Hey. I am a recent grad and a full-stack developer. I work with Rails and Java and have done work for clients using popular CMS solutions.
Think of me as your CTO with a tight deadline.
I specialise in backend systems and bug fixing. I will write your backend following best practices and make it easy for you to scale features in the long run.
I am a recent grad (This past December) and I interned at a good company. I am currently taking time off to think grad school options, and I can contribute to Java or Rails projects if any. Rates are reasonable since I live in a developing country. Contact is in my profile.
The Unix Windows analogy was the first thing I thought of when i read that quote. also, the author's definition of revolutionary seems to oscillate between impact on the world and the impact on the industry.
I don't think the Unix-Windows analogy is very apt, actually, as both have been revolutionary in different ways (by any measure). *nix has gone on to power much of the software on which the Internet runs. Windows powers much of the software user's directly interact with. By comparison, Apple/iOS and Android are competing more directly.
The author of the article is arguing that more revolutionary than being the first (or even the best) at something is subsequently making that innovation accessible to as many people as possible. This is something both Unix and Windows have achieved, Android is trying to achieve, but I'm not sure Apple is even interested in.
Perhaps a more apt analogy would be the invention of the automobile vs. the assembly line. True, the automobile was a genuine innovation, but the assembly line put the automobile within reach of everyone.
With this view in mind, it's okay that Apple wants to focus on pushing the envelope in what its car can do. Likewise, it's okay that Google wants to focus on making those or similar innovations accessible to as many as possible.
This directly contradicts the GoDaddy saga.
Edit: And by this I mean that we (including Google) should be pursuing more or less the same measures that proved effective with GoDaddy, i.e, pressure through boycott. It is not clear whether Google intends to pressure Smith to withdraw support, and in any case it's the wrong path if one considers the amounts Smith gets from the companies that want SOPA passed.
Difference being: GoDaddy very blatantly and explictly supported SOPA (until doing so stopped making business sense). All Google's done here is give money to this member of Congress (which could have been with the intent of for or against); they haven't stated an explicit position (EDIT: they took out an ad against it; though not on their own). We have nothing to judge them on besides these receipts, so I can't rightly condemn or praise them without a more explicit position.
GoDaddy explicitly stated that they support the SOPA legislation. Google (and others) took out a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal denouncing it. It's not the same thing.
Not at all! Lamar Smith's opinion on these issues is influenced by the people who pay to get face time with him and his staff. I hope that Google is getting what they pay for.
If our democracy can be sold to the highest bidder, it's better for us if the winning bid is made by someone who shares our values. As a recent post said, "It's not ok for the Internet to understand how Congress works."
Hey. I am a recent grad and a full-stack developer. I work with Rails and Java and have done work for clients using popular CMS solutions.
Think of me as your CTO with a tight deadline.
I specialise in backend systems and bug fixing. I will write your backend following best practices and make it easy for you to scale features in the long run.
Contact details in my profile.