dotrob

I'd love to read his account of how he interpreted the increasingly digital and electronic items he encountered during his burglaries: flat screen TVs; computers; ever smaller radios, flashlights, calculators; thermostats; microwave ovens; clocks. He had some education in electronics, so it seems he must have spent some time, even a little bit, reflecting on the technological changes he witnesses as an outside observer.

In the puzzle statement, "A six inch high cylindrical hole is drilled through the center of a sphere," through is the keyword, rather than into.

I made the same initial mistake of misreading through as into.

"Theranos" reads very similar to "thanatos" to me, which is unfortunate. I had to force myself to read it as "thERaNos."

Scalia's dissent is informative on many of the questions being raised in the comments (starting on page 23 of the ruling here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-461_l537.pdf).

He compares Aereo to a photocopy shop that provides users with library cards to access materials. Providing the copier and the card isn't a direct violation of the Copyright Act (via direct, volitional "performance" of a copyrighted work). Aereo may be guilty of a secondary violation (enabling a direct violation by others), but that wasn't the question before the court.

To make it even more interesting, this case was specifically about the "play" function of Aereo, and the Supreme Court wasn't addressing at all its "record" function, which is essentially returned to lower courts for them to decide (and I suppose only if Aereo continues to fight).

I liked your article -- I appreciated the different perspective it presents (kind of outside-looking-in on the coding/startup job).

The article also led me on to "Invisible Burden" and "Why Stories Are So Important" -- great stuff. Thanks for writing those.

Twenty years ago, those major ISPs were using the telephone system (via dial-up), which was designated a common carrier. If ISPs had to convince everyone to buy into a new cable or dish transmission system because the tel-cos could block their traffic over the phone lines or charge inflated fees for it, where would we be now?

I find this whole thing a tempest in a teacup. The original claim that the scanners are flawed doesn't strike me as explosive a revelation as it's being made out to be. My guess is the machines could be modified to change the background color behind the scanned person's silhouette.

The quote from the TSA ("Any guidance provided is to caution reporters not to generalize...") is merely saying "don't jump to conclusions on the basis of some activist's blog post/video," which is quite a reasonable "cautionary" statement. Sure, they're covering their ass some, but if they're truly being sued by this guy, they probably can't even get into things with him in the media anyway.

Granted, I have no love for the TSA, but some of this anti-TSA rhetoric seems like groping of a different kind.

I'll make the seemingly-obvious argument that is made every time this issue comes up in Internet forums: "natural" scrolling is fine for a single user of a single computer, but if you use multiple computers -- particularly multiple OSes -- "natural" scrolling is anything but natural.

Further, it may be easy to adapt to for one person on one system, but what is the net benefit? It seems to me the sole benefit for "natural" scrolling (and most other Lion changes) is seen primarily in unifying the UI for users who own a Mac and one or more iOS devices. Otherwise, it's yet one more change forcing users to adapt. And yet, the new scrolling method is the default. Was the old way really hindering anyone?