The story thats not being told is how those "hundreds of hours" spent building "snow fall" included direction, videography, 3d and 2d modelling and animation, photography, content-writing, design, coordination, and frontend development.
Scrollkit took just one aspect of that (frontend development) and stated "The NYT spent hundreds of hours hand-coding ‘Snow Fall.’ We made a replica in an hour."
Its outright dishonest, and devalues the great effort that others spent on it. I can understand why they are pissed.
Socialsync meets the definition of synchronization in the assemblance of a synchronism. I don't see how them failing to meet the authors rather loose choice of definition justifies them being called liars.
Henges have a ditch with an outer bank. At Stonehenge it is reversed, with a ditch OUTSIDE the bank - effectively making the world around it the structure for which it is named.
I havent received a reply yet to my request to reopen the public discussion on the new gTLDs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5351335. I'll be chasing up on it today - I would appeal to the rest of you to do the same and help stop these gTLDs ever seeing the light of day.
It sounds to me like you are doing your standups wrong. The job of the facilitator (in your case, the team leader) should be to keep things moving, and ensure that you aren't taking 30 minutes.
The most important thing to get out of the meeting, IMHO, is challenges, as status should be evident by the location of your story tickets. The problem with providing an environment where "Others can skim-read or ignore." is that they often will, and peer challenges can easily go unresolved without adequate feedback.
You are standing for a reason - its uncomfortable (for those of us who sit all day). Your facilitator should be roping in the conversation (and if not you need to replace them - rotating among team members often works). If that doesn't work, then your teams are likely too large.
UPDATE3: The more I think about this, the more concerned I become. These new gTLDs, given the proliferation of combined search and location bars in modern browsers are tantamount to a direct keyword to those corporations with $185k to spend. Type in 'antivirus', and you will be directed to symantec - not the search results you would likely expect. This has to stop - NOW.
What benefit do these new TLDs bring to the table? If ICANN need additional revenue, why not fractionally increase the cost of the current gTLDs instead of introducing more?
All these new domains can possibly achieve, IMHO, is to confuse the consumer and allow corporations to control access to 'desirable' gTLDs.
If the domain space is so overcrowded, then by all means introduce a new gTLD - but keep it ICANN controlled. Either run a poll to choose, or allow the corporations to 'sponsor' their choice of TLDs incorporation into ICANN - but there is no way they should be commercially controlled!
UPDATE: Im really upset that I missed this - looks like ICANN opened up a discussion for public comment (which has now closed after only a month? Surely such a major change should be open to larger public debate..): http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/closed-generic-0...
UPDATE2: I have sent an email to [email protected] requesting that the discussion be reopened. I believe it is our duty as a community to publicise this discussion amongst web professionals and have a further chance to fight it. I would respectfully request that you do the same!
I was going to jump on this as soon as it was announced. Sadly, I don't think this is suitable for Android development given the specs. What are your thoughts? My GF is very tempted to take over my macbook pro...
http://contribute.jquery.org/style-guide/js/
> Indentation with tabs.