Banning things works relatively well for people because they fear having trouble with law and justice. Doesn't work that well for corporations whose law department is just like any other department. In this case you must assume that if it's technically possible then it's done.
Unless we start throwing the legal department and higher ups into prison then it basically becomes a free pass to break laws. Currently, we assess fines to corporations that violate these laws.
It then becomes a cost/benefit analysis weighing the likelihood of getting caught * cost of potential fine vs business value of ignoring the law. Ignoring the law is frequently the correct decision.
Maybe not, but when the cost of breaking the law is less than the gain, it seems logical. A law department is probably better equipped to make that calculation.
edit: Reading into the context of 'too big to fail' and 'collateral consequences' reveals exactly that kind of behavior.
But having a law doesn't mean people or corporations won't break it out of the 'kindness of their heart'. Or because they're 'good people'.
For example, look at 'No gun zones'. You think a criminal is not going rob a bank at gun point because the bank is a no gun zone? If anything it incentivizes them because they know they'll have a monopoly of force upon entering ( if they have a gun, and can fairly assume no one else will because of 'no gun zone' policy )
It depends on what you do. 16:9 is better for wathing 16:9 movies. But if you read lots of text, narrower, longer columns are usually a lot more handy. We have way more vertical than horizontal scrollbars.
I prefer 16:9 or 16:10 because I have a lot of windows side-by-side most of the time. I don't have 1 file open while coding, most of the time 2 or 3, in that case a wider screen is better in my opinion.
I've got a surface and in my opinion 3:2 is actually better for multitasking. You can fit two windows vertically. So you end up having 4 windows side by side.
Because 16:9 ("shortscreens") was a ploy by manufacturers to sell a smaller screen for the same diagonal. Combined with much of the vertical dimension being eaten by the general pattern of window decoration + app taskbar + app toolbars + OS taskbar, and well, at least they're good for watching movies!
This really isn't understandable without the context of the article this one is a rebuttal of (http://jasonrudolph.com/blog/2011/08/09/programming-achievem...), and specifically this "method" that the author of the first article uses the be a good developer:
1. Identify the experiences that advance a person as a developer.
2. Select a particular experience to pursue.
3. Pursue that experience to completion. (Achievement unlocked!)
4. Reflect on that experience. Really soak it in.
5. Return to Step 2, this time selecting a new experience.
The rebutal's point is that instead of cycling back to step 2 after step 5, you should continue above and beyond, becoming really expert in the field you decided to pursue.
What the rebutal misses, in my opinion, is that in order to go beyond step 5, you need to have chosen an ambitious subject in a first place. A symptom of wanting to cycle from 5 to 2 is that the experience you chose isn't that significant and you can explore most of it quite rapidly. I see it a lot in the web development world, where after having done one or two CRUD applications devs have seen it all, and start cycling through technologies, frameworks and methodologies to make it more spicy.
One solution to this is to move deeper into the backend of rich and complex software/websites, where solving problems related to distributed systems, algorithmic efficiency and architecture will provide (but also require in a first place) vast knowledge and experience; enough for one career at least. Other fields than webdev also work well for this, including embedded systems, security and digital imaging.
Quite honestly, both companies have enough exposure through the media that losing their Facebook pages is unlikely to make much of a difference. (Especially for a company like SpaceX, which was mostly reaching individuals who weren't in any position to do business with them.)
I would assume a company that size could potentially have at least one person who's full time job (or sizable portion of their job if social was a low priority) was to maintain those pages.
There is a clause in the work contract that claims that Google has ownership of all your IP relating to Google's current or planned businesses. Given that it's Google, that's... a very broad category.
You can apply (the process is described on the same website as TFA) to have Google declare that a certain project definitely is not one of their businesses and therefore not covered. You could also make your own judgment, but (having talked to a lawyer about this when considering a Google offer) my impression is that that is a very bad idea and you should go through the process.
(I only know about the US-but-not-California version of the contract; it might be different in other jurisdictions.)
I think that laws should feature these extremelly large fines to companies for keeping clauses in contract that are already known to be in conflict with existing laws.
A very large number of contracts will be so much better and more slim, and a lot of people will not be harrassed by scare tactics.
