I met a 50ish solo programmer a few months ago. His application handles an issue for a specific subset of nonprofit org (I'm probably not giving away too much if I say, churches). The app is not web enabled, it's not social, it doesn't run on ios android or mac. From our conversation I inferred he spends hardly any time on marketing it because he doesn't need more users. Yet he makes a comfortable living solely from the licenses, doesn't touch the app for weeks at a time, and adds new features on his own schedule.
I'm not afraid of a temper tantrum, it shows the client cares. Showing a basic UI that was generated by the use cases will confirm that you understand the client needs, reduces miscommunication and clearly highlights the feature creep you should be charging for. It helps the client sell the project to whoever she reports to. It's easier to change a UI and it's a stronger emotional lock-in for the client (so she doesn't cancel). Win all around!
"Naively, this sounds like one might (a) compute the translation from one pixel to the next in each frame, and (b) re-render the video with small motions amplified. Unfortunately, such an approach would lead to artificial transitions between amplified and unamplified pixels within a single structure. Most of the steps of motion magnification relate to reliably estimating motions, and to clustering pixels whose motions should be magnified as a group."
The math behind the grouping (recognizing the relevant area as an object, magnifying the motion of the area properly, and filling in the empty space intelligently) is the cool "computer vision" part.
I must be old; if Microsoft had even suggested taking a 30% cut of every PC application or purchase via the internet they'd have been lynched. Have most developers gone conformist/apologist?
It seems to be an easy fix to reduce an unnecessary environmental impact, save animal lives, save money on carcass cleanup crews and wire damage, and increase public goodwill. Is there a FAA reason for having steady lights, is it bureacratic inertia, or are the rules accommodating the owners of older towers, or the manufacturers of steady lights?
I think if I were a pilot a flashing light would catch my attention faster than a steady one (cf, blinking vehicle turn signals).
Please take some time to research your inner techniques of logic, and how you assume outcomes and motives (in general). You appear (to me) prone to jumping to definite conclusions based on faulty logic and/or incomplete data. Not an attack, just a comment.
You may be accepting the Kaiser rep's FUD. The quote doesn't say, "these needles break, and BD's don't", or even "these break more than regular needles".
When the Dyson was invented, the bag-vacuum incumbents wanted to licence his technnology and shelve it. He had to go solo to "bring his superior technology to market".
What's wrong with trying to get rich on a product? And using the profits as seed money to bring more useful things to market?
Then they need a lot of smarter military who can integrate this info, while keeping a clear head in the middle of a firefight, and yet be able to follow orders to the death. Soldiers aren't supposed to win every battle.
I expect that between the mental load, the cost of deployment, possible data changes by enemy hackers, and simply being able to pick up dead soldier's equipment and use it, that this will never be something for general rank and file infantry, likely just the officers.
99% of usage will be for entertainment.
It takes a long time to accumulate enough knowledge to get the pattern recognition and competent creativity to be an expert in any field. Brains have speed limits. It'd be nice if the valuation of the field lasted long enough to make it worth acquiring and increasing that knowledge.
Fun thought; what's it like to compete directly against 7 billion people? Do all specialized skills become close to worthless if you're not part of a restrictive "guild" (bar exams, medical board exams, etc) or part of a corporation?
Given what it takes to be admitted to the firm, let alone stay in it for 12 years, I wouldn't consider him "pissant". That time guarantees he's survived and gone above probably 100K other bright hires over the years. Can't say that for most companies.
My take, it's just the press milking the point/counterpoint style of argument to attract more eyeballs and ad dollars.
Did DHS specifically say they were banned for their tweets or is it just a newsworthy assumption? Did the two have any kind of criminal history, or was the denial due to their responses?
This could be like the guy who reportedly entered the US because he showed an iPad photo of his passport. Made news for a few days until US customs said "uh, no, we have our own methods and discretion, the ipad pic didn't matter". Big story became a non-story.
Did DHS specifically say they were banned for their tweets or is it just a newsworthy assumption? Did the two have any kind of criminal history? Were they denied
This could be like the guy who reportedly entered the US because he showed an iPad photo of his passport. Made news for a few days until US customs said "uh, no, we have our own methods and discretion, the ipad pic didn't matter". Big story became a non-story.
I don't consider the Yellow Pages to be content, just hard-to-gather data. For this site, the top level is data which points to content. The comments are the content, for me.
Can I offer some thoughts that seem to go against the majority opinion so far?
1) Should authorities take reasonable steps to prevent the commission of a crime, or wait until after it's occurred? What if a well-known soccer hooligan has posted that he's looking forward to running amuck?
2) Are threats against an individual allowed as part of free speech? What about against a family? Small business? A neighbourhood? A country? Where do you draw the line?
3) Do you differentiate between personal criminal behaviour and organized criminal behaviour? Or, between explosive threats vs non-explosive threats, like a small bomb vs significant vandalism to public property done for Youtube?
4) How would a third party know the tweeter is joking? (Most people who get called out for saying rude or racist remarks say "oh I was just kidding" afterwards). Do you prefer that all remarks should be ignored completely, or (somehow) checked for credibility? (And I have no idea how one would approach that, btw)
Looking for direct answers to all 4 questions, please. Would like to sample where people stand.
Not a good visualization. And it lacks some context too.
Three points
(1) tons of bulk-registered names are NOT hosted on GD's nameservers
(2) People complained that transfers were slow and cancelled some of them. (in the background, GD refused to do transfers or delayed it for days, gambling that people would get frustrated and blame the new registar).
(3) bulk-registered names (think of hundreds of marketers with 1000+ domains each) are usually split over numerous fake names to minimize their footprint and prevent wholesale site copying. GD allows fake name purchases. After the transfers started, GD began a policy of requiring a scanned drivers' licence for transfers. They also seize domains for themselves and resell them. So... many CAN'T transfer their domains out yet.
If it's always the same small group of people, create a gmail/hotmail account and give them all the username and password. Leave messages for each other in the Drafts (no need to send emails). Yes, I do know the downsides.
Or, find a FB messaging or forum app and get your friends to install it.