This guy is awesome.
I'm not sure what the point is here...if someone knows your name they can often simply look up your home address online (or in an anachronism).
Even social security numbers are available online for people who have died: http://ssdmf.info/
I can sympathize with the idea that people should be able to live private lives, but what Instagram is doing doesn't seem particularly notable.
I'm not seeing how this is unexpected or newsworthy. It just sounds like there are folks out there who don't consider their location to be a secret. Folks who do are able to communicate that by denying the geotagging permission.
It's funny how many people will think you're a "hacker" and be very shocked if you reply to a geotagged photo they casually sent with a map pointing to exactly where it was taken. :-)
Joe Kilner - One extra issue with games is that you are outputting an image sampled from a single point in time, whereas a frame of film / TV footage is typically an integration of a set of images over some non-infinitesimal time.
This is something that, once stated, is blatantly obvious to me, but it's something I simply never thought deeply about. What it's saying is that when you render a frame in a game, say the frame at t=1.0 in a game running at 60 FPS, what you're doing is capturing and displaying the visual state of the world at a discrete point in time (i.e. t=1.0). Doing the analogous operation with an analogous physical video camera means you are capturing and compositing the "set of images" between t=1.0 and t=1.016667, because the physical camera doesn't capture a discrete point in time, but rather opens its shutter for 1/60th of a second (0.16667 seconds) and captures for that entire interval. This is why physical cameras have motion blur, but virtual cameras do not (without additional processing, anyway).
This is obvious to anyone with knowledge of 3D graphics or real-world cameras, but it was a cool little revelation for me. In fact, it's sparked my interest enough to start getting more familiar with the subject. I love it when that happens!
However, anecdotally speaking, the concern I have with evaluating high-frame rate in film is that we have very little contextmost of us have only ever seen Peter Jackson's Hobbit films in HFR. In other words, I have never seen how other directors' work would be affected by HFR.
Speaking exclusively about the Hobbit series in HFR, I too observed an uncanny valley that traditional films intrinsically avoid with their low frame rate. The Hobbit films felt more like a play than a film. A play with elaborate stage effects, but a play nonetheless.
In fact, my chief criticism of Jackson's directing with HFR is that the feeling of watching a play is amplified by how he mixes the sound and directs his extras. The extras routinely just mumble nonsense in the background, leaving only the character you're intended to be focused on speaking clearly. It's the same thing you see in a play when there is background dialog, and it's completely unnatural. You find yourself sometimes distracted by the characters in the background and realizing they're not actually doing anything meaningful or having real conversations. For example, in the most recent film, I found myself more distracted by the unnatural audio in early scenes (such as the beach scene) than the HFR video.
Combine that with the poor acting by the minor characters in the first 45 minutes of the recent film and I think HFR gets a bad rap in large part because the Hobbit films alone are our point of reference.
At first, I thought this extra "detail" could be explained as an illusion (since noise/grain can mask a lack of resolution), but then I read the abstract quoted near the end of the article:
"...visual cortical cell responses to moving stimuli with very small amplitudes can be enhanced by adding a small amount of noise to the motion pattern of the stimulus. This situation mimics the micro-movements of the eye during fixation and shows that these movements could enhance the performance of the cells"
So if I understand right, since the biological systems are tuned to extract extra detail via supersampling across time, and a small amount of noise/grain can enhance that ability (mimicking natural movement of the eye), it actually helps our visual system extract more real detail.
It seems counterintuitive to add noise for more detail, but the explanation is fascinating.
 Stochastic resonance in visual cortical neurons: does the eye-tremor actually improve visual acuity? Hennig, Kerscher, Funke, Wrgtter; Neurocomputing Vol 44-46, June 2002, p.115-120
I had a conversation with a friend at Pixar about exactly this topic.
The issue goes beyond just pulling more spacial information out of a shorter timeframe, it's also that all the current techniques for filmmaking assume 24fps.
Everything has a budget of time and money, and when you say, make 1000 extra costumes for a shot, you cut corners in certain ways based on your training as a costume designer. Your training is based on trade techniques, which are based on the assumption that the director of photography (DOP) and director are viewing the work at 24fps with a certain amount of spacial detail. Doubling the frame rate means some of those techniques need to be more detailed, whereas others might be completely useless.
Given everything that goes into a shot (hair/makeup, set design, lighting, costume design, props, pyrotechnics, etc), it's unlikely everyone working on a high-fps film is going to be aware of exactly which techniques do and do not work. As a result, you get lots of subtle flaws exposed that don't work with twice the detail. The sum of these flaws contribute heavily to making the shot look 'videoish'.
Increase the frequency to 48FPS and the blur goes away, meaning that we can see the fine detail, and suddenly sets look like sets, costumes look like costumes, and CGI looks like a computer game.
When people complain about 48fps being weird I just feel like they're just not used to it. It does look weird but after 20 minutes it looks amazing. I'm personally tired of not understanding anything in action movies that uses 24fps. It is kind of a luxury for the eyes to have 48 fps and I predict that in a few years we'll have the same debate we have with console now (60 fps is better than 30 fps).
We got used to 24 fps and so we're making justifications on why it looks better when it clearly doesn't if you take a step back.
1/ The "soap opera effect" explains the 48 fps issue.
2/ The lack of motion blur in games is the reason why higher fps are better (see https://www.shadertoy.com/view/XdXXz4 for a great visualisation).
In the past this was achieved by setting your CRT to a low resolution and upping the refresh rate. More recently you can get TN LCD panels that offer 120 or 144hz update rates.
Moving the mouse in small quick circles on a 144hz screen compared to a 60hz screen is a very different experience. On a 60hz screen you can see distinct points in the circle where the cursor gets drawn. With 144hz you can still see the same effect if you go fast enough, but it is way smoother.
This makes a huge difference for being able to perceive fast paced movements in twitch style games and is the reason there has been a shift to these monitors across every competitive shooter.
My thoughts on this is that this behavior is similar to signal sampling theorems. Specifically the Nyquist theorem talks about how you have to sample at at least 2x the max frequency of a signal to accurately represent the frequency. For signal generation this means that you have to generate a signal at at least twice the rate of the max frequency you want to display. If you want to accurately reconstruct the shape of that signal you need 10x the max frequency (for example two samples in one period of a sine wave makes it look like a sawtooth wave, ten samples makes it look like a sine wave).
So, if you're moving your mouse cursor quickly on a screen or playing a game with fast paced model movement even if your eyes can only really sample at something like 50-100hz the ideal monitor frequency might be 1000hz. There's a lot of complexity throughout the system before we can get anything close to this (game engines being able to run at that high of a framerate, video interfaces with enough bandwidth to drive that high of a framerate, monitor technology being able to switch the crystals that fast, etc.).
Yes, 48fps movies typically look less cinematic, but I think this is a flaw in movie making technology and not of the framerate. The fight scenes in the hobbit sometimes look fake because you can start to tell how they aren't actually beating up the other person. This detail is lost at 24fps and is why they have been able to use these techniques.
Most of us no longer watch content in darkness. James Cameron is of the opinion that improving FPS is more significant than moving up from HD. I figured I should trust the professional who devotes his life to this.
To truly evaluate high FPS movies and video content, you have to watch it for a while.
The SmoothVideo Project (SVP) is pretty awesome. Needs some good hardware, made by volunteers, and needs some work to get set up well.
It struggles in scenes with lots of detail, but panning scenes are incredibly beautiful.
Going back is a bit difficult.
May be it's like in the days of monochrome media black-and-white dreams were a norm, but today they are exception.
Er, the American push westwards was quite nightmarish and genocidal, and US homesteaders appropriated land much like Hitler planned to do.
For example, the author claims that Germany lost its chance to conquer Europe and the U.S. This is very misleading, and here's why.
Even though Germany rose to the Europe's most industrial and populous nation state following the unification of 1871, its production capacity was incomparable to that of the combined outputs of its western rivals. That is why Otto von Bismarck wanted the newly established Empire to stay out of any conflicts (and this is why he got fired by the more aggressive Wilhelm II).
The U.S. at that time was nobody. It was still undergoing the post-Civil War recovery and the Industrial Revolution JUST arrived on the continent. No European nation was interested in conquering the largely agrarian society.
Germany didn't miss a chance. It had neither the capacity nor the will to conquer the U.S.
The article attributes most of American strengths to geographical advantages and previous geopolitical moves. It's quite a long article, and even if you don't agree with Stratfor views, I would really recommend reading it.
 : http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/geopolitics-united-states-p...
Yes and no. People nowadays really don't even remember the end of World War I. Russian troops began shooting their officers and marching back to St. Petersburg and Moscow. Earlier that year were the massive Nivelle mutinies of French enlisted men. There were the German naval mutinies of 1918, followed by a powerful but ultimately failed revolution in Germany by communists (put down by the socialist-run government - echoes of the French communist party ending the 1968 left-communist uprising which caused de Gaulle to flee France). Hungarian workers had an uprising and established a Soviet republic in 1919, which lasted until it was defeated by an invasion by Romania. Italy saw the Biennio Rosso with factory occupations in Turin etc. which were finally ended when Mussolini marched on Rome in 1922. As late as 1976 the Italian communist party was getting over 1/3 of the vote in Italy, with the Socialist party (with a hammer and sickle emblem) getting 9% of the vote, and the left-communist Maoists getting over half a million votes (never mind the non-voting anarchists/autonomists).
Europe mobilized its population twice in the twentieth century. The first time Russia became communist, the second time everything east of Steppin to Trieste became communist. With Europe needing the US with NATO, Marshall plan, Gladio etc. to keep post-WWI western Europe (Spain, Italy and France) from becoming communist. Eventually Europe's capitalists learned going to war with one another's countries didn't help them all that much.
What about the silver standard that was used in previous centuries? Oh, the West spent it all buying spices from China. They tried getting it back by getting the Chinese addicted to opium and selling them that, but that didn't last long. So change the rules: use gold instead of silver as the standard! Until the 1970's anyway when the standard had changed to uranium.
The US dollar and S&P 500 has outperformed all peers
US GDP growth has exceeded nearly all counties, including emerging markets (adjusted for inflation). Meanwhile Russia, EU, Australia, Canada and Japan all having problems due to falling oil and stagnation.
Yields still rock bottom due to huge demand for low yielding debt
America is not just pulling ahead of the rest of the world, it's running circles around it.
I hate to be the bearer of good news, but America, for all its flaws, is still the envy of the world. Its fastest-growing, most innovative tech companies and its most prestigious institutions of higher learning, such as the Ivy League, Caltech and MIT, are inundated with applicants from foreigners. Foreigners also cant get enough of Americas most expensive real estate, nor can they get enough of Americas low yielding debt. If we really were in a post America era as the left insists we are, none of this would be happening.
The US economy has hardly been in a slog, especially compared to the rest of the world. The last quarter of GDP was revised to 5% the fastest growth since 2003.
Given my laypersons knowledge of Tammeney Hall, the early 20th century labour gangs and so on, it seems incredible that America is not subject to more such problems - but what did it do right - and is it still doing it right?
The idea that Piano rolls predate all other programmable storage medium is factually incorrect. Surely the Jacquard loom and its punch-card system, patented in 1801, pre-date the piano rolls of the 1900's?
Other than that, a great piece, but I would be remiss if I missed a chance to remind people of how amazing (and early) the Jacquard loom must've been at the time.
Those were the dampers, without them the sound will be "harder" and more percussive:
With such a big LCD I think it would be a fun addition to embed a PC inside it, with the keyboard of the piano acting as its... keyboard. After all, the original PC/AT keyboard only had 84 keys.
...and those who liked the article might find this interesting too: http://www.linusakesson.net/chipophone/
It's basically an engineering textbook for pianos.
Something that the article did not mention accounting for.
WOW! This is something that would bring a smile to... hmm, I would guess, damn near everyone.
During my CS degree I wrote one paper with numerous citations from the field of neuroscience, as I was trying to make a case for ways to change the way we teach and learn so as to build more robust memory models of the things we are trying to memorize. The case I used in my paper was pieces of notated sheet music, but I believe the same principles could hold in areas like language learning (whether computer languages or human) or mathematics equally well.
I'd like to build/buy a good enough EEG to show that specific patterns emerge when we achieve the specific kind of focus that allows for this optimally efficient kind of learning to take place. (The implication being that if we are able to induce this type of brainwave pattern rather than expect the individual to achieve it on their own, then we might be able to make a significant step forward in the field of educational neuroscience).
After watching Bret Victor's most recent talk, I thought, "This is awesome. I totally get where you're coming from, but show me something tangible." Maybe brain-computer interface can point us in the right direction.
I appreciate the sentiment of the article, but there's a lot of complexity to the issue that it ignores. For one, most of the time that I was working crazy hours was because I a.) wanted and b.) needed to. I believed in the project's mission, the work was fun & challenging, and there was a lot to do that just wouldn't get done if I didn't put in the hours.
Similarly, when I worked very light hours, it was because there wasn't much work that I had to do. I was blocked on other teams, or in-between projects and my manager didn't have a good idea where I'd be productive at the moment, or "held in reserve" so that if we needed to react quickly to market opportunities I'd be well-rested and not occupied by other projects.
Working hard is not always a bad thing, or onerous, or exhausting. Sometimes employees work hard because they believe in what they're doing and want to do a good job; that's part of what makes a company a good place to work, after all. And sometimes it is, and creates a very unhealthy competition where everybody tries to outdo each other. I think that one of the things that Google in general and Larry Page in particular realizes is that people will have different desires for work/life balance at different stages in their life, and that within a large company, there should be places that can accommodate everyone from the achievement-oriented new Ph.D grad to the family with a young kid.
No one bothered to ask me what made me unique or interesting, even though I have amazing stories to tell from traveling around the world and from projects I've worked on in the past. The free lunch thing is sort of over-blown, when you have to fill out a form and shout over a line of people to get a BLT sandwich made. And then there were a bunch of bicycles strewn out across the campus, mostly toppled over, for no explicable reason.
Honestly, the only reason I would want to work there is for the money, and for that reason employees should not really expect to enjoy their time there.
That being said, it was not a completely terrible place to work. There are much worse. It would have been hard to convince even "suckers" that it was a good place to work if it had, in fact, been a truly awful place to work. But it definitely wasn't great. The pay was mediocre, and the expectations were through the roof. And if you didn't act sufficiently grateful, if you didn't appear thrilled to be there at all times, then it actually became a pretty hostile place to spend time.
It's obvious from articles like this that you can't just dump a bunch of cash on slides and ping-pong tables, but it also isn't fesable (for most companies) to have 4-hour workdays. How can you balance the need for breaks with budget concerns?
I'd really appreciate somebody with experience in the area weighing in.
This article speaks about "four core needs" of employees ("physical, emotional, mental and spiritual") but the author doesn't seem willing to consider the possibility that employers aren't capable of meeting these deep personal needs in the first place.
Personally, I think the imbalance, chaos and unsustainable pace you see in even the supposedly "best" workplaces is more often than not just a reflection of the fact that large numbers of individuals don't set boundaries, prioritize or make a dedicated effort to invest in their own health and well-being. These people are not going to go to the Googleplex or a hot startup's swagged-out SOMA digs and suddenly find enlightenment. Unhappy, unbalanced people are going to be unhappy and unbalanced wherever they go and in many cases, they'll seek out environments that are unhappy and unbalanced.
Long hours at Google? Please. The long hours argument would certainly hold up at many of the other companies on the list, however. Point being that no generalization can define why these rankings are misleading (though they certainly can be).
Before that I worked at a place I could charitably call a "bottom place to work".
I've worked at a few very mediocre places as well.
So I've been around the block so to speak.
About a decade and a half ago, I worked at a place that doesn't show up on any of these lists. The main day-to-day difference it seems from where I work now and this place I worked at long ago is that I get free candy and juice. The other place had more interesting work. Almost all of my professional acquaintances come from the former place.
We have a badass cafeteria, but I still have to pay for it. So I guess that's better than the Amazon gig and the mediocre to decent food I was offered?
One of the chefs here is a former Google executive chef, his Polenta with mushroom sauce is pretty good, but a bit tart.
I get whatever hardware and resources I've asked for so far. So far I've gotten a large format printer with staff, 3 developers, a new rMBP with top of the line specs, a new monitor, travel expensed and have $100k worth of rack mountable GPUs on order.
I've found not-for-profits to be consistently decent places to work, plus I can take pride in working at them for all kinds of principled reasons. Even if the pay sucks, the offices tend to be nice and its nice knowing you're helping the species move forward a little every day. The unofficial motto where I work is "fuck the money, do the right thing by the client". I like that.
But I know from long-timers that work-life balance kind of sucks and there's been some lean times recently that have left some old-timers hungry with a thirst they can't quite get rid of. There's a yoga class I can take, $60/season. We have a Gym, the showers are cleaned twice a day.
I've found that for-profits make me a heck of a lot more money, but range from miserable to mediocre.
I've almost worked at Google, Amazon and a few other bright stars on these kinds of lists, but the problems didn't seem terribly interesting even if the cafeterias were cool. I guess pushing ads, on-line retail or some other kind of kool-aidery is hip. I like my Android phone well enough. Maybe if I could have taken that salary and moved cross country and displaced my life, the free catered meals would have been worth it. The quiz-show interview was lame and completely irrelevant for the job they wanted me to do.
I've interviewed with a few places that think they're best places to work. 3 catered meals a day, game room, casual dress code, whatever. It's fine, but then they're supporting 10 year old application cruft and the hardest problems they have to solve is supporting the new release of Java.
The most I've ever learned, and thus the most rewarding job I ever worked was for a small and scrappy startup that failed. The lessons I learned there have earned me nonstop promotions at better places. I would absolutely do that again if I had a time machine even though it had really sucky aspects to it. It didn't even come close to being a best place to work...though I also got free candy and juice.
The best problems I've ever worked was for a shitty shitty mega-corp. They sent me around the world 4 times in two years, to active war zones, where I got shot at. Coding under fire is amazing. Saving people's lives is amazing. Dealing with corporate bullshit back home where none of that is recognized for any reason sucks. I recently was contacted by an employee to answer questions about code I hacked out 7 years ago while taking mortar fire. The stories I'll tell my grandkids come from this job. Also not a best place to work.
It's interesting McKinsey is in the top-10. I've only ever heard terrible things about working there. The average rate of burn-out is under 2 years for new hires, so the suck factor must be incredibly high. But then again, a McKinsey bullet on your resume opens lots of doors.
In-N-Out and Costco are probably great to work if you don't have options. But I definitely need more than $12/hr for the lifestyle I've become accustomed to.
I know of Googlers who take month-long spur of the moment vacations 3 times a year and keep advancing. I know others who are on-call and put in hard 14-16 hour days constantly and fight with their managers for their pay increases.
It really is relative. If the work doesn't interest you, or the politics suck, or you like getting paid on time, and that matters to you more than anything else, then you might have a terrible time. You want dry-cleaning, catered lunches and work-life balance? Then maybe this list is a good one for you.
Google does have interesting problems, but it's likely that you won't be working on them.
Let's take Google as an example, although any large company with a strong reputation would do. Take technical or cultural or managerial attribute Q (say, which programming language to privilege). Ask "what is the best Q option for Google?" Most people will admit that they don't know. There are lot of variables. Ask "what is the best Q option for the cultural leader? Suddenly you get a bunch of bikeshedding product executives trying to throw their weight around. Now that it's not "Google" being discussed but "the cultural leader" hanging in the balance, peoples' opinions get much more entangled and politicized (if less relevant to the specific needs of the company, Google).
The concept of "the cultural leader" in technology is flawed and dangerous and it attracts people for the wrong reasons. You should hire the people who want to make a cultural leader by doing great work and, um, leading... not people who want to hold high positions at an organization already recognized for leadership.
1. Limited integration with desktop environment. Have a look at System tray integration for example, https://github.com/atom/atom-shell/blob/master/docs/api/tray... in many cases it is just too simplistic.
2. Another thing we learnt the hard way is, a lot of JS charting libraries are not meant for plotting streaming data for long period of time. We for example found that, most d3js based charting libraries start to balloon in memory usage if left running for > 1 hour or so.
3. Large executables.
It is still a nice platform to develop on! But if you are stuck with performance problems or something, coding your way out of it is way harder (unless you are willing to get your hands dirty with atom-shell code itself).
EDIT: So we ended up using Qt. in fact, a lot of JS libraries can be used in Qt via QML, for example - https://github.com/jwintz/qchart.js/tree/master.
(If you want to look at alternatives)
Previously, node-webkit looked like a great contender for a universally shippable desktop UI system, but it actually falls on several platforms due to invalid presumptions about locally available dynamically linked libraries . It would be great to see an up-front document about portability promises.
Is it possible to use other languages to drive the rendering via a linked API? Thrust  did a good start on defining an API for using the UI components from multiple languages, but it still relies on TCP sockets -- as far as I can tell, there's no way to make my application load assets from "bundle://" and redirect that to custom handler code while forbidding other network access, and the use of a local TCP socket to communicate between the UI and the main application means there's also major reason to be concerned about CSRF attacks on localhost. We should be able to build desktop UIs without these problems. Is atom-shell pushing forward on any of these issues, and if so is there any documentation on how?
Summed up my thoughts here: http://mattdesl.svbtle.com/motion-graphics
 - https://github.com/breach/thrust
I miss how thorough, relative to atom-shell, the docs are for node-webkit, but atom-shell does seem more mature and thoughtful in the way things have been implemented. Nide-webkit's iframe changes are a bit ugly, but atom-shell's webview element is nice and clean, plus it looks as though Mozilla want to standardise something similar.
Has anyone seen issues with the separate browser and application processes? I haven't had any yet but I feel that I might run into issues soon.
FYI atom-shell seems to work better with node v0.11 than node-webkit if you're trying to build little admin/maintenance utilities that need sudo.
node-webkit gets in the way of the sudo working.
I also think that they misunderstand the needs of their potential customers. They are trying to introduce a public, crowd-funded service to a market for covert information without any sense of irony. In broad strokes, a third of the value of a stolen secret is in knowing it; another third is having exclusive access; and the last third is that your competition does not know they've been robbed. When they realize that you have their IP, they will pour money into R&D. Since they are already familiar with their work -- and you are not yet -- they are likely to beat you to market.
For that reason I'm skeptical this venture can compete with existing black markets.
And - how would you arbitrate misleading data? "0-day Flash Exploit For Windows", "...NT4".
Maybe we're missing the irony.
edit: more ranting (won't dupe) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8795427
I can think of three or four ways to defeat even a relatively sophisticated attempt to do so in an automated manner. And if you're going to make money off selling secrets, what could be better than selling the same thing to a dozen purchasers each of whom thinks that they have an exclusive on the deal.
We already have darknets and assassination markets and... and places to find scandalous celebrity photos and dox. The amount of ego they throw into their copy doesn't inspire a lot of confidence to me.
However the people behind this have been thinking about it far more than I have so I'm sure they have their reasons for doing it in C.
1. You can't prove a negative. The seller cannot prove that there's not a copy of the same information elsewhere.
2. If you prevent the same data from being sold again, the exclusive owner is also prevented from selling. What if that person wants to sell bits and pieces of the information as an arbitrage play?
3. Doesn't this obligate the police to bid for any child pornography whatever the cost?
It uses Bitmessage and two party escrow Bitcoin transactions.
Took the world long enough to catch up.
"Zero day exploits. For the market defined value rather than a price determined by the corporations under the guise of a bounty with the veiled threat of legal action should the researcher choose to sell elsewhere."
"Stolen databases. Corporations will no longer be able to get away with an apology when they fail to secure their customers confidential data. They will have to pay the market value to suppress it."
This isn't about exposing corrupt secrets for the public good. This is about giving data thieves a way to squeeze more money from their victims (deserving or not) by letting others bid against them. They're not trying to hide it, guys.
Julia seems like a good language, maybe someday i will jump on it, but for the evil mind out there planning to write another language. Please stop, we already have great languages! I can't keep up with the learning! and is so damn difficult to even start a project with so many choices!
Even so - right now Pandas is miles ahead of the Julia equivalent. Pandas was the brain child of Wes McKinney - an amazing coder, who really, really cared about speed (who recently also made a lot of money selling his start up to Cloudera - good for him!). The things you can do in Pandas with multi-index selects, joining dataframes on multiple axis, etc, are outright incredible.
Seems like I need to dive into Julia again. Haven't for over a year.
R also stands out because it is so easy to run a wide variety of statistical methods easily on a data frame.
Right now it is an extremely concrete example, and really easy to say that the originator of the bot is at blame and should be prosecuted for buying illegal items.
But, how advanced does a bot have to be before it itself is at blame? What if they'd programmed it to reach out and purchase from any vendor it could find? What if it wasn't programmed to do anything but made random acts, took feedback and then learned from it?
That said, if you decide to keep any drugs you get from the not rather than immediately disposing of them, you've demonstrated the requisite intent to be guilty of possession, so there's that.
There's a huge difference between "causing interference to other signals" or "managing [a hotel's] network in order to provide a secure and reliable Wi-Fi service," and willfully sending malicious packets designed to disable other wireless networks. The latter is buried in the text, but is what they are asking for permission to do. It's somewhat unclear how such behavior is an FCC interference issue rather than a criminal matter.
It's amazing that this is compared to "a homeowner using her cordless telephone that interferes with a neighbor's phone" and "a housewife whose use of a baby monitor device causes interference to a neighbor's garage door opener."
It does lead to an interesting question: if seeing a wireless network, which an automated system will not be able to confirm is actually on their property (consider the plight of nearby homes and businesses!), constitutes a threat that can be attacked, is it allowable for an adjoining property owner, or a guest with a wireless network, to see the hotel's network as a threat, and attack it in the same way?
The "alternatives" that hotels might be forced to implement if hotels aren't allowed to attack other networks are similarly entertaining:
>For example, a hotel could decide to prohibit guests from bringing Part 15 devices on the hotel's property. Alternatively, a hotel could limit the areas where Part 15 devices may be used, for example, by restricting their use to guest rooms or common areas.
I would love to see any hotel attempt this, even for one day.
Why should this be any different?
How did that happen, exactly?
They're not exactly the best company out there to be supporting.
Oh please. It's too easy these days to hide behind security and user protection as a motive. FUD mongering.
No doubt they'd also like to block cell phone service so that you have to use the room phone.
He doesn't want to be a curator or a decision maker about what information is or is not available. He is interested in solving the architectural problem of removing the ability to having political interests or personal bias influence control what gets published. From his perspective, he is merely a cog in that system he's trying to create - an automaton who doesn't get to make decisions about the content of diplomatic cables, etc.
In this sense it's probably better to think of Assange as an engineer as opposed to a journalist, dissident or politician. It's just that this system he's been trying to create crosses those circles - when the system effects knowledge/power relations and to the degree his system is successful what's left to do is to effect Wikileaks.
Another note: I am in agreement with and happy that Assange recognizes that Wikileaks in a young and incomplete prototype. There are tons of operational questions left: Who gets Wikileaks when Assange passes away? How do you vet a new member? How do you prevent bribery? Isn't it a problem that there is any centralized control of Wikileaks to begin with? Countries have been successful in preventing journalists from partnering with Wikileaks - how does one secure that pipeline?
This portrays people as something akin to a Markov process: if you know these two properties, you can make meaningful predictions about the future. Are people so memoryless? It strikes me that at a minimum, history, experience, and culture would all influence behavior and aren't so neatly stateful.
My only complaint would be that some of those modules do not really need to be "turf" specific. For example, "turf-is-clockwise" would be more Unixy if it was just "is-clockwise" or "is-polygon-clockwise". This would help improve discoverability and make them nicer to use alongside other generic npm modules, like:
simplify-path, delaunay-triangulate, triangulate-contours, chaikin-smooth, convex-hull
I also think the turf modules would appeal to other uses than just GIS. They are generic enough to be useful in games, interactive apps, etc. :)
"This request has been blacklisted for sending too much traffic to rawgit.com. Please contact the owner of the site that sent you here and ask them to use cdn.rawgit.com instead, which has no traffic limit."
I'm curious if this supports Leaflet too?
equally, there was a time I had to take my cat to the vet and could not get a cab home. I called every company I could find, tried the apps for the ones that required it, but nothing. One of the people that worked at the clinic drove me about 2 blocks and there was a cab of one of the companies I had tried, sitting in the parking lot of a gas station. That was frustrating.
So I think its unfair what cab drivers are going through. I think Uber and other services bring innovation to the market and consumers have expressed an interest in this. While its true advances in technology often leave a given workforce obsolete, this is more subtle and "technical" in a legal sense; and not nearly as dramatic as self-driving cars will be.
I think philly should give these cab companies a break, or tighten their grip on Uber. Both should be allowed to compete, and do so fairly. Its not in the consumers interests for one or the other to go away.
Also, I think the "uber is just an app" is BS, because they're setting the rates and getting a commission from the ride (someone correct me if I'm wrong on this) so in reality they're operating an automated dispatch service. But I think their entire business model revolves around that talking point, and doubt they would be able to compete with taxi's if forced to play by those rules.
Letting uber evade the bad regulations instead of fixing them is a poor solution (same with tesla and dealerships).
Lots of thoughts on this one point. Could they not have done some market analysis beforehand? Given the pace of change over the last decade, when you see something with lots of competition and still no one having an actual viable business with profits yet, what drives someone to think they can just "make it happen" (yes, obviously with a lot of work)?
If it's a "highly competitive market" there should be some profitable company by now that you can simply copy. There isn't. I sort of suspect there won't be for a long time - perhaps ever. Or... at least not 'profitable' to the degree that VC/investors want to see.
Why should storytelling have a business model? We have business models around 'storytelling' in the form of book and music publishing, and they're going through dramatic changes. Loads more people can self-publish - very few are profitable, and most aren't really doing it to be profitable in the first place - they're doing it to express themselves.
One of the few ways to do storytelling on anything other than a very local scale had to involve those with access to the publishing tools, and therefore many more 'stories' (music, books, poems, etc) had to fit within the business model of a publishing middleman. That's model is dying/morphing, and 'storytelling' facilitators may never be the business model that it once was.
> Observing the user behaviour we have realised that there is no community feeling in the app. People simply did not share a common interest to create networks with new people they did not know, because everyone had different personal goals in mind (from running a marathon to climbing everest to mastering guitar or cooking skills). We werent able to focus ourselves on one direction, let alone focus our users on achieving their dreams.
One of the takeaways is that you can't build a business on such lofty, farwaway goals (e.g. users "achieving their dreams"), just as it's a bad idea to live your life with vague dreams ("I want to be the world's most famous scientist!", "I want to be beautiful and marry a beautiful person")...the success stories we know about came through having and reaching step-by-step concrete goals...Facebook's mission may now be to "connect the world", but it started out as a way to better hookup with Harvard co-eds.
And with content specifically, you're just at a major, if not crippling disadvantage. Content is not scalable. Either in its creation or its consumption. I love reading great stories once in awhile...but it's not a daily need. I don't build a habit for it. And Epiclist, being just an app as opposed to a website, even when I want to discover great stories, there's more friction to discover those stories via a narrow app like Epiclist than there is by just opening up Facebook/Twitter/Google.
This turned into a full-blown reimplementation of the game logic pretty fast.
As it turns out, working on this has been the most enlightening and rewarding experience I've ever had in programming. Hearthstone is a very well designed game with very few hacks (much unlike other Blizzard games) and extremely logical rules it has a lot of respect for.
Working on this, more than anything else, has been the most fun I've ever had working on a project. While it is still incomplete, I'm hoping it is of interest to someone as I would love to welcome others to the project. I'm available to answer any questions about it or the Hearthstone's internal design.
Edit: For those looking for an entry point to what this all looks like, since this is very much programmer-oriented for now, the docs I wrote on the wiki (https://github.com/jleclanche/fireplace/wiki) and the tests (https://github.com/jleclanche/fireplace/blob/master/tests/te...) are the best ones.
Blizzard doesn't make it clear. I was going to embark on a simulator just like this, except I had a hard time figuring out the weird interactions and edge cases.
For instance, I just played a game last night where there was an enemy mad scientist on the board. I play a madder bomber and it kills it, playing a secret for the mage, which turned out to be mirror entity, proccing that secret, and the board was left with me and him having a madder bomber.
I wanted to make AI for hearthstone to test and simulate things, but these weird interactions was preventing me from making a simulator like this.