Skip navigation
Help

North Carolina

warning: Creating default object from empty value in /var/www/vhosts/sayforward.com/subdomains/recorder/httpdocs/modules/taxonomy/taxonomy.pages.inc on line 33.
Original author: 
Megan Geuss

The Guardian

The Guardian released an interview today with the man who has been the paper's source for a few now-infamous leaked documents that revealed a vast dragnet maintained by the NSA for gathering information on communications in America. That source is Edward Snowden, 29, an employee of American defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton and a former technical assistant for the CIA.

When The Guardian published a leaked document on Wednesday of last week that showed a FISA court granting the NSA power to collect the metadata pertaining to phone calls from all of Verizon's customers over a period of three months, it became one of the biggest exposures of privacy invading actions taken by the government without the public's knowledge.

That is, until the next day, when The Guardian and The Washington Post revealed slides pertaining to another NSA project called PRISM, which apparently gathered vast swaths of information on users of Google services, Facebook, Apple, and more. While the companies named in the PRISM slides have all denied participation in such a program, President Obama and a number of senators confirmed the collection of phone call metadata on Friday.

Read 9 remaining paragraphs | Comments

0
Your rating: None
Original author: 
Thomas Joos

  

As a mobile UI or UX designer, you probably remember the launch of Apple’s first iPhone as if it was yesterday. Among other things, it introduced a completely touchscreen-centered interaction to a individual’s most private and personal device. It was a game-changer.

Today, kids grow up with touchscreen experiences like it’s the most natural thing. Parents are amazed by how fast their children understand how a tablet or smartphone works. This shows that touch and gesture interactions have a lot of potential to make mobile experiences easier and more fun to use.

Challenging Bars And Buttons

The introduction of “Human Interface Guidelines” and Apple’s App Review Board had a great impact on the quality of mobile applications. It helped a lot of designers and developers understand the core mobile UI elements and interactions. One of Apple’s popular suggestions, for instance, is to use UITabBar and UINavigationBar components — a guideline that many of us have followed, including me.

In fact, if you can honestly say that the first iPhone application you designed didn’t have any top or bottom bar elements, get in touch and send over a screenshot. I will buy you a beer and gladly tweet that you were ahead of your time.

My issue with the top and bottom bars is that they fill almost 20% of the screen. When designing for a tiny canvas, we should use every available pixel to focus on the content. In the end, that’s what really matters.

In this innovative industry, mobile designers need some time to explore how to design more creative and original interfaces. Add to that Apple’s frustrating rejection of apps that “think outside the box,” it is no surprise that experimental UI and UX designs such as Clear and Rise took a while to see the light of day. But they are here now. And while they might be quite extreme and focused on high-brow users and early adopters, they show us the great creative potential of gesture-driven interfaces.

Rise and Clear
Pulling to refresh feels very intuitive.

The Power Of Gesture-Driven Interfaces

For over two years now, I’ve been exploring the ways in which gestures add value to the user experience of a mobile application. The most important criterion for me is that these interactions feel very intuitive. This is why creative interactions such as Loren Brichter’s “Pull to Refresh” have become a standard in no time. Brichter’s interaction, introduced in Tweetie for iPhone, feels so intuitive that countless list-based applications suddenly adopted the gesture upon its appearance.

Removing UI Clutter

A great way to start designing a more gesture-driven interface is to use your main screen only as a viewport to the main content. Don’t feel obliged to make important navigation always visible on the main screen. Rather, consider giving it a place of its own. Speaking in terms of a virtual 2-D or 3-D environment, you could design the navigation somewhere next to, below, behind, in front of, above or hidden on top of the main view. A dragging or swiping gesture is a great way to lead the user to this UI element. It’s up to you to define and design the app.

What I like about Facebook and Gmail on iOS, for instance, is their implementation of a “side-swiping” menu. This trending UI concept is very easy to use. Users swipe the viewport to the right to reveal navigation elements. Not only does this make the app very content-focused, but accessing any section of the application takes only two to three touch interactions. A lot of apps do far worse than that!

Sideswipe Menu
Facebook and Gmail’s side-swiping menu

In addition to the UI navigation, your app probably also supports contextual interactions, too. Adding the same two or three buttons below every content item will certainly clutter the UI! While buttons might seem to be useful triggers, gestures have great potential to make interaction with content more intuitive and fun. Don’t hesitate to integrate simple gestures such as tapping, double-tapping and tapping-and-holding to trigger important interactions. Instagram supports a simple double-tap to perform one of its key features, liking and unliking a content item. I would not be surprised to see other apps integrate this shortcut in the near future.

An Interface That Fits

When designing an innovative mobile product, predicting user behavior can be very difficult. When we worked with Belgium’s Public Radio, my team really struggled with the UI balance between music visualization and real-time news. The sheer number of contextual scenarios and preferences made it very hard to come up with the perfect UI. So, we decided to integrate a simple dragging gesture to enable users to adjust the balance themselves.

Radio+
By dragging, users can balance music-related content and live news.

This gesture adds a creative contextual dimension to the application. The dragging gesture does not take the user from one section (news or music) to another. Rather, it enables the user to focus on the type of content they are most interested in, without missing out on the other.

Think in Terms of Time, Dimension and Animation

What action is triggered when the user taps an item? And how do you visualize that it has actually happened? How fast does a particular UI element animate into the viewport? Does it automatically go off-screen after five seconds of no interaction?

The rise of touch and gesture-driven devices dramatically changes the way we design interaction. Instead of thinking in terms of screens and pages, we are thinking more in terms of time, dimension and animation. You’ve probably noticed that fine-tuning user interactions and demonstrating them to colleagues and clients with static wireframe screenshots is not easy. You don’t fully see, understand and feel what will happen when you touch, hold, drag and swipe items.

Certain prototyping tools, including Pop and Invision, can help bring wireframes to life. They are very useful for testing an application’s flow and for pinpointing where and when a user might get stuck. Your application has a lot more going on than simple back-and-forth navigation, so you need to detect interface bugs and potential sources of confusion as soon as possible. You wouldn’t want your development team to point them out to you now, would you?

InvisionApp
Invision enables you to import and link your digital wireframes.

To be more innovative and experimental, get together with your client first and explain that a traditional wireframe is not the UX deliverable that they need. Show the value of interactive wireframes and encourage them to include this in the process. It might increase the timeline and budget, but if they are expecting you to go the extra mile, it shouldn’t be a problem.

I even offer to produce a conceptual interface video for my clients as well, because once they’ve worked with the interactive wireframes and sorted out the details, my clients will often need something sexier to present to their internal stakeholders.

The Learning Curve

When designing gesture-based interactions, be aware that every time you remove UI clutter, the application’s learning curve goes up. Without visual cues, users could get confused about how to interact with the application. A bit of exploration is no problem, but users should know where to begin. Many apps show a UI walkthrough when first launched, and I agree with Max Rudberg that walkthroughs should explain only the most important interactions. Don’t explain everything at once. If it’s too explicit and long, users will skip it.

Why not challenge yourself and gradually introduce creative UI hints as the user uses the application? This pattern is often referred to as progressive disclosure and is a great way to show only the information that is relevant to the user’s current activity. YouTube’s Capture application, for instance, tells the user to rotate the device to landscape orientation just as the user is about to open the camera for the first time.

Visual Hints
Fight the learning curve with a UI walkthrough and/or visual hints.

Adding visual cues to the UI is not the only option. In the Sparrow app, the search bar appears for a few seconds, before animating upwards and going off screen, a subtle way to say that it’s waiting to be pulled down.

Stop Talking, Start Making

The iPhone ushered in a revolution in interactive communication. Only five years later, touchscreen devices are all around us, and interaction designers are redefining the ways people use digital content.

We need to explore and understand the potential of touch and gesture-based interfaces and start thinking more in terms of time, dimension and animation. As demonstrated by several innovative applications, gestures are a great way to make an app more content-focused, original and fun. And many gesture-based interactions that seem too experimental at first come to be seen as very intuitive.

For a complete overview of the opportunities for gestures on all major mobile platforms, check out Luke Wroblewski’s “Touch Gesture Reference Overview.” I hope you’re inspired to explore gesture-based interaction and intensify your adventures in mobile interfaces. Don’t be afraid to go the extra mile. With interactive wireframes, you can iterate your way to the best possible experience. So, let’s stop talking and start making.

(al)

© Thomas Joos for Smashing Magazine, 2013.

0
Your rating: None
Original author: 
(author unknown)

We’ve all been there: that bit of JavaScript functionality that started out as just a handful of lines grows to a dozen, then two dozen, then more. Along the way, a function picks up a few more arguments; a conditional picks up a few more conditions. And then one day, the bug report comes in: something’s broken, and it’s up to us to untangle the mess.

As we ask our client-side code to take on more and more responsibilities—indeed, whole applications are living largely in the browser these days—two things are becoming clear. One, we can’t just point and click our way through testing that things are working as we expect; automated tests are key to having confidence in our code. Two, we’re probably going to have to change how we write our code in order to make it possible to write tests.

Really, we need to change how we code? Yes—because even if we know that automated tests are a good thing, most of us are probably only able to write integration tests right now. Integration tests are valuable because they focus on how the pieces of an application work together, but what they don’t do is tell us whether individual units of functionality are behaving as expected.

That’s where unit testing comes in. And we’ll have a very hard time writing unit tests until we start writing testable JavaScript.

Unit vs. integration: what’s the difference?

Writing integration tests is usually fairly straightforward: we simply write code that describes how a user interacts with our app, and what the user should expect to see as she does. Selenium is a popular tool for automating browsers. Capybara for Ruby makes it easy to talk to Selenium, and there are plenty of tools for other languages, too.

Here’s an integration test for a portion of a search app:

def test_search
  fill_in('q', :with => 'cat')
  find('.btn').click
  assert( find('#results li').has_content?('cat'), 'Search results are shown' )
  assert( page.has_no_selector?('#results li.no-results'), 'No results is not shown' )
end

Whereas an integration test is interested in a user’s interaction with an app, a unit test is narrowly focused on a small piece of code:

When I call a function with a certain input, do I receive the expected output?

Apps that are written in a traditional procedural style can be very difficult to unit test—and difficult to maintain, debug, and extend, too. But if we write our code with our future unit testing needs in mind, we will not only find that writing the tests becomes more straightforward than we might have expected, but also that we’ll simply write better code, too.

To see what I’m talking about, let’s take a look at a simple search app:

Srchr

When a user enters a search term, the app sends an XHR to the server for the corresponding data. When the server responds with the data, formatted as JSON, the app takes that data and displays it on the page, using client-side templating. A user can click on a search result to indicate that he “likes” it; when this happens, the name of the person he liked is added to the “Liked” list on the right-hand side.

A “traditional” JavaScript implementation of this app might look like this:

var tmplCache = {};

function loadTemplate (name) {
  if (!tmplCache[name]) {
    tmplCache[name] = $.get('/templates/' + name);
  }
  return tmplCache[name];
}

$(function () {

  var resultsList = $('#results');
  var liked = $('#liked');
  var pending = false;

  $('#searchForm').on('submit', function (e) {
    e.preventDefault();

    if (pending) { return; }

    var form = $(this);
    var query = $.trim( form.find('input[name="q"]').val() );

    if (!query) { return; }

    pending = true;

    $.ajax('/data/search.json', {
      data : { q: query },
      dataType : 'json',
      success : function (data) {
        loadTemplate('people-detailed.tmpl').then(function (t) {
          var tmpl = _.template(t);
          resultsList.html( tmpl({ people : data.results }) );
          pending = false;
        });
      }
    });

    $('<li>', {
      'class' : 'pending',
      html : 'Searching &hellip;'
    }).appendTo( resultsList.empty() );
  });

  resultsList.on('click', '.like', function (e) {
    e.preventDefault();
    var name = $(this).closest('li').find('h2').text();
    liked.find('.no-results').remove();
    $('<li>', { text: name }).appendTo(liked);
  });

});

My friend Adam Sontag calls this Choose Your Own Adventure code—on any given line, we might be dealing with presentation, or data, or user interaction, or application state. Who knows! It’s easy enough to write integration tests for this kind of code, but it’s hard to test individual units of functionality.

What makes it hard? Four things:

  • A general lack of structure; almost everything happens in a $(document).ready() callback, and then in anonymous functions that can’t be tested because they aren’t exposed.
  • Complex functions; if a function is more than 10 lines, like the submit handler, it’s highly likely that it’s doing too much.
  • Hidden or shared state; for example, since pending is in a closure, there’s no way to test whether the pending state is set correctly.
  • Tight coupling; for example, a $.ajax success handler shouldn’t need direct access to the DOM.

Organizing our code

The first step toward solving this is to take a less tangled approach to our code, breaking it up into a few different areas of responsibility:

  • Presentation and interaction
  • Data management and persistence
  • Overall application state
  • Setup and glue code to make the pieces work together

In the “traditional” implementation shown above, these four categories are intermingled—on one line we’re dealing with presentation, and two lines later we might be communicating with the server.

Code Lines

While we can absolutely write integration tests for this code—and we should!—writing unit tests for it is pretty difficult. In our functional tests, we can make assertions such as “when a user searches for something, she should see the appropriate results,” but we can’t get much more specific. If something goes wrong, we’ll have to track down exactly where it went wrong, and our functional tests won’t help much with that.

If we rethink how we write our code, though, we can write unit tests that will give us better insight into where things went wrong, and also help us end up with code that’s easier to reuse, maintain, and extend.

Our new code will follow a few guiding principles:

  • Represent each distinct piece of behavior as a separate object that falls into one of the four areas of responsibility and doesn’t need to know about other objects. This will help us avoid creating tangled code.
  • Support configurability, rather than hard-coding things. This will prevent us from replicating our entire HTML environment in order to write our tests.
  • Keep our objects’ methods simple and brief. This will help us keep our tests simple and our code easy to read.
  • Use constructor functions to create instances of objects. This will make it possible to create “clean” copies of each piece of code for the sake of testing.

To start with, we need to figure out how we’ll break our application into different pieces. We’ll have three pieces dedicated to presentation and interaction: the Search Form, the Search Results, and the Likes Box.

Application Views

We’ll also have a piece dedicated to fetching data from the server and a piece dedicated to gluing everything together.

Let’s start by looking at one of the simplest pieces of our application: the Likes Box. In the original version of the app, this code was responsible for updating the Likes Box:

var liked = $('#liked');

var resultsList = $('#results');


// ...


resultsList.on('click', '.like', function (e) {
  e.preventDefault();

  var name = $(this).closest('li').find('h2').text();

  liked.find( '.no-results' ).remove();

  $('<li>', { text: name }).appendTo(liked);

});

The Search Results piece is completely intertwined with the Likes Box piece and needs to know a lot about its markup. A much better and more testable approach would be to create a Likes Box object that’s responsible for manipulating the DOM related to the Likes Box:

var Likes = function (el) {
  this.el = $(el);
  return this;
};

Likes.prototype.add = function (name) {
  this.el.find('.no-results').remove();
  $('<li>', { text: name }).appendTo(this.el);
};

This code provides a constructor function that creates a new instance of a Likes Box. The instance that’s created has an .add() method, which we can use to add new results. We can write a couple of tests to prove that it works:

var ul;

setup(function(){
  ul = $('<ul><li class="no-results"></li></ul>');
});

test('constructor', function () {
  var l = new Likes(ul);
  assert(l);
});

test('adding a name', function () {
  var l = new Likes(ul);
  l.add('Brendan Eich');

  assert.equal(ul.find('li').length, 1);
  assert.equal(ul.find('li').first().html(), 'Brendan Eich');
  assert.equal(ul.find('li.no-results').length, 0);
});

Not so hard, is it? Here we’re using Mocha as the test framework, and Chai as the assertion library. Mocha provides the test and setup functions; Chai provides assert. There are plenty of other test frameworks and assertion libraries to choose from, but for the sake of an introduction, I find these two work well. You should find the one that works best for you and your project—aside from Mocha, QUnit is popular, and Intern is a new framework that shows a lot of promise.

Our test code starts out by creating an element that we’ll use as the container for our Likes Box. Then, it runs two tests: one is a sanity check to make sure we can make a Likes Box; the other is a test to ensure that our .add() method has the desired effect. With these tests in place, we can safely refactor the code for our Likes Box, and be confident that we’ll know if we break anything.

Our new application code can now look like this:

var liked = new Likes('#liked');
var resultsList = $('#results');



// ...



resultsList.on('click', '.like', function (e) {
  e.preventDefault();

  var name = $(this).closest('li').find('h2').text();

  liked.add(name);
});

The Search Results piece is more complex than the Likes Box, but let’s take a stab at refactoring that, too. Just as we created an .add() method on the Likes Box, we also want to create methods for interacting with the Search Results. We’ll want a way to add new results, as well as a way to “broadcast” to the rest of the app when things happen within the Search Results—for example, when someone likes a result.

var SearchResults = function (el) {
  this.el = $(el);
  this.el.on( 'click', '.btn.like', _.bind(this._handleClick, this) );
};

SearchResults.prototype.setResults = function (results) {
  var templateRequest = $.get('people-detailed.tmpl');
  templateRequest.then( _.bind(this._populate, this, results) );
};

SearchResults.prototype._handleClick = function (evt) {
  var name = $(evt.target).closest('li.result').attr('data-name');
  $(document).trigger('like', [ name ]);
};

SearchResults.prototype._populate = function (results, tmpl) {
  var html = _.template(tmpl, { people: results });
  this.el.html(html);
};

Now, our old app code for managing the interaction between Search Results and the Likes Box could look like this:

var liked = new Likes('#liked');
var resultsList = new SearchResults('#results');


// ...


$(document).on('like', function (evt, name) {
  liked.add(name);
})

It’s much simpler and less entangled, because we’re using the document as a global message bus, and passing messages through it so individual components don’t need to know about each other. (Note that in a real app, we’d use something like Backbone or the RSVP library to manage events. We’re just triggering on document to keep things simple here.) We’re also hiding all the dirty work—such as finding the name of the person who was liked—inside the Search Results object, rather than having it muddy up our application code. The best part: we can now write tests to prove that our Search Results object works as we expect:

var ul;
var data = [ /* fake data here */ ];

setup(function () {
  ul = $('<ul><li class="no-results"></li></ul>');
});

test('constructor', function () {
  var sr = new SearchResults(ul);
  assert(sr);
});

test('display received results', function () {
  var sr = new SearchResults(ul);
  sr.setResults(data);

  assert.equal(ul.find('.no-results').length, 0);
  assert.equal(ul.find('li.result').length, data.length);
  assert.equal(
    ul.find('li.result').first().attr('data-name'),
    data[0].name
  );
});

test('announce likes', function() {
  var sr = new SearchResults(ul);
  var flag;
  var spy = function () {
    flag = [].slice.call(arguments);
  };

  sr.setResults(data);
  $(document).on('like', spy);

  ul.find('li').first().find('.like.btn').click();

  assert(flag, 'event handler called');
  assert.equal(flag[1], data[0].name, 'event handler receives data' );
});

The interaction with the server is another interesting piece to consider. The original code included a direct $.ajax() request, and the callback interacted directly with the DOM:

$.ajax('/data/search.json', {
  data : { q: query },
  dataType : 'json',
  success : function( data ) {
    loadTemplate('people-detailed.tmpl').then(function(t) {
      var tmpl = _.template( t );
      resultsList.html( tmpl({ people : data.results }) );
      pending = false;
    });
  }
});

Again, this is difficult to write a unit test for, because so many different things are happening in just a few lines of code. We can restructure the data portion of our application as an object of its own:

var SearchData = function () { };

SearchData.prototype.fetch = function (query) {
  var dfd;

  if (!query) {
    dfd = $.Deferred();
    dfd.resolve([]);
    return dfd.promise();
  }

  return $.ajax( '/data/search.json', {
    data : { q: query },
    dataType : 'json'
  }).pipe(function( resp ) {
    return resp.results;
  });
};

Now, we can change our code for getting the results onto the page:

var resultsList = new SearchResults('#results');

var searchData = new SearchData();

// ...

searchData.fetch(query).then(resultsList.setResults);

Again, we’ve dramatically simplified our application code, and isolated the complexity within the Search Data object, rather than having it live in our main application code. We’ve also made our search interface testable, though there are a couple caveats to bear in mind when testing code that interacts with the server.

The first is that we don’t want to actually interact with the server—to do so would be to reenter the world of integration tests, and because we’re responsible developers, we already have tests that ensure the server does the right thing, right? Instead, we want to “mock” the interaction with the server, which we can do using the Sinon library. The second caveat is that we should also test non-ideal paths, such as an empty query.

test('constructor', function () {
  var sd = new SearchData();
  assert(sd);
});

suite('fetch', function () {
  var xhr, requests;

  setup(function () {
    requests = [];
    xhr = sinon.useFakeXMLHttpRequest();
    xhr.onCreate = function (req) {
      requests.push(req);
    };
  });

  teardown(function () {
    xhr.restore();
  });

  test('fetches from correct URL', function () {
    var sd = new SearchData();
    sd.fetch('cat');

    assert.equal(requests[0].url, '/data/search.json?q=cat');
  });

  test('returns a promise', function () {
    var sd = new SearchData();
    var req = sd.fetch('cat');

    assert.isFunction(req.then);
  });

  test('no request if no query', function () {
    var sd = new SearchData();
    var req = sd.fetch();
    assert.equal(requests.length, 0);
  });

  test('return a promise even if no query', function () {
    var sd = new SearchData();
    var req = sd.fetch();

    assert.isFunction( req.then );
  });

  test('no query promise resolves with empty array', function () {
    var sd = new SearchData();
    var req = sd.fetch();
    var spy = sinon.spy();

    req.then(spy);

    assert.deepEqual(spy.args[0][0], []);
  });

  test('returns contents of results property of the response', function () {
    var sd = new SearchData();
    var req = sd.fetch('cat');
    var spy = sinon.spy();

    requests[0].respond(
      200, { 'Content-type': 'text/json' },
      JSON.stringify({ results: [ 1, 2, 3 ] })
    );

    req.then(spy);

    assert.deepEqual(spy.args[0][0], [ 1, 2, 3 ]);
  });
});

For the sake of brevity, I’ve left out the refactoring of the Search Form, and also simplified some of the other refactorings and tests, but you can see a finished version of the app here if you’re interested.

When we’re done rewriting our application using testable JavaScript patterns, we end up with something much cleaner than what we started with:

$(function() {
  var pending = false;

  var searchForm = new SearchForm('#searchForm');
  var searchResults = new SearchResults('#results');
  var likes = new Likes('#liked');
  var searchData = new SearchData();

  $(document).on('search', function (event, query) {
    if (pending) { return; }

    pending = true;

    searchData.fetch(query).then(function (results) {
      searchResults.setResults(results);
      pending = false;
    });

    searchResults.pending();
  });

  $(document).on('like', function (evt, name) {
    likes.add(name);
  });
});

Even more important than our much cleaner application code, though, is the fact that we end up with a codebase that is thoroughly tested. That means we can safely refactor it and add to it without the fear of breaking things. We can even write new tests as we find new issues, and then write the code that makes those tests pass.

Testing makes life easier in the long run

It’s easy to look at all of this and say, “Wait, you want me to write more code to do the same job?”

The thing is, there are a few inescapable facts of life about Making Things On The Internet. You will spend time designing an approach to a problem. You will test your solution, whether by clicking around in a browser, writing automated tests, or—shudder—letting your users do your testing for you in production. You will make changes to your code, and other people will use your code. Finally: there will be bugs, no matter how many tests you write.

The thing about testing is that while it might require a bit more time at the outset, it really does save time in the long run. You’ll be patting yourself on the back the first time a test you wrote catches a bug before it finds its way into production. You’ll be grateful, too, when you have a system in place that can prove that your bug fix really does fix a bug that slips through.

Additional resources

This article just scratches the surface of JavaScript testing, but if you’d like to learn more, check out:

  • My presentation from the 2012 Full Frontal conference in Brighton, UK.
  • Grunt, a tool that helps automate the testing process and lots of other things.
  • Test-Driven JavaScript Development by Christian Johansen, the creator of the Sinon library. It is a dense but informative examination of the practice of testing JavaScript.
0
Your rating: None
Original author: 
Soulskill

ananyo writes "Researchers hoping to get '2' as the answer for a long-sought proof involving pairs of prime numbers are celebrating the fact that a mathematician has wrestled the value down from infinity to 70 million. That goal is the proof to a conjecture concerning prime numbers. Primes abound among smaller numbers, but they become less and less frequent as one goes towards larger numbers. But exceptions exist: the 'twin primes,' which are pairs of prime numbers that differ in value by 2. The twin prime conjecture says that there is an infinite number of such twin pairs. Some attribute the conjecture to the Greek mathematician Euclid of Alexandria, which would make it one of the oldest open problems in mathematics. The new result, from Yitang Zhang of the University of New Hampshire in Durham, finds that there are infinitely many pairs of primes that are less than 70 million units apart. He presented his research on 13 May to an audience of a few dozen at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Although 70 million seems like a very large number, the existence of any finite bound, no matter how large, means that that the gaps between consecutive numbers don't keep growing forever."

Share on Google+

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

0
Your rating: None
Original author: 
(author unknown)

The Smithsonian magazine's 10th annual photo contest's 50 finalists have been chosen, but there's still time for you to vote for the Readers Choice winner! This year's competition has drawn over 37,600 entries from photographers in 112 countries around the world. Editors will choose a Grand Prize Winner and the winners in each of five categories which include The Natural World, Americana, People, Travel and Altered Images. Voting will be open through March 29, 2013. -- Paula Nelson ( 22 photos total)
THE NATURAL WORLD - An Onlooker Witnesses the Annular Solar Eclipse as the Sun Sets on May 20, 2012. Albuquerque, New Mexico, May 2012. (Colleen Pinski/Peyton, Colorado/Smithsonian.com)

0
Your rating: None


Whenever I see old abandoned boats, the first thing I try to imagine is its launching as a new boat. I always wonder how or why a boat that  just might have many stories to tell would just be left to rot. Still there is a certain beauty to weathered wooden boats long forgotten by their owners. Someday, sooner rather than later, somebody will build houses or a strip mall on this now vacant lot on the Outer Banks. I can just see this boat heading out for a day’s catch. Waves crashing over the bow. And men in yellow slickers, their eyes cast towards the open sea.

0
Your rating: None

Around the globe people celebrated with fireworks, kisses, toasts, cheers, and plunges into icy bodies of water to welcome the new year. Here's a look at how some of them marked the transition. -- Lloyd Young ( 39 photos total)
A woman celebrates the new year as she watches fireworks exploding above Copacabana beach in Rio de Janeiro on Jan. 1. More than two million people gathered along Rio's most famous beach to witness the 20-minute display and celebrate the beginning of a new year. (Pilar Olivares/Reuters)

0
Your rating: None