I set out to correct that before I started my own company and looked for a job that would let me work closely with marketing but still be engineering based. I found one at Sun which was effectively a 'technical marketing engineer' although at the time I joined the marketing folks just needed an engineer to translate what the competition was doing into something they could argue about. I too was amazed at how much more complex it was than my simplistic assumptions had been. I moved over into the kernel group later (they too had offered me a spot when I had interviewed) and have been pure engineering ever since but never forgot the lessons of that time.
Things I learned,
1) Marketing is not sales - Sales is the process by which you convince someone with money to give it to you in exchange for a good or service. Marketing is the thing that happens before that which informs you why you might want to talk to a sales guy. A guy marketing a car will tell you that the car has the highest safety rating ever, the guy selling the car will tell you if you write a check right now he will take an additional $1,500 off the sticker price.
2) Marketing is about perception, and perception is personal. The job of a marketeer is to communicate an idea so that you can see it and perceive it the same way the marketeer does. That requires that you first discover the perceptual language of the target, then translate the message into that perceptual language, communicate it, and then test again for understanding. Marketing a car that smells like bacon to a vegetarian just doesn't work. If the biggest chunk of car buyers are vegetarians, and your car consistently smells of bacon, you need to translate that into something positive somehow. Not simple :-).
3) Marketing is ubiquitous - one of the interesting conversations with my daughter as a teen about what to wear, your clothes give others an impression of you, you cannot prevent that, all you can do is control it. People are constantly taking these bits of information in and reasoning about them consciously and unconsciously. To be successful you have to have influence over as many of those information channels as possible. Getting that influence can be tricky.
Basically, it isn't as easy as it looks like it should be was my conclusion.
1. The notion that you "build a better mousetrap" and people will beat their way to your door is true maybe 1% of the time. Many more companies have had to fight a little to become successful than just said, "This is so awesome that everyone loves it." That being said, no amount of marketing can make up for a crappy product.
2. Marketing should be baked into the product itself. If you're figuring out "now how do I get this out to people" after everything is finished, except in some rare circumstances it's too late. Explosive growth almost never happens by virtue of a product being so good that everybody shares it and it goes viral. Yours might, but you can't count on that happening. So how can you leverage your existing user base to create more users?
3. Getting press is more than emailing a couple of bloggers. And emailing bloggers has to be done in a very specific way to get their attention. It's difficult, because you only have one shot: Think about having to run some code and if there are any errors it all falls to pieces. That's what emailing bloggers feels like. But when it works, it works. And when one place picks you up, the others jump on board really quickly (they're kind of like investors in that way).
4. A lot of the "marketers" you've talked to might suck. It's a lot easier to pretend to be a marketer than it would be to pretend to be a programmer. And just as a non-technical person would have a difficult time trying to figure out if a programmer is any good, it will be hard for you to tell the difference between a good marketer and someone who has no idea what they're doing
5. You need a critical mass of users to determine if your product sucks. When I started marketing my first product, I couldn't pay people to use it. It wasn't that people were saying, "I don't like this," but I couldn't get anyone to try it to say whether they liked it or not. Then after months of grinding and trying to figure things out, we found the sweet spot. Thousands of users per day jumped on board, to the point that our biggest problem became scaling. (A good problem to have, but certainly a problem). If I had given up one day earlier I would have thought that no one cared, but really there was no one to care. There's a difference.
6. 99.99% of the time doing marketing is spent figuring out what works. Once you know (and it's different for each client/customer/app), it's really easy. Don't discount it when someone says "Oh you just do this and this, and boom, users." The same as you wouldn't look at a designer and say "Well you just designed that really simple logo, that can't be hard," you can't just look at the work they're doing -- you have to consider the work they have done. And getting to simple is hard.
So the moral of the story: Don't give up yet. It's too early to know if anyone will care about what you built; you have to get it out to more people.
And the next time I hear someone say, "You don't need a marketer, it's all about the quality of the product," I'll point them to this post. Thank you for your honesty, and best of luck to you.
This right here ... a 1000 times. I've been a developer for years now and I always held onto the same fantasy of launching something so good that marketing would take care of itself. After building a couple of products and being involved in a startup or two I've found that getting software built is not usually as hard as marketing it successfully
Some tips from a marketer:
+Get analytics set up! I see that you've only mentioned the top of the funnel (traffic) and the bottom of the funnel (downloads). I'm assuming you don't have tracking for the full flow (traffic > install > activation > day 1-30 retention > Sales). Get this set up pronto. It's crucial to understand where the bottlenecks are and to also segment traffic to know which efforts are working.
+Marketing starts before you launch. You'll get a far stronger reaction from blogs, sites, and other people when you contact them 2-3 weeks before launch. Creates a sense of exclusivity and plus gives you some momentum to develop an installed base from Day 1. In light of this, perhaps you should call the current app an 'alpha' and re-launch to get some buzz :-)
+Major sources for you to consider: Organic: SEO Referral: Blogs, 3rd Party App Stores, Tech Sites, Forums, Quora, Stack Overflow, and where ever people who have the problem you're trying to solve is asking for help. Partner: App stores, resellers, etc... Paid: Facebook, AdWords, LinkedIn, GDN (I advise you to do thorough research before starting. It's easy to launch poorly designed campaigns and get the misinformed idea that these channels don't work) Viral: Add any social sharing anywhere you can.
+App Review sites review 100s of requests each day. I ran FreeiPadApps.net for 2-years and received 20+ app review requests/day. Mostly from indie developers, agencies, and bots. Try instead to reach out directly to an editor or writer by email/twitter/linkedin.
+SEO: Get up to best practice (title tags, headings, kw research and mapping to content), but don't bank on it. The gold rush for SEO growth circa 2007 is largely over :-(
+Look heavily into any type of 3rd party app stores for free promotion.
+Not sure of JIRA/Github has any 3rd party app pages. Worthwhile to look into this and seeing if you can get included.
With all that said, doing everything above will get you on par with what everyone else is doing. To separate yourself from the pack, the awesomeness of the product needs to take over :-)
Best of luck!
Collect email from potential users on a landing page. Then, send them email to let them get to know you and you know them. After a few emails, say 5-7, you could say "hey I have this great product that makes doing X way easier!". A number of potential users who get to say the 5th or 7th email will then trial or purchase your product if you ask them to. That's like getting the first date. Your product ultimately still has to be good for it to be a long term relationship.
Pretty much any email newsletter software worth anything supports some kind of autoresponder series functionality.
This comes from an AdWords guy. Seriously, work on marketing to the community and with content, not with paid ads. Paid ads come in when you've identified a market, medium to reach them and what your message is. Have that nailed before you spend a dime :)
If the answer requires more information then I'll ask you to email me instead.
Nice to see both approaches here; I wonder which truly works better in the long run.
My take from the website, there is no price on the main page. I have to click 'Buy Now' with no idea whether I want to actually purchase. Which is a commitment (in my head) that I'm not prepared to make without knowing the price.
You could also try getting a promotion from apple in the App Store.
Another thing you should do is incorporate some sort of analytics in your app. Most users wont tell you ANYTHING about your app. I'm running Google Analaytics and I can tell that the average user spends ~7 minutes in my game which lets me know that each session is pretty engaging. That's also 7 minutes that they are getting hit with iAd's if they didn't upgrade. Metrics are key, so add something to track app usage.
Your application is niche so you need to target spaces where people that use your the services that your app integrates with hang out.
A nice funky starfield with a pretty logo taking up half of the page, and a partial screen shot taking up to the rest of my screen space (1920x1080).
Nothing about what it does instantly pops out. Then I realise there's more, so I scroll - Something, something, JIRA, GitHUB, FogBUGZ, something something.
Hmm, ok, based on that probably not something I'd need. Close the page (before even getting to any of the other stuff).
Come here to read the comments, and buried away here, I found this comment by you https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6686624, which says:
"I work on contract iOS jobs and I need to track my time to invoice my clients. It sucks using my web browser to start and stop the timer. "
And I think, this, yes, a thousand times yes, and am now downloading it to try it out.
The takeaway from all this, I shouldn't have to find out about that from a comment tucked away on HN, but your website is not arranged in a way that makes it immediately obvious that I want this product.
People who buy your software usually do so during the first few days of a trial. Only a small percentage of those who let the trial go to the end will buy.
Source: My (and fellow [m]ISV's) experience over the years.
/edit:Oh, btw: A search in the mac app store for "github issue tracker" (and other similar terms) won't show your app.
I decided to pass, but I bookmarked it so that I'll be able to find it again in the future if I ever find that I really need a quick way to access my Jira issues from the desktop.
The $49 price is entirely reasonable considering the breadth of the feature set and the target audience, but it does put it outside the impulse purchase comfort zone. It might have been helpful to put it on sale at launch with a discounted price in order to build some traction and lower the barrier to adoption for people who are on the fence.
1) The above the fold stuff sort of showed me what it describes itself as, but not what it really is. A looping animation or video would have been really helpful.
2) The below the fold stuff originally came across as separate products. Like I thought it was your catch-all page for a few other products you've made. So maybe you could make it clearer that they are all components of Bee.
3) Just my own reaction that I noticed - when you demonstrate compatibility with several outside services, there might be a weird disincentive to try it out if the potential customer doesn't use all of those services. Like I immediately had a suspicion that since I use Jira but not Github or Fogbugz, that the other focuses of the tool would get in the way or make it feel unwieldy. (I didn't download it to disprove that feeling.)
4) Time/task tracking is a REALLY crowded space, and I imagine it is really difficult to convince someone to try out a new tool, partly because of switching costs. For instance, for me, I use Quickbooks on the Mac, and I'm pretty married to Intuit's "My Time" since it's the only tool I know of on the Mac that will automatically transfer time records to Quickbooks, which I then use to make invoices. And then if someone asks me why I create my invoices from time records in Quickbooks, then... heck, I dunno, I made the decision at one point and it works for me. I could do a whole first-principles analysis I guess that might lead me to a completely different way of working that might lead me to being able to using a different time-tracking app like Bee, but... I don't like going that low on my e-Maslow's hierarchy very often.
5) No obvious mention of price on the front page... no obvious indicator of what clicking the "Buy" button will do or where it will take me. I moused over it, looked for an info tip, and didn't click. (I'm one to just buy rather than deal with download/try/maybe-buy.)
Be careful about your plan to "keep pushing out updates to the app to fill out the feature requests existing users have". It's easy to fall back to strengths adding fun features, responding to tangible requests from existing customers. But clearly your priority should be getting the word out.
Maybe commit to yourself: no new features unless you're certain they will close new sales?
Read the book. It helped me immensely.
video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkEQtMP2CuAslides: http://www.indiegamegirl.com/konsoll-2013/
Reason marketing is effing hard (for us programmers) = human is fickle and feedback is sporadic.
In my opinion (of limited authority), a lot of 'spin' can be spun, mostly for free, that can generate a great buzz pre-launch.
It's something I'm going to invest a lot of time and effort in next time I do a launch.
I'd make the starfield extend further down the page, past the first screenshot. Then I would somehow frame the other sections of the page. Maybe by adding an interior border or some sort of texture.
Marketing is a cousin of visual design.
2. Giving up and ranting too early! Marketing is perception, so make sure you make whatever N users happy then tell them to share (it's as simple as this), rinse and repeat. After a ~100 happy users, you'll have a good sample of customer base and it should steadily grow to market potential from there.
3. First release is just the beginning. Your idea is but a hypothesis. As long as they're is still legitimate feedback to work on, the product is still not reaching it's potential (again, ranting too early!).
If you intend to go hard on marketing this app and exploring ways to do that, can you put up an email form, so I know when your next blog post is?!
So, did the OP find his own product useful?
That is: assuming a totally random distribution of individuals into professions, purely by chance, some professions will have curious ratios. The first thing a statistician aims to do is to test the probability that the observed effect is due to chance.
A second thing to test is whether the ratios are stable across time.
This comment represents 20% of your RDA for nitpicky HN comments.
Though this pedantry is useless, since those statistics are for today, and the Presidency extends across centuries. Perhaps the closest proxy we can get is to look at Congress: http://thisnation.com/congress-facts.html
0.01, 0.01, 0.02, 0.03, 0.05, 0.08, 0.13, 0.21
It generates a beautiful wave .
There's also this interesting property that you can use any part of the sequence, and it will be the same wave .
In fact, it looks like Lucas Viera may have used that blog post as inspiration.
Check this out too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVuU2YCwHjw
Edit: Didn't realize that this was also linked to in another thread on the front page as well.
EDIT: Here's what your poll looks like as of t=35min:
Leftmost bar is 0-5BTC. Rightmost bar is 100+BTC. Oh look, now we know basically nothing about the two most interesting ranges.
EDIT2: As of t=44min: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=bar+chart+154+21+26+15+... ... Pretty hilarious.
now I have a coin, some anachronistic blinking doo-dads, and a slightly firmer grasp on my own ubuntu box and btc as a whole. had fun to boot. I did buy a usb hub for 50... but now it holds my blinking doodads!
Incidentally, I also developed a Bitcoin Twitter ticker. If anyone would like to keep up with hourly prices via Twitter, I suggest that you check it out.
At first I thought a deflationary currency was the future. The more I think about it, the more I think bitcoin is just the first step on a bumpy road. I don't see the point anymore in buying bitcoins to then buy goods/services. What always ends up happening is that someone somewhere hogs them and waits for the price to go up. I'm then stuck to buy at a premium, every time, unless I had a stash of coins to begin with, something which most potential adopters don't have. I'm also not convinced that the early adopters should get a bonus from having mined so many coins when it was easy. I don't have a silver bullet, but I think this problem could be fixed by a new cryptocurrency. Either dampen the bonus to early adopters or remove it entirely. This should be a goal of crypto-anarchists, I think...
Or maybe I'm wrong and we'll be seeing a lot of trade going on with different denominations of one BTC in the near future. Maybe people don't care to give a premium to early adopters.
I withdrew my funds from Mt Gox over a month ago. Still waiting for it to arrive back in my account. The price of bitcoins has risen significantly since :(
A couple of years ago, I was trying to get others to invest in my mining operation. Then it tanked, I shut down and sold the rigs, and eventually cashed out - I let the 15 or so coins I had climb back up to $7 or so before I sold. If only ....
First point is wrong, from IE 11 the default is automatic updates.
The second point is an unusual way to phrase it...
On the overall topic, I find this strange. Google Docs seems to make efforts to target Microsoft Office users by writing importers for what are very complex formats. It then pretty much cuts itself off from most medium and larger Microsoft based companies, very few of which, in my experience, are up to IE 10.
I wonder if this says something about them really targeting the small, but fastest growing companies and anything really big is nice, but not the priority.
Websockets, HTML5 File API, FileReader API, XMLHttpRequest 2, Web Workers, IndexedDB, requestAnimationFrame, JS Typed Arrays, PageVisibility and a whole list of other awesome things that IE10+ supports. I'm drooling thinking of all of these new API's I soon will be able to use in my web applications without needing shims.
Google hasn't been playing nice with Microsoft for a while (see how many Google apps are in the Windows Phone store, the issue where they locked out IE Mobile from viewing Google Maps, or how they treat Windows Phone trying to interface with YouTube). In a way it's nice to see Microsoft reaping what they've sown so long ago, but in another way it's incredibly frustrating from an end user perspective to be someone who likes Microsoft software (such as Windows Phone) and also enjoy using Google services like Maps and Youtube.
Google should be careful with how much they're pushing against Microsoft, especially with Microsoft's new market position versus Google. Microsoft is hardly the monopoly anymore.
If you look at the FULL chart they reference, there are considerably more IE8 users than any Apple device for example and there are more IE8 and IE9 users combined than IE10.
IE8 users are likely on Windows XP as that's the last supported browser version on that. Bye bye XP users unless you install Chrome.
IE9 users are likely on Windows Vista as that's the last supported browser version on that. Bye bye Vista users unless you install Chrome.
This appears to be Google just being a dick, seeing an opportunity and forcing Chrome on people.
To be honest, and I really hate saying this, Microsoft are the only damn company left that has a reasonable support lifecycle these days. Literally everyone else makes a whooshing sound.
 http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version-ww-monthly-201310... stats are all bullshit on this anyway TBH).
Footnote: I'm posting this from Firefox on OpenBSD before I get accused of being a shill...
Sweet move Google/Chrome.
This policy seems kind of broken since browser versioning went crazy. There is no longer any particular link between a "major" version of a browser and the actual technical changes under the hood that came with it. Chrome has a new "major" version what, monthly? FireFox nearly the same? MS sat on IE6 for 5 years and then iterated nearly a major version every year since, but now seems to be correlating them to new (major or minor) versions of Windows. Tying a support policy to something that is so different between browsers, and mostly a marketing device, seems pretty weird to me.
And because this is Google they have the weight to make Microsoft think hard about their policies of abandoning their own customers.
"Android has a much bigger fragmentation problem than Internet Explorer. Supporting only the latest 2 Android releases (4.3 and 4.4) would mean targeting less than 3% of the Android devices."
Must be accurate coming from Google.
So, umm, gee thanks Google? Ugh.
If corporate users cant use gmail etc its going to force them to things like hotmail which im sure will work fine in any version of IE7+
A dearth of API's is particularly bad in computer security.
Vendors: We have this great new device to monitor ___ and alert on it!
Customers: We'd like to integrate that with our other devices, and this Hadoop cluster...
Vendors: We integrate with all kinds of stuff!
Customers: Can you show me?
Vendors: You just go to our shitty web front end and click "export." You can get an Excel file or .csv. It's THAT simple! Or I think in the next version we can export to syslog. Larry? Do you know about the syslog thing? Yeah, it's going to do that. We have our engineer working on it.
Customers: Can I query the data directly?
Vendors: Sure! Just go to the web front end and arrange your Boolean logic operations with this impossibly obtuse drag-and-drop graphical programming hack we came up with. Focus groups LOVE it, because you don't have to type to use it.
Customers: What if I want the machines to talk together and query each other without me having to type in a password and click the shitty web front end?
Vendors: crickets ... So how many do you want to buy?
Are you listening, potential YC candidates?
By the way, when you write software, write the API first, then write your cool UI using the API. Yeah, it's a little more difficult at first, but you'll save untold amounts of time in the long run and the product will be better for it.
Edit: In case this wasn't clear, I'm talking to you, you HN-reading recent college-grad who wants to start a company but needs a good idea that doesn't involve social networking. Make network security products with great API's and sell them to companies. Forget about the cheesy front-end, make it easy to get data into and out of. Your target audience is techies who aren't baffled by databases and are willing to spend a month hacking on a system if it helps them query huge amounts of data quickly. Also, you want to charge less than the cost of these techies making the system themselves. Go.
> Where there is paper to push, a call to answer, or a purchase to approve, there is an API coming to replace it.
I've made a pretty decent living in life by following the old mantra that anywhere you see an Excel spreadsheet being used in a business process, there's an opportunity to exploit.
That idiom has now moved even further, at this point, and I don't know why I'm surprised to read in print what I think we've all probably intuited for some time now.
I've been attempting to embrace this for awhile, but I think it hit home the most last week, when I saw Joshua Beckman's article on a Personal API, and then started building one for everybody else.
It's been a fairly profound experience, and every subtle feature that I add, the more certain I am that it's the right path to be taking. Around every turn, I think of a new use case, or a new way to extend it, or a new type of service to integrate with -- and it baffles me that it takes us so long to make switches in thinking like this, even though we literally do it all the time as technologists.
 - I shouldn't be sharing the link, as the code isn't done, and it's likely to set your house on fire, but because it's relevant, the Personal API service is at http://personable.me. If you use it and it gives you herpes or something, shoot me an email (contact in my profile) and let me know. If it doesn't give you herpes, you can let me know that too.
In general, it seems risky to build an API around something that's going to disappear.
The question becomes though who does the integrations? Not everyone is a developer. The world needs plumbers for toilets and electricians for lights. I think the future of web development looks a lot like these industries. If a website is a house you'll hire a general contractor who will outsource to various experts in various APIs. At least that's our take on it.
For businesses, "there's an API for that".
SUMMARY: The rise of APIs as a source for web services and data means that developers dont have to reinvent the wheel on every feature they can source it from an API. This trend brings about the composable enterprise.
Wow. As somebody who skimmed through the original Google Dremel paper and thought for a while about how one would go about implementing such an interactive system, that strikes me as an amazingly impressive timeline.
Also, very curious to know (from any Googlers browsing HN) if Dremel is still the state-of-the-art within Google, or if there is already a newer replacement.
I'm waiting in anticipation for that article!
If I have 5 clients at a time, and each one has a concept/idea every day that takes 20 seconds to explain to me (and isn't on the current iteration) then they are distracting me by not managing their time properly and calling me a dozen times a day to tell me about their thoughts. If it is a change to the current iteration, then it should have been discussed when we agreed on the current iteration's feature set. Either way, the call is not a result of well thought out time management.
As much as I like hearing new concepts and ideas, I also have to take attention away from a project that I'm working on in order to provide my full attention to the client calling me.
After the call is done, I also have to come back to the project at hand and hopefully I'm not working on something that requires that I retain a super complicated thought chain which may or may not have been lost in discussion with another client - especially in consideration that I'm not going to bill on other client project for the time that I've spent having been sidetracked and/or getting back to where I was before the call was made.
So, charging in $15 increments causes the client to actually manage their time with the same effectiveness that they would hope that I am managing mine.
Rounding down makes this more of a problem for me, not less of one. Now a 90 second call is at no charge, and I can get more than one of those in one hour - still at no charge - based on the suggested agreement.
Lucius Fox, The Dark Knight
Visually most of the sinusoidal components here are zero or nearly so. However if we scale them logarithmically, we'll see that it's actually not so: http://0x09.net/img/dct32log.png
What transform coders like JPEG do is reduce the precision of these components, causing many of them to become zero. Which is good for the entropy coder, and mostly imperceptible to us. Of course JPEG operates on 8x8 blocks only * rather than a whole image like here.
It's hard to imagine this as an image, so here's a progressive sum starting from the second term, which essentially demonstrates an inverse DCT: http://0x09.net/img/idct32.png
mind that 0 is adjusted to grey in this rendering, and the brightness of the result is not an artifact of the transform.
It's easier to understand what goes on with these transforms if you can visualize things in terms of the basis functions. Which in the case of a 32x32 image like above would be http://0x09.net/img/basis.png (warning: eye strain).
All the examples above pertain to the DCT, partly because of JPEG and partly so I could avoid getting phase involved, but the principles apply equally to the other transforms in the family.
* although recent versions of libjpeg can use other sizes
When you're talking about a digital signal, it is the sample rate that determines the maximum frequency you can represent. It's not MP3s that "throw out the really high notes" -- it's any digital signal. A discrete fourier transform actually is lossless, but it is bandwidth limited.
The reason audiophiles prefer Flac to MP3s, for instance, is because MP3s do more than just "throw out the high notes." Both are bandwidth limited, but MP3s also throw out other information based on psychoacoustic principles.
It was during his time in Grenoble that Fourier did his important mathematical work on the theory of heat. His work on the topic began around 1804 and by 1807 he had completed his important memoir On the Propagation of Heat in Solid Bodies. The memoir was read to the Paris Institute on 21 December 1807 and a committee consisting of Lagrange, Laplace, Monge and Lacroix was set up to report on the work. Now this memoir is very highly regarded but at the time it caused controversy.
There were two reasons for the committee to feel unhappy with the work. The first objection, made by Lagrange and Laplace in 1808, was to Fourier's expansions of functions as trigonometrical series, what we now call Fourier series. Further clarification by Fourier still failed to convince them. As is pointed out in :-
"All these are written with such exemplary clarity - from a logical as opposed to calligraphic point of view - that their inability to persuade Laplace and Lagrange ... provides a good index of the originality of Fourier's views"
Images and audio signals provide a particularly stunning insight.
My dad remembers his professor, sometime in the 40s, posing the question of calculating when a worm buried in the ground would experience the same temperature we'd experience at Christmas (Erdwuermchen's Weihnachten) and the solution had to be calculated with Fourier's heat transfer equations.
By complete coincidence, Bragg's law, used to do everything from X-Ray Diffraction to particle scattering, just happens to be a fourier transform. Every time we bombard a tiny thing with light or radiation in order to understand the structure, what we literally get out of it is emission dots that correspond to the periodicity of the lattice -- literally the 2D fourier transform of the scattering cross section. When I heard that in Quantum III, it blew my mind. It's straight out of quantum scattering theory.
One direction to go in for further study:
Maybe I'm crazy and just missing something, but this feels a little too good to be true. This would put the set of smooth curves in 1-1 correspondence with the set of finite sets (since each curve is being specified completely by a finite set of numbers). But the set of finite sets is countably infinite since it's a countable union (this may require the axiom of choice) and the set of smooth curves is uncountably infinite, a contradiction.
(Disclaimer: I know nothing about Fourier analysis.)
The reason we can get away with throwing away low frequencies in JPEG is because humans are prone to notice significant details rather than tiny details.
High frequencies of a Fourier transform of an image == tiny detail (like being able to distinguish individual hairs)
Low frequencies of a Fourier transform of an image == huge details (like someone's face).
So you transform, set part of the result to zeroes, and compress. To display it you uncompress, transform back, and display it. The zeroes manifest themselves as an almost-imperceptible blur.
Are there any decent books (kindle or proper books) with this kind of content? I've got no background in Maths (other than some (UK) A-level maths at school), but always love reading these sort of posts.
Are there any good books/papers/web articles on this topic that are accessible? I often find myself reading papers where some of the math goes over my head.
Something with examples/code (code makes me understand math so much easier!) would be fantastic!
The Fourier has the disadvantage that you can't arrange the components into a time hierarchy; that is, no component occurs "before" any other.
The Wavelet transform _does_ have a natural time hierarchy. This makes it much better for streaming compression like voice calls.
The Fourier perfectly describes signals of infinite duration (think tone or color) while the Wavelet perfectly describes the position of things within a signal (think rhythm or space).
With the Fourier filtering is really easy. You can do hard, hard cutoffs -- literally no contributions within a certain frequency band -- just by removing components of the decomposition. Similarly, you can accurately apply any arbitrary mathematical filtering function.
The disadvantage of the Wavelet is that, well, the only meaningful transformation you can apply to it is compression -- dropping the shorter timescale components. If you want to filter, it's not enough to trim off timescale components because the wavelet itself can contain any frequency components. There's also nothing like a simple mathematical function you can apply to the coefficients to get a smooth filter.
For more details, check out Steven Smith's Digital Signal Processing. The entire book is available to read online, and has an excellent treatment of DSP algorithms.
You can view the Fourier transform as a fitting problem. Yes, you fit the data to a function. Ie you take the data points and fit it to a sum of exponential functions. There is actually a much more general approach called "Prony method" that extends the concept and adds a dampening factor into the function to fit:
You can take it further and use matrix pencil methods and eventually you'll see connections to ESPRIT algorithm and even least squares algorithm. It's really interesting how they're all actually connected.
And when you get into machine learning, some of the operations performed by neural networks and the like don't really represent super linear, human-understandable transformations. It's important to understand feature extraction, but more important in the grand scheme of these things is to understand how to dig data that is useful and how it can be used.
It has tied together a bunch of seemingly separate ideas that I've often wondered about, and I feel measurably more intelligent having read it.
Once you understand the FT, you basically understand how a signal is structured. By converting (or transforming) a time signal to the frequency domain, one can clearly see what frequency components (or harmonics) contribute to said signal. If one were to try the same in the time domain, it would be much more difficult to visualize.
The drug war is a ghastly thing, and the number of people we lock up in the US is more shameful than our foreign policy. You can begrudge the first DPR his lame security, shady murder contracts, and ill-gotten fortune, but he's the product of our system, and his shame is our shame.
Of course the genius of the Princess Bride with respect to the DPR character is that the character cannot be killed or captured or prosecuted, because it isn't really a person, it is an idea. And that was wonderfully illustrated in the book, film, and now in world around us.
This new website launched barely a month after Federal agents shut down the original Silk Road -- underscores the inescapable reality that technology is dynamic and ever-evolving and that government policy needs to adapt accordingly. Rather than play whack-a-mole with the latest website, currency, or other method criminals are using in an effort to evade the law, we need to develop thoughtful, nimble and sensible federal policies that protect the public without stifling innovation and economic growth. Our committee intends to have that conversation among others - at our hearing this month on virtual currency.
I think the sooner we realize how fleeting a battle it is to fight them, the sooner we can place the money where it belongs.
My cousin is dead now, but I think my tax money would be better spent helping him kick his habit, than locking him up.
Are my fears unfound? On one hand, the idea of buying drugs online is probably more safe than doing it on the streets, but the anonymity this offers has a potential downside like the one I mentioned above.
There is some role for law enforcement to play in discouraging the supply of drugs (if the society we live in remains one where drug use is considered negative). However, the vast majority of resources should go towards addressing the demand (making people want them less, treatment, etc., I don't mean just arrest all the buyers).
I don't buy stuff like that and never will. But if I did, I wouldn't go near anything using the Silk Road name after a seizure/arrest has been publicly documented.
Remember, on the Internet, nobody knows if you're a dog. Or a teenager living in your mom's basement in Russia. Or an FBI agent munching on donuts in Washington DC. Etc.
The single dumbest thing the last DPR did was continue living in the US
Uniqueness has its place, but not every app should be a unique snowflake.
A lot of startups adopt a layout similar to that presented in the article for their website, which makes it easier to know quickly what's going on. Is it bad from a differentiation/branding point of view? Maybe, I don't know. I don't think I'm very sensitive to this, but this might be a very important point.
Take worrydream.com for instance. I checked it out yesterday, and the content of the website is absolutely fantastic (I'm a new fan of Bret Victor). But the website's design is very, very original, and it took me some time to get used to it. This is not to say that it's not good. It's different. And different requires efforts (well worth it in this case).
Spend some years doing this and you can follow any trend.
You are like a carpenter and 98% of you will stay carpenters, which is great as long as there is a need for carpenters.
But my advice would be this.
Learn design, learn to mimic, learn to be original. But don't be an artist for other peoples money unless they pay you to.
Instead on the side build a product, a company, a service a website, an experimental design lab and go crazy. And if you have the time learn to code. In fact as soon as your skills are descent learn to code.
Are car designs too formulaic? After all, they all have steering wheels and pedals. They all share characteristics so as to allow any driver to immediately know how to operate the vehicle without having to re-learn every component for every new car. The same is true for websites.
In fact, we've finally gotten to the point of understanding this, thanks to usability research, please don't try to reverse the trend.
A lot of landing pages look the way they look because it does what it needs to do: educate about the product. The uniqueness of the web design isn't in the layout but in the hierarchy and positioning of information within the common single page -> scroll down -> sign up.
Is it lazy? Depends on the situation. Is it beautiful? You could make it so, but it commonly isn't. Does it get the job done? Pretty much all the time. I see the same template, but I get different information.
Again, not trying to be an ass. Actually I'd argue that true originality is damn near impossible to achieve, given that our ideas don't usually spring forth, fully clothed from Zeus's forehead.
This is only a trend. Humans love trends.
Wait until the next guy come up with a great idea and everyone will copy it once again. See the flat design trend.
Formulaic --> Follows well-understood conventions --> Easy to make sense of --> Gets the message across better --> More sign-ups --> Profit --> Food on the table --> My kids grow up strong and healthy --> I'm more likely to propagate my genes
So I'll take formulaic every time.
I remember the days when poorly-built flash websites were the norm; they may have sucked from a usability standpoint, but they sure had the edge in originality!
then they come back in.
there was an old Mad magazine that had this with cars:
1. first the cars were all chrome with a little bit of glass 2. then the glass got bigger and bigger 3. eventually the cars were all glass with a little bit of chrome 4. then a 'futuristic' car came along that was all chrome with only a little bit of glass
- Bill 1: The FISA Improvements Act, from Feinstein and the Senate Intelligence Committee. In short it legalizes most of what the NSA has been done.
- Bill 2: The USA FREEDOM ACT, from Sensenbrenner and Leahy, currently being considered by the House/Senate Judiciary committees. It amends 215 of FISA to end bulk phone metadata collection and fixes some of the problems with 702 of the FISA Amendments Act (under which PRISM is run). But it doesn't fix 702 fully, does nothing to end BULLRUN (undermining encryption) nor the surveillance that happens outside FISA (MUSCULAR, for example, and god knows what else).
Obviously the Feinstein bill can't be allowed to pass. But some really big names (ACLU, CDT) have thrown strong support behind the Freedom Act. I'm wondering what we as the Taskforce(.is) should do. It's clear to me that it doesn't go nearly far enough. And there's some chance that if it passes, Congress will view this whole thing as "dealt with" and not revisit the issue for years to come. But unfortunately the Freedom Act barely has the votes to get out of the judiciary committee, and getting it to pass through both houses requires a lot of momentum.
We've been working on a campaign asking folks to call and oppose Feinstein, and potentially to support the Freedom Act. But I'm not sure if that's a right move. Unfortunately, the public doesn't understand why privacy is important, and Americans aren't nearly angry enough for Congress to do anything more substantial than the Freedom Act. We might be able to push for amendments, but it's a long shot.
tl;dr - We've got two bills in Congress. One is terrible, one is mediocre. But we don't have the political momentum to do anything better than the mediocre bill. What do we do? Tech advocate conundrum.
Google has the best OpSec team I've ever known, it is my hope that they close this 'loophole' as completely as possible.
> "Bypassing that system is illegal for a good reason."
Yes, so is invasion of privacy. Yet Google has no problem breaking the law and violating civil rights for profit.
> "Unfortunately we live in a world where all too often, laws are for the little people."
Yeah, like tax laws and privacy laws...
If you want to get on this high horse, you shouldn't be working for Google.
P.S. I am sure I will get smashed in the comments, so let me say right away that NSA actions should be controlled and audited by the public (e.g. through our representatives in Congress). I think that the biggest "evil" here are the members of Congress who either approved NSA actions or failed to do their job and monitor/audit NSA properly. In particular, I would point my finger at Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA] who should have been ousted from the office long time ago.
(People within these companies are also hackers, but they have more effect when they speak because they are part of a company)
So all the defense community was raised on SIGINT, and anything seen as a curb on this - technical or legal, they will probably view it as some sort of existential threat. They would then fight tooth and nail to block any sort of reform. And the military industrial complex has quite a lot of legislative muscle....
I would probably be a single-issue voter if a candidate for congress were likely to win and was aligned with me on this issue but opposed on virtually everything else.
One essentially-fantasy is to run for Congress directly. Unfortunately I haven't lived my entire life to my mid-30s in trying to become a viable political candidate, so this would be difficult. Central or Eastern WA is probably the best bet, along with starting a 50-500 person business which employs a lot of local people (manufacturing of some kind) and generally being an engaged local citizen for a decade or more. But that's a long term goal.
The discussion of cable tapping and the NSA's apparent taste for doing things the expedient way instead of the legal way makes me wonder if the "vandalism" domestic underground fiber cuts in the years after 9/11 form an interesting pattern.
If you have a mobile phone, you can be tracked, even if there is no GPS on the device. Besides this if the NSA chooses, they can track practically ANYONE in the world, all they need is a mobile number. I would not be surprised if this is actually one of the tools they have.
Due to the nature of how GSM and mobile operators integrate when roaming. When a mobile operator signs an international roaming agreement, they setup signalling links between their switches and VLR's (Visitor Location Register).
The mobile operator in the visited country needs to authenticate you against your home network, this happens via SS7.
Once this link is established, it is assumed to be trusted, and most operators DO NOT apply any filtering on these commands. So with a carefully crafted SS7 command, you could request the location of a mobile subscriber, even if they have not even attempted to join your network.
Now here is where it gets interesting, get access to send ss7 commands from an operator with many international roaming agreements, and you can get details on practically any subscriber. Get access to 2-4 (i.e AT&T, T-Mobile, Vodaphone) of these massive tier1 operators, and you can get the location of practically everyone with a mobile handset.
> "But I did have an interesting (unattributable, of course) briefing from someone very senior in one West Coast mega-corporation who conceded that neither he nor the CEO of his company had security clearance to know what arrangements his own organization had reached with the US government. So, its like a company within a company? I asked. He waved his hand dismissively: I know the guy, I trust him.
West Coast mega-corporation does not know what West Coast mega-corporation does.
Day after day I see post after post around the tech web about how horrible the actions are of the NSA but few if any propose a workable solution to balancing both securing and obscuring actions taken to protect a nation, with the public's need for privacy and protection from abuse.
Oversight, oversight, oversight is all we hear yet nothing concrete to describe how the US (or any nation) is supposed to provide security and keep the enemy from monitoring the techniques and actions taken by intelligence services.
Maybe I'm naive but I don't see a way to keep spying (something all nations do and have done for centuries) with the public's need for complete disclosure.
Feinstein is a joke and obviously isn't well informed on the subject matter she's supposedly overlooking.
Either way, this is a good stimulus for rolling out deeper encryption.
 111 Eight Ave in NYC (housing Hiberia's trans-Atlantic cable, Equinox, Deutsch Telecom, etc)
Over the next few years it will become more and more common for "in-flight" data to be encrypted. As the "low-hanging fruit" starts to disappear, state-level attackers will increasingly turn their attention from fibre to endpoint; with a corresponding increase in the number of attacks on mobile devices, apps, and embedded systems. This is, to put it mildly, incredibly challenging terrain for passive defence, where complexity all-but-guarantees unknown vulnerabilities and hidden attack vectors.
Now, I am not too sure about the ethics of active defence / networked HIPS, (Too similar by a long shot to the sort of malevolent behaviour it is supposed to defend against) but it might be something that we are going have to have a look at.
Wasn't there a Google break in not so long ago?
This is sort of the crux of it. We are degenerating into a true oligarchy and/or gangster state in which there are two different systems of law: one for the politically connected and one for the plebs.
(Note: All fields should take moral responsibility, but engineers seem to be worse than a lot of others.)
Governments don't like challenge to its power. They will find ways to control the Jedi Council.
You have the resources to defend it, if you want to defend. You choose not to in many ways.
So please dont explode in profanity several times a day.
Something along these lines:
"Look at the horrible way NSA treated our customers... We're gonna make sure the NSA can't get our data in the future, and protect everyone's data. Come use our services where we treat you right!"
It was always just a matter of time before a corporation had the ability to compete in the total information awareness arena with the three letters. Google is probably the primary candidate that has the capability, besides MS/Apple.
Of course the three letters win on the data side, but the company wins on the customer side. Win win. For them. Lose for us.
Further it's worth noting that the division that these Android royalties are attributed to also garners all other patent licensing royalties of any sort (e.g. FAT), as well as licensing charges such as ActiveSync licensing (ergo, every iPhone, among others).
More seriously, I have a question for those who know more about this...
1. Are these generic, broad "idea" patents and hence there is nothing Google/OEMs can really do here to avoid licensing them? If not, why don't they use an alternative implementation to avoid the conflict?
2. If the answer to #1 is yes, how does Apple avoid this problem? Are they also licensing from Microsoft? Or is Apple in some sort of a mutual cross-licensing agreement here to fight the common enemy Google?
The people submitting and upvoting stories like this are just as responsible for the shoddy state of tech journalism as these bloggers are.
Samsung, HTC, Apple and Nokia should account for over 50% of the global market. If my assumptions are correct, are the rest of the smaller players able to pay that much money on royalties alone?
I'll like to see some numbers. The article is seriously lacking data.
So why change the article's title, HN?
Of that, $2 billion in losses are attributable to the Xbox platform.
Linux companies dodged this bullet for the most part, from both Microsoft and SCU, but it seems Microsoft "succeeded" this time against Android with their mostly garbage patents in the same way patent trolls and mass-bittorrent lawsuits have succeeded so far - by scaring people/companies into paying up, without having to get into any lawsuit, which is exactly what patent trolls have been doing for a while.
As soon as B&N was about to invalidate some of their main patents, they quickly "invested" $300 million into B&N (i.e. they settled), and B&N dropped the lawsuit. I wish more OEM's would've had the balls to call their bluff.
So EFF - any proposals for stopping corporate patent trolls like Microsoft, Rockstar Consortium and Intellectual Ventures, yet?
15 years ago, when no console maker had a viable strategy for going online, MS should have built a cross platform solution that made online gaming possible for every console. Does that sound familiar? A cross-platform solution for a number of competing hardware makers?
This division would probably be a huge part of Microsoft's business if they had pulled it off. Just think of the leveraging possibilities if every gamer over the age of 25 had an XBox live account, instead of the much smaller subset of gamers over 25 who also owned a Microsoft console.
I think they're back on the right track with Windows phone, but Google already beat them to the cross-platform solution.
 I wonder if Apple will sue them if they do that for a power connector? (not snark, seriously, Apple is all about keeping MagSafe for themselves ...)
Gray placeholder text also provides the needed contrast with the black user-entered text, so as not to confuse the two types of large text.
The animation is very clean as well.
Let me be clear, it's not that there's movement. It's that if a box asks me to enter something, then my answer is premised on what was asked of me. If the moment I start typing it seems like something in the environment is changing -- suddenly I'm like, whoa, what changed? Is what I'm typing still what the box wants? Did I do something that caused state to change simply by typing a character?
There's this tiiiiny moment of hesitation at that first character, before my eyes scan what happened, re-read the label text, and I see what occurred and that my input is still valid.
tl;dr: might take a bit of getting used to seeing stuff change on the screen the moment you type into a box.
n.b. I created the site I link to above, etc etc.
Like in the example below there are two fields where you can enter coordinates data, but without a hint you wouldn't be able to distinguish where should one or the other go.
Other than that, this is a really gorgeous solution. I'm going to see if I can implement something like this for Android.
Years ago, when I was a Microsoft-only shill (yeah, I'll say it), I knew how to build almost anything as long as something from Microsoft was under the covers. I was proud of my abilities, and in spite of the anti-MS crowd, I stood up for my platform and was a good developer.
In 2006, I had a short two-week break from my startup job, and my wife & kids were traveling to their grandparents' house at the same time. I had 336 consecutive hours to spend as I wanted, something I hadn't been able to do in many years. I decided I wanted to work on a little side project, something I could complete within those two weeks.
I made a decision to break out of my comfort zone. I knew a little about Linux, nothing about Apache, zero about Python, and had never worked with Mysql. I came up with an idea for a simple little CRUD application, just a utility site. It was something I knew I could build in maybe two or three days using Microsoft tools.
So, I searched around and found Django. I downloaded v0.9x (it was sometime in the summer, can't recall what it was specifically. I know it was pre-v1.)
And I started from the beginning, purely a newb. It was a position I wasn't accustomed to, so I immediately felt a lack of boundaries and sense of control. But the Django documentation was really good, and I soon gained an understanding of everything I needed to learn -- Python, running Apache, configuring Django, wiring up Mysql. I stayed focused and in one week, I had written my ridiculously simple CRUD app.
But the value I got out of it was how well the project pulled me in to becoming productive on a platform that I'd never used. Not only that, there was the help in the discussion groups from the community. It was a lot of fun, and I could recognize myself becoming a better developer.
The biggest realization came when I compared my Django project to an equivalent built on Microsoft tools. It wasn't a comparison of one-week vs. two-days, but rather one-week coming from square 1. All this led me to rethink my thoughts around my Microsoft background. I didn't become a convert per se, but it made me realize there are so many other ways of solving problems and other systems on which to build applications. And, after feeling productive, it made it easier for me to explore other (non-Microsoft) technologies. The feeling of being productive in multiple environments was so empowering.
I'm not sentimental about software, but the Django project is kind of that kid who can do no wrong in my eyes, due to my formative experience with it.
The release notes are here:
Also: if you downloaded the package in the period between the parent link going up, and now, you might want to grab it again. The first roll of the 1.6 package (which wasn't announced, so we could do final checks first) failed to update our trove classifier, so the package was regenerated, which changed its signature and checksums.
Personally, I'm happy that Python 3 is now officially supported, though in practice I haven't had an issues with using Django 1.5 with Python 3.
Really nice piece about Malcolm from his former boss: https://plus.google.com/+errazudinishak/posts/6j6iAMhNfnb
Congrats to the Django team on releasing 1.6, I'm looking forward to upgrading soon!
For me it's a perpetual issue to get them up and running, commit/push with git, etc etc. Is there an easier solution? Basically, I'd like them to get started and be able to tweak the templates and css as effortless as possible.
It's kind of very hard to have people working directly in templates/css and others updating html/css and them diff the changes, integrate them, etc..
> BooleanField no longer defaults to False
It caused quite a few headaches. Boolean can't have default.
I was thinking basically of transaction management, especially the autocommit behavior.
I browsed through the docs and saw that the default python database API requires autocommit to be turned off... but then again django overrides this behavior.
any comments on this ? (or am I completely lost ?)...
We've built a bootstrapped $5M Revenue (70% pbt margin) run-rate business in ~1 year on the back of a HN post. Generated business that led to something like $500k on the first few days alone.
That's not to say that their audience made their successthey obviously came out of the gate with great products as well. So if you can make a great product then you have half the equation. But the really interesting question to me (since I can build a product) is how to get the marketing right from a bootstrapping perspective.
Reality: Its really really really hard. As youre selling client services youre also marketing and building a product, so youre basically working two jobs. Youre promoting two company offerings, the product and the consultancy. In your brain youre working through two problem spaces, juggling and assessing opportunities for two company, all without going insane or broke first.
I know many consultancies of all sizes that have tried to make the hop. They look at valuations of services firms (1.5 times revenues) and compare it to SaaS firms (10-12 times revenue) and try to make the move. The Accentures have tried this, as have the 5-6 people shops. The reality is it is very hard to go beyond reusable deliverables and into technology that people independently pay for.
In response to the idea that getting listed on TechCrunch, HN, or the like, is somehow a "launch"
If you're charging $5-30 / month, you're not going to grow well unless you are truly a fully self serve company. Charge 10x more and have happier customers. Even apps moved towards a model where they earn most money from high spenders from in-app purchases.
The technical platform problems around bootstrapping have gotten much easier, due to Heroku, AWS and all the services out there (Papertrail, Exceptional, New Relic, etc.)
Unfortunately relatively little work has been done on the "requires that you be a stubborn bastard" problem.
That is by no means a reason not to do it, just that expectations need to be set about what reality actually looks like.
The state I live in in the United States, Minnesota, has a low rate of incarceration in large part because it has a low rate of criminal prosecution of drug offenses, with even the small number of persons convicted of drug offenses being unlikely to do time in prison. But this state has a thriving private industry of drug treatment centers, drawing in people from all over the world who want to become clean, and responses to drug use often include judicially ordered drug treatment. Stopping a war on drugs waged by the police and courts and prisons doesn't have to include giving up on discouraging drug use.
AFTER EDIT: I'll use the last bit of my edit window to post two more links to news reports about the experience of Portugal. These links are in chronological order, and newer than Richard Branson's blog post.
The next step is when we recognize the victims of the War on Drugs, specifically persons who were sent to jail because of Marijuana. You expand the affected to be people who've committed all non-violent crimes, and advocate for reform from that angle.
I don't care what the law really has to say regarding Heroin, as long as victims/addicts get helped instead of aggregated and exploited by a pseudo-warrior class.
The fact that we collectively choose to participate in this madness is, well, maddening.
Collaborators from large drug organizations (tens of thousands of criminals, running millionaire operations, heavily armed) won't simply boo-hoo, go home and look for real jobs once drugs are decriminalized. They would look for the new weaker link of the chain and then concentrate all their violence on it. Once drugs are legalized and are freely sold on public points of sale (whatever government calls them), criminals would target the "supply chain" and distribution network. All of the sudden drug organizations would find themselves operating wholesale, not retail anymore. They would steal cargo to sell it at poor city areas or in places where official suppliers haven't established POSes yet. Stealing (buying for zero) and selling is much more attractive than "cooking" and selling. It's like outsourcing your production the bad way, keeping the benefit of higher profit margins. Higher margins lead to more competition, thus guns, thus violence among organizations (this is the current scenario in cities like Rio where drug organizations fight for territory dominance). On the bright side, anyone interested in consuming drugs would be spared of this fight. They would be the same people who ever bought drugs, but now with the benefit of new regulations, treatment and care from the government.
 This video shows a battle between two drug organizations in Rio that mobilized around 100 members coming from different slums. You can see a great deal of collateral damage in the local population, and this is what my point is all about. Watch from 1:00 onwards (sorry, Portuguese language all the way). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etu6YWC-rT4 Criminals were even able to shot down a police helicopter killing two officers. Drug war at its finest.
If Obama wanted to make a real change he would have stopped the war on drugs already.
- How about "fuck you, pal"?
- I'd believe it, if it was louder.
In other news, I'm a bit sick of public figures coming out against the War on Drugs after their careers are functionally over.
Cue Homer Simpson sound bite: "I haven't learned a thing"
Alcohol is legal, and that doesn't stop people, specially teenagers, from abusing it. It's also proven tobacco addiction starts during adolescence. In this case, legalization is just removing responsibility from the people who profit from it, since in practice the law isn't protecting who it's supposed to protect. Just because something is legal doesn't make it ethical.
Then, we know legalizing certain drugs will only move traffic to worse drugs. Legalize marijuana and dealers will move more crack, just like the mafia moved from alcohol to cocaine after they lifted the prohibition in the US. Now what, the government will legalize crack too? Make even more unethical businesses operate under the law, knowing these products will be abused by teenagers just like alcohol and tobacco today?
There's no easy solution, and no one is addressing the real issue: that substance abuse is cultural and heavily promoted. You talk to young people, and their concept of having a good time is "getting wasted". Dysfunctional families and poverty only worsen the issue.
I didn't like him when he was the president, but I do like very much his approach to legalize/decriminalize drugs... Kudos for them!
I'm confident I missed many aspects here, although really interested in: What are the problems with this model?
But above all, end the war on liberty.
Even Jezebel (http://jezebel.com/sweden-introduces-new-movie-rating-system...) has to admit the "test" is not perfect:
"Sure, the Bechdel test is imperfect (Kathryn Bigelow's The Hurt Locker doesn't pass, for instance, but you could hardly argue that a female-helmed war movie doesn't empower at least one woman), but that doesn't make it useless as a starting line for sniffing out broad trends in gender bias. And that's what we're talking about here. Trends. Analysis. Examination. Critical thought. Information. I'm sure there are plenty of people who consider themselves scrupulously egalitarian who never even noticed that there are only like THREE WOMEN IN ALL OF MIDDLE EARTH."
I understand that this is just a thing introduced by a a few movie theaters, i.e. it's not the law or anything (yet). Yet, that's what riles me most: as librarians are the first to defend any censorship, movie professionals should push back on any arbitrary limitation on what can be shown. Some examples of movies that fail the test are given, e.g. LOTHR Trilogy, Pulp Fiction, Pacific Rim, etc. However, the test would also exclude many art films such as Tarkovski's Stalker and Solaris. How about movies with only a single female lead that don't quite fit the purpose of the test, e.g. Bergman's Through a Glass Darkly? How to handle movies with no dialog, or experimental movies such as Eraserhead? One can easily see that this sort of simplistic testing can have little artistic or practical merit.
Maybe Hollywood's worried that target audiences won't identify with a female lead, maybe the formula's considered too risky for a blockbuster. But surely there's an alternate universe somewhere with aliens or magic where (hold on to your hats) a matriarchal society somehow evolved and manages to be part of the fabric of the story without characters constantly drawing attention to it, comparing it to Earth, having it set up a battle of the sexes, etc.
On the other hand, Harry Potter was written by a self-proclaimed feminist and has a very empowering female in Hermione Granger, if that series fails the Bechdel Test then I'm left wondering how many other false-positives the test throws. Even The Vagina Monologues fails the Bechdel Test (to be fair, because monologues).
People have often lambasted those who scream and wince whenever an ounce of political correctness shows up in society/media.
Well, to those people: look at your work. Did you want to encourage censorship?
Of course, I'm overblowing this thing way too much. But 5, ten, maybe even 20 years ago, if this kind of thing happened, people would revolt. For some reason, censorship in the name of equality seems to be the norm in today's world.
Harrison Bergeron, indeed.
It's also a super fun job to take on. Nuclear measurements can be very perceptive. Everyone I know in the business loves to have meaningful applications in the wider world. Our lab was a fun place to be immediately following Fukushima  (and Chernobyl, too, but that's before my time as a physicist).
On the scale of technical reports, it's well-written, and intended to be read by semi-technical readers. The analysis covers a lot of ground on sources of uncertainty. They do a reasonable job handling uncertainties on the things I know about, and my only remaining concerns extend beyond my expertise.
It's a worthy read; check it out!
(as a bonus, in the appendices, you get to see photos of everything in the travel bag.)
Love the anonymous downvote for saying something unpopular politically, but more than likely factually correct.
Dangerous political prisoners/personalities dying in mysterious circumstances at opportune times is not coincidence. The US reign death from above via remote controlled drones and this isn't contested, yet thinking that very suspicious deaths at expedient times are likely assassinations is some crazy conspiracy theory...
"Notably, the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, a Russian dissident, in 2006 was announced as due to Polonium poisoning."
"According to the book The Bomb in the Basement, several deaths in Israel during 19571969 were caused by Polonium."
...I don't know that much about poisons, but I bet the people in this lob have whole arsenal of "stealth" poisons that could much more easily go unnoticed. And if you want to make it obvious, why not go for something even more obvious or simply a bullet?
It seems more like an "artist's signature" thing and it would be interesting to know who this "artist" is!
I would bet that the poisoning was ordered by someone within the factions of Palestinian struggles.
It was used on Alexander Litvinenko because the Russians wanted to show that they were able and willing to take the life of former agents that attacked their interests.
What motivates the use of a radioactive element that very few possess?
Fun fact: I went to school in a building which later became the PLO Embassy.
Quite a few high ranking sources in Israel insinuated he died of AIDS. He contracted the disease in the '80s. He was a homosexual and the Israeli intelligence is rumored to have videotaped proof.
Israel had no reason to poison him. After the Karine A affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karine_A_Affair Arafat's reputation was tarnished beyond repair with Western leaders. In later 2004 the intifada was mostly mitigated already. He was no longer a threat politically or militarily. Israel knew he was dying anyway and if you go back and read news reports you can see that over years he received quite a few treatments overseas for cover up diseases.
That always happens. I'll try not to think of anyone here.
Reminds me of comic books and baseball cards in the 90s.
Both transactions excluding popular services that post very high volumes of low value transactions, and USD value of all transactions, are much closer to reflecting the recent rise of bitcoin.
Moreover, price is a function of demand. While there may be fewer transactions over the short term, those transactions may be larger in and of themselves. For instance, in April, there may have been more people purchasing single coins, but in November, there may be fewer people purchasing hundreds of coins.
Two charts do not tell the complete story.
We can especially not be sure when we look at the graph of transactions per day and see nothing special on October 2nd... Good job reading patterns into noise there.
So could it be that SatoshiDice transactions have dropped a lot (flattening the overall graph) but other transactions have been increasing?
For those that don't know, this is a nasty little piece of work that encrypts your entire drive and any connected drives it can find, then gives you a warning that you have to pay $300 in bitcoin within 3 days or your data is deleted.
I just had this thought a couple hours ago but I'm not able to find any significant, verifiable data on how widespread CryptoLocker is. Hence, a hypothesis.
I know that its supposed to be an alternative form of currency and all and not just there for speculation or whatever, but realistically, I think there must be a lot of people just speculating.
Anyway in that case I don't care if it is a bubble, I just want it to go up one more time after I buy it.
But the idea is really supposed to be using bitcoin instead of dollars for normal transactions right?
As we know, there's a max of 21 million bitcoins (which we won't hit for years) - spread that across ~500 million users, and I think we'll see the value of a single bitcoin be 10x-100x higher than what it currently is.
It'll be a bumpy ride to get to that value, and I think this is the very beginning of it.
This is why newer coins that actually correct for hoarding - like PPCoin - will start to see some traction because they will be more stable, since they encourage spending, encourage transaction volume. There will be less of a risk of the decoupling of the bitcoin economy and the bitcoin value.
Can somebody set me straight on this?
Also, while big % changes makes people shout bubble, they clearly are not looking at BTC in the same way early adopters and speculators are. BTC is not stock (which can look like a bubble if its up 100% in short period of time) it is closer to a newer better version of gold that only 0.00001% of the population owns. People excited about BTC are thinking about what happens if 1% of the population owned BTCs.
Bitcoin might fail (sometimes better technologies do), but it is clearly a big improvement over current currencies and that's pretty exciting.
This is a decrease in the velocity of money, not necessarily a decrease in its demand. Sometimes and increase in the demand for money can cause a drop in velocity. It's one of the justifications for constant inflation (to keep us out of a deflationary spiral where people would rather starve to death than spend $0.01 on a year's worth of foodstuffs)
Remember that lawyers are in business too and want to devote their efforts where they will be most rewarded and appreciated. While that certainly doesn't mean cheating a client, it does mean dealing with clients who see the lawyer as a trusted ally and not as an adversary and who will not be nibbling at the ankles with every step a lawyer takes.
In dealing with any lawyer, watch out for padded bills that have vague descriptions of what was done, beware getting billed for substantial amounts of lawyer learning time, scrutinize all cases where double billing might be involved, make sure billing rates match your needs as a company (big firm vs. small firm), try always to get estimates in advance, negotiate fixed fees or caps where appropriate, get timely bills sent to you, review the bills carefully, and question billing items that don't look right. As concerns lawyer billing, those are the big items. If you pay attention to those, you will maximize your chances of getting good value from the firm and minimize the risk of abuses. Beyond that, you normally can ignore the small or trivial points. Remember that it is a professional relationship and mutual trust should be the order of the day. If it is not, then maybe it should not be maintained as a continuing relationship.
As for #4 and #7, as a client you can probably get concessions given that it's a buyer's market for legal services right now. But generally, I think those practices are legit. The cost of training is baked into the price of every product you buy, and legal services is no different. With regards to #7 specifically, that tends to be a situation where the junior lawyer who doesn't say anything on the call will be the one doing whatever work comes out of the call. It will cost you more money in the long run if he or she isn't on the call and has to get a download after the fact.
A better approach is to communicate via e-mail when possible and communicate directly with the associate doing your work unless the partner needs to be involved. This is kind of related to #2 and #10. Where I used to work, mid-level and senior associates would handle the day-to-day communications with the client for securities offerings or credit agreements worth tens of millions of dollars. If you retain a large firm where an associate will be doing most of the work on your matters, then find a team where the partner in charge is good at delegating the day-to-day stuff so you don't have to incur his higher rates for that sort of thing. Alternatively, depending on your needs, you might find a small outfit or even a solo practitioner who will be doing most of the work on your matter himself or herself, and doesn't need to deal with the inherent overhead of delegation.
 Given that, it might just be easier to skip the nitpicking and ask for a 10% discount on the final bill.
PS: What do people here thing about fixed fee arrangements? I'm not sure how they should be structured for a startup, but that would avoid a lot of the silliness inherent in billing. At the end of the day, there is a price to legal services based on supply and demand. Whether you charge for law students or raise the top line fee or give an across-the-board discount is ultimately cosmetic.
(1) If you're unhappy with your bill, PUSH BACK ON IT. Even if you like the partner that you're working with, a substantial portion of your bill will be generated by paralegals and associates like me. And, as an associate, my marching orders are to account for every last minute of my day, even if I think it was an unreasonable thing to bill for. In theory, the partner is supposed to see these items before they go out and make a judgment call on whether to write it off, but more often than not, the partner will eyeball the total amount without looking too closely at the details.
Case in point: When I was a founder, a paralegal at a well-known law firm made a mistake with our cap table and left off a single share. We ended up getting billed $300 to find that single share. When we changed firms a year later, we mentioned this to the partner, who was surprised and had no idea this had happened (despite ostensibly signing off on the bill).
(2) Check in with your lawyer regularly -- doesn't have to be a phone call. A quick e-mail will do. Bills often come in monthly intervals, and fees can rack up pretty quickly in that time. As a lawyer, I'll often start work on a new matter only to find out that my work is no longer required after several weeks have passed and I've already billed the item. Regular check-ins can help avoid this. In addition, it'll be easier to draw connections between vague descriptions on your bill ("Attend to cap table") and what actually happened ("find missing share that paralegal left out"). As a side benefit, regular check-ins result in faster turn around, especially if there are multiple matters competing for your layer's attention.
(3) Second opinions can be free. If you're unsure about the advice your getting from a lawyer, ask a lawyer at another firm. Those other lawyers will view this as a chance to poach a client and will write their time off as business development. As a side benefit, those lawyers may point out mistakes that your current law firm didn't catch or is reluctant to admit to.
We work with Yokum Taku and Jesse Chew at Wilson Sonsini, and they've been awesome.
Because I'm a former lawyer, I started out our relationship by scrutinizing every bill.
I stopped when I realized that we were getting an amazing deal. We have only paid 1 legal bill in 2 years and we haven't been bugged at all about it. Our legal bill is being subsidized by your Airbnbs and the like. That's the luxury of working with a great startup lawyer that works with top startups.
If you're working with a firm that has summer associates (referred to as "law students" in the post), and they are being billed out at $200/hour, you are almost certainly working with a large, full-service law firm. And large, full-service law firms are expensive.
Working with a large, full-service law firm is overkill for the vast majority of early-stage startups. Even when it comes to securities-related work, you can find reasonably-priced experienced, competent practitioners with BigLaw backgrounds who work solo or at smaller firms.
If I would find this sort of pushback so irritating as an IT consultant, I presume a legal consultant would find it just as irritating. Why would you want to annoy an important consultant in this way?
Ridiculous. As a business person that has dealt with lawyers, consultants, accountants (in the bricks and mortar world, not the startup lottery) as well as has clients that I do work for (so I've been on the other side) I would totally steer clear of anyone that comes out saying things like this. Unless I was desperate.
It's just not the way to have a professional relationship which involves trust.
Get approval on every expense? Even minor ones? Not going to reimburse for something unless on a white list? Get serious.
This strikes me as penny wise and pound (and time) foolish. The major cost is the hourly rate and whether you are being billed honestly for that (or not). And that is something you have no control over unless you are watching them all the time.
To expect that it matters that you will not approve a minor charge when the attorney can easily jack up his billing on the major charge is a waste of time.
Better to question the bills after the fact and if you feel that you shouldn't have to pay for the lunch bill that your attorney had when meeting with someone on your behalf while leaving a large tip by all means bring up the issue.
But just like with employees a certain amount of leeway is often necessary.
So what we have is that the base cost of a phone call with your lawyer is always going to be $60. I don't have a problem with that other than obviously it would be nice if the cost were zero.
As far as $60? A conversation of 2 minutes and a conversation for 10 minutes is still interuptive and takes your attention from whatever you are doing. As anyone who has been in a zone doing work will attest to.
Is there a different consensus around the definition of "billable time" in the legal world that makes this not as bad as it sounds?
"Youll have a conference call scheduled and theyll invite additional attorneys to sit in. And theyll charge you for it, even though they may not say a word during the meeting.Add a clause to your contract that says, We agree not to bill you for any more than one attorney on any conference call with you.
The other half should be spelled out in the engagement letter. If you don't like it, tell your lawyer -- we really will negotiate on these issues.
"If you use your lawyer, youll get charged way more than if you used a regular lawyer"
Two, some of these practices described would raise eyebrows with state ethics committees. Double billing travel time, rounding up your billable hours, it all amounts to padding your bills. Lawyers have been disbarred for such practices, and this typically happens when people start wondering how they can be billed greater than 24 hours per day by the same attorney.
Lastly, if you are a start up, you have no business going to an attorney that is going to charge you $600.00 per hour. A rate that high should be reserved for some specialties, like perhaps patent litigation. If you are paying an attorney $600.00 to incorporate for you, you probably will not be in business for long.
As an additional tip, you may be able to save some money by doing some of the legal research yourself. Google works surprisingly well for some things, as does the local public library, which may have a subscription to Lexis Nexis or Westlaw. Facebook is a great resource for family law issues. There are also free law-specific resources like nolo.com (e.g. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/small-business) or avvo.com.
The law industry is a service business. You pay them for their services. The service you get is much less than what you pay for. This mismatch = an opportunity to do better and make a lot of money.
I guess if we're gonna be retroactive, though, there are tons of people who should be named.
It used to be called Bespin: http://blog.mozilla.org/labs/2009/02/introducing-bespin/
I don't even use Chrome at all anymore.
Still, great job to the FF team and keep up the good work!
My stomach dropped when I heard the news. I was so relieved to see that archive.org still loads, and to hear that there was no data loss. It's become a ridiculously irreplaceable tool in my daily workflow.
You found an interesting tutorial/article/paper written in 1995 but it fails to load when you follow the URL? Internet archive that shiz.
An author has edited his webpage, and you're curious what it used to look like? Internet archive that shiz.
Have a PDF link, but it's not loading? Check the archive. More often than not, it will load.
If I remember correctly, I once recovered a ~1MB zip file from there as well. The zip file had disappeared from the normal web, but thankfully archive had snagged it. Maybe it was a PDF though.
It seems impossible for the internet archive to persist forever... But it also seems about as valuable as the Library of Alexandria was in its day. Or rather, future historians will find it as valuable. So I hope we can get triple redundancy for it.
I just did for the first time.
Edit: The site appears to be overloaded, so if you have trouble donating, please try again later.
EDIT: Also glad no one was injured.
Edit: originally said "building" but it was just one of the offices in the building.
"proprietary business information" means "this nation's copyright and patent systems are horribly and possibly irrevocably broken and many government departments are so unaccountable they feel so entitled and lawless they care more about making their jobs easy than serving the people paying their salaries."
When you read it that way everything makes sense.
EDIT: many posts on whether the USPS is government or not. I hope we don't lose sight of the forest of bureaucracies large and entrenched enough to skirt accountability and twist IP laws in ways the Constitution never intended while focusing on that tree. That is, the details of its connection to the government don't change its behavior.
Doug Carlson requested basic data about post offices and post office boxes (location, hours, etc.), and the USPS claimed the information was commercial and therefore exempt from FOIA.
In at least the case of the post offices, it went to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in his favor , meaning that the law in the Ninth Circuit may not be on the USPS's side. (In the case of disclosing the locations of mailboxes, the USPS claimed a FOIA exemption based on the potential for using knowledge of mailbox locations to distribute chemical and biological agents, but it lost to Carlson in the Northern District of California ).
I would encourage the requester to take the next step in a denied FOIA request and file a timely appeal with the USPS general counsel . I'm not a lawyer, but you could probably find one who could write a convincing letter based on the current caselaw in the 9th circuit. Or try Doug Carlson himself, as his contact details are part of the public record .
 Carlson v. USPS, No. C-02-05471, 2005 WL 756573, at *6-7 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2005) (concluding that disclosure of data pertaining to mailbox locations would not risk use of postal system to distribute biological or chemical agents because agency failed to demonstrate that such data actually could be used to determine mail collection routes). Found on p.206-207 of http://www.justice.gov/oip/foia_guide09/exemption2.pdf.
Really messed up. Geocoder.ca crowd-sourced a database of Postal Code -> lat/long information, and have been giving it away for years. Even some government organizations use their data, and yet our postal service is trying to shut them down to drive customers towards their $5,000/year + many strings attached product.
Basically, ZIP codes are not maps. ZIP codes are (collections of) delivery routes. You can then reverse engineer a map more-or-less from the collections of addresses in a ZIP code, but it's messy and not necessarily meaningful.
If post offices were as plentiful as they are in (say) Manhattan, ZIP codes are a good proxy for location. If you live outside a major city, not so much. My parents live about 15 miles from the post office from which their ZIP code derives; my house used to be about a half mile from its post office, but that one was shut down (for mail delivery -- still exists for PO boxes), so now I'm attached to a ZIP code for the post office two towns over.
This matters, because if you do any sort of map-business off of ZIP codes, instead of political boundaries, the results are crap.
So death to ZIP codes.
They're not perfect, but they're almost definitely good enough for the author's purposes.
More info on how the Census Bureau creates them: http://www.census.gov/geo/reference/zctas.html (they take a surprisingly circuitous route)
This would be fine, if it was not for the fact that pretty much everyone who wants to use zip codes needs them in a topologically valid polygon format. This is a problem because roads change all the time, and this makes zip codes terribly unstable. Also, there are many zip codes that are really just points (a bit of an oversimplification, but military bases, prisons, schools, etc. often cause huge problems).
Census tracts are much more stable (topologically valid and only change every 10 years). Unfortunately, most people don't know which census tract they live in, so zips prevail. I have built several geocoding algorithms, and it always comes down to the data being the big PITA. What ends up happening, unfortunately, is that private companies pick up the slack and create topological zip codes (with high price tags).
Double unfortunately, every company has a different methodology in creating these polygons, costing everyone who uses them big money, on top of the licensing fees. The USPS could easily produce a standard set of polygons for an extra couple grand a year in labor and save the industry millions. I cannot get into much detail, but I know this issue quite intimately.
I'm not sure if things have improved since, but it's probably not going to get better now that Royal Mail is 48% private.
Or did I completely misunderstand the whole thing?
I'm pretty sure it was worked out in the end as apps are now available with that info, but it seemed absolutely ridiculous at the time that public information, for a public service wasn't in the public domain.
 http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/canada-post-sues-over-post...That link is from April 2012, not sure where the case went after that.
Of course the author can't use that because it's not updated daily, like FOIA'ing the ZIP codes would get you daily updates anyway...
At any rate, I have had to do a lot with zip codes in the past, long before anything like an API was a common term let alone something every company was happy to let you hook into and use their services. Heck, this was back when it costs a few grand to take CC's on a website and had to deal with that awful Authorienet API. That used to be thought of as crazy talk. Now we have amazing stuff like this: http://www.geonames.org
- United States Census Bureau TIGER - GeoNames data dumps - You can pay to be sent data files from the USPS (AIS)
Talk about England and you have much bigger problem. The ownership of Pincodes in England is with the Queen and hence no one can really use it without her permission. :P
Is this so necessary for mapping health inspections data? USPS has more fitting products priced less.
One of the API's relates to zip codes.
Eventually USPS will have to share all that information or someone will come up with alternative to ZIP code numbering that is constant and public...
It other news, I think the USPS should double their rates for stamps. Less spam in my mailbox, and a push for a greener planet.
As far as I am aware, if I put in slightly the wrong zip code (neighboring one) but the right address, I'll still will get the package.
What I'm lacking right now is a decent webmail client. Roundcube isn't exactly my type of thing, mailpile might be interesting. This seems ambitious and interesting in general, but seems to come with too much strings attached (puppet? No, ansible. Comes with postfix? I already have that). So .. it is more than I'd need.
I do like the idea of ready-made, easy mail server setups though (obviously, given the first paragraph). Perhaps a project like this could integrate well into owncloud or arkos though?
Every time some new frontend/backend comes up, I say the same (and have done on HN before); i'm not a typical user; I had email since '95, I have been a heavy user since then and I took my mail with me since. In 2005 I was looking, like I had been then as well, for a better mail solution and stumbled upon gmail. I wrote an export script for the mail system I was using at the time and imported 10 years of mail into gmail.
I now have over a million mails in my mailbox (i'm not sure what is the total); I have over 50 mail addresses coming to my inbox, I receive 1000s (sometimes 10.000s) of spam messages per day which Google filters well. I guess this is due to the fact I have had/have businesses on those 50 mails since 1995. All clients I tried so far just simply hang when I try them, including outlook (exchange or imap), thunderbird and some free and commercial web versions (yahoo and outlook web/live simply don't work; I cannot even read my mail through the amount of spam and the clients are horrible for productivity imho. Slow as well).
I also need a solid spam solution; spamassassin simply doesn't cut it; not only does it run high processor on my server, it doesn't actually filter stuff like google does. Google almost never goes wrong for me; actually; I have had very few mistakes / missing mails. While with spamassassin, I'll be carefully inspecting 5k mails / day while still getting spam in my inbox.
I think my mailbox is a bit weird now, but it'll be quite normal as it'll be normal for people to have a mailbox since birth and taking it with them till they die. If you run a few businesses along the way, getting to 1 million messages is not hard; spam will find you as well. Media messages are getting common; I make a point of using dropbox/sftp for attachments, but not everyone does that, so I do get videos, huge blah megapixel cameras of birthdays of family etc. This is normal and will only grow; the current mail solutions don't handle it well. If you want to deliver a competitor to gmail, you need to make this work imho and it needs to be a test case.
On a personal note, am I the only one that generally prefers a mail client? The ability to combine all my emails (work, gmail, @mydomain, etc) into one unified inbox is why I prefer it.
However, for me to switch (like most here, I am a heavy email user), I need a few things:
- PGP encryption
Have you thought about expanding the developer base? Maybe via Kickstarter/Indiegogo? The alpha already looks good, I'm sure a lot of us would like to contribute to the development.
I look forward to the day when it will be easy to set up and configure a mail server at home. By all accounts, it is currently a very painful process that is prone to error and interrupted service.
In gmail I guess that once a few peeps click "Report Spam" on a mail that passed filters, similar mails are also flagged as spam in other accounts. I've always found gmail extremely effective at this, and I practically never flag mail as spam myself.
Sure, there are automated spam filters to configure, but overall wouldn't going alone make things much less efficient on that topic?
Doing good software is one thing, doing it with a good touch of humor is what makes it stick. +1.
It's easier and cheaper than ever to automate the setup of servers. Imagine being able to click a few buttons, in something like the webmin of yore, and suddenly having a private mail server/file sync node/document editor application, set up at the VPS provider of your choice.
This type of thing will encourage open standards, as the private servers will need to communicate with each other. It also ties in nicely with concerns about the implications of everything being hosted and controlled by major providers.
There are probably business opportunities at many points in this model.
1. web based storage of emails 2. a good web interface.
As for 1., I stil have not found anything really interesting that comes for free.
As for 2., I was once using Mutt and found it quite efficient, and am now thinking to try out sup. However, there is still this feeling that there could be a better client when it comes to usability and ease of installation. Using Mutt on Windows can be really annoying.
- Email server that I can run for my domain.
- Search a large number of messages on the server
- Spam detection on the server
- Automatic labelling / categorisation on the server for incoming mail
- Address book
- Saving of drafts on the server so I can edit and send on several devices
- A webmail interface
Is this intended to be a GMail replacement or another webmail interface?
If nothing else, putting your email in plaintext could help you debug your spam prevention?
However, I like your project and it would be nice to have an alternative if I decide one day that I value my privacy more.
I like it compared to other scripts like SquirrelMail or Horde.
Also, I don't want to sound like a troll, but I wish it was build in a more popular language, such as Java (it's not my favorite) to encourage contributions. Good luck!
Do you plan to stick with a desktop version? Will you always design 'destop first'?