I'm not sure if vocabulary size matters once you reach around 25,000 words. The words I didn't know were in part because I've never had any need to know them; if I had run into any of them while reading anything written in the past 80 years, I'd be angry at the author for showing off.
When I was young, I thought that if I wanted to be a writer I should have a huge vocabulary... but now, when choosing words/synonyms I dismiss most options because they're much too obscure.
> I'm not sure if vocabulary size matters once you reach around 25,000 words.
This is what I was thinking. I scored 34K, and rarely encounter a word that I don't understand in regular speech or reading. I also know several thousand jargon words, none of which were on that test. I know what I need to know. Memorizing another 16K words to reach Shakespeare's magical 50K (and feel good about myself) would be a waste of precious mental resources.
Windsoc uses App Engine for our Unified Social API, and while it has many benefits, we've always had our minds on how to move off of it someday. SSL is a big issue for us, and another is the support model (which should be changing soon from what I've seen).
So what we have now is a product that runs both on App Engine and on DotCloud. Since DotCloud is awesome, too, and we know that we can talk to a specific person when something goes wrong, it's currently a front-runner for us. We're also looking at Joyent, too, as opposed to EC2.
But even if we switch large parts of our product to somewhere else, I wouldn't be surprised if we still used App Engine for some things.
Jason's point is valid no matter your opinion of Mahalo. Reputation may soon be the most important determinant of the value of content, as opposed to social indicators and in tandem with interest- or location-based relevance. We already do this manually today. When I access Google News, I choose specific news sources over others based on my understanding of their reputation for accuracy and thoroughness.
I agree with the notion that no human society will purposely invest money in a trek to another solar system, but I strongly disagree with the notion that humanity is stuck in this solar system for eternity.
There seem to be two common misconceptions about the colonization of space:
1. People will colonize other planets. The notion that future generations will desire to burrow into other planets is as strange as expecting people to build a new city by digging caves in a cliff wall. Just as we now build apartment blocks and ranch houses, we will someday build custom habitats that aren't continually ravaged by earthquakes, tornados and spring floods.
2. Reaching the next solar system will be momentous. People will populate neighbouring solar systems just as our ancestors moved from Africa to other parts of the world... gradually from one generation to the next, each one drifting a little further into the Oort. One day a habitat that has its own artificial star within will move from the most recent piece of raw material to the next, not realizing that the one orbits our distant sun while the other orbits another star entirely.
Barring catastrophe at home, this future is likely. It's just the same story that's been happening since Lucy's family left the Great Rift Valley.
His arguments are related to interstellar travel as an endeavour that is undertaken as a gravity well to gravity well transit. My argument is that planetary colonization and travel from Earth to the close orbit of Proxima Centauri or any other star is not the only method by which humankind will reach beyond this solar system. Does that not address his arguments?
He makes specific arguments regarding the time and energy requirements of interplanetary and interstellar travel. You don't address those. What you do say is too vague for me to figure out exactly what you mean.
I think the first generation don't need to be as technically sophisticated as most people think. Get users in quickly (social logins), and let them pop out just as easily, even to the point of closing their profiles out until they get back. I think things like proximity detection or automatic social graph relevance algorithms are add-ons for later.
I was earning approximately $10-15k annually from affiliate marketing from 2002-2006 (formerly giftsforaguy.com), but I didn't spend the time I needed to stay up-to-date with my search rankings.
When I tried to start over with a more general gift affiliate site in 2009, I found that the game had changed so much that it would likely take over a year to get back to the earlier level using organic SEO.
So I've put it on hold, hoping to relaunch using social discovery for customer acquisition.
I think this explains very well why in my situation with my co-founder, I don't feel like anything but 50/50 would work, but yet I still agree that such a split is inherently risky.
While my co-founder and I have the benefit of knowing each other well and working together for twelve years, the strength of that relationship would make it impossible for one of us to have an overruling power.
We do have sectional overrules, however, where as "CEO" I have certain areas that are "mine", and as "CTO" there are areas that are up to him. But neither of us can overrule on the bigger questions like selling, shutting down, moving to the Bay Area, etc. It's not the 50/50 that prevents that, it's the pre-existing relationship. No differing equity split would remove the damage that unilateralism would cause.
So I don't think we ever had an option on how to split. But that's not the same for everybody.
I'm surprised by the negative reaction that this post has received. I thought the actions were more "cheeky" than overstepping. But maybe that's more an indication that I am afflicted with the same easy morality.
Maybe it's because I'm Canadian, but I've never been checked on my way out of the US. My first thought on this was to enter Canada and go home from there (detouring around the US on your return flight).
I've actually called US Customs and Immigration before to discuss visas and status. As you're not identifying yourself in the call, you might be able to get a feel for whether or not you would have trouble leaving the country and then getting sponsored.
Being Swedish, I've always had to surrender my I-94 upon leaving, though that's always been by air (including at SFO). (And there's always a warning on it that says essentially that "if you fail to surrender the I-94 we will think that you've remained illegally".)