GoodIntentions

Not looking for any argument here - the shots on the landing page are great examples of what Getty does and can continue doing.

I agree that the serious hobbyists that feed micro stock companies those 2 dollar pictures will not compete with warzone shots, shots requiring $$$ cost in travel, props, lots of models or whatever to set up unless they happen to be professionals "double-dipping" on a paid shoot. The cash just isn't in it.

The Micro-stock guys might surprise you though at how much cash they have invested in gear ( including lights ) Some of them take perfectly good photos of subjects that might previously have only been sourced more expensively through agency or in house.

Getty isn't after anyone that thinks 160 is expensive. They're after companies/individuals that understand 160 is much cheaper than paying 1+ professional for n hours to "maybe" get a usable shot.

Having said that, the profusion of really really good modestly priced pro-am cameras has spawned an ugly race-to-the-bottom on stock photography. You can get ( often quite good ) stock photos for next to nothing from the low cost stock photography sites.

To put it in HN parlance, Getty's model has been thoroughly 'disrupted'.

That works great if the spammer hasn't forged the return address. Many spam emails contain forged headers and a working link to the scam website in the body.

A few years ago some #$^%er sent a few bazillion porn dvd spam emails with one of my domains in the header. An amazing number of admins/folks like yourself actually reply to a forged address.

some beautifully pointed satire from "The IT Crowd"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rNgCnY1lPg

pretty much sums up my feelings...

>> fair

I was going to post exactly that. People are funny. If they perceive something is biased against them, they are much less likely to adopt its' use or even encourage its' existence. In fact, I bet there is a fair bit of quiet satisfaction around here every time another "$xxxx bitcoin stolen" story gets posted simply because most of us feel as tho the ship has sailed and we missed it. FWIW, I don't really care one way or another - if this currency exists in ten years, it'll just be another opportunity I missed early on. I'm at peace with that, but I am also not going to buy a bitcoin mining rig. :P

>> Fukishima plant

Actually it sounds like the plant failed due to some poor - in retrospect - design assumptions. The generators required to keep cooling systems running safely were buggered by the same disaster.

"fail-over" - they got it half right.

It doesn't matter if you accept cookies or not. If the site you visits presents content ( script, button, whatever ) served from another site, you may be tracked server side via log + all the goodies in your request header.

>> you have absolutely no way of knowing until you get to the site and it's already too late.

https://www.requestpolicy.com/

It works.

>> They have an eighth of humanity as users.

If anything, that brings FB into a whole new realm of risk. Combine this with the fundamentals ( or lack of ) and it seems better left untouched.

much better to do it the other way - allow your users to fill out their email address _once_, generate a confirmation link and mail it to them.

If they really want to service, they'll click the link.

>> "I'm much more interested in working on this kind of technology/product/etc. and I want to go pursue my dream."

IMHO, this has some chance of hurting OP, depending on how similar the "new direction" is, how litigious they are and how successful OP is in what he does next.

I'd stick to "personal reasons" or none at all.

IMHO, just avoid the whole question and rent outside the USA.

If you aren't adverse to rolling your own solution, do what I do - a really cheap UK hosted VPS + rsync.

I can get at it from my phone or desktop and it costs next to nothing.

I read someplace that 60% of the English language web sites use google analytics. add in any DNS requests passing through google's DNS, adwords js views, google searches etc and it's not hard to assume they can see pretty much whatever they need to build an advertising profile for you.

I suspect facebook is a close second with the tracking of outbound links from FB and "like" buttons all over...

This is so completely true. The company is being assessed as much as the candidate. Probably anyone who has interviewed candidates has lost one that they really wanted to hire simply because the company 'failed the interview'. I know I have.

Worthwhile candidates tend to have criteria and the self esteem required to ask questions right back at you.

I'm guessing many people's first response to this situation in real life would be to call out to coworkers - hey can anyone read this?, yet most of us would stick to the solo problem solving mechanics in our answer - search the # online, ocr + babelfish, call the number cold, whatever.

I understand fermi tests are intended to show broad problem solving abilities, but imho, these tests are for lazy people. Talk to a candidate for 20 minutes. If you can't tell if he/she is suited for the role, or at least for a follow up interview, one of you is not qualified.

That RFC was the first thing that came to mind for me...

some folks will read ".secure" as ".pwn-this-i-dare-you" and it will happen eventually unless you air-gap any ".secure" machine from the "real" web. This idea is about as effective as the evil bit RFC imho, just less funny.

so if my math is right approx 25 req/sec put paid to it. interesting. Perhaps I should re-think inlining js and css on landing pages.

If it isn't asking too much, would you mind telling HN about it? what kind of traffic you saw, what hardware/software platform you have in place?

>> Why do so many people still use redundant HTML tags?

1. Dinna know you could skip them "legally"

2. Increased readability at nearly no cost

3. Concern that browser "x" will render crap if I skip them.

atm, we seem to be crushing their webserver. If you're feeling kind, don't click.

The page copy is just two sentences, one in German, one in English - essentially:

"due to unsustainable pricing, the math department has canceled Elsevier subs"

Per the article, LEO has immunity:

"if they were acting within their scope of authority and the conduct was not willful, wanton, or reckless."

I think this is pretty much the way it works everywhere in North America - sworn officers are ( rightfully ) immune to prosecution while in discharge of their duties. _unless_ their conduct qualifies as malfeasance. Arguably, ( in my mind at least ) arresting people for simply recording the public conduct of an officer already falls into this territory.

Smaller and faster is great, but does it have semi colons?

I hear they're out of fashion..

Edit: posted this 4 minutes ago and already got 4 downvotes. Some of you guys really care about this don't you?

Carry on, not like I was gonna save up karma for a free plane ticket or something :P

OK. I didn't read all that, but...

I have in the past worked for a company that essentially asked for everything I did 24/7 be assigned to them. I negotiated my right to develop on my own time anything that did not compete. It took a few back and forths with the legal counsel, but in the end it was fair to everyone. If they aren't willing to do that much for you, I'd find a better employer.

I suspect the newer domain would look more active, more current and therefore more likely to host content useful now/of contemporary interest.

I suspect ranking 'degrades' slightly over time - don't keep adding content and lose places in the SERP.

Having said that, it's pretty much hypothetical. A ten year old domain will have more links and more content, and I think _that_ is why old domains rank well. It usually takes time to develop a great quantity of useful, ranking content and links, hence the perception that "aged domains" are more valuable.

Anyone else have thoughts / different view on this?

Hypothetical situation:

Two domains with identical volume/quality of content and equally good back links, Site A being 10 years old, Site B 1 year old. ( IE remove all considerations other than time )

My money is on site B showing higher in the serps.

Nothing says the current user of the machine is the tech-savvy installer. My mother's comp has no-script on it, but she is in no way strong technologically.

A "mom-level" user may well enable scripts when prompted by an artful redirect like say:

1. A clone of your bank website (if you were headed there)

2. A page-not-found or server error page that looked normal..

3. the old "virus alert" scam

I think you are right.

Why default when you control the currency that all your foreign debt is denominated in? The us has an option other countries in this position do not.

If you haven't already, check out "request policy".

It's a plugin I'm using in FF alongside noscript. It makes browsing kind of noisy, but educational. As with your observation about 'like' buttons, I notice the more craptastic sites often try to pull content from 10+ other domains. ( Request policy stops these cross domain requests until approved )

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/requestpolicy...

ok, asking from total ignorance here - I know 0 about the film industry and live 1000s of miles from LA, but sorta curious.

Isn't there a minimum scale for wages required for any film? Or is it only if the film somehow becomes a "union" job?