Over the last couple of weeks we've been pushing hard to develop awareness for a worthy cause (special needs education tools). Details here:

http://www.tommyteaches.com/special-education.php

(Yes, taking the opportunity to also get a little attention on HN. Sorry, this is important.)

Analytics tells us that LinkedIn, in particular didn't have good engagement. A few strategic posts on CraigsList probably did ten times better LinkedIn.

The best results we got have been due to friends, family, neighbors and local teachers making a push to reach to their immediate connections (their friends, family and co-workers) to have them engage. Also some blogs produced results here and there.

In general terms building an audience for just about anything on the internet is really hard these days. Luck can be a factor, but more and more it seems to require a lot of hard work and "street smarts". For example, I contacted every host at a local TV station with slightly different versions of the same story in order to see if anyone would be interested. Call it A/B testing. One was, and that helped a bit (just a bit).

Good luck with your app. It looks interesting.

(...)

> The best results we got have been due to friends, family, neighbors and local teachers making a push to reach to their immediate connections (their friends, family and co-workers) to have them engage.

Do you mean facebook ads in your first use of Facebook? Because I would think "organic" use of Facebook would be a contributing factor to "reach ... immediate connections"?

I've never quite understood the idea of Facebook "ads". If you want to do "viral" marketing -- let your product/cause spread via social media via actual human connections. If you want to do advertising, do advertising.

However, from that to getting people to take action --be it install and app, vote for a cause, visit a website-- that's an entirely different matter.

In our case one of the things we came across is a demographic that simply does not use Facebook. Older parents of the very kids we are trying to help.

The next issue was triggered by a dialog that pops-up when you click on the vote button. Facebook tells you that you are about to share your profile and your friends list. Of course a lot of people recoiled at that immediately. The last thing parents of children with special needs want to do is open the doors to their facebook account. I get it. I absolutely do. We probably lost hundreds of potential supporters this way. It is perfectly understandable. I don't understand why facebook would not have the option to be able to simply log in or vote on something as a means of identifying yourself yet without granting access to your life (or projecting the fear of this happening).

I suppose the efficacy of trying to build an audience through facebook depends on your demographic. If your audience lives on facebook it is probably a great channel. If you audience does not or if they are concerned about their privacy there could be issues.

ROFL

Whether you use Windows or OSX (or both, as is my case) you can probably rattle off a sizable list of how these OS's have gotten screwed-up by their respective publishers. Someone saying "<OS name> is wonderful" and then going on about the reason it actually isn't is very funny.

Again, the comment was OS agnostic even though the thread is about OSX.

Might this be an idea for the future of DNS and highly-independent web hosting in some form? No cooling problems for shure!

Of course, there's the minor issue of a connection to the wired internet...

I want a .orbital TLD!

Forget the "cloud" how about "space"?

Hmmmm, isn't there a prominent web entrepreneur who's building a rocket company?

http://www.tak2000.com/data/Satellite_TC.pdf

And if your orbiting data haven is objectionable enough there's always http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon

In real terms that means any country could shoot your satellite out of orbit regardless of whether you're obeying any given country's law or not.

It is likely that some of the extra heating is coming from the display. This post covers it:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3740270

There's probably nothing seriously wrong with it new iPad though. People probably aren't used to having a processor that gets hotter with usage so close to their hands. I have multiple laptops that get to hot to be on your lap. This is nothing new.

Display logic is, as the name implies, all of the circuitry required to drive the pixels. This is everything from the data connector on the raw LCD panel up to and including the TFT transistors on the glass itself and the transparent interconnects (also on the glass). The on-glass circuitry has complex parasitics and capacitive loading that also causes a fluctuation of drive current based on the randomness of the images.

Here's sample data from a 24 inch 1920 x 1200 LCD:

  24 inch, 1920 x 1200
  Idd  for full black screen = 1,700mA
  Idd for a black/white dot pattern = 3,050mA

In very (very!) rough terms this current is also a function of display resolution: Twice as many pixels will demand double the current. Going back to the iPad 2 vs 3 example, the the new iPad has exactly four times the pixels of the iPad 2 display, therefore, it should require four times more display logic current than the older model under all uses cases.

The backlight may or may not demand more current as display resolution increases. Comparisons of displays of equal physical size but vastly different resolutions do not reveal a this effect to be an absolute rule. A lot depends on the design of the panel and the internal optics.

With regards to getting in touch, email me at martin_05 the domain is rocketmail and TLD is .com

The preface is to say: I get it. I do it. I love it. And, I'll probably stay in this hobby forever. Having kids has a way to help with that.

Having said that, I also understand, in no uncertain terms, just how dangerous this stuff can be. I have seen many nasty accidents first hand. A small propeller spinning at 5K or 10K RPM can shred a hand or a face in horrific ways.

The idea of toy drones flying around town is a scary one. The FAA is right in wanting to exercise restraint and gradually walk into a sensible set of rules. The have been working very closely with the RC flight community in order to understand the needs and voice their concern as well:

http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/gov.aspx

I love the idea of small inexpensive drones coming online to help firefighting efforts, disaster aid and such needs. Still, it has to be done right and it has to be done with safety in mind.

Small inexpensive model aircraft, even when they cost thousands of dollars, are not designed to the same strict engineering standards of full-scale aircraft in general aviation. Most of these devices suffer from catastrophic single-point failures in their designs. None of them are put through strict process control during manufacturing to ensure that such mundane things as cracked or "cold" solder joints don't creep into a batch. None of them are made with conformal or environmental coatings applied to circuitry. Not one of them uses rugged, vibration and environmentally-tested hardware, boards, wiring, connectors and batteries.

As an example of this, a prominent motor controller manufacturer recently produced designs that started to violently catch on fire and even blow-up under varied conditions. They have been reported to catch fire by simply plugging in a battery or in the middle of a flight. In a lot of cases people have lost helicopters costing thousands of dollars to this particular problem. However, in most cases, because the activity took place within the confines of AMA model aircraft flying fields not one person seems to have been hurt and no property (other than the model and electronics) was damaged.

Did you know that the LiPo (Lithium Polymer) battery packs these models use can also spontaneously catch fire and explode? YouTube search: "LiPo fire"

It's exciting to think of these little things flying about and doing all kinds of things for us. The reality, I think, is as far away as building a C3PO that actually works as it does in the movie. OK, maybe not that far, but nowhere close to reality. The legal and liability hurdles alone are massive.

Can someone make a quadcopter that can safely and reliably fly around buildings in a city with an acceptably low probability of failure, redundancy and solid engineering? Sure. But it isn't going to be anything like these little toys we are seeing in hundreds upon hundreds of youtube demos.

I believe that, once the FAA has a chance to sort this out there will be really good opportunities for very high quality, professionally designed drones. It'll be a few years though. And rightly so.

This is a truly revolutionary idea, one that has so many different positive side-effects (reduce traffic congestion, reduce pollution, faster deliveries, cheaper mailing costs, etc). It needs to be pushed forward by visionaries, folks who really believe in it.

Yes, they'll have to be a little crazy. Yes, they'll likely have to deal with setbacks.

But if they persist and succeed, their name just might one day be written in history books.

I believe you misspelled evolutionary. Inventing a helicopter was a revolutionary idea (pun!), and coming up with a delivery model for food consumption may have been a revolutionary idea, but combining the two definitely is not.

This is basically a sky lawnmower with a taco hanging below it. Seems kinda dangerous.

Carriages and Internal Combustion Engines -> Automobiles

Telephones and Radios -> Cell Phones

Touch Screens and Cell Phones -> iPhone

So to sum it up....just this specific combination is not revolutionary.

Once again, Mark Twain said it best: "He who holds a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way".

There is also an entire industry based on keeping children safe from everyday dangers. We have baby gates, plugs for electric outlet, fences for yards, childproof medicine caps, cabinet lock, etc. Exactly how are you keeping your child safe from the swarm of helicopters delivering tacos en masse to the park he's playing in? Do kids need to walk around in protective bubbles because the need to avoid waiting in line at Chipotle outweighs the need for safety?

Most things in life have danger.

I have problems with dumb-ass decisions that make your job harder. Like compilers that don't accept /a/path/that has/spaces/in the string/. Or the absolutely dumb-founding way Xcode does not let you organize your files in a real file structure, you know, with directories and stuff, in the file system. Or how hard Xcode makes it to create use and maintain code libraries. I don't need my IDE to look and act like an iTunes clone. Thank you very much. Pretty doesn't matter to me. Easy and incredibly flexible and functional does. I mean, take the way they've absolutely ruined documentation access in Xcode 4 when compared to Xcode 3. True to iTunes style, the Organizer is overloaded with all kinds of crap it probably shouldn't do.

Anyhow, no tool is perfect, but there are salient examples of the less-than-perfect even in 2012.

Herein lies the problem. The term "better" is most definitely subjective.

Not to pic on Xcode, but this is a prime example of focusing too much on making a consumer appliance rather than a professional tool. Like I said: I don't want iTunes, I want a kick-ass IDE.

I'm in the middle of a project that has, quite literally, thousands of assets to manage (images, audio, video). The thousands of files end-up piled-up without any semblance of organization in the project directory. I mean, who woke up one day and though "This is a good idea!" when you have a perfectly good file system to take advantage of? Updating assets is an absolute nightmare.

Yes, yes, there are crafty work-arounds. Each with its own pros-and-cons. The point is that the IDE itself was designed to totally ignore the underlying file system. Let's put it this way: If I wrote code like that at the many jobs I've had over the years I would have gotten fired in a microsecond. Yet, for some reason, this is "feature" is now considered good design?

Back to coding.

Anyway, I emphasize this again: it's not a question if the actual result is better or worse, it's a complex question because there are thousands of people to evaluate it. The question is why not to experiment more where you have more liberty to do so. It's hard to experiment with a toolbar in Excel because millions of non-computer-geek users are used to certain operations and want to preserve their productivity. But it's not hard to throw away toolbar in an IDE because nobody will pay you less because of it. (Especially if you are actually trying to do your best.)

Metro after Windows is that kind of experiment (but way more risky and rewarding, of course). But Visual Studio is not inspiring at all after all these years.

PS. For that matter, Xcode 4 is not radical enough too. We are still typing a lot of boring cruft (even with ever-smarter autocompletion). But it's a huge difference with Xcode 3 and other IDEs out there.

Excel is another of my favorite "Why did they do that?" examples. In my opinion, MS absolutely ruined Excel somewhere in the transition from Office 2003 to 2007. If you were a power user with Excel'03 you felt like a total idiot with Excel'07. And, this wasn't a matter of a few buttons here and there. The thing was almost utterly unusable compared to what you could do with the '03 version. Furthermore, they complicated the usage of VBA modules. If you had a library of VBA work that you used regularly you, all of a sudden, found yourself scratching your head trying to figure out how to do some pretty basic stuff.

I use Excel extensively for automated code generation. Simple examples are the generation of repetitive lookup table code in various languages. Or code to pre-stuff database tables. Or maintaining a complex LUT-driven state machine. I have custom Excel tools that have taken months to develop that do increase productivity in a measurable way. For example, one tool uses Excel to auto-magically write the code (LUT, callbacks, etc.) for a menu system on an embedded device with an LCD display. Before the tool it'd take hours, if not a couple of days, to maintain. After the custom VBA tool it was a matter of minutes.

Anyhow, upon switching to '07 (mostly a forced switch because I needed to migrate to a 64 bit OS for Finite Element Analysis work) I went from light speed to crawling. That, to me, is not an improvement. I am OK with learning new things, you have to be open to it if you want to remain in this game, but sometimes you can't help but scratch your head and try to figure out what the hell they were thinking.

Thankfully that was easily solved with a VM running XP and Excel'03.

I'm not going to argue if this is a good thing or a bad thing to do, but even you have to agree that this is an extremely rare thing to do, and something that would be more or less impossible for Microsoft to anticipate you doing.

The greater point, perhaps, is that making things prettier at the expense of raw functionality isn't always the best idea.

For the record, on first inspection I like the outer appearance of VS 2011. I like the pictographic icons and clean uncluttered appearance. I hope that this effort did not come at the expense of function elsewhere. We'll upgrade when it comes out of beta and see.

This has a number of advantages:

- you don't need to change your code every time the data changes.

- you can version the data and the code seperately within your source control management system.

- you don't need to write any VBA. (always a winner, that one)

- current developers will be able to understand and change the code without being forced to use the macro you developed, or have it explained to them.

- future developers will be able to understand where all the code came from, and be able to effectively understand and change it.

- you will be less affected by changes to future versions of Excel.

On the other hand what would be possible (and I've done this a few times before) is write a program or script (I like writing it in Python) that takes the .xls/.csv/.txt/.json file (which is pure data, can be edited in many programs etc) and generates the C/C++/whatever code from that. Basically the best of both worlds.

I can only conclude that you have absolutely no concrete experience of the state of other tools and languages. Eclipse, IntelliJ and Visual Studio with Resharper are lightyears ahead of XCode 4 when it comes to assisted programming.

Here's the clue: all of these tools expose the code DOM to tool writers. Even if Intellij didn't have over 100 different ways to refactor code, I could write my own. Fuck, I wrote a Resharper plugin that loaded javascript file to manipulate the dom and pass it to StringTemplate [1] The javascript file then decides based on what is at the cursor which templates to display when the user hits Alt-Enter. Think for a minute about what has to happen under the hood for that to happen. Then think what else is possible. Then realize that its not there in XCode 4.

[1] http://www.stringtemplate.org/

This is more due to a language/API design flaw, actually. When a program (a preprocessor, a part of the IDE) generates more code starting from the code you actually wrote, it's because, for some reason, whatever you expressed in your code could not express enough to build the whole application.