It can be considered contributory copyright infringement if you're knowingly linking to copyright infringing material.
In the US, abiding by any DMCA takedown notices is enough to be fairly certain you are not going to be in trouble for contributory infringement. That's how Google covers itself.
Comparing prices in different countries isn't that simple. You have to take into account what that price means compared to wages. Someone in Poland on average (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_w...) has about 28% the disposable income as someone in the US. So you paying $10 a month feels about the same as someone in the US paying $35.
Equipment, cables and materials still cost the same, so the comparison is relevant. Even adjusting for PPP, the difference is striking. And to explain the differences, you have to look at external factors, such as competition and regulation.
But deploying and managing that equipment does not cost the same. There is another comment in this thread that says only about 3% of operating costs for Sonic.net come from bandwidth. U.S. based ISPs employ U.S. based workers which on average are paid more than employees in say Poland, so it's hard to do a direct comparison. Not saying that we in the U.S. don't pay too much for internet, just that a direct comparison to other countries is tricky.
All of my US credit cards have a verification number that is required as well as the CC number for any online transaction. It's not that much different from a PIN.
We also have zero liability for unauthorized CC charges. So even if someone were to do that, the bank would be on the hook, not the user. Banks rely on a lot of computer analysis to determine whether a charge should be allowed.
It's much more of a pain to get money back into your bank account after it's been withdrawn. So although it's technically true that a bank card with PIN is more secure, to the end user, it's not any better.
>All of my US credit cards have a verification number that is required as well as the CC number for any online transaction. It's not that much different from a PIN.
Ember isn't smashing anything. Besides the obvious Google, Angular is used by Udacity, Nike, Virgin America, HBO's mobile app, MSNBC, Salesforce, Amazon AWS, Sony's PS3 Youtube app, and General Motor's in-car interface. Sounds like plenty of big apps to me.
If your business has improved the lives of tens of millions of people, which Twitch has, I think you do deserve to become a billionaire or multi millionaire. I figure the rewards for a business are relative to the number of people it impacts.
And B) their terms don't say anything like what you said:
Is a creator legally obligated to fulfill the promises of their project?
Yes. Kickstarter's Terms of Use require creators to fulfill all rewards of their project or refund any backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill. (This is what creators see before they launch.) This information can serve as a basis for legal recourse if a creator doesn't fulfill their promises. We hope that backers will consider using this provision only in cases where they feel that a creator has not made a good faith effort to complete the project and fulfill.
I completely agree, but I think that it feels a lot more like an investment than a purchase. When I buy something it is because I want it more than I want my money. When I kickstart something it is because I want something that is not real to become real. I'm willing to risk wasting my money because I want cool people to do a cool thing. If they try hard and fail, I don't feel like they owe me anything else.
Since they've setup an LLC apparently, the end developers won't be held personally liable (and I don't think they shouldn't be), so if it comes to a lawsuit and there isn't any cash left to refund, that will be the end of it.
Kickstart is very clear that if it falls through, then it's not Kickstarter's problem.
The terms are very clear that there's a contract for the vendor to deliver or give a refund. There's certainly warnings that vendors can go bankrupt and leave you with nothing, and Kickstarter tries to ensure this won't be Kickstarter's problem.
But the vendors have a contract to deliver or refund.
You're definitely confused. Mozilla is the reverse of the described scenario. If Mozilla corp owned the non-profit, rather than how it currently is, then it would fit.
The fundamental argument is that if you hire more similar people, you will get similar results. Are you a billionaire yet? If not, maybe you should hire some different types of people in order to deliver different results.
People with different mindsets will challenge you. They will disagree with your decisions. They will think of different approaches that may be much better than what you are doing. If you let them, they may drastically improve your business.
Are your friends the best fit for the job? What if someone likes different music and whatever but is ten times as effective at that type of position? I would consider the latter far more important. You're hiring people to do a job, not socialize with.
Programming test, discussing past experience (things they did, things they're proud of, where things went wrong, etc), etc.
You're attempting to determine passion and curiosity by doing a "joel test", which is poor because you're biasing it towards people who have the same history as you. A better alternative is to ask for opinions, people who have opinions about programming practices/paradigms/languages/etc is a good signal for someone who is curious about their craft. Uncurious people never think deeply about what they're doing. People who care form opinions and ideas about what is good vs bad. It doesn't really matter what the opinions are, just that they have them and have some rationale for backing it up.
Examples: What is your opinion of Javascript as a lanaguage? * Whats your favorite language/least favorite language that you use/worst feature of your favorite language? Whats your opinion of the state of web development/how would you improve it? Static vs Dynamic typing? Functional vs Object oriented?
> Python is more dynamic than JavaScript, in that it has __getattr__, __setattr__, __getitem__, etc.
No, it's not. You can do equivalents to all of those in Javascript. Javascript objects are all mutable with a few exceptions. They are just maps of properties, very similar to Python's. Properties can be added or changed at runtime.
For example, setattr(obj, item, value) in python is basically just obj[item] = value in js.
No, JavaScript does not have Python's __getattr__, and obj[name] is not a substitute for it.
obj[name] works if you have already either assigned a value for that name, it exists in the prototype chain, or you have defined a getter via Object.defineProperty(). It's truly no different than obj.name[1] - `name` has to already exist in some form.
Python's __getattr__ [2] takes the attribute name as an argument, so it can be used to implement property access for any name, even those not known ahead of time.
Ruby has something similar with method_missing, and even more with define_method and instance_eval. Dart has noSuchMethod.
These are possible to implement in compile-to-JS language, but tricky to make fast. Dart's static analysis looks for all names that could be called on objects with a noSuchMethod, tries to figure out the most specific class it can add them to, then adds stubs to the JS prototypes to redirect to noSuchMethod(). A compile-to-JS Ruby could implement define_method easily enough, but method_missing is would be impossible to do the way Dart does it due to the open classes: you could dynamically add method_missing and not have the stubs available. If you want full Ruby semantics you have to abstract away method calls, which will be slow. I'm guessing the same problem exists for Python, so I wonder the same thing as the grandparent post: did they implement __getattr__ fully?
My JS knowledge isn't great. In python, I can do operator overloading such that `obj[item] = value` does something completely different than assignment. Is that possible with JavaScript?
I think he meant that you can overload operators in python and not javascript... but yeah I agree with you. At the end of the day javascript is still just as, or more, dynamic than python.
In the US, abiding by any DMCA takedown notices is enough to be fairly certain you are not going to be in trouble for contributory infringement. That's how Google covers itself.