I find it funny that the article repeats several times the amount of data that square. Do you know who has more data? The bank where the business has its account ;)
That being said, the current process from banks seems old and not really clever to me
Square gets item level data on each merchant. That means exactly what was sold and when. Plus, they get info about who bought it and can see things like a buisness suddenly getting huge numbers of new buyers as opposed to returning, etc.
But at least with Square we have relatively more transparency about their activities and intentions with such data. So while it may not literally be more, it's like functionally more?
I think the main point trying to be made there was that there is nothing stopping banks from doing something similar. In other words the "data" the article keeps mentioning isn't the advantage that makes this possible for Square.
The problem is most banks don't have the technology to scan a customer's bank account and decides his/her credit worthiness. That's how antiquated banks are and they wouldn't touch anything subprime after 2008 financial crisis.
Great! IMHO the main problem with CodeAcademy was not teaching how to build things. I have several non-tech friends who have done 30 exercises about loops but have no idea when to use a loop.
I think this is the right direction. Give a more complete view and do it step by step so the person learning can be rewarded and keep the motivation.
Different API keys in there instead of my app, alerts when the API is down, headers, etc. I think it's kind of nice that I don't have to code them or that I just have configure my app to use 3 different API tools end-points for dev, qa, prod. But I really think that the best usage for them is monitoring
You must've been somewhere nice that had fast internet. I think most people back then had dialup, and downloading a single song would take at least 20 minutes on their 28.8k modem.
You just waited that long to download music. That was all there was to it. MP3 was mindblowing when it was first released, in terms of how good it sounded for the size.
Obviously many people just ripped their own CDs. Many CD-ROMs didn't support ripping CDs at a data level - so you had to rip in real-time via analog! Crazy.
Most people I knew had 56k modems by 98 (by '99 I had a cable modem), 128kbs compression was the standard you'd find, and getting a song for free by just waiting 15 minutes was still magic
Edit almost forgot about Ethernet in the dorms. I picked my college because of high speed Internet.
As mech4bg said, much or most of people's .mp3 libraries at that point had probably come straight off CD. Napster wasn't even released until 1999, and "Rip. Mix. Burn." was Apple's edgy new slogan of 2001 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ECN4ZE9-Mo .
Wow, that's quite a find. A rare artifact from the pre-iPod, pre-iTunes Store tip of Apple's foray into digital media, and a strong piece from Apple's agency at the time.
You just queue up a bunch of stuff using a download manager[1] and stay connected for longer. Come back the next day (or two or three) and voila! The good managers would even resume partial downloads if the connection dropped (which it always did).
Audiogalaxy was our savior. Search from any computer and queue up the download to your satellite. When you arrived home 5-6 hours later your music would be waiting for you.
Yes, even if you exclude MP3s of commercially-recorded music as not really personal, it would be very hard to defend the proposition 'iMovie gave birth to the idea of "personal digital media"' or even 'iMovie first made "personal digital media" a reality'. Apple (and MS) had been trying to make consumer video editing a reality since at least 1991 and the launch of QuickTime (an awkward date if you want to centre everything around Jobs and/or NeXT). iMovie and the FireWire iMacs probably were an important step forward in making digital video editing into a mainstream and well-oiled consumer activity though.
Quicktime circa 1991 was not really "personal digital media"-grade technology. It was pixelated, postage-stamp sized videos even on a 640 x 480 screen. It wasn't until 1998 and the Sorenson codec that Quicktime began to approach what we would recognize today as usable video.
