The relentless creation of new javascript frameworks never ceases to amaze. They're all over the place and every one of them claims to be a magic bullet.
My recommendation would be to choose one that is extremely stable that underlies a lot of the core principles of other systems. Backbone comes to mind because it's fairly unopinionated about how the system should be built - this makes you understand how data can be tied together, how systems can be structured (because you have to make your own choices) and which ones seems to make the most sense to you. Couple that with something like react and I, personally, think that you've covered a lot of the front-end principles.
http://yeoman.io/ is a popular flow that's much more plug and play than writing your own gruntfiles/gulpfiles.
AFAIK, scraping is legal under US law because one does not have to circumvent any encryption to access the webpage. If LinkedIn will serve it to Google, Bing and others, then they'd be hard pressed to say "our HTML is secret."
Selling it is a different matter, and one that I don't have enough law background to answer. It may fall under the provision in US copyright law that says that facts are not copyrightable. So long as you are just selling the facts of the graph that they gladly serve to the Internet, ... again, I am not experienced enough to comment.
> It cannot be turned off and you can set it for a specific amount of time
I almost stopped using the app due to the lack of an off button, after my boss asked for some data and I could not get it on time because the website was not on my whitelist.
Luckily, there is a way of turning it off. If you don't want to know it skip the rest of this comment, and otherwise here it is, in case someone needs it: the app uses the local time, so by changing your computer's time forward you can end the block earlier.
A chrome extension I use called stay focus has an option to require typing a long document exactly in order to disable it. Unfortunately it's trivial for even a mildly technical person to figure out how to get around it, so it's become useless for self control.
No, it counts keystrokes too, so that doesn't work. I haven't tried to get past it myself, but really all I'd do to sidestep it is go to incognito, or use one of my other browsers.
I mean the extension itself is very easy to bypass. Just right click on it and remove it or disable it. You can also go into incognito, or a different user, different browser, etc.
I severely limit what's on my phone - no social apps, for example, and it's enough of a pain that I don't browse the Internet on it much. So I've mostly solved that problem.
A way to convert IPython Notebooks to Quiver notes would certainly be useful (as would the other way around). Searching ipython notebooks for code is a nightmare.
edit: good work btw, I'm not completely sold on this solution but I do think there's a problem here. I'm pretty invested in evernote but think this has potential.
That is a good idea. IPython Notebook was another inspiration for Quiver. Since Quiver uses an simple JSON format for data files, it's easy to write a script to convert IPython notebooks to Quiver notebooks. I don't yet have importer scripts, but I have written some exporter scripts here, and you get the idea. https://github.com/HappenApps/Quiver/wiki/Export-Scripts
That would be cool, but would make the app more complicated. Think about all the other languages. You would have to include tons of runtimes. It's better to leave that to other apps/frameworks/tools.
I like to keep Quiver simple and lightweight. Quiver app is only 8MB unzipped, while Evernote is over 160MB unzipped.
You're touching on this but the importance of tangible vs intangible property cannot be understated. In Katz v United States:
"Because the Fourth Amendment protects people, rather than places, its reach cannot turn on the presence or absence of a physical intrusion into any given enclosure. "
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/389/347/
That sets a good precedent but gets destroyed in Smith v Maryland
"Petitioner in all probability entertained no actual expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and even if he did, his expectation was not "legitimate." First, it is doubtful that telephone users in general have any expectation of privacy regarding the numbers they dial, since they typically know that they must convey phone numbers to the telephone company and that the company has facilities for recording this information and does, in fact, record it for various legitimate business purposes. And petitioner did not demonstrate an expectation of privacy merely by using his home phone, rather than some other phone, since his conduct, although perhaps calculated to keep the contents of his conversation private, was not calculated to preserve the privacy of the number he dialed. Second, even if petitioner did harbor some subjective expectation of privacy, this expectation was not one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." When petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the phone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the normal course of business, he assumed the risk that the company would reveal the information"
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/735/case.htm...
That's where things get fucked up.
Simply because you use a service means that you assume the risk that the company would reveal that information. Privacy is not guaranteed as soon as you use a service - setting the precedence for NSA mass surveillance. Unfortunately, these laws were passed when the fact that everyone you know, interact with, and communicate with is in your pocket all the time.
It's not quite the same as legitimizing the sharing of information by a third-party. By saying it is a "risk" there is the implication that it is outside the contract the customer has with the telephone company. So I think it contradicts itself by first saying he should not have expected privacy then saying the loss of privacy is a risk. If there's no expectation of privacy then where is the risk? There is an expectation but there is also a risk and if the information is divulged (against the customer's wishes) then any further expectation of privacy disappears. This is what happened with those leaked celebrity photos; the initial hacking was illegal, but publishing the photos after the leak was not.
The salient issue the case demonstrates is that if the police read the numbers from his phone directly, that would be an illegal search. But because it was the telephone company that divulged the information, even if that was a breach of privacy, it does not invalidate the use of the information as evidence because although the police received the benefit from the information they were not the ones who breached the privacy. So there was no loss of privacy as far as the fourth amendment is concerned; that only applies to police and not the telephone company. If he has a problem with the them giving the information out he can sue. Except, of course, congress has also given telephone companies immunity.
And as more government work gets outsourced to private contractors there are more avenues by which law enforcement can do this privacy-two-step-tango and collect admissible evidence without warrants. Or, at least, using much easier to obtain warrants. Isn't that what one of the concerns with CISA is? That it lets private company collect information that may be used in court? Do these companies have to obey the fourth amendment?
Recent inventions and business methods call attention to the next step which must be taken for the protection of the person, and for securing to the individual what Judge Cooley calls the right "to be let alone."
Instantaneous photographs and newspaper enterprise have invaded the sacred precincts of private and domestic life; and numerous mechanical devices threaten to make good the prediction that "what is whispered in the closet shall be proclaimed from the house-tops."
