Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 3rd Nov 2011 22:54 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 495771
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-10-12
The sandboxing requirement is not something new.
The initial deadline was November, it was pushed to March because apparently things aren't clear and some aren't ready.
You clearly didn't read my article. Please read before accusing me of things, okay?
Graçias. "
No I didn't read the entire article; it's a big rant with a small amount of useful content. The title and introduction are still misleading; it should be clear in one of these instances that this is not an introduction of the sandboxing requirement. This has been set in motion for a few months now and it's just getting an extension. You mention it a good 7 paragraphs into the article. Most people will probably skip it, it's just bad journalism.
Edited 2011-11-04 00:12 UTC