Which makes it even more crazy that after the employee pays taxes, the take home only about 70% of that.

Does anyone know where one could find a list of offending plugins? I tried, but came up empty handed.

I've been in contact with someone from Google Security and this was their answer:

"I spoke to the team that maintains that list and they don't have plans to make it public, if you would be willing to share some ideas on how to better protect people from this unwanted software I would be happy to pass it on but due to the nature of the work (trying to stay one step ahead of bad guys) we probably won't be able to share anything back."

I'm the author of this anti-adware addon called "Extension Defender" and it would greatly help my users if I could use their list, because while they extensions were removed from the Webstore, does that mean it was forcibly removed from their PC? Probably not.

Plug: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/extension-defender...

I had the same problem. I'd also like to know whether an extension purged from the store will be automatically removed from Chrome if it is installed or would have to be manually removed.

I'd like this as well.

And where exactly do you think the fabric would come from?

For the lazy:

http://www.npr.org/series/248799434/planet-moneys-t-shirt-pr...

http://seedtoshirt.tumblr.com/

My friends and I tend to always go to Soundcloud first.

This.

I am not going to waste my time with a low quality video (often with only a static image) when I can have the high quality of Soundcloud. Soundcloud also has an interesting comment system and a better community.

I was not expecting Lincoln, Nebraska to have 59 pages of wind surfing equipment.

Actually you can style SVG with CSS

    #yourSVG {
        fill: red;
        stroke: blue;
    }

I don't think you can re-style a SVG with CSS if you embed it with IMG. CSS styling has to be inline with the SVG, so you can embed it directly, or you can change CSS with JS.

mind = blown

The problem is that, until <svg use> is standardized and supported, the only way to style svg elements is if you include them in your markup (or use something like Iconic's SVG Injector).

There's a tradeoff between inlining (or rather, including them server-side) and calling them as <img>, background-image, or fonts. The size, http requests, caching , and styling all play a role.

Unfortunately, "the possibility that they might have been commissioned to produce an original" has nothing to do with it.

Take the case of Shepard Fairey's use of the AP's photograph of Obama. The iconic "Hope" poster: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster

Now that photographer certainly never would have been paid or even heard of had the photo been used as inspiration. Yet, Fairey lost that case in Federal Court.

People are prevented from using a photograph of someones face to remix into a vectorized, colorized, cartoonized version of this face. A photo that would have died a quiet death as a newsroom archive. It is my opinion that Fairey's usage did nothing but add to our collective culture and that preventing use like this in the future is quite chilling for creatives of many fields. (For more on this topic, written much more eloquently see: http://waxy.org/2011/06/kind_of_screwed/)

What happens when a company does a 3D scan of Briteny Spears and produces a model of every muscle movement possible, and then claims copyright over every single photograph and drawing of Ms. Spears that every gets produces hereafter? We already see a similar tactic being used with patent trolls, "patent everything, sue everyone."

The problem with this is that when EMI or some other record giant is the one being abusive and submitting bogus claims, Youtube/SC/et all will not start ignoring notices because they will be afraid that the label will pull their catalog.

I think the percentage of photographers using macs is > 10%.

I am sure. But my watermark software has mostly Windows users.