"The form of the Clojure code mostly follows the form of the Scala code, most of the same functions"
Well evidently not. Otherwise, the code would not have seen a 75% reduction in lines of code.
What specific transformations resulted in this delta?
"after a lot of poking around, we became fairly convinced it was due (at least in part) to the default actor implementation in Scala"
I wonder how the author translated actor heavy code to clojure - I guess the closest available concept would be agents.
I'd love to read a frank overview of that process as well as the design itself.
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1, minimum-scale=1, maximum-scale=1">
Before anyone says that browsers shouldn't implement this feature, they should. For better or worse, it is a part of the standard. Using browsers that don't implement parts of the standard would bring about situations even worse then this.
[edit: After further reflection, I'm stunned by how well they pulled this off. Huge leap forward.]
Thanks, Boston Globe.
If you want to play with the resizing, you can use this link - http://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/43/Beautiful-web-bas...
Oh, the site is pretty good too ;)
If they're able to convert even a subset of their current audience over, journalists everywhere will rejoice.
Here's a nice thread on newspaper designs, shamelessly jumping to my head-to-head of above-the-fold comparisons of the top 10
I'm amazed he's still around.
His LinkedIn profile has stars around the name http://www.linkedin.com/in/opensourcestaffing
He also has every state in the nation listed twice (postal code + full state name). SEO bait I guess.
It seems surprising to me that some of the fairly big companies listed on their website (eBay, Disney Internet Group, Rapleaf, Shopzilla) would engage with someone so visibly awful. http://open-source-staffing.com/clients.html
I've questioned how some recruiters that I've dealt with had jobs, but never had one remotely reached this kind of level of fire-him-now-ness.
On the subject of the "diamond" planet, I'm actually surprised to see the lead author of the paper in question referring to it as a "diamond planet". I thought that was just a media label. I read the paper when it came out, and all that was indicated was that an extremely large (Jupiter-mass) extremely dense (much smaller than Jupiter) body was detected orbiting a pulsar. The density was consistent with something reasonably close to diamond, but I would have thought that there always has to be some other elements in there... and in any case I wasn't convinced that the vast majority of the interior would be cool enough to be crystalline rather than liquid carbon. So while I'm very confident that there's some extremely massive, extremely dense planet orbiting that star, I'm yet to be one hundred percent convinced that "diamond" is the correct label for it.
Which brings me neatly to the actual point of the article, on climate change. I'm somewhat out of my field here, but no more than the author is. The reason I'm skeptical about the hypothesis "burning fossil fuels is likely to cause significant and disastrous climate change in the future" is that it's all based on simulations which can't be tested against experiment. And I do simulations for a living, so I know enough about them to be very skeptical whenever confronted with simulations in the absence of experiment. Maybe it's true, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were, but I'm certainly not willing to talk about it as if it's as strongly supported as... well, the vast majority of other stuff that we mean when we talk about 'science'.
The strength of a scientific theory is (and I'm still working on figuring out exactly how to phrase this) determined by the question of "If this turned out to be false, how much experimental data would suddenly be very difficult to explain?" If evolution were false, then pretty much all of biology is suddenly very difficult to explain. If the hypothesis "big dense planet thing orbiting PSR J1719â'1438" turns out to be false, then there's a bunch of measurements which are very hard to explain. On the other hand if the hypothesis "diamond planet orbiting PSR J1719â'1438" is false then it's not at all difficult to explain. And if the hypothesis of significant anthropogenic climate change turns out to be false, then this makes very little difference to our ability to explain existing experimental data.
Things change a lot when your scientific theories need to be transformed into policies, though. If these same authors had also proposed, say, spending a significant proportion of world GDP to send a spaceship to the said diamond planet, their theories would be received more critically, I imagine.
Astrophysics was a lot tougher discipline to be in if you were Galileo. Again the science was was being perverted to show support for what the government wanted to be true, rather than what was true. I suspect that if someone could have sold the church on a way to 'fix' difference between what science was telling them, and what they wanted to be true, they would have wasted millions doing that too.
Galileo knew that no matter how hard they wished it, the planets would not suddenly stop in its orbit and the universe begin to rotate around it. No more than any amount of wishing, better behaviors, and offerings of gold could stop the seasons (or the climate for that matter) from changing.
Not sure we've learned all that much about mixing science and policy since Galileo's time.
It is frustrating that science communication is such a PR game to the detriment of the general public's understanding of what science is in reality.
Notice the difference between that statement, and "OMG we're all going to die a giant heat death 5 years from now if we don't give up all our liberties!"
But to me, it does not seem a well-thought blog. Who says a "scientific-method" that works for identifying the structure of a planet 4K light years away would also work for climate on earth?
From a philosophical standpoint I'm rooting for an open, interoperable web as much as anybody. As a programmer though it's hard to feel much enthusiasm for such a fragmented, baroque, and inadequate toolkit.
Scoped Object Extensions. ClojureScript.
And you don't have stop there. Want advanced pattern matching? Want logic programming? Want delimited continuations?
You don't need to wait for Apple, for Google, for Mozilla, for Oracle. Language development is too important to not happen where development happens best - in the field and in open source software projects.
"since iOS was not built from top-to-bottom for multi-tasking functionality, you have to address what continues to happen in the background as the user leaves app and you're app has to scurry and get everything ready in within a short period of time, or iOS will completely shut it out"
This is just patently false. Multitasking was not an afterthought in this UNIX based OS, the absurdity of that claim reveals the thickness of the author's bias. This compromise was made to save battery life as well as to make sure users are aware of what their device is doing at any given moment.
There's a lot of other obviously stupid claims in there too, I'll leave those as an exercise for the reader.
As opposed to the Android model where all apps get free reign to drain the users battery life unless the user explicitly kills the app. Task killers are quite a popular application on Android for this reason.
As to the notion that Apple stole the notion of multitasking on a mobile device from Android, I'm pretty sure that Apple engineers knew about multitasking before Android implemented it. Apple made the very difficult (but correct) decision to sacrifice functionality to protect the overall user experience.
Not a great article.
"since Android was built for multitasking, inactive applications remain in a saved state for a particular amount of time." -- uhh, this is exactly how it works on iOS.
"This doesn't need to be strictly implemented by the developer, it's a core part of the OS" and "is also means that multitasking will only work for an app if the developer specifically implements it" -- completely wrong. Compile the app with the iOS 4 SDK and you get it all for free. Background services like audio and VoIP require developer work though.
"iOS still missed the mark. On the iPad, the notification bar is super awkward and doesn't scale well." -- citation needed. I actually prefer the iOS 5 notifications, as when they come in they are more conspicuous than the Android system.
"And the backwards compatible version of iOS4 for iPhone 3G slowed down the phone so much that users wanted to throw their phones out" -- 4.0 was a bit pants, but that was fixed pretty quickly, and worked reasonably well. And at least Apple actually provide updates to their older phones, unlike most Android OEM's.
"Even things like voice-chat were available on Android devices before the iPhone 4 was even announced" -- pretty sure the iPhone 1 could make voice calls.
Who are those "people"?
Sounds like the author is debating a position that few people actually hold.
So either this trend is reversing (which seems unlikely to me), we are in for a prolonged recessionary period, or this is just a temporary dip due to new lighting technology, and the trend will revert.
I for one find myself wanting to install more subtle light now that my power bill is so low (almost completely 10W, 13W and 18W CFLs). I started wondering where I can get creative, such as putting 0.5, 1 or 2 watt under-the-cupboard lights to gently illuminate the kitchen counters. I already have some brass wall-mounted "candles" that use 0.5 watt bulbs; they are nice and subtle night lights, and leaving them on all year round would be less than 8 dollars a year.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox see especially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox#Khazzoom-Brookes...)
* Well free in the wacky logic that part of your utility bill funds this, but ....
We have a fully functional 37" Sharp LCD, and yet the majority of our media is consumed via laptops, tablets or phones.
All of which draw power, of course, but likely less power than a large television. And even if they were comparable in terms of power consumption, the fact is that the computers would be on even if we were watching TV.
Throw in wider trends like the number of people cutting the cord (getting rid of cable) and it makes me curious about whether using smaller devices - particularly those designed to be power efficient - and the absence of others has an impact.
The plural of anecdote isn't data, however, so I have no idea if this is relevant or not.
Is the huge growth in compact fluorescent lighting sufficient to account for the difference, alone? I'm wondering whether the other factors are sufficient at all.
Glass half full - hopefully this is a signal that we're becoming much more efficient in our consumption and we can produce the same economic growth with a lot less energy.
2. Good sample code, in a full complete project you can download, with documentation on getting it up and running. Your first sample code is how everyone will write code using your project. If you've got bad samples, poor formatting, and weird file layouts (or none), then that's what everyone will write and that's what you'll be known for.
3. Examples that gradually increase in complexity. Start off with a simple hello world, graduate to a chat app or something simple, and get them to a full blown large application. In this Kendo example they've got a demo picture viewer, with no explanation for how it was built, and viewing the source it looks like a huge mess.
4. Humor. These kinds of documentation are boring as hell, especially if you're just defining everything. It doesn't have to be insanely hilarious, but at least throw a few little funny tidbits in the code. Even the great tech books of our time have tiny little jokes for the people who pay attention.
5. Finally, these frameworks rarely have a "theme". MVC is a theme. Convention over configuration is a theme. There's only one way to do it. There's more than one way to do it. Themes work to help people keep the script for why everything works the way it does in their head.
It's too bad because this looks really good, and it could be the most awesome thing on the planet. But if I can't figure it out even if I want to, then I'm never going to try.
Finally, none of what I wrote above applies if your project is for fun and not meant to be a "product".
Have fun with that.
[Edit: Their web site has conflicting information in the FAQ. See below.]
[Edit: Updated link. Thanks pakitan.]
How long do we have to wait before the browser can catch up? Do you think it will ever happen?
The closest thing that I've ever seen is Silverlight. With it I've been able to make some very excellent front-ends, with EASE, that look and behave identically between Mac and Windows. EDIT: The only challenge with Silverlight has been wheel-scrolling, which works fine on Windows but only works in Out-Of-Browser on the Mac.
To be fair, a lot of jQuery UI's development headaches come from supporting IE6, while Kendo only touts its support for IE7+...
In the slider demo, rapidly clicking multiple times on the left or right arrow to increase/decrease the value fires a doubleclick event, highlighting most of the text on the site.
In the window demo, the mouse cursor does not change when I hover over the title bar, although the window is draggable.
It's these little details that scare me off. When I use a framework, I want it to take care of everything. If I have to add css classes for the mouse cursor or fix element positioning, I'd just build what I need myself.
This one does seem to have a nice, compact, intelligible stylesheet, though â" big improvement over jQuery UI there.
But are people willing to buy a framework like this? Or is everyone just using JQuery UI and leaving it at that?
Dragging on SGS shows circular dragged object as if dragged by left top corner of bounding box.
For web apps built now, I use ExtJS. The newest release has been a little too buggy, but they are working hard to make it better.
The problem is this: it is difficult bordering on impossible to get a company funded or acquired without IP assignment in place. It's the first check in due diligence. That means you'd be a fool to work at a company like the one the poster describes, since it is clearly run by amateurs and has grave, self-inflicted problems in its future. There are always exceptions - maybe an idealistic consulting firm could pull this off - but this is very dangerous stuff.
If you're dubious, ask your favorite startup attorney what the #1 killer in due diligence is - it's nearly always IP assignment. Someone wrote some code without having it in place, and you have to either excise the contribution (not always possible) or try to buy the IP retroactively - and since the entire company is likely on the line, you won't be paying market rates. It's more like extortion at that point than a purchase.
Long story short: if you're not assigning your IP, then you're not working for the company; you're working at the company. Don't try this one at home.
>>The fact is the smartest and most creative employees won't offer up a single decent idea if they know it's company property whether or not it's used.
It's an argument that I find pretty weak and it's presented with no backing at all. The smartest employees will kick ass for their employer and expect to be remunerated in kind. If I wasn't I would move on. And if I never offered up a single decent idea at my job I probably wouldn't be there very long.
Every 4 patents you hit a "plateau" and get a bonus $1250 or so on top of everything else.
- Random post in a thread where people apparently get $1 for developing patents for the company http://ask.slashdot.org/story/03/10/28/0055253/Employee-Pate...
But I also saw that IBM even demands former employee's patents filed after employment: http://www.goodwinprocter.com/News/Press-Releases/2011/Court...
Is the above good or bad for a company encouraging creativity? What's the right balance?
Chauvinism has a place, but I think you have to be careful with it.
Saipan is one of the most corrupt backwards places on earth. As a US trust territory, for many years they had slave plantations that produced clothing for chinese companies which was labelled "Made in USA". Many workers were kept under brutal conditions, raped, beaten and killed. The Saipanese are mostly incredibly lazy and loved this system as it allowed them to have houses full of slave servants and great wealth without ever having to work for it. It all collapsed a few years ago, but there's a close to 100% chance that they are the ones running the scam in this current case.
edit: Keep downvoting this, monkeys! I have no doubt I am one of a small handful of people on HN that has intimate experience of how Saipan works and how corrupt this place is. My post gives true insight to what is going on there. Imagine the worst fundamentalist christian ignorant half retarded hillbilly sex fiend town straight out of the movie Deliverance, but then give them dictatorial control over outsiders, a total lack of desire to work and a strong desire to dominate control and cheat others and you have Saipan. It's like a stereotypical town thought to exist in the backwoods of Arkansas, but it's real, slavery is still legal, and it's part of the US. Absolutely anything involving Saipanese officials that has a money angle for them is a total scam. Since their slave factories collapsed, they have been in desperate straits to steal what they can. I totally believe the CEOs explanation that they backdated their tax code specifically to target him, and then never served him of any real notice of it until now, after they've gotten a bunch of judgements against him in which he had no chance to represent himself because he didn't even know there was a case about this. That is exactly how they work. They are incredibly conniving and will work every system to get what they want. Typical small town american fundamentalist hillbillies, but in a pacific island trust territory. These comments apply to the people in control there. There's also the regular people who hate what has been done to their island over the years, many are ostensibly good people. It's the corrupt people in power that are the troublemakers, and dealing with them is exactly exactly like Southern Bible Thumping Fundamentalist - which the Saipanese basically are. The fundamentalist missionaries infected them with the peculiar sort of madness, entitlement, laziness and corruption that comes with that belief system. And if you had no idea about the slavery and corruption and you are downvoting this you are only proving how mentally you are exactly like them. This post tells you the truth about Saipan, a place that until just now you probably never heard of. Ignorant fools.
To say more eloquently what bugsy was trying to express, while it is unclear if Mr. Millard did commit a crime, you must take into account that the people chasing him for supposed tax abuse are some of the most corrupt people on Earth. Much of that information is available on Wikipedia, but just read some of the websites of ex-pats and such and you will get a good idea. Thus, I would take anything said by anyone in the Saipanese government with a large grain of salt. Furthermore, even if Mr. Millard is guilty, if the Saipan government gets his money, it will be a negative outcome for everyone.
makes me feel like whatever the truth is, it's not exactly as described here. I'm not saying the guy hasn't done anything wrong, just that I suspect we're not getting the whole story.
Regardless of what you think about the Northern Marianas, this guy doesn't deserve anyone's pity, he's been a tax cheat for well over 2 decades.
And no I don't "believe the CEO's story that he was never served", that's horseshit. He left Saipan for a reason, to continue to dodge taxes any way he could.
What is est? Google and Wikipedia seem quite unhelpful.
Edit: found it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erhard_Seminars_Training
Is it pure speed on a single machine? Is it the query interface? Something else? Datacenter awareness? Geographic support?
The key features that made me choose riak:- built in distribution/clustering with homogenous nodes- bitcask had the level of reliability/design that I was looking for.- better impedance match for what I was doing than CouchDB (which was what I looked at before choosing riak, but couch does view generation when data is added and I need to be able to do it more dynamically.)
What sold you on Mongo? What would you most like to improve?
(Please don't let this be a debate, I'm more interested in understanding the NoSQL market, what other developers priorities are, etc.)
EDIT: Damn Google, you good: http://www.mongly.com/
Here's the use case: you have a website, and you have users using it in English and French. With per-column collation, you are being advocated to have two fields, one english_name, and one french_name, that have /the same content/, but are defined using a different collation, so that the ordering condition on them becomes language-dependent.
The effect that has is actually terrible: it means that the size of your row (and yes, this may end up in TOAST, but there is still a massive penalty to going that route) ends up becoming ginormous, and the size of your row will just get larger the more languages you want to support as first-class citizens in your app.
Instead, what you /want/ is to just have an index english_ordered and an index french_ordered, and you want to be able to select which index you use for any specific query. If you "do it right", you'd also want to be able to support ordering the data using German collation, but it would "just be irritating slower".
Now, if you don't use PostgreSQL much, this may seem like a pipe dream of extra standards and complex interactions ("how will you specify that?!", etc.). However, it turns out there is already a feature that does 99% of this: "operator classes", which is how PostgreSQL lets you define custom collations for user-defined types.
Only, PostgreSQL operator classes are slightly more general than that, as you can specify an operator class to be used when performing order operations for your index; and, even more importantly: they are already being used to work around a specific case of operator-specific collation.
Here's the example: let's say that your database is set up for UTF-8 collation, and yet you have this one field you want to do a "prefix-match" on: WHERE a LIKE 'B%'. The problem with this is that you cannot use a Unicode collation to index this search: it might be that 'B' and 'b' and even 'Q' all index "exactly the same" for purposes of this collation (and there are some other corner cases with the other mapping direction as well).
So, to get index performance for this field, without changing your entire database to collate using "C" collation (which works out to "binary ordering"), you have a few choices, with one of them being to create a index that uses the special "operator class" called text_pattern_ops ("text" in this case as the field is likely a "text" field: there is also varchar_pattern_ops, etc.).
Once specified in your index, PostgreSQL knows to use it for purposes of the aforementioned LIKE clause. You specify this while making your index by specifying the operator class after the column.
CREATE INDEX my_index ON my_table (a text_pattern_ops);
CREATE INDEX my_index ON my_table (a english_collation_ops); CREATE INDEX my_index ON my_table (a french_collation_ops); SELECT * FROM my_table WHERE english_collation_less(a, 'Bob') ORDER BY a USING english_collation_less;
(Unfortunately, I suck at e-mail, or I'd get on the PostgreSQL mailing list and try to argue for this in a more well-defined way; maybe someone else who cares will eventually see it and become this feature's champion; or, of course, come up with an even better solution than mine ;P.)
Even better this time around: It's looking as if the next release of Ubuntu will get 9.1 packaged which spares me from manually packaging or using a PPA this time around.
The new features each release introduces are too sweet to skip just because a distribution is lagging. And ever since I began using PostgreSQL at the 7.1 days I have _never_ experienced a bug that really affected me. No byte of data has ever been lost, no single time did it crash on me due to circumstances beyond my control (cough free disk space cough).
Congratulations to everybody responsible for yet another awesome release!
Yes. I am a fanboy. Sorry.
For 1-2 clients, I'm seeing ~8% slower.
For 4 clients, 7.2% faster.
8 clients, 15% faster.
16 clients, 16.4% faster.
32 clients, 11% faster.
64 clients, 10% faster. Aggregate performance starts to level off here, so I stopped.
These are just cycling super simple INSERTs/DELETEs against the same table, columns data is 1K string, 100 byte string, then a concatenation of the pid and current iterator count. No indexes or primary keys. Each client is just a fork that performs 10,000 INSERTs, then 10,000 DELETEs in a loop of 10,000 iterations.
For the record, that's around 6,729 writes per second with 32 clients. If I set synchronous_commit = OFF in each client before running the benchmark, it's 27,157/sec. Then, if I reduce the first column size to 100 bytes, it's 50,592/sec. Impressive. I'm sure the synchronous_commit improvement would be much more drastic on disks without BBU write caches.
Database server is a 4-core Nehalem-based Xeon with 16GB RAM and a SAS disk array. PostgreSQL configuration has been decently tuned and full write durability is retained all the way down to the disks.
I have somewhat of a database background, so I see the obvious advantages of PostgreSQL over MySQL. In particular, things like more procedural language support, a better query optimizer, better concurrency control, etc. (Though things like Amazon RDS are compelling from a deployment perspective.)
I fundamentally believe that using an RDBMS, rather than a NoSQL data store is the right approach for rapid development of web apps. (Though, I primarily mean this as an attack on, e.g., MongoDB, since I think Redis is great, just not a replacement for an RDBMS.)
However, I have almost no experience with the more advanced end of the RDBMS spectrum, primarily because they tend to cost money (for the real, non-free versions). Should I be learning/looking at DB2? Should I be learning/looking at Oracle?
Or do the additional features of these more advanced RDBMS options require such specialized scenarios (a bank, a big enterprise) or such specialized hardware (weird clustered setups) that MySQL/PostgreSQL will always be just as good?
One feature I'm particularly jazzed about is the logging capture support. It is so painful to explain to test users how to capture logs on iOS!
Yes, this always ends well. Every download Spool gets loses them money. For every download Instapaper gets, Marco makes money.
And yes, Spool may be more feature rich than Instapaper, but when is being "on steroids" a good thing?
Some contracts are routine and don't need any form of customizing. The review in such cases is minimal and can even be skipped if the routine nature of the contract is obvious or if the entrepreneur is seasoned enough to identify a clean situation without lawyer help. Most such routine contracts cover simple cases, such as a simple nda or a recurring situation in which a basic template is used with no material variation apart from non-legal business items that typically get customized in an exhibit.
For most cases, though, the whole key to doing a contract right is to customize it properly on its material points. This means it should be clear, it should accurately reflect the intent of the parties, and it should contain basic legal protections for each party. It is vital to this process that both the lawyer and the entrepreneur understand what is material. Why? Because that determines the proper cost-benefit analysis for how it should be reviewed.
For example, say a startup is negotiating a 1-year office lease for only a few hundred square feet of space at a modest rental rate. That sort of lease needs very little lawyer review because there is not much at stake (the money is small, the location itself not particularly important to the startup, etc.). A quick read-through by the lawyer is the max that this needs and then only to see if there is anything wildly out of line in the document. What about a 3-year lease with more square footage and a higher rent? In that case, maybe a good high-level review is in order, with comments and mark-ups on a range of important points but little or no attention paid to boilerplate clauses that may be highly unfavorable to the tenant as worded but that are also highly unlikely to occur. And what if the lease is for 5 years with two 5-year options to renew, with a location that is very important to the business involved, and with risks (such as potential environmental liabilities) that can far exceed even the value of the lease itself if mishandled? In that case, lawyer review is normally vital and needs to be pretty thorough (including even haggling over much of the boilerplate language) because it is far more likely that contingent risks can come about over a lengthy period, the amounts at stake are greater, and the lease itself may be important to the business (e.g., a restaurant that depends heavily on having a particular location).
This same sort of approach applies to a whole range of contracts. What if your business is getting acquired or if you are buying a business? Well, if it is a little business and the purchase price is very small (say, $50,000), you can very likely be well-served by a canned form used for small business sales (brokers who do these deals use these all the time). Such a form will have basic provisions covered and will usually contain the most important warranties and representations but all of it will be bare-bones. This normally works fine for a small sale. Again, lawyer review can be skipped or done at the quick read-through level. But what if the business you are buying is going to cost you $1,000,000. In that case, you still are in the small-business category but the money is more significant. This likely warrants an intermediate level of lawyer review (contract needs to be customized for the deal, with proper account taken of whether it should be structured as an asset sale, stock sale, or merger - each having different tax consequences - and with careful attention paid to reps and warranties, to conditions for closing, and to collateral matters such as non-compete, etc.). This might take $5K or $10K or sometimes more in lawyer time but it is money normally well spent (it certainly is if you are a small business owner and $1M is a lot of money to put at risk for your situation). And, of course, once you start talking about acquisitions in the tens or hundreds of millions, you need major lawyer time to make sure the complex aspects of such deals are handled properly.
What about a license agreement? A small deal, with non-exclusive rights concerning routine IP needs little or no lawyer review. But a core OEM deal involving the licensing of IP that is at the core of your company obviously warrants significant lawyer review, especially if it involves joint development efforts, sweeping indemnification clauses that might trigger major liabilities, or other complications that require sophisticated handling of IP and other rights. Of course, there is also the issue of weasel language and its nasty impact if it is not caught and deleted from any major contract.
In short, lawyers and entrepreneurs need to be guided by good sense in handling these matters. It is not good sense simply to act as if lawyers are not needed. It takes only one really bad instance for most entrepreneurs to realize how bad a mistake it is to cut corners in really important matters. On the other hand, letting lawyers run wild with their reviews is foolish as well. Their time must be managed and managed well. It should be used where it matters and curbed where it doesn't.
Let the barbs fly, then, but this is one lawyer who will insist that the advice given in this piece may have a grain of truth in it but is too simplistic to cover most serious business affairs. It may work in a number of cases but it can easily get you into trouble.
By the way, I am not saying give an open ticket to lawyers. If your lawyer can't make good judgments concerning what is important and what is not, and can't manage time wisely, it is time to get a new lawyer.
At one extreme: giving your counsel veto power over what contracts you sign, and allowing them to bill time ping-ponging contracts until prospects give up.
At the other extreme: just signing everything and saying "fucking sue me" when things go sideways.
You should be somewhere in the middle. Contracts more often than not have provisions that are silly for you to accept verbatim. And, contracts more often than not have provisions you'd rather not accept, but that are baked into your prospect's own processes and not changeable.
No matter what you do, if you're being sensible, there are going to be tough decisions to make every once in awhile. If there aren't, you're probably doing something wrong. Like, for instance, signing tens of different contracts from giant companies without any legal review.
Sent the contract to my lawyer. She marked it up, sent it to the client. Then the client marked it up and sent it back to my lawyer. And so on, back and forth for almost a month.
Garbage in, garbage out. During the "ugly duckling" phase, the legal machine is just learning that it can spew garbage. It tests its limits. Just how much garbage can it spit before something happens? When the garbage is between private parties? Apparently, a lot.
I charged my first client $1,400. My second client paid $5,400. The next paid $24,000. I remember the exact amounts â" they were the largest checks I'd seen up til that point.
Then I wrote a proposal for $340,000...
The Bust was just growing pains.
It probably could be reasonably argued that the industry is still in an ugly duckling phase (multi-Billion dollar valuations, really?)
But this is part of growing up.
In Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace Lessig writes:
It is a lack of a certain kind of regulation that produced the Y2K problem, not too much regulation. An overemphasis on the private got us here, not an overly statist federal government. Were the tort system better at holding producers responsible for the harms they create, code writers and their employers would have been more concerned with the harm their code would create. Were contract law not so eager to allow liability in economic transactions to be waived, the licenses that absolved the code writers of any potential liability from bad code would not have induced an even greater laxity in what these code writers were producing. And were the intellectual property system more concerned with capturing and preserving knowledge than with allowing private actors to capture and preserve profit, we might have had a copyright system that required the lodging of source code with the government before the protection of copyright was granted, thus creating an incentive to preserve source code and hence create a resource that does not now exist but that we might have turned to in undoing the consequences of this bad code. If in all these ways government had been different, the problems of Y2K would have been different as well.
This is dated (1999), but interesting. He was wrong about Y2K, of course, but not about the underlying issues and problems with contract law and IP.
> âWorry about that in 2 months,â Dad said.
Speaking from the perspective of that employee, fuck you.
OK, for the serious point: you may be not give a shit about risk. Good for you, you crazy risk taker! The world truly needs more people like you.
But for me? I've got a mortgage and a car payment and a wife who is trying to go through graduate school. I need to know that my ass isn't going to come into work on the 61st day and hear you say "Well, looks like we're outta cash -- sorry buddy..."
If, on the other hand, you share that risk with me up front, thanks -- you're a good boss.
1. They will sue. Medium to large - in fact any mature business, considers lawyers and the threat of lawsuits and litigation as a cost of doing business. They don't get emotionally involved, they just do it. FYI, looking at lawyers & legal as cost of doing biz is a healthy attitude and may save you a heart attack.
2. Telling someone to just "fucking sue me" or simply "sue me" makes it combative and I made this beginner mistake early on in being a CEO. I actually simply asked their lawyer if he thought his case "actually has any merit?" in a cocky tone in a phone call. Turns out he thought it did. Once I had capable council on my side she had to work hard to make nice with the other side and bring it to settlement hours before we were irrevocably committed to litigating the issue.
Lets put it this way: Wouldn't it be awesome if everyone you signed an agreement with "just signed it"?
* Most-favored customer clauses
* Exclusive-rights provisions
* Indemnity obligations
* Automatic renewal
* Confidentiality obligations (or no confidentiality obligations)
* Termination for convenience
* Unilateral amendment rights
* Best-efforts obligations
* Assignment-consent requirements
* Non-compete / no-hire / no-solicitation clauses
* Tax consequences
A better lawyer would have been able to amend that contract with minimal fuss. I used to get a legal briefing on the dodgy parts of the contracts I was asked to sign, along with sensible suggested changes that often benefited both sides (eg. termination clauses more appropriate to the length of the gig) I'd then send through the amended contract and discuss all the reasons for the changes with the client. Never had any problems.
The reason he was hard to sue is that he's so small. If things went really South on a small project, what's the worst thing that happens? He's 22 and talented in New York - he declares bankruptcy, and gets another job or stays on Dad's couch. This is a situational thing - you can accept liability when the downside is so low. This is why legal departments in small firms are much gentler than legal departments in the Fortune 500. Of course this doesn't work for a large firm, or someone with 3 kids and a mortgage. His dad would have said, "Go get a real job" or something like that.
Similar on the hiring - when you're that small, you invite someone to take the risk for you. You can take more risk when there's limited downside. And in this case it was the other guy's downside - if there was no work, he'd be the one in trouble.
This seems really dishonest. Yeah, everybody knows that startups are risky, but if you can't afford to pay more than 2 months of salary, then don't hire a full-timer. Either find a co-founder or hire a contractor instead.
If you have the luxury of leverage -- the ability and willingness to walk away if the contract isn't perfect -- then yes. Hammer it out to protect your interests.
But if the contract is critical to the company's survival, then he's right: Just sign it. It's better to have an income from an imperfect contract, then no company at all because you've run out of money.
I don't drive drunk any more :-)
Anecdotally, At Arcturo, both myself and one of my principal guys have a good bit of contract reading experience (he much much more than myself). Every time I get a contract, I toss it to him and let him give me a thumbs up/down/comment. Having him around to handle reading things over and nit picking (often times to the point of having their lawyers concede points to us they hadn't addressed or thought of) has been awesome. If you can find someone who has a lot of business operations experience and can also hack code, they'll add a LOT of value to your company.
You can't mitigate all risk, and being able to ignore the ones that you can't' do anything about is an important skill.
This goes for technical risk as well. I try not to over-architect. I spend a lot of time trying to decide which things need to be handled now, and which things can just be added later.
Whenever I'm offered a contract, I boil it down like this: "Do I believe they'll hold up their end of the bargain?" If the answer is no, I do not sign the contract.
But being of the conservative sort, I have generally had a lawyer review whatever contracts people want me to sign, firstly for him to explain what it really means--what are the actual risks. Even as a very young fellow in my first one with a contract, I knew enough that it was for me to make the business decision and for my lawyer to explain what the legal ins and outs were.
Then there was the fellow who liked to do negotiation by contract. It said that everything that I did they owned, probably back a year before I started, and that if I didn't perform the would take my house and my first born, but then on the second page they said that we are kidding about the house. And it was from a law firm that was bigger than most buildings, and Very Famous. But I pushed back and after a couple of cycles got things to be in a reasonable state.
In another long-term consulting contract negotiation, my lawyer's first response after reading it was one word "Egregious". Fortunately, I was able to hammer that into better shape. This was one where the contract was supposedly non-negotiable. I learned something there.
But in no world that I am familiar with does it make sense for the lawyer to do the negotiation. They (in all likelihood) don't understand your business as well as you do.
Even though I have been doing this for a while now, I wouldn't sign anything without a lawyer's review.
But I have also been at the other extreme, where there was no contract for a multi-year deal and it worked out well.
Use a lawyer, but use the lawyer wisely.
The lesson is : you were lucky. You are the prey to some people who look for people like you to sign a contract and then extort money. Saw that happen at a company I worked for.
Should have found a better lawyer.
"Get lucky"... Then walk away with survivor bias.
I recently saw that pud is a year younger than me, and we entered the job market at almost the same time with similar skill sets. Why did it take me so goddamn long to pull my head out of my ass and finally start my own company (at 35)?
Perhaps pud's acceptance of risk has a genetic component, or at the very least he was brought up in an environment where he learned to adjust to uncertainty.
He credits laziness - but we all know that lazy + smart = effective. I wonder if that's part of entrepreneurial DNA as well...
If you expect there will be negotiations, basically try to use and re-use your standard document. You are going to be in this business for a while, hopefully. So you only have to pay for your standard document once. Plus you'll know the ins and outs of it better than anyone else.
I think the right solution these days is to insist on standard documents and focus on the amendments rather than getting something from scratch. There is a good list of documents to form startups, for example, here:
Similarly there are things at legalzoom and other places. I realize that sometimes the big company will insist on going with their standard contract, but if they were really that adamant, they wouldn't let you go back and forth with your lawyer too much. Just start with your own document or walk away if you don't want to take the risk.
- no meaningful feedback when mousing over a tag.
- mouse scroll wheen controls the window's menubar, not zooming in and out. Disconcerting for someone used to Google Maps.
- clicking on a tag takes a relatively long time to load.
- when you load location information maybe make the background a little more transparent.
My brother, father and I visited the Budweiser Budvar factory in ÄeskĂ© BudÄjovice earlier this year and could've watched the bottling processes and robotics at work for hours. We talked later about how tours of so many factories would actually be a really interesting experience. Auto plants, cooperages, electronics factories, food processing factories, etc. If these opportunities already exist, I imagine they'd be lost in a sea of common tourist options.
First man-made structure to exceed 2000 feet in height.
Can we have a way to go back and re-edit our entries as I'd like to add a website link to one of mine?
I recently wrote similar app for cougar sightings (the cat) http://cougarreport.com . I moved the map into a separate spot.
Any opinions on which layout is the preferred way?
I often get emails along the lines of: "Annoucement! Spluttr adds 25% more foo to free plans!" or similar.
Now I probably signed up to Spluttr 6 months ago, took a quick look and decided I wasn't interested as I needed 25% more foo.
In the intervening months, you've lived, breathed and sweated Spluttr whilst I've signed up for another 20 services and forgotten what most of them are for.
Remind me in every email.
Also, make sure you explain it clearly. Once I went to a site that had pictures of food all over it and it said "like AirBNB but for food". I could not remember at the time what AirBNB was.
Going a step further, if you haven't seen me in a while (say a year), send me an email reminding me I have an account with you, and summarize what you've done in that time. Remind me of my username too. This is kind of a big deal, because I sign up for everything (can't have username dilution :) ). Just because I don't use your site now, doesn't mean I won't after your new features, so as long as it doesn't turn into spam, I like the reminder.
Amusing anecdote: I signed up for Reddit within a year of it's launch, but really start using my account there until 2.5 years or so ago when I decided to re-evaluate it. I had completely forgotten about my earlier signup and was real bummed when I learned of my username being taken. Fortunately I was smart enough to do my "It's probably me and I've just forgotten" ritual where I try all my password variants and sure enough either I really got lucky and the old sophacles had one of my passwords, or it really was me. I probably would have been actively redditing 2 years prior if there had been a not-to-spammy email reminder once in a while.
They're sure to remember you if you do this. You can even do automated email segmentation. If their reply has "Sent from my iPhone", you know you can send launch emails for the iPhone version to these guys. If their reply has "Sent from Droid", send the Android launch emails to them.
Starting a conversation also lessens the probability your launch email gets put in spam as well... I'm sure Gmail, Yahoo, etc all have algorithms where if you respond to an email address, any future emails from that email doesn't get marked as spam.
For beta users, advisors and early investors - these people are going to be your advocates. You need to give them the tools to advocate for you, and a well crafted 3 sentence elevator pitch that describes your business is a huge help.
Is a one-liner enough (i.e. "We're a crowd-sourced record label!"), or would people prefer the whole spiel (i.e. "We're a crowd-sourced record label that does this, this and this!")?
I must note, however, some phrases that set off my bullshit detector.
>SEA participants were 19 times more likely than eligible non-participants to be self-employed
Either I'm missing something or this says that people who are in a self-employed assistance plan are likely to be self-employed. Perhaps this is an editing error?
>In Oregon, nearly half of the successful SEA entrepreneurs have each created an average of 2.63 new jobs
Ok, but what kind of filter does "successful SEA entrepreneurs" imply? 1 in 100? 20%? Once again, the language is loose and circular.
Money is not an answer to everything. In fact, funding at high levels can be the worst thing ever to happen to a good team in a startup. At small levels, like this, it perhaps can make a big difference. Perhaps.
There is a great big giant humongous gap between something that sounds good in an editorial and something that actually does something useful. I'd want a lot more data on this before passing judgment one way or another.
2. If I fire an employee, a portion of the cost of that person's unemployment claims is charged back to me. The employer. It isn't government largesse that funds unemployment claims. It's me.
3. Will this program be yet another potential cost to me? Hard to tell from the PR and press-gab. We'll have to see the law and how it is implemented. Devil in the details, etc.
4. My payroll is suddenly $100K/year lighter than it was. Am I going to replace that guy with another full-timer? Fuck, no. Hello, independent contractors.
5. By the way. I pay 100% of the medical costs for all my employees.
Though this program is geared toward people of all ages, young people are the best suited to maximize its advantages. Older generations tend to have families and other financial obligations, making it more difficult for them to transition into the roles of entrepreneurs.
I am married with a young child, and my salary covers all of my family's expenses, so my husband doesn't have the pressure to get cashflow-positive out of the gate. Contrast that with my younger, single self, when I burned through the start-up capital in a matter of months and had to take consulting gigs just to stay afloat on office expenses.
Young people can more easily adapt to less expensive lifestyles.
Young people care a lot more about what others think, the very foundation of "expensive lifestyles".
Further, young people have access to a wide range of resources, such as Income Based Repayment (IBR), SCORE, Startup America, [...]
IBR is a student loan repayment program, nothing to do with entrepreneurship. SCORE is open to all small businesses (and a waste of time, in my experience). Startup America targets young companies, not young people. And so on...
Of course people will abuse this, too, just like they abuse the unemployment insurance we have now. But to me, the net positives that come out of this will outweigh the (probably minor) fraud that will happen. Adding benchmarks (e.g., you have to legally register a business, you have to prove some sort of business activity to a case worker, and so on) will keep a lot of the fraud out, even if they're token requirements.
Is that necessarily a good thing? I was under the impression the whole "trial-by-fire" of a business plan looking for funding was a valuable testing grounds for the business-to-be.
Hopefully this leads to further help for folks starting a company (that will in-turn create more jobs when successful) like healthcare coverage.
EDIT: This will also help with mainstream cultural and social acceptance. Less weird looks when explaining to Joe Shmoe your employment situation!
The policy of forcing a decision for laid off people between 1) sitting around doing nothing (i.e. "looking for a job") and being eligible for free money vs. 2) trying to start something which could have an an impact in not only getting that person back into a paying position but also on the economy as a whole (and thereby being ineligible for money) needed to end
On top of it, there is a layer of mentoring as well:
To be eligible for the NEIS Small Business Course, you must be in receipt of a Benefit and must have a Jobseeker ID Number.
I've looked into and seen others go through grant processes and they are often terrible. Hope it isn't similar.
Unfortunately, not California
This program will not help a college graduate (or dropout) that wants to start a business right away.
It's a great program, but unemployment should be expanded to include people who are first time entrepreneurs that have never had a job and been laid off.
i just want a place to submit an idea and prototypes and get cash ....
I love that quote.
I feel like I can speak from unique stand point as I saw everything from the inside.
ROS is a lot of things, but one thing it is NOT is production ready.
From what I can tell, not a lot in the process has changed since I left. I am sure a lot of things code wise have changed but not enough to make a marginal difference.
One of the biggest issues ROS faces is the lack of testers. Since it can't be used a production OS very few people will actually test it. When I was there, we had 2 dedicated testers. For a whole operating system, that will not cut it.
Another issue is with driver compatibility. While it is true that it runs good on emulated hardware, it has a long long way to go before actual Windows drivers let it run on actual hardware. One small thing in the driver can cause everything to stop working. And with only ~20 active developers at the time, there is a finite set of hardware that can be debugged on. Not to mention only 3-4 of the 20 developers were skilled enough to fix issues with device drivers.
ROS is also fighting uphill battle by chasing Windows when Windows has 100s of developers working on it. I left ROS and worked for Microsoft for two years so I also know how much faster MSFT is going then ROS. Though, even if they got to full XP compatibility it would be one of the most impressive feats I have ever seen of open source, I just don't see it happening anytime soon.
And finally, the last main issue with ROS is the developers itself. There was so few dedicated, we only had ~30 people with write permissions. Of those, only 15 were active. And those 15 were all working in their own area. I worked in shallow (read: non complex) Win32 API and user applications (cmd.exe, control panel, etc...). But everyone had their own section they were interested in and they worked at their own pace with little to no oversight. You either need focus/vision or resources to make real technical progress on a project this large. Without one of those you have no chance. And ROS didn't have either.
All that said, I loved working on ROS. It taught me how to write real code and I learned way more from working on ROS then I did getting my degree. The people on a personal level were great, and some of them were the most technically sound developers I have ever met. Sadly, a whole OS is being carried on their back.
It's a tremendous amount of work to make a bug-compatible version of Windows. Of course, I can't argue with people and what they want to spend their time on, but I sure as heck wouldn't volunteer to work on a Windows clone. It seems a big waste of some really talented people's (and I'm certain they're quite talented; getting this far is a monumental feat) time.
It contains much more information.