sdfx

Maybe other reader are better, faster, more feature-rich, but it seems to be the ease of use that people are looking for.

It's a compatibility feature, allowing older software to run at the speed it was intended to run at (mainly games).

The links in your widgets seem to be broken "post a job" and the image-link end up on the start page, not shure this is intentional.

Apart from design, I think the idea is neat. I am not shure how your payout compares to regular advertisement, but the posibility of a large profit might convince a lot of people to put your widgets on their page.

We then proceeded to discuss how it's sad that identity is still hard online.

Couldn't this be solved, at least for the tech-savvy crowd, by beeing able to sign an openID-account with a PGP-Signature? This way you could "prove" that your openID belongs to you, the same way you can prove the authenticity of an email right now.

The problem with this is that openID is no fun right now and the last thing that is needed is more complexity. But at least Jeff would be able to know whether or not Alan Kay really posted on his page.

>"The same 100 hour project with all the filler code obfuscated by Django or Ruby On Rails now takes 20 hours."

Ruby is so awesome that it simply saves 80% of your time? Really? You can't be serious. Yes, I understand the argument: If you remove all the fluff, you end up with the core problem, but I just can't believe that it's true.

>"Saving $800 over a higher skilled, more reliable, and more creative $80 an hour developer.[...] Its not worth $800, be happy with the $6,200 saved."

You should at least compare the 800$ to the 1600$, which is a saving of 50% - the risk might be higher, but the core problem is also in the "regular" project and you had no problem sourcing that out.

Seriously, these made up numbers are not helping. Maybe there is a truth to this argument, maybe not. But declaring you can get the same product for 20% of the price if you'd just use the right language is just wrong.

Actually, this is a fermi problem. [1] The purpose of this question is to figure out if someone can break a question down into parts and estimate reasonable values. But even more so, it is supposed to test whether you are enthusiastic about strange and puzzling problems. [2]

Whether you think these questions are stupid or not, the right answer isn't "I give up, just google it", but rather "let me make some assumptions and calculate a value based on some estimates"

Having said that, I think the number is arround 100,000 [3]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_problem [2] http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000073.html [3] http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi975.htm

There are historical prices available at finance.google.com. Backtesting your strategy before playing around with real money is probably a good idea.

I think this idea is only limited scaleable - I presume it is not much cheaper to produce one unique item or 1000.

On the other hand, I could see something like threadless emerge for designs in general: They'd partner with "real" designers and produce small series of each piece and sell it until it's gone. Something in between etsy and threadless.

"BTW.. I think it is incredibly ignorant to post such a question with the purpose of mocking those who are not informed on Turing."

1 -> 11177

2 -> 11172

3 -> 11158

4 -> 11144

5 -> 11144

6 -> 11158

7 -> 11172

...not quite

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pq4tB7LQWN03gF7ImGhIP...

According to the article, he knew he was not allowed to sell his stake. Maybe he was upset and was not thinking straight, but if the events happened as depicted in the article, there is no other way to describe this than "wrong".

I hope this one catches on.

"Word from CodeWeavers execs is that the free license will be for a download-only flavor of the Pro version (!), including the Games optimized build and the option to share a Windows 'bottle' among multiple users on the same machine."