kcima's comments

Indeed. And in contrast, Ableton Live has been the king of flat UI for more then ten years:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7c/Live_8_Screens...

You are looking at only one type of violence, murder, and then assuming that murder rates are affected by guns.

Then you turn around and say that one country is possibly just naturally more violent than another and it has nothing to do with the deterrent affect guns have on violent crimes of any kind.

Hmmm..

They sure are apples to apples. Violent crime in the US vs violent crime in the UK.

These are not clearly deceptive statistics. Murder is not the only kind of violent crime.

Allowing people to protect themselves is a great deterrent against violent crime of all types. That is what these statistics point to.

Why do you so easily want to give up these hard-won freedoms?

No, I think he is just saying it doesn't make sense to start taking away guns from everyone because of this. It is not logical.

32,367 died in automobile accidents in the US in 2011, but no one is trying to take away your car.

If the Newtown tragedy happened differently and the killer used his car to run over 20 children. Would you want new legislation to limit your access to automobiles?

I understand this is an emotional time, but how is this so difficult to understand?

Let me put it a different way.

Good regulation: Drive drunk and you can lose your right to drive or end up in prison.

Bad regulation: Drive drunk and your neighbor gets his car taken away.

"England has a complete ban on guns. No UK citizen can carry a gun. Period. Not a one. Result? UK violent crime rate is 3 1/3 times higher than America. The FBI reports 386 violent crimes per 100,000 in the USA. The UK Home Office reports 1,361 violent crimes per 100,000 in England."

Yea, people see what they are interested in. At the same time, I am really stoked by what I am learning as the Ruby Community "remembers" classic OO design.

Here are a few recent examples hinting that the Ruby community is moving on from "Fat models and skinny controllers" to the beginnings of really teaching each other about classic OO...

http://www.confreaks.com/videos/1115-gogaruco2012-go-ahead-m...

http://www.confreaks.com/videos/1233-aloharuby2012-refactori...

http://www.confreaks.com/videos/1112-gogaruco2012-sugar-free...

http://www.confreaks.com/videos/1133-scrc2012-thinking-in-ob...

I updated my comment to communicate better what I was asking. I do fully support this kind of research. I am interested in the technological directions and discoveries for society that this research is expected to provide. It seems odd that politicians who don't necessarily have specific interest in theoretical physics are convinced to fund a project of this size and scope without tangible benefits.

I understand (somewhat) and agree fully with the value of this research. (Great specifics by the way.) I am hearing from you that we have no idea what we will discover, but it could be anything and likely something really cool.

The question I have is really how it was explained to politicians and decision makers who are not scientific. Was it really, "with this research we could discover anything from teleportation to a better way to make toasters", or was it something more specific?

I currently see our governments doing everything they can to limit discovery and creativity because they don't understand basic science or the Internet. It is interesting and heartening to me that a project like this currently exists and is mostly not questioned.

From the video around :30 seconds in, "...this is when surprises might happen. Any day could be the day that changed the world."

I am still looking for an answer as to how the world could be changed by the discovery of the Higgs Boson particle. What are some possible outcomes for society? I do not doubt that it will change, and I agree fully with it's value, however, I can't find any specifics in what ways it might change or what new technologies might be created with or without the Higgs Boson.

Also, at a 9 Billion USD price tag, how were our governments convinced? There must be something beyond scientific intellectual curiosity. Those of us with this curiosity may be happy to pay for it, but how were politicians convinced? What value will this provide to the governments of the world who made the decision to purchase this answer.

I'm sure it's not this...

Scientists: "We need 9 Billion to find out if the Higgs Boson particle exists."

Governments: "OK, here is your 9 Billion."

... 15 years later

Scientists: "The answer is yes. The Higgs Boson does exist."

Governments: "Oh, that's really great."

Update: I understand and agree fully with the value of this research. I am asking if there are any specific technologies that are expected to be advanced or if it is just added knowledge that could lead anywhere. I am also wondering how it was explained to politicians who don't have specific interest in science.

Full high quality video of the entire hour long Webcast:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-gSkGQnFR8

I am moving there anyway. Bringing my camper.

Don't log IPs? End user IP's are mostly dynamic anyway.

True, but this isn't where you are going to store your credit card information. My guess is that this is a defense against those who want to control the Internet through legislation.

Imagine a world where SOPA had passed, and everyone who ran a website was legally responsible for everything that their users did.

In that scenario, one way for website operators to protect themselves is to make it impossible to know what their users are doing.

The 3rd party URL shorting service is not storing or associated with the encrypted data and is also not responsible for it.

So this may not be about private data so much as it is about protecting the freedom of information.

The genius of this is the realization that browsers do not send the named anchor (technically "fragment identifier"[1]) to the server. Using the named anchor as the cryptographic key enables users to pass around simple URLs to encrypted data. Data is stored on the server, but the server never has access to the complete URL with the key, so it cannot decrypt it.

As others have pointed out, this doesn't protect the data from a compromised server, but I think it has a different motivation.

It appears the purpose of this is to reduce the liability of whoever is running the server. Perfect for magnet links and such.

This is another step in the right direction of protecting the web and its maintainers from legislation.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/intro/intro.html#fragment-uri

When I tutor beginners in Rails, I always make them walk through this tutorial first. Step by step. Without using copy & paste.

I really like tutoring and I am more than happy to help folks who want to build the next big thing.

However, first I make people write down their idea, set it aside, and forget about it. I tell them not to try to adapt this tutorial to their own idea, but just follow it to the letter and build the example application. It doesn't take that long.

Before anything, you need to know what you need to know. This tutorial has been and continues to be a great way to learn much of what you need to know... then you can go build the next big thing.

  Modafinil is also compared to amphetamines (which are
  often used either for recreation or to treat ADHD), since
  its effect is somewhat similar. Generally, the comparison
  states that amphetamines are bad for you and that 
  Modafinil is not as bad because it "works differently",
  but there is probably more overlap than the proponents of
  Modafinil would like you to think.

There is one massively huge difference between amphetamines and Modafinil.

Modafinil is not addictive.

I have a prescription for Modafinil (required in the US) and have been taking it for over 5 years. Getting the prescription was fairly simple and required going to a sleep doctor and getting a "sleep study".

I would never have thought of myself as narcoleptic, although I remember frequently being unable to stay awake in high school math class. I think some would characterize me as "a sleepy guy" and I do have to be careful while driving late at night.

I don't take it on weekends, or vacations. Even for up to 3 weeks or a month, I'll go without Modafinil.

Taking Modafinil keeps me alert and excited about my code and my business.

Not taking Modafinil helps me relax and not think about the stress of running a business. I enjoy things like TV and Movies a whole lot more. Playing with my kids is also more fun when not on Modafinil.

But when I need to get back to work, within an hour of taking Modafinil, I am excited about the code in front of me and can work productively for 12 or more hours per day. When evening comes and you know you need rest, there is no temptation to take more Modafinil and work through the night - although that would be possible.

On more than one occasion, I have forgotten to take Modafinil before work in the morning. These days were much less productive, filled with self-promoted distractions and much less excitement about my work. But more importantly, there is no urge or need to take Modafinil; so much so, that I am able to forget about it completely.

These non-addictive characteristics are completely unlike amphetamines (which I have also unfortunately tried in my more distant history).

Addiction is not something that is just in the mind. Everybody who takes amphetamines or smokes cigarettes on a daily basis, will eventually become addicted. Some are able to overcome that addiction, others are not, but the physical addiction is a certainty.

No one who takes amphetamines on a daily basis will ever forget not to take them, nor will they enjoy a 2 week vacation without them. Same goes for the smoker without cigarettes.

Modifinil is quite easily forgotten for long periods of time. I think it is important to note this difference.

Good points, especially about no longer being able to log into the account with old password because of a forced password change.

Original post is cool, but has only 6 color schemes.

I really like how your site generates a bootstrap color theme from an image of your choice.. works very well.

Authentication on most of the web is directly connected with an email address.

If you have access to an account's email, then you can have access to the account.

Since most people have their email always open, or at least a click or two away from being open, why not skip the password creation altogether?

Users are presented with an email field and a button saying something like, "Send me a key to login".

An email is sent that contains a direct login link with a temporary token. Login tokens would quickly expire, but cookies could keep the user logged in to the site for extended periods of time.

This would be as secure as any password reset system, without having to go through the hassle of setting and remembering a password. It also prevents users from creating week passwords or using the same password across many sites.

Not quite a several hundred.

Page two of the grand jury indictment linked from original post says, "...reported income in excess of $175,000,000."

Still a very large figure.