It's great, but as you have both domains now, you should really just run with codeAcademy.com if at all possible (which is what everyone remembers it as) rather than orienting your branding to deal with the name confusion (box around the code etc).
It doesn't give you everything on the same screen but if you can't live without the automated filtering of a tabbed inbox, try the "Quick links" Gmail lab rather than multiple inboxes for fast access to Needs Action / Awating Reply (essentially you can save searches to the stars which appear as a set of links below your categories on the left).
So the question is: what is the biggest killer of startups? Practicalities (I can't go to this meeting because I can't afford the coffee) or psychology (the funding killed my sense of urgency?)
While I have sympathy for your point of view, as a founder hitting the practical issues every day the idea that all financial support is toxic just doesn't wash with me.
The point is rather than these bodies acting as gatekeepers deciding what they think will work or not, funds should be distributed via a lottery subject to some basic criteria.
In fact, that is rather the point of the matching funds you mentioned - they let the private sector decide the winners and come in on the same times. That said, there's still a checklist of what sectors they will and won't fund - and it so happens that some startups get unreasonably pigeonholed.
Exactly. I understand where the article is coming from, but I couldn't disagree more. Competition is both inevitable and a force for innovation.
Even if we were all to rally behind Webkit (unlikely), what happens when a significant portion of the community decide they don't like the direction of the project (and they will, sooner or later) - we'll get a fork, and be back to square one, only with a huge amount of damage done to the open ecosystem we have now.
I got a screen resolution error at 1280x1024, but clicking onto the demo video and then hitting back in my browser got me to the app (which looked absolutely fine at my res).
Other than that, looks awesome, and really responsive on my slow netbook which is great for an app like this.
Microsoft did some early work on HTTP access to email. The Outlook Express client application uses a fully HTTP-based interface to do all mail functions on Exchange mail stores as well as Hotmail. At the time, Hotmail could or did not support IMAP. The Microsoft API uses PROPFIND to list mailbox contents (this mechanism predated Atom by several years).
To heavily paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: those who would give up privacy to obtain moderately more relevant search results, deserve neither privacy nor relevant search results.
Privacy is freedom, knowledge is power, convenience is safety.
> Maybe where we differ is that I sort of see the end of privacy as a foregone conclusion
It might well be, but that doesn't mean it's not worth fighting for in the meantime. I don't believe human society is evolved enough to handle a complete loss of privacy quite yet.
> Credit card companies [...] [sell our] data with absolutely no compunctions
You've just reinforced my earlier point. This is precisely why we don't want Google to profit from our personal data. I want Google to stay on my side.
> I don't think it's fair to call Google "evil" until they actually do something evil
I didn't. But as I said earlier, if they allow themselves to enter into a situation where they're either forced to do "evil" or can't tell if what they're doing is "evil" or not, they are not adhering to the spirit of their motto.
However I think at this point we should call it a day and agree to disagree as we're starting to go around in circles. I did very much enjoy the discussion though and it gave me much food for thought.
I'll leave you with this:
Privacy has to be viewed in the context of relative power. For example, the government has a lot more power than the people. So privacy for the government increases their power and increases the power imbalance between government and the people; it decreases liberty. [...] Privacy for the people increases their power. It also increases liberty, because it reduces the power imbalance between government and the people. (Bruce Schneier)
> The occasions of Google's data being compromised are notable for being exceptions
So far, but the risks are only going to get worse. Eventually the value of our data, at least in aggregate, will exceed the costs of defeating Google's security (assuming it's even as good as the money they put into it). And please don't forget, the government can take a peek anytime for free.
> Google makes money by keeping that private data confidential, while Facebook makes money by selling the data
They use it for exactly the same purpose. To sell ads. Neither platform has, or likely ever will, sell our data outright. That is absolutely the last thing I'd be worried about.
Of course, like the government, you don't know who will be in charge tomorrow or what their intentions might be.
> These are the companies' respective structural traits. And I think that's what makes Google unique.
All institutions will try and do terrible things if you set up the wrong incentives.
> Can you elaborate as to how this new strategy no longer aligns our interests with Google
We are paying for this with our privacy. I'm not sure how much clearer I can get. Improvements to Google's index used to cost us nothing. Now they cost us our data. The more data they collect, the more money they will make. That sets their interests squarely against ours; yes, true, we want good search results. We also want the government to arrest all the terrorists. I'm not prepared to live my life as an open book to achieve these results.
> to me the benefits far outweigh the risk/cost.
You've asked me a lot of questions, let me ask you some. What happens when the benefits no longer outweigh the risks but Google tell you sorry, our profiling isn't finished yet. What if through some change in your personal circumstances the data they hold suddenly becomes damaging to you. What will you do if they go too far? Will you know straight away? Will you have time to make a decision? Will you be able to tell them to stop? How will you get Google to delete your data if you want them to leave you alone? Are you expecting the government to step in and help even though they're directly benefiting from all this data collection? Are you perfectly happy that they have access to it all? Would you so willingly hand over the same data to them directly?
> Could you point me to the obvious internal disquiet?
It was to this [0] article I was referring. I don't think he was misrepresented, but the Larry Page quote was really beside the point.
Edit: reworded the paragraphs below for clarity
> impending but vaguely characterized misuse of that data.
There have already been a number of occasions where either Google's network was compromised [1], a rogue employee has misused data [2] or users have had their accounts hacked [3] en masse. And of course, on top of this, various government and intelligence agencies have had access to your data [4].
None of that should be the least bit shocking or surprising, because such outcomes are inevitable when a large company holds so much data. I'm not going to blame Google; none of those incidents served their interests and indeed compared to most companies Google are unusually transparent and responsive about these issues. But knowing that these things will happen regardless of their good intentions, Google should seek to minimise and not maximise the amount of data they hold on us.
> > Once they have the data and it's been mined for further meaning, it's inevitable they'll find new uses for it.
> This does not seem at all self-evident to me.
Perhaps I should have said, "it's inevitable they'll find new ways to make money from it". They're a company, after all.
> In fact, it seems to me that Google's incentives are such that it's pretty much in their interest to use the data well. [...] And they have every incentive to keep their users' trust.
Well, we could say that about any company, and yet abuses occur regularly. If you set a companies profit motive against the best interests of it's customers, the cost of a breach of trust will simply be factored into the equation. Unfortunately it is frequently the case that while a breach of trust may be costly, it's not always costly enough.
I don't think there's anything exceptional about Google here. They're not immune to corruption. Google has served us so well so far because our interests are aligned; it's the surest way to prevent an abuse of trust in the future and why I'm so concerned about their new strategy.
> First, I'm enjoying this discussion and I'm glad it remains civil. Thanks!
Yes, me too!
> I don't see these as divergent.
Not divergent in the sense that one precludes the other, but where one doesn't involve me, the other is all about me. The old Google cared only about my search terms, the new Google seems to want to climb in my bed with a notepad and figure me all out.
> Does Google have to not be evil in the eyes of every one of its employees?
Google, the institution, just has not to be evil, as they have defined evil. That there's obvious internal disquet about their new direction should be fairly disqueting to you.
> Could you describe in what ways you think Google is building an institution that leads them inevitably toward doing evil?
It doesn't matter how many websites Google crawl or books they digitise, we don't have to trust them or their intentions or any of their staff. But our personal information can be used both for us and against us, and it's eventual misuse is inevitable whether by the institution, corrupt agents within it, or parties outside of it. The only thing we can do is limit the potential damage by limiting the data they hold on us.
> Maybe the part I don't understand is what lies at the bottom of the personal data mine.
That's part of the problem, I don't think anyone does really. We're in uncharted territory and part of the reason it's so tricky is so much can be inferred about you from seemingly innocuous data, or from analysing your social graph.
> Is it a matter of how much data they collect? What they do with the data?
Well they have a loosely defined need which is pushing them to collect this data. It seems fairly benign; to improve search. But where does it end? Larry Page doesn't seem to have drawn a line anywhere. Once they have the data and it's been mined for further meaning, it's inevitable they'll find new uses for it. So one leads to the other, leading back to the first.
Google is staffed by thousands of very clever people. I don't want them spending their days trying to figure me out. They're not uncorruptible. It's bad enough Facebook is at it; we really don't need Google competing with them in this endeavor. If we allow the situation to get out of hand, the winner will be the company that holds the most complete portfolio of information on us. Are you comfortable with that?