Bottom line, they link you to content that you cant get without typing in some url into your phone. They are convenient when its relevant. Passing by a restaurant you might want to go to later, launch app with one hand, scan code, keep walking, review menu... They are links that transcend platforms, would you be just at apposed to a rfid tag that you just swipe your device over to connect? I think they are extremely useful when used correctly. They save time and they dissolve errors. They are essentially internet links removed from computers... when I hear the anti qr code arguments I think to my self, well are you against hyperlinks? Do you avoid clicking links that could give you additional information about something your interested in? Then whats your beef with a link on a movie poster or can of soup? They're here to stay until replaced by a nicer looking swifter alternative but the concept will never go away.
Here is my take for what its worth - Great products require great understanding: The designer needs to understand what can be engineered, now, what needs to be invented, and what can only exist in the future, and an engineer needs to understand what the designer wants. And both teams or individuals are responsible for the process and outcome. If you have a flimsy designer that makes everything look pretty on paper but fails to communicate the entire picture, the engineers will inevitably produce sub par work, not because they're bad at their job, but because you did not give them enough to work with, unless you have visionary engineers with a foot in the design department as well. Then again if the engineers only think code code code they will fail to meet the designer where it counts and again the product is sub par. They are 2 parts of the same creative entity, one that lives and relies on communication and understanding. This is unlike the "well oiled machine" where each person or team resembles a mindless cog in some contraption... These are companies that do not understand the ultimate relationship between designer and engineer. It takes a designer with a stubborn focus on the big picture and a razor focus on the tiniest details along with an engineer of godlike skill to not just solve the puzzles set before them, but solve them intelligently (there is a huge difference), while keeping an eye on the final product. The two parts should always demand validation in their understanding of what the other has communicated.
Build a team that does not simply 'do', but a team that thinks, communicates, and understands; and create an environment that fosters this relationship.
I applied too! for a powerful local media player with html5/js, inside browser or any html5 platform. http://projects.achshar.com/?id=6 - Achshar Player
Anyone think about the fact that Google has spent years becoming a minimalist for search effort and user experience, making results faster, more accurate, predict better, and be more painless... In short, they make a users experience and interactions with the site quick, almost transparent. Get in get out! Predict and find my results before I'm even done typing and show me the entire site before hitting "search". Now take other sites, how long does it take to find anything on facebook?... for ever, you have to dig and filter, and look and check... Its painful. I know it does not amount to much more than an observation but all that extra time spent does not reflect usefulness or effort on the users side. Id like to see a CPM comparison chart for popular sites!
I've been developing for a while, apps specifically for about 2 years and this is my take on things: Yes, I get many many people saying hey, I have this great idea... or hey, my friend wants to make an app... But here is where I think I may differ from others, I am these people too, everyday I wake up with ideas, I write them down and tell them to myself later, I test my own ideas on myself because I can, I know the industry and I know how to research ideas and more often than not, they are not worth my time. But that does not mean I stop thinking... So why shut out all the other ideas that people, sometimes strangers even, are just throwing at you all the time for free? These could be sources for great inspiration (probably not) but it only takes 1 good idea to make you realize that hey, these are people out in the world with different views, different problems, and different solutions. Its like having 100 brains waking up in the morning going hey write this down I think it could be a good idea.
All that aside, here is what I do every time someone pitches an idea (no matter who they are and what the idea might be):
1) Listen
2) Think about it (is this unique, good, stupid, wait... don't I already have this app?)
3) Ask them some key questions, (how will it make money? How much time do you have every day to work on this? How much money can you spend on this project? Have you done any research on the idea? What other apps are there like this one?)
4) Pull out the iPhone and do a quick search for obvious app titles matching their idea and show them the results then ask, what about all these? Have you tested all of these?
5) Give them a 30 second lesson on using the internet and the app store to research their ideas. (nicely)
6) Give them my contact info if they don't already have it - even if the idea sucked (remember 90% of your ideas suck too) and why miss an opportunity to network.
7) If the idea sparks an interest, Say hey, Id like to see a layout of that sometime. Or if its really great set up a time for a call.
8) If it blows, don't worry, they will probably have forgotten about it a week later.
9) Congratulate yourself on not being an ass and realize that you helped someone, yourself, and the rest of the developers out there. They will be better prepared the next time they begin the "I have a great idea..." speech.
This only takes 5 mins and you really never know what you might hear. Ideas are great because they make us think, they test us, they inspire us, and sometimes they can make us rich if can figure out how to use them well.
This only takes 5 mins and you really never know what you might hear. Ideas are great because they make us think, they test us, they inspire us, and sometimes they can make us rich if can figure out how to use them well.
I have to say I love your attitude towards ideas. I often have ideas for projects outside my wheelhouse (mostly personal projects) and talk to EEs and MEs about building stuff. It would suck if all my friends were archetypal hn-programmer-that-hates-idea-guys, I'd probably even drop them as friends. I'm so out of my depth on some things that I share it just to find out if its a completely stupid idea.
Then again, I like building things for the sake of building them, and know people that do too.
Its out of control down there! 30 years for a tweet (despite the panic it caused) while drug lords roam around like kings... c'mon people, twitter is not your primary source of news for potential emergencies of this caliber. But yeah the story is a bit fuzzy on some of the details. eh.
I think the difference is that it's more obvious that aliens in NJ are a joke. Armed men kidnapping children from schools in Mexico is an entirely realistic scenario that any reasonable person should expect to cause a panic.
It's almost like that but times have changed. In 1938 it was mainly a broadcast of a message which then wasn't easy to broadcast again by the people. Nowadays you broadcast something and in a couple of minutes it can reach the whole country just because of re-tweets and mobile messages. The end result can be a good number of times worse because of this.
Or maybe we should think twice about saying things like "your kids are being killed at school". I am open to suggestions but I have never heard about a book causing mayhem in a couple of minutes.
The reason why is that people don't expect to trust books. Open a random book at the bookstore, and it's probably a story that the author made up. Twitter is the same way, but people don't realize this yet.
I don't see why authors should be held responsible for their readers' stupidity, though.
That classic scenario originated in an opinion supporting jailing someone for handing out flyers opposing the WWI draft, during a period in American history when jailing people for antiwar speech or speech encouraging Socialism or Communism was frequent. It has been superceeded by law and decisions more in accordance with the First Amendment at least half a dozen times since.
The definition of free speech that that argument was used to defend was the Espionage Act of 1917 which:
o Made it a crime to convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies, punishable by death or by imprisonment for not more than 30 years or both,
o Made it a crime to convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or both,
o Made it a crime to promote the success of its enemies when the United States is at war, punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or both,
o Made it a crime to cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or both, and
o Made it a crime to willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or both.
The Sedition Act of 1918 extended this to:
o Make it a crime to use "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, its flag, or its armed forces or that caused others to view the American government or its institutions with contempt, and
o Give the Postmaster General the right to go through mail and refuse to deliver any that did any of these things while the United States was at war.
This resulted in about 1500 prosecutions and 1000 convictions for speech, and the sentences were generally between 5 and 20 years.
The problem is, as it's mentioned on the article, that living in an information vacuum Twitter gets to be over-trusted. Journalists are reporting very fragmented and incomplete news as Mexico is one of the most dangerous countries to be a journalist. Almost all the mass media have signed a self-censorship agreement ("Iniciativa México") to limit the impact of the narco messages on the public, thus leaving people to follow unreliable media. Messages are sent by narco through actions: murders as gruesome as the desired impact of the message. Read about "blog del narco" through Google translate (I wouldn't recommend to look for the actual blog del narco) http://translate.google.com.mx/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&#...
I definitely wouldn't go off a single person that I didn't know personally's Tweets, usually on anything of consequence you would look for multiple confirmations on Twitter and some evidence of the event in other places online.
Id say call the school, another parent, or any other point of contact you could possible imagine before you go smashing up your car in a panic... I never really understood the lapse of social responsibility in these situations. Not to take away from the complete horror at the thought of your child being shot or kidnapped (I could never come close to knowing how that feels) but these are the inherent dangers that come with new technologies (specifically information tech). I mean really though, what are these parents going to do to protect their kids against armed gunmen? We have witnessed the powerful benefit of twitter and FB, etc in assisting communities and families in the aftermath of disaster, but what have these "instant info systems" done to help people mid disaster or to prevent one all together? It's fast, but its not time travel... Id say just keep your reliable sources on check and close at hand. But then again, I cant say I wouldn't go barreling down the street in a panic to make sure my loved one were ok.
Being a movie superhero I'd jump in the car and race down there, leaping into the fray and killing all the terrorists, including the midget pretending to be the cute little girl. Then I'd get a medal, and a pony.
You though, lacking superpowers, couldn't help if you were there. So I dunno, maybe you should frantically search until you get positive evidence, and an idea of what you could do to help, before you decide what to do.
There are laws to deal with the guy if these was a scheme to profit. If he was deluded there's no reason to take actions, he's no worse than the idiots who ran around because of his rumors. In fact his action was better. By forwarding his news he's inviting conversation and investigation, by running off to the school the terrified parents are actually potentially causing a problem.
Also, I have found that "breaking" the willpower mind wall has to do with taking tasks (like good posture, delaying FB status updates, doing dishes) and rewarding yourself mentally along the way by thinking or even saying things like "This is great! or I win!" even so much as smiling while doing these things helps to reinforce the dopamine pathways and can overtime help in "re-coding" your brain to be will-powerful. It's about feeling good while doing things and your brain doesn't know the difference between fake good and real good and before you know it neither will you and that's the point :)
From my experience or learning rather while studying psych I came to believe that as all successful or enjoyable actions are rewarded by dopamine (everything from grasping a spoon so smoking crack). Also, the more closely an action and its reward are pared to one-another in time the greater the strength of the feeling of "that was a good choice or Success!".
So it seems to follow that giving in sooner rather than later (for some potentially greater reward - delayed gratification) rewards the brain more and does so faster thus reinforcing that behavior model more and more successfully over and over.
Because delayed gratification is well, delayed, the chemical reinforcements in the brain don't happen (or happen in some other way that is more conscious rather than instantaneous without reflection). So for a child who has not developed the ability to delay gratification it becomes now or never and that mental reward structure can really hurt them later in life.
Thanks for posting.
