I just got an email yesterday from Amex about suspicious activity on my account. The card was used to make purchases from at least three dating sites, groupon, Microsoft, hidemyip, and a handful of others.
This card is tied to Linode, Amazon, and one or two other large merchants. Sure looks like Linode CC numbers were breached.
Presumably a poor translation from a Scandanivian language to English. For example, in Swedish you use the reflexive verb "lära" which means both to learn and to teach. In Swedish you would say "lära dig" which does translate literally to English as "learn you" but which should get the more appropriate translation of "teach yourself".
A small correction. The proper form of "lära" in "Learn you some Erlang for great good!" (or "Teach yourself...") would be "lär", as in "Lär dig lite Erlang för (mycket/väldigt) bra!" if you translate directly. But the end of that sentence is grammatically incorrect in Swedish as well.
Either way, I doubt that it's translated from a Scandinavian language since the one who came up with the first book with that title style (Learn you a Haskell for great good!) is Slovenian.
A note to the author of the book: It looks very interesting and I just bought a copy. Hopefully I'll have time to read it soon, since I've been wanting to look into Erlang for quite some time now.
1. In a literal manner or sense; exactly: "the driver took it literally when asked to go straight over the traffic circle".
2. Used to acknowledge that something is not literally true but is used for emphasis or to express strong feeling.
Yes, the second definition was added because people lazily try to leverage the first definition to intensify the exaggeration of their figurative statements. The problem is that the second definition now masks the first (because it is essentially a devolved form of the first and actually relies on the first definition), making it difficult in many cases to get across the meaning of the first definition without resorting to other words. I see you've embraced this unfortunate evolution. Some of us are still mourning it.
Both agencies and contractors employee people with the skillsets needed to write these kinds of things. While there are a large number of incompetent government employees and contractors, there are also a small number of frighteningly talented developers working in this area.
i sometimes wish that there's some sort of darwinian selection system that could be put in place, in order to improve the overall efficiency and productivity of companies...but then again, i m writing this from my work terminal...
a) Needn't be public facing.
b) You have much more flexibility to select the specific bit of HTML you want.
c) Does a way better job of capturing the "live" DOM context. You aren't grabbing an image, you are grabbing text/structure/etc.
d) Resembles Pinterest only in that you can make collections of things and share them with people. Unlike Pinterest, the point isn't just to show people stuff, but rather to harness something useful (you are grabbing bits of structured data).
Can you elaborate on the "structured data" and how it's gonna be useful? To the average user, it seems like the biggest value proposition here is the ability to keep your posts private. For those who don't need to keep things private, how is it better than using Pinterest?
I poked around and wasn't able to find a way to export my structured data (RSS, API, something). This is admittedly something that would initially only appeal to a very select few users, but would enable both much richer users of the data and at least the beginnings of an ecosystem around your product.
Also, and this is not to be negative, but I have been burnt repeatedly by bookmarking/clip services going out of business and while I wish you the best of luck a _key_ aspect of trying a new one is that they do not act as a roach motel for my data.
I actually think there is some value in pointing out a bad article and slamming it, and from what I can tell by the comments so far that is just what's happening. Similar to learning from failures there is something to be learned from reading bad arguments, so long as it's understood to be bad.
Highly disappointed in the WaPo. This read like a PR piece released by the oil industry and/or their lobbyists. No mention of the environmental disaster looming from the tarsands? No mention of the effects from fracking? No discussion about how this will only delay much needed investment in renewables by the US Government?
Great that you care about this, but the environmental consequences have been largely invisible to Americans for many years. Be it CO2 or destroyed ecosystems in every oil producing country, the damage is largely done.
I'd hardly blame this rag for the oversight at this point.
very odd to not mention the downsides of fracking. a quarter of the article is about it, and it seems like the crux of the argument of the new dependency on america comes from resources attained through fracking.
I'm more a corporate hater than a corporation lover.
But while the downside of tar sands are real and horrific, the downsides of fracking so far seem speculative. I haven't heard any strong argument why North Dakota fracking would have the same effect as the fracking described in Gas Lands.
If anything, fracking seems possibly scary but not something with clear, proven downsides. It may be, for example, that pipelines carrying oil extracted using fracking and that could cause damage somewhere and that does more damage than the actual fracking.
If anyone has a reference to prove me wrong, I'd love to see it (well, maybe not love but appreciate it).