surreal

12 ms·

91.
by surreal 13y ago
If it's just "some of it", they're doing something wrong.
92.
by surreal 13y ago
I didn't dispute that. The key itself is fine. I'm just worried about using it for JSON retrieval! That part is undocumented as far as I can see, and therefore subject to change without notice
93.
by surreal 13y ago
Agree. But I'd personally place 'using an undocumented feature that requires constructing a URL based on a parameter from a different URL' towards the 'unsuitable' end of the spectrum! Somewhere around the 'be
94.
by surreal 13y ago
Maybe the comparison wasn't the wisest, valid point. But I stand by the fact that this seems like hacking an undocumented feature: "Copy the key=... part [...] and put it into this URL: [...]", which means it could easily be
95.
by surreal 13y ago
Good for prototyping, thanks. I'd be wary of using this in a live system though: relying on Google's public APIs/services is risky enough (Checkout is one example, Reader, etc) let alone an undocumented feature like this whic
96.
by surreal 13y ago
Several others might agree with you, but the fact remains LinkedIn security missed (or ignored) a legitimate issue and released the new feature. Surely that should define whether a reward is justified
97.
by surreal 13y ago
interactive?
98.
by surreal 13y ago
Question is – as Google reclaims more and more of the software side, how will manufacturers continue to differentiate their devices from one another?–As this, as far as I can tell, is the main reason they skin devices...