> I've been very hard on Flat UI in the past (and still dislike extreme Flat UI) but I've decided to embrace it after--

--after Apple declared it to be in style.

No, that's not what you meant, but it rings so true in the tech buzzosphere.

Poor guy, I don't think they should have downvoted you. Have an upvote. Btw, I can't stand Apple. Not my style, not my thing. Tried to convert several times and went straight back to Windows. I hate the whole authoritative cult like brand.

My decision is based on the new flat UI I've seen already working on Google's Gmail and YouTube properties as well as Microsoft's. They're not perfect but they're definitely heading in a better direction with flat ui. If I recall, Microsoft sort of started it with the Windows Metro look, then Google really sealed the deal by converting gmail and youtube into flat ui sites.

It's interesting that you consider YouTube a positive example. During their flat transition they seem to have thrown out many features that I consider important for the platform. As an example, I lately can't figure out anymore how to jump from a video to 'more from this user'. They splat their semi useful recommendation everywhere instead.

The flat look in gmail does seem to take out a lot of the visual noise.

Here's metro influence gone awry: http://www.pepsi.com/en-us/d

It's pretty close to a flat look, but I still notice some subtle gradients going on. But talk about tile explosion!

The absolute price is not important. What is important is whether or not it is subsidized at the current price.

Wouldn't public safety be better served if the police granted him grand-jury-style immunity from "using his statements as evidence" in exchange for getting information about other bombs?

If they cared so much about public safety, they should be willing to disregard a bit of testimony to get it.

It's insane that confessions are admissible at all really, since they are almost always false.

This is one of the greatest misconceptions about how interrogations are done. In the Spanish Inquisition and Salem witch trials, the tortured to get confessions. In terrorism interrogations (which do include water boarding and other tactics), the goal is to get information. The information they gather is not treated as factual unless it can be confirmed or corroborated from other sources.

When Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was interrogated, they only asked him questions that they already knew the answers to. They weren't immediately trying to get information. They were trying to get cooperation. Once he started answering truthfully, then they asked him questions for information.

Can you provide a reference?

This paper cites two previous studies showing false confession rates of 14% and 20%: http://web.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Russ... [pdf]

Good reference. Seems a far cry from "almost always false".

Indeed. " The commitment to this rule is so strong that the Supreme Court has recognized only one exception to the Miranda rule"

So, not much of a commitment at all. I am so committed to my wife that I only recognize one exception to my marriage vows: if I get a chance with a really attractive woman, then not only can I do it, but I can charge my wife for the cost of dinner.

I can see the merit in both ironclad protection against self incrimination, and the public safety value of making a scene safe.

I think the proper balance would probably be to allow physical evidence produced under "implied duress" (being in confinement/control and asked without being notified of Miranda rights), but not statements. So, maybe 25% more restrictive than the current legal standard.

The true problem with Mirandizing someone is that anyone who isn't a fucking moron will realize "oh, I shouldn't say anything until I get an attorney". Physical evidence is assumed to not depend upon statements to discover, but it certainly will be discovered faster with a statement. This argument isn't actually 100% valid in some scenes and with some types of evidence.

I don't have as much of a problem with lack of notification of someone of his rights vs. not giving him rights when demanded, too -- interrogating someone without Mirandizing him, in a very limited fashion, is less objectionable than doing the same interrogation under direct threat or execution of death/physical attack, drugs, etc.

Exceptions breed ambiguity.

No turn on red.

Yahoo engineers may have verified that none of the users of these products have a vacation scheduled in Yahoo Calendar, which will presumably be the last property to shut down, for this reason.

Interesting that it has a Linguistics section, as in the International Linguistics Olympiad, but not seen on a modern SAT or high school classroom. http://www.ioling.org/problems/samples/

I suppose that morphed in to the "logic puzzles" found on the modern LSAT.

It would be interesting if someone other than the author submitter had that opinion. Nice astroturf attempt, though, alexwg/alexvr.

Note to self: don't post an enthusiastic comment on someone's thread if they have a similar name. I was really puzzled as to why I got so many downvotes on that comment.

You're wrong, though. I'm not the "author submitter." Believe it or not, Alex is a common name.

And what is an "astroturf attempt"?

"Keep your options open" is also called "analysis paralysis" when it is unwise.