f Microsoft were to drop MS Office on the Mac then they would be opening up about 4% of the OS market to the alternatives you mentioned. That is something they don't need right now because even their grip on the Windows Office market is loosening. How many hundreds of thousands of licenses have they lost worldwide to Star Office or Open Office. They aren't doing Apple any favors here. They are just trying to prolong their time on top.
While I don't have any hard numbers, I seriously doubt that their grip is loosening due to SO or OO. There have always been alternatives out there to MS Office. Wordperfect/Corel Office, for example, was at least as popular as OO is today. What about the Lotus Suite? Granted, OpenOffice has that "you can't put us out of business because we don't rely on profits" thing going so it is unlikely to just disappear. Still, I'd say MS Office has at least as stronger grip than ever.
-matthew
Re:spam is dead, long live spam
on
Spam is Dead
·
· Score: 1
How many people have their lives and the lives of their loved ones destroyed as a result of cocaine? More. Many, many more. Ridding the world of the coca plant would be a good thing.
But futile.
It's ravaged our species. It's created the most power criminal organizations on the planet, strong enough to influence governments across the world.
Prohibition creates the cartels. Just like when alcohol was banned. Take anything that is in high demand and ban it, and you have almost instant organized crime. What's worse is that you raise the price and, hence, the incentive to trade it. It gets to the point where there is so much money to be made in drug trade that nobody wants to grow anything else (in areas where growing is an option)
If the Powers That Be (TM) would commit to wholesale eradication, I don't care who is inconvenienced. However, they seem to target the crops of certain cartels. Hmmm.
If you had any idea how much damage such eradication attempts do to innocent people, I doubt you would be saying that. Those crops are often grown by otherwise innocent farmers who can't make enough money growing legitimate crops. They have families and neighbors. All of whom are severely damaged by "wholesale eradication" attempts.
Frankly, cocaine isn't even really that bad. In some ways it is like marijuana. Many, many, people consume it casually and infrequently and you would never know it. I'm not saying it is a good idea to use cocaine, but the idea that cocaine has some megical ability to ruin lives just by its mere pesence is a myth.
The war on drugs is a failure. It is time to step back and rethink things.
-matthew
Re:i already addressed you in my orig comment
on
Spam is Dead
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
you can't solve a problem by just accepting the problem
Apparenly you don't solve it by going to "war" with it either. I'm not talking about acceptance. I am talking about doing what you can, but at a certain point recognize that you can only do so much before you are doing more harm than good.
there will always be malcontents who seek violence, and unconstrained access to highly addictive substances just results in a lot of addicts. do you deny either observation? then you don't understand what terrorism/ hard drug use really is
I understand that the magnitude of such problems are influenced by certain social and cultural conditions. There are conditions that tend to lead to drug addiction and terrorism. They dont' just come out of thin air for no reason. Sure, there are SOME people who are just "anti-social" and tehre are SOME people who who are just prone to drug addiction, but a significant portion get involved with these things for reasons that can be addressed without going to war with them.
simply put, every single negative you can demonstrate about the war on drugs/ war on terror i accept and acknowledge. except that the negatives of not fighting these things is worse. that's really about the entire argument we can possibly have on the issue,
Look, I'm not saying we shouldn't address theproblems. I'm just saying that "fighting" them isn't necessarily the answer. It is not difficult to see that many of the problems with drugs are CAUSED by our "war" attitude towards them. Do you understand the implication of the word "war?"
therefore, you wage war on heroin, meth, cocaine (the highly addictive drugs ONLY... marijuana, lsd, nonaddictive drugs: these should be legal), and you wage war on terror (bush invading iraq might be called part of "the war on terror", but again, the specifics of a flawed policiy don't matter to me, it's the PRINCIPAL of opposing terrorism that matters to me: you have to take out the trash, or it just accumulates and stinks up the place)
Sure, you have to take out the trash. But starting a "war on trash" would be ridiculous. Just take it out. No need to turn it into a battle between you and a bag of rubbish.
-matthew
Re:spam is dead, long live spam
on
Spam is Dead
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
ighting spam, much like "the war on terror" or "the war on drugs" or fighting pedophilia, is mostly a policing activity. that is, it never ends, nor will it ever end, nor should you think it will ever end, if you really understand the nature of the problem,
The problem with these never ending "wars" is that they keep building up. With this "nor should you think it wil ever end" mentality is that it gets to the point where you are actually making things worse by being so relentless. Take the war on drugs, for example. How many people are hurt because drug use is criminalized rather than treated as a health issue (which it is)? That is what you get when you start waging "war." How much farm land in Columbia is destroyed and people poisoned because the US dumps herbicides all over the place to kill coca crops? Lots. At some point you need to back off theses never ending "wars" and ask youself if the casualties are really worth it.
As for the "war on terror," how much terrorism is CREATED by the war on terror? You go into a country thinking you are going to kill all the terrorists and guess what? You've just pissed off a whole bunch of people who previously didn't feel particularly strongly. Also consider the freedoms that people are willing to give up once "war" declared. "War" is a very powerful term and I think we should reserve it for big things. Pretty soon people will start believing that "war is peace, peace is war."
And back on topic... why is there a "war on spam?" Just install damn filters and be done with it. Any half decent spam/virus filter (and there are many out there) can stop at least 90% of all SPAM. So what is the big deal? Just push your services provider to install better filters and get on with your life.
The difference is, when you're wasted, you'll literally be ok with curling up in a pile of leaves, laying down on the steps of the bar, etc. When you wake up in the morning, there is no substitute for the bed:)
I dunno, my brother used to fall asleep in the shower in the morning.
It is not, because if I chose to do it, I can. I will be put in jail, but the government does not have a system in place to effectively prevent me.
And the Chinese have ways of getting around website blocks using proxies and such. Are you saying that if there is some way aound the censorship, it isn't censorship? Perhaps it is a little more involved to get around teh Great Firewall, but it is certainly possible. You're really reaching here. I don't know why you are so loath to admit that the US government engages in censorship to some degree.
BTW, I noticed that you conveniently snipped out my comments about broadcast TV censors. Why do you think they call them censors? Censorship doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing, ya know. There are all kinds of ways to limit and manipulate information to some end.
Personal responsibility, not government censorship is preventing me from doing these things. Look at the murder example: the government is not censoring my ability to murder. I can think about it, I can accomplish it, I will likely end up a criminal. But censorship has not been involved.
Bad example. Censorship generally deals with the dissemination of information, not actions. You can't really censor an action, per se.
From what I understand, "bulk" censorship is quite endorsed by the majority of the Chinese population.
No, it is not. Otherwise, there would be no people protesting the blocking mechanism. You do not see people protesting the child porn laws in the US, do you? (Yea, there are a few nuts probably, but nothing like an actual protest)
People I've heard from who have lived in China seem to be under the impression that the bulk of the Chinese people support their government. China is a really big country. The few that are protesting represent a small minority. You might argue the people who are not protesting don't really know how horrible the government is because of censhorship and would probably be pretty disgusted if they know what was really going on, but the fact is that they support the government.
As I am sure we all we be somewhat disgusted by our government if we knew what was REALLY going on behind closed doors. But we don't know. Besides profanities on broadcast TV and kiddie porn, there are many other things that the government does effectively prevent the people from knowing much about.
Even the Chinese are allowed to think about the things that are censored.
That's the problem. They are not. Sites have been taken down that criticize the Great Firewall.
In what way does that stop them from thinking about these things? They know that a Great Firewall exists. What stops them from criticizing it in their own minds?
Child pornography (as a product) requires commiting heinous crimes to produce it.
Even if you were just a "consumer" of it and didn't produce it yourself, you'd still be supporting those who are commiting sexual crimes against children.
What if it is pirated kiddie porn and no money changes hands. Would it be OK then? I doubt it. Not by the law.
Look, I'm not saying censoring kiddie porn isn't justifiable. I'm just pointing out that it is still censorship.
It's a very different situation than, say, banning a violent/sexually explicit game.
Of course it is. The government censors child pornography. You can't view it, you can't dispplay it, you can't trade it. What else would you call this besides censorship?
Please be careful distinguishing government intervention and bulk censorship (as opposed to personal responsibility).
So if it isn't done "bulk," it isn't censorship? What about broadcast TV, isn't that censored? Don't the networks have to pass their material by censors before they can put it on the air? Should we change their job title because you are uncomfortable with the fact that the US government employs censorship to some degree? You might argue that the networks hire their own censors, but what rules do you think the censors go by... the FCC, right?
with perfectly sane laws quite endorsed by the society
From what I understand, "bulk" censorship is quite endorsed by the majority of the Chinese population. Just as censorship of child pornography is quite endorsed by the majority of the US population.
Is it legal to commit murder? No Is it legal to threaten with murder? No Is it legal to think about murder? Yes
Cencorship begins only when that last question has to be answered with a "no".
Hardly. Even the Chinese are allowed to think about the things that are censored. They might be oppressed, but they don't quite have thought police yet.
They have been saying that for decades and have got nowhere,
The lithium ion battery in your cell phone begs to differ. Not that we are likely to see it in a car anytime soon, but the poitn is that batteries are getting better. There's also the lithium polymer cell.
H is useable NOW and it can be generated from seawater by electricity.
Heh, talk about technology that has been around for a long time and hasn't changed in, what, 200 years? Even the fuel cell is like 100 year old tech. There are still some severe limitations to electrolysis. It does not scale very well. There is a reason why almost all hydrogen is extracted from fossil fuels and not water.
The question of sources that everyone goes on about is asking how to generate that electricity. Regardless of the source,
It is all about the source. The source is the only thing that matters. If you don't have a surplus of electricity, you don't have anything. People will argue on and on about hydrogen and how great it is, but that is like fussing over how to build a gold truck before you've found the gold mine.
H is a much cleaner and more efficient way to store some of that energy for use in personal transport than any foreseebale battery technology. The trick is learning to use H as a safe and convinient substitute for oil, batteries will probably still be much the same a decade from now.
And we'll still have the same problems finding enough electricity a decade from now. So it doesn't really matter.
They are unsuitable as a replacement for oil in a family car.
Hydrogen seems to have a very simiilar problem. The awkward physic characteristics are hydrogen are not going to change. By the time someone figures out how to "safely and conveniently" use hydrogen it is going to look a whole lot more like a battery than oil. Making hydrogen from electricity and then converting back to energy is exactly the kind of thing that a battery would do.
Also, keep in mind that there is more to replacing oil than just automobiles. A LOT of useful things come from crude oil.
So why not use the superior ICE's in the hybrids and get the best of both worlds? The hybrids we are drivign (in the US) aren't nearly as efficient as they could be. Diesel hybrids, for example, can get 80+ MPG, IIRC. Also, keep in mind that I'm talking about what will happen when gas gets REALLY expensive. By then the benefit will be much greater. How much more cost effective will a hybrid be when gas doubles in price?
But then, Iceland is a small place. Why wouldn't they just drive electric cars? Sure, they won't have much range, but who cares? Its Iceland, where are they going to drive to??
Well, it is looking like hybrids are next. Maybe double or tripple the average fuel economy (we can dream, eh?). If gas get really expensive, I would expect to see more pure electric (probably have better battery tech then). A few fringe users toying with alternatives. I wouldn't expect to see many hydrogen cars unless electricity becomes cheap enough to throw away or H can be made economically from coal or something like that. But in the short term I see hybrids.
Oh lord, not one but TWO references to Wired. The world's leading source of hydrogen hype and fantasy. If hydrogen is the answer to the world's energy problems, it isn't in separating it from oxygen, but fusing it into helium. See, you have to think in terms of energy SOURCES, not in energy storage.
You sound just like about 100,000 people I've heard before who learned one language and have embraced it forever and will carry it into the tarpit using blind bigotry as their defense because they reason that their first language was so painful to them, they don't dare learn a second and struggle through that agony again.
My first language? BASIC. Second? FORTRAN. Third? C. Third? asm. Fourth? Java. Perl. TCL. C#. Ruby. Shall I go on?
Asshole. A somewhat notorious one at that, it seems.
I have heard it called 'the future of web development', and 'a replacement for Java in almost all web applications'.
I haven't really heard the latter claim. But then, I don't hang around Java forums/blogs where people might get a little defensive about such statements. Most of the "conversions" I hear about are from PHP.
I would love to see a pure Ruby-based application try and cope with some of the processor-intensive things I have had to deal with in some web applications. "A great fit for practically any type of web application" is simply false, and it is this kind of overblown propaganda that puts me off Rails.
Well, I am not sure from where you are pulling these quotes, but I would agree that they are are somewhat exagerated. Certainly there are specific solutions that require something more robust than RoR. That said, if 90% of all web applications are things like web forums and blogs (and I believe this is the case), perhaps the claims are not too far off. Besides, it isn't like they try to hide the fact that Rails restricts ones development. I mean, it is called Ruby on Rails. What do rails do? They restrict the range of movement to facilitate more efficient movement in a specific direction.
I had my doubts about the hype as well, but I decided to put aside my doubts and just give RoR a try. I took an existing intranet PHP application which was pretty clunky and completely rewrote it in RoR just to see what Rails could do. And without ANY prior Ruby experience, I had duplicated the functionality of the original PHP application, and then some, in a little over a 40 hours. I don't know about RoR replacing Java, but I sure hope it eats up a good share of PHP's dominance.
I don't know - I use another framework - JSF. Combined with Spring and good ORM (JDO) it is very easy to get things up and running for even the smallest websites. Better still, you know your website has the performance to cope with whatever you throw at it in terms of load or future complexity. I have heard good things about Tapestry.
I guess the question is, have you actually tried RoR? I've done some Java work and I find it unnecessarily complex for most things. Granted, I haven't tried all the frameworks to find that "suite spot," but frankly, I don't hvae the time. I am not a full time software developer.
Rails is innovative in the sense that it is a good balance between PHP and Java. And that is all it is meant to be. I know I wouldn't 'want to use Java to solve the (relatively small) problems where I've used Rails... for the exact oppose reason I wouldn't want to use PHP. PHP is brain dead and Java is too complicated and verbose. Does Tapestry address this? I don't know. I've heard mixed reviews.
I still diagree. I know people who can throw together a PHP page but would have quite a bit of difficultly with even a simple assembly program. Hell, even I thought assembly was daunting back when I gave it a go. Anything that has a very cryptic syntax is going to be tricky to learn. Some languages ARE easier than others even in their intended contexts. The context itself influences how easy or difficutl a language is. A lot also depends on the way a particular individual thinks. A procedural language might be much easier to work with than an OO language for some people.
What happens when two languages are intended for the same purpose? Is it not conceivable that one might be easier than the other? Are you suggesting that it isn't possible for someone to come up with a really clunky and difficult language? I know I can name a few.
Slashdot Mirror
Ha! You said "synergy!" For a second there I thought you might actually be technical.
-matthew
f Microsoft were to drop MS Office on the Mac then they would be opening up about 4% of the OS market to the alternatives you mentioned. That is something they don't need right now because even their grip on the Windows Office market is loosening. How many hundreds of thousands of licenses have they lost worldwide to Star Office or Open Office. They aren't doing Apple any favors here. They are just trying to prolong their time on top.
While I don't have any hard numbers, I seriously doubt that their grip is loosening due to SO or OO. There have always been alternatives out there to MS Office. Wordperfect/Corel Office, for example, was at least as popular as OO is today. What about the Lotus Suite? Granted, OpenOffice has that "you can't put us out of business because we don't rely on profits" thing going so it is unlikely to just disappear. Still, I'd say MS Office has at least as stronger grip than ever.
-matthew
How many people have their lives and the lives of their loved ones destroyed as a result of cocaine? More. Many, many more. Ridding the world of the coca plant would be a good thing.
But futile.
It's ravaged our species. It's created the most power criminal organizations on the planet, strong enough to influence governments across the world.
Prohibition creates the cartels. Just like when alcohol was banned. Take anything that is in high demand and ban it, and you have almost instant organized crime. What's worse is that you raise the price and, hence, the incentive to trade it. It gets to the point where there is so much money to be made in drug trade that nobody wants to grow anything else (in areas where growing is an option)
If the Powers That Be (TM) would commit to wholesale eradication, I don't care who is inconvenienced. However, they seem to target the crops of certain cartels. Hmmm.
If you had any idea how much damage such eradication attempts do to innocent people, I doubt you would be saying that. Those crops are often grown by otherwise innocent farmers who can't make enough money growing legitimate crops. They have families and neighbors. All of whom are severely damaged by "wholesale eradication" attempts.
Frankly, cocaine isn't even really that bad. In some ways it is like marijuana. Many, many, people consume it casually and infrequently and you would never know it. I'm not saying it is a good idea to use cocaine, but the idea that cocaine has some megical ability to ruin lives just by its mere pesence is a myth.
The war on drugs is a failure. It is time to step back and rethink things.
-matthew
you can't solve a problem by just accepting the problem
Apparenly you don't solve it by going to "war" with it either. I'm not talking about acceptance. I am talking about doing what you can, but at a certain point recognize that you can only do so much before you are doing more harm than good.
there will always be malcontents who seek violence, and unconstrained access to highly addictive substances just results in a lot of addicts. do you deny either observation? then you don't understand what terrorism/ hard drug use really is
I understand that the magnitude of such problems are influenced by certain social and cultural conditions. There are conditions that tend to lead to drug addiction and terrorism. They dont' just come out of thin air for no reason. Sure, there are SOME people who are just "anti-social" and tehre are SOME people who who are just prone to drug addiction, but a significant portion get involved with these things for reasons that can be addressed without going to war with them.
simply put, every single negative you can demonstrate about the war on drugs/ war on terror i accept and acknowledge. except that the negatives of not fighting these things is worse. that's really about the entire argument we can possibly have on the issue,
Look, I'm not saying we shouldn't address theproblems. I'm just saying that "fighting" them isn't necessarily the answer. It is not difficult to see that many of the problems with drugs are CAUSED by our "war" attitude towards them. Do you understand the implication of the word "war?"
therefore, you wage war on heroin, meth, cocaine (the highly addictive drugs ONLY... marijuana, lsd, nonaddictive drugs: these should be legal), and you wage war on terror (bush invading iraq might be called part of "the war on terror", but again, the specifics of a flawed policiy don't matter to me, it's the PRINCIPAL of opposing terrorism that matters to me: you have to take out the trash, or it just accumulates and stinks up the place)
Sure, you have to take out the trash. But starting a "war on trash" would be ridiculous. Just take it out. No need to turn it into a battle between you and a bag of rubbish.
-matthew
The problem with these never ending "wars" is that they keep building up. With this "nor should you think it wil ever end" mentality is that it gets to the point where you are actually making things worse by being so relentless. Take the war on drugs, for example. How many people are hurt because drug use is criminalized rather than treated as a health issue (which it is)? That is what you get when you start waging "war." How much farm land in Columbia is destroyed and people poisoned because the US dumps herbicides all over the place to kill coca crops? Lots. At some point you need to back off theses never ending "wars" and ask youself if the casualties are really worth it.
As for the "war on terror," how much terrorism is CREATED by the war on terror? You go into a country thinking you are going to kill all the terrorists and guess what? You've just pissed off a whole bunch of people who previously didn't feel particularly strongly. Also consider the freedoms that people are willing to give up once "war" declared. "War" is a very powerful term and I think we should reserve it for big things. Pretty soon people will start believing that "war is peace, peace is war."
And back on topic... why is there a "war on spam?" Just install damn filters and be done with it. Any half decent spam/virus filter (and there are many out there) can stop at least 90% of all SPAM. So what is the big deal? Just push your services provider to install better filters and get on with your life.
-matthew
I dunno, my brother used to fall asleep in the shower in the morning.
-mattew
And the Chinese have ways of getting around website blocks using proxies and such. Are you saying that if there is some way aound the censorship, it isn't censorship? Perhaps it is a little more involved to get around teh Great Firewall, but it is certainly possible. You're really reaching here. I don't know why you are so loath to admit that the US government engages in censorship to some degree.
BTW, I noticed that you conveniently snipped out my comments about broadcast TV censors. Why do you think they call them censors? Censorship doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing, ya know. There are all kinds of ways to limit and manipulate information to some end.
Personal responsibility, not government censorship is preventing me from doing these things. Look at the murder example: the government is not censoring my ability to murder. I can think about it, I can accomplish it, I will likely end up a criminal. But censorship has not been involved.
Bad example. Censorship generally deals with the dissemination of information, not actions. You can't really censor an action, per se.
From what I understand, "bulk" censorship is quite endorsed by the majority of the Chinese population.
No, it is not. Otherwise, there would be no people protesting the blocking mechanism. You do not see people protesting the child porn laws in the US, do you? (Yea, there are a few nuts probably, but nothing like an actual protest)
People I've heard from who have lived in China seem to be under the impression that the bulk of the Chinese people support their government. China is a really big country. The few that are protesting represent a small minority. You might argue the people who are not protesting don't really know how horrible the government is because of censhorship and would probably be pretty disgusted if they know what was really going on, but the fact is that they support the government.
As I am sure we all we be somewhat disgusted by our government if we knew what was REALLY going on behind closed doors. But we don't know. Besides profanities on broadcast TV and kiddie porn, there are many other things that the government does effectively prevent the people from knowing much about.
Even the Chinese are allowed to think about the things that are censored.
That's the problem. They are not. Sites have been taken down that criticize the Great Firewall.
In what way does that stop them from thinking about these things? They know that a Great Firewall exists. What stops them from criticizing it in their own minds?
-matthew
Child pornography (as a product) requires commiting heinous crimes to produce it.
Even if you were just a "consumer" of it and didn't produce it yourself, you'd still be supporting those who are commiting sexual crimes against children.
What if it is pirated kiddie porn and no money changes hands. Would it be OK then? I doubt it. Not by the law.
Look, I'm not saying censoring kiddie porn isn't justifiable. I'm just pointing out that it is still censorship.
It's a very different situation than, say, banning a violent/sexually explicit game.
Different situation. Both censorship.
-matthew
Is any of it due to government cencorship?
.
No.
Of course it is. The government censors child pornography. You can't view it, you can't dispplay it, you can't trade it. What else would you call this besides censorship?
Please be careful distinguishing government intervention and bulk censorship (as opposed to personal responsibility)
So if it isn't done "bulk," it isn't censorship? What about broadcast TV, isn't that censored? Don't the networks have to pass their material by censors before they can put it on the air? Should we change their job title because you are uncomfortable with the fact that the US government employs censorship to some degree? You might argue that the networks hire their own censors, but what rules do you think the censors go by... the FCC, right?
with perfectly sane laws quite endorsed by the society
From what I understand, "bulk" censorship is quite endorsed by the majority of the Chinese population. Just as censorship of child pornography is quite endorsed by the majority of the US population.
Is it legal to commit murder? No
Is it legal to threaten with murder? No
Is it legal to think about murder? Yes
Cencorship begins only when that last question has to be answered with a "no".
Hardly. Even the Chinese are allowed to think about the things that are censored. They might be oppressed, but they don't quite have thought police yet.
-matthew
What is that difference between theory and reality? In theory, there is no difference.
'nuff said.
-matthew
The lithium ion battery in your cell phone begs to differ. Not that we are likely to see it in a car anytime soon, but the poitn is that batteries are getting better. There's also the lithium polymer cell.
H is useable NOW and it can be generated from seawater by electricity.
Heh, talk about technology that has been around for a long time and hasn't changed in, what, 200 years? Even the fuel cell is like 100 year old tech. There are still some severe limitations to electrolysis. It does not scale very well. There is a reason why almost all hydrogen is extracted from fossil fuels and not water.
The question of sources that everyone goes on about is asking how to generate that electricity. Regardless of the source,
It is all about the source. The source is the only thing that matters. If you don't have a surplus of electricity, you don't have anything. People will argue on and on about hydrogen and how great it is, but that is like fussing over how to build a gold truck before you've found the gold mine.
H is a much cleaner and more efficient way to store some of that energy for use in personal transport than any foreseebale battery technology. The trick is learning to use H as a safe and convinient substitute for oil, batteries will probably still be much the same a decade from now.
And we'll still have the same problems finding enough electricity a decade from now. So it doesn't really matter.
They are unsuitable as a replacement for oil in a family car.
Hydrogen seems to have a very simiilar problem. The awkward physic characteristics are hydrogen are not going to change. By the time someone figures out how to "safely and conveniently" use hydrogen it is going to look a whole lot more like a battery than oil. Making hydrogen from electricity and then converting back to energy is exactly the kind of thing that a battery would do.
Also, keep in mind that there is more to replacing oil than just automobiles. A LOT of useful things come from crude oil.
-matthew
So why not use the superior ICE's in the hybrids and get the best of both worlds? The hybrids we are drivign (in the US) aren't nearly as efficient as they could be. Diesel hybrids, for example, can get 80+ MPG, IIRC. Also, keep in mind that I'm talking about what will happen when gas gets REALLY expensive. By then the benefit will be much greater. How much more cost effective will a hybrid be when gas doubles in price?
-matthew
Ingenious, but silly. :-)
-matthew
But then, Iceland is a small place. Why wouldn't they just drive electric cars? Sure, they won't have much range, but who cares? Its Iceland, where are they going to drive to??
-matthew
Well, it is looking like hybrids are next. Maybe double or tripple the average fuel economy (we can dream, eh?). If gas get really expensive, I would expect to see more pure electric (probably have better battery tech then). A few fringe users toying with alternatives. I wouldn't expect to see many hydrogen cars unless electricity becomes cheap enough to throw away or H can be made economically from coal or something like that. But in the short term I see hybrids.
-matthew
Oh lord, not one but TWO references to Wired. The world's leading source of hydrogen hype and fantasy. If hydrogen is the answer to the world's energy problems, it isn't in separating it from oxygen, but fusing it into helium. See, you have to think in terms of energy SOURCES, not in energy storage.
-matthew
Shipping refrigerated liquid H2 isn't exactly cheap, ya know.
-matthew
Holy Christ. I apoligize. I take it back. You're not an asshole. You're insane.
-matthew
You sound just like about 100,000 people I've heard before who learned one language and have embraced it forever and will carry it into the tarpit using blind bigotry as their defense because they reason that their first language was so painful to them, they don't dare learn a second and struggle through that agony again.
My first language? BASIC. Second? FORTRAN. Third? C. Third? asm. Fourth? Java. Perl. TCL. C#. Ruby. Shall I go on?
Asshole. A somewhat notorious one at that, it seems.
-matthew
I have heard it called 'the future of web development', and 'a replacement for Java in almost all web applications'.
I haven't really heard the latter claim. But then, I don't hang around Java forums/blogs where people might get a little defensive about such statements. Most of the "conversions" I hear about are from PHP.
I would love to see a pure Ruby-based application try and cope with some of the processor-intensive things I have had to deal with in some web applications. "A great fit for practically any type of web application" is simply false, and it is this kind of overblown propaganda that puts me off Rails.
Well, I am not sure from where you are pulling these quotes, but I would agree that they are are somewhat exagerated. Certainly there are specific solutions that require something more robust than RoR. That said, if 90% of all web applications are things like web forums and blogs (and I believe this is the case), perhaps the claims are not too far off. Besides, it isn't like they try to hide the fact that Rails restricts ones development. I mean, it is called Ruby on Rails. What do rails do? They restrict the range of movement to facilitate more efficient movement in a specific direction.
I had my doubts about the hype as well, but I decided to put aside my doubts and just give RoR a try. I took an existing intranet PHP application which was pretty clunky and completely rewrote it in RoR just to see what Rails could do. And without ANY prior Ruby experience, I had duplicated the functionality of the original PHP application, and then some, in a little over a 40 hours. I don't know about RoR replacing Java, but I sure hope it eats up a good share of PHP's dominance.
I don't know - I use another framework - JSF. Combined with Spring and good ORM (JDO) it is very easy to get things up and running for even the smallest websites. Better still, you know your website has the performance to cope with whatever you throw at it in terms of load or future complexity. I have heard good things about Tapestry.
I guess the question is, have you actually tried RoR? I've done some Java work and I find it unnecessarily complex for most things. Granted, I haven't tried all the frameworks to find that "suite spot," but frankly, I don't hvae the time. I am not a full time software developer.
-matthew
Rails is innovative in the sense that it is a good balance between PHP and Java. And that is all it is meant to be. I know I wouldn't 'want to use Java to solve the (relatively small) problems where I've used Rails... for the exact oppose reason I wouldn't want to use PHP. PHP is brain dead and Java is too complicated and verbose. Does Tapestry address this? I don't know. I've heard mixed reviews.
-matthew
I still diagree. I know people who can throw together a PHP page but would have quite a bit of difficultly with even a simple assembly program. Hell, even I thought assembly was daunting back when I gave it a go. Anything that has a very cryptic syntax is going to be tricky to learn. Some languages ARE easier than others even in their intended contexts. The context itself influences how easy or difficutl a language is. A lot also depends on the way a particular individual thinks. A procedural language might be much easier to work with than an OO language for some people.
What happens when two languages are intended for the same purpose? Is it not conceivable that one might be easier than the other? Are you suggesting that it isn't possible for someone to come up with a really clunky and difficult language? I know I can name a few.
-matthew
They probably also tested Ruby on Rails, but didn't think a number like 30 would make Python look good so they left it out.
-matthew
Why should I go backwards to Rails/ActiveRecord, which provide less than this?
Where did I suggest that you should?
-matthew
You pressume that SQL database IO is all Rails is capable of doing. In fact, I am working on a Rails project which uses SOAP, LDAP, and SQL.
-matthew