Firefox is another story; they aren't charging, and according to the article, would be responsible for the licensing costs for every one of their (hundreds of millions of?) users.
2,493 karma · joined April 2, 2008
Co-founder of Mux. Previously, co-founder of Zencoder. YC W16 and W10. SF.
Firefox is another story; they aren't charging, and according to the article, would be responsible for the licensing costs for every one of their (hundreds of millions of?) users.
I'm pretty sure this is not true in the US. "State schools" (eg University of [state]) are private organizations that are chartered by the state, and partially funded by the government. So there is definitely a strong public link, but they're still private, and there is a big difference between a public university and (say) a public secondary school.
Not to disagree with your overall point; public funds should come along with some basic respect for the Bill of Rights.
For general amusement, read through the comments on the Wired article. The guy is accused of lying because "a DSLR flash can't light a pitch black room" and "his iPhone battery couldn't last 65 hours".
No more. First, there is a lot of research that most people need 8+ hours of sleep, and that this is determined genetically. As in, not everyone can move to a 4 hour sleep night without side effects.[1]
Second, I'm happier and more productive when I'm well rested. Better 16 good hours a day than 20 bad hours.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/health/research/14sleep.ht... (registration req'd)
This makes sense, but it scares me a little. Entrepreneurial types frequently do what Fusion Garage and Arrington did, though usually on a lesser scale. A product person and a tech person might get together for a week to try something out, and they might even talk about formalizing a relationship. Often, this is done to just test a relationship or test an idea. I'd hate to think that one would have grounds to sue the other for "false promise" because of something like this.
What's the difference between two parties exploring an idea together and actually having an implicit, binding, unwritten contract?
Studying history, philosophy, literature, art, etc. helps you learn how to think and communicate. Someone who knows how to think and communicate can pick up business or programming easily enough, and can consult formal training when they're ready for it (which is rarely at the age of 20).
These aren't absolutes, of course - there are plenty of philosophy majors who can't think their way out of a cardboard box, and plenty of business majors who think really well.
The government has a mandate, and the power, to fund itself. The same isn't true of charities.
1. Tell them how much something will cost. "Great idea! A live chat widget will cost another $20,000. What do you think?"
2. Make them prioritize. Pick things that you know are more important. "How should we prioritize that change compared to paid subscriptions and the Help system?"
3. Make them remember. Put it on the backlog and don't start it until they ask for it again.
4. Offer them alternatives. We once had a client who wanted native Excel exports of reports. We suggested either CSV exports or HTML table exports, which Excel can read.
(This is more "no" to features than to design decisions, but the principal is similar.)
"As a user, I should be able to mark my favorite posts, so that I can find them again." It may turn out that users don't need to find old posts, or would prefer to search instead of looking through an old list.
Reminds me of the recent Pyramid Method post here[1]. Succeed in a small sector that gives you frequent feedback. Once you're mastered that sector, move on to bigger things.
Absolutely. If you really want to learn, you'll do far better by apprenticing than by studying in the classroom. Check out Corey Haines (http://www.coreyhaines.com/) for inspiration.
Then, if you want a little more formal understanding, go back to school. But don't go until you've worked for a while - like 10 years.
People were also upset by two things. First, some 1.9 features were backported into 1.8.7, meaning an upgrade from 1.8.6 to 1.8.7 was sometimes painful. Second is numbering confusion. Ruby used to use even numbers for stable releases, and odd numbers for experimental releases. So 1.9 should be experimental, and 1.10 or 2.0 stable. But for various reasons, they didn't want to go to either 1.10 (ever) or 2.0 (yet), so 1.9 will be used for production releases. It has taken a long time for Ruby folks to realize that they should be using 1.9.
"If American children of 1932 could take an IQ test normed in 1997 their average IQ would have been only about 80.[2] In other words, half of the children in 1932 would be classified as having borderline mental retardation or worse in 1997." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect)
Which is true, of course. But that doesn't mean that unit testing isn't terribly useful.
1. 20th century classical. I really love Shostakovich, Stravinksy, Bartok, and others who blended "classical" elements (18th and 19th centuries) with modern ideas. At its best, their music is as rich and enjoyable as Mozart and Beethoven, but unusual and fresh at the same time.
2. Contemporary minimalism. (Contemporary maybe meaning 1960s and on.) Especially Arvo Part, Gorecki, and John Adams. Beautiful, haunting, original, and accessible. If you're looking for recommendations, try Fratres and Tabula Rasa by Arvo Part, or Symphony #3 by Gorecki. Really unbelievable music.
3. Bach. 300 years old, and better than anything that's come since. He rides the tension between simplicity and complexity, beauty and the sublime. If humans are still around in 20,000 years, when they look back to the 1000's, they'll think of Bach and Shakespeare. Recommendations: cello suites, cantatas, St. Matthew's Passion, and everything else.
(edit) I'm less experienced with visual art, but Kiki Smith definitely deserves a mention. I also enjoy Gerhard Richter, Kandinsky, Chagall, and Klee.