So, I verified the bug, but this happened to a friend of mine (she lost gigabytes of data). And Apple Support tried to help, and couldn't, and as a consolation prize she got a Thunderbolt external drive. Which was particularly insulting. "We suck so much at handling your data, you should probably do it yourself!"
“the servers” could be read many ways. Doesn't necessarily mean direct access to all their data. Doesn't mean unilateral access as alleged. The slides we have don't give enough detail to allege direct and unilateral access. Especially in light of companies, NSA, NYT sources all denying this.
"Directly from" means direct access, "the servers of" means the servers controlled by. That's the only plausible reading. The thing is it doesn't necessarily mean "all of the servers of" however indirect or mediated access would be contrary to the slide's plain language, and if these were mediating servers controlled by the other company that would be quite misleading to the NSA employee audience.
There seems to be a misperception that the URL you see on hover is 100% where you'll go if you click it. No. It's just representing the current state of the href. JS owns the DOM and its interactions. If it wants to intercept a click and rewrite an href or do an e.preventDefault() or redirect with window.location, that is its prerogative. That is the power that it is intended to have. It is this power which makes the modern web work.
If we can't teach people to look at the location bar and check domain names and SSL-related colors and icons, we can't help them avoid phishing. Restricting what basic JS can do so that the possibly fictitious group of people who check the status bar on hover but don't check their location bar can be protected is a terrible, terrible idea.
Seems entirely expected. When you open in a new tab, you're just taking the (existing) href and opening it in a new tab. No JS executes because you've opened a new tab, completely unrelated to the previous context.
We don't currently have any interest in moving to a database abstraction layer. We do, however, allow you to drop in a db.php file that can replace the core database portion. That's not abstraction (you'll have to rewrite any MySQL-isms to be compatible with your DB of choice), but it is an option for people who absolutely cannot run MySQL. Microsoft wrote a WordPress plugin to do something like that: http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/wordpress-database-abstr...
The Happy Cog design was short lived. We redesigned in house for version 2.7 in 2008.
> "blog software for the technically illiterate"
According to what metric? Not having the ability (and the huge amount of time) to roll their own blog software, or learn how to use Git and Jekyll? Try and look at the world from a broader perspective. Not everyone is a programmer, but they still have interesting things to say to the world.
> all the incantations necessary to scale Wordpress to reasonable scale
10 million page views a day is reasonable scale? C'mon. No combination of Digg and Reddit and Daring Fireball or anything else will get you even close to this. There is a selection of caching plugins for WordPress that'll get any site on shared hosting to easily sustain those types of real world traffic bursts. For people who do need a million plus page views a day, they're in "good problem to have" territory, and probably have long since acquired technical assistance, or have switched to a WordPress-specific host like WordPress.com, WP Engine, Page.ly, or ZippyKid which has high volume caching already configured for you.
Mark Jaquith here. Happy to clear some things up (and would appreciate it if you could make this comment visible on the thread).
Here is the text of my tweet:
> Imagine if men talked like women with "Golden Uterus Complex" do… "Excuse me, but which one of us has a penis? That's what I thought."
First, the definition of "golden uterus complex". This phrase was brought to my attention by Dr. Tara J. Palmatier, a doctor of Clinical Psychology. Dr. Palmatier assigns a great many attributes to this personality, but the one most related to my point is:
> the golden uterus believes that having birthed a child makes them better and more knowledgeable than others; e.g., the “Well you don’t have kids so how would you know anything?” woman
This phrase doesn't apply to "women". I wasn't making any kind of blanket statement about women. I wasn't even making a blanket statement about mothers. I was referring to women who have carried a pregnancy to term and who exhibit specific behavior characteristics. I sure hope that how people behave is an aspect upon which they can be judged.
For context, it is a picture on Facebook of a mother feeding her newborn baby solid food — a seriously dangerous, ignorant, and irresponsible thing to do. Someone in the comments tells her that you shouldn't feed a baby that little solid food. The mother responds "Well it my kid not Yours so what I do with him is none of your concern thanks" [sic].
It didn't matter to her that the commentator was correct, and that what she was doing was potentially lethal to her baby. She gave birth to the baby, so in her mind she's the expert and the ultimate arbiter of what is right for the baby. I've even seen this complex be applied to matters other than child care, as if the act of giving birth confers all manner of sagacious powers.
I'm not discounting the power of personal experience. I was present for the births of both of my children, and even as a mostly-spectator, it was a unimaginably transforming experience. What I am objecting to is the idea that childbirth automatically makes a woman the ultimate authority on child care or anything else. This is the sort of attitude that has contributed to the anti-vaccine nonsense that has been plaguing some Western countries in recent years.
My tweet contrasted the way that mothers with this behavioral complex openly talk about the utilization of their reproductive organs for childbirth being the source of their claimed superiority, and I pondered what it would be like if men claimed and talked about their reproductive organs as the source of their supposed superiority. It was a reductio ad absurdum, clearly. Men (well, most men post high school) don't bring up the use of their sex organs in polite conversation as a trump card. Some (nota bene: SOME) women do. Sexist men usually exhibit a sexism that is much more closely tied to feelings of mental superiority and greater physical strength. I find it to be an interesting social sexual difference to how some women express a sense of superiority over men.
People do reductio ad absurdum comparisons about social sexual imbalances all the time. Like how it's weird to imagine women yelling things out of a car at an attractive male jogger. Or making a joke about how if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament in most religions. I guess I made the assumption that my Twitter audience would get that (a) I was proposing a ridiculous scenario, partly for comedic effect and (b) that I also did it to provoke thought about quirky social sexual imbalances. Maybe that was too much to assume for such a constricting medium such as Twitter.
But in any case, my intention and meaning could have been discovered by Ms. Nabors by either asking me for clarification, or doing a simple web search for the phrase, either of which would have immediately made it clear that the phrase refers to a behavior exhibited by a subset of the subset of women who have given birth, and it is not in any way a slur against women or mothers (I will grant that it is a slur against people who exhibit this behavior, behavior being an acceptable thing to criticize).
Instead of seeking out my meaning, Ms. Nabors quite publicly called me an "ass", accused me of making "sweeping and dismissive generalizations" about women, implied that I was socially inept (while also making her own sweeping generalization about the social skills of developers), called me openly hostile to women, and called my remarks a symptom of a boys-club attitude within the developer community.
I'll leave it to you to decide whether she fairly judged my actions.
The fascinating part here, to me, is that actually it's the "this is my child therefore butt out" argument - which isn't even the golden uterus complex thing - that would be "you haven't given birth to a child therefore butt out".
I can imagine a similarly stupid male saying exactly the same thing except perhaps for saying 'our kid' rather than 'my kid'.
How you jumped from there to your Golden Uterus Complex joke, I don't know.
What I do know is, had you typed out the text of your tweet into one of many of the private chat rooms of various sorts that I'm part of, I would probably have laughed.
However, I don't believe it had any place in a public twitter feed that also contains technical-related stuff and therefore may get followed by people who don't know you personally. My public twitter account is somewhat restricted in what topics I cover on it for pretty much precisely this reason.
> How you jumped from there to your Golden Uterus Complex joke, I don't know.
Someone else's comment on the photo bridged that gap. Don't recall the comment. But you're right, there's a difference between "my child, butt out" and "you haven't birthed a child, butt out". The former can definitely be done by any parent. In practice, the latter is exclusive to mothers. And I can somewhat relate to the former — people can be too nosy with other people's kids. So that doesn't seem to bother me as much, as long as they aren't endangering the child. But the latter is really arrogant and dismissive. Furthermore, it perpetuates the idea that child care is the mother's job. If we want to address the issue of women being underrepresented in the workplace, we have to get away from that "Daddy works, Mommy is a mommy" vestigial 1950's attitude. Male dominated workforces need to be friendly and more welcoming to women, and at the same time female dominated parental arrangements need to be more friendly and accommodating of other caregivers.
> However, I don't believe it had any place in a public twitter feed that also contains technical-related stuff and therefore may get followed by people who don't know you personally.
I don't want to play a persona on my Twitter account. It's not like there are two people — WordPress me and personal me. It's just me. If you follow me on Twitter, you get it all. May FSM have mercy on my followers if Rick Santorum wins the GOP nomination, because it's going to be all "oh HELL no" all the time on Twitter. :-)
That’s an impressive explanation. And it entirely fails to address the point. Like the other commentor said, your remark has no place in the public forum. You can find my opinion a bit further in the thread. Main point is: your supposed intention has little to do with it.
I'm not responsible for her refusal to educate herself on what the term means before she publicly insulted and libeled me for a twisted and incorrect interpretation. If you can't bother to use Google on any words you don't understand, then you shouldn't follow me on Twitter.