cal2

I've never considered myself to have a particularly special eye for architecture and design, but that doesn't mean I'm incapable of recognizing good design when I see it (subjectively, of course).

When I looked at these picture, I made most of the same observations that you made, but I think I made them subconsciously without "appreciating" them to their fullest extent.

I went back and looked at the pictures again after reading your comment, and some subtle details in the pictures were much more apparent and pleasing to me.

Thanks for helping me realize my daily lesson (i.e., notice and appreciate the small things more often)!

Perhaps both words could be equally applicable in this respect. :-)

It appears as if only one of the founding individuals has a degree in anything remotely pertaining to nutrition (David Renteln, degree in "Human Evolutionary Biology").

Speaking as a biochemist who works in the biotech industry, this looks to be like a gigantic train wreck just waiting to happen.

At first glance, I would be convinced these individuals know very little about the science behind their product. They all have a bunch of fancy business acronyms next to their name, yet the majority of this group appears to have little scientific background.

Website annoyances:

- Why is a benzene ring in the background of their logo? Sure, the benzene moiety is prolific and crucial throughout biological systems, but plain benzene is a toxic carcinogen.

- Why is their favicon cyclohexane instead of benzene, if that was why they're going for?

Nor does it really have to be.

I think this was an interesting case wherein someone used available technologies in a clever manner to retrieve one's stolen personal property. (Though the man could not have handled the situation more poorly.)

Not really something you see on an everyday basis.

While I'm familiar with this paradox (to the point I know that it exists), I understand exactly 0% of maths beyond differential equations.

As a (bio)chemist, this paradox has always bugged me profusely.

Perhaps I should set aside some time someday to grasp a very basic understanding of what's going on here. :p

This may be of interest to you (non-free):

http://www.pixelscript.net/monodyslexic/

Not entirely sure if this is legal (I'll take it down if it's not), but here's the full article (PDF warning): http://db.tt/ws6QSyVa

For those who cannot view the article due to the paywall:

"Imaging the charge distribution within a single molecule"

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4701012/nnano.2012.20.pdf

System Preferences > Language & Text > Input Sources > Enable: Kannada

The letter is SHIFT + ' (or just ") to yield ಠ.

Your comment sounds like TeXShop only uses XeTeX, which is not true. TeXShop certainly has the option to use XeTeX, along with plain TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXt, and other variants. :-)

My thoughts exactly!

Huh?

I think Stasis is great in theory, but a few things are preventing me from using it full time. Namely that I can't pass simple options to a template engine (of which I do a lot).

It appears that you're the author. Can you offer any information on how Stasis is, in some ways, better than nanoc?