So I totally hear his rationale from a game developer's point of view, I really do. But though I'm a developer, I'm also a customer, and I just can't swallow the coin model for games.
I've played Triple Town and thought it was pretty cute, and yes, I'd probably pay 99c for it, maybe even up to $2.99. But I'm not signing up to a lifetime of paying coins to continue playing it long term.
One fundamental issue is that by design, coin based games are going to be 'gamed' to encourage the use of coins, and fundamentally I don't want to participate in a game dynamic where I'm paying for game experimentation with real dollars. It is like me playing a game of chess and having the constant option to drop $20 to buy another queen. Sure it isn't absolutely necessary to win, but it sure helps. Having that dynamic in games just turns me off.
Now I understand the problem of running a sustainable business all too well, having had my own game company go under, but I don't believe this is the solution. I'm not sure what the right one is, and on that front I applaud them for experimenting, but as a customer I personally reject it.
Am I misunderstanding the model here? Is the 'recurring' aspect supposed to be from players as a group--a certain percent converting on a monthly basis, without publicity events? Is what clearly looks like a 'purchase game' to me not intended as such? Will I sit down to play some evening only to find a warped experience that's grindy and lame without an infusion of coins? Or is all this talk of free to play really about fully functional trials--asking me for $4 after I'm sure I like the game rather than $1 on a hope? (Something which seems sensible, but I don't see how it would help with a boom/bust cycle.)
These days I'm wary of games that advertise free to play. As if that were something I, as a player, wanted. I see it less as a try-it-we're-sure-you'll-like-it and more of a we-won't-tell-you-what-it-costs and we-can-get-you-hooked-and-you-won't-care-it's-not-fun and maybe a little we'll-keep-changing-it-so-you-keep-needing-to-pay.
There's such strong pressure to have purchases affect gameplay, too. I've seen any number of nice games start out promising that would never happen, and then . . . it happened. I mean, remember when they introduced hats in TF2? Said they'd never, never, never affect gameplay? We know how that went.
So I don't know. For me as a player, that sort of game has an uphill battle to earn my trust. Even if it's awesome now, the pressures are just such that it probably won't be in six months. Not the sort of thing I want to build my cherished family entertainment memories around.
There's also the rather-disturbing phenomenon of a small percentage of people spending an outlandish amount of money on these games. Sure, some of them might be enthusiastic fans, but that seems unlikely to me. Free-to-play games are just . . . not that kind of game. It seems more likely that they're folks with poor judgement, or who are even mentally ill. I don't know, but it doesn't sit well with me.
I'm not a successful indie game publisher or anything, so I don't have a proposed alternative. But I do think I'm not the only one who feels this way, and I'd expect the view to become more prevalent as players gain experience with the model. Free-to-play might be dominant now, but I wouldn't bet on it staying that way.
The key, I think, is in two things.
The first is having more control over your ability to distribute the product in the long term, and cheaply. The retail model meant that old games didn't have any opportunity to continue to get sales. Digital distribution means that old games continue to be available, and they can continue to make quite a lot of money.
The ability to distribute titles yourself means that you don't need to do a big hit all-on-day-one launch to make a sustainable living.
The second thing is the ability for some players to pay more money than others. The free to play model is great at this, but it isn't the only way I think that this can happen.
We have the ability for someone to pay $1000 to become a "Diamond" supporter which gives someone the ability to design a unique item (with guidance from us for balance reasons). They do not get given a copy, it's an item that is now available for the entire player base and enriches the game by providing more content for the players.
This kind of piecemeal support for specific purposes is an interesting area that I think could grow in the future.
The overall message I guess is getting away from the need for a big launch then slump, and moving to something that grows and is sustainable for the long term.
Tiny nitpick; I think his characterisation of Minecraft is missing the cult aspect:
> (And before you say 'Minecraft', let's give it another decade. :-).
And immediately after:
> Imagine free-to-play games as practiced by a private company that makes games with long term retention for passionate players in a tightly knit community.
Now simply snip the very first part of the first sentence:
> > Imagine <snip> a private company that makes games with long term retention for passionate players in a tightly knit community.
.... that's Mojang, right?
Timed energy: Check
Triple Town is free to play forever. Eventually, you will run out of moves, but they replenish for free if you wait a while, and you can also buy more moves with free coins that you earn in-game.
Incentivized ads in-game: Check (wrong for both the player and the advertiser)
Update: we've added a 2-minute mode that you can play free, forever, as much as you want, by watching advertisements in between play sessions.
This is the real price of the game:
If you want to eliminate the move counter altogether, there is a one-time fee for lifetime unlimited moves.
Sorry to be blunt, but make a game with real value - not a casual puzzle game with a limited move energy - and the players will buy it.
For some nice mobile packaged games see Avernum and Avadon, Silversword, Mission Europa or The World Ends With You and Ghost Trick.
If you charge up front some reasonable multiplier of the net present value of that average revenue per user, what is the difference if it's spread out over 10 years or immediate?
I guess my point with that is that as a user, I see free to play in general as being somewhat duplicitous. If it has a price tag on it, I can buy it or not. Even DLC, bad as it may be, has that sort of thing going on. But 'free to play' really means 'I won't tell you how much this will cost you up front'.
The bottom line is that your game has to be really good to make money, because there are so many games out there and many people want to make games, going so far as to spend large amounts of their free time doing it.
Competing with 'free labor' is hard to do. There's no silver bullet, and no business model magic will change that.
It's the same as being a rock star musician, or a professional athlete.
I just close my eyes for a minute and think (or try to), what would it be like for those people that are finally able to reach, say, Vega (I know it's not the closest). Sure, this is not a big deal in sci-fi, but for reality, it's pretty mind blowing. This is 100% why I seriously want to live for a few hundred years: to have an opportunity to see the first time we actually go to the nearest star.
In the meantime, I guess this will have to suffice.
I also love this image that is not interactive like this, but still mind blowing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Earths_Location_in_the_Uni...
For those people unlucky enough to not be able to load this app (it took me quite a while) here is a particularly fantastic image I took (without asking or any right to, of course) - http://shanearmstrong.co.uk/content/cdn/the_beauty_of_the_co... - I apologize for any slow load times.
Firefox on the same machine works flawlessly.
(Shameless plug: I used both to implement the Common Lisp sky renderization engine for my startup, http://greaterskies.com, that makes pretty personalized posters out of thousands of stars)
Here is another one showing an animation of asteroids discovered in our solar system from 1980 to 2011. It starts off pretty tame, and by the end gets scary! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONUSP23cmAE
b. If you haven't already, Toggle the spectral index... so sick
Could someone explain how this is built or give an overview of how it works? In the 'about' page http://www.chromeexperiments.com/detail/100000-stars/ it says WebGL and CSS3D, but I'm wondering how they fit together and what does what.
Is there a better way to view the source than just 'view source' in chrome?
I know a number of programming languages and I'd like to learn more about how this project works. [Saw the link to book on graphic programming in other comments below http://www.arcsynthesis.org/gltut/index.html, but how to "take apart and study" this project? ] Kudos to anyone who can point me in the right direction. Thanks!
I would really love to see a search box that would allow me to jump to a specific star.
In any case, great visualisation. Would be a perfect use for a 3D monitor.
edit: loaded it in chrome instead, even better (should have been obvious given it's located on chromeexperiments.com)
Works fine in Safari.
I always wondered how scientist determine the position of earth in our galaxy and the center of the galaxy. can somebody throw some light on this ???
Edit: I'm sorry for my misleading and value-free comment. Allow me to clarify: THIS EXPERIMENT LOOKS LIKE HOT BROKEN GARBAGE ON CHROME FOR MAC, A FACT WHICH MAY BE OF INTEREST TO PERHAPS HALF OF THE HACKER NEWS READERSHIP WHO WILL MOST LIKELY EXPERIENCE THE SAME VISUAL CORRUPTION AT VARIOUS VIEW LEVELS. SOME MAY VIEW THIS AS UNFORTUNATE, AS THE INTENDED EXPERIENCE IS A WORTHY ONE THAT EXERCISES A NUMBER OF CUTTING EDGE WEB PRESENTATION TECHNIQUES THAT ARE LIKELY TO GAIN SIGNIFICANT TRACTION IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
The true feelings of the Glitch team aren't being hidden here, and although it's sad, I think folks appreciate it a great deal.
such an unusual and oddly endearing gesture. i am sure there is some kind of story behind it, but it's kind of beautiful in this industry full of people who first decide they want to make money and then decide what to build.
But, aside from the intrinsic beauty, the truth is that there was no reason for you to keep coming back. It didn't have the same evil addictive psychology of Zynga's games ("Your crops are dying! Your friend Samantha just moved to a farm next door. Spam your friends - or buy some credits - so you can level up faster."). No intricate action + social interactivity like WoW. No puzzle challenges like Limbo, or adventure-style like Monkey Island (true, neither was multiplayer). No fast paced action like War of Tanks/War of Warplanes..
In the end it was just a cute massive multiplayer social game. Maybe the cutest ever. But this doesn't seem enough to attract a loyal audience - other than maybe a few other game geeks, artists and designers.
This reminds me of the Steve Blank's (the original author behind the lean startup movement) stories. Do you really need to implement a full game, with that many details, with that many layers, with so many features, just to realize that your users aren't coming back in the first place? Can't you put your mom/sister/son to play for a few months, and just see how many times they keep coming back (when you're not looking)? Can't you probably get to the same conclusions with, say, 10% of the effort? If you do this early enough, you'll still have the other 90% of runway to make corrections and explore different options (or, hell, pivot to totally different business model if you discovered your boat isn't going anywhere).
Of course hindsight is a bitch. It's always so much easier to explain what happened, that to forecast the future...
But Glitch repeated some of the same mistakes that others have done in the past. Case in point: the excellent paper "Lessons from Habitat" (http://www.fudco.com/chip/lessons.html), about the experimental project created by Lucasfilm in the late 80's. The entire paper is a great read, but one part that strikes me as relevant to this discussion is:
While we find much of the work presently being done on elaborate interface technologies -- DataGloves, head-mounted displays, special-purpose rendering engines, and so on -- both exciting and promising, the almost mystical euphoria that currently seems to surround all this hardware is, in our opinion, both excessive and somewhat misplaced. We can't help having a nagging sense that it's all a bit of a distraction from the really pressing issues. At the core of our vision is the idea that cyberspace is necessarily a multiple-participant environment. It seems to us that the things that are important to the inhabitants of such an environment are the capabilities available to them, the characteristics of the other people they encounter there, and the ways these various participants can affect one another. Beyond a foundation set of communications capabilities, the details of the technology used to present this environment to its participants, while sexy and interesting, are of relatively peripheral concern.
Keep in mind the entire project ran on Commodore64, and two decades ago a 1200bps connection was leading edge. But even though gamers today have much higher expectations in terms of quality than ever before, the core principle is still the same: success of a massive multiplayer game is defined not by its level of peripheral sophistication (be it design, cuteness, or head mounted displays), but by the social experience and characteristics of how people can interact with each other.
(btw, 20+ years and we still don't have head-mounted displays. No, Google Glass doesn't count)
Another issue was channel distribution. It's really challenging to succeed with a web-only game, especially when you're not anchored Facebook. And if on top of that you're using Flash, you'll be missing out all those of 2-3 minutes mini-slots of "free time" that people have every day on their mobile devices (waiting for the train, the bus, bathroom, elevator, etc). And Glitch almost never sent emails. So they were expecting people to bookmark the site and keep coming back. Yeah, right...
Anyway, in the end of the day the Glitch team deserves a lot of praise for accomplishing what they did. It's a gorgeous project, and I can just hope that their work will inspire future designers and game developers, and hopefully parts of the code gets open sourced.
After all the pre-launch hype about changing the face of gaming forever, the game was dreadfully boring -- you basically walk around and click on things. I described it to a friend as "FarmVille where you don't get your own farm." Sure, there was a lot of art; I think I had my pick of several dozen hairstyles and encountered hundreds of types of objects. They must have drawn thousands of art assets.
There is no lesson to take away here except that games live or die on their mechanics and depth. Zynga has shown us exactly how far you can go with pretty, social games that give you just enough little dopamine kicks to keep the window open.
1. As a fellow game developer that published a game (and didn't hit the jackpot). (We're a small startup at the time launching our little game and it didn't go well at all after a 2 hard-working year, about the same time when Glitch launched).
2. It's the Flickr's founding dream to create this, and if you read the backstory of Flickr, you'll notice that the founder initially wanted to create this startup before Flickr, but found out it is not feasbible, and took out a main component from the game (sharing photo) and built Flickr. And so now, the founder has sold her company to Yahoo!, and decided to use every penny to make her dream come true, and it appears reality hits where it hurts the most, and the game didn't fly. I tried the game, it's really polished, but it just didn't have the target market pool as big as Zynga in Facebook. Really sad its under-appreciated.
3. There is an unseen s*load amount of hard work placed in Glitch, but it just all went boom to their face.
What is the problem? Does this mean hard work != successful? Or did they not have enough marketing budget to make Glitch fly?
building and developing, learning new skills, collaborating or competing with everyone else in one enormous, ever-changing, persistent world.
But I'd love to hear how they had planned on actually doing that. Was there going to be Minecraft/Second Life-style building of structures and worlds? Was there going to be contests and competitions? Was the core of the gaming experience going to be mainly on learning new skills?
And if all technical and financial roadblocks were removed, would their vision have made for a truly compelling game? Or was their vision doomed from the start?
In hindsight it reminds me of my experience with Second Life: once you've got the basic ideas, and toured some of the more creative or amusing islands, what is there to do? At least in 2L you could build something that would remain in the world. In Glitch there were endless skill-building exercises that had meaning only in the game world. The only payoff for building a skill was to be able to learn some more skills.
Meanwhile millions are obsessively playing Minecraft, whose design could not be farther from Glitch in every way.
It's beautiful in the way few things imagine that they could be.
What they probably need is better feedback on how to make it more engaging, and some way to port their work out of Flash... which could be doable with some ingenuity.
Why don't you give the game away or make it open source or let player volunteers run it?
Glitch looks simple, but it is not. [...] It takes a full-time team of competent engineers & technical operations personnel just to keep the game open. Even if there was a competent team that was willing to work on it full time for free, it would take months to train them. Even then, the cost of hosting the servers would be prohibitively expensive.
That explains why making it free or open-sourcing wouldn't save the current game world, but why not open-source it anyway? Then somebody can give it another shot, with a smaller, limited world, and see if it gains any traction the second time around.
The startup world in general is moving toward a hits-driven model, but a game company whose product is only used for entertainment takes this to an extreme. A game like Glitch doesn't solve any problem, and it's not even a generalized tool like Twitter where the problems it enables solving become apparent later. It's simply a game, that will live or die based on how well it entertains people. It's very hard for me to understand how investors evaluate an idea like this before anything has shipped. (Of course, Stuart Butterfield probably raised money based on past success alone.)
It doesn't even seem like the company had plans to build a portfolio of games like a Zynga or EA. So they raised a bunch of money before they had even a glimmer of product-market fit, hired a bunch of people, and then figured out that their game wasn't good enough.
The only strategy that seems to work in the game business is to be a low-budget, low-profile indie developer for a few years till you have a portfolio of titles that you've developed yourself or for a publisher, then raise financing (debt or equity) to develop a larger project on your own steam. Raising money from the start for a single high-profile, whimsical product seems destined to fail.
Of course, hindsight being 20/20 and all that.
This does seem to count as a vote against Big Production Up Front. I have to wonder if they had started smaller, used a more "Lean" strategy, got a product to market quicker, and started working on revenue, if they would've A) discovered the "insurmountable" problems sooner, B) had some revenue to play with, and C) been in a position to pivot when the shit hit the fan.
Best of luck to the TinySpeck team. Brilliant stuff.
>Why don't you give the game away or make it open source or let player volunteers run it?
So will it be lost forever in the ether? Please, Glitch owners, preserve it in some meaningful way.
 http://rubygems.org/gems/snafu http://www.glitch.com/blog/2011/11/30/the-big-unlaunching/
He made a post introducing the Vancouver staff on his blog.
They should put this on their resume. Picture taken, and drawn, by Keita Takahashi.
1. No mention of the 10K extortion attempt.
2. No mention of the "big deal" (fraud) perpetrated by impersonating Steve and or the CM team to negotiate deals that netted the guy (a guesstimated) $8K.
3. The Registrar changing the NSs of a locked domain is either baloney, or a good reason to never use that registrar again. That would make it impossible to do a zero downtime domain xfer.
4. Even on twitter his story was inconsistent or half full of him lashing out at people.
I've been told that the team is not pursuing anything, though PayPal, N2A and... what was the other big one... all have been contacted and told what happened (see #2).
Were there ever "the days" when people would say "I'm sorry" without caveats or excuses and mean it 100%? At best, he apologizes to anyone he "offended". I guess he offended my sense of decency, and offended my sensibilities given how to handle cases where you screwed up. Between his Twitter and this "summary", I would say the shovel is still in his hands. I wonder if he paused for breath or realized how big the hole was.
edit: thanks to the mod that fixed it :)
And in the thread, he mentions that Swappa is doing the same thing, $500 a month plus $10 per device sold, though there's no way to verify if that's true. Swappa claims to donate $5 per device sold to Cyanogenmod, though who knows if that's been going to the actual project or this joker. http://swappa.com/cyanogenmod
That's some pretty serious fraud there, if this is true.
While it's true that cyanogenmod.com going down may not serve a functional problem to most people but it is a pretty sad story. I have used Cyanogen on a couple phones and all my Android devices use the Clockwork recovery, which is an incredible tool. I don't know the specifics but I don't think anybody on the Cyanogen team was receiving money for their work. Granted, there are premium versions in the Play Store, but certainly nobody is getting rich of Cyanogen or clockwork.
The fact that somebody is screwing them over just to make a couple bucks seems pretty terrible to me. These guys do this for fun and for the good of the community (not to mention for the good of Google), so my heart really goes out to them. I hope you get everything sorted out and get everything back up.
There is a PayPal donation form at the bottom of their site. I have donated in the past when they have asked and I'm sure I will this time if they make an appeal to pay for legal fees.
Again, so sad to see this happen to such a great group of devs.
I always shiver a little if I have to dive into xda-forums, but this takes it to the next level. Puts all the actual hard working developers in a bad light.
"we've already had this conversation. The DNS was changed in preparation to hand the domain back to Steve. You all jumped the gun."https://twitter.com/MrADeveci/status/268837555129167873
"DNS propagation can take 72 hours. The domain was transferred about an hour ago. It was transferred to another UK registrar."- https://twitter.com/MrADeveci/status/268881716876300288
UPDATE: Seems he really has handed the domain back now?:http://www.cyanogenmod.org/blog/domain-situation-has-been-re...
Note: it's a shame most of the comments here are about the title of this post.
But in that case, no domain was transferred, it was just confusing from the start.
I cannot emphasize enough to developers and to startups: all war is about money, all business is about money. When you get to the point that you are making money, you are in business... and all business is war (imo). If you go in thinking like that (not freaked paranoia, but strategic defensive development), you will avoid a lot of this trauma.
I feel for you guys, I've been there.
Google already give you cyanogenmod.org when you search for cyanogenmod. Was this always their preferred domain, or is Google just that quick to update?
Post on cyanogenmod.org for those who prefer not to use Facebook: http://www.cyanogenmod.org/blog/psa-transition-to-cyanogenmo...
For the sake of posterity, the original title was "Cyanogenmod taken offline by developer", and the link was to the same story, but posted on Facebook.
I think a simpler "we've been betrayed by an insider with access to everything, here's how we're fixing it, and yes, we're pursuing legal methods for dealing with this" would have been better. Leave out the gory details about who's hurt and whatnot. This is business. Still, this is better than half of the other "we've been betrayed" posts I've seen.
This is empirically correct - a poor person in Africa is worth less than a rich American - by definition of earning capacity, consuming capacity, life expectancy and investment in their quality of life.
Please note: This does not mean the American is better than the African - it's merely an accident of birth.
Now here's the point I'm going to make.
Keeping people alive has exponential value - irrelevant of current value (e.g. African vs. American). What is the cost of keeping a poor African alive? I'm going to say for ~90% of the population it'll be around $1-4K a year. Now this is relatively expensive - however you must remember, this African will go on to consume and work all their lives, have kids who themselves will have kids and so forth - a combinatorial explosion of development and production making us all the richer.
Think of it like this: We are all descendant from a group of ~2000 people from Central Africa ~250,000 years ago. They produced ~7 billion people over the course of a few hundred thousand years - that's some seriously insane value generation right there. Imagine if we did the same with the ~7 billion we have now - we could be the ~2000 of the next millennium.
Each life you save today means hundreds or even thousands in the future - it's like an exponential investment. This is why we should protect poor people - apart from fuzzy moralistic reasons. It is a financially sound investment.
Each poor person will be an eventual consumer and producer - we must maximise their ability to do so - and that is why we must fundamentally help them. It also feels good.
This is what I find so toxic about the entire Republican/private health care in America debate. You invest millions over the course of people's lives to keep them alive (schools/roads/bridges/cheap loans/national security/etc.) and all of a sudden, if they get sick, you're happy that they metaphorically shoot themselves in the head because of their sickness (bankruptcy/can't afford/die etc.). Hence, you must also be happy when this kills the ability of their families to consume, produce and reproduce by an order of magnitude for the foreseeable future. We must keep people alive not merely because it's a good investment in aggregate, and not merely because it is the correct thing to do, but also because it's financially nonsensical to do otherwise - especially in a first world country. People are expensive, they take huge amounts of resources to bring up, and they have a high ROI - we should protect these investments for the sake of protecting our collective future.
Secondly, pushing birth control doesn't do jack to population growth. The vast majority of variance in development/population rates between countries is explained by GDP per capita. Or as Karan Singh, a former minister of population in India once stated:
> Development is the best contraceptive.
-- Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic-economic_paradox
Just to reiterate - I am not saying that one human is better than another in any sense of fundamental long-term value. I merely state that current value of any one human is grossly unequal due to path-dependent birth (born in America vs. Afghanistan) - however I mean to strongly imprint upon you that that the current value of a human doesn't matter in the long term - because humans in aggregate are worth the same over many generations because:
> In the long run we are all dead.
-- John Maynard Keynes
What matters is how we ensure the survival of a vibrant next generation, regardless of race, creed or birth.
That is why I enjoyed challenging myself to think about it purely from an economic perspective one day. We were on the plane, and the guy next to us was studying "humanitarian economics". It is somewhat related to the issues that the gates foundation has to think about when distributing their funds.
There was some curious dilemmas you need to face, and most of them seem to be faced by removing yourself somewhat from the moral aspect, and thinking purely about assigning a monetary value to them. The bit that I remember was thinking about the financial value of a human life, as determined by its remaining potential. What this means is :
- Small babies: haven't invested much time and effort into developing them, so they are not worth as much.
- Teenagers: Have spent considerable amount of time getting them ready to contribute to society.
- Older people: Although there has been a lot of effort invested in them, and they have contributed a lot to society, there is only so much more "potential" left.
Another interesting thing about this approach, is that in a funny way, it mimics the sentiment of Belinda's statement of all lives being equal. This is because (equally aged) people from Africa and Australia have the same monetary value according to this.
 - Please don't hate me! I' actually quite a nice person, I just found this interesting :) It's not how I normally think about people.
You know what would help those kids a lot more than your medicine? Copies of all existing textbooks in an electronic format and access to all of our patents.
When the polio vaccine was created the inventor refused to get a patent for it, saying no one has the right to own it just like no one has the right to own the sun.
I just find it very hard to support the Gates foundation when I believe that it is playing by the rules to make the founders look and feel good instead of actually challenging laws and cultural assumptions, which it truly should.
So it is meaningless to talk about value without asking: valued by who?
Some people (say, my family) are hugely more "valuable" to me than others.
However, the cost of travelling often could be put directly towards donations. There are so many opportunities to serve close to home in our own communities that often get overlooked because that kind of volunteering doesn't sound as glamorous as building schools in Africa.
Life l1, l2; # initialises by default to unique value l1 > l2; # false l1 < l2; # false l1 == l2; # false
Yes that's a jab at capitalism and commercial healthcare.
1. Which Chinese Android App marketplaces are the most popular? In other words, if I wanted to target Chinese Android users, which app stores should I focus on submitting my app to?
2. Are there any barriers to submitting to such app stores for north american developers? Specifically related to getting paid.
3. Which Android mobile ad networks are best (cpm/cpc) for China?
Would love to hear any personal experiences working with China's Android Market!
 http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2008/07/atom-nano-review/6/. Scroll down to the third graph, if you want the tl;dr.
 http://code.google.com/p/nativeclient/issues/detail?id=2508. I don't post that because it's a particularly egregious example. Even though I don't think the reply makes sense, it's actually more reasonable than most responses. It just happens to be public, because the exchange happened on a public bug tracker.
It's fairly easy to fix this sort of thing with a patch, Ã la Raymond Chen , but, for legal reasons, we can't just hand out patches to every program that incorrectly determines features from the vendor string. It often takes over a year to convince a vendor to issue a patch for its driver or OS, even when we have a benign patch we're using in lab to work around the issue, so we can do compatibility testing (we test pretty much everything) . That's if we're lucky enough to get a vendor that wants to fix it; we often just get the runaround indefinitely. I can recall one case when no printer driver from a certain manufacturer would install on a machine with one of our CPUs, even though that same vendor was selling multiple models that used our CPU.
 I haven't done lab debug for a while, but the last bug I can recall hearing about was a case where, if you had two webcams recording and playing back to the screen while watching a Blu-ray DVD and running an obscure benchmark from the 90s that wasn't even used in the 90s, the machine would hang approximately once every three days. I don't know where we find the mandmen who come up with these tests.
The funny thing is, we had a feature in our part that we suspected was buggy, and disabling that feature caused the fail to go away (or at least occur incredibly infrequently), but you can't ship a part unless you're really absolutely sure it's not going to hang on real customers, so someone had to track down to the root cause and capture it simulation. Just because disabling that feature meant the bug didn't show up didn't mean that feature was the cause. It could have been that disabling the feature just changed the conditions so that bug became less likely, and only popped up once a year, or maybe needed five webcams to expose, or who knows what? IIRC, it took someone two months to find the exact issue.
My favourite quote from the talk was:
"Files contain code, [and] code, as we all know, contains bugs. Always. So from this we can conclude that UEFI contains bugs. This shouldn't surprise anyone, other than the Linux kernel which obviously contains no bugs at all ever." .
 - www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2aq5M3Q76U (Keep in mind this was in January, when there was still a lot of uncertainty about the UEFI Secure Boot/Linux situation).
 - http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/australia/untested-buggy-ue...
If you want to detect malware, I dont think looking up the boot entry description will do it. Malware do not say "I am a malware, press me to be infected!". It is however a excellent way to prevent competition between operative systems.
See more evidence of this:http://askubuntu.com/questions/141879/error-1962-no-opertati...
The community surrounding that isn't exactly vibrant.
An example from an attempt to find a viable/nice Common Lisp templating library for making web apps (a problem for me before, I hate CL-WHO. Vile.)
Hrm. Yes. Hrm. Seems promising, exceeeept...
The Google Group for it has...disappeared?
That hasn't been touched since 2008!
CL-WHO, which I think is the most popular way to solve this problem hasn't been touched in 2 to 7 months, depending on how you measure it.
The Ningle web framework for Clack, found here: https://github.com/fukamachi/ningle
Not been touched in 4-8 months.
Caveman (clack framework): https://github.com/fukamachi/caveman/ 4-8 months.
HTML-TEMPLATE hasn't been touched since Tue, 02 Dec 2008.
The most popular web server for CL, Hunchentoot hasn't been touched (based on the darcs repo anyway) since Tue, 24 Aug 2010.
Take a look for yourself: http://common-lisp.net/~loliveira/ediware/
The Common Lisp community is moribund at best.
I would PREFER to use Common Lisp over, say, Clojure or Python however the fact is that there just aren't enough people using it or maintaining web development software for it to overcome the time expenditure trade-offs.
So, can we drop the triumphant tone as it concerns CL? Even Paul Graham tells most people to just use Clojure.
You can write a simple Async DB system without running into deadlocks. Deadlocks tend to occur when you have 2 processes trying to lock 2 different resources in differing orders. Not a case you'll run into here.
Also, you could do something like (correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it should be safe):
update queue set owner = '1_time_use_rand_key' where owner is null order by id limit 1;
Regarding the article, I've experimented with a lot of different eating schedules and structures over the years, largely out of idle curiosity to see if it makes a difference. To be perfectly honest, I can't eat three meals a day. My typical day is eating something very light in the late morning, though I skip it a few days a week, and an early-ish dinner. I've kind of arrived there randomly but it suits me. I don't have time in the middle of the day for a Roman-style big lunch even if I wanted to have one.
A big difference between historical eating patterns and now was the lack of massive quantities of refined carbohydrates and sugars in the diet a couple centuries ago. The insulin response to many foods common in modern diets encourages repeated meals. The fact that my diet is typically quite low in refined carbohydrates probably makes it easier for me to eat only one significant meal per day.
I've found it easier to maintain my weight, actually put on muscle (combined with other dietary changes needed to add muscle) and also increased my concentration and focus.
What do I do? I have a couple big glasses of water, a cup of coffee or two with heavy cream or butter and that is it until lunch. If I'm not trying to put on muscle I generally eat very low carb and that further gives me more focus and concentration.
Basically, my n=1 experience is quite good and I recommend others experiment with it.
It amazes me how people can selectively present facts to appear intelligent. There was more to the ancient world than just the Romans and Greeks. So even if they didn't eat 3 meals a day I'm pretty sure there were plenty of ancient civilisations that did.
First a light breakfast very early, with a soup. Then around 10 a meat-based light meal after some hard work. Then at 13 lunch, and finally a dinner.
It seems to be mostly written by the community as well. Another step towards AirBnb's vision of making traveling more intimate. I am really curious to see this from a traveler's point of view!
I like Python, and use it in industry. Ruby, Go, and C also. In the past, I wrote Common Lisp professionally as well. I do not pine for Scheme or CL, although both had some of their own unique charm. Nevertheless, I think Brian's sentiments about Scheme's clarity in stripping away what can seem to be the 'magic' in programming while maintaining an absolutely rigorous representation that can actually be executed are spot-on. There will be plenty of time in practical work to reintroduce some magic to make practical tasks easier, but there is but a precious few years -- or indeed, just a semester -- to examine the structure of abstraction at its very core.
While this is offered as an excuse for switching away from SICP, I don't like this either.
Programming paradigms are the perfect introduction to programming. First, it naturally teaches you one of the most fundamental concepts in computer science (abstraction) by example; with the SICP approach, you learn about abstractions by constructing your own idioms for abstractions within a programming paradigm!
Second, applications become easier and easier to develop the more one learns to break out of a single paradigm and borrow ideas and tools from each as needed - otherwise, it's easy to get stuck in a rut and miss a simple but elegant solution to the problem at hand. Being able to cross-pollinate features or ideas idiomatic in one language to another gives you a Leatherman instead of an x-acto knife.
Having a fundamental grasp of programming paradigms makes programming languages feel like a second skin, rather than an obstacle sitting between the brain and the binary output.
Of course, prof. Guttag is really a big-shot and seems like no one could say anything, but I cannot even properly describe how much worse it was than CS61A by Brian Harvey.
It is not just Python, it is ugly Python, boring Python, without any hint of elegance it could be. No list-set-dict comprehensions, which is what makes Python interesting, very few slicing examples and one or two use of yield.
I must say that usage of classes was reasonable - only when there were even a small advantage to structure the code this way, but it is just boring stuff.
Each lecture of CS61 keeps you alert and awake, and curious, time passes unnoticed, and you almost feel how a new connections growing in your brain,) while in 6.00CS you're forcing yourself to to stay alert, almost yawning.
So, if one is engaged in self-education just do CS61A and old 6.001 classic videos. After you can skim trough all those mainstream Python-based courses very quickly with great ease. I can do 4-5 lectures per day.)
Edit: Uh, why downvote? Not complaining, just curious; I have done this before for plaintext articles and will do it again, but only if it's welcome.
Spot on. This describes exactly my experience of my Pascal-based course back in 1986 - and it was way more than half. I didn't come across SICP until 10 years later, and it was a revelation, I didn't realise how much more productive an introductory course could be.
My experience with SICP is a case of after the fact. I've learned and wrote LISP codes long before touching SICP. The learning process was reading existing source codes and going through reference materials. It's not until I went through SICP that suddenly all these concepts and ideas became so clear.
How true! I hated CS61A when I was in it, and I thought nothing was practical and everything was a trivial example. Sorry Brian! I failed to grasp the depth of all the 'trivial' examples. I never appreciated the complexities of the class until I started being a TA for it, and I never truly loved the class until I lectured it.
Notes, homeworks, etc, available here: http://www-inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~cs61a/su10/
"The language in which you'll spend most of your working life hasn't been invented yet, so we can't teach it to you. Instead we have to give you the skills you need to learn new languages as they appear."
And of course, the book is awesome too. And it rewards repeat readings.
I agree whole-heartedly with what he's said in this piece and hope that others can continue to reap the value of SICP. It's made me a clearer thinker and better programmer.
One might say that SICP is unique in as much as it transcends coding as an act of "slinging code at a screen", pushing readers to think carefully about the nature and design of their programs. That's only a sliver of what it does, but it's ever so easy to miss that as a beginning programmer.
Yeah, it definitely takes discipline to get through, but it's quite rewarding.
If everything is always forced to justify itself commercially, then everything will implode into a hideous, hollow caricature of itself. Everything becomes a flashy excercise in deceit and con artistry if it wants to survive. Quality and substance can never hope to win against marketing.
The OP tests the browser in three benchmarks, two of them are performance related , one being written by Google, and Chrome beats IE10 in that one (IE10 being the fastest in the other).
Additionally the conclusion makes me think that the OP has a bias toward Chrome.
I nevertheless think that Chrome is faster, however I am annoyed by all this IE bashing.
Frankly, it's all about what the benchmark tests and in what way. All browser vendors optimise along some benchmark and that's what they are good at.
The bottom line is that pretty much all of them are fast enough to do most of the things you're doing with them.
I love code koans.
I want more.
That Leaderboard is dominated by China, perhaps you guys shouldn't be battling each other ;)
Why would anyone use anything but FoxFi?
EDIT: I suppose FoxFi doesn't work on some phones + using both radios at the same time might run down the battery quicker.
Use adb to forward a port from your machine to your Android device. Run a SOCKS proxy app on your Android.
I use a similar method for transferring media, since mtp doesn't work very well on Linux.
I wonder why did Google decide to implement mtp as the protocol of choice. I know why MSC was not ideal anymore, but it already has working tcp over usb. That can be used to implement so many different things like file sync, tethering, etc.
I'll be looking forward to testing this out, since it'll be more convenient than wireless tethering in some circumstances.
MacBook Pro 13" with 10.7.5Droid Razr with Android 4.0.4Verizon with mobile hotspot and I believe I had tethering working on a Windows laptop before.
Steps:I have installed HoRNDIS and rebooted (tried install/reboot again just to be sure)Plugged in my phone via USBEnabled USB tethering and it says tethering errorThere are no changes in the Network preferences on the Mac
Saw it wasn't loaded so I manually loaded it:
sudo kextload /System/Library/Extensions/HoRNDIS.kext
Tried to tether again and noticed these errors in kernel.log:
Nov 14 19:05:28 Robs-MacBook-Pro kernel: 0 1 AppleUSBCDCACMData: start - Find CDC driver for ACM data interface failed Nov 14 19:05:28 Robs-MacBook-Pro kernel: 0 1 AppleUSBCDCECMData: start - Find CDC driver for ECM data interface failed
What would be awesome is some kind of reverse tethering - use my computer's Internet from my phone connected to the computer over USB.
George A: Hello! Welcome to Skype Live Support! My name is George. How may I help you? me: Recently I have received an email welcoming me to Skype (not phishing, I verified). The problem is that I didn't create the account mentioned in the email. The account name was "[NEW SKYPE ACCOUNT]" and my email is [MY EMAIL 1], so I think that user mistyped his email address, and then Skype sent a welcome message to me. Doesn't skype verifies email addresses before sending a welcome message? George A: I understand that you are concerned about your email address being used to setup a Skype account, I'll be happy to help you with that. May I please have your Skype Name? me: [MY SKYPE ACCOUNT] George A: I would also need the email address, please. me: [MY EMAIL 1]. let me check that this address in on my Skype account... ok, my email on file in Skype is [MY EMAIL 2]. and a few other too, all mine :) George A: Well, I see that there is only Skype Name registered under that email address, the Skype Name is [NEW SKYPE ACCOUNT] me: Yes, for my account ([MY SKYPE ACCOUNT]) the primary email is [MY EMAIL 2], but other emails on profile are [MY EMAIL 1], [MY EMAIL 2], [MY EMAIL 3]. George A: May I please ask you to confirm which Skype Name that you do not authorize? me: Does Skype sends verification message before assigning the email to account? The Skype name which I didn't create is [NEW SKYPE ACCOUNT] George A: May I also have the email address that was used? me: [MY EMAIL 1] George A: Well, I would need to send you a confirmation to that email address. I would kindle need you to reply back to that email. me: Please do George A: Then, we will be able to delete that Skype Name for you. me: thank you George A: You are most welcomed, please expect me email within 10 minutes. Is there anything else I can help you with today? me: Could you tell me if email accounts that are registered with Skype are being verified by sending a message to them? If so, maybe there's bug in your system? George A: We send a welcome email to the registered email address whenever a new account is set up using that email. me: OK, that's what I received. And then you also send other emails with offers to the same account. So, basically, anyone can create an account for any email. Why don't you verify emails? George A: Please understand that all of us here at Skype take our customers' privacy and confidentiality very seriously me: OK. Thank you. George A: You are most welcomed. It's been a pleasure speaking with you today. Thank you for contacting Skype Live Support, have a great day. We value your feedback. Please be aware that we will ask you a few questions after closing the chat window about your experience with us today. Once you are ready please click on the "Exit" button. me: I suggest adding a link to Welcome email that says "I didn't create this account". Bye!
And now this failure to verify emails leads to the linked vulnerability. Nice.
aaaaa1 - strength: medium
aaaaa12345 - strength: poor
=aStu!et$aQ@212345 - strength: poor
I see no recourse other than closing my account, if that's still possible.  No, not even that is possible.
Hint: you can change your email to something like email@example.com to avoid registration of new email address.
[UPDATE:14/11/2012@15:28GMT] Early this morning we were notified of user concerns surrounding the security of the password reset feature on our website. This issue affected some users where multiple Skype accounts were registered to the same email address. We suspended the password reset feature temporarily this morning as a precaution and have made updates to the password reset process today so that it is now working properly. We are reaching out to a small number of users who may have been impacted to assist as necessary. Skype is committed to providing a safe and secure communications experience to our users and we apologize for the inconvenience.
The notification about the password reset token does appear in the Skype client, but no reset code is shown at first. Then I've pressed Ctrl+F5 on the home screen, skipped the Facebook thing, and here they are!
On OSX doesn't work, though. The password token notification doesn't come.
1. Most people use the same or similar password, so once one account gets hacked, the attacker is probably able to use many other accounts on different services with the same email address/password combo.
2. It's easier to spot services that spam, or that leak your email address (I became aware of a leak of email addresses on Box... luckily it was only emails that got leaked, at least according to Box support).
3. It's easier to block spam, once a service misbehaves or gives away the email.
I wrote a little more about using it as a "passwordless password manager" at http://blog.gingerlime.com/2011/passwordless-password-manage...
update: (if blog post is too long...) this does not mean setting up hundreds of different email accounts. On most services like hotmail, google and yahoo you can simply append some unique string to your email address, e.g. firstname.lastname@example.org. Making this unpredictable is important however, so appending +facebook and +twitter is not helping much though...
It should be noted that after my account password is changed, I tried to login with the old password, the Windows Skype app told me the username and password combination is wrong but it still let me logged in. This may be a different bug in caching?
Hope we can get a postmortem report out of this...
But they are very expensive and their sales staff sell on commission which I find uncomfortable.
I find myself in the position where I'm glad they exist but I never recommend anyone to actually go there.
By raising venture funding they are signaling they are looking for some kind of shareholder return/exit. The quality of the coffee, plus the "no-laptops" approach to their official cafes would make a great "luxury"/"high-end" marque and differentiator for Starbucks in markets where they are already saturated or want to attract greater wallet spend (SF, NY, etc).
Look at what they did with Seattle's Best but the opposite end.
I will be a happy customer when I can go get a Himalayan young black tea with the same ease I can get a bag of Colombian dark roast beans.
There is a Teavana in a mall near me. I've enjoyed their teas, and bought bags to brew at home, as well as a rather nice iron kettle.
Every time I walk in there I say to myself "This place is like the Starbucks of Tea."
I like premium Tea from Teavana much more than Starbuck's coffee though. As I should for the prices they charge...
I remember when I first went to America as a 21 year old (I had a job door-to-door selling) and Americans, being the hospitable souls that they are, would frequently offer me tea. Unfortunately, it was the cold variety :-(
The reason it feels like such a terrible deal here is that you aren't paying $3 CPM to reach a new audience, you are paying $3 CPM to reach your audience. Sure, Facebook can argue "it's the most targeted audience possible, they're Mavericks fans!" but the counter to that is "of course they are, it's my brand that put this audience together".
Brands use Facebook because it's far more user-friendly than trying to collect your fans together on your own website, and therefore it's a better solution - easier for your fans means more will do it, so you have more people to market to. However the comparison is that they're people who have chosen to subscribe to you, and therefore the pricing comparison is not to digital advertising, but to writing to fans on a website, or a blog, or through email newsletters. This is why it feels like, and arguably is, a rip off.
As to the argument that it's needed from a user's point of view and that Facebook happens to be able to monetise to help their users (e.g. jeffwidman's comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4785852) I'm not really sure. It's probably a valid point. I'm not a Facebook user myself (but my marketing work occasionally covers Facebook), my personal feeling is that if I follow a brand it's because I want to see their updates. All of their updates. In my head, it's the same as signing up to a newsletter, or subscribing to an RSS feed, just through a convenient third party. But as I don't do it myself, I'm happy to consider myself wrong, or in the minority, maybe if I was an active user following many brands that I care about I would find that getting 100% of their messages would ruin my Facebook experience.
I really want is control of that myself. Default me to everything and I'll "show less from this page" or unlike if they are spamming me.
Some companies and organizations are using Facebook to communicate with me and Facebook is deciding what I'll see or not see.
THAT is Cuban's real problem. You can't reach all of your audience without coughing up a fairly large amount of money because Facebook has decided not everybody wants to see your message.
Users are different. If they feel slighted, they will disappear. Facebook is right to focus on the user experience at the expense of antagonizing advertisers.
Whether Facebook could have implemented this without pissing off so many people, now that is a different story.
Facebook can become insignificant 1 year from now just because a new service propose better features at a lower price, or just because people get bored...
People used to have email accounts at yahoo , yet , people now prefer gmail because it is easier to use and is less "spammy".
People used to have myspace accounts , and guess what, moved to facebook...
But it's also true that nothing's free on the internet. Twitter is not free , neither is facebook , and as a business they need to generate revenue.
The fact that they have turned protecting against the tragedy of the commons into a monetization model may not make brands happy, but it makes users happy.
Telling people what they can afford is not a very well thought out argument.
Someone might follow your brand on Twitter, but if he doesn't check his feed for a while, he doesn't see your marketing-speak unless he goes looking for it. Unlike Twitter, Facebook actually tries to be intelligent and show you the stories you care about instead of defaulting to chronological order only. Since, shocker of shockers, people generally prefer to engage with their fellow human beings as compared to these quirky entities we call "brands," the stories you care about are more likely to involve an old friend getting married or your buddy's weekend pics than whatever inspirational message your social medial engagement intern shat out this hour.
Basically, Facebook is treating brands a lot like people: not all their friends see all their content in their newsfeeds, but some do, and higher engagement and closer connections make it more likely that someone will see your stuff. Brands, naturally, don't want to play by the same rules as us mere mortals and want all of their "content" displayed prominently in their subscribers' newsfeeds. In other words, it's Citizens United v. FEC all over again, except no one is actually limiting corporate speech here, just asking brands to pay rather small amounts if they want more reach and distribution than the rules allow.
To sum it all up for Mark Cuban: the mere fact that someone has liked the Mavs on Facebook does not mean that she wants to hear whatever your marketing interns come up with every couple of hours. The obnoxious guy who talks about himself all the time doesn't automatically get a free megaphone to beam his messages into the minds of everybody he's engaged with. I realize that you, Mr. Cuban, have made a career out of being precisely that guy, and that people do walk around hanging on your every word, but us normal people and normal brands have to pay for our promotion, and it's unreasonable to think otherwise.
I'm in a couple of groups that are basically companies and I get all their status updates as well as the ability to turn on or off notifications for them (one I keep on because I really like the company).
AOL, Friendster, Myspace, now FB.. They never monetize because the model can't support itself properly or at least it won't make a trillion dollars like one might expect to with a billion users. If they really wanted to monetize they should just go the linkedin route and charge $1/month for it. If you're not willing to pay that much for FB then what's the service really worth to you?
$38 -> $22 - Need I say more? Zuckerberg reminds me of that guy Steve (Edward Norton) in the Italian job. Clever as he might be - he's just got no imagination.
I think I would probably talk to my mother before writing a blog post publicly disagreeing with her, but I just don't see what's so insulting about disagreeing with Mark Cuban's own public statements.
Is the fact that it is written in "pure Python" really the most important thing to reenforce after the name of the product itself?
Why would I use this over established products like Riak, Redis, MongoDB, etc?
- You fsync yourself to ensure durability. I can't see at a glance what fsync settings are used for the speed tests. - It's not transactional, although single operations are atomic. - Indexes operate on a single-writer, multiple reader basis. - No traditional joins, although you can of course write a procedural function that joins for you.
"Indexes tries to reuse as much space as possible, because metadata size is fixed, during every write operation, if index finds metadata marked as removed or so, it reuses it - writes new data into that place."
I'm curious how this is implemented.
Right now, the financial impact of these outfits is minimal. But when they seriously start impacting government revenues, expect the lawmakers to come out swinging. They'll tag-team with the taxi union(s) and make life hell for the Sidecars, Ubers and Lyfts of the world.
And while I think Uber is an awesome service, it's not totally unreasonable for the state to insist that if you are acting as a taxi, you need to have proof of insurance beyond what's required for a normal driver.
Thank God regulations like this exist to make sure that everybody pays their protection money.
Anyone who disagrees clearly hates poor people and taxi drivers... or something.
It's pretty clear to me that the folks that are suffering from Ã¼ber are the taxi dispatch companies. These companies lease out the cars for a daily fee, like 150 bucks per day. The driver can do whatever he wants as long as he pays that daily fee. The cab company pays insurance because they own the cabs. Cab drivers are essentially independent contractors. They start making money after they've covered the cab cost for the day.
So why should the cab companies care if a driver is using Ã¼ber? From what I've heard, when a dispatcher has a good order, like for a trip across town on a slow day, they'll ask for a cut. In other words the cab companies are supplementing their taxi rental service with a cut of the fares they dispatch. And as a cab driver, if you want to get good orders you have to stay on the dispatchers good side.
Ãœber changes the balance of power. As more people use Ã¼ber, the drivers have to rely on the dispatchers less, and the tit-for-tat system is deflated. I think this class action suit is an attempt to retain the status quo by cab companies. Ãœber shouldn't be responsible for insurance until they start owning their own cabs. If the cab companies have their way, both the drivers and passengers will suffer.
Although I do agree that a world where these types of "collaborative consumption" services (like AirBNB) are essentially unregulated (or at least more open to competition) is much better, it is true that a number of industries are regulated, and incumbents that have been "playing by the rules" were promised a protected business environment. And it's not like they didn't have to give anything up in that trade - a taxi medallion in NYC is worth a lot of money - they have been exchanged for over a million dollars.
So the question is: how do we transition to the better world without being unfair to the "stranded capital"?
Ok, now please pass a law saying internet providers can't limit how much data I can send each month nor prioritize one type of traffic over another. After all, that is hurting internet businesses!
Sketching is not a required step. Starting straight in Photoshop (or even in the browser) are both valid methods too.
Thanks for compiling these, looking forward to see more!
Dick Tracy poster is great.