Thanks for sharing this story. Similar situation, but I think Compuserve had moved to monthly billing at that point, so this was about dial-up access. We lived in Wyoming and there wasn't a local Compuserve number for us to dial into, so we had to use a 1-800 number that charged by the time you used it. The first month we had access, I would sneak downstairs most nights and dial in to play around. I don't remember what I had to do to work off the bill, but my parents were not happy. It helped start me on a path to a tech career, though.
Actually, Brackets has a built in extension manager. You can find a list of extensions here - https://brackets-registry.aboutweb.com/ - and in the product you can go to File->Extension Manager.
All the extensions in the registry can be installed from within Brackets.
It seems like Adobe checks a lot of your boxes. The pay, from what I've seen personally, and tracked on Glassdoor seems pretty competitive. They've got great 401k, benefits, RSUs, bonuses, etc.
All the engineering teams I've worked with are fairly forward thinking in both process and technology. Most teams use the hosted, enterprise GitHub for source control. There are a bunch of technical problems across the company spanning everything from researching photo/video manipulation, open source projects like Brackets, to a bunch of cool stuff going on as part of the Creative Cloud (or even analytics/big data in the Digital Marketing part of the company).
The company will definitely be around in 3 years and is on a good trajectory. A lot of teams have an unofficial work from home day every week, and while "main" HQ is in San Jose, a lot of fun stuff is going on in the SF office. In general I've found it to be a great culture in terms of work-life balance as well as encouraging volunteer activities.
Not only does it fit most of the criteria youve listed, Adobe technical leadership is becoming infused with alot of new blood since the acquisition of Day. Technologies like Apache Jackrabbit/Oak, Apache Sling, Apache Cordova/Phonegap are becoming integral pieces of Adobe's go to market on the DMS (Digital Marketing side - which is the lesser known enterprise offering side opposite the Creative Cloud/Creative Suite products).
It may be an big, "old" tech company, that gets a bit of grief for stale technologies like Flash, but IMO theyre moving in the right (and interesting) direction as quickly as their internal structures and market offerings allow.
Nice to hear that they are having a positive impact. Sling is one of the most compelling pieces of software that I've worked with in a long time. It's odd that AEM/CQ5 being as big and as disruptive as it is, doesn't get any play here in HN
Exactly. I don't need to see it rolled out at maps.google.com for the world to start using, but I'd at least like to be able to follow a link to TRY it after seeing it in the keynote.
I saw the post as more "roll with the punches". And yes, that phrase trivializes some terrible experiences. But I feel like that's what Dr. Victor is getting at. The most successful people are those who are willing to reframe their perspective and create goals/silver linings around that perspective.
In the (arguably) skewed world of Silicon Valley I think that's a valuable thing.
"That's a nice noble reframing of humanities innate desire to have access to Game of Thrones season 2 without paying for cable."
But doesn't that speak to the exact issue you're responding to? I'd more than happily pay for Game of Thrones season 2 if it were available for me to pay for on its own or with other things I want. The problem is that in order to get it I have to subscribe to cable, which is a hefty tax to pay for a single show.
I'm not begrudging HBO for deciding that's the best way for them to make money. But I gladly reward artists and companies that are thinking outside the box and doing direct-to-consumer or generally breaking away from the middle man.
"But doesn't that speak to the exact issue you're responding to? I'd more than happily pay for Game of Thrones season 2 if it were available for me to pay for on its own or with other things I want. The problem is that in order to get it I have to subscribe to cable, which is a hefty tax to pay for a single show."
The only feature I wanted in my washing machine was regular wash cotton. I should've stolen it I suppose.
That analogy is misleading and you know it. It's more like being unable to buy a washing machine without also buying a dryer, snow blower, quad garage door opener, freezer, golf cart, and thresher attachment. Oh and you can't resell the extra stuff. Oh and you can't loan it out either. You're practically burning money.
Come back when someone invents a washing machine that does only cotton and costs 95% less than a normal washing machine, then patents it and won't let anyone build them. Maybe then you'll see the problem.
"The problem" is that you can't see Game of Thrones. Really? REALLY?? Oh the humanity!
I don't know how people ever did anything before Game of Thrones. It would be absolute chaos if people couldn't steal it.... how else would they survive?
Stop getting all indignant. A forced bundle with products made by other companies that boosts the price twenty-fold is a market failure. It doesn't matter if it's petty entertainment.
Oh. You don't like their business model, so you should steal your 'petty entertainment?'
It does matter if it's petty entertainment. I might agree with you if you were having trouble eating over this. But you can't watch Game of Thrones without buying HBO and so you have to steal Game of Thrones? You don't have to steal anything. You can simply not watch their show if you don't agree with their business model.
People don't agree with chick-fil-a giving money to homophobic groups, and they don't eat at chick-fil-a. They don't go out and steal chicken sandwiches because they want them that badly. You have that option as well.
I think you missed the part where these people want to buy HBO. In fact if the first sale doctrine applied to broadcasts then the problem would solve itself, with people selling off their HBO copies at a fair and unbundled price.
The problem with citing Louis CK or Radiohead when discussing this issue is that they are outliers. They are individual artists, working in mediums with little to no overhead who have established reputations.
But film, tv, games, software - some of these projects take thousands of people working full time for years, and cost hundreds of millions of dollars to produce.
It's true that some types of film, tv, games, and software made with huge budgets and teams. However, all of these things are still produced by individuals and small groups of people, even without the change of major financial success. The rise of things like kickstarter, bandcamp, youtube, etc. are all evidence of people looking to and actually creating something.
Indeed, but the public's appetite for alternative and crowd funded entertainment is relatively insignificant, as evidenced by a glance at your average torrent tracker. That's why it's described as alternative.
The public want slick, expensively produced mass market entertainment. They just don't want to pay for it if they can avoid it.
Very true, also people like Radiohead and Louis CK probably have particular audiences that are more likely to get behind new ideas of distributing content because they care deeply about the content and the artist themselves.
Any producer has the right to determine the terms by which the purchase will be made. What you're saying is that if you don't give me what I want in the way I want, then I will get it for free. Well, you have another option: just don't buy it.
Well I'd say this issue was an example of where the GOP could burnish their free market ideals on an issue that people outside of their normal demographic care about.
Clearly the GOP is doing some soul searching and this one issue wasn't going to make a gigantic impact, but it could have been one piece of a bigger strategy. As they (potentially) move away from traditionally social conservative issues and start focusing more and more on personal liberty and the free market, this could have been a good contrast to Democrats as part of a broader picture.
Plenty of free market people believe that people and companies have a right to control the products of their own labor or of labor that they financed.
The GOP is no more likely to move away from being the party of social conservatism than the Democrats are to move away from being the party of public school teachers.
(Fair warning: I'm a casual browser of libertarian policy positions, but I am most definitely not a libertarian. My libertarian friends would call me a liberal statist.)
I think that can be taken further. I may well be wrong, but I don't find it hard to imagine many free market people would say "Why should a person's work EVER pass into the public domain?!"
There are a lot of people who are quite hostile to the idea of any sort of public domain, believing commons to be inefficient. Many people want to take things like water resources out of the public domain and let the free markets appropriately allocate them.
Yes, among small-L libertarians there are very strong schools of thought for both stronger and weaker IP protection. And each thinks the other is nuts.
Both fair points. And I'd argue that's a great philosophical discussion for the libertarian parts of the GOP to have.
In this case it seems like the discussion was stifled because of the big money behind copyright questions.
So regardless it seems a shame that the GOP couldn't use this memo as a starting point for a good debate around policies and where the party stood/stands.
Andrew Joseph Galambos legally changed his name (from Joseph Andrew Galambos) as to avoid infringing his identically-named father’s rights to the name, and dropped a nickel in a box every time he said "liberty", as a royalty to the descendants of Thomas Paine, the alleged inventor of the word.
(Source: Against Intellectual Property, by Stephan Kinsella)
I think this is an interesting project, but by recording sound, isn't he breaking the law? If I'm recalling correctly, the security cameras he's talking about are legal because they don't record sound, only picture.
Or does the fact that it's in public (or at least the ones that are video taped in public) make it legal?
He is clearly not very concerned about the legality, esp by running around and recording on private property. But I guess his whole point is the there-is-a-surveillance-camera,so-how-do-you-like-being-recorded-now illustration.
It is legal in a public area because if it wasn't they would not be able to do the surveillance.
It just seems more creepy here because it is 'in your face' but actually, if you think about it, it is more creepy to be followed and recorded by a dark room full of hidden creeps when you don't even know you are being recorded or who they are.
There's also systems like ShotSpotter - http://www.shotspotter.com/ - which are essentially recording, in high fidelity from numerous points within a city, the sound of everything that occurs.
Acccording to this NYT piece the system can pick up“doors slamming, birds chirping, cars on the highway, horns honking” as well as conversations.
>but by recording sound, isn't he breaking the law
Depends on if it is a one or two party state, and whether or not he constitutes a party. In Oklahoma, for example, if you and I are on the phone I can record the conversation without notifying you. In some states (New Hampshire, I think, off the top of my head) all parties to the conversation must be informed.
If he is partaking in the conversation or within earshot, he might be considered a party, and might be okay.
This may be a matter of semantics but it seemed to me he pretty clearly avoided the word "cloud" in favor of "the network".
Based on his post it seems like he's looking for something that's a bit more robust from an infrastructure standpoint than what most cloud offerings are today. Eg, not "stitching together little microcomputers with HTTPS and ssh".
That appears to be one reason he's not buying that people have moved into the space.
