I used Sling TV last fall to watch NFL games. The Roku version of their software was buggy, crashed occasionally, and wasn't optimized enough to run well on the Roku 2. Worst of all, they tried to fill the commercial breaks with ESPN's own frat-boy commercials for itself. They would repeat the very same commercial two or three times, or cut one off half way through to start playing another one, then return the the second half of the first commercial. I'd rather watch the REAL commercials than the incessant, poorly executed fake commercials.
So I'd give Sling TV a D on implementation. If YouTube can do a better job, I'll definitely switch!
How else do you propose to prove that a tool can catch a bug of a particular type
I'd analyze commits to actual living systems, looking for fixes made to correct bugs that were found "in the wild." I'd then test the system against the previous version of the code in which the bugs weren't yet fixed, and see if the system could catch them.
By "casual observer," I was assuming that the observer would be proficient in programming.
Artificially introduced bugs are too predictable and contrived. "I'll introduce a buffer overrun error here." Fine. But unless the algorithm can also find real-world buffer overruns, it's not worth much. In real world bugs, the bug is often not obvious to a casual observer, as it would be with an artificially introduced bug.
Quitting without notice is usually unprofessional. If the circumstances warrant--i.e., they are already forcing you out--then there's no need for notice.
People generally look for the cheapest product, without even considering the quality of customer service offered by the manufacturer. What would motivate manufacturers to spend the money needed to provide better customer service, when people continue to buy what they are selling regardless of how bad their customer service gets?
Star Wars happened "a long time ago in a galaxy far far away." Star Trek will happen in a couple of centuries from now. Way back then, people were barbarians, but in the future, they will grow beyond that.
The doughnut shape of the tire would not leave enough rubber in contact with the road, to be safe at high speeds. Nor is there any tread to grip the road.
While the Utopian vision of Star Trek doesn't actually exist, there are many nations where people have good, stable lives, and where the government makes an attempt to do the best for the people. There are also places where tyrants reign, where bribes are normal, and the biggest bully wins. The difference is all in what lens you look through to see the world, and where you live.
Yes, exactly. The Prime Directive is a principle that sounds like a high moral principle, but in reality it is absurd at best, and evil at worst. In the real world, no one thinks we should stand idly by while a bully nation invades its neighbors, or when a nation faces a severe disaster. And yes, Star Trek was always really about world politics.
Of course it is. But if you've ever known an Apple fanboy, you know that moving to Android would be like moving to a different country for them. To them, nothing exists outside of the Apple universe.
...because more people are watching videos on Netflix and Amazon, skipping the ads. Since there are about 20 minutes of ads per hour, I'd guess that the time spent watching actual CONTENT is UP.
One reason ECMA can be so slow to release new features, is that they have no competition. If you want to write Web-based applications, you're stuck with JavaScript. There are no other viable options. Why should they be in a hurry to change things?
This is about to change. WebAssembly is coming. This is the development that will finally blow open the language barriers for browser-based programming. You'll be able to write client-side code in just about any language you already use and like, and you won't have to require the user to install some add-in to use it. Once this happens, it's quite possible that JavaScript will soon go the way of BASIC and COBOL.
I think JavaScript is hated because programmers are taught in school these days to be purists. Object-oriented concepts are taught as THE way to write code, and strict type-safety is a religious commandment. There are very good reasons for good object-oriented and type-safe designs. But in the end, the goal is for the code to work.
JavaScript is successful, I think, because of its simplicity. It is the BASIC of this generation. You can start using without having to install any tools. You can learn enough to do something useful in a few minutes, and you can actually DO something useful in one line of code. This means that lots of novices are writing lots of atrocious code out there, yes. But its low entry threshold allows many ordinary people to accomplish real work without having to study for weeks or years.
Another reason JavaScript is successful is that it isn't "owned" by a single corporation. Remember VBScript? In many ways, in it's day, VBScript was a superior language to JavaScript. But it failed because it was a Microsoft product, and was never adopted by competing browsers. Same goes for SilverLight.
The good news for the haters is this: WebAssembly is coming. This will make it possible for creative people to create their own, "better" languages, that will work in every browser without requiring users to install add-ins.
Oh don't get me started on async/await! When I first saw these in C#, I was excited to see a simple, clean way to hand off tasks to background threads. But in practice, it was TOO easy. Worse, the design is viral, once you have async/await one place in the code, you have to start using it in everything that calls that code, and pretty soon it takes over the entire application. Novice programmers started putting async/await statements EVERYWHERE, instead of just in the places where you really need a background operation. This makes the code much harder to debug, and often causes execution to be LESS efficient than it would have been with simple, single-threaded procedures. I dread the day JavaScript adds async/await.
Google may as well be "the Internet" as far as most people are concerned. If your Web site isn't found by Google searches, you might as well not have a Web site. It all depends on whether you want to be found. 90% of people haven't even HEARD of DuckDuckGo.
Slashdot Mirror
I used Sling TV last fall to watch NFL games. The Roku version of their software was buggy, crashed occasionally, and wasn't optimized enough to run well on the Roku 2. Worst of all, they tried to fill the commercial breaks with ESPN's own frat-boy commercials for itself. They would repeat the very same commercial two or three times, or cut one off half way through to start playing another one, then return the the second half of the first commercial. I'd rather watch the REAL commercials than the incessant, poorly executed fake commercials.
So I'd give Sling TV a D on implementation. If YouTube can do a better job, I'll definitely switch!
How else do you propose to prove that a tool can catch a bug of a particular type
I'd analyze commits to actual living systems, looking for fixes made to correct bugs that were found "in the wild." I'd then test the system against the previous version of the code in which the bugs weren't yet fixed, and see if the system could catch them.
By "casual observer," I was assuming that the observer would be proficient in programming.
Artificially introduced bugs are too predictable and contrived. "I'll introduce a buffer overrun error here." Fine. But unless the algorithm can also find real-world buffer overruns, it's not worth much. In real world bugs, the bug is often not obvious to a casual observer, as it would be with an artificially introduced bug.
Quitting without notice is usually unprofessional. If the circumstances warrant--i.e., they are already forcing you out--then there's no need for notice.
Of course! No married man's wife would put up with this huge contraption in the living room!
Hotels never have good enough bandwidth to watch Netflix. This could help!
...whether you are a Democrat or a Republican.
If you're a Republican, and you think this is an outrage, that's not interesting, that's a given.
If you're a Democrat, and you welcome this news, that's not interesting, that's a given.
I'm in a third camp. I'm a lifelong Republican, and even I think the investigation was mostly political.
People generally look for the cheapest product, without even considering the quality of customer service offered by the manufacturer. What would motivate manufacturers to spend the money needed to provide better customer service, when people continue to buy what they are selling regardless of how bad their customer service gets?
Regardless of when the stories happened, they all spoke English.
Star Wars happened "a long time ago in a galaxy far far away." Star Trek will happen in a couple of centuries from now. Way back then, people were barbarians, but in the future, they will grow beyond that.
Before you say it can't, you might want to check out this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Did anyone think Alexa was created just to make life better for humanity?
Many cars can already to this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Four wheel steering could achieve many of the same goals of these four-way tires, without reducing the safety and road handling of modern tire design.
The doughnut shape of the tire would not leave enough rubber in contact with the road, to be safe at high speeds. Nor is there any tread to grip the road.
While the Utopian vision of Star Trek doesn't actually exist, there are many nations where people have good, stable lives, and where the government makes an attempt to do the best for the people. There are also places where tyrants reign, where bribes are normal, and the biggest bully wins. The difference is all in what lens you look through to see the world, and where you live.
Yes, exactly. The Prime Directive is a principle that sounds like a high moral principle, but in reality it is absurd at best, and evil at worst. In the real world, no one thinks we should stand idly by while a bully nation invades its neighbors, or when a nation faces a severe disaster. And yes, Star Trek was always really about world politics.
Or you can just take a picture of your scribbled notes, so you can file or email it electronically.
Yes, exactly. Then take a picture of it if you want to keep the notes for later, or send them to someone.
Of course it is. But if you've ever known an Apple fanboy, you know that moving to Android would be like moving to a different country for them. To them, nothing exists outside of the Apple universe.
When a single company controls an entire marketplace (in this case, the marketplace of iDevice users), abuse is sure to follow.
...because more people are watching videos on Netflix and Amazon, skipping the ads. Since there are about 20 minutes of ads per hour, I'd guess that the time spent watching actual CONTENT is UP.
One reason ECMA can be so slow to release new features, is that they have no competition. If you want to write Web-based applications, you're stuck with JavaScript. There are no other viable options. Why should they be in a hurry to change things?
This is about to change. WebAssembly is coming. This is the development that will finally blow open the language barriers for browser-based programming. You'll be able to write client-side code in just about any language you already use and like, and you won't have to require the user to install some add-in to use it. Once this happens, it's quite possible that JavaScript will soon go the way of BASIC and COBOL.
I think JavaScript is hated because programmers are taught in school these days to be purists. Object-oriented concepts are taught as THE way to write code, and strict type-safety is a religious commandment. There are very good reasons for good object-oriented and type-safe designs. But in the end, the goal is for the code to work.
JavaScript is successful, I think, because of its simplicity. It is the BASIC of this generation. You can start using without having to install any tools. You can learn enough to do something useful in a few minutes, and you can actually DO something useful in one line of code. This means that lots of novices are writing lots of atrocious code out there, yes. But its low entry threshold allows many ordinary people to accomplish real work without having to study for weeks or years.
Another reason JavaScript is successful is that it isn't "owned" by a single corporation. Remember VBScript? In many ways, in it's day, VBScript was a superior language to JavaScript. But it failed because it was a Microsoft product, and was never adopted by competing browsers. Same goes for SilverLight.
The good news for the haters is this: WebAssembly is coming. This will make it possible for creative people to create their own, "better" languages, that will work in every browser without requiring users to install add-ins.
Oh don't get me started on async/await! When I first saw these in C#, I was excited to see a simple, clean way to hand off tasks to background threads. But in practice, it was TOO easy. Worse, the design is viral, once you have async/await one place in the code, you have to start using it in everything that calls that code, and pretty soon it takes over the entire application. Novice programmers started putting async/await statements EVERYWHERE, instead of just in the places where you really need a background operation. This makes the code much harder to debug, and often causes execution to be LESS efficient than it would have been with simple, single-threaded procedures. I dread the day JavaScript adds async/await.
Google may as well be "the Internet" as far as most people are concerned. If your Web site isn't found by Google searches, you might as well not have a Web site. It all depends on whether you want to be found. 90% of people haven't even HEARD of DuckDuckGo.