ryanac

Could that also be interpreted as:

------

Hearing a disturbance, the master programmer went into the novice's cubicle.

"Curse these search engines!" cried the novice in anger, "To find anything I must scroll through three or even four pages of results.

Sometimes I get so confused that I just give up. This is truly intolerable!"

The master programmer stared at the novice. "And what would you do to remedy this state of affairs?" he asked.

The novice thought for a moment. "I will design a new search engine," he said, "a search engine that will replace all these others."

Suddenly the master struck the novice on the side of his head. It was not a heavy blow, but the novice was nonetheless surprised.

"What did you do that for?" exclaimed the novice.

"I have no wish learn another search engine," said the master.

The novice packed his bags, left and went on to create Google, which gives him exactly the results he's looking for.

While his former master was left sifting through multiple pages of results on (insert other search engine here).

One day the master stumbled upon Google and the master was enlightened.

I found The Hawkeye Initiative to be a pretty hilarious response to this issue (more geared towards representation in comics), not sure many people know about it. http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com/

There's actually a TED talk with a group of freeform jazz performers explaining something similar to this called "There are no mistakes on the bandstand":

http://www.ted.com/talks/stefon_harris_there_are_no_mistakes...

Shows how even when you do something against the rules / on your own, you still need to remember you're part of a bigger unit.

I agree that people should know when to and how much they can break the rules and it takes experience to know that. But, I feel like you have to make mistakes to get that experience, and that there should be some room for experimentation and failure for those willing to take these risks.

Wow... Embarrassing that this guy was ever charged in the first place. I thought it was some kind of joke when reading the title or that there was more to it, but nope, that pretty much sums it up, chalk. :|

This is like saying "I take it you've never been shot", like knife stick or gun is the only other option. xD

Do you really think they would have subdued the (already held down by 5 officers) kid asking John Kerry uncomfortable questions with a knife stick if they didn't have tasers?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE

Pretty sure they would have just handcuffed him and walked him out of the auditorium, untazed and concussion free.

I think the resolution and real-time power of government satellites and the commercial satellites they have access to is debatable unless you've actually seen it. I recently had to look into this and was pretty surprised at the level of sophistication that's commercially available.

GeoEye is one example of a commercial company with the capability of producing high res close up "real time" satellite information. http://www.geoeye.com/Industries/defense%26intelligence#defe...

These are low resolution (50cm res) sample photos that the public can gain access to, consider how close they can actually get for military application. http://www.geoeye.com/gallery#!/album/defense-solutions/exmo...

Papers on GeoEye's latest capabilities: http://www.digitalglobe.com/sites/default/files/DG-8SPECTRAL... http://www.digitalglobe.com/sites/default/files/MyDigitalGlo...

The 50cm res is (afaik) a commercial limitation; "Because of federal regulations, the publicly-available images are slightly lower resolution -- approximately 50 cm)" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090526183858.ht...

--

"And what kind of intelligence do you think they have?" With the massive amount of data gathering combined with information from satellites (that we know about) like these, who knows...

It's also sad to see the immediate dismissal of alternate story lines even after this discovery.

A conspiracy was just uncovered... and we're concerned about conspiracy-theorizing? The word itself has been dragged through the mud to the point of becoming a dismissing scare tactic, it basically translates to "crazy person, crazy ideas".

Basically, if your story doesn't match the official conspiracy theory given by the government and the companies that work for it, then you must be a conspiracy theorist...

Life is comedy.

This would be fine if many prisons were not privately owned entities and if most inmates were not overly sentenced for minor drug charges.

We also have a growing incarceration rate (U.S), which shows that prison does a pretty poor job of making people "scared absolutely shitless of prison so much that they play exactly by the rules" and don't forget, sometimes the rules are pretty ridiculous.

Also "...individuals that would love to sit around with a bunch of other lazy-asses and be fed 3 meals a day. For free." is already the reality of the situation in many cases.

It's not a choice between the scariest most brutal situation you can imagine or no prison at all. There are other options to make a better system. And in general, a society shouldn't have to be scared into "playing by the rules".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rat... Also read prison privatization.

"All this is to say that the promises execs make on acquisitions are meaningless."

Well yeah, all promises are meaningless. Were any of these promises in writing as part of the acquisition? I mean are they legally bound to comply? If not, why would you expect to have any control over operations and decisions, regardless of your title, after being acquired? It's not your company anymore...

Also there's no detailed information about the meeting itself to show us how you came to that conclusion however true it is. I'm guessing they wouldn't listen to your advice, but again why would you expect them to?

"Why do I feel this way?"

Might not be the age, but the general mystery, undiscovered value and permanent loss of human history.

I mean, yes we tear down and rebuild buildings all the time, but no one is re-building these temples. Once it's gone no one is even thinking about building such a structure again because what purpose would it have? We barely even know the original function of a lot of ancient sites.

This is why I think there's more of an emotional reaction to ancient sites being destroyed, it's an unrecoverable piece of history that possibly hasn't even been fully understood.

It's a loss that can not be restored or studied further.

At the end of the day we don't really know how much value was lost, what was overlooked when the site was first discovered, etc.

That's how I feel anyway. :P

Drag and drop. When I drag an icon to a location and I miss, I think it's better to see the item animate back to it's original location rather than just disappear and "pop" back.

Having it animate back is just better communication for that particular interface.

You can see this on Google Chromes new tab "Most Visited" page, drag an item and let it go on nothing, it will animate back to its position.

Then there's sorting, it's much better (to me) when the interface animates to show you what the effect of moving one item to a new location will have on the rest of the items in that list, you can see this effect on sites like Trello when you drag around cards, etc.

I'm sure there are more examples of good uses of animation in interfaces.

Great, as if people walking around talking to "no one" wasn't bad enough, now people will be randomly grabbing at air and twitching their eyes. How are we supposed to separate the crazy people from the sane?! And the real question here, who's going to be the first person to accidentally pinch their friends nose when trying to zoom? How will we recover from such embarrassment? Is it in the warranty?!

On the other hand this does look interesting, I wonder if you could use this to "select" things in the world like "click/point to" a restaurant sign to learn more.

"as of late"? Feels like the lack of checks and balances on the police has been going on for a while.

It's only when something major happens that people take notice, like someone putting together this report, now all of a sudden it's a new trend that's way to prevalent as of late. :P

To be fair, it was a giant yellow box that gave an explanation of the words "sponsor content" when you hovered over it. Also the box isn't always yellow or that big, sometimes it's light tan, small and blends into the page; so they at least attempted to make it more noticeable in this instance. Not saying they should have put the ad up, for obvious reasons, but people need to pay attention to what they're reading as well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/files/2013/0...

Pop Up Message: "Sponsor content is created by The Atlantic’s Promotions Department in partnership with our advertisers. The Atlantic editorial team is not involved in the creation of this content. Email advertising@theatlantic.com to learn more."

http://www.poynter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/sponsorcon...

I wonder if this would have even been an issue if it wasn't an article about Scientology, especially since this style of advertising has been happening on that site for at least the last two years and elsewhere since newspapers have been in existence.

Edge: http://html.adobe.com/edge

A5: http://www.a5-animator.com

Hippo: http://hippostudios.co.uk

Sencha Animator: http://www.sencha.com/products/animator

Motion Composer: http://www.aquafadas.com/en/motioncomposer

Mac Only:

Purple: http://www.purpleanimator.com

Tumult Hype: http://tumult.com/hype

Online/Cloud Based Tools:

Mugeda: https://www.mugeda.com

Blysk: http://bly.sk

Didn't he also publicly release nude photos of her and three other women? Still maybe a bit extreme on the sentence, but it wasn't just "reading e-mail".

Maybe it's just me, but the photo itself looks very fake, specifically John McAfee, more specifically his head and the lighting. Why is his head distorted/skewed (on his left eye area, as if from the lens) when the other guys head isn't. There are way better compositors where I work, oh well maybe he just has a crooked smile/face. :P

Some of those "hobbyists" at Copenhagen Suborbitals are former NASA contractors and they have been working on that project since May 2008, so I think his main point still stands.

It also looks like they're still doing a lot of testing on active guidance systems, rather than trying to put a human up any time soon.

You can see their plans for the rest of this year under Campaigns > 2012 on their main site: http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com

Over 100 days ago... Now I'm outraged that the HN community didn't notice this before! xD

I don't like this argument because you can replace "drugs" with anything a government decides to make illegal. If a product or service is made illegal and there's still a demand, it will be sold on the black market and everyone knows what that funds.

The people who created laws that pushed these "drugs" into the black market knew this too and they also had a choice; collect the money themselves through taxes and use it as they see fit (probably to, I don't know, reduce drug use) or keep funding these kinds of activities.

Obviously if all/some drugs were legalized they'd find something else to sell, but why make it easy for them by giving them total monopoly over some of the most sought after substances on earth, with an endless supply of customers, some who are legitimately in need.

Also, when it comes to legalization vs "getting everyone in America to stop buying drugs", I think legalization is a lot more realistic.

P.S. I know one sure fire way to make sure it's home-sourced, unfortunately I can't do that because it carries some risk, jail.

Yes it might "cost less", but I wonder, he also gets food stamps, do you think (in this case) less would some how be affordable for him? In reality without the handout tuition might cost less, but he still wouldn't be able to afford it and now he would have no alternatives to getting an education when he's clearly motivated. Interested in any thoughts on this.

Pretty sure electrocuting animals to death was not commomplace, I agree with everything else. :P

Telsa: Hey guys all this stuff I've been talking about, I figured out a way to get it all for free! Guys?... Hellooooo? Son of a...

"You have made the choice not to enforce your own terms of service."

Not really. They've just made a choice not to enforce Section 11, which they state, in Section 11, that they can do.

In the first sentence of Section 11 it says "in the sole judgment of CloudFlare", doesn't that mean that they get to make the choice of whether or not a site violates anything in Section 11?

Are there any lawsuits from any government or official channel that successfully went after WikiLeaks for violations that CloudFlare needs to comply with?

In this case I think it's for CloudFlare to decide, they state this in Section 11 and they've made their choice.

Hah, where I work there's about 10 people PAID to read the internet all day. Thanks social media.

Had me laughing so I tried to find it: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Borenstein

If you want to do cartoon animation, look into ToonBoom. If you want to make games, you don't need to buy Flash, look into FlashDevelop and some AS3 game frameworks, etc.

This is coming from a guy who's been using Flash for years and every day at work. Adobe is really mishandling a lot of things at this point and in my mind the future of Flash is questionable at best.

Thankfully there are better options for what you're looking to do. :)

Wow, so that's why my account got banned.

This EXACT same thing happened to me and I always wondered why. I hadn't used my account for years, everything was off. Then out of nowhere I get an e-mail from Google saying my accounts banned. I didn't care because I'm not doing any advertising anymore, but it's got to suck for anyone who may be making part of their living from from ad revenue.

The most annoying thing about what happened to me was that the campaigns were OFF and when I was using Google Adwords AFAIK you could not delete campaigns, just pause them, so what else could I have done to avoid this?

If you could delete them, it was not made clear how to at the time, I seem to remember starting new (slightly different) campaigns because I couldn't completely delete old ones.

Well, at least if I want to try to get my account opened again, I'll have some alternate options beside the appeal system. Thanks for sharing your work around. :)

Many people write their PHP views in raw PHP to remove the (albeit small) overhead from a templating system. I think this is where the PHP short open tag syntax gets used the most (I know I use it there a lot), this is because:

<?=$username;?>

(Personal Preference Alert!) Is easier to read, faster to type and easier for designers to handle than:

<?php echo $username;?>

The downside is, if you deploy your code on a server you don't have access to (meaning you can't enable short tags via php.ini) then you'd have to painfully replace every "<?=" with "<?php echo" BY HAND, find and replace is not allowed.

Eventually, there was a big argument over whether short open tag should be removed in PHP6 (it's not), the biggest reasons for removing it (from what I remember) was that it could conflict with the "<?xml" tag and if you don't have access to php.ini or a modern code editor, you're screwed.

The removal of one of these major problems (by forcing short open tag to work regardless of php.ini settings) brings PHP's short open tag one step closer to being loved and admired by everyone, including YOU, so get used to thinking things like this are great.

As far as chained string offsets, who cares! Long live short open tag! (Sorry I couldn't help it.)

Interesting, just checked and this is the same for the style tag (no longer requires type), never knew that they have defaults now. :)

http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/semantics.html#attr-style-type

This is great info (that you gave in a reply about production costs), but I'm very interested in something which you may have some knowledge on.

All of the production you're talking about is live (as in using real people, locations and equipment.) My question is, what about digital cartoon production, wouldn't the cost of producing a digital cartoon show or movie be dramatically less than the equivalent length live show or movie? There are no sets, cameras, costumes, or natural location permits in cartoons. On top of this, voice actors more than often portray multiple characters, you do not need an actor for each person, etc.

Lets take the show South Park for example, which differs from cartoons like The Simpsons, Spongebob and Family Guy in that South Park is produced completely in house, they produce each episode from scratch in under a week I believe using various digital production methods.

You still need the basic essentials, script, storyboards, sound, voice actors, audio recording equipment, etc; but I (and I've had some small experience here) would think the cost of the equipment needed to put out a digital cartoon, of tv quality and length, would be significantly lower than the equivalent live tv show.

Also, I stress that I'm talking about digital cartoons, not traditional animation which can easily take months (tv) / years (movie) to produce. I've produced many digital cartoons myself, but not quite at the level of quality that would be required for a tv show (I will give examples if asked.) From my experiences a very small group of people with almost no money can produce a high quality cartoon in a reasonable around of time. Time being the main issue which, in animation, can be solved with more people, and overtime is reduced because of digital software.

Marketing and distribution would still be the same more than likely, but there is still plenty of room to innovate there online; take Louis C.K.'s recent example of making a lot of money (over a million dollars?) selling his stand-up routine directly to the consumers.

I'm very interested in your thoughts on all this, especially if there are production costs I've ignored (for cartoons) that would even things out. Basically, do you think a cartoon with the production value of South Park, can be produced for significantly less money than the equivalent length tv show or movie?

I think this is something that can be done (independently produced cartoon show at the level of South Park), but really hasn't been tried yet online (a show that pushes boundaries and talks about critical topics,) at all. I know it can certainly be produced faster and adapt to changes more quickly than traditional live tv.

I'm a person who basically gets frustrated thinking of all the people right now who are waiting for The Daily Show, Colbert and South Park to "say something" about SOPA or other major topics, as if those shows are our voice (which they are the best example of on tv sadly.) In the end though, they work for Viacom, so even though people think those shows are pushing boundaries (which they are) just remember, they can only say so much. Where as an independently produced show released online can say pretty much whatever they want and can respond to topics IMMEDIATELY. Thoughts? :)