GrandMasterBirt

And I suggest getting some brains on it and making intelligent reporting of data. Dig up other email addresses, get all places where they lived, jobs they had, car they have color, kid's names, spouse, etc etc etc. And all with a caption "this is just what a few of us hackers came up with without any funding and a few months, imagine what facebook or large companies spending billions on this could figure out!"

Afterwards we take the shock site and sell the mined information for money, because we can, because were building it (duh).

Oh and for added shock, add things like where they have been, where they eat, their preferred foods, where they usually go from what time to what time, when their apartment is usually unattended, etc.

1 = good only if you trust that person with your life. You don't want the other guy giving up and dragging the rest of the company with him.

2 = Most fair option. It is same as 1 except makes sure ppl work for their shit.

3 = bad. an hr of work != shit got done.

4 = bad. expectation may be unreasonable hard to prove in court.

5. Gota own some of the company

Either you are reliable or not.

If you claim that the data is backed up and so on, then you are giving a garantee. Now yes, if all of amazon's datacenters burn down, or the one where ur data is, yes it will be lost, but that should be the corner case that you prepare for. Thats when you do an offsite backup in your house daily/weekly to ensure that at least there is no one place that burns down = company down the tube.

No matter the solution there is always the probability that shit will happen to all of it.

However if you are selling a reliable service, don't sell an unreliable reliable service. Reliable should mean that at least you back it up so that if one hard drive rack blows up, the data is not gone.

1) I would want a trial before I use it.

2) HN is kind-of the wrong audience. You would probably get more bang for your post at digg or something.

3) While I personally won't use it, I know of a few people who would jump at the opportunity to use this (mostly designers).

Its kind-of the same problem as when you send out emails. Why can't your email client remember that while there are 5 harrys in your address book, only Harry C is the one you send emails to and thus should be on the top of the auto completion list (FF3 betas missed this feature, FF3 has this now).

The problem is:

1) If we do long-term computer learning, the person might judge that this feature is useless. A second person sitting at the computer screws the whole deal.

2) If we do a manual way with "rearrange" were still screwed. Too much work for temporary windows.

3) If the computer guesses wrong, were also screwed because now were stuck with an incorrect ordering.

Consider this one:

What if instead of trying to get alt-tab to work right, we try to get a consistent (press alt-tab x number of times to get from application foo to application bar) which will remain consistent no matter how many windows are open. So if you go from Eclipse -> Firefox, Eclipse -> Firefox -> Twitter, Firefox -> Eclipse, Firefox -> Eclipse -> Twitter, the user can now form a great habbit: If you are in FF, alt-tab = Eclipse, if you are in FF 2xalt-tab = twitter. Etc.

I think a simple formula of Frequency of Use will help. If a habbit is frequent (person switches from application foo -> bar, even using non-alt-tab ways) we can use frequency of use to determine the ordering. Otherwise fall back to LRU (we can always ignore some random tabbing cases). Since a person will keep the recent "places" they been to in their head, it will feel intuitive for them.

I guess dropbox is the way :P

The point is the same with MS. Until Apple started kicking them in the shin, Windows XP (a piece of shit) was the pinnacle of technology. We see XP NOW as shit, but back in the day I was thinking "wow crashing XP is 100x as hard as BSODing in windows 98, windows xp is awesome!" Remember Windows ME (the unwanted child)?

So Adobe building the "lowest common dinominator" technology for cross platform is BS as well. "features x,y,z are for iphone only until android implements it" which means: a) android better start implementing, b) developers have MOST of their work cut out for them when porting. Maybe take a few different directions when porting to android. It's not like I ever expect to write an iphone app and with no work/testing just port it to android and vuala. And maybe for a developer it means no android app until the feature is implemented. And thus back to (a) which is android now has an incentive for implementing features.

Initial reaction: "Boo, you suck". It's called local variables. I've found chaining can sometimes lead to bad readability of code. Chaining is good when doing things like setting multiple attributes or .click(function(){}).click()

There has to be a line drawn somewhere

It is of course missing at least one:

"Never do in jquery what your browser can do internally"

How many of you have ever done this?

$.post(...., function(data){

  var d = $(data);

  d.click();

  $(..., d).doSomething();

  applyHandlers(d /*context*/);

  $("content").append(d);

Yes well the above is TERRIBLE coding. Because d is now parsed, built, and stored by jquery... in the javascript space. If you were to do the following:

{

   $("#content").append(d);

   var d = $("#d'sId");

   // do rest of work

You would make your code 1) faster, and 2) use less memory in the javascript space. Thus large ajax requests process much faster. Thus don't do in jquery what your browser can do natively, like build and store dom.

Seriously, its nice that people have touch screens, but I really REALLY think that video was horrific.

They are paranoid you will steal from them the ideas you code on and compete.

They want to own your ass.

In either case, I don't like paranoid management, and I don't like people "owning my ass".

Now on the flip side I don't see why someone you TRUST can't own the company. You might program for it unofficially while working at your current company.

In any case, what was the quote from Ben Franklin? "He who lets his rights be taken away in the name of security, deserves neither."

People say "oh but it will keep the already crap x-platform apps out" to which I say "Yes it will keep the would-be flashy x-platform POS games/crap apps out, but it will also keep out the apps that let me do my business better that run on Android / WebOS / iPhone because the developers of the TOOLS had to cater to a larger market share."

If I am making a tool that takes pictures and uploads them to my website for special needs of people running on the BlackBerry, Android, WebOS, iPhone because it has to be a compliment to my web tool there is no reason why I can't write it with minimal effort and use the iPhone store to distribute it for free with that exact goal in mind! Its not about making a wonderful iPhone app, its about doing my damn business and giving a business process convenience using the iPhone.

Not every iPhone app has to be a super innovative new way to run the world, sometimes its just a piece of crap complimentary tool that's just needed to do some grunt work easier.

Note: Apple is doing the windows thing: Everyone developed for windows because that was the #1 platform. Then when people complain "oh there are no mac apps" guess why. Now the exact same thing is about the iPhone. The only difference is that Apple at some point decided that Microsoft was not evil enough and one-upped then with the app-approvals and the new TOS.

If I file a law suit that costs the defendant millions due to bad PR, and it turns out the law suit had no basis, the defendant will counter-sue me for the damages caused by a base-less law suite. However there are practical problems with this. In theory this was what would discourage DMCA abuse when the law was written, in the practical sense it does not.

The White House does not care. Sue em. So you can claim anything you want, there is nobody trying to claim safe harbor so they can do whatever.

If I am taking responsibility for all content on my site, then I am not trying to go for safe harbor, if I know none of it hits any copyright violations I will never use safe harbor and take any content down. However my ISP might take my site down if the complaint is made to my ISP not to me because my ISP does not know/care if I am hosting copyrighted content because they don't want the legal headache.

No. Anyone. Period.

"In the long run, this mechanism does not suppress free speech or prevent the information from being distributed if proper counters are filed. However, in the short term it can delay that distribution. This is still potentially significant, but it is a different situation."

Again incorrect. DMCA states that to file a counter notice, you are allowing the DMCA violation filer to go after you in court in their country. So if I am from France and post an article about The Church of Scientology, to counter the DMCA I would have to allow TCOS to sue me in US courts, not in my country's courts. The reason I mention TCOS is because they abused DMCA a few years back silencing most information online giving them negative PR. Only few actually filed counter notices.

In general most people don't file counter-notices because their are either scared about legal procedings or don't know what part hit the DMCA clause, don't want to be taken to court (remember the DMCA notice does not mean the person even knows who you are, they just got information forwarded through the ISP or whatever service) while the counter notice reveals who you are.

We need cases like this to show that certain bills simply violate our rights as Americans. Remember this?

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/index.html

Its all about the delivery. I can say that I want $300k salary on an interview for $80k salary. However it is how I say it, to indicate that my self-worth is $300k but I can settle for 80. They might actually bump it up to 85 because they feel that I am a worthwhile person. But I won't say

"How much were you looking to get paid?"

"$300,000"

It would have to be as a joke, in some context where they know I am placing high self worth and the number is just a manifestation of it.

The anchoring is all about worth. Your brain questions "what is the value of the following item/service" to which your memory tells you "no records found". Now the brain has no context, it must make one up. The anchoring is all about creating the context. If the context already exists, anchoring won't work, or will work marginally well (needs to be proven, need some salesmen comments plz).

He is right. I remember when I learned to bargan, at first I was like "They are asking for $10, how dare I ask for $1?" Now I know that by asking for $1 I am more likely to get $3 which is probably the real value of the product.

Before saying noone is immune, you must first talk to people who haggle EVERYTHING. Talk to them, hang out with them, look at how they look at the world because it is different. These techniques work quite differently on them.

It is not being told about these techniques, it is living them, just like while doing a test for a research, the researcher can't just tell you that they are actually grading you on your sense of balance, and expect you to never stumble, because that is not what your brain normally processes.

Anchoring works today because we are trained for it. Literally. In Russia I remember we never bought a peanut without reducing the price by 50%+. Here everything is labeled and final. Online everything is labeled and final, its not like you can open a chat with amazon's reps and get a book from $10 to $2 due to good haggling.

Its an old post, but the point is you use your cells for this. I guess I was a misinformed in the reasons for the Obama bill. Nevertheless I don't see why there is no big push to show that you don't need to kill babies to get stem cells!