Maddox

> Does anyone remember when you they stumbled on a new website written by some guy and read his first article, then clicked back to his homepage and saw he had a list of similar articles that looked like they'd be just as interesting.

Or, more likely, you clicked "back" on the "navigation bar" and it would 404 because the author messed up the links, since it was all hand crafted HTML.

Funny stuff aside, there are still loads of "websites" out there. If I understand the criteria here, we are looking for mostly hand crafted pages maintained by individuals (or small groups) that have interesting content. Something, should I say, very "web 1.0"?

Here's a good one. Make sure to check the GUI Gallery section:

http://toastytech.com

User Friendly is always hilarious (unfortunately, updates stopped ages ago, but going through the archive is sill fun):

http://www.userfriendly.org/

And here's something random, the best page in the universe:

http://maddox.xmission.com/

Like I said, there are TONS of these out there. You just have to, you know, look for them.

That's because the infographic is highlighting the fact that 25% of the much-touted jobs created by the movie industry are menial positions primarily staffed by high schoolers that would probably not flat-out disappear even if the movie industry did. The actual BLS report[1] he's citing does indeed include all those categories you're talking about, and that's where the 361,900 number comes from. I agree, though — this infographic is not very enlightening. But Maddox's overall point in the article that the infographic comes from[2] seems pretty valid: The movie industry is flat-out lying about the impact it has on employment in order to get the government to take it more seriously.

[1]: http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs038.htm

[2]: http://maddox.xmission.com/

I don't mean to be crabby, but the infographic explicitly mentions that some of the jobs are from the service industry. If you look at the infographic in context[1], it lists the source[2]. Also, while I generally agree with your point about this meriting a very detailed and thorough analysis, I do not believe that it was "intentionally" misleading any more than my disagreement with you indicates that you are also being intentionally misleading. IMO, that comment (along with your guess about what is and is not "quality") is not helping in your goal of making this a constructive conversation.

[1] http://maddox.xmission.com/
[2] http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs038.htm

I don't agree. I've never thought of it before, but to be honest, in my 25 years of life, I've never seen the kind of behavior Linus is famous for on the part of anyone besides Europeans.

Really? Does Lenny Bruce qualify? How about Dennis Leary? (Well, he is of Irish descent, I'll give you that).

Hani Suleiman, of the Bile Blog fame?

http://javablogs.com/views/ViewBlog.action?id=11454

Definitely not a European.

How about The Filty Critic?

http://www.bigempire.com/filthy/

And don't get me started on Hunter S. Thompson and co.

[EDIT] Fk, how could I forget Maddox and the "Best Page in the Universe": http://maddox.xmission.com/

Again, no. You completely somehow forgot tech in late 2000s lol.

The internet on anything mobile was pretty painful when it launched in general. Websites weren't optimized for mobile, mobile data was unusably slow. Most people who wanted portability were using things like netbooks, which you could actually multitask on.

Blackberry was the goto for actual phone because it was much easier to type on due to the best keyboard at the time, well developed software for things like email, basic browser, e.t.c.

Ill leave you with this staplepiece of internet history: https://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=iphone/

More efficient to have the drones launch from the ground rather then loiter.

Eliminates the need for the vtol too which is just a lot of extra effort to get right.

This is sort of like the segway, the loitering/vtol tech is more for marketing: https://maddox.xmission.com/segsuck2.jpg

And cheap? I saw carbon fiber on that thing. The article says an Iranian drone might cost 10,000 right after it says that one of these things costs over 100k.

It's def better than a patriot but still stupidly expensive.