Your employer's motivation is to have money to pay you? You should tell them! They might accommodate for your motivations and stop paying you, focusing instead on allowing you to enjoy the unadulterated joy of OSS development. Maybe they could even extend your working hours?
Last I checked, it could only be used for authoring tools, not for writing an actual client/plugin.
Yeah, half the responses are by people whose "last check" was over two years ago. Check again. Adobe have been happy with your using their docs to write authoring tools for even longer, of course.
Only very recently did it get actual hardware-accelerated 3D. but JavaScript is getting 3D support soon (they're in the nightlies of the major open source browsers).
Yup, and yup. So, yes, W3C's playing catchup.
I'm pretty sure Java doesn't,
You're too sure of too many things. Java3D was released in 2002 on top of DirectX and OpenGL.
Didn't stutter for me. What crappy browser are you running?
Firefox 3.6.3 on Windows 7, Core i3. Maybe it didn't help that I wasn't allocating 100% of the CPU to running the Javascript?
My work on open source projects is not motivated by making my employer rich -- it just happens to do that anyway,
If it didn't make your employer rich, your employer would not have any money to pay you. So unless you're a volunteer, your work on open source projects is motivated by making your employer rich.
Adobe, on the other hand, creates deliberately convoluted, nearly impossible to reimplement, products
Like the W3C. I'm still looking forward to a browser which actually fully supports any of their mainstream standards produced over the past few years. Also good would be a standard written sufficiently well that two best-effort implementations are equally acceptable when provided with any standards-compliant HTML/CSS/Javascript.
The hippie OSS developer sold out about a decade ago, kid. OSS license choice is now mostly a pragmatic engineering choice for service delivery businesses, which are also by far the majority contributors to significant open source projects.
It doesn't matter what you'd like it to be, only what it is.
Yep. And it's been completely licence-unencumbered for 2 years now.
Apple and other corporate controllers of the W3C want a monopoly on specifying how the web is delivered. That's all this is about. And no matter how poorly Flash runs, it can still deliver applications or 3D gaming experiences or whatever (hell, as can Java applets!) while the 30 year old Pacman clone on Google's homepage stutters like a bitch.
The more theatrically aggressive you get, the more transparent your colours run. You're the plebian scientist, the buffoon follower, the useful idiot who cannot bear to ask just one more "why?" In your eyes you flourish because you set your standards so low. Yet I must love you because you feel as much pain as any man.
In Universal terms, an ant with a brief moment of consciousness has climbed the top of an ant hill. And he feels proud while a few ants gather round and clap. Then they all die and the Universe carries on, not caring.
It's a fair question. With the exception of handwriting anywhere converted to text and occasional mathematical notating (a proper effort supporting which has since been made in Windows 7), I didn't really use any apps which were designed for a tablet interface.
But I didn't really yearn for much further either. I can see how gestures could have made browsing easier, but nothing about a pen made an interface designed for a mouse any harder. Pressure difference and/or buttons on the pen could be used to between pointer movement and clicks.
If I wanted to do things involving switching frequently between sides of the screen, I could just use the spare stylus in the other hand. But that was rare: the common operation of scrolling was supported with a dedicated scroll jig on the side of the tablet. Stylus for one hand + gestures made by other would have been a more versatile option, of course, but I'd definitely want to keep the stylus.
So I had something as good as a regular keyboard/mouse PC interface for most things, and I always had the option to attach a mouse/keyboard otherwise.
I hear lots of bla bla tablets sucked before the iPad bla. But I had a Compaq TC1000 (2003 vintage) for a while and I fail to see what I was mising by not having an iPad. Stylus meant I could actually write, click on and move stuff around properly with it; lazy susan keyboard attachment meant I could treat it as a laptop. I had no need to fat-finger gestures when I had the precision of a pen-point - not that I'd have said no to gestures as an addition, but it's hardly a deal-breaker as far as being able to work and browse with a useful tablet device.
FWIW, I'll admit that the stylus was heavy - but this was fixed with the TC1100, which also featured a faster non-Transmeta CPU.
So if you are searching for cancer information and you are about to reapply for insurance, that is more likely to get you turned down.
Insurance is a game in statistics. If the insurance companies had their way, they would absolutely use your searches to help in determining your risk. I can say with great confidence that, given a week's worth of searches by searches by 10,000 people who have just discovered they have cancer and 10,000 people who have no cancer, you could have a good go at predicting which of a further 10,000 searchers have recently diagnosed cancer. (If you didn't, Google wouldn't have any money, as their targeted advertising wouldn't be of any interest to sponsors.)
And doctors only hold trivial unimportant information on you
Strawman. The argument is that Google holds more important information about you (if you make great use of Google), not that no-one else does.
A doctor may have recorded somewhere that you had an STD, but searching with Google PROVES it.
I'm not sure why you're happier that Google hold convincing probabilities about you rather than concrete medical history.
And the likelihood of you getting interrogated by secret services is minuscule.
You're correct: you're never going to be interrogated by, say, the NSA. It's their job to watch you and refer you or your activities to someone else if necessary. It's then easy to dig up a good reason for a warrant. What was your point?
Getting "noticed"by the police on the other hand, perhaps for attending a political demonstration or similar is far more likely. As is being accused of something, and later being watched without your knowledge, which includes phone records, internet search records etc.
What has this got to do with whether the connection between you and Google is encrypted? I think you may be making an assumption which you haven't made explicit. Try again.
Are you implying they have a choice?
I'm not implying that they always have a choice. Nor am I implying that they never have a choice. You appear to be battling your personal windmill.
What exactly should they do?
What do people with a few billion dollars usually do when they want laws changed? They already know how to lobby.
Barricade themselves in their offices to protect your porn history?
Yes, yes, privacy advocates are only worried about their porn history...
NOBODY refuses secret services when they request information.
Bullcrap. You read too many spy novels - they're not superpower organisations who off you when you stand up to them. It's not uncommon for civil servants and businesses to be approached by other than the regular police for information, in my experience, but it's more often than not on a voluntary (no matter how it's worded) basis. If they put a gun to everyone's head they'd be exposed quickly and stop getting what they want. A corporation may be conservative and single-minded, but individuals are usually more emotional and idealistic, and you can't just bully everyone.
In the UK, even local government officials can use various anti terror powers to investigate trivial things. And have done quite a bit.
If they'd done it "quite a bit" and it actually worked, you wouldn't know about it.
And you think that the police or any other official agency doesn't have the resources to do a search through all records for all information?
Of course they don't have the resources to examine every single distributed aspect of every individual's life. But they do have the resources to examine what every identified individual does with Google.
Or that a quick call to your phone provider will unearth your ISP, which has far
Sigh. You went to your ISP for transit. You didn't go anywhere else. You chose to have your data processed as in the T&Cs of your ISP contract. If you don't want Phorm to have your search data, you can opt out of that by not using your ISP at all.
Defending Google is defending the right of corporations to have arbitrary privacy policies "because you can go elsewhere if you don't like it", which is ultimately defending Phorm. You are battling against yourself.
I write software to protect school kids from getting to (accidentally or intentionally) dodgy content - this is anything from porn, to sites promoting violence/drugs/etc.
No. Kids don't have instinctive responses to particular web pages; but they do have an ability to soak up prejudices from adults who think that implied disgust and taking away of information are correct ways of providing education.
Adults such as yourself.
Kids need software to protect them from people like you.
1. No, the combined data of all my Google searches (assuming I use non-anonymised Google) is far more sensitive than my insurance company, doctor and phone company records - I use a search engine to find out about insurance, medical and most other issues, so you can obtain a far more complete picture of my life thereby;
2. No, security services don't use a court order or search warrant when they install black boxes: that's the whole point;
3. Google hasn't raised a public fuss repeatedly at the requests of the US security agencies, which means it complies - just how many times has Google announced that it objects to NSA data-gathering, for example?;
4. It doesn't matter how many other smaller institutions comply on request, just that it's dangerous to allow one organisation to collect so much data in a way which be so easily processed.
Segmented programming is a pain, but it has nothing on all the complex convolutions of today's standards. There seems to be an industry today of making things more complex than they need to be, while 20 years ago that was rarely an option.
Nevertheless, I was referring to the quirks of an HTML/Javascript app UI.
Slashdot Mirror
That's my employer's motivation, not mine.
Your employer's motivation is to have money to pay you? You should tell them! They might accommodate for your motivations and stop paying you, focusing instead on allowing you to enjoy the unadulterated joy of OSS development. Maybe they could even extend your working hours?
Last I checked, it could only be used for authoring tools, not for writing an actual client/plugin.
Yeah, half the responses are by people whose "last check" was over two years ago. Check again. Adobe have been happy with your using their docs to write authoring tools for even longer, of course.
Only very recently did it get actual hardware-accelerated 3D. but JavaScript is getting 3D support soon (they're in the nightlies of the major open source browsers).
Yup, and yup. So, yes, W3C's playing catchup.
I'm pretty sure Java doesn't,
You're too sure of too many things. Java3D was released in 2002 on top of DirectX and OpenGL.
Didn't stutter for me. What crappy browser are you running?
Firefox 3.6.3 on Windows 7, Core i3. Maybe it didn't help that I wasn't allocating 100% of the CPU to running the Javascript?
My work on open source projects is not motivated by making my employer rich -- it just happens to do that anyway,
If it didn't make your employer rich, your employer would not have any money to pay you. So unless you're a volunteer, your work on open source projects is motivated by making your employer rich.
Adobe, on the other hand, creates deliberately convoluted, nearly impossible to reimplement, products
Like the W3C. I'm still looking forward to a browser which actually fully supports any of their mainstream standards produced over the past few years. Also good would be a standard written sufficiently well that two best-effort implementations are equally acceptable when provided with any standards-compliant HTML/CSS/Javascript.
The hippie OSS developer sold out about a decade ago, kid. OSS license choice is now mostly a pragmatic engineering choice for service delivery businesses, which are also by far the majority contributors to significant open source projects.
It doesn't matter what you'd like it to be, only what it is.
Yep. And it's been completely licence-unencumbered for 2 years now.
Apple and other corporate controllers of the W3C want a monopoly on specifying how the web is delivered. That's all this is about. And no matter how poorly Flash runs, it can still deliver applications or 3D gaming experiences or whatever (hell, as can Java applets!) while the 30 year old Pacman clone on Google's homepage stutters like a bitch.
You're really not very good at this, kid. Night night.
32326936
32330540
32330424
Obvious samefag troll, 1/10. But to continue...
The more theatrically aggressive you get, the more transparent your colours run. You're the plebian scientist, the buffoon follower, the useful idiot who cannot bear to ask just one more "why?" In your eyes you flourish because you set your standards so low. Yet I must love you because you feel as much pain as any man.
Britpop?
Think of it like being arrested for kiddy-fiddling: you're automatically guilty until enough people/coins speak up to prove your innocence.
You seem angered by being confronted with the possibility that your existence is futile. Sit back, chill, have a beer and, oh, be nice!
This post is to alert you to /.'s judgement.
You're not funny.
1. "That" and "which" are not interchangeable. Stop it.
2. "Twitter" and "worthwhile intelligent discourse" are not interchangeable. Stop it.
Intelligence is the pinnacle of what happens in the universe.
Wow, we must be good. Do we have an interstellar species equivalent of White Man's Burden?
I thought it was religion that was passe. Every justification is ultimately religious.
Workers wouldn't have time for dalliances.
In Universal terms, an ant with a brief moment of consciousness has climbed the top of an ant hill. And he feels proud while a few ants gather round and clap. Then they all die and the Universe carries on, not caring.
You display the behaviour of a religious zealot the originality of whose belief system has been questioned. Welcome to the Internet!
It's a fair question. With the exception of handwriting anywhere converted to text and occasional mathematical notating (a proper effort supporting which has since been made in Windows 7), I didn't really use any apps which were designed for a tablet interface.
But I didn't really yearn for much further either. I can see how gestures could have made browsing easier, but nothing about a pen made an interface designed for a mouse any harder. Pressure difference and/or buttons on the pen could be used to between pointer movement and clicks.
If I wanted to do things involving switching frequently between sides of the screen, I could just use the spare stylus in the other hand. But that was rare: the common operation of scrolling was supported with a dedicated scroll jig on the side of the tablet. Stylus for one hand + gestures made by other would have been a more versatile option, of course, but I'd definitely want to keep the stylus.
So I had something as good as a regular keyboard/mouse PC interface for most things, and I always had the option to attach a mouse/keyboard otherwise.
I hear lots of bla bla tablets sucked before the iPad bla. But I had a Compaq TC1000 (2003 vintage) for a while and I fail to see what I was mising by not having an iPad. Stylus meant I could actually write, click on and move stuff around properly with it; lazy susan keyboard attachment meant I could treat it as a laptop. I had no need to fat-finger gestures when I had the precision of a pen-point - not that I'd have said no to gestures as an addition, but it's hardly a deal-breaker as far as being able to work and browse with a useful tablet device.
FWIW, I'll admit that the stylus was heavy - but this was fixed with the TC1100, which also featured a faster non-Transmeta CPU.
So if you are searching for cancer information and you are about to reapply for insurance, that is more likely to get you turned down.
Insurance is a game in statistics. If the insurance companies had their way, they would absolutely use your searches to help in determining your risk. I can say with great confidence that, given a week's worth of searches by searches by 10,000 people who have just discovered they have cancer and 10,000 people who have no cancer, you could have a good go at predicting which of a further 10,000 searchers have recently diagnosed cancer. (If you didn't, Google wouldn't have any money, as their targeted advertising wouldn't be of any interest to sponsors.)
And doctors only hold trivial unimportant information on you
Strawman. The argument is that Google holds more important information about you (if you make great use of Google), not that no-one else does.
A doctor may have recorded somewhere that you had an STD, but searching with Google PROVES it.
I'm not sure why you're happier that Google hold convincing probabilities about you rather than concrete medical history.
And the likelihood of you getting interrogated by secret services is minuscule.
You're correct: you're never going to be interrogated by, say, the NSA. It's their job to watch you and refer you or your activities to someone else if necessary. It's then easy to dig up a good reason for a warrant. What was your point?
Getting "noticed"by the police on the other hand, perhaps for attending a political demonstration or similar is far more likely. As is being accused of something, and later being watched without your knowledge, which includes phone records, internet search records etc.
What has this got to do with whether the connection between you and Google is encrypted? I think you may be making an assumption which you haven't made explicit. Try again.
Are you implying they have a choice?
I'm not implying that they always have a choice. Nor am I implying that they never have a choice. You appear to be battling your personal windmill.
What exactly should they do?
What do people with a few billion dollars usually do when they want laws changed? They already know how to lobby.
Barricade themselves in their offices to protect your porn history?
Yes, yes, privacy advocates are only worried about their porn history...
NOBODY refuses secret services when they request information.
Bullcrap. You read too many spy novels - they're not superpower organisations who off you when you stand up to them. It's not uncommon for civil servants and businesses to be approached by other than the regular police for information, in my experience, but it's more often than not on a voluntary (no matter how it's worded) basis. If they put a gun to everyone's head they'd be exposed quickly and stop getting what they want. A corporation may be conservative and single-minded, but individuals are usually more emotional and idealistic, and you can't just bully everyone.
In the UK, even local government officials can use various anti terror powers to investigate trivial things. And have done quite a bit.
If they'd done it "quite a bit" and it actually worked, you wouldn't know about it.
And you think that the police or any other official agency doesn't have the resources to do a search through all records for all information?
Of course they don't have the resources to examine every single distributed aspect of every individual's life. But they do have the resources to examine what every identified individual does with Google.
Or that a quick call to your phone provider will unearth your ISP, which has far
Sigh. You went to your ISP for transit. You didn't go anywhere else. You chose to have your data processed as in the T&Cs of your ISP contract. If you don't want Phorm to have your search data, you can opt out of that by not using your ISP at all.
Defending Google is defending the right of corporations to have arbitrary privacy policies "because you can go elsewhere if you don't like it", which is ultimately defending Phorm. You are battling against yourself.
I write software to protect school kids from getting to (accidentally or intentionally) dodgy content - this is anything from porn, to sites promoting violence/drugs/etc.
No. Kids don't have instinctive responses to particular web pages; but they do have an ability to soak up prejudices from adults who think that implied disgust and taking away of information are correct ways of providing education.
Adults such as yourself.
Kids need software to protect them from people like you.
1. No, the combined data of all my Google searches (assuming I use non-anonymised Google) is far more sensitive than my insurance company, doctor and phone company records - I use a search engine to find out about insurance, medical and most other issues, so you can obtain a far more complete picture of my life thereby;
2. No, security services don't use a court order or search warrant when they install black boxes: that's the whole point;
3. Google hasn't raised a public fuss repeatedly at the requests of the US security agencies, which means it complies - just how many times has Google announced that it objects to NSA data-gathering, for example?;
4. It doesn't matter how many other smaller institutions comply on request, just that it's dangerous to allow one organisation to collect so much data in a way which be so easily processed.
Segmented programming is a pain, but it has nothing on all the complex convolutions of today's standards. There seems to be an industry today of making things more complex than they need to be, while 20 years ago that was rarely an option.
Nevertheless, I was referring to the quirks of an HTML/Javascript app UI.
It's more a demonstration that HTML/Javascript-based application delivery is still more messy than that of a 20 year old native GUI.