This will revolutionize apartment living. No more worrying about whether that family portrait will be taken out of your security deposit because you used too large of a nail!
If you wanted to go really crazy, I bet you could find black thermochromic paints that change at a few different temperatures for a real lightshow. Imagine this with three layers: 75 degrees, 80 degrees and 85 degrees. It'd constantly be in flux.
1) Make the login smoother. It's really annoying that after logging in, I hit the "back to Neatorama" button and end up on the front page. This means that I have to scroll half way down the front page again to find the post in which I was going to comment.
2) Not only are screens getting bigger, their aspect ratio is changing. My local Best Buy doesn't even sell standard ratio monitors any more; it's all widescreen. Use this to your advantage. Instead of picture over story, how about picture beside story? That would significantly reduce front page length. Similarly, you could try a two-column format of some sort. If you want to get really creative, you could do one of those things where the stories scroll left and right.
3) Neatorama's biggest strength and biggest weakness is that there is no specialization to the stories. I think you might attract more users if there was something, anything that was a Neatorama staple that made me check back looking for particular weekly columns. The closest to that you have right now are those bathroom reader things, and those are pretty hit-or-miss for me. What ever became of Miss Celania's video blogging? I remember the raisin milkshake then nothing.
I seem to recall there was at least one parkour video where the freerunner is being chased by dogs and uses his moves to escape. I bet he'd be dog-chow if it was this hound tracking him.
Ah! Didn't notice that, thanks! Now, I will admit I own the Klein Four's CD, but I would totally shell out $16.99 for 12 tracks of this sort of thing. Carl Sagan was masterfully poetic and totally brilliant. I'd love to see other science fiction and fantasy authors put to ambient downtempo. Can you imagine how awesome the Jabberwock might sound this way? Oo! Or how about some of the recordings of Tolkien reading long passages in Quenya!
I really like that... I'm half tempted to rip that to an MP3 and put it on my ambient downtempo playlist. It's sciencey and po-mo all at the same time. As they say, "MOAR!"
My friends and I were playing a tabletop game of Aberrant and came up with a whole bunch of these.
* To differentiate between black and navy blue at any distance in any light. * To know Pi, all of it. * To see the future, but only far enough to say "Oh crap..." (Totally awesome to see this for TimeBomb on No Heroics). * To change the color of your hair to any shade of brown you want.
There's therapy potential for this. Let's say you're one of those people who have depression due to a problem in a specific part of the brain. Calibrate a game like this to focus on the weak part of the brain and you can strengthen it like a muscle by reinforcing those neurons.
The one about water is a trick question. As someone who has taken a lot of logic classes.
The problem here is the difference between deductive and inductive logic. The first 14 questions were all deductive. Deductive reasoning means "if all the statements are true, the conclusion has to be true." Inductive reasoning means, "if all the statements are true, the conclusion is probably true based on previous experience."
Side note: science is utterly based on the latter, because it is an empirical system (meaning it relies on observations).
Anyway, while we say deductive reasoning is valid or invalid, we say that inductive reasoning is strong (high likelihood of correctness) or weak (low likelihood of correctness). The argument about water is strong. Any reasonable person is going to say that, if we have to say "valid" or "invalid" we should say "valid" about the water argument. However, given the explanation of why we are wrong, the website is clearly relying on the technical difference between deductive and inductive that a lay person couldn't possibly know.
2) Not only are screens getting bigger, their aspect ratio is changing. My local Best Buy doesn't even sell standard ratio monitors any more; it's all widescreen. Use this to your advantage. Instead of picture over story, how about picture beside story? That would significantly reduce front page length. Similarly, you could try a two-column format of some sort. If you want to get really creative, you could do one of those things where the stories scroll left and right.
3) Neatorama's biggest strength and biggest weakness is that there is no specialization to the stories. I think you might attract more users if there was something, anything that was a Neatorama staple that made me check back looking for particular weekly columns. The closest to that you have right now are those bathroom reader things, and those are pretty hit-or-miss for me. What ever became of Miss Celania's video blogging? I remember the raisin milkshake then nothing.
Great way to advertise!
Ah! Didn't notice that, thanks! Now, I will admit I own the Klein Four's CD, but I would totally shell out $16.99 for 12 tracks of this sort of thing. Carl Sagan was masterfully poetic and totally brilliant. I'd love to see other science fiction and fantasy authors put to ambient downtempo. Can you imagine how awesome the Jabberwock might sound this way? Oo! Or how about some of the recordings of Tolkien reading long passages in Quenya!
I really like that... I'm half tempted to rip that to an MP3 and put it on my ambient downtempo playlist. It's sciencey and po-mo all at the same time. As they say, "MOAR!"
Silver + MultiLED
* To differentiate between black and navy blue at any distance in any light.
* To know Pi, all of it.
* To see the future, but only far enough to say "Oh crap..." (Totally awesome to see this for TimeBomb on No Heroics).
* To change the color of your hair to any shade of brown you want.
I could go on.
The problem here is the difference between deductive and inductive logic. The first 14 questions were all deductive. Deductive reasoning means "if all the statements are true, the conclusion has to be true." Inductive reasoning means, "if all the statements are true, the conclusion is probably true based on previous experience."
Side note: science is utterly based on the latter, because it is an empirical system (meaning it relies on observations).
Anyway, while we say deductive reasoning is valid or invalid, we say that inductive reasoning is strong (high likelihood of correctness) or weak (low likelihood of correctness). The argument about water is strong. Any reasonable person is going to say that, if we have to say "valid" or "invalid" we should say "valid" about the water argument. However, given the explanation of why we are wrong, the website is clearly relying on the technical difference between deductive and inductive that a lay person couldn't possibly know.