jlujan

https://e2e.ti.com/support/wireless-connectivity/wifi/f/968/...

They did finally provide a method to use a custom root CA for SSL a year later, https://e2e.ti.com/support/wireless-connectivity/wifi/f/968/....

They seemingly failed to comprehend why anyone would not want to use TI's chain of trust, that is not manufacturer customizable, on proprietary IoT devices. This was explicitly an issue for code signing as well, as it required obtaining a third-party code signing certificate from any number of CA's instead of using our explicit root CA.

[edit] spelling, clarity

Their GBM specific list is here

http://braintrust.org/groups/gbm/

Edit:spelling

One of the biggest issue of running Apps (open source or not) is the inclusion of the Play Store API in the app itself. These apps when not logged into the play store usually crash with NullPointerExceptions. Please... if you are an Android developer... expect your third-party services/APIs to be missing or to crash and handle that case... If you include the Map API or several other Google Services APIs in your app and the Play Store is missing or the user does not have a registered account... calls to those services will most likely result in NullPointerExceptions. Tell me to deal with it, don't crash.

[1]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluent_interface

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5786754

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42970.pdf

"If you have a strong sense of the overriding moral superiority of your worldview, then the need to protect and advance it can seem the most important duty of all."

I'll take "What is the definition of succinct for 1000 Trebeck"

http://ultimak.com/AKReceiverID.htm

Boeing and Lockheed are pretty much the only space flight companies working with the government. Musk has an issue with this which is why his battery predictions are so enjoyable.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-10-16/business/35279...

I had never heard this term before. I agree with Jeff in general but there are very legitimate reasons beyond immaturity. One is maturity in the sense of picking your battles in life and knowing when your current activities are incongruent with your principles. There are many situations when the best course of action for everyone involved is to walk away. The result is not always having given up forever, but an opportunity to step back, reflect and reevaluate your approach. It is unfortunate that people do "rage quit" and give up entirely. Resilience is not always a function of maturity.

As a Texan, I think it is ridiculous to spend millions on a technology "solution" just to get more funding. Why would you want kids in class that don't want to be there? Money would be better spent on actually educating the kids that do attend than tracking kids that don't.

How can a website lock you in to only being able to share things with your friends through their website? Do they lock you out of your friendships if you quit the site? This is a very bizarre notion to me. Facebook accounts have no value, the people behind the accounts and the relationships have the value. Facebook disappearing wouldn't prevent you from communicating with them. Is this real life?

> and companies with real technical prowess will fail because they rely on producing something new

Err, what? Do you mean that smart people working on hard problems are destined to fail? That facebook has some how consumed all of the available users and prevented them from existing any where else on the internet?

His rant doesn't touch this because that is the perceived value to individuals that facebook provides. Cannot really argue against that and I am glad people are able to use it like this. However, there is something in this "value" that bothers me and why I do not use facebook. From the facebook ad link at the beginning of his post:

"We make the tools and services that allow people to feel human, get together, open up. Even if it's a small gesture, or a grand notion -- we wanted to express that huge range of connectivity and how we interact with each other,"

The ad does not show that. It shows people doing things together. It shows real people interacting in a physical world. It shows physical, tangible, things. Not pictures of things, or short quips and a link to an article or an emoticon. The feeling the ad tries to carry across to the viewer is the exact reason that facebook is a terrible medium to "connect" in the human sense. Lets compare it to Apple's FaceTime ad (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yatSAEqNL7k). Not only is the product in almost every scene, but the ad shows exactly how it directly integrates and impacts peoples lives. The last scene with the sign language drives home the technology empowering humans to connect in an almost surreal new way. Another example is the Kodak Carousel scene from Mad Men (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suRDUFpsHus). How facebook goes from their Timeline ad (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzPEPfJHfKU) to "Chairs are like Facebook" is incredible to me. The commonality in all of these is capturing intiment moments between individuals. That is where the value proposition falls down with facebook. There is no sense of intimacy in the communication channel. A photo of your mom and dad probably has a different value to you than to your other facebook friends. It has very little to do with the photo itself as the photo has no intrinsic value either. It is the memories and emotions tied to it. That is the extent of it. Your mom doesn't need you to like the photo. Your friends don't need to see your comment saying your dad looks like a dork in that sweater. I argue that the passive nature and resulting noise to signal ratio makes facebook insufficient to build real human connections. For these things, not sure how facebook is better than email... it is no where close to live voice or video chat. Having a billion people on it means nothing when you only really want to communicate with 50 of them on a regular basis and only 1-4 of them at a time. Everything else on facebook is just self absorption and ego.

But I digress. His rant is really about how facebook is trying to make everything a part of its ecosystem. I can barely get older generations on email or MMS messaging let alone facebook. Trying to include facebook in every website serves no one but facebook and to what end? It definitely isn't user experience. Facebook is going the way of AOL as a ubiquitous term describing what the internet is and that is a scary thought.