Maybe, but don't slide decks give you the chance to sell what you've built? Maybe you need the time explain the bigger idea of what you're doing when during the hackathon you only completed 25% of it?
But, really, cool? Microsoft is trying too hard. Watching their videos is akin to rogue state propaganda. Does anyone really believe that IE9 is the "coolest" or "most beautiful" browser ever? (Let alone that being an important metric at all.) It's unfortunate that Microsoft thinks we'll actually believe this stuff.
On the other hand, props to them. I wouldn't have known about Alex Clare's "Too Close" track without that commercia.
"Identify mature, experienced people who can give you candid feedback. It's even better if they're your colleagues. Favour a diverse group with people who have different priorities."
This is a great tip. I just realized that my more senior friends mention their "grey beard" older CS friends. I guess I need to pick up some mentors!
Chrome has had SPDY enabled for at least a year now -- since around Chrome 10, I think? And according to Statcounter measurements for this month to date [1], 28.75% of all page views currently come from Chrome 19.
From the same Statcounter numbers, 17.27% of all page views are from Firefox 12. So that's over 46% of page views this month using the latest versions of Chrome and Firefox. And another few percent are just one or two versions behind. So a couple of months from now, 50% of page views measured by Statcounter should come from SPDY-enabled browsers, especially if IE marketshare keeps shrinking rapidly.
Also interesting: according to that graph, as of June 2012, Firefox's major stable release at last surpassed IE's major stable release--just a few months shy of the 10-year anniversary of the release of Firefox 0.1.
EDIT: Ha, actually, drilling back further, looks like that's not true at all: Firefox's major release has surpassed IE9 for a while now. I was misled by IE9's slow adoption curve.
Apparently not. There's an ever growing tail of users who get stuck with an outdated version [1]. It's not as bad as Firefox yet but surprising nonetheless given how much effort Google put into Chrome's update system.
I have personally experienced and seen Chrome get “stuck” and kind of just fail to update itself until a manual re-download of the installer is performed. It does usually work, but sometimes just stops. For example, I recently saw a bug report from someone who thought they were on the most recent version of Chrome — 10. (It’s currently at 19 or so.)
Well, about 12% of Chrome page views are from old versions so "almost no users" is a bit of a myth or exaggeration. But it's definitely a smaller proportion than other browsers.
Firefox also auto-updates, but has a longer tail of users from old versions since it's been around longer and had a more obtrusive update process until recently. Currently about 32% of Firefox page views come from old versions, but this is decreasing steadily now that Firefox 3.6 users are being auto-updated to the current release channel, and now that updates are more "silent."
Once SPDYv3 is enabled in a release channel the Chrome installations which only support an outdated SPDY version will rise suddenly if the current update trend is not reversed in a future version.
Plugin I wrote for managing layout/views in Backbone. Provides a ton of features and flexibility. Before 0.5.0 it wasn't very stable for lists/collections.
I'd highly recommend giving it a shot, because it makes writing Backbone applications significantly easier.
That's not really what "security theater" means. Security theater refers to highly visible actions that make it seem like enhanced security, but ultimately have no effect. Think: the ticking agent asking you if you are bringing bombs onto the plane in your luggage.
The Apple review process, draconian as it may be, almost certainly has a real, strong effect in actually preventing malware.
"Think: the ticking agent asking you if you are bringing bombs onto the plane in your luggage."
Actually average people would probably know enough to think "someone could just lie when asked - that doesn't provide protection".
To me "security theater" is doing things that seem to appear to lock something down in the eyes of an average uninformed person. Average is not Bruce Schneier or an 8 year old. It's a typical traveler who believes they are secure because they see checkpoints, have to take their shoes off, and have to have their laptop scanned.
Security theatre is also putting all your faith in some security authority who claim that it must be safe because they are the security authority - but you aren't allowed to look under the hood.
It's exactly like the TSA having magic terrorist detectors - but you can't be told how they work because of security
What if there is a hack/mistake/bug in the appstore ?
The de Cartes-style demon argument is generally a weak fallback. The end game of this argument is that you can't trust anything because you can't fully trust anything.
The reality of the situation is that the app store is most definitely more secure than Windows's distribution model because it normalizes the vehicle for software delivery. Security is scrutinized and narrowed down to one place. Users become less trusting of software coming from 3rd party sources (detrimental in some cases, to a more free and open platform), but added security is definitely gained as part of the tradeoff here.
Yes the app store limits improves security - compared to randomly clicked email attachments in windows.
But as the recent flame worm, signed by a microsoft trusted certificate (http://isc.sans.edu/diary.html?storyid=13366) shows central security systems aren't automatically foolproof - and if you are prevented from having any sort of local control or anti-virus by that same central security system, you can be up a certain creek with a certain paddle
shows central security systems aren't automatically foolproof
That was never contested by anybody. What the flame worm showed was that there needs to be stronger security around private key portions of signing certificates.
any sort of local control or anti-virus by that same central security system
Funny how that works. Anti-viral software is a central security system that uses similar distribution and signing techniques as the app store! Not to mention, anti-viral software doesn't protect you from zero-day exploits, unpatched software, and brand new malware that tends to be the thing that causes the most problem. Not to mention metamorphic and polymorphic malware, which is getting more and more common and runs circles around modern AV software.
