When the code runs into the thousands of lines you have to ask yourself if it is truly worth it
When the code is barely readable or obfuscated you have to ask yourself if it is worth it.
JS drives me and the people I work with to the cliffs of insanity on a regular basis. Thankfully, I deal with it a heck of lot less since I concentrate on the back end stuff and the APIs. Rarely do I need to venture fully out on to the battlefield.
Thankfully, you get the point. Cross-platform applications that just work, with an easy delivery method. There are other options coming down the pipeline, but until then Javascript is just something I have to deal with.
It's shortsighted and idiotic to say that we could redesign 90% of JS driven websites to not use JS. I'm not giving JS a pass by any stretch, just pointing out that you have 4 basic choices for client side. Flash, Silverlight, JS, and Java. ActiveX is technically an option, but nobody really wants that anymore right?
Submits and forms can be done without JS, it just requires reloading the whole page because obviously the server is creating the page and then sending it back. For very simple pages that is quite possible.
For interactive content, updating graphs and progress bars, not so much.
Those near-worthless lumps of human flesh you so detest are 99.99% not responsible. Go after the people that make the browsers and the technology, or basically the people that make the tools. Not the people that use them.
Sure. And when that future arrives, it won't involve Javascript or (ugh) HTML.
I could not agree more. However, TODAY I can't seem to get a project done without it. All I can do is be judicious with its use, keep it off the home pages wherever possible, and have security as a foundation not an afterthought.
By default I have Flash and JS blocked. I turn it on where needed. That does not mean that everything I need could be done without it either.
Uhhh... I could give two shits about Google. Don't give them any information at all, block them on everything, and they are not relevant to my neck of the woods at all.
Having JS/AJAX heavy public pages for portals does not make a lot of sense. Those should be as simple as humanly possible. I agree with you on that. The worst is *all* flash home pages.
Once you are inside a site, Google no longer applies. There is such a large number of sites that are like that. Slashdot and blogging sites probably depend on Google indexing their content, but none of the examples of JS's necessity deal with Google in such a fashion.
JS needs to be used for what cannot be done without it. That is client side modifications of the DOM and AJAX calls where you need it.
How does work morale and ethics have anything to do with accomplishing what JS can do for you?
Throw around the insults all you want, but there are flat out a lot of things you cannot do with server side only. I never claimed JS was perfect, because it is most assuredly not perfect. Just that client side was something you can't code around, or design around in a large number of cases.
It's a disingenuous argument anyways since it is nothing is pure server side is it? Forms, Posts, and Gets still package up the data you need and send it back to the server. It may be the most simplest form of client side processing there is, but it is still client side.
So instead of being so angry, and such a dick, please, please tell me how you would implement some of the web based apps without a client side language at your disposal?
If you understand anything at all about web developing, you would know the limitations of server side only.
How do you make an administrative interface for phone systems that can automatically update graphs and current call activity without constantly reloading the page (which looks like shit when you do it with meta tags for example)?
Work morale is hilarious. It implies that it is *possible* and I am just lazy.
Ethics imply that I am doing something horribly wrong, akin to buttraping small children.
Web developing itself is a clusterfuck and I never had any part in creating it. I have to deal with it just like you. Regardless of your vitriol, you will not be able to explain how to accomplish all these things without client side processing capabilities.
Continuing to rant and rave about how JS can be completely avoided is pure idiocy. One way, or the other, you are going to have it. So choose:
Silverlight, Flash, Java, or Javascript. What's your choice? Or do you want to go real farking old school and choose ActiveX controls?
I know I am feeding a troll.... but nice generalization there:)
Nevertheless, I don't pay attention to Microsoft anymore. Everything I develop and work with now is Linux and Open Source. People don't want to pay huge licensing fees, operate large MS server farms, and pay mid 5 to low 6 figures each for MCSEs (the ones that are actually worth something) to take care of things for them.
In my neck of the woods platforms are proceeding towards SaaS. I don't see companies that are based on MS competing that well with those that are not... for one simple reason.. Total Cost of Ownership.
How much does it cost in licensing fees alone to run several servers along with SQL server? Answer.... not zero. How much does it cost in licensing fees alone to run several Linux servers and MySQL/Postgres/Firebird? Answer... zero.
Ballmer was right to say that Open Source was a cancer..... to Microsoft. It most certainly is. I can't convince somebody to take on a multimillion project with hundreds of thousands of dollars in licensing fees to MS when I honestly have to tell them that we can create the whole thing in Open Source without those costs.
Even for the high end Enterprise platforms there are serious competitors to MS in database servers. What is it that Microsoft has that could be considered worthy of hundreds of thousands of dollars in of itself?
I've dealt with MS my whole life, and can still reasonably manage a Windows server. It is pretty intuitive after all, and a little research and I am where I need to be. I'm just finding that I have less and less opportunities to deal with MS, and it is not because I don't want to pay attention to them, or that I am too busy being a drooling fucktard:)
MS should really pay attention to that. This Skype deal is a little overblown because it may make a lot of business sense not to try and jam the dedicated supernodes on to a MS server wasting a lot of time and effort that could be used elsewhere, but it is still a little bit embarrassing.
If I can't justify building projects on MS due to the high TCO, and MS can't create an OS that is lean and mean like Linux, than I am really the drooling fucktard for drifting apart from them?
Javascript, for example: 90% of the websites out there that use it could be redesigned to work without it
So what you are really saying is that you don't know how websites are made?
Javascript is a client-side scripting language that allows us to modify the DOM (the visible webpage) and make API calls to get data. Without it, there is a hell of lot we just simply cannot do anymore.
While it may be possible to implement everything in a server side scripting language like PHP, it will not be nearly as pretty or functional. Keep in mind, some of that pretty makes it fairly damned functional by creating UI that are not possible with server side only implementations.
Whether you like it or not we are going to continue moving towards browsers being merely dynamic front ends for applications and that simply requires client side code. Period.
The only other option is a metric butt-ton of RDP connections so that users can enjoy an application remotely and that is ridiculously impractical.
Saying that 90% of websites should be redesigned in such a fashion is quite comical.
I don't believe that I cared whether or not OBL was alive or dead for the past 10 years. This is because I am so massively disillusioned and disenfranchised with my government that I honestly and truly believe that false flag operations are not just possible, but probable . Regardless of how 9/11 came to be, and how OBL became what he was, the US government took full advantage of that opportunity to further strip of us our rights (the abomination that is the unPatriot Act) and accomplish their true foreign policy.
Now regardless of my own feelings and suspicions, "interested groups" must include the public at large worldwide. Considering the clusterfuck of bullshit that has happened to so many people, the deaths of millions of people as a direct result, etc. the world DESERVED as much evidence and proof as possible.
How on Earth anybody can satisfied with OBL being buried at sea, with a paltry few people having ever seen the body, let alone any impartial testing, is beyond me.
Whether or not a couple of groups can agree that he is most likely dead is well beyond the point. Not having the body immediately available for viewing, testing, and whatever else the world at large wanted is about as fucking stupid as going to the Moon and not taking any pictures.
Really? I dropped MS some time ago (for the vast majority of things) and when I have to deal with them it is mainly 2003 boxes. 2008 can be run as headless servers?
On the other hand, it is surely enough evidence to get the police started investigating crimes they are interested in because the DA thinks they can win it.
FTFY.
You can have a device broadcasting IP information all day long and a sworn statement that your property has been stolen, and it is at that location, and the police will act like the laziest most disinterested bastards on the fucking planet.
Clearly, you don't like twitter becasue you don't find a use for it.
Yeah, that's pretty obvious.
I'm not sure why you think succinct lacks quality. It might lack depth, but that's different.
That is really my main issue right there. 140 characters is really not a lot. I think you will find that most short conversations contain more than that. I don't think depth is different than quality. The other issue to me is that it is such a one sided conversation. At least here we can have more than 140 words to converse with each other, other people are viewing it, and other people are moderating it. Twitter seems to be incredibly impersonal, which is contrary the purpose of social networking right?
Cell phone txt messaging, the huge scam that it is, at least has two way conversation.
Anybody that I would be interested in knowing more about would cause me great disappointment if all I got was 140 characters out them.
Twitter is a tool. Just because you can't find a use for it, doesn't mean you should be a tool.
That I also find interesting. Apparently you can't point out how impersonal and superficial Twitter is without being a friendless tool. It's like debating religion.
They can regulate wired connections to a point. Obviously, because it takes major corporations to own and operate those physical connections .
When the Internet becomes so un-free that everyday people begin seeking an alternative, one will be found. Have people stopped smoking weed because it is illegal? No. Stopped speeding? No. Will they stop enjoying a free Internet because it becomes illegal? Hell no.
You can design an infrastructure to be anonymous and private from the very beginning, and we are starting to do this on many fronts. While there have been some fights against such infrastructures with moderate successes, it has been against a fledgling infrastructure with pitiful participation by everyday people.
Look at TBP, Kazaa, Limewire for example. People have demonstrated that they will find a way to engage in the behavior they wish to engage in. Period. You have an entire generation growing up that started with a free Internet, and a generation behind that created it. Neither will sit back and accept destruction.
Those are the kiddie pool versions. Darknets and Mesh Networking can usher in a new age where shutting down dissenting opinion and punishing people will actually require roving vans triangulating signals like in Pump Up The Volume.
The PTB has just started, but so have we. The war has not even begun yet and you are throwing in the towel. Don't be that guy man. Hack the Planet!:)
That's what bothers me about that story. How the heck did another pilot get close enough to AF1 to perform a visual identification in the first place? I would think they would keep any object quite a long distance away from AF1.
That is the exception to the rule. Twitter was not created for the purpose of aiding revolutions, but as a general communication tool. It fails for general communication, for many reasons that I gave, and as far as revolutions go any ability for citizens to communicate to one another is going to be helpful and not the exclusive domain of Twitter.
I'm sorry but just because of your tone I have to ask you about this: Why, on this particular story, are you asking me about what valuable stuff Twitter does
You started with the tone. In fact, you asked for a dissenting opinion:
but we'll see posts later in this article about how Twitter's bad, etc.
I obliged and stick to my opinions about Twitter, its service, and how it relates to real relationships.
As for you, apparently you have some idea about how it can actually be valuable. I find that interesting since, other than revolutions, I see no practical or social value.
As far the 'tude.... I believe you brought plenty of it by alluding that I have no friends, and therefore must be incapable of friendship or lack the information that comes from such friendships that would allow me to magically "get" Twitter and its awesome purpose as social lubricant.
Which is all too predictable. Of course I would be modded down since Twitter is the cool, and since I don't like it I simply must have no friends. No other logical arguments are possible right?
I gave my arguments about relationships and the quality of communications, and Twitters lack thereof. What's your explanation of how Twitter can be valuable as a communication tool (not wholly polluted by marketing drivel) and *really* valuable towards interpersonal relationships?
Yeah... okay. Explain to me what it is actually good for again?
Why on Earth would I want people (especially my friends and family who I actually like) follow me on a service where I deliver sound bites to them every couple of minutes about stupid crap?
but we'll see posts later in this article about how Twitter's bad, etc.
How about right now?
Twitter is bad, only because it sucks.
Seriously.. what is the point? Less space than a txt message on a cell phone. It practically begs to be used for the most boring, banal, and irrelevant crap in the Universe. It is the online version of tabloids, just with less content and less bat-children.
I'm not remotely interested in having a real time feed of "Ashton Kutcher" (if it really is him and not somebody working for him) and what color his last dump was, or that his oatmeal was lumpy, or Demmy was beating the shit of him. It is an uninteresting, wholly ineffective method of personal communication that drains everything positive such interaction was designed to provide. It's a way to have a relationship without actually having a relationship. Don't get me wrong, Mr. Kutcher might be a hell of guy. I've never met him, but if I did become friends with him, I would not follow him on Twatter either.
So.. yeah... Twitter blows on its own merits. They are not responsible for other people's tweets either and it would be ridiculous to make such a claim.
Their only redeeming value to society is their contribution towards the Arab Spring, and other such movements where even short messages could be valuable.
As it stands right now it Twitter only exists because it is propped up by marketing uses. Astroturfing and statistics gathering.
Logic dictates it is possible for "your faith is False" to be factually True and unprovable.
Uhhh, so if we translate that into layman's terms we get, "Your religion is factually wrong, but I can't prove it".
Sorry, but just about everything you are saying is a value judgement. As much as I have faith, I at least recognize it for what it is, and how it affects my decision making, and how I let it affect others.
I am not Christian, but I can understand why there all the anecdotes about Christianity and how it used as an example. However, you are just as bad as irrational religious zealouts with your dismissive behavior and hostile terms like "silly" and "absurd".
There are two things that are provably true, or at least highly highly likely:
1) We are both going to die. 2) For the duration of our lifetimes there is going to be far more that we don't know, than we do know. 3) Both of us are going to adapt and deal with #1 and #2.
Faith is *always*, by definition, going to be derived from something you may categorize as fantasy, fairy tales, and basically, everything in the fiction section.
It can provide hope, inspiration, ambition, compassion, and a wealth of moral and ethical frameworks for decision making that are quite beneficial to the individual and society in general.
I can certainly appreciate limiting the scope of your beliefs and decision making processes to only that which can be proven mathematically. However, it is not silly or absurd to believe in something like Karma, or Heaven.
What is harmful is the hostility to one another about information we can't prove or disprove, and to make modifications to our common framework (government, society, laws, etc.) based on matters of Faith.
Some people say that Science is a religion too.... and with your behavior you only support those statements. Faith is not an affront to Science, and only exists as such in your own mind. You don't need to fight Faith itself, you need to fight how people understand Faith and make decisions with it.
I don't want to live in a cold world with no Faith. If you want to be Vulcan, go for it.
Because making decisions based on things that are true will work out better than making decisions based on things that are not true.
That's a vast oversimplification. I laugh, but I knew my post would effectively be trolling. It's interesting the amount of vitriol about faith.
Matters of faith cannot be proven true or false. Come on, if it were provably false it would be willful ignorance and foolishness to still act upon that information right? Faith is about a belief in something you cannot prove, not something you can prove to be false.
As far as decision making goes... Faith *can* be a healthy thing. People derive quite a bit of their morality and ethics from Faith. Now, it is true that morality and ethics can be derived from logic alone. What about hopes, dreams, and altruism in general?
So much about decision making can be positively influenced with Faith.
Exactly, they're all equally irrelevant.
That is not true in of itself, and is only your value judgement. As I stated, it can be a quite positive influence on a person in general, and therefore, does not fit the definition of important, insignificant, and wholly unconnected to rational decision making.
I have Faith. I believe in karma, reincarnation, and a universe filled with beauty and wonders. When I make a decision based on my strong belief in karma, karma becomes quite relevant to my decision making. To say that it is better to not make a decision with consideration of future consequences based on the effect it can have on others is puzzling to me.
Except that religious folk seem to have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality. If you choose to fantasize about a deity, and that makes you happy, that's fine. When your fantasy starts affecting those around you, that's not OK at all.
I wholly agree with you. Which is why I said in my original post that I recognize the proper definition of Faith. It is a belief in something that I cannot prove (and cannot disprove).
What is true, and quite real, is that we all have to live with each other *right now*. Although I have never met you in person, we do affect each other. The inability to grasp very large dynamic systems does not negate this fact.
To that end we have to agree upon a common framework in which we can live together. It is completely irrational for one of us to make demands in that common framework, that are restrictive and contentious, based upon something that is not provably true.
Like I said, the problem is not Faith. The problem is people and how they act upon information.
The problem is the nature of belief and how most people horribly screw it up.
that puts doubt in your mind that your story is any more real than theirs.
Right there. It's impossible for a religious "story" to be real. If it were we would be talking about facts and applying analytical thinking to it right?
Why does it *have* to be real? Faith can be defined as a strong in belief in something based on no facts, and no ability to prove that it is true. It is specifically the belief that something is true, despite the lack of evidence.
My own Faith, which belongs to my own Path, is personal and in no way conflicts with me being a scientist. I recognize it for what it is. The fact I can't prove it is not a source of stress and emotional discomfort to me at all. I don't even bother with the whole proving it part. What's the point anyways? Faith is for me and my journey, not yours.
Since Faith can't be proven, inherent to its very nature, then all faiths must be equal. It's not about right or wrong, but simply a choice about what feels the best for you. At that point, sharing these beliefs with other people can be easy, enjoyable, and conflict free.
The conflict between faith and science has always been a construct of human behavior. There is perfect harmony between them, as only humans can exist without harmony.
I don't need to prove Christianity to anybody else, prove that Zeus existed, prove Moses really did part some sea. Proving my own faith was never a requirement for it to be valid..
It's about quality journalism, NOT research or ignorance despite your baseless antagonism and character attacks.
When you are writing a summary for people inside, and outside, of your field it is not impossible to explain the key concepts and acronyms in a quick manner. There is a crucial difference between a white paper prepared for your field (like say a RFC for Ethernet) and an explanation of Ethernet in a technical article for Slashdot, Reddit, etc.
To explain them is not "sanitizing" the news, enabling their ignorance, or any other absurd pot shot you wish to throw at somebody because they did not understand an acronym right away.
Sheesh. I think I have a Cluepon around here somewhere....
Don't get mad at others because you have ill prepared yourself to understand the world around you, and for gods sake stop expecting anyone to feed you sanitized news because you might just be unlucky enough to get your wish
Wow. You're completely and utterly missing the point.
It would take another sentence at most to tie an explanation of SoC. This is not about anger, or being ill prepared. That is just ridiculous anyways. How do you prepare yourself for exposure to jargon from dozens of different fields? You can't. According to you, I am ill prepared to understand the world around me because I don't immediately recognize an acronym used in a very specific field? Really? Sorry, that is absurd.
The point is about quality journalism and writing. Try picking up a good magazine once in awhile and reading an article written by a *real* journalist. You'll see the difference right away.
It can be done. That's what I always liked about Stephen Hawking's books. They were written for people not in that field. Same thing here, the summary could have been written for people not in the field.
I got system-on-chip right away, so your ridiculous statement about me being angry or ill prepared is amusing. I'm just supporting the poster's lamentation about the degrading state of journalism everywhere.
Slashdot Mirror
When the code runs into the thousands of lines you have to ask yourself if it is truly worth it
When the code is barely readable or obfuscated you have to ask yourself if it is worth it.
JS drives me and the people I work with to the cliffs of insanity on a regular basis. Thankfully, I deal with it a heck of lot less since I concentrate on the back end stuff and the APIs. Rarely do I need to venture fully out on to the battlefield.
Thankfully, you get the point. Cross-platform applications that just work, with an easy delivery method. There are other options coming down the pipeline, but until then Javascript is just something I have to deal with.
Why all the hostility?
It's shortsighted and idiotic to say that we could redesign 90% of JS driven websites to not use JS. I'm not giving JS a pass by any stretch, just pointing out that you have 4 basic choices for client side. Flash, Silverlight, JS, and Java. ActiveX is technically an option, but nobody really wants that anymore right?
Submits and forms can be done without JS, it just requires reloading the whole page because obviously the server is creating the page and then sending it back. For very simple pages that is quite possible.
For interactive content, updating graphs and progress bars, not so much.
Those near-worthless lumps of human flesh you so detest are 99.99% not responsible. Go after the people that make the browsers and the technology, or basically the people that make the tools. Not the people that use them.
Sure. And when that future arrives, it won't involve Javascript or (ugh) HTML.
I could not agree more. However, TODAY I can't seem to get a project done without it. All I can do is be judicious with its use, keep it off the home pages wherever possible, and have security as a foundation not an afterthought.
By default I have Flash and JS blocked. I turn it on where needed. That does not mean that everything I need could be done without it either.
Uhhh... I could give two shits about Google. Don't give them any information at all, block them on everything, and they are not relevant to my neck of the woods at all.
Having JS/AJAX heavy public pages for portals does not make a lot of sense. Those should be as simple as humanly possible. I agree with you on that. The worst is *all* flash home pages.
Once you are inside a site, Google no longer applies. There is such a large number of sites that are like that. Slashdot and blogging sites probably depend on Google indexing their content, but none of the examples of JS's necessity deal with Google in such a fashion.
JS needs to be used for what cannot be done without it. That is client side modifications of the DOM and AJAX calls where you need it.
How does work morale and ethics have anything to do with accomplishing what JS can do for you?
Throw around the insults all you want, but there are flat out a lot of things you cannot do with server side only. I never claimed JS was perfect, because it is most assuredly not perfect. Just that client side was something you can't code around, or design around in a large number of cases.
It's a disingenuous argument anyways since it is nothing is pure server side is it? Forms, Posts, and Gets still package up the data you need and send it back to the server. It may be the most simplest form of client side processing there is, but it is still client side.
So instead of being so angry, and such a dick, please, please tell me how you would implement some of the web based apps without a client side language at your disposal?
If you understand anything at all about web developing, you would know the limitations of server side only.
How do you make an administrative interface for phone systems that can automatically update graphs and current call activity without constantly reloading the page (which looks like shit when you do it with meta tags for example)?
Work morale is hilarious. It implies that it is *possible* and I am just lazy.
Ethics imply that I am doing something horribly wrong, akin to buttraping small children.
Web developing itself is a clusterfuck and I never had any part in creating it. I have to deal with it just like you. Regardless of your vitriol, you will not be able to explain how to accomplish all these things without client side processing capabilities.
Continuing to rant and rave about how JS can be completely avoided is pure idiocy. One way, or the other, you are going to have it. So choose:
Silverlight, Flash, Java, or Javascript. What's your choice? Or do you want to go real farking old school and choose ActiveX controls?
I know I am feeding a troll.... but nice generalization there :)
Nevertheless, I don't pay attention to Microsoft anymore. Everything I develop and work with now is Linux and Open Source. People don't want to pay huge licensing fees, operate large MS server farms, and pay mid 5 to low 6 figures each for MCSEs (the ones that are actually worth something) to take care of things for them.
In my neck of the woods platforms are proceeding towards SaaS. I don't see companies that are based on MS competing that well with those that are not... for one simple reason.. Total Cost of Ownership.
How much does it cost in licensing fees alone to run several servers along with SQL server? Answer.... not zero. How much does it cost in licensing fees alone to run several Linux servers and MySQL/Postgres/Firebird? Answer... zero.
Ballmer was right to say that Open Source was a cancer..... to Microsoft. It most certainly is. I can't convince somebody to take on a multimillion project with hundreds of thousands of dollars in licensing fees to MS when I honestly have to tell them that we can create the whole thing in Open Source without those costs.
Even for the high end Enterprise platforms there are serious competitors to MS in database servers. What is it that Microsoft has that could be considered worthy of hundreds of thousands of dollars in of itself?
I've dealt with MS my whole life, and can still reasonably manage a Windows server. It is pretty intuitive after all, and a little research and I am where I need to be. I'm just finding that I have less and less opportunities to deal with MS, and it is not because I don't want to pay attention to them, or that I am too busy being a drooling fucktard :)
MS should really pay attention to that. This Skype deal is a little overblown because it may make a lot of business sense not to try and jam the dedicated supernodes on to a MS server wasting a lot of time and effort that could be used elsewhere, but it is still a little bit embarrassing.
If I can't justify building projects on MS due to the high TCO, and MS can't create an OS that is lean and mean like Linux, than I am really the drooling fucktard for drifting apart from them?
Javascript, for example: 90% of the websites out there that use it could be redesigned to work without it
So what you are really saying is that you don't know how websites are made?
Javascript is a client-side scripting language that allows us to modify the DOM (the visible webpage) and make API calls to get data. Without it, there is a hell of lot we just simply cannot do anymore.
While it may be possible to implement everything in a server side scripting language like PHP, it will not be nearly as pretty or functional. Keep in mind, some of that pretty makes it fairly damned functional by creating UI that are not possible with server side only implementations.
Whether you like it or not we are going to continue moving towards browsers being merely dynamic front ends for applications and that simply requires client side code. Period.
The only other option is a metric butt-ton of RDP connections so that users can enjoy an application remotely and that is ridiculously impractical.
Saying that 90% of websites should be redesigned in such a fashion is quite comical.
Define "interested groups" please.
I don't believe that I cared whether or not OBL was alive or dead for the past 10 years. This is because I am so massively disillusioned and disenfranchised with my government that I honestly and truly believe that false flag operations are not just possible, but probable . Regardless of how 9/11 came to be, and how OBL became what he was, the US government took full advantage of that opportunity to further strip of us our rights (the abomination that is the unPatriot Act) and accomplish their true foreign policy.
Now regardless of my own feelings and suspicions, "interested groups" must include the public at large worldwide. Considering the clusterfuck of bullshit that has happened to so many people, the deaths of millions of people as a direct result, etc. the world DESERVED as much evidence and proof as possible.
How on Earth anybody can satisfied with OBL being buried at sea, with a paltry few people having ever seen the body, let alone any impartial testing, is beyond me.
Whether or not a couple of groups can agree that he is most likely dead is well beyond the point. Not having the body immediately available for viewing, testing, and whatever else the world at large wanted is about as fucking stupid as going to the Moon and not taking any pictures.
Really? I dropped MS some time ago (for the vast majority of things) and when I have to deal with them it is mainly 2003 boxes. 2008 can be run as headless servers?
That's interesting......
On the other hand, it is surely enough evidence to get the police started investigating crimes they are interested in because the DA thinks they can win it.
FTFY.
You can have a device broadcasting IP information all day long and a sworn statement that your property has been stolen, and it is at that location, and the police will act like the laziest most disinterested bastards on the fucking planet.
Clearly, you don't like twitter becasue you don't find a use for it.
Yeah, that's pretty obvious.
I'm not sure why you think succinct lacks quality. It might lack depth, but that's different.
That is really my main issue right there. 140 characters is really not a lot. I think you will find that most short conversations contain more than that. I don't think depth is different than quality. The other issue to me is that it is such a one sided conversation. At least here we can have more than 140 words to converse with each other, other people are viewing it, and other people are moderating it. Twitter seems to be incredibly impersonal, which is contrary the purpose of social networking right?
Cell phone txt messaging, the huge scam that it is, at least has two way conversation.
Anybody that I would be interested in knowing more about would cause me great disappointment if all I got was 140 characters out them.
Twitter is a tool. Just because you can't find a use for it, doesn't mean you should be a tool.
That I also find interesting. Apparently you can't point out how impersonal and superficial Twitter is without being a friendless tool. It's like debating religion.
Don't feel too bad.
They can regulate wired connections to a point. Obviously, because it takes major corporations to own and operate those physical connections .
When the Internet becomes so un-free that everyday people begin seeking an alternative, one will be found. Have people stopped smoking weed because it is illegal? No. Stopped speeding? No. Will they stop enjoying a free Internet because it becomes illegal? Hell no.
You can design an infrastructure to be anonymous and private from the very beginning, and we are starting to do this on many fronts. While there have been some fights against such infrastructures with moderate successes, it has been against a fledgling infrastructure with pitiful participation by everyday people.
Look at TBP, Kazaa, Limewire for example. People have demonstrated that they will find a way to engage in the behavior they wish to engage in. Period. You have an entire generation growing up that started with a free Internet, and a generation behind that created it. Neither will sit back and accept destruction.
Those are the kiddie pool versions. Darknets and Mesh Networking can usher in a new age where shutting down dissenting opinion and punishing people will actually require roving vans triangulating signals like in Pump Up The Volume.
The PTB has just started, but so have we. The war has not even begun yet and you are throwing in the towel. Don't be that guy man. Hack the Planet! :)
That's what bothers me about that story. How the heck did another pilot get close enough to AF1 to perform a visual identification in the first place? I would think they would keep any object quite a long distance away from AF1.
That is the exception to the rule. Twitter was not created for the purpose of aiding revolutions, but as a general communication tool. It fails for general communication, for many reasons that I gave, and as far as revolutions go any ability for citizens to communicate to one another is going to be helpful and not the exclusive domain of Twitter.
I'm sorry but just because of your tone I have to ask you about this: Why, on this particular story, are you asking me about what valuable stuff Twitter does
You started with the tone. In fact, you asked for a dissenting opinion:
but we'll see posts later in this article about how Twitter's bad, etc.
I obliged and stick to my opinions about Twitter, its service, and how it relates to real relationships.
As for you, apparently you have some idea about how it can actually be valuable. I find that interesting since, other than revolutions, I see no practical or social value.
As far the 'tude.... I believe you brought plenty of it by alluding that I have no friends, and therefore must be incapable of friendship or lack the information that comes from such friendships that would allow me to magically "get" Twitter and its awesome purpose as social lubricant.
Which is all too predictable. Of course I would be modded down since Twitter is the cool, and since I don't like it I simply must have no friends. No other logical arguments are possible right?
I gave my arguments about relationships and the quality of communications, and Twitters lack thereof. What's your explanation of how Twitter can be valuable as a communication tool (not wholly polluted by marketing drivel) and *really* valuable towards interpersonal relationships?
LOL.
Yeah... okay. Explain to me what it is actually good for again?
Why on Earth would I want people (especially my friends and family who I actually like) follow me on a service where I deliver sound bites to them every couple of minutes about stupid crap?
but we'll see posts later in this article about how Twitter's bad, etc.
How about right now?
Twitter is bad, only because it sucks.
Seriously.. what is the point? Less space than a txt message on a cell phone. It practically begs to be used for the most boring, banal, and irrelevant crap in the Universe. It is the online version of tabloids, just with less content and less bat-children.
I'm not remotely interested in having a real time feed of "Ashton Kutcher" (if it really is him and not somebody working for him) and what color his last dump was, or that his oatmeal was lumpy, or Demmy was beating the shit of him. It is an uninteresting, wholly ineffective method of personal communication that drains everything positive such interaction was designed to provide. It's a way to have a relationship without actually having a relationship. Don't get me wrong, Mr. Kutcher might be a hell of guy. I've never met him, but if I did become friends with him, I would not follow him on Twatter either.
So.. yeah... Twitter blows on its own merits. They are not responsible for other people's tweets either and it would be ridiculous to make such a claim.
Their only redeeming value to society is their contribution towards the Arab Spring, and other such movements where even short messages could be valuable.
As it stands right now it Twitter only exists because it is propped up by marketing uses. Astroturfing and statistics gathering.
I know!
Started to giggle like a little child on Christmas Day when I heard that :)
masturbate to a nudie pic of Rosie O'Donnell with a fistful of broken glass soaked in gasoline
According to some rule I heard about there is a website for that...
Logic dictates it is possible for "your faith is False" to be factually True and unprovable.
Uhhh, so if we translate that into layman's terms we get, "Your religion is factually wrong, but I can't prove it".
Sorry, but just about everything you are saying is a value judgement. As much as I have faith, I at least recognize it for what it is, and how it affects my decision making, and how I let it affect others.
I am not Christian, but I can understand why there all the anecdotes about Christianity and how it used as an example. However, you are just as bad as irrational religious zealouts with your dismissive behavior and hostile terms like "silly" and "absurd".
There are two things that are provably true, or at least highly highly likely:
1) We are both going to die.
2) For the duration of our lifetimes there is going to be far more that we don't know, than we do know.
3) Both of us are going to adapt and deal with #1 and #2.
Faith is *always*, by definition, going to be derived from something you may categorize as fantasy, fairy tales, and basically, everything in the fiction section.
It can provide hope, inspiration, ambition, compassion, and a wealth of moral and ethical frameworks for decision making that are quite beneficial to the individual and society in general.
I can certainly appreciate limiting the scope of your beliefs and decision making processes to only that which can be proven mathematically. However, it is not silly or absurd to believe in something like Karma, or Heaven.
What is harmful is the hostility to one another about information we can't prove or disprove, and to make modifications to our common framework (government, society, laws, etc.) based on matters of Faith.
Some people say that Science is a religion too.... and with your behavior you only support those statements. Faith is not an affront to Science, and only exists as such in your own mind. You don't need to fight Faith itself, you need to fight how people understand Faith and make decisions with it.
I don't want to live in a cold world with no Faith. If you want to be Vulcan, go for it.
Because making decisions based on things that are true will work out better than making decisions based on things that are not true.
That's a vast oversimplification. I laugh, but I knew my post would effectively be trolling. It's interesting the amount of vitriol about faith.
Matters of faith cannot be proven true or false. Come on, if it were provably false it would be willful ignorance and foolishness to still act upon that information right? Faith is about a belief in something you cannot prove, not something you can prove to be false.
As far as decision making goes... Faith *can* be a healthy thing. People derive quite a bit of their morality and ethics from Faith. Now, it is true that morality and ethics can be derived from logic alone. What about hopes, dreams, and altruism in general?
So much about decision making can be positively influenced with Faith.
Exactly, they're all equally irrelevant.
That is not true in of itself, and is only your value judgement. As I stated, it can be a quite positive influence on a person in general, and therefore, does not fit the definition of important, insignificant, and wholly unconnected to rational decision making.
I have Faith. I believe in karma, reincarnation, and a universe filled with beauty and wonders. When I make a decision based on my strong belief in karma, karma becomes quite relevant to my decision making. To say that it is better to not make a decision with consideration of future consequences based on the effect it can have on others is puzzling to me.
Except that religious folk seem to have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality. If you choose to fantasize about a deity, and that makes you happy, that's fine. When your fantasy starts affecting those around you, that's not OK at all.
I wholly agree with you. Which is why I said in my original post that I recognize the proper definition of Faith. It is a belief in something that I cannot prove (and cannot disprove).
What is true, and quite real, is that we all have to live with each other *right now*. Although I have never met you in person, we do affect each other. The inability to grasp very large dynamic systems does not negate this fact.
To that end we have to agree upon a common framework in which we can live together. It is completely irrational for one of us to make demands in that common framework, that are restrictive and contentious, based upon something that is not provably true.
Like I said, the problem is not Faith. The problem is people and how they act upon information.
The problem is the nature of belief and how most people horribly screw it up.
that puts doubt in your mind that your story is any more real than theirs.
Right there. It's impossible for a religious "story" to be real. If it were we would be talking about facts and applying analytical thinking to it right?
Why does it *have* to be real? Faith can be defined as a strong in belief in something based on no facts, and no ability to prove that it is true. It is specifically the belief that something is true, despite the lack of evidence.
My own Faith, which belongs to my own Path, is personal and in no way conflicts with me being a scientist. I recognize it for what it is. The fact I can't prove it is not a source of stress and emotional discomfort to me at all. I don't even bother with the whole proving it part. What's the point anyways? Faith is for me and my journey, not yours.
Since Faith can't be proven, inherent to its very nature, then all faiths must be equal. It's not about right or wrong, but simply a choice about what feels the best for you. At that point, sharing these beliefs with other people can be easy, enjoyable, and conflict free.
The conflict between faith and science has always been a construct of human behavior. There is perfect harmony between them, as only humans can exist without harmony.
I don't need to prove Christianity to anybody else, prove that Zeus existed, prove Moses really did part some sea. Proving my own faith was never a requirement for it to be valid..
the idolaters and all liars
...and so is marketing :)
You still don't get it.
It's about quality journalism, NOT research or ignorance despite your baseless antagonism and character attacks.
When you are writing a summary for people inside, and outside, of your field it is not impossible to explain the key concepts and acronyms in a quick manner. There is a crucial difference between a white paper prepared for your field (like say a RFC for Ethernet) and an explanation of Ethernet in a technical article for Slashdot, Reddit, etc.
To explain them is not "sanitizing" the news, enabling their ignorance, or any other absurd pot shot you wish to throw at somebody because they did not understand an acronym right away.
Sheesh. I think I have a Cluepon around here somewhere....
Don't get mad at others because you have ill prepared yourself to understand the world around you, and for gods sake stop expecting anyone to feed you sanitized news because you might just be unlucky enough to get your wish
Wow. You're completely and utterly missing the point.
It would take another sentence at most to tie an explanation of SoC. This is not about anger, or being ill prepared. That is just ridiculous anyways. How do you prepare yourself for exposure to jargon from dozens of different fields? You can't. According to you, I am ill prepared to understand the world around me because I don't immediately recognize an acronym used in a very specific field? Really? Sorry, that is absurd.
The point is about quality journalism and writing. Try picking up a good magazine once in awhile and reading an article written by a *real* journalist. You'll see the difference right away.
It can be done. That's what I always liked about Stephen Hawking's books. They were written for people not in that field. Same thing here, the summary could have been written for people not in the field.
I got system-on-chip right away, so your ridiculous statement about me being angry or ill prepared is amusing. I'm just supporting the poster's lamentation about the degrading state of journalism everywhere.
It wasn't a minivan though... remember this thing was clocked at 33,000 mph. When's the last time you saw a minivan even doing the speed limit?