In my experience "flat design" seems to have become synonymous with hidden and undiscoverable. Metro and Material were/are horrible in this respect (I don't use iOS so I don't know how Apple's version fares in that regard).
My experience is that it seems to be based on the philosophy of "just touch things to learn what they do" but then you're constantly punished with "oh, you touched something so things changed". It's a minefield.
It's not particularly the "flat" design that's at fault here, but it's lumped with this simultaneous trend of feature deletion and cryptoUI.
Perhaps in theory, but not in practice. One thing about material is that you can't even see the edges of widgets. Sometimes you have to touch exactly on top of some letter because the sensitive area doesn't have any padding. Often when you think you're touching one thing, you end up touching another. Sometimes you have really tiny sensitive areas surrounded by vast wastelands of insensitive negative space with no visual separation of the two. Material also doesn't work well with pointing devices, IMHO. ModernUI seems to have evolved a little better in that aspect. I sense my Chromebook experience devolving with each update.
I know you're being facetious and poking fun at the redundancy of the phrase "Internet podcast" but now you have me thinking about how cool an offline podcast might be.
Maybe it would be distributed via physical dead drops on USB sticks, or pirate wi-fi networks beamed from disposable drones flown by courageous freedom fighters, or maybe it would be distributed via IP over avian carrier: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1149
(In all seriousness, my very loose understanding is that in a lot of countries without robust Internet infrastructure, music is often traded directly from phone to phone. It's possible that podcasts or spoken-word messages are traded this way as well...)
I actually really wasn't being facetious. It was my understanding that podcasts were an Internet centric thing, and was curious whether there were offline versions I wasn't aware of.
I love the idea of an "aural mobile tradition" (so to speak I guess). The idea of a content being traded via mobile untethered from a central server. I suppose that's kind of like Bittorrent for mobile?
Back when Alex Blumberg of Gimlet Media was Alex Blumberg of NPR he did an episode of a radio show (which was subsequently released as a podcast) about someone who owned patents for a proto-podcast service that was distributed on cassette tape. He was using those patents to claim he was owed licensing fees by modern day internet podcasters.
podcast - Episodic content played on an iPod. So yes, you download podcasts and play them on your iPod, originally. A newer term is Netcast. I find it better because it removes the branding. :|
Not sure. I have a very fast connection and my MacBook is always on. I wasn't paying attention but I think everything was uploaded in a couple of days or so.
In case anyone isnt getting the sarcasm in the title, quote from the article:
>Since I happened to have a pound of almonds in the refrigerator I decided to count up those little water suckers and see how much water it takes to produce a pound of almonds. It was bad. Four hundred and thirty-three gallons of water.
>Four hundred and thirty-three? Wait a minute. How about a pound of beef? (I dare say it’s a lot easier to eat a pound of beef than it is to eat a pound of almonds.) According to the folks at waterfootprint.org it takes between 3,000 and 5,000 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef.
Ruefully commenting on a story I also flagged, but: chicken takes less water per pound than almonds. Depending on which source you believe, so does pork.
A pound of beef is about half as calorically dense as a pound of almonds, but a half gallon of almond milk also takes a whole pound of almonds, so you have to take into consideration the different ways they're eaten.
As someone at the very other end of the 20s spectrum:
1. My own responsibility towards myself and my life weighs a lot more heavily on me at 29 than it did at 22. At 22 I had faith that it would work out, somehow. I think that's a feeling to be taken advantage of while you still have it.
2. Conversely, I also realize now that I won't be successful at something that I don't like, and that doing something I like is worth more than money. Obviously this only works to a certain extent, I still need to live. But it seems more and more that as long as you are pursuing you believe in and enjoy, you aren't poor in spirit.
My point being: maybe don't worry so much for the feasibility of your dreams at this moment in your life.
An extension I use regularly got zapped (Website Screenshot). There are definitely alternatives out there, but it's a little annoying that there was no indication as to WHY it was removed. Oh well.
This is an absurdly broad comment. The US has been a super power for over half a century. You've distilled decades of complex foreign policy involving every nation on earth down to a five sentence blanket condemnation.
Someone from a rich family has more of a safety net, straight out of the gate, than someone from a poor family.