Also, each wheel can steer independently so you get a zero-radius turn. While the car doesn't fold into a perfectly round shape, you should still be able to rotate and drive out then expand.
Its unfortunate that skilled trades have seem to have the stigma that if you go into a skilled trade, you couldn't cut it elsewhere. It might be true, but there is and always will be a need for tradespeople, and I know some tradespeople that make very decent money.
I'm afraid if the less academically inclined are relegated to skilled trades, we'll have a glut of people not doing something they love and our services will decline significantly in efficiency and safety.
It is a perfectly reasonable thing to say if you're compiling JavaScript to an executable, which you're not.
You could say, "When an app is written in JavaScript is it likely to [use more resources] than the same app written in PHP..."
You can say this because Server-side JavaScript and PHP operate in the same environment at the same level.
Statements like these require qualification to be valid. Server-side JavaScript may be more resource intensive than PHP because the library is younger.
Sorting of 100,000 random numbers is a good academic exercise, but is not the same is sorting 100,000 records (unless they're records of random numbers) and, in this case, is comparing apples and giraffes.
Also, what your example does not take into account is:
a) the time required to make the request to sort
b) the time required to perform actual data sort
c) the time required to deliver the data back to the client
d) the time required to render the new page.
e) what happens when 2, 10, or 50 users want to sort 100,000 records at the same time.
Sorting on the client is an excellent distribution of resources. The data doesn't change, only the presentation of it, which falls squarely in the realm of the client.
It's not necessarily an argument of which would be faster for a single use, but which solution allows the application to scale and provides the best user experience. In this case, I think sorting on the client wins hands-down,
The biggest problem I have with browsers is that the "Backspace" key provides the same functionality as the "Back" button when used outside of a field context. It has been the source of much pissyness.
That may seem to make sense, but it doesn't address the same crowd that ignores the server message indicating the validation failure.
I think that validation should be done on both the server and client side. The client-side validation provides immediate feedback, and a better user experience. If the submit button is disabled, the user is likely to abandon the order WITHOUT reading the form for validation errors, and you may get support calls telling you your app is broken because people can't be bothered to read. (Yes, that's bitterness you perceive.)
By "client", I mean both standalone apps and web deployments. If, for some reason, the client is unable to validate (disabled JavaScript, missing DLL, solar flare), the server can still stop invalid transactions. Also, by forcing validation on the server side, you're ready to develop electronic b2b interfaces to your system.
People are used to a web browser. Like it or not (believe it or not) it provides a consistent interface, and a stable development platform. I would venture to say that JavaScript is a great language, that allows you to create some complex, robust and high-performance apps.
What we're really talking about here is similar to the oscillation in the VLSI industry -- the swing back-and-forth between dedicated coprocessors and general-purpose central processors. The FPU was integrated into the CPU. As least two levels of cache memory have been integrated into the CPU. Intel is pushing to integrate graphics into the CPU (again), but there was a good reason that dedicated hardware was created to handle graphics -- it's intense stuff, as is audio, high-speed networking and bus-interaction. There is a reason to keep these things off-chip. There is also a reason to adopt a client-server style of asynchronous communication at the hardware level: Yes, there is some additional overhead and chattiness, but that drawback is greatly overshadowed by the simplification and decoupling and allowance for a part to excel at a particular task at its own speed.
There may be a time where the browser could become the operating system. I think that level of abstraction is unnecessary, but that's me. The point is that we need good quality data, good performance, and minimal maintenance. We can have all three -- they're not mutually exclusive -- but only if we really understand the problems we're trying to address.
TeX was created to address the problem of inconsistent layout/publishing methodologies.
SGML was created as an attempt the establish a universal data description language to simplify inter-entity communication, so that you could concentrate on the data, not the transport mechanism.
HTML was created to combine several technologies for gathering information in the academic world.
The web browser establishes a medium in which you must rely less on the transport mechanism and can play with the data, and is an accessible development target. As with any development platform, inexperience and a myopic view of the problem can result in a crappy app.
That is a good point. If Opera is choosing to avoid recalculation if there is no horizontal change because of speed concers, the savings would probably be negligible. I think trading accuracy for speed (when accuracy is attainable) is a poor decision, so there has to be another reason that Opera is avoiding the recalc. Maybe it is just an oversight, and not an intentional tradeoff.
Personally, I resize my browser windows relatively often to test how the copy flows with different sizes and resize events. I would most likely need to resize my windows several times a second to see any measurable performance issue.
So... Opera chooses not to recalculate the height data on a vertical resize because the assumption is that the viewport just needs to adjust its clipping on the already-rendered page (showing less or more) -- the second assumption being that vertical resizes don't force a reflow. I wonder how rendering performance would be affected if the recalc occurred on all resizes.
I used mouse gestures with MyIE/Maxthon and absolutely loved them, but I had to wean myself off of them because the other programs I used didn't support the gestures. The gestures had become so natural that it was difficult for me to switch them "off" when I switched contexts.
Could Microsoft be trying to extricate itself from the relationships it has with hardware vendors? I read a quote a couple years ago from a Microsoft engineer that said something to the effect of, "Microsoft could make their OS a ton faster on older hardware, but because of relationships with hardware manufacturers like Intel, HP and Dell, they can't."
(I don't recall the source, so I'm relying on the/. collective to remember or set me straight)
If Microsoft is free to make the best OS they possibly can, where does that leave the hardware manufacturers? If the demand for new hardware diminishes because the new OS runs as well or better on your existing hardware, what will happen?
The enthusiast markets will still need to purchase high-end hardware, although we might see an increase in price on the high-end items.
Now, if Microsoft is left to make the best OS they can, there's no guarantee they will. OEM sales are where they make the most of their OS sales (I'm assuming), but if they can market a bigger, better, faster product, I think they'll see a lot more upgrade sales.
You most certainly can study something without adequate definition, especially when the motivation of study is to achieve a better definition.
I think the conversation has shifted a bit, specifically the use and implication of "definition", and we need to clarify what we're talking about.
Our initial discussion was about the inadequate definition of the soul. I think your use of "definition" in your reply has taken on a new meaning. Here is how I interpreted your first sentence:
You said: "You cannot study something without an adequate definition."
I inferred: "You cannot study something if your study methodology is not clearly defined."
Which I mostly agree with. I would agree with it 100% if we inserted the word "effectively" after "something".
I disagree with your argument about science and belief justification. You might not see a reason to believe in that which can't (yet?) be called science, but that has no effect on the justification of belief.
I believe with much certainty that much of what we now consider science went through a period of time where it was sustained solely by belief and that the practitioners of those beliefs were persecuted/discounted, and later vindicated. (By the way, I'm not using "persecuted" to allude to any persecution related to religion.)
It's my opinion that science is the religion of many, but to be truly scientific one must maintain a significant detachment from preconceptions, conclusions and status quo. A better way to state this opinion might be: "Science as a religion states, 'This is the way the world is.' True science maintains, 'This is what we've come up with so far.'"
I think we both agree that legitimate methodology for the study of the soul remains unestablished. That does not negate (or prove) the existence of the soul.
If people treated concepts other that that of a soul with your method, those concepts would never be explored.
The thrill of chasing the abstract is a driving force behind much discovery and innovation.
Please do not discount existence because of the lack of an adequate conceptual definition. Perhaps the concept of the soul is the best definition to-date and is awaiting its next evolution.
Phenomena exist independently of their definition. Fantasies fail to exist (physically) independently of their definitions.
I've had many conversations with various peers around the question, "What do you think is a good first-language?"
When I was first exploring computers, I was using Basic, Pascal and Logo. I don't remember Pascal, and I can't forget Basic or Logo. My first big passion-driven project was developing a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure engine in Basic. It got me into abstraction, simple databases, and eventually graphics.
I think JavaScript is a GREAT learning tool. You can simulate writing to files using text areas or new windows and Firebug is an excellent debugging tool. The language is very approachable and forgiving. Maybe using a strongly-typed language as a first language encourages disciplines that are missing in new programmers, but inference-typed languages offer tremendous power and can lower frustration levels.
Thank you for your reply -- I don't fully understand FISA (present or past).
The questions I was asking while reading were:
1. Should the telecom's be punished for doing what the government asked of them, or should non-compliant telco's be punished and then given reparations by the next administration?
2. Does the FISA amendment make matters worse or better? Does it have any effect at all?
We have an administration that may reinterpret the rights of the citezenry where and when it likes. The old FISA didn't stop that, and neither will the amended FISA.
I also think it's important to note that voting against the amendment WOULD NOT REPEAL FISA. The amendment adds additional constraints/process to government actions. I should be careful when I infer a stateman's intentions based on their vote.
The most unfortunate part of holding the government accountable is that any sort of remuneration is borne by the tax payers.
The "device" you speak about (and its application at the data center level), and assisting the FBI -- are these provisions provided by the amendment, or the original? I haven't read EFF's take on it because I was looking to interpret as cleanly as possible. I will review their position.
Again, thanks for your response. I know you weren't looking for an argument, but I'm looking for collaborative understanding.
You're absolutely right when you say, "...you, and others, fully understand the provisions in this law." I was looking at the effect the vote on the amendment had on the law. I believe Obama voted to dissolve FISA entirely by supporting and earlier bill which didn't pass. This amendment seems to impose some restrictions on government action, and it is the comparison of these two positions that leads me to infer the following position by Obama, "If the law won't be repealed, at least this makes it a little better."
I agree with your statement RE telecom immunity. We can allow telco immunity, but *should* let the market speak for us and move to telco's that didn't comply (Qwest? Maybe others?).
I thought it was interesting that McCain, who campaigned how important this issue was, did not vote. Obama voted for, and Clinton voted against.
Obama's vote surprised me. I've grown to respect Obama enough that I thought, "There must have been a reason he voted for it, especially since he seemed against it." FISA imposes greater restrictions on the wiretapping the US Government can legally do -- allowing for emergency tapping as long paperwork is filed within the week -- and diminishes the effectiveness of the "But we're at war!" argument. With this vote, Obama seems to support greater government accountability.
I'm not saying the Clinton does not support accountability.
No, Activision will become another Blizzard Studio:
1. Blizzard 2. Blizzard North 3. Blizzard Rectum
In partial seriousness, I'd like to see a sequel to Blackthorne -- a nice little side-scroller that I still have the box for (don't know where the media is, but I like box art).
Please tell me you've experienced "Carmageddon 2: Carpocalypse"? A game where you get bonus points for power-slide-smearing pedestrians, or skewering a ped with a tree or light pole... A game where you can open your doors to catch peds on the sidewalk...
A game where you can beat a level three ways: 1) Finish the lapped race first, 2) Destroy your opponents 3) wipe out every pedestrian on the map.
The graphics would be poor by today's standards, but definitely better that Road Rash!
I'm sorry, but where did you get the idea that, say, Facebook, is being frequented by teens? Last I'd heard, it's primary demographic was 18-35 year old university grads, for the most part.
Slashdot Mirror
It's really frustrating when people respond without reading the whole post. Unless this individual cannot process sarcasm, READ THE WHOLE POST.
Also, each wheel can steer independently so you get a zero-radius turn. While the car doesn't fold into a perfectly round shape, you should still be able to rotate and drive out then expand.
I think they meant, "Nein Nein Nein Nein Nein!"
But pi isn't imaginary.
Its unfortunate that skilled trades have seem to have the stigma that if you go into a skilled trade, you couldn't cut it elsewhere. It might be true, but there is and always will be a need for tradespeople, and I know some tradespeople that make very decent money.
I'm afraid if the less academically inclined are relegated to skilled trades, we'll have a glut of people not doing something they love and our services will decline significantly in efficiency and safety.
It is a perfectly reasonable thing to say if you're compiling JavaScript to an executable, which you're not.
You could say, "When an app is written in JavaScript is it likely to [use more resources] than the same app written in PHP..."
You can say this because Server-side JavaScript and PHP operate in the same environment at the same level.
Statements like these require qualification to be valid. Server-side JavaScript may be more resource intensive than PHP because the library is younger.
You can haz cheezbrgr.
I did read both posts.
Sorting of 100,000 random numbers is a good academic exercise, but is not the same is sorting 100,000 records (unless they're records of random numbers) and, in this case, is comparing apples and giraffes.
Also, what your example does not take into account is:
a) the time required to make the request to sort
b) the time required to perform actual data sort
c) the time required to deliver the data back to the client
d) the time required to render the new page.
e) what happens when 2, 10, or 50 users want to sort 100,000 records at the same time.
Sorting on the client is an excellent distribution of resources. The data doesn't change, only the presentation of it, which falls squarely in the realm of the client.
It's not necessarily an argument of which would be faster for a single use, but which solution allows the application to scale and provides the best user experience. In this case, I think sorting on the client wins hands-down,
The biggest problem I have with browsers is that the "Backspace" key provides the same functionality as the "Back" button when used outside of a field context. It has been the source of much pissyness.
That may seem to make sense, but it doesn't address the same crowd that ignores the server message indicating the validation failure.
I think that validation should be done on both the server and client side. The client-side validation provides immediate feedback, and a better user experience. If the submit button is disabled, the user is likely to abandon the order WITHOUT reading the form for validation errors, and you may get support calls telling you your app is broken because people can't be bothered to read. (Yes, that's bitterness you perceive.)
By "client", I mean both standalone apps and web deployments. If, for some reason, the client is unable to validate (disabled JavaScript, missing DLL, solar flare), the server can still stop invalid transactions. Also, by forcing validation on the server side, you're ready to develop electronic b2b interfaces to your system.
People are used to a web browser. Like it or not (believe it or not) it provides a consistent interface, and a stable development platform. I would venture to say that JavaScript is a great language, that allows you to create some complex, robust and high-performance apps.
What we're really talking about here is similar to the oscillation in the VLSI industry -- the swing back-and-forth between dedicated coprocessors and general-purpose central processors. The FPU was integrated into the CPU. As least two levels of cache memory have been integrated into the CPU. Intel is pushing to integrate graphics into the CPU (again), but there was a good reason that dedicated hardware was created to handle graphics -- it's intense stuff, as is audio, high-speed networking and bus-interaction. There is a reason to keep these things off-chip. There is also a reason to adopt a client-server style of asynchronous communication at the hardware level: Yes, there is some additional overhead and chattiness, but that drawback is greatly overshadowed by the simplification and decoupling and allowance for a part to excel at a particular task at its own speed.
There may be a time where the browser could become the operating system. I think that level of abstraction is unnecessary, but that's me. The point is that we need good quality data, good performance, and minimal maintenance. We can have all three -- they're not mutually exclusive -- but only if we really understand the problems we're trying to address.
TeX was created to address the problem of inconsistent layout/publishing methodologies.
SGML was created as an attempt the establish a universal data description language to simplify inter-entity communication, so that you could concentrate on the data, not the transport mechanism.
HTML was created to combine several technologies for gathering information in the academic world.
The web browser establishes a medium in which you must rely less on the transport mechanism and can play with the data, and is an accessible development target. As with any development platform, inexperience and a myopic view of the problem can result in a crappy app.
So... you're wondering why he didn't appoint Palin?
That is a good point. If Opera is choosing to avoid recalculation if there is no horizontal change because of speed concers, the savings would probably be negligible. I think trading accuracy for speed (when accuracy is attainable) is a poor decision, so there has to be another reason that Opera is avoiding the recalc. Maybe it is just an oversight, and not an intentional tradeoff.
Personally, I resize my browser windows relatively often to test how the copy flows with different sizes and resize events. I would most likely need to resize my windows several times a second to see any measurable performance issue.
So... Opera chooses not to recalculate the height data on a vertical resize because the assumption is that the viewport just needs to adjust its clipping on the already-rendered page (showing less or more) -- the second assumption being that vertical resizes don't force a reflow. I wonder how rendering performance would be affected if the recalc occurred on all resizes.
I used mouse gestures with MyIE/Maxthon and absolutely loved them, but I had to wean myself off of them because the other programs I used didn't support the gestures. The gestures had become so natural that it was difficult for me to switch them "off" when I switched contexts.
Could Microsoft be trying to extricate itself from the relationships it has with hardware vendors? I read a quote a couple years ago from a Microsoft engineer that said something to the effect of, "Microsoft could make their OS a ton faster on older hardware, but because of relationships with hardware manufacturers like Intel, HP and Dell, they can't."
(I don't recall the source, so I'm relying on the /. collective to remember or set me straight)
If Microsoft is free to make the best OS they possibly can, where does that leave the hardware manufacturers? If the demand for new hardware diminishes because the new OS runs as well or better on your existing hardware, what will happen?
The enthusiast markets will still need to purchase high-end hardware, although we might see an increase in price on the high-end items.
Now, if Microsoft is left to make the best OS they can, there's no guarantee they will. OEM sales are where they make the most of their OS sales (I'm assuming), but if they can market a bigger, better, faster product, I think they'll see a lot more upgrade sales.
"Force coupling" -- sounds like the Jedi now have adult-movie powers. Maybe Virgin should rethink their stance on space porn?
You most certainly can study something without adequate definition, especially when the motivation of study is to achieve a better definition.
I think the conversation has shifted a bit, specifically the use and implication of "definition", and we need to clarify what we're talking about.
Our initial discussion was about the inadequate definition of the soul. I think your use of "definition" in your reply has taken on a new meaning. Here is how I interpreted your first sentence:
You said: "You cannot study something without an adequate definition."
I inferred: "You cannot study something if your study methodology is not clearly defined."
Which I mostly agree with. I would agree with it 100% if we inserted the word "effectively" after "something".
I disagree with your argument about science and belief justification. You might not see a reason to believe in that which can't (yet?) be called science, but that has no effect on the justification of belief.
I believe with much certainty that much of what we now consider science went through a period of time where it was sustained solely by belief and that the practitioners of those beliefs were persecuted/discounted, and later vindicated. (By the way, I'm not using "persecuted" to allude to any persecution related to religion.)
It's my opinion that science is the religion of many, but to be truly scientific one must maintain a significant detachment from preconceptions, conclusions and status quo. A better way to state this opinion might be: "Science as a religion states, 'This is the way the world is.' True science maintains, 'This is what we've come up with so far.'"
I think we both agree that legitimate methodology for the study of the soul remains unestablished. That does not negate (or prove) the existence of the soul.
If people treated concepts other that that of a soul with your method, those concepts would never be explored.
The thrill of chasing the abstract is a driving force behind much discovery and innovation.
Please do not discount existence because of the lack of an adequate conceptual definition. Perhaps the concept of the soul is the best definition to-date and is awaiting its next evolution.
Phenomena exist independently of their definition. Fantasies fail to exist (physically) independently of their definitions.
How about...
Death by 1000 cuts that actually counts the cuts... no over-exertion, or having to pay your operators overtime!
I've had many conversations with various peers around the question, "What do you think is a good first-language?"
When I was first exploring computers, I was using Basic, Pascal and Logo. I don't remember Pascal, and I can't forget Basic or Logo. My first big passion-driven project was developing a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure engine in Basic. It got me into abstraction, simple databases, and eventually graphics.
I think JavaScript is a GREAT learning tool. You can simulate writing to files using text areas or new windows and Firebug is an excellent debugging tool. The language is very approachable and forgiving. Maybe using a strongly-typed language as a first language encourages disciplines that are missing in new programmers, but inference-typed languages offer tremendous power and can lower frustration levels.
Thank you for your reply -- I don't fully understand FISA (present or past).
The questions I was asking while reading were:
1. Should the telecom's be punished for doing what the government asked of them, or should non-compliant telco's be punished and then given reparations by the next administration?
2. Does the FISA amendment make matters worse or better? Does it have any effect at all?
We have an administration that may reinterpret the rights of the citezenry where and when it likes. The old FISA didn't stop that, and neither will the amended FISA.
I also think it's important to note that voting against the amendment WOULD NOT REPEAL FISA. The amendment adds additional constraints/process to government actions. I should be careful when I infer a stateman's intentions based on their vote.
The most unfortunate part of holding the government accountable is that any sort of remuneration is borne by the tax payers.
The "device" you speak about (and its application at the data center level), and assisting the FBI -- are these provisions provided by the amendment, or the original? I haven't read EFF's take on it because I was looking to interpret as cleanly as possible. I will review their position.
Again, thanks for your response. I know you weren't looking for an argument, but I'm looking for collaborative understanding.
You're absolutely right when you say, "...you, and others, fully understand the provisions in this law." I was looking at the effect the vote on the amendment had on the law. I believe Obama voted to dissolve FISA entirely by supporting and earlier bill which didn't pass. This amendment seems to impose some restrictions on government action, and it is the comparison of these two positions that leads me to infer the following position by Obama, "If the law won't be repealed, at least this makes it a little better."
That's how I arrived at my conclusion.
I agree with your statement RE telecom immunity. We can allow telco immunity, but *should* let the market speak for us and move to telco's that didn't comply (Qwest? Maybe others?).
I thought it was interesting that McCain, who campaigned how important this issue was, did not vote. Obama voted for, and Clinton voted against.
Obama's vote surprised me. I've grown to respect Obama enough that I thought, "There must have been a reason he voted for it, especially since he seemed against it." FISA imposes greater restrictions on the wiretapping the US Government can legally do -- allowing for emergency tapping as long paperwork is filed within the week -- and diminishes the effectiveness of the "But we're at war!" argument. With this vote, Obama seems to support greater government accountability.
I'm not saying the Clinton does not support accountability.
No, Activision will become another Blizzard Studio:
1. Blizzard
2. Blizzard North
3. Blizzard Rectum
In partial seriousness, I'd like to see a sequel to Blackthorne -- a nice little side-scroller that I still have the box for (don't know where the media is, but I like box art).
Please tell me you've experienced "Carmageddon 2: Carpocalypse"? A game where you get bonus points for power-slide-smearing pedestrians, or skewering a ped with a tree or light pole... A game where you can open your doors to catch peds on the sidewalk...
A game where you can beat a level three ways: 1) Finish the lapped race first, 2) Destroy your opponents 3) wipe out every pedestrian on the map.
The graphics would be poor by today's standards, but definitely better that Road Rash!
I'm sorry, but where did you get the idea that, say, Facebook, is being frequented by teens? Last I'd heard, it's primary demographic was 18-35 year old university grads, for the most part.
... trolling for teens.