If you have non-trivial Android experience, you will be hire-able, full stop. I can't count the number of recruiter calls I get due to having a single Android line-item in my resume. There aren't enough developers to do the work that the market demands - polish up your work in this area, and target it as your application focus, and you should have no trouble.

YMMV and all that, but it's the reality on the ground here in North Carolina at least...

I agree with the YouTube commenter who said "Get this up on Kickstarter and make a full length movie".

I'd chip in $50 easy. Congrats to the people involved!

Whoosh back at you. cat a png, and the *data* is bytes. The *ui* is a display based on the type of data being shown - in this case, an image.

That's really the core idea - separating what data-centric tools see, and what users see.

I recently purchased a Bubba 2, 2TB capacity. It is network-enabled, so you can leave it on and plugged in all the time, and supports remote mounting from OSX, Windows and Linux. Very sexy little box, with nice Web-based GUI for managing it and a smorgasbord of OSS services enabled (eg music streaming, email cache-and-forward, etc. etc.)

It's quiet and problem free after 3 months. Not too pricey, either (~$250 IIRC).

I don't buy crap from phone companies, but I advise dozens of people on what phone to buy, and THEY buy crap. Thought leaders often care about issues the herd doesn't. Doesn't mean you can ignore those issues if you want positive word-of-mouth.

I'll pick this comment to respond to, as a proxy for the many comments posted.

I would like to be clear - I oppose the current occupation of Afghanistan. I don't think it serves our national interest, and would favor a staged retreat starting today.

I also don't trust the government unconditionally - hence my comment about needing WikiLeaks. There's a long history of those in power abusing that power, and the only way to get justice is to expose the problem. No argument there.

But transparency serves us best when it shows us true problems. We gain little from broadcasting our honest errors - that innocents die in conflict is not surprising - but we potentially lose a lot. Obviously, as in cases where informants or soldiers are exposed, less obviously when specific cases become tools for the people who don't like us to use in stopping all our foreign policy actions, not just our current occupation.

I guess what I'm saying is, I applaud WikiLeaks for showing cases of malicious intent, abuse of power, negligence, and general wrong-doing. But I don't support them blanket broadcasting all the gory details of life in war. It doesn't server our interests as a country trying to do good, however misguidedly at times, in the broader world.

I'm not going to jump on you, but you're living up to your handle here a bit.

Prosecuting war (or police actions, or whatnot) is an ugly business. It has to be - armed men, bombs, etc are dangerous. Soldiers are fallible. They have seconds to make the right call, and quite often, screw up. This is a fact of war, and no one disputes it.

In an ideal world, full transparency would be great. If a country were being responsible in its usage of force, for every mis-called bomb strike or innocent victim there would be hundreds of examples of making the right call, calling off the troops just in time, doing the job professionally. A neutral reviewer could say "Yes, there were several major errors, but on the whole, the US troops are doing well in a very difficult situation."

But that is not how the world actually works. One single graphic image, video, or similar can be taken from the overall picture, blown up, put on the front page of newspapers, and tar the entire country and all its soldiers. We see this all the time with politics in the US - good people done in by a goofy on-camera moment (Dean's scream comes to mind) or poorly chosen word or phrase (potatoe!).

This is not to say that all transparency is bad. Simply that full transparency, in this real world we live in, is not all good. We still need something like wikileaks for the next Mai Lai massacre, or similar, where the authorities who should prosecute those who willfully screw up fail to take action. But we don't need full 24/7 coverage of every piece of the conflict. And in my personal opinion, the most recent set of disclosures crossed that line.

We aren't responsible enough as a society at viewing all that information fairly to be trusted with it indiscriminately.

Microsoft Bob lives!

And takes up the awesome responsibility of being the latest hyped MS product to utterly fail. Sheesh.

They aren't satisfied with knowing (and using to advertise and monetize) your social network. Now, they want us, 3rd party web devs, to help them figure out what other sites you visit, what type of music you like to listen to, and what movies you've watched recently.

So they can advertise and monetize it.

I'm not seeing a real good reason to add this "Like" thing on any site of mine. I'd rather my visitors build *my* site's community, rather than simply acting as a source of content and demographics info for Facebook.

Ah, another satisfied iPhone user.

Just bought the wife a brand new laptop for christmas. Booted up Windows 7, straight factory install. She bluescreened it within an hour.

Moving a desktop widget.

I don't even want to *know* how that is possible.

It always amazes me. The studios blow ungodly sums to hype up a new movie. They buy ads, the stars do interviews, etc. ad nauseum. And then the movie is out! But only in theaters! And if you love it, and just can't wait to own a copy, well, actually, you have to wait. Up to a year. By which time, you've completely forgotten the movie, and your initial enthusiasm is gone, and all the hype is dust.

What a waste.

This is just more of the same. Movie's out! You'll love it! But you can't see it! HAHAHAHAHA!

Please god, let them die.

ALL mutations are random. If they are advantageous, great, than it is likely that they will be passed along.

That's more an article of faith than anything rigorously proven. In face, we don't know a lot about how mutations are conserved. It's quite possible, given our relatively high-level understanding of the workings of the cellular nucleus that some mutation is in fact courted, or even driven, by yet undiscovered mechanisms.

There would be powerful advantages to organisms that could dial up or dial down their mutation rate in response to changes in their environment, for example. Or if there were a way to have mutation occur more frequently along beneficial paths. Nature has had a long time to tinker with this one - don't go making blanket assumptions until we truly understand the whole system.