I also wonder what percentage of the "hoarded currency" is actually currency that has been destroyed and if it will have any long term consequences. For example, in the early days of Bitcoin I mined a few blocks with an old laptop. The computer eventually died without any backup of my wallet thereby destroying the those Bitcoins. There doesn't appear to be anyway for anyone to know whether I am simply hoarding those Bitcoins to dump on the market at a later date or if they have been permanently removed from the money supply.
Another way to attack a similar set of problems is through the new bundling and minification settings in .Net 4.5[1]. It doesn't address everything, for example you need to know and account for the dependencies yourself. However, my early experiences with using it have been very positive.
Anyone who would say that hasn't been paying attention. Not only had innovation on Reader slowed to a halt, but Google was also working on and prioritizing products that competed with it (G+). There is a reason why Feedly was able to move so quickly on replacing the Google Reader API, they were anticipating the shutdown of Reader for a while.
It is a lot easier for people to protest by not doing anything than actually putting effort into it. Switching from Gmail to some other provider involves a lot of friction. Not using a newly released product (assuming this will be one) is fairly easy.
This is an oversimplification and the type of thinking that gets IT labeled as nothing more than a business cost center. IT shouldn't just be limited to preventing downtime and making sure things continue to work. It should also be focused on making employees more productive. You might say allowing Chrome cost the company $6 million due to downtime, but are you factoring in the potential losses from having a more draconian IT policy. For example, how much more productive would employees be if they could automate part of their normal workload with a good browser extension or how does a more employee focused IT policy alter employee moral and in turn employee retention?
Forgive me, I hadn't heard of the company before this article. The name suggests and the article flatly states that the developer is "sold to the highest bidder." If there is really nothing binding about the bids and the highest bidder doesn't necessarily end up with the candidate, is this a relatively standard recruiting website that puts an early emphasis on a position's salary?
A job seems like the last thing I would want to leave up to be "sold to the highest bidder." From an employee's perspective there are so many other factors outside of compensation that are relevant to whether I would want to work somewhere. From an employer's perspective if you are hiring mercenaries willing to work for the highest bidder, what do you do when company X is willing to pay more than you can afford?
Which is one of the reason those degrees are viewed as less valuable than a similar degree from a more prestigious institution which is assumed to have higher (teaching/admission/grading) standards. That is still the biggest obstacle for non-traditional education. How do you assess the value of the degree and then communicate that value to others?
The problem is that people expect more from Google. People understand the conference is popular and so should Google. If anyone could handle this type of load, you would think they would be near the top of the list. However, every year people need to sit at their computer staring at animated gif or rapidly hitting F5. Even when you get past the first screen and are told that you have tickets waiting for you, the payment processing often fails. That is exceptionally frustrating.
Until the value of Bitcoin is more stable and technology illiterate people start to use it, there is no way that something like this can replace PayPal.
Are those limits established yet? There isn't any place on the page that would indicate any limits or even the existence of paid tiers. This stuff should be visible before requiring a user to signup.
So what is the catch on this? I am guessing there are legality issues and/or they extremely limit your library. No company can afford to offer what they claim to be offering without some serious cash behind them.
It is interesting that this wouldn't be assumed considering the reverse is so obviously true. The world is designed for people with the median amount of human senses. If you lose one completely or have a sense that isn't as perceptive as most other people, there are a variety of challenges that you will have to overcome. However, you do get to avoid some of the everyday annoyances that the rest of us have to deal with.
If the failure can be attributed to the credit card, the Xeround account, and the authors email client, then it isn't really a single point of failure. If one (or even two) of those failed, the others should have been able to identify the problem and address it before the sites were taken offline. It was the combination of the three failing at the same time that led to the ultimate failure.
It seems like their sample population is too small to be fully confident in their conclusions. For example, why does the average salary for Java, Ruby, and Python specialists peak 3-5 years into their career and then decline? Why do early career candidates from top schools make less than their counterparts from worse schools? I don't think this can all be explained away with the equity argument and if it can, it probably makes the whole exercise moot.
The same way the system allows you to type in 0213 without blurting out a big error the moment you type 02. Just don't validate the input while the user is still inputting it.
Secondly, remember this is for credit card expirations and not normal dates. You can probably make an assumption that 11/30 (November 2030) isn't currently valid input either. I have never seen an expiration date further than 10 years in the future. Although more research on the topic would be needed to figure out the true restrictions.
There are three ways to interpret it. It is either 11/3, 1/13, or an error. Since 11/3 isn't a valid date, I think it is safe to rule that out as an incorrect interpretation. Either of the other two interpretations seem acceptable to me.