trentfowler

This doesn't quite replicate the pull to refresh on phones but I think the right implementation wouldn't conflict with the expected behavior on desktops.

All it takes to refresh here is to scroll past the top (however barely) whereas on a phone you have to give it a little tug to make it refresh and if you don't pass the threshold on the tug it just bounces back, effectively taking you to the top of the page. I think this is really cool idea and a good implementation but the next iteration would benefit by requiring slightly more 'pull' to activate than you would use normally when doing a simple flick on your trackpad (or scroll on your mouse) to get to the top.

I agree with you 100%. However, I gotta say that the bit about pushing to increase Coke consumption on the extremely poor didn't sit right with me.

So they have this model called "drinks and drinkers" which tells them that heavy drinkers are their bread and butter because it is more efficient to get existing users to drink more than it is to find new 'drinkers.' OK, I get that. But how do they use this information? They identify poor people as potential heavy users and start targeting them by aggressively marketing to vulnerable areas and making smaller bottles that cost only 20 cents. Sure they'll have somewhat lower profit percentages but they can make up the difference in volume.

I follow the logic but here is my problem: is hawking the stuff off on Brazilians living in favelas really ok? You could make the case that it's a win/win scenario (Coke gets more money and poor people get Coke for cheaper than water) but the fact that they are being targeted because they are more susceptible to becoming 'heavy users' (read: addicts) seems nefarious to me.

Then skip the alpha and wait for notification center

This speaks to me.

Sent from my iPhone. (Note: really android but iPhone for dramatic effect)

>Can you add a picture on a female wrist?

01:36 in the video.

If this is true I will be taking my news in tautology form from now on. THIS JUST IN--SCIENTISTS EITHER DID OR DID NOT CONFIRM TODAY THAT PLUTO HAS REGAINED PLANETARY STATUS! WE GO LIVE NOW TO THE MOON WITH MICHAEL JORDAN FOR MORE ON THIS--WAIT--I'M GETTING UNCONFIRMED REPORTS THAT WE MAY ACTUALLY BE TAKING YOU SOMEWHERE ELSE AT DIFFERENT TIME WITH ANOTHER HOST ABOUT AN UNRELATED TOPIC--WAIT--WAIT--I CAN NOW CONFIRM THAT IT MIGHT ALSO BE ONE OF LITERALLY INFINITE POSSIBILITIES, SO STAY TUNED!

Imagine the sensational headline potential for content that is true in the tautological sense, e.g.

"BREAKING NEWS: SCIENTISTS EITHER DID OR DID NOT CONFIRM TODAY THAT PLUTO HAS REGAINED PLANETARY STATUS!"

>Listening to music and talk radio helps reduce our rage on the road, but like television is only a mental diversion. Commercial radio will provide no real future benefit in your life.

Surely music has value beyond mental diversion. No sources here but I think music can have a measurable impact on mood and overall quality of life.

Edit: I completely agree about shopping though. I don't want to waste a single second of my life shopping.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Only major in CS if you genuinely love it. I am a cold logic machine about nearly everything, but when it comes to your career and your life's work, you gotta follow your heart--not your head! Plus learning is easy when you find the subject matter fascinating.

I don't think it's ambiguous in the least. Sure, if I were programming I would add another set of parentheses and the implied * symbol so that it's crystal clear and more reader friendly, but I would toss any calculator that gave me anything other than 6÷2(1+2)=9. I've never read or heard anywhere that an implied * symbol has higher priority than an explicit one. But if that is a reasonable interpretation, Casio has a responsibility to give consistent results across it's entire calculator line.

>But it is also true that if you exercise that right and fulfill that responsibility in an ignorant, harsh, un-American manner, then people are entitled to call you bad citizens and fools. Even your own children are entitled to call you that.

I might have gasped out loud.

The title is perfect. Looking back, I'm not surprised you took it the wrong way. It was a bad joke.

I just think that no matter how high the expected growth is, it's not high enough.

Edit: Like the predictions made about cell phones in the 90s

The title is not sensationalist enough. It should read: "How Facebook Cured Kawasaki's Disease"

Holy Bejesus!

Edit: I'm no stock market wizard but I would still buy Google stock tomorrow. For the foreseeable future, they're going up up up. Mark my words, they'll be pulling 10 billion a quarter before too long.

The author is one cocky guy. This article mostly annoyed me.

>I figured that I, the author of the game, with my degree in mathematics from MIT, and years of puzzle-solving experience, would be much better at solving my own puzzles than random users downloading my app would be.

>I thought there was a mistake because some users were solving puzzles faster than I was! Were they cheating?