I've read those, which are good, but I think this one is better than all of them put together:
http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Well-30th-Anniversary-Edition/...
1,517 karma · joined April 7, 2011
http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Well-30th-Anniversary-Edition/...
Of course, reasonable people can disagree on this, but I think the questionable accounting standards (see: adjusted consolidated segment operating income) that they made up to hide their huge weaknesses before the IPO came straight from the top.
I think Mason knew the wheels were coming off even before the Google offer, and he decided to take the guaranteed 1 billion instead of risking not making it through due diligence with Google. Then, push the accelerator to the floor, try to obfuscate the numbers as much as possible, and get away with as much money as possible before the IPO investors were left holding the bag.
At the time, I remember reading that almost the entirety of the investment went to buy out early investors.
So it looks like Mason got the best of both worlds: he got the cash out a substantial number of shares and then hang on for the IPO upside.
You also forget to mention that the Google deal was contingent upon due diligence, which now, in hindsight, may not have even successfully gone through.
The basic functionality is great, but having the ability to make clickable online demos where I could send links to people would be a killer feature that would make me switch very quickly.
Having said that, a few UX notes:
-You have incompletely applied the tab metaphor on the left-hand panel. For a while, I was trying to figure out why a label was a stencil but a paragraph was an image. At the very minimum, your "shaded" tab should extend under the other one to show that it applies to both columns.
-Categorizing your stencils, even a little bit, would help. Balsamiq screwed this up, and now they have a bunch of nonsensical categories (quick, what would you expect to find under media?)
-I would recommend grouping your stencils by things that tend to be used together. For example, form elements should be all together, mobile stuff too.
-I know you're not native, but the right-click context menu on Balsamiq is much better than putting the align/arrange/lock at the top of the screen. I use this stuff a lot, and the extra distance is a pain
-Also, I don't see the capability to have some sort of templates. That's definitely a must for any decent size project
/edit I just discovered the context menu (double delayed click is a good solution). Still think at least the lock button belongs on the menu and not at the top
It sounds like you're justifying rent control on the basis of aesthetics.
* There's not enough information on your homepage for me to figure out what you do
* The information I need is between one and three clicks away ("learn more", and then "more" until I've read enough to get it), clicking "more" just gets in the way
* I don't really get the "you will", "we will" dichotomy. Frankly, I don't care what "I will" do, all I want to know is how this product is going to make my life easier.
* Stop using buzzwords ("message-based collaboration", "asynchronously"), and just tell me what you do in plain English
* Some of the English phrases come out awkwardly ("We will guide you to prepare quality agenda before calling the meeting.")
Having said all that, it's a neat idea, and I hope it catches on. We all need fewer meetings.
However, since I see these things coming up all the time, and there doesn't seem to be any great movement against them, I'm going to attempt an intelligent response.
First, as said already below, this graph compares eight years of the Bush administration to three years of the Obama administration "projected" into 2017. To anyone familiar with Washington projections, not only are they usually embarrassingly inaccurate, but they are also based on rosy assumptions. See the recent healthcare projections as an example: I don't have enough time to go into detail, but because of the way the CBO operates, their forecasts are constrained by what is actually in the bill versus what they think will happen. Simply put, if the bill says that it will reduce the deficit, then they have to put those assumptions into their forecast even if they don't think that it will come to pass.
Second, the graph seems to ignore the fact that Obama is not powerless in the face of Bush spending priorities.
A couple of examples: True, Bush started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, the "surge" in Afghanistan was all Obama's idea, and it was also his idea to keep troops in Iraq for several years into his first term.
Also, the "Bush" tax cuts are essentially now the "Bush-Obama" tax cuts, because as of recently, the bill has Obama's ink all over it. He certainly didn't veto the renewal of the tax cuts.
Third, the Obama graph does not include all of the additional spending that he wanted but did not get (high-speed rail, more infrastructure, green energy, student loans, etc.), including his most recent request of almost half $1 trillion of stimulus.
I would not disagree that we have a spending problem, but this graph does not contribute to any meaningful discussion of a solution.
Also, since everyone knows that Ezra Klein is at best left-leaning, please allow me to link to a equally right-leaning opinion on the same matter:
http://keithhennessey.com/2011/11/21/the-presidents-missed-o...
Okay, what if I were to take several blog posts and put them together, have them published, and pay for the publishing myself. Is that speech?
What if I were to make a video and pay for the production myself and give it away on the Internet? Is that speech?
What if I took that same video and bought air time on the national networks? Is that speech?
My point is, while speech isn't money, speech and money are inseparable. It's impossible to regulate money in politics without infringing in some way on freedom of speech.