A friend of mine started VC-backed company when his 3 kids were 2-4 years of age. That was several years ago and since then the company has grown to 400+ employees, millions of paying customers and went public with the market cap of over 500 mil. Call it an "old-school" start-up if you will.
His HowTo is nannies. That freed up lots of time without making him feel like he was neglecting or taking away from his children.
YMMV however, because many people simply do not accept the very idea of letting strangers care for children of a very young age (them being the formative years of the personality and for other reasons).
>His HowTo is nannies. That freed up lots of time without making him feel like he was neglecting or taking away from his children.
"How I'm Bootstrapping a Startup While Raising Three Kids"
Your friend is not raising those kids though is he? It sounds like the nannies are. The kids maybe are not being neglected but he is neglecting them.
People, it seems, sometimes don't care about raising their offspring just as long as someone does. To me that is really weird, why choose to have children if you're going to get someone else to raise them?
As of two-three years ago Slashdot moderation guaranteed that "In Soviet Russia" jokes were always +5 Funny, anything with Linux in it were +5 Interesting and a post with a Beowulf cluster plug was both Funny and Informative.
Meta-moderation was supposed to cure that, but it didn't make much difference. So, no, overall it did not work. Submissions were good, but discussions sucked.
Judging from your nick here, and slashdot allowing anonymous comments, I'm guessing you didn't have a user account on slashdot. I say that because you had to do was give 'funny' posts a -10, which would preclude you from seeing so-called funny posts. Though far from perfect, still consider the /. moderation system the gold standard for commenting and have yet to see anything come close. (Also, +1 funny mod got you no karma)
I have a four digit Slashdot UID. Those features didn't exist in the beginning. I have mine set to default settings, with "show only posts with a score of 5" on.
Tends to keep out most of the usual Slashdot bullshit without requiring me to take Slashdot out of my RSS reader altogether.
> Why can't I respond to a comment that responded to me ?
Current answer is wrong. Commenting is disabled for old threads. For new, overly active threads only in-thread commenting is disabled, but clicking on the 'link' link still gives an access to the response form.
The answer is correct, but is (perhaps deliberately) incomplete. Replying to recent comments is not disabled, there is an exponentially increasing timeout. Yes, you can always click on the "link" link and then hit "reply", but in-thread, the "reply" link only appears after a timeout that gets longer as the comments get deeper.
In summary:
+ "reply" on comments in old threads are disabled.
+ "reply" on comments in new threads have a timeout
+ the timeout is very short if the comment is shallow
+ the timeout gets longer as the thread gets deeper
+ the timeout can be circumvented by clicking "link" - then you are offered a "reply" link immediately.
+ PG might put the timeout out the shortcut method, but hasn't yet done so.
I was kind of in doubt about what to do there, I'm aware of that trick but I think it is in there for a reason, to publicly put a 'workaround' out there would likely be counter productive.
The old thread item duly noted and added. What do you think about the 'link' bit, should that be added or best left as it is?
An isolated light switch on a wall is easy to produce with a sensor and marking showing where to wave your hand. A panel full of buttons and switches is another thing altogether.
For bombers thats the main cause of aircraft losses, fighters of WWII were pretty ineffective, especially at night.
It's difficult to believe a WWII era fighter diving into a stream of bombers, at night, while the multiple gun turrets on 100s of bombers were returning fire - were making precise tactical decision about which part of the airframe to target.
The nice thing (statistically) about AA fire is that it's rather uniformly random.
Mostly against primitive fighters particularly on the Russian front. Assuming similar exaggeration of successes by each sides publicity offices you can probably divide the figures by 2 or 4.
Even if all these had been against night heavy bombers it's a tiny part of the losses
The RAF didn't fly in formation during night bombing attacks, rather they flew in "streams" often hundreds of miles long. So there wouldn't have been hundreds of turrets to bring to bear on a single fighter.
I think you're also overestimating how easy it would be to spot a blacked out fighter at night. A popular german night fighter tactic was often to sneak up beneath a bomber and then pitch the nose of the fighter up sharply while firing, racking the bomber's belly with cannon fire.
Many fighters were equipped with guns mounted in a vertical configuration called Schräge Musik. The guns would fire automatically when a magnetometer detected an enemy bomber was overhead.
I think that was the result of Dyson's study - a gunner never saw a fighter so they could just as effectively be removed or repalced with fixed guns.
And in Wald's research a night fighter still had some difficulty finding and approaching abomber even with ground radar - so they fired at it (using proximty fuses or upward firing guns) essentially at random points - there was no statsistical bias of the fighter pilot targetting specific systems
I wonder what implications this could have for PKI systems. Forcing OS vendors to include trusted FBI CA certificate to enable forging SSL certificates on the fly would seem like a logical thing to do... if it's not being done already.
Actual user review I once received - "Even though I could not start your program on my Windows 98, I still give it 4 out of 5 stars, because it looks awesome" (on screenshots).
Yep, needing to use Twitter account for login is a major minus. Maybe I am too old-fashioned, but if I click on Sign-In and it automatically logs me in, this is more of "WTF has just happened and where did it get my login credentials?" rather than "Ohhh, very cooooool, dude. Just saved 5 seconds and not needed to press 20 (twenty!!) keys. Awesome.".
This is actually refreshing to hear; I'm usually used to seeing the exact opposite - "what do you mean another account?!?". I wonder if adding an interstitial page with something to the effect of "you're signing up with Twitter FYI" would be a decent intermediary step.
Good idea, Kyle. I don't mind Twitter or Facebook OAuth logins for non-sensitive consumer apps (sensitive = apps dealing with financial info, dating sites, health, etc.). Just tell me upfront that you're using the service, and I'll be happy that I don't need to create a new account.
Thats because those people haven't reduced the friction to create an account yet - I have it down to about 20 seconds and making the browser remember the password means it is actually faster from then on.
If you absolutely must, then use OpenId. It is was pretty much made for that (and it works with twitter, facebook, gmail, your mom, etc).
You would if you were a drama queen of tech blogging who didn't get invited to the press conference.