I feel that by enabling/creating an RSS feed for your content you are implicitly allowing people to use the content in the RSS feed as they see fit. You may put a license of some type on it, for various free use type licenses or whatever, but you get the point. If there isn't a license on the site or in the feed stating how the content can be used, people are going to assume they can aggregate it how they see fit.
I wrote quite a large news aggregator in the past it indexed over 200 sites every 5-10 minutes. Intially when we were doing the research for the RSS/Atom feeds, we were contacting producers of the content explaining what we were doing to see if they wanted in.
We were getting such overwhelmingly positive response from the creators that they were happy that people were actually using the RSS feeds and were interested spreading the content around that we never had anyone request to be removed or didnt ask specifically to get into the aggregator. In fact the only maintenance was when a site died or they changed their feed URL.
Work-Life-Balance, such a great lesson many 20 somethings should make an effort to learn before they destroy the passion they have for whatever it is they are passionate about.
I'd never tell someone to not work hard or to strive for things they want to accomplish. But be able to step back and look at the big picture. Life is too short. Don't forget to enjoy it while you can.
Well stated. It applies to all age groups. I recently forced myself to 'stop and smell the flowers' (or however that phrase goes). I discovered something that had been around me my whole life that I had never noticed. I noticed the beautiful singing of the cardinal (the little red bird). Since then I listen for them and hear them often. It's a beautiful sound and it's a reminder to not take work life so seriously and enjoy the beauty of nature.
When you fall down the rabbit hole of burnout, there's not much help for you. Work sucks, but then you come home from work and you're exhausted and you don't have time to go work on a side project or nurture a non-tech hobby or really do much of anything but stay up way too late because, as the author said, you're not ready to wake up and have it be tomorrow again.
Ah the old days when Sourceforge and Freshmeat were some of the go to places for OSS when I was learning Linux in the 90s. Occasionally I'll end up back at SF somehow and man how terrible it has become. Makes you really appreciate places like Github now a days.
The scaling zones of GW2 were not very popular for those of us that played in the beginning. Traditional MMOs allow your character to gain power. The power gain of your character is a large reason for many of the game systems to exist. To develop a system that takes away all this character power that you've gained felt boarderline 'slap in the face' like. Stripping character power is never a proper solution for an MMO.
GW2's scaling zones were exactly what got my friend group playing the game, and kept them playing. With every other MMORPG we'd played up to that point -and every one of the very few we've played since GW2-, our group would inevitably do one of three things:
1) Never start playing together, as the level gap between the newbies and the more veteran players meant that challenges were either impossible, or impossibly easy.
2) Rarely ever play the game because a) the group wants to avoid 1) and b) it's hard to get five friends spread across four timezones together on the regular.
3) Play the game as often as we want, as we each have "regular" solo characters, and "play-with-the-friend-group" characters, but get far less than the regulation amount of fun out of the group games, as all-too-often there's only like one set of low-level story content, so playing with the group causes to to re-run stuff for like the billionth time anyway.
And, really, even with the level scaling, your skills don't go away. Having a character in the party that's five or ten+ levels higher than the zone content makes it substantially easier than a character that's at-zone-level or just a few levels higher. (It remains quite satisfying to drop an offensive golem on some level one goblin and splat it in two hits.)
I agree with you. This is one of the main reasons why I enjoyed Guild Wars 2.
However I'd like to add that the scale-down isn't at all that dramatic! I can kill a Moa or a bandit in Queensdale with 2-3 hits on my level 80 Mesmer (and he is a condition-based build), while it takes much more effort as a level 3 Thief.
Also the traits, and gear stats remain, to an extent; they are maybe scaled down but they are still present.
Furthermore, it also depends on the class you're playing. If you're a heavy-armour character with attack-centric stats you'll easily 1-hit anything, but if you're a healer engineer, you'll need to invest more effort.
I agree that one's scaled-down is a fair bit more powerful than the effective character level would lead one to believe. Indeed, that was the point that I was trying to get across. :)
But you've got to admit that the scale-down is substantially more dramatic than in pretty much every other MMORPG, no? I mean, if you've forgotten, like spend a week or so with Firefall, then come back to the starting area. :P
Moreover, a scaled-down level 80 will get level 80 gear when killing creatures. For folks who are invested in gear collection, but have low-level friends, this makes them far more likely to play together. (Wish I'd mentioned this in my original post. :P )
If I'm level 100, I should be able to go into a level 5 area and kill everything with one hit, but I wouldn't get any XP because it wasn't challenging.
However, if my low level friend is playing and they want a buddy to help them with low level content, it would be nice to have the option of scaling my character down to my friend's level where I would be challenged by level 5 content alongside them (and even gain some degree of proportional XP or maybe scaled loot from it)
AWS just announced a few days ago that their latest Xen patch will be deployed through a live update to their hypervisor kernel, and that going forward they expect patches like this to be rolled out live.
The real upside of AWS is that they have relentlessly pursued and killed off reasons for you to care about things like this. They've eliminated points of failure in their infrastructure and given operators a wealth of tools to ensure their apps stay up through any update or event (AZ-affine ELBs and autoscaling groups, single-IP ELBs, continuous improvements to EBS and S3, etc.) Given the scale of their infrastructure in us-east-1, it's now also highly unlikely that any customer will manage to overload it on their own.
I can't resist reminding you that 1 command from a sysadmin routing traffic to the wrong network was the cause of the last major outage there :)
They are getting much better, as all providers are. They're still just not a fit for many people because of performance requirements that are either impossible or too costly to meet on that type of infrastructure.
I've always said this: the cloud isn't a good fit for us; do what works for you.
As Kyle says, we were helping our sister company Fog Creek keep their servers online (as well as other people in that facility like Squarespace) because we cared. Our traffic was not being served from that data center and in fact we shut down most of our servers during that to conserve generator fuel. Our traffic was flowing just fine from Oregon. A decision Kyle and I made the night before when concluding they would probably shut down power to lower manhattan in preparation for flooding.
When your neighbor's house is on fire you don't argue over the price of the hose. You help. Our remote people that couldn't come help in person also helped them replicate their entire network in AWS as a backup plan.
I don't usually post pissed off comments, but you're dead wrong here and intetionally or not demeaning a good company and good people whom, because they cared, came to help in a time of emergency. I take it you weren't in New York during Sandy; it looked like a post-apocalyptic war zone afterwards.
I feel that it can be argued that paying for a font library is a good idea. It is far cheaper than buying individual fonts, which can get expensive quickly. I feel that the Typekit library is ahead of the Google library. The Google library always has felt very stale and bland to me. The Typekit library has a better variety if they dont have as many available fonts as the Google library.
Also their systems to include the fonts into your pages also eliminates the headache for many people of how to include the various font files for a particular family, as well as by which method to include them.
That github link is very useful for people getting their feet wet in typography and seeing how things work together.
You're not wrong - its just that most people aren't THAT serious about it. People that pay for it, or even think about paying for it, give more focus to that area. But for many devs that's simply not going to happen. They'll just go with whatever is free, and to be honest thats perfectly fine.
I would say, if you want to take your sites typography to the next level... pay for a font library. But if you just want it to be better than defaults, plenty to be had for free.
I would say, if you want to take your sites typography to the next level... pay for a font library.
That was the theory, but I'm still waiting to be convinced about it in practice. I check in on all of the major rent-a-font services from time to time, and I'm rarely impressed by their results.
Consider TypeKit's home page. Personally I would not consider some of the fonts and typography they use themselves to be acceptable for professional work.
For example, they're currently using Adobe Clean for a lot of the text, but it has more hinting glitches than an excited child the week before their birthday. They get away with it -- up to a point -- because many visitors probably still have a default browser font size of 16px, but if your default is a bit larger or you zoom the page, the text rendering is awful. (Actually, their whole layout breaks if you set your default font size a bit larger, but that's a separate problem.)
Notice how in the font showcase section, under "THE BEST ARE ON TYPEKIT", all the examples are actually screenshots and almost exclusively of very large text? What happens if you actually look at the samples of a popular Adobe font, say Minion Pro, which they feature there? Well, in tests based on TypeKit's own specimen screen, 3 out of 3 main Windows browsers render it with nasty weighting issues, and even significant gaps in the letter forms in narrow areas. This isn't a problem with either Minion Pro or the hardware I'm using to display it; it renders just fine at the same physical size in InDesign or Adobe Reader. It's a problem with Minion Pro served as a web font by TypeKit.
The quality of web fonts from Cloud.Typography generally seems to be better, but again, even their own home page shows plenty of fonts that either appear blurry or have hinting problems and appear with uneven line weights, uneven spacing, counters closing up, etc. The blurring might be acceptable to Apple users who are used to that style of rendering, but unless your target audience doesn't include anyone who uses other platforms, it's going to look very odd to a lot of people. The other hinting glitches might be unavoidable results of trying to render fonts designed for print faithfully on screen, but they are glitches all the same.
I just don't understand why anyone who cares about the quality of their work would voluntarily choose these options, and pay for them, when you can have similar or better looking rendering for free with native system fonts on most platforms these days and with several of the standards from Google Fonts if you want a change.