All else aside, calling the person who turned the phone over to Gizmodo a thief might amount to slander, so Craig should be careful. This would be something for a court to decide: e.g. http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/6/45-6-302.htm . Note "permanently".
Good move, you now have one more user to not-track. I'll be trying DuckDuckGo out as my default search. I'll give you feedback if it doesn't work out. I hope others will give you a try by setting you as the default, too - you can always switch back. (Those that do, change http to https.)
A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that Godel's result suggests a superiority of human over machine, or something of the sort. There is, however, no reason to believe humans aren't themselves subject to Godel's theorem. Formalizing knowledge into a simple elegant system is very difficult, but this isn't a matter for Godel.
The students and parents are also presumably fully aware. If on the other hand they were unaware, the student's mistake of opening a webcam program would not reduce culpability.
I get the feeling that you have no idea how science works, or what he's saying.
He's not saying that the 3rd law is faith, he's saying that you take it on faith. A statement of faith is one that rests on no proof or evidence. Someone who has either wouldn't be giving a dickish answer like "um, 3rd law" or "GTFO", they'd be busy explaining.
The most important part of science is questioning and attempting to falsify current theories. He has a legitimate question, answer it or be quiet.
They're not trying to compete with Apple. It's just a demo they had lying around (probably from back when everyone was going crazy about chrome os), which they released because everyone's going crazy over tablets.
Yes, it feels like "vinyl" - like I'm listening to vinyl except I'm in a little storage closet and I just tipped a box of records all over my face and my face is bleeding.
You broke your site. This is a visualization with an interface crowded into it. Revert and offer this - let's calm down and be honest - basic slideshow as a new visualization.
Imagine that instead of a pretty picture of the band, there was just a white background. Now look at the interface. It's a nightmare. The song that I'm listening to is controlled at the top right, except for hearts/comments, which are on the left side (except when I try to give a heart, the button slides away from me). The song-forward and back buttons are on opposite sides of the screen, well away from play/pause/volume. None of this would be a problem if the controls were visually/conceptually linked in some non-spatial way, but they are not.
I'd like to know the user testing process you used, and whether you ran this by whoever did your already-great former UI layout. I just hope your guiding light wasn't a small group of hardcore users and passers-by shouting "awesome, intimate, inspired, daring, and elaborate". It sure as hell wasn't your community.
Surprisingly, the South Butt is not selling butts, so tarnishment is not a serious claim. (Unless, of course, butts are "unsavory" in the jurisdiction - had a sufficiently rude word been used, tarnishment would be likely). In fact, they are selling clothing. So the standard interpretation of trademark blurring is also not quite applicable. Using a parody of a famous brand as your own brand even for commercial purposes is... apparently ok, in many cases.
I think they have a great case for infringement, though. From a reasonable distance (a few feet), I can't tell the difference. Oh, right - the south butt logo is on the left. Except, of course, when the item in question (say, a bag) is lying on the floor. Or maybe I don't care that much to remember details, relying more on crass pattern-recognition.
If you think that the text of a logo has all that much to do with the logo, then you're missing the point of having a logo. A "South Butt" logo could have been made that infringed on pepsi, or on mcdonalds. But we'll see how this goes.
You can't summarize that paper. The responses to the various objections are vital; they are part of the central argument, not tangential to it. The positive argument is also much richer than you portray it, and therefore much more convincing.
Save your summaries for techcrunch. They are not for refereed writing on subject X (i.e. 'existential risk') by the foremost authority on subject X. If you're not reading the whole thing (perhaps 2 or 3 times), you may as well not read it.
I like the clean interface. Your gear image looks ugly. Remove the period after "...wage right now".
Set up a comet-based common chat that everyone sees, and sit in it. This will let you help users learn to use your system, and will give you valuable feedback which you can use to improve it. You need to make "sitting around waiting for work" interesting. One way to do this is to piggyback the rest of the site on an irc-like technical chat.
You absolutely need a reputation system for this.
Why limit yourself to tutoring and to minimum wage? What if I'd like someone to give me a code review for $3?
Why waste 20 minutes of a professional developer's time, multiplied by the average number of reviewers, with a bonus for bad advice due to inexperience?
You know those clients who think programming is easy? Writing and reviewing copy is hard. So is pretending that you're an unbiased fresh-minded user, in a group of novice reviewers.
1) Tell me what you think the site is for. 2) Is this site attractive? 3) Try to perform task X, cancel before it asks for credit card info, and tell me what the most annoying thing was. 4) etc.
Send them several sites to review, including yours and your competitors'. Save $200 or heaps of everyone's time. Or pay a professional.