I've always wondered how people reverse engineer these things. Do they just guess what the interface might be based on the chips? Or are they able to probe it somehow through the port?
That being said, this is still pretty cool, it'll be interesting to see what people come up with using this technology.
Anyone have further details?
I'm sure there are many more applications for this technology in the photography and even videography industry. Any ideas?
[SPOILER: DON'T FOLLOW IF YOU WANT TO TRY IT YOURSELF FIRST]
I'm not sure if this was the expected output, as there was no exact confirmation. But I assumed it was right.
It's not meant to be incredibly difficult, just fun and challenging enough to take 30 minutes or so.
Typically it's the kind of sales work hackers dislike. But plenty of people have built good careers around a sunny tolerance for rejection. Real estate agents, insurance sales people, cold callers, door-to-door sales people -- all of them experience many rejections for each closed sale.
One successful sales person told me that "it's just a numbers game." I still think about this with every rejection I receive.
seems to me that not only will you not feel the pain of rejection, you also won't be able to reap the benefit when there's an unexpected yes.
"to be so satisfied with your own achievements that you make no effort to improve"
Where did Wired get all the journalistic cred that Cindy seems to be lamenting the loss of?
I've been a reader for years, and it's essentially Maxim for geeks.
Add to that Wired readers are overwhelming male - 75% according to their latest media kit:
Conde Naste is in the business of making money with Wired, not journalism.
Or is that too cynical?
Wired shouldn't be about that. Even though the whole magazine is kind of campy, and more reminiscent of science fiction than any serious study, this strikes me as more distasteful than funny or sexy. I don't want Wired to become prudish, but they have an opportunity to lead by example here.
Like it or not, a magazine with Caterina Fake on the cover just isn't going to sell as well on news stands as one with Will Ferrell on the cover.
Having featured only a few women for actual accomplishments could be a real problem - except that it can probably be at least somewhat explained with a few observations: How many women did you see at Startup School this year? I'd guess the number was under 5%. What percentage of successful tech entrepreneurs you know are women? How many women are in YC? Based on these number, women may be over-represented for their digital accomplishments on Wired covers.
I do hope that changes, I'm always happy to see women entrepreneurs, and Startup School attendance is by no means a valid scientific study, but it does give us some indication as to why so few women are featured.
But any decision to stop reading Wired seems wise to me - it has its moments but the odd issues I buy when traveling are packed with gimmicks and populist dross. Pick up magazines like Communications of the ACM instead (sadly not at airport stores) - no gimmicky covers or chesticles in sight there!
So, that leads to the question: is there any other technology-centric print media worth subscribing to instead?
I guess I should, as a caveat, mention that I'm very sex positive and not entirely straight. But I personally believe that bodies aren't obscene, no matter what context they're in. Even if that context is an attention-getting cover on tissue engineering.
Trust me, that's a pretty good use of boobies.
Go Wired magazine for choosing your covers based on what will sell and not based on the loss of the five readers who might be offended by it. They can read "Bitch" (which is somehow not an offensive name for a magazine if written by feminists?). If Wired doesn't sell magazines, Wired doesn't exist.
Why can't they charge a bit more for a subscription ($36/year is still only $3/issue), and publish much higher quality content? I'd rather pay more for quality than read what they currently mail out every month.
It is wholly unnecessary for a technology publication to have that cover. At the very least, they should have limited it the newsstands.
I don't personally care about it one way or another but they sure can't say it wasn't meant to be provocative.
Is it more about being offended that wired magazine don't offer equal coverage to women entrepreneurs? Maybe there aren't just many tech entrepreneurs to cover.
I've had around 20 people stay at my place through airbnb and I think one person had an iPhone. At least in NY, many people visit from overseas where iPhones are not as prominent.
OTOH, Managing bookings on my iPhone is gonna be sweet.
It doesn't look much but the customization of all these standard UI elements (e.g. UITabBar as mentioned by sudont) makes a difference in the end. I would say especially in their market where I have seen websites with more than dubious interfaces.
Seeing Aweditorium, the direction they've taken makes all the more sense to me. The game elements in thesixtyone and the mini-map in Aweditorium trigger something really nostalgic in me. It will be interesting to watch these elements converge between the two services. I just wish I had the hardware to enjoy this.
new direction heh heh
This will slow down my AOL-using friends who gave away all their contact info to Facebook and now I get pelted with spam from Facebook using my name and list of friends (and I don't even have a Facebook account).
Google has never spammed me or share my name and location, Facebook does it all the time, pick who's more evil.
I think Google has lost sight of something very simple in this fracas:
With Google Contacts, the user directly manages his contacts' email addresses.
With Facebook, the user delegates management of email address to his contacts.
These are not the same thing. The Google contacts team seems to think that Facebook is an address book just like them. They are not. And to me, that failure to understand the differences is the root source of all this tomfoolery.
Edit after some very welcome discussion downstream:
On GMail, my contacts' email addresses are MY data.
On Facebook, my contacts' email addresses are NOT my data. The FACT that I am connected to my contacts is my data, but any information about those contacts does not belong to me.
This is why Facebook is not an address book, and pretending it as an address book where "your data gets stuck" is bound to lead to frustration for everyone.
"Mass exportation of email is not standard on most social networks ‚" when a user friends someone they don‚t then expect that person to be easily able to send that contact information to a third party along with hundreds of other addresses with just one click."
The occasion was Google disabling exporting of contacts from Orkut to Facebook. I happen to think that both Google then, and Facebook now, are perfectly correct. However, I am curious how those who see Google as clearly in the right, and Facebook as clearly in the wrong, would reconcile Google's statement and actions of a year ago with its statements and actions of the last several days.
Edit: citation http://techcrunch.com/2009/10/26/orkut-slows-hemorraging-to-...
I could see how this could scare the average user into thinking their contacts are moved from Google to facebook and stuck there, thus loosing their ability to use them within Google's products.
Do you think this is the intention?
Facebook is okay to be a dead-end for contacts' emails, since the email upload is used once to find others on the service. After that, if you need to contact someone else on Facebook, you can do so with a wall post or an inbox message. The email address is irrelevant.
With an address book, you need it to be portable, since the medium is accessible from many different locations and services.
The fact is that you dont need to get your friends' contact details out of Facebook. You sign up for Facebook to make Friends on Facebook and communicate over Facebook. Not to communicate over email, etc. (And certainly not over a rival network.) When you add someone to your address book, you do so to communicate with them over email, or phone, or whatever, which are inherently completely open and interconnected systems. [Surely there is a debate to be had here about the ubiquity of Facebook as a platform and that it should be open - could you imagine Facebook Clients? But I dont believe that's a debate about exporting existing contact info.]
To that end, Google warning users about the terminal nature of their exported data is unnecessary and only confuses the process of finding friends for users (who, by the way, aren't thinking about data portability, or building up an address book/contacts list on Facebook, they're thinking about making Friends on Facebook, to communicate over Facebook)
TL;DR: This whole mess doesn't matter, and Google is only making things complicated for users.
It used to be a 30 second task to sift through your address book and check off people to send friend requests to. Now, thanks to Google behaving like children, I need to figure out how to export her contacts as a text file so that I can upload it to Facebook.
Google, please stop.
You are pissing off your customers.
Edit: subsititure Users for Customers in the previous sentence if it helps you to parse it. The end result is still the same: The people who use Google's service are being punished by Google for the actions of a 3rd party.
Same thing can happen with Google Contacts, but the difference is that on Contacts you give out your email. On Facebook you signup with an email and then you "friend" someone.
I think Facebook might have gone to far with Facebook Deals. Now Groupon, its friends and other bystanders start to react less kindly to Facebook's business model: Copying ideas from other websites with nothing in return. Oh, well.
Second because they are in the wrong. The last thing in the world I want is my friends on Facebook to be able to give MY email address to random third-parties in return for free virtual pets or whatever Zynga is giving away this week. Google's moralism would mean much more spam and a far worse experience with Facebook. My being a "friend" with someone does not imply permission to let them give my contact information to third parties. Who is Google to say otherwise?
I think this is misleading - Doesn't Facebook allow you to download all of your data, just like Google? As much as I dislike Facebook's privacy policies, the mudslinging seems a little thick from both sides.
Facebook and Google - two of the biggest privacy violating companies on the planet. May you live in interesting times, indeed.
Neither is doing this for the users. They are doing it to help their services grow and ultimately to help their bottom line grow. Believing anything else would be naive at this point.
I liked this. So Godfatheresque!
Maybe they will care some day ...
This reeks of a cheap shot.
A service that won't let me "get my contact information out"? Nice way to frame this in terms of "openness" too, apparently riding "open" for all it's worth with Android is not enough.
Can I just "get out" all of my personal information from Google? No? Isn't Google "open" enough to let me do it?
We think this is an important thing for you to know before you import your data there.
Did you also think it was super duper important with a cherry and smarmy bullshit on top to let me know before you gave Facebook my GMail contacts behind the scenes when I was registering there earlier this year?
No, and I was disgusted when Facebook started suggesting them for "friends" right away.
We all know that Opt-in is like "does not exist", but they could at least say they are open.
edit: They could even sell it as a privacy feature ...
That's why that position, to me, is untenable. Don't do evil indeed: you just conceded the other side (Facebook) their main argument (that they don't have to be open, only if they feel like it).
"When you are not practicing, someone else is. When you meet him, he will win".
I remember years ago when I was on the swim team I had missed two practices. My coach said I had missed 4 practices, and I tried to correct him but he said, "You missed 2 practices, but your competition did not. So now you are 4 practices behind your competition."
I always remembered that.
The point of education is not to get a "certificate" that proves to your future employers that you went through the motions of education.
The point is to make yourself valuable.
I'm surprised how many people are oblivious to this.
So many people view education as nothing more than "something boring you have to do so that you get a decent job". Where a decent job is "something boring that you to do to make a decent living".
There's a contradiction there somewhere: if everything you do is boring, how "decent" is your living? really.
What's their idea of a decent living? "Getting paid enough to pay the bills and send the kids to school and make them not have to worry about doing any work". In other words, a decent living is the ability to make your children's life just as boring as yours is.
None of this brings any happiness.
Also, having another degree I think I had a different perspective than many of the high school graduates that where there with the idea of becoming a rock star or whatever. Most of the instructors, etc, made their livings by teaching, playing random gigs, doing essentially anonymous studio work, and odd jobs. Music is a very hard business. This reality seemed mostly lost on the majority of the students. I decided that I was probably happier to have a "real" job and play music on the side.
Actually if you're good enough, plenty of money. It's not a matter of how many people do it, it's a matter of how much better you are than the many people that do it are. Amateur programmers shouldn't be making software for Bank of America, the same way an amateur musician shouldn't be playing for Dream Theater. The interesting thing is that one generally doesn't notice when you cross the line that makes you a professional, which is generally delimited by profitability.
If you can make money with your abilities it's because there are a bunch of people that can't, but never make the mistake of thinking that because a lot of people do something it means you can't make money off it. Oh and of course, the person with such abilities that doesn't take advantage of them to make money doesn't deserve them (with the exception of the multitalented who leverages a 'better' skill or the person leveraging those skills in a risk filled endeavor for larger profits).
I bookmarked this and stopped reading after that. Nice reminder to get back to coding for me.
Sounds exactly like a library, except (I presume) extremely expensive. I only went to college because I assumed (correctly) that at least a few great minds would be there. What's the upside to Berklee?
A ton of great lines in there, as Derek Sivers is an amazing writer jam-packed w/ wisdom much like PG, but this is my most fav one out of the pack:
"But the casual ones end up having casual talent and merely casual lives."
But also, success in the field of music requires a level of social assertiveness and competence that is way beyond what it is in technology. Nobody cares about your cool grooves or whatever, you have to fight to stay on board. But oh you can build my ecommerce site for me ?
I got out of Berklee in '92 and basically dicked around trying to get non-shitty gigs for a few years, not going to enough jams and auditions, until an ocean of interest and money came at me to do anything related to computers, after I had sworn them off to be a musician. I was interested in eating and not living in a box. The market decided for me on that one - scratch and claw your way to get some real music gigs, or step into this plush world of "wow you can program ?". Wish I could play again.
Especially the quote "The casual ones end up having casual talent and merely casual lives."
I am all about teaching yourself and internal thirst for knowledge, but this is a bit depressing.
>The rest was noise you'll be proud you avoided.
Yes -- almost, but you will properly feel that there are one or two things that you didn't experience that you will miss not being a part of.
Its dumb to spend your whole creative life simply reproducing ideas that seemed obvious decades ago. You can get a lot better if you know what other people did, and then consciously build on it.
It seems like every other product blog that I visit is intentionally keeping me from being able to navigate to the actual product!
I've activated billing in app engine but no idea how long it takes to come online. Really sorry guys - I assumed the free quotes would see me through! Hopefully it comes back soon.
edit - looks like the billing just kicked in... Phew. Sorry about that! looks like I caught it just about in time. If you saw the 404 page my apologies. I've loaded it up with credits so it should stay up now
The Rails source is here: https://github.com/marcus/Instabrary
I've enabled billing in appengine as I'm nearly over quota:
If anyone has any tips to optimise my outgoing bandwidth it would be very much appreciated! Hopefully I caught it in time to avoid any real outages. I'll try and keep an eye on it though.
Ok - right off to trawl through the comments and responses and reply!
Thank you all :)
So is there already a hn spreadsheet up somewhere where one could find a, say, rails mentor? :)
These are similar, they may help inspire you for features:http://www.goodreads.com/http://www.shelfari.com/
Keep it up!
Here are some suggestions:
1. Use the Amazon API to autosuggest book titles and author names.
2. Normalize the lists. That is, count up which books are recommended the most and use those statistics to recommend books.
3. List similar lists on each list :) Lists that list the same books might be related. If they list two or more of the same books, they're probably related.
But even if you don't change a thing, it's still a great little project!
I've been building something with a similar aim on and off for a long time now, and it's neat to see in the comments that there are at least three others already out there.
I wonder if there is something that will lead to more widespread awareness/adoption of sites like these. Or are we better off trying to pick a target market smaller than [all book readers]?
Some good food for thought as I try and finally finish my own entrant into the space.
I haven't done much with the site but it actually ended up getting used by teachers and librarians so I would feel bad ever shutting it down.
or did you learn it as your learned google's app engine?
We've been using it pretty much daily for about 5 months now and cleaning messy government data used to be time consuming and destructive, with google Refine it's so easy and fast to join, cleanup and do rudimentary analysis on said data.
It especially shines when you have to merge many disparate data sets into one. My colleague, Dan Nguyen, did just that for our Dollars for Doctors app:
and he scraped the data from reports like this:
(one company even put the disclosures up as a flash movie).
Of course we could write scripts, use grep/awk/sed or import it into a database, but Refine is really it. I encourage you to give it a try if you have questionable data you'll need to clean.
After a quick trial with this, I'm sold. This is truly amazing for people with similar jobs such as mine.
I never thought this day would come.
I literally just did the same exercise as demonstrated in the second video, parsing a Wiki document (the list of world religions) from Wikipedia. But it took about 30 lines of PHP.
Maybe they'll add the ability to import a web page as a data source, and export the script that does the transformations as a python script?
Okay. I'm rambling...
I'm just curious, but exactly which "limitations" are those? I can believe that parallel connections help in practice (especially when fetching small objects), but for large objects, I find it surprising you can't get reasonably close to saturating a single network connection with a modern TCP stack (e.g., using TCP window scaling).
This will be pretty damn useful for piping the output of some process generating a large file (i.e. video transcoding) and beginning the upload before the file has been fully created.
First of all the storage for the data already uploaded is reserved and there is no way to release since you cannot abort the upload without the 'id'.
Second of all there doesnt seem to be a way to list active multi-part uploads, you can only list the status of an upload for which you have the 'id'.
More people need to read The Codebreakers.
 Alas, I just have to marvel, because for some reason my mind doesn't anagram well. I just don't have the knack. To me high-level Scrabble playing looks like a superpower.
> Sometimes, people who don't understand any better confuse the mundane with the divine, mistake hard work for lightning bolts. They couldn't pull off that same stunt, and so they convince themselves that nobody else could, either. Her brain can't possibly work that way, that fast. There's no way she solved that puzzle on her own. The game must be rigged.
> Or Burke has a gift, and she improved it with study. She practiced. She found the little edges and secrets that make large-size success possible; she did every last bit of the math. She earned her way to her place behind the wheel, and then, on that fateful day, in that particular pattern of rectangles and lights, she saw all that she needed to beat it.
I'm not sure you have to qualify that as something she calls them. I think a lot of people would call those "chunks".
It just took a little logic about what words could possibly be in certain places, and the rest was filled in by phrases I heard in the past.
Edit: Don't get me wrong! It took guts for her to do that. If she got it just a little wrong, she gave the next person a LOT of hints and it likely wouldn't get back to her.
I appreciate that none of these conjure memories of phrases off the top of my head, but the idea that "have" is often the only option following "I'll" is simply not true.
Let's face it, she's quick on her feet, smart, familiar with phrases and - most importantly - got lucky.
Now that I look at the rest of that episode, it also included some coverage of the Cambridge Innovation Center's Elevator Pitch contest, so all around a good listen for the HN crowd.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ' _
_ _ _ _
Category was "Thing".
(Err, formatting isn't helping. That's two words, with 9 spaces, an apostrophe and a 10th space in the first word, and four spaces in the second word).
When I was in the fifth grade, we were playing hangman in class and my friend Chingfei managed to discern "White Men Can't Jump" from only two or three letters. An impressive feat, proven by the fact that I remember this 14 years later.
A "miracle" is really something with an extremely minuscule chance of occurring, but with enough trials you'll eventually get a positive result. Even the Biblical "water into wine" could happen under the laws of quantum mechanics, but it's an insanely long shot.
Still, in this case it was logic, not luck, that played out, since no rational person would just guess at solving the puzzle so early in the game.
http://i.imgur.com/8ERaf.png X axis is days (approx) since 11/12/09 Y is % of chars as compared with the busiest day (11/12/09)
It may not be as beautiful as CoffeeScript (which we also use), as rich as Python, as safe as Rust, as concurrent as Erlang, or even as hackable as Ruby, but it certainly offers an unparalleled set of features which is hard to find in just one language ‚" decent standard library, decent syntax, decent performance, super easy concurrency, a helpful and reasonably sized developer community, a relative level of stability, automatic memory management with good enough control over memory use, usable interoperability with C, native client support and even a standard testing framework.
Thank you and happy birthday to all the fellow Go developers out here on HN.
I hope other language designers take note of Go and put more emphasis on simplicity in the future.
I would also be very interested to know which companies are using Go, and for what.
Well, that's it. If I can't have a brace-war tearing the dev group apart for months and kill productivity, I want nothing to do with that language. What's next, significant white space?
All it would take would be swapping "--" for "...", "ie"/"i.e."/"eg"/"e.g." You should probably compare your local copy of an email with someone else before leaking it!
Not like someone is going to stand up and say that they weren't caught (or at least not till they leave their jobs.)
What underscores the utter ruthlessness of Google's actions is that it's impossible to imagine that the leaker meant any harm at all coming to Google from their what they did. If anything, they were probably nothing if not deeply proud of Google in that moment; and giddily euphoric -- and thought it could only help Google for the world at large to know of its generosity to its employees.
Had they only known.
I think that's a weak argument. First, I doubt Google is literally going to give everyone cash. Second, a 10% pay increase is not a life-changing amount of money.
The Computer History Museum gets $10,000 if she loses, I guess they should start planning an exhibit on old Russian computer technology.
But to be less smug for a moment why anyone would think this is beyond me. While the Russians did achieve significant technological advances in the 20th century, and implemented an impressive education system with regard to mathematics and computer science there are so many other factors which play into this. Namely Russia obtaining a score of 2.7/10 for corruption in 2002 from the Corruption Perceptions Index and sliding down to 2.1/10 in the most recent ranking putting them in 158th place. Further they are ranked 143rd on the 2010 Index of Economic Freedom. India with 87th on corruption and 124th on economic freedom, not great, has plenty of English speakers and a more impressive computer science educational infrastructure, as well as being cheaper. The stories of people dying in Russian prisons after resisting corrupt government shakedowns are just horrific and I am not aware of any Indian equivalent. But I suppose if you invest there as she does, you need to talk it up.
I don't know if the site is only temporarily down, or if it's been abandoned, but it's a shame if the latter. The idea behind Wrong Tomorrow was chiefly to hold pundits accountable for their frequently bad predictions. You can read his site announcement, where he explicitly mentions sites like Long Bets and how Wrong Tomorrow differs from them:
Vint Cerf challenges with, "At some point, laptop or smaller devices with high quality displays and suitable access controls for intellectual property will make the sale and consumption of books, sound and movies through these devices practical." He goes on to cite the "iPOD" as an example.
NetFlix claims to have more than 13,500 titles and more than one million members. You order the movie on the Internet, you just can't watch it until all of the bits of the movie arrive. They just happen to be delivered to your mailbox and you have to put the bits into your computer or dvd player. -- Posted by David B. Peterson on May 16, 02003 at 12:32AM PDT
"...The net works differently than that... and Content owners have missed (and will continue to miss) it for 3 reasons: 1) Technophobia coupled with crippling ego (too cool to look dumb they fear the pipe) 2) Misguided content protectionism (go back and watch 'The Power of Myth'... again! It's the 'story' damnit!) ..."
This is 8 years old (and proven somewhat wrong), and we're still saying it, in some form today.
‚Over a ten-year period commencing on January 1, 2008, and ending on December 31, 2017, the S & P 500 will outperform a portfolio of funds of hedge funds, when performance is measured on a basis net of fees, costs and expenses.‚
We've got a while, but it feels like an appropriate bet.
Cached version: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cyGf1Tn...
This seems like a risky one to bet against, at least from a technical perspective.
I suppose it is true that it was still a pretty open question whether anyone would manage to negotiate licenses with the media producers to do VOD, but Bell doesn't even touch on that issue.
‚Large Hadron Collider will destroy Earth.‚
Also interesting in this context: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1887215
"Service Temporarily Unavailable
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later.Apache/2.2.11 (Ubuntu) Server at www.longbets.org Port 80"
The trick here is that the areas that have a lot of detail (her face, for example) contain less blue. If you use a color meter to inspect the areas around the girls face, you'll find that there is less blue light present. That makes sense, considering that our skin doesn't contain a lot of blue pigment. This fact is exacerbated by the fact that the author overlaps the channel samples in a way that places emphasis on the areas impacted the most.
Basically, the author fails to understand the additive color model. We don't notice the pixelation of the blue channel in this photo because the result of the alteration is to introduce a low-contrast color in to the photo where the aberration overlaps: yellow. If you look closely, you'll see that the areas where you see cyan and magenta in the red and green channels are replaced by yellow in the corresponding blue channel alteration. The effects are diminished by two factors: there isn't much blue luminance present to influence the other colors, and yellow contrasts poorly with most of the colors in the photo where we notice it (the hood is white).
If you were to take a color-neutral photograph and split out the RGB channels, you'd perceive the same level of detail in all channels.
EDIT: I'd kind of like to take back that last statement about perceiving the same level of detail in all channels. I don't know that you would, but that's not the primary thing that bugs me about the author's argument. My main point is that his argument is flawed, not his assertion. I don't know enough about human color perception to make that argument.
Not true. MPEG-2 uses the YCbCr colorspace, consisting of a high resolution Luminance signal (brightness) and a low resolution Chrominance signal (color). So in fact, all color information is subsampled, green is not treated specially.
There will be more information in the green channel because that is how the camera is built. I'm sure somewhere there is proper research that was was used in developing the Bayer filter that indicates the human eye is more sensitive to green, but this looks like a case of bad methodology ending up with the right conclusion through luck.
edit: no -> little
If your eye doesn't notice the difference, are you being "bilked"?
They provide an API, but I think this is a case of a project being a "service" to keep the database of questions from being free. There's no technical reason for this to be a service, and it's not a terribly complicated product that would be difficult to scale. It's a static database!
Might be neat to create an open-source bank of these CAPTCHA questions. Maybe I'll throw something together this weekend.
"2nd fruit in bear apple goat orange" would result in apple because it is looking for second in a list and neglects context of fruit.
"7th digit in abc123def456ghi789 " would result in d when it should be 7. Again not understanding context and merely looking at logical construction.
So for," What is seven hundred and forty four as a number? ", the interpreted input is a NumberQ function taking the main part "seven hundred and forty four as a number" and evaluating whether it is a number or not. The real result is true.
The zoologist one has already been talked about. The rest other than the 7th digit question are all false.
There are many different choices for the inputs, for example with the colour question
The 2nd colour in purple, yellow, arm, white and blue is?
There seems to be some popularity going on.The first choice as input is yellow and the second choice is blue. To further test replacing yellow with black leads to blue as the first choice.Then again even if you were to use the interpreted inputs you would have to determine the syntax for wolfram which last time I checked is not available and is basically a guess the syntax game.
If someone would care to enlighten me on how this could actually work I would greatly appreciate it, otherwise this method does not seem like it will work. Nice creativity though.
- the CAPTCHA usually wants a single word or number
- the desired word is usually the rarer or later one
More to the point, people acting like idiots is nothing new, but I think we'd all still be shocked if this actually happened, just like we'd be shocked if any kind of gathering resulted in a riot and 23 people dead.
Yes, it's possible. But so what? A person in the early 20th century could have constructed a similar boogeyman scenario involving those new-fangled flying contraptions: watch out! Someone can take a plane across the country to kill you in mere hours! Yea, and?
My customers are small business people (retailers, wholesales, doctors, lawyers, etc.) who own computers that have replaced their file cabinets and some of their clerical employees. Those computers came with lots of stuff in them but need more as their business changes or they discover stuff they forgot. I upgrade their computers with the stuff they need. We call that stuff "software". They pay me. Well enough for me to buy you dinner Sunday night and take you to the Steeler's game. What do you say?
I sit in an office writing all day long. I have a fridge and a microwave and occasionally go out to lunch with people down the hall. When it gets cold I wear the sweater you bought me last month. I love what I do. I write stuff, kinda like Stephen King or Danielle Steele, but business stuff, not fiction. My customers love what I write for them and they pay me well, so you never have to worry about me again. I showed Uncle Lenny what I was working on and he thought it was great. I'll pick you up for lunch and a trip to the mall at noon on Saturday. See you then.
Well played sir.
Other than, great software. If it ran Netflix and Hulu+ on the Box, it would be a no brainer for purcahse. But as it is, without Netflix, I have to wonder if Apple TV2 is the right way to go, esp. at 50% the price.
At this point I just assume Hulu+ won't work on anything. It barely works on our iPad, and that's a supported platform.
Hopefully Roku will support Hulu+ before the end of the year.
And that's all she wrote. I cannot believe they didn't put a hard drive in there. For me, that completely kills the purpose of this thing ...
Is your audience geeks who don't call their mom? Then maybe it's OK. Is your audience moms? Then you might want to tweak it some more.
"The page you asked for does not existYou may have followed an out-dated link, or there may be an error in our service.We apologize for the inconvenience."
Pretty slick website. The background video effect is pretty rad.
The statement "Subtle gender discrimination continues to be rampant," is completely unsupported by the evidence.
If we accept the common claim that women are discouraged from being assertive and behaving in "male" ways, then wouldn't we expect to see an behavioral difference? If there is a behavioral difference, wouldn't we expect that to be reflected in letters of recommendation?
This is shoddy science (failure to control for confounding factors) and implies shoddy social policy (maybe we shouldn't use letters of recommendation). What makes it worse is that it ignores what would be actual useful questions like the study that asked people to describe a video taped baby's behavior with some told the baby was a boy and some told it was a girl.
Men might on average also be more ambitious and outspoken.
This could be attributed to research suggesting women value interpersonal relationships more than men and that men take greater risks than women (hence terms like outspoken, assertive and daring).
"...I could use an infinite loop, but that would lock my Mathematica completely. I might want to run overnight computations at the same time, or have other events happen periodically, so instead I program a scheduled interrupt (another new capability) that will suspend any running Mathematica program, run this command, and then return to the program."
Mathematica hasn't previously had a way to manage a long-running process by itself. For a long time this would have been accomplished by calling Mathematica kernel from another program using a linking library. Not very difficult but it still would have been another step. Now it's built in. Cool.
It's based on a technology created by the guy who made Palm.
And here's a guy trying to fool it and mostly failing.
#11 "balance" is laughable based on the preceding ten.
Some things missing include:
* properties (glaringly so) * slots * meta classes * dynamic code generation / data as code * emulating various types and the rest of __methods__ * know thy standard lib * distribution setup tools, et al * documentation epydoc, sphinx, docutils, et al * profiling and performance
"... Python class. Claim it could be "better" implemented as a dictionary plus some functions"
Um, that is almost all a Python Class is.
It seems to me that we're at a place with software where we were with, say, civil engineering in roughly 2000 BC or something. This date is horribly wrong, but what I mean is that we're building basic structures, and we're okay at it, but when we try to do anything larger, we're failing.
At some point, we'll be able to make larger buildings, bridges, and roads... but we're not there yet. It seems like the best path forward is to follow is to do exactly what early engineers did: an apprenticeship model. Yes, software is based in math, but so are bridges. We've got a better grip on the math now, and it does help us build modern bridges, but at first, we had to schlep along.
I'm starting to ramble slightly, so I'll cut this off. And as I said, this is only a half-baked thought... but I think this 'apprentice -> journeyman -> master' path is an intriguing way to move forward with software.
For me at least, the balance lies more in the use of state (easy in python) or the cost of abstraction (no inling and TCO).
We learn new tricks just to make our code simpler and prettier. As a side effect, we code faster and with less bugs.
That said, I'm off to the library to borrow a copy of Real World Haskell.
Part of the reason that it runs hot is the screen power management is incomplete, so it's always on, albeit dimmed. This should change soon.
Last video I saw of Android running on iPhone seemed very buggy and sloooow.