Actually that was easy, here is their financial information: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports and a specific outline of what they want to make/spend is on page 12 of this PDF: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/d/dd/2010-1... Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/43973767/Untitled?secret_password=... )
Edit: To clarify, the issue I have is with the increase, not the costs for this year. They're going from 10m to 25m and I don't understand how, if there's an explanation somewhere please do link :-)
If users don't mind adverts on commercial sites that offer free content, why would they mind it on a not-for-profit site?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for donating to charities in general (and do, regularly), I'm all for donating to Wikipedia (and have done more than once), and I'm all for websites that allow people who donate to disable adverts. But despite having donated to Wikipedia, I'd have no problem with seeing adverts on every page (as long as they're reasonably subtle, and don't consist solely of the cheapest of the cheap adverts, such as "omg you won an ipod lol!!"). In fact, I think I'd prefer seeing normal adverts than the constant reminder that they want donations.
"No ads. No agenda. No strings attached."
Why does being a "community website" mean they shouldn't use advertising revenue to support their growth?
Sorry if that sounds uncharitable, but I don't agree with donating to such a large bureaucratic organization.
There, a steady income source way better than asking for $20M every year.
A few questions I'd like answered:
1) How much money do they need?
2) How much of that have they raised so far?
3) Is this going to be an annual fundraiser?
4) Do they have an endowment which can fund Wikipedia going forward?
5) Have they relied on donations thus far?
6) What happens if they can't raise the money?
I want Wikipedia to stay around in it's present form, but I'd really like to know what my commitment for that needs to be for the next 40 years, not just right this second.
I find it hard to "donate" to megalomaniacs.
On the technical side, I wonder if a new DNS system outside of US control wouldn't be a good thing. Presumably, the best DNS system would be decentralised in some fashion... This might lead to a difficult transition period, but the end result (an internet where domain names are basically uncensorable by any government) would be very desirable.
I wonder what that would look like.
Facebook has in-fact done some serious web innovation the last years and W3C has completely dropped the ball. Facebook and Twitter have been catalyzing internet adoption and the general spread of information.
Mr. Berners-Lee's obsession about content-silos shows that there is a serious disconnect between the current state of the web and W3C. The web was about content and documents fifteen years ago, now it's about the flow of data.
I know Berners-Lee is a big Linked Data advocate, but the approach that's being taken by the W3C is painfully slow and doesn't take into account the fluidity of information.
The web is emergent and out of control. Deal with it. Technologies and tools compete for attention and adoption. You snooze, you lose.
As for the 'content silos': Are you fucking kidding me? 'Content' being stuck in Facebook is not going to happen, in fact, the content is going to flow more and more. If you mark something as 'only my friends can see this', it will leak. Don't want to be tagged in a picture? Well, you have no choice. Face recognition will get you soon.
The internet, thanks to social web, is a giant copy machine. There's a huge shitstream of content and your attention and the activity around it is the thing that matters. Who cares about the damn content.
So maybe it's time for the 'Web Founder' and the W3 Web Museum to roll up their sleeves and do something, instead of bitch about the companies that actually advance the web.
So instead of bitching about the companies and people that actually advance the web and change the world, maybe it's time for the 'Web Founder' and the Web Museum to roll up their sleeves and do something...
Google calendar for events - Anyone with any email address can be invited to an event. Google calendar also emails out standard format .ics files with it's invites so participants are free to use whatever calendar app they choose and just import the ics files. (This also hooks up nicely with my android calendar). I'm looking forward to when everyone on Facebook gets an @facebook email address and then I'm going to start sending them all Google calendar invites ;-) Seriously, I think Google calendar is a seriously under recognised service.
Twitter for a news feed equivalent - You don't need an account to read so it is open enough. (There is also status.net or identi.ca if you want even more openness). I embed a feed of the most recent posts in my webpage. If you want to subscribe, you can use RSS so you don't have to use twitter to follow me.
Photos - I use a combination of FlickR and my own custom image gallery on my website. On FlickR you can set the photos to be public so viewers don't need to have an account.
Messages - Obviously I just use email.
When I meet people I want to connect with, I ask for their email address rather than ask if they are on Facebook. I occasionally use Facebook to find people and then ask for their email address via Fb message.
I can't think of anything else I really miss out on from Fb.
Staying out of Facebook isn't enough.
Companies like Disney control the movie industry by controlling the channel. You can make movies all you want, but try to get them into the theatres and rental stores. It's the same for the music industry. You can cut cd's all you want but try to get them on the radio or in the music stores. You can make a website and it can be the best website in the world, but if it doesn't appear in a search engine, it doesn't exist.
With all these big, rich companies doing business on the internet, do you think for a minute they are going to allow it to remain free?
i don't think these companies are going to do it, and this seems exactly what w3c is meant to do. so why not? seems more productive.
Preferably something as compelling as Sir Tim's original vision for the Web...
Upon navigating to the linked page, a pop-up appeared warning that the site is "unsafe".
Which causes me some concern that the "mainstream" campaign against Dropbox and others may already be gearing up.
Of course, I love + use DropBox, and GDrive has never really happened (not in the dropbox-like incarnation people expected) but at the time the application was written it seemed as though things were very stacked against DB.
To quote it: If there's one thing applicants don't get, it's the value of being concise in the answers. Not brief, concise.
# Why would your project be hard for someone else to duplicate? This idea requires executing well in several somewhat orthogonal directions, and missteps in any torpedo the entire product.
For example, there's an academic/theoretical component: designing the protocol and app to behave consistently/recoverably when any power or ethernet cord in the chain could pop out at any time. There's a gross Win32 integration piece (ditto for a Mac port). There's a mostly Linux/Unix-oriented operations/sysadmin and scalability piece. Then there's the web design and UX piece to make things simple and sexy. Most of these hats are pretty different, and if executing in all these directions was easy, a good product/service would already exist.
> Email themselves attachments.
For me, that was the killer feature that got me hooked 2+ years ago.
Today we use Dropbox for so much more. It's become the ultimate networked drive that takes advantage of your local hard disk.
The one feature I wish it had was encryption.
I wonder how many single founders make a terrible joke answer to that question and if some sort of filtering could be applied. Drew handled it well, I would have just put n/a
EDIT: Actually, I suppose it serves two goals -> could show potential ingenuity, but also reveals how 'trusting/guarded' the applicant is.
I remember showing my friends the first presentation video when they started giving out private Beta invites. I was so stoked to have something like it that my friends could also use with me. I'm very glad everything worked out for him and the Dropbox crew!
And if you compare the budgets (~300k vs. ~20M), well, the FreeBSD Foundation needs the money far more than Wikipedia does.
Please don't use Apple's insufferable house style of ditching articles and possessives when mentioning the physical device.
Thankfully you use "an iPad" and "your iPad" elsewhere, you just need to be consistent.
Now it's a bit confusing:
> Switch lets different people ...
And people start thinking: Switch? What is Switch?
Take a look at: http://www.apple.com/ipad/See? iPad. The biggest text on the page.
By the way Switch is a very cool name for an app so use it a lot :-)
Creating a positive web experience for actual users of the device you're selling to is critical.
It's implemented with some nice UI and cookie swapping.
Of course it's an estimate as there are complications in calculating it like users deleting cookies, one user with multiple browsers (ahem, programmers), etc.
It's still an awesome milestone.`
For such a long time TC have deliberately refrained from mentioning/promoting StackOverflow.
Thank you guys (the SO team and the contributors), for providing such a valuable website for programmers.
I just checked their users page (http://stackoverflow.com/users) and they 8003 pages of 35 accounts, which comes out to be "just" 280,105 accounts in the system, including people who just stop by once to ask or answer a random question (you don't need to create an account there, they create a cookie-based one for you when you do something on the site the first time).
They're pretty much definitely identifying uniques via some combination of cookies, IP addresses, and perhaps some other methods. I seriously doubt you bother to clear your old cookies before creating each new account on the system.
Besides, I got the impression that the article was referring to the entire network, including the StackEx sites, in its totals.
I'm a bit like you too, btw, in that I have more than one account there, but for a different purpose. I've created new accounts there before to ask what I think are really dumb questions. It's bad enough that the top voted question on my account right now is "Should I find a new career?" which I created during a particularly bad time at my last job. That question is probably the single biggest reason I never signed up for their Careers service, right after the fact that there's basically nothing there for Canada.
One idea â€" what about making people authenticate with Facebook Connect to post? This would help with concerns about bad content being uploaded, as well as give a little bit of info about the author, and down the road you could subscribe to posts by a particular author?
Whilst this change will hopefully benefit customers and help lower prices, anyone can see that this is not the optimal solution.
I expect something like forbid playing rental dvds on players more than 10 feet away from the TV... This is going to be sick.
In other words, you still have all of the worst features of owning a DVD rental store.
In my field of business (development / .NET), there is no way C# is going away as the language of choice, so learning new languages will very rarely allow me to use those fully in the line of duty.
However, learning different languages, addressing problems differently, allowing different kind of constructs with different levels of flexibility often reveals other solutions to problems and allows you think about things outside your normal day-to-day language's constraints.
Often the result of learning new languages is that I see concepts and constructs which are neat and useful and which I like to the point that I will backport it to C# if it can be done in a non-intrusive and not too cludgy way.
I expect this to yield true for many other programmers as well.
If you've got more than a handful of words on your slide, there's a huge chance you're just doing it wrong. If you've got a paragraph or more up there, you're just wasting everyone's time. Better suited as a book at that point, right?
Also, oldie but goodie. Nothing beats Norvig's rendition of the Gettysburg Address in PowerPoint:
Perhaps they just want one funny picture, or to refresh their own memories of what I said? I give them credit for having good reasons and make them available online, usually before I step on the stage, e.g.
That being said, I agree with Matt and others here that a presentation can stand alone or it can be a visual aid but it can't be both. So if I want to take the same ideas and put them in writing, I write a blog post:
Hell, I have been asked for my slides after a talk where I was obviously just showing live screens in a firefox window. Like, dudes, that's not slides, that's the software.
When the projector goes down, or the laptop isn't booting up, watch the speaker. If he's good, it's no big deal at all to him. If he isn't, he'll probably be a mess.
The powerpoint isn't the presentation. Just a small part of it. I mainly reserve mine for funny pictures and bullet points.
"[PowerPoint] wants to organize the talk, to manage the presentation. There's always going to be a slide up, whether you need it there or not. Want to skip over some material? OK, but only by letting the audience watch as you fast-forward awkwardly through the pre-set order. Change the order around to answer a question? Tough..."
PowerPoint (and any other presentation software worth its salt) can do this! Press B to replace your current slide with a black screen, W to replace it with a white screen.
If you know the slide numbers you can just type a number to jump to that slide and I believe (don't quote me on this, I don't have PowerPoint) you can set keyboard shortcuts to specific slides in advance too. You can set up your display to show a navigator while the projector is showing the current slide, meaning you can pick the next slide manually without exposing the audience to your fumbling. And a little research will reveal many more useful little options. You are in control of your presentation, not the other way around.
And the best bit: most people don't even know that these things are possible. So when you do them, it makes you look competent and well-prepared, which makes it more likely that they'll listen to the rest of what you say.
What is particularly difficult about this issue is that I have recently enjoyed reviewing slides from talks at RubyConf but am also aware that the most detailed slides may well have accompanied the worst presentations. I'm thinking particularly of talks that amount to nothing more than a speaker reading out their slides which sometimes cause me to wonder: "what value is being added by the speaker actually being here if I could just read this content in my own time?"
I suppose -- as other commenters have mentioned -- there are two audiences for slides:
* People who saw the presentation and want reference material;
* People who haven't seen the presentation and wish to substitute attendance with the slides alone.
Only the former audience is well served by conference organisers blindly demanding slides, the latter lack the context of the talk itself. What would be better is if some more complete version of a presentation was available (video, transcript, etc.) but this isn't always possible or permitted. The danger is that the easier option -- just providing slides -- actually miscommunicates the quality or intention of the presentation for those who weren't in attendance.
Besides, what do you care? What's the real reason you're refusing?
Here's the logical extension of the suggested alternative: don't bother to give a talk. Just send copies of your papers.
But that sounds silly to me. I think there's probably a reason people both give talks and write papers. So here's my suggestion: if your slides aren't worth giving out, don't show them when you speak.
In a situation like that where I anticipate that people might want a "copy of my slides" afterward, I prepare a handout that contains notes, whether in bulleted form or narrative.
If someone is interested enough to want to revisit my talk, I'm honored, and I'm certainly going to put in a little effort to share it with them.
If you put up slides, some of the audience will be reading the slides rather than listening to you; you can either resist that and not put slides up, or you can use it to your advantage and put what you want to convey in bullet points.
I'm personally of the view that it is better to give people who would rather read bullet points than listen something to read rather than sit there and probably not take anything in anyway.
I'm not a fan of speaking (although I'm starting to come round to it) and I tend to waffle both on the slides and when talking, so this helps me to keep focused.
What about Prezi (http://prezi.com/). You can make presentation in more flexible way because of "zooming" concept. Its really ackward to fast forward slides in Powerpoint, but it seems very natural in Prezi where you can focus just on details you want to show your audience, by "zooming" to charts/lists/pictures you want to emphasize and eventually zoom-out to see the big picture.
A good presentation has few slides with a few key points, some images and the rest should come from the presenter. In contrast, an article explaining a subject is primarily made up of text, code samples and a few images. If you try to aim for the middle ground, you are going to get something that is sub-par for both.
the alternative to using power point badly takes 0 cycles
Edit: That said, the right visual aids can be important for delivering a powerful message. I found this pretty useful in terms of making great looking slides that will actually help your talk by highlighting key points and keeping people's attention.
1. Look at your audience, not your slides. They didn't show up to look at the back of your head.
2. Put as little on the screen as possible. If you have more you want them to read/remember afterward, make a handout with the detailed stuff. You want your audience looking at YOU, not a slide on the wall.
Nancy Duarte was handing out copies of her book "Slideology" to speakers at the BIL 2009 conference - it was the best schwag I've ever gotten. I can't recommend her blog enough: http://slideology.com/
Even so, I don't believe any slide holds a candle to an exceptionally structured, well-told story. People remember those a lot longer than a pretty deck.
I thought this pretty weak compared to, for example, "Presentation Secrets of Steve Jobs" by Carmine Gallo.
And... all the plugs for SlideShare in the presentation: what's with that? Started to feel like more of an infomercial than anything. I'd recommend spending 15 minutes just scanning Gallo's book at a book (I did. then bought it anyway.)
But i wonder what the limits to effectiveness is on this attack. I usually randomly swirl around with a smear tool to blur out things...
Blacking out the section entirely is the only proper way, since you really want to be sure you are destroying the information in the image, not just dispersing it.
Even then, if you are removing a single digit it can be partially recovered by observing kerning statistics, etc.
I don't see that this is easy. Surely you have to test a number of offsets and sizes of text? And without knowing the digits, this is not going to be totally accurate.
Last week I was just about to enter a hotel. A teen exited from the heavy and large revolving door, and being a teen, he made sure the doors were spinning really fast when he left. When I was entering, I tried to stop it: I put my hand on one of the doors and tried to pull back.
I realized the door was too heavy and still spinning rather rapidly. By the time I left my hand, the door was a centimeter away from finally entering the outside frame. I pulled away my hand just in time, but the shear weight of such a door coupled with the speed would have wiped out my fingers (there is no space between the door and the outside frame). I wouldn't know what would have happened.
In another instance, somebody closed a steal door (not common in North America) against my fingers. I went straight to the hospital as a couldn't move my fingers, but likely everything was alright after a few hours. But a revolving door is a different story. It doesn't stop.
I believe this was a very smart move. It's one of the main reasons I'm having fun doing my work today, without any money issues.
Democracy by itself is almost meaningless. Individual rights, including strong property rights, even when there is no democracy at all (such as in Hong Kong for most of British rule) produces more freedom and economic well being than decades of democracy without them.
I really liked this piece. Although not sure about the whole thing about Americans traveling less than other people do. Most people in geographically large countries do less foreign travel than people in tiny countries, but they aren't necessarily traveling less.
"Without change, something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens"
To me, travel is definitely one of the most interesting kinds of change.
Thank you for providing this.
ie. what is the cutting edge today that will be the norm in 40 years.
Is there a way for those of us without Adobe Flash to view the videos?
And while I'm sure that there is some recurring support cost for the currently deployed software, salesforce, while maybe cheaper in support, probably also comes with a huge initial license fee.
Is this fight over that one guy (albeit the CEO) really worth an investment of this size?
It also makes you stand out in a very basic way. In the stack of 30 resumes, you'll be the one person who could articulate in 1 page where everyone else took 2.
When I'm interviewing someone, I am far more interested in a github link thank a blog. Everyone has a blog and most aren't very interesting. But their github account.... if I am hiring a developer, I'll be very interested in what code they've written, projects they're working with, etc.
I've followed this advice and found that most recruiters and employers love a one-page resume. A few hate it, but that's fine by me: I'd take love/hate over indifference any day.
I have zero connection with this site, except it made me very happy when I found about it today. I can't believe I haven't heard of this before (searchyc didn't turn anything up).
Granted you may not be as excited if you don't use LaTeX :-)
Thank you for all the positive comments, they really mean a lot. The constructive feedback from HN is excellent as always.
For the interested, here are some features I am working on at the moment: * Better history navigation. The current implementation is quite flat and cumbersome.* A much better editor. Currently it's just a textbox with syntax highlighting, but I'm working on something to rival the functionality of a desktop editor.* Overall design, in particular the splash page and information pages
Push and pull access to the underlying git repository is currently a feature I am testing. Send me an email (firstname.lastname@example.org) if you would like me to enable it for your account.
I used LaTeX for two theses and loved it. It was very freeing to just worry about content and not about layout. When I use Word, I constantly fiddle with styling and with Word's occasional bizarre behavior (delete a word and the next paragraph becomes bold... ?!). With LaTeX, I spent an hour up front defining styles and a few minutes toward the end adjusting styles, but otherwise just wrote content (in vim!). I don't think I really ever ran into "OMFG, what is it doing?!" situations.
Okay, so the perfect scenario goes: ScribTex does well; ScribTex gets bought by Google; Google Docs adds Tex documents!
I think there's a lot of room for improvement in LaTeX editors. For instance:
Suppose I'm reading a PDF compiled draft and spot an error in an equation. It would be fantastic if I could simply click on the equation and have a mini text box pop up with the relevant LaTeX code. After editing the LaTeX the PDF would seamlessly update.
Or suppose I see an embedded figure and want to change its dimensions. It would be great if I didn't have to guess, compile, check, guess, compile, check, guess, compile, check, etc. If I could see the result as I edit the code, or maybe even have a little GUI to click and drag to scale, that would save me tremendous amounts of time.
I would pay a monthly subscription to have a fast online version of that software.
Who in this world knows Latex but doesn't have access to a machine to compile it into a pdf?
While I really like how well the site has been done, I have a hard time imagining how it would be a success, in the market.
That, and Cocoa was not designed by morons - protocols and delegation, not inheritance, rightfully rule the day.
It will be interesting to see transition difficulty from one implementation to the other.
At the very least, Linux is going to get a serious push for GNUStep, and a ton more dev's if it works out.
EDIT: Site's nuked for me. Main page cache from the fireballed.org site:
Sony's Networked Application Platform is a project designed to leverage the open source community to build and evolve the next generation application framework for consumer electronic devices.
The developer program gives access to a developer community and resources like SDK, tools, documentation and other developers.
The foundation upon which this project is base comes from the GNUstep community, whose origin dates back to the OpenStep standard developed by NeXT Computer Inc (now Apple Computer Inc.). While Apple has continued to update their specification in the form of Cocoa and Mac OS X, the GNUstep branch of the tree has diverged considerably.
The GNUstep core libraries strictly adhere to the OpenStep standard and OPENSTEP implementation. They consider changes and additions to their API only under the following circumstances:
They add methods and classes, either from Cocoa or their own extensions, if they add substantial value and don't interfere with OpenStep and/or Cocoa compatibility.They generally don't remove things unless there is a clearly better implementation in newer Cocoa APIWhere there is a real problem with a change, they will attempt find a technically superior work-around. In rare cases, this might involve a change in the original OpenStep API
We depart somewhat from the GNUstep adherence in that our goal is to thoroughly modernize the framework and optimize it to target modern consumer electronic (CE) devices. These modern conveniences include such features as touch displays and 3D graphics.
we are all well aware of apple's successes in the last few years, but they all seemed to be happening in their own little walled-off corner of the world. it's typically apple's tech versus the rest of the industry. now here's a sign that apple's influence is being felt at even deeper levels.
i guess webkit was another sign of this, but that doesn't seem as stark as some other company adopting objective-c.
ie: "by Psychotria (953670) ...I think this dude is a complete moron..."
Looks like Greg proved them wrong. As they say: "Living well (or rather: doing well in this case) is the best revenge."
COLLADA looks like an XML based digital asset interchange format.
I'm actually not entirely sure dark energy has any effect on spacetime itself, this is merely speculation which hopefully somebody could answer in better detail.
They assume that galaxies are oriented randomly (from our viewpoint). In actual observations this does not appear to be the case. They then compensate for it to make all orientations as you would expect (random); The force that caused this distortion can then be calculated and it indicates the existence of dark energy.
Oh, I think we're already there. Given that there are ~10x more microorganisms in your gut than cells in your body, and the more you learn about the lymphatic / immune system the more it seems like a symbiote rather than a part of our body, and that mitochondria share many characteristics of symbiotic bacteria. It's another wrinkle, and a very interesting one at that, but that's far from a revolutionary concept.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gut_flora  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrion#Origin
On the flip-side, it is very heartening to think they may be moving closer to understanding the disease. Looking at my family history, I believe there is a strong predilection in my family for it, so having some hope that my children and/or grandchildren could possibly be spared would be fantastic.
It's remarkable how failure-tolerant the human body is.
I guess that this is truly a sign of 'the future'. Forget hoverboards, we're one step closer to being able to reshape ourselves, one step closer to fixing diseases at the source.
Sounds like technical debt. Anyone up for a refactoring code sprint?
Even after all that, many medical experts still question how much human disease can be traced to viral invasions that took place millions of years ago. If the upcoming human trials work as well as the animal experiments, the questions may be silencedâ€"and so may the voices of schizophrenia.