<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Trial &amp; Error - Latest Comments</title><link>http://trialerror.disqus.com/</link><description></description><atom:link href="https://trialerror.disqus.com/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 May 2010 21:59:20 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Solving LOST</title><link>http://blog.matthewell.com/2010/05/16/solving-lost/#comment-341575162</link><description>&lt;p&gt;It's definitly the right logic, as it would do what you want it to. I think the only issue is the time span that it gets played out in since normal increments in programming aren't coresponding with normal increments of time. Definitly try it out, it would be interesting to see what it turns into.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Chris</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 18 May 2010 21:59:20 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Solving LOST</title><link>http://blog.matthewell.com/2010/05/16/solving-lost/#comment-341575161</link><description>&lt;p&gt;yeah, good thought. I was mostly trying to think of how something could pan out.(My Java and logic is probably really off though) hah. I think I might try and write the actual program using BlueJ.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">matt</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 18 May 2010 19:41:41 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Solving LOST</title><link>http://blog.matthewell.com/2010/05/16/solving-lost/#comment-341575158</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Would a decrement function such as START_TIME-- work in equivalence to seconds though?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In as3 a loop/while like this would be carried out much faster then the delay your looking for. Thread.sleep(6470000) would give you the delay your looking for it seems (since the Lost timer is 108 minutes, sleep is expressed in milliseconds, thus putting the delay at 107 minutes and 50 seconds)&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Chris</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 18 May 2010 19:01:31 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Web Experiences on the Family TV</title><link>http://blog.matthewell.com/2010/03/16/web-experience-on-the-family-tv/#comment-341575106</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Hey Nick, thanks so much for the comment! I'm really enjoying the DOCTYPE podcasts and looking forward to future episodes!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">matt</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 12:36:59 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Web Experiences on the Family TV</title><link>http://blog.matthewell.com/2010/03/16/web-experience-on-the-family-tv/#comment-341575104</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Hey Matthew,&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for including Doctype in your list! We're humbled to be included amongst the other awesomeness you listed. :)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I think you're definitely on the right track with TV and Internet content becoming a seamless experience. I spoke with Gary Vaynerchuk at FOWA not too long ago, and he told me that the future of web video is on the television, and I would have to agree. This is one reason why we decided it was a good time to start Doctype. Pretty soon, you're going to see more set top boxes and Internet functionality built into TVs. As soon as that happens... People that are used to high quality cable content are going to want equally awesome Internet content.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for watching the show, seriously! It means a lot. :D&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Nick Pettit</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 22:20:19 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>