We have two touchscreen desktops in our house.

I have a two year old that can work the touchscreen very proficiently. My 5 & 7 year old stick with the mouse and never use the touch, I almost never use touch, and my wife rarely uses it.

Based on my personal observations, on the desktop, touch is good for very new users or those who lack the physical coordination to control the mouse and keyboard. Otherwise, mouse and keyboard wins.

The Windows 8 mouse experience is really lacking at the moment. I expect that gets a major update in the next version.

I would really love an actual example of what he is talking about. Sure I can use my imagination, but it would make the post more interesting. It's a good point he makes, but concrete details always provide an excellent analytic touchstone.

Incidentally, this is a good trait (IMO) to instill in your kids. I love arguing with mine.

My method is like yours, basically. I use Notepad and good-old paper.

I'm leary about the idea of ever having a "living calendar". You've gone from the one dimensional todo list of "what" to a more complex decision tree with another dimension of "when" in addition to "what".

I do like the concept of a "living todo.txt". Sure it is unrealistic to be able to strike off every item on your ToDo, but every day brings re-evaluation. Approach your todo like Yoda - there is "only do, or do not".

This all makes no never-mind to me, as I'm going to turn that right off (you can do that, right?). I prefer to evaluate on my own what information is relevant and what isn't. Happy accidents, you know.

Did Google ever announce what the rationale for this is, from a revenue perspective? Is a link with content that a person is likely to recognize also likely to generate extra revenue?

...and yet.

I like good design as much as the next person. But I'm not sure what a good design even is anymore and this article isn't helping. It's throwing a lot of concepts in that "design" bucket. Are we in the midst of a "design bubble"? Are we - as in anyone who can look at a screen and make some kind of cogent value judgment - all designers now? I'm pretty sure I've never chosen to use something (keeping in the realm of software/technology) based on what it looks like over the actual content/functionality it provided. Or is content and functionality in the realm of the designer now?

And I think this statement is highly debatable: "Programmers who prefer to be given detailed requirements and push syntax into a terminal or prefer to isolate themselves from the broader product team will have decreasing value in the world of innovation and product development."

That may or may not be true, time will tell. Too many cooks spoil the soup, you know. And in time, when we are all designers, we just might want someone to competently and efficiently push that syntax into that terminal.

Now I'm off to see if I can find any old issues of Raygun in my basement.

A statement like that which is not part of the official decision are referred to as "dictum". Lower courts review higher court rulings, including dicta, and over time dicta has a way of becoming law.

Scalia is a kind of a Fourth Amendment hardliner when it comes to _the home_, so I'm actually surprised at this result. Fourth Amendment rights in so far as automobiles go have been eroding for years. Note that the concurring opinion wanted to reframe the issue such that there _was_ a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to automobiles (which would be a more expansive reading of Fourth Amendment rights).

I just ran the letters modb-re-nojs-li through my handy word_solver and came up with some candidates: MoRN, NoRM, ModeRN, NiMRod, ReMiNd, MeRLiN, LiMNeR, NiMbLeR

After reading that ticket, I think the solution is going to have to involve more than one keyword. It's curious to see that the objection is to the hideous mass of js that "defer" compiles down into. I kind of thought that was the point of CoffeeScript.