Personally, I'd stay away from the 'flippage effect' unless it is done strikingly well. On my Mac, your page flip wasn't smooth, and your fonts looked pixelated.
As design moves away from skeumorphism and imitating real world objects, page flips will start to look passe. Just my 2 cents.
yes im trying to make it mobile friendly although it is under heavy development. Their is still a long way to go .Thanks for your feedback i appreciate.
I used to love reading the NY Times and would still argue that it is a quality newspaper (or as good as one there is these days) but even I would have to agree that the paywall is rather annoying and articles with the paywall should be tagged as such.
The fact that your comment is correct and wrong at the same time is what really raises red flags for me with regards to bitcoin.
Let's look at what you find if you were somebody searching up bitcoin for the first time. You would eventually land on http://bitcoin.org/en/. bitcoing.org describes bitcoin as open source P2P Money. It says "Bitcoin is an innovative payment network and a new kind of money". You go on Wikipedia and you get "Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer payment network and digital currency based on an open source[6] protocol, which makes use of a public transaction log".
The creators and early adopters of Bitcoin clearly wanted it to be used as a currency and as money, but it is being done in an unconventional way, to say the least. Unfortunately, none of us seem to understand this so everyone thinks that if it is supposed to be money at its root, it should behave like money does.
Bitcoin is such new and uncharted territory that most of us do not know what to expect. We are all wondering how these virtual coins are able to stand and hold value on the mere fact that people are exchanging them among one another for nothing other than speculating that they will benefit from the exchange in a future exchange (their really is no benefit you feel right away, such as their would be if you bought something with cash, as many places do not accept bitcoin). But at the same time, I feel that when money in the form of paper bills was first introduced, there had bound to be people wondering the same thing. After all, taking a step back, who would consider putting such value to pieces of paper that we do in today's day and age?
At the end of the day, I see what Bitcoin is trying to be and would be real happy to see it get there, but I also see what people think it is, a glorified internet point, their ticket to wealth.
> I feel that when money in the form of paper bills was first introduced, there had bound to be people wondering the same thing. After all, taking a step back, who would consider putting such value to pieces of paper that we do in today's day and age?
The thing with paper money, at least recently, was that it originally started out as being tied to gold. Instead of having to carry around gold for exchange, you would exchange these pieces of papers which were the equivalent amount in gold. However, once the idea of paper money became so entrenched governments realised they could remove the actual backing without many people saying "Hey wait a minute. These pieces of paper are now worthless."
If people had tried to introduce paper money originally without the gold backing, there's no way it would have caught on in the same way.
No, backing implies that someone has a legal obligation to supply something in exchange for the thing backed. Gold originally backed USD because paper dollars were literally a contract to pay the bearer a certain amount of gold. Gold and USD now have the same sort of relationship that USD and bitcoin do: neither USD nor bitcoin is backed by anything.
Both are still worth something, at the moment, though, which is all you need for an exchange to be possible.
I find it amazing that Bill Gates seems to still have the time and passion to read books that will help him grow as an individual with everything that he probably has going on in his life and everything he has accomplished. Over the past couple of years, I have personally have had a hard time keeping up with reading habits due to school and job demands. I still read, but look to reading as a relaxing activity as in picking up Game of Thrones for an hour when I have it. I guess that's what makes Bill Gates who he is.
I would assume that, given the long history of Bill Gates being intimately involved in many aspects of Microsoft, that he has a particular talent for taking written material and absorbing it at a very fast rate (look for Joel Spolsky's story about Date functions in Excel).
That's the sort of skill which never diminishes. I bet Bill G can absorb a relatively short book at a very fast speed, especially if he's on vacation with large blocks of reading time available.
I feel the same way about the information that we are bombarded with on a daily basis. He is right, in the sense that much of it is very negative, though I also feel some of it is information that everyone should know. With that in mind, I would like to know where everyone goes for their information. It seems that alot of the information and news that everyone should know, be it positive or negative, is very difficult to find. This raises the question, how do we get this information into the mainstream media? The biggest problem for me is the lack of control, users have over the information that they are presented with. Even Google is able to show us the content they want us to see, or think we want to see. I think that this control is really destroying our ability to change as personalities in the online and offline world.
I agree with you completely, I do not know much about Zed Shaw, being a fairly new and somewhat young programmer but the post leads me to believe that programming should be a part of our general education along with math and the sciences. One does not have to make a career out of it, but having basic understanding of programming and just the general technologies that dominate our lives today can go a long way in securing a strong future for individuals and society as a whole.
You are right, not many would be willing to bet that Facebook will be as relevant in 10 years as it is now but I believe this thought is just part of human nature. We are always anticipating change, something better than what we have now. Nobody is wrong to think that,not that I am saying that is what you were implying with your statement. Along with pattern matching, I think it also has alot to do with what others think. It surprises me on a day to day basis how many people base their opinions of such things on the opinions of others.
