natabbotts

<audio> and <video> tags don't count as plugins in Chrome, so aren't disabled with this method.

Couldn't agree more. Blanket banning of something is rarely good.

Why not add the following rule to your user stylesheet? input[type=reset] {display: none; visibility:hidden;}

That hides them all from view.

That article starts with a reference to an earlier blog post which seems to be more in line with what you are saying. Perhaps in future you could read the articles you link to and include the relevant information? A link is not an argument in itself.

It seems obvious to me, but I will point it out anyway.

The Google homepage contains all sorts of 'non-conformant' code, so as it supports legacy browsers which don't implement css properly, or require some sort of quirk for them to work correctly.

I thought this would use mobile numbers, since it involves texting. But the entry form appears to require a US Landline number.

I disagree. All your Twitter data is public* anyway, so it shouldn't be a problem. And twitter makes it so much easier than Facebook to disable/disconnect an app from your account.

*Unless you make tweets private. But even then, your followers and followees are still public.

It is your market. I am a teenager (guessing that is your market based on stats). I have a facebook account (don't use it much), but will absolutely never sign in to another site using Facebook. The security issues worry me, as does the access you have as a service to my facebook profile.

Agreed. Knowing that the company requiring you to sign in can quite easily access all the data stored by Facebook worries me greatly. Twitter logins I have no problem with, as all my twitter info is public anyway (such is the nature of twitter), so there isn't any damage that can be done. Facebook, however, gives you no way of knowing exactly what it stores and shares, and because of this I am simply too paranoid to log in with it.

The best login system is OAuth by far - it is secure, and doesn't have any risk attached.

I'll clarify a few things before I comment, just in case people have misunderstood things. 1) Google Docs will store any file. 2) Google Docs allows you to convert pdfs to docs & edit them.

With this in mind, I prefer Google Docs, as Dropbox, to my eye, has no advantage. Perhaps you would argue that Dropbox syncs automatically. I think we must consider that GDocs are only stored in the cloud, so don't need to be synced.

I would also add that you need to have DropBox installed to sync files (though web access only needs... well... Web Access). So GDocs is just as good in that respect.

This is really impressive. I wonder if the guy will get a job offer - he certainly seems to be a pretty quick coder.

That does seem to be (from past experience) the microsoft way of doing things... I can't say I'm impressed.

How curious! I wonder what it is that caused this decision - after all, in my experience, Google has always produced more accurate results.

And removing the search bar altogether is surely some sort of anti-trust violation is it not? Especially if users cannot add it back in, which seems to be stated in this article: "[The testers] tried several APK’s of the Google Seach bar and have not been able to get those to work either."

I do wonder what the motivations behind this move are? It has certainly dissuaded me from purchasing an Android from them (which I had otherwise planned to), and will be looking elsewhere instead - I cannot be productive without my Google Search!