Depends on whether or not that's the only function it can perform. If the robot can also be removed from the bike and walk, then it's an achievement. It appears that it has all the usual servo-hinges that other biped robots has, so my guess is that it can.
Most western countries will reach peak population within 50 years, and many of them will switch to negative growth. In some countries (China) the sex-ratio will limit population growth. Famine and disease is still very common in many parts of the world, and Africa has to deal with HIV on top of that.
"Mr. Nature" (along with "Mr. Human Nature") appears to have things well in hand.
This used to be true with Intel in the 90's, pre-AMD. If there's no competition, there's no motivation to accelerate progress. This is a different case, however -- there is competition in the HDD business, so the motivation to out-do your competitors exists.
This doesn't mean that progress isn't being throttled, however. It's always possible that rivals within the same market are colluding, which is something that's harder to catch.
Similar situation here, except I have to hook up ANSI C++ programs with different GUIs on different OSs. I can use Qt sometimes, but if you interface the code with C++/CLI you get a much smaller file size and a much faster (more responsive) UI. I keep a separate file with a bunch of glue-code that converts between containers like std::string and.Net Strings, along with other relatively low-level conversions. C++/CLI sure is ugly, which is why you want to minimize its use. Whenever you can isolate code as standard C++/STL, do so. Still, using C++/CLI is worth it if you want a responsive UI on Windows.
It's this type of attitude that separates programmers into idiotic "camps". I'm not talking about MS behaving weirdly and making nonsensical decisions -- that's a given. I mean making it sound like C# is oceans apart from modern C++. When you're programming in C++ and STL (along with some Boost, as required), most programs are going to be almost identical in structure. I know this because I've had to port code back and forth from C# to ANSI C++, and apart from some specific, easy-to-isolate areas (like interfacing with the GUI), the structure of the programs remains the same. You should be separating the code that talks with the GUI no matter what language you use, unless your program is heavily intertwined with the GUI (like graphics programs or visualizers).
You should be comfortable using both languages. If you're coming from C# to C++, then check out Accelerated C++, and (some time later) follow that up with this advice.
This isn't like moving from C# to C, it's much closer. Also, you should aim to be a Programmer, rather than a (C++ || Java || C# || Python) Programmer. It'll make your life easier and make you better at your job.
Give people a choice. If they want to use a JS-less/. then make it an option. To each their own. I'd want a single page and no JS (and no using CSS3 tricks to slow things down either), but I'm guessing that some people like the default system. Just let people choose. You'd just need to tweak the front-end a bit, it's hardly a significant effort.
Oh, and faster servers. I'm tired of waiting 30 seconds after clicking "more comments".
For this to be useful, you're gonna need counters, nested conditions, decision trees, etc.. Most people will only use part of them, or even just the one "if/then" functionality, but there's an opportunity to cater to "power users" by offering a more robust system.
That said, I think this thing is proof of how neurotic all of these "social services" have become. If we're setting up triggering mechanisms to make the multiple services work together, something's gone wrong with either the way we live, or how much bureaucracy we're willing to put up with. Are we really heading in a direction where we have to *program* how we communicate with friends? Isn't that what these services are supposed to *solve*?
The beard may hold up, but will the makeup? Those borg implants weren't meant to be viewed in HD. In Star Trek: First Contact they had to rethink how to construct both the implants/"accessories" of the borg and the active mechanisms, because the ones they had looked like cheap toys when you zoomed in. And what about all the Okudagrams? Did they print them at a high enough resolution? I can think of both over-arching problems with the visuals in the show, and episode-specific ones. It'll be interesting to see if the HD version holds up.
With all that fear mongering in the article, not one mention of botnets. I get that the subject is seemingly non-malicious algorithms ("taking over"), but still, it seems like the malicious ones would be a more immediate threat.
And yes -- "Daemon", and its sequel, "Freedom TM" are great books that every slashdotter should read.
On Chrome it's Ctrl+Shift+O -- Bookmark manager.
I prefer Firefox's separate window approach, and it does give you better sorting options, but it's not entirely fair to say that it's not possible to find things in the bookmarks menu in Chrome.
If you have a good connection, instant is brutal. Its minimum time gap is tiny -- about as fast as the auto-suggest. I often start typing something and it decides to load assets while I type (news, maps, images, video), so it just slows me down. On a fast computer with a good keyboard I can type fast enough so it doesn't trigger instant-search, but on a netbook it's maddening.
It's almost certain that if Bing gets big enough, they'll start diverting more traffic to their assets. However if their assets don't deliver the goods, people will go back. If you're pointing people to your map product, and the product doesn't give you what you want, then you'll go elsewhere. Google will take every opportunity to point you to Google News, for example -- but it works, because it's an effective product/service.
I never expect large corporations to "play nice", I expect them to want to beat the competition. The existence of Bing is pushing Google to improve, so even if I don't use Bing on a regular basis, I still want it around, and right now, I want it to increase its market share. Keeping Google on their toes will improve their product.
That may have been true in the past, but Google now has many templates for answering natural language questions. Search for "how big is a leopard" on both Google and Bing. You get your answer on the first page on both. Now try "where is minsk" -- Google will give you move information on the results page than Bing.
The market watcher defines "success rate" as the percentage of search queries that result in a visit to a website.
These finding may be interesting and can be interpreted in many ways, but it's completely arbitrary to associate "success rate" with the percentage of queries that resulted in a visit to a website.
Just one example for an exception: maybe the "blurb" offered by Google gives you more information, sometimes even to the point of giving you the answer you were looking for. Search for "first apollo launch" on both Google and Bing. I'm getting more dates in the blurbs on Google than Bing. Now search for "barack obama age" -- Google actually answers the question: "Best guess for Barack Obama age is 50 years (August 4, 1961)".
There are plenty of other reasons for why queries don't lead to websites. This has practically nothing to do with "success rate".
First, if we're going for semantics, you said "that lucrative, lucrative browser market", which implies (since you were being sarcastic) that there's no money to be made by having more people using your browser. In the macro sense, this just isn't true.
Sorry to reply twice, but how is it not true? Right now, what makes producing Firefox "lucrative" for the Mozilla Foundation is.... (drum roll please)... royalties from Google from searches powered by the Firefox search bar. That's it. 97 percent of Mozilla's income derives from that one source: Google. Google obviously profits even more from the same searches, though, or it wouldn't have the money to pay the Mozilla Foundation. That's business.
But wait! Google would profit even more if it didn't have to pay the Mozilla Foundation anything -- right? Well, not really. There aren't just two browser choices on the market. So if Google took a bunch of dynamite and blew up the Mozilla offices, every single person who uses Firefox now would need to switch to Chrome in order for Google to be assured the same number of searches it gets now (because to my knowledge, no other browser but Firefox and Chrome has a search bar that automatically defaults to Google). Would that be a smart business decision? Would the additional amount it had to spend marketing Chrome be substantially less than the portion of search royalties it pays Mozilla?
I wasn't talking about the money they'd save if they didn't have to pay Mozilla for search results. I'm talking about the overall "Good for Google" picture:
Google makes web apps/software for the browser. This software is "rendered/run" in a browser. If they control both the software and the browser rendering it, they can optimize both ends -- make their web apps especially optimized for Chrome, and push elements in Chrome that they need for their web-based software. Also, Google isn't the only company that makes web applications -- practically every company they consider to be "competition" also delivers their software/content through the web (not exclusively, but rather "also").
Technically, MS is the only other company that can, potentially, control both ends* (IE9, and, for example, Office365). The rest of the competition has to run their code in another company's browser. If Facebook wants to optimize performance, they have to optimize for IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, and Safari. But they can only optimize one end -- not both. This gives Google the advantage -- simply by making their existing apps better/faster -- and that's worth money. It also means that they have an incentive to increase their market share.
(*I'm forced to add an asterisk here because, technically, Apple also can control both ends, but Apple's business model is completely different -- they need a native browser for iOS, they're not really pushing Safari to be installed on all Windows machines, even if the browser can run on windows)
As for the fate of Firefox:
I'm really just making a mechanistic observation -- Chrome is taking "market share" (yes, I understand that this term isn't ideal here... maybe "userbase" or "installbase" would be more accurate) from all browsers, but the graphs show that the two main browsers they're taking users away from are IE and Firefox. What I'm saying is that if the trend continues to be what it's been for the past 2 years, Chrome will eat into IE and Firefox.
MS is going to be able to fight back, especially if they make sure that their browser remains technically competitive (and if Windows Phone begins to penetrate the market). Firefox, however, will ultimately not have the financial means to put up a fight -- a reduced userbase means less income, and they have to keep developing their browser for desktop/laptop (the Intel/AMD stuff) and mobile platforms. The hardware landscape is moving faster all the time, which means that they have to optimize their browser for mo
First, if we're going for semantics, you said "that lucrative, lucrative browser market", which implies (since you were being sarcastic) that there's no money to be made by having more people using your browser. In the macro sense, this just isn't true.
And yes, I think that people are being naive. I can't know what the original intention was on the first day they started working on Chrome. At that point, they may well have wanted the other browsers to accelerate their development, and comply with standards. But Chrome's market share is rising. Whatever their plans are, unless they're going to intentionally slow down Chrome development, it will keep rising.
Like you said, IE will always be here as long as Windows is the dominant PC OS (also, IE9 is really quite good, they seem to be taking it seriously this time). Safari will likely be there because it's not in Apple's nature to let it go. But Firefox? I'm not sure. If you're using Firefox (which I am), then, on a PC or an Apple, you've made the decision to switch to a different browser. If people decide that Chrome is the better alternative browser, then there's no safety net for Firefox.
I really hope this doesn't happen, I like an array or competing browsers, but I don't see Google backing down just to let Firefox keep up. You're basically asking Google: "would you like to have Firefox's market share?". Do you really think they'd say "no"?
I can't know for sure, but I think it's a matter of scope. How many levels of abstraction do you go through? How do you deal with generics? You might be able to do it with C, but when you've got C++/STL/Boost, there's just too much branching to do it real-time (I think...).
History says you can program the same performance and capability as C++ in.NET, Java, C#, Scala, Ada, and Haskell
What does history say about cross-platform support? Or the availability of a huge existing codebase? Or the fact that practically every major software project is developed using C++?
If you want to put your money on Scala, be my guest. There's always a cool-new-thing, and it's usually fun to play with. But where's your paycheck coming from? If it's Java or C#, then start updating your resume. Java's legal crap (and Oracle crap) is pushing companies away, and.Net is getting gently walked off the plank by MS itself. The only languages that keep making a comeback (when people need a solid ground to work on) are C and C++. So far there aren't any exceptions.
Do I really need to explain why it's beneficial to own the leading browser? The leading browser sets the agenda -- just look at how long it took to get rid of the *extremely* non-standard IE DOM stuff. You could argue that they don't make money off of Android, but it's obvious why they need it to succeed. The browser is gradually becoming the biggest software platform. You see the web through the browser's eyes -- and in Chrome's case -- Google's eyes.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the top stopped spinning.
Depends on whether or not that's the only function it can perform. If the robot can also be removed from the bike and walk, then it's an achievement. It appears that it has all the usual servo-hinges that other biped robots has, so my guess is that it can.
Most western countries will reach peak population within 50 years, and many of them will switch to negative growth. In some countries (China) the sex-ratio will limit population growth. Famine and disease is still very common in many parts of the world, and Africa has to deal with HIV on top of that.
"Mr. Nature" (along with "Mr. Human Nature") appears to have things well in hand.
This used to be true with Intel in the 90's, pre-AMD. If there's no competition, there's no motivation to accelerate progress. This is a different case, however -- there is competition in the HDD business, so the motivation to out-do your competitors exists.
This doesn't mean that progress isn't being throttled, however. It's always possible that rivals within the same market are colluding, which is something that's harder to catch.
I disagree with much of what he said, but this point is actually easy to corroborate:
See -- C++ Renaissance at Microsoft, Craig Symonds and Mohsen Agsen: C++ Renaissance, and What does the latest "C++ Renaissance" mean?
This doesn't mean they're abandoning C#, however.
Similar situation here, except I have to hook up ANSI C++ programs with different GUIs on different OSs. I can use Qt sometimes, but if you interface the code with C++/CLI you get a much smaller file size and a much faster (more responsive) UI. I keep a separate file with a bunch of glue-code that converts between containers like std::string and .Net Strings, along with other relatively low-level conversions. C++/CLI sure is ugly, which is why you want to minimize its use. Whenever you can isolate code as standard C++/STL, do so. Still, using C++/CLI is worth it if you want a responsive UI on Windows.
See also:
Here's the one Microsoft Windows 8 slide that everyone wants to redo
Anyway you look at it, C# isn't going anywhere.
It's this type of attitude that separates programmers into idiotic "camps". I'm not talking about MS behaving weirdly and making nonsensical decisions -- that's a given. I mean making it sound like C# is oceans apart from modern C++. When you're programming in C++ and STL (along with some Boost, as required), most programs are going to be almost identical in structure. I know this because I've had to port code back and forth from C# to ANSI C++, and apart from some specific, easy-to-isolate areas (like interfacing with the GUI), the structure of the programs remains the same. You should be separating the code that talks with the GUI no matter what language you use, unless your program is heavily intertwined with the GUI (like graphics programs or visualizers).
You should be comfortable using both languages. If you're coming from C# to C++, then check out Accelerated C++, and (some time later) follow that up with this advice.
This isn't like moving from C# to C, it's much closer. Also, you should aim to be a Programmer, rather than a (C++ || Java || C# || Python) Programmer. It'll make your life easier and make you better at your job.
Give people a choice. If they want to use a JS-less /. then make it an option. To each their own. I'd want a single page and no JS (and no using CSS3 tricks to slow things down either), but I'm guessing that some people like the default system. Just let people choose. You'd just need to tweak the front-end a bit, it's hardly a significant effort.
Oh, and faster servers. I'm tired of waiting 30 seconds after clicking "more comments".
For this to be useful, you're gonna need counters, nested conditions, decision trees, etc.. Most people will only use part of them, or even just the one "if/then" functionality, but there's an opportunity to cater to "power users" by offering a more robust system.
That said, I think this thing is proof of how neurotic all of these "social services" have become. If we're setting up triggering mechanisms to make the multiple services work together, something's gone wrong with either the way we live, or how much bureaucracy we're willing to put up with. Are we really heading in a direction where we have to *program* how we communicate with friends? Isn't that what these services are supposed to *solve*?
The beard may hold up, but will the makeup? Those borg implants weren't meant to be viewed in HD. In Star Trek: First Contact they had to rethink how to construct both the implants/"accessories" of the borg and the active mechanisms, because the ones they had looked like cheap toys when you zoomed in. And what about all the Okudagrams? Did they print them at a high enough resolution? I can think of both over-arching problems with the visuals in the show, and episode-specific ones. It'll be interesting to see if the HD version holds up.
With all that fear mongering in the article, not one mention of botnets. I get that the subject is seemingly non-malicious algorithms ("taking over"), but still, it seems like the malicious ones would be a more immediate threat.
And yes -- "Daemon", and its sequel, "Freedom TM" are great books that every slashdotter should read.
On Chrome it's Ctrl+Shift+O -- Bookmark manager.
I prefer Firefox's separate window approach, and it does give you better sorting options, but it's not entirely fair to say that it's not possible to find things in the bookmarks menu in Chrome.
If you have a good connection, instant is brutal. Its minimum time gap is tiny -- about as fast as the auto-suggest. I often start typing something and it decides to load assets while I type (news, maps, images, video), so it just slows me down. On a fast computer with a good keyboard I can type fast enough so it doesn't trigger instant-search, but on a netbook it's maddening.
If you let Bing be your search of choice you probably don't discern.
That's a baseless statement.
Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld
Alastair Reynolds. Start with "Century Rain" and "Pushing Ice". I hear that "House of Suns" is his best work, but I haven't gotten to it yet.
It's almost certain that if Bing gets big enough, they'll start diverting more traffic to their assets. However if their assets don't deliver the goods, people will go back. If you're pointing people to your map product, and the product doesn't give you what you want, then you'll go elsewhere. Google will take every opportunity to point you to Google News, for example -- but it works, because it's an effective product/service.
I never expect large corporations to "play nice", I expect them to want to beat the competition. The existence of Bing is pushing Google to improve, so even if I don't use Bing on a regular basis, I still want it around, and right now, I want it to increase its market share. Keeping Google on their toes will improve their product.
That may have been true in the past, but Google now has many templates for answering natural language questions. Search for "how big is a leopard" on both Google and Bing. You get your answer on the first page on both. Now try "where is minsk" -- Google will give you move information on the results page than Bing.
The market watcher defines "success rate" as the percentage of search queries that result in a visit to a website.
These finding may be interesting and can be interpreted in many ways, but it's completely arbitrary to associate "success rate" with the percentage of queries that resulted in a visit to a website.
Just one example for an exception: maybe the "blurb" offered by Google gives you more information, sometimes even to the point of giving you the answer you were looking for. Search for "first apollo launch" on both Google and Bing. I'm getting more dates in the blurbs on Google than Bing. Now search for "barack obama age" -- Google actually answers the question: "Best guess for Barack Obama age is 50 years (August 4, 1961)".
There are plenty of other reasons for why queries don't lead to websites. This has practically nothing to do with "success rate".
First, if we're going for semantics, you said "that lucrative, lucrative browser market", which implies (since you were being sarcastic) that there's no money to be made by having more people using your browser. In the macro sense, this just isn't true.
Sorry to reply twice, but how is it not true? Right now, what makes producing Firefox "lucrative" for the Mozilla Foundation is .... (drum roll please) ... royalties from Google from searches powered by the Firefox search bar. That's it. 97 percent of Mozilla's income derives from that one source: Google. Google obviously profits even more from the same searches, though, or it wouldn't have the money to pay the Mozilla Foundation. That's business.
But wait! Google would profit even more if it didn't have to pay the Mozilla Foundation anything -- right? Well, not really. There aren't just two browser choices on the market. So if Google took a bunch of dynamite and blew up the Mozilla offices, every single person who uses Firefox now would need to switch to Chrome in order for Google to be assured the same number of searches it gets now (because to my knowledge, no other browser but Firefox and Chrome has a search bar that automatically defaults to Google). Would that be a smart business decision? Would the additional amount it had to spend marketing Chrome be substantially less than the portion of search royalties it pays Mozilla?
I wasn't talking about the money they'd save if they didn't have to pay Mozilla for search results. I'm talking about the overall "Good for Google" picture:
Google makes web apps/software for the browser. This software is "rendered/run" in a browser. If they control both the software and the browser rendering it, they can optimize both ends -- make their web apps especially optimized for Chrome, and push elements in Chrome that they need for their web-based software. Also, Google isn't the only company that makes web applications -- practically every company they consider to be "competition" also delivers their software/content through the web (not exclusively, but rather "also").
Technically, MS is the only other company that can, potentially, control both ends* (IE9, and, for example, Office365). The rest of the competition has to run their code in another company's browser. If Facebook wants to optimize performance, they have to optimize for IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, and Safari. But they can only optimize one end -- not both. This gives Google the advantage -- simply by making their existing apps better/faster -- and that's worth money. It also means that they have an incentive to increase their market share.
(*I'm forced to add an asterisk here because, technically, Apple also can control both ends, but Apple's business model is completely different -- they need a native browser for iOS, they're not really pushing Safari to be installed on all Windows machines, even if the browser can run on windows)
As for the fate of Firefox:
I'm really just making a mechanistic observation -- Chrome is taking "market share" (yes, I understand that this term isn't ideal here... maybe "userbase" or "installbase" would be more accurate) from all browsers, but the graphs show that the two main browsers they're taking users away from are IE and Firefox. What I'm saying is that if the trend continues to be what it's been for the past 2 years, Chrome will eat into IE and Firefox.
MS is going to be able to fight back, especially if they make sure that their browser remains technically competitive (and if Windows Phone begins to penetrate the market). Firefox, however, will ultimately not have the financial means to put up a fight -- a reduced userbase means less income, and they have to keep developing their browser for desktop/laptop (the Intel/AMD stuff) and mobile platforms. The hardware landscape is moving faster all the time, which means that they have to optimize their browser for mo
First, if we're going for semantics, you said "that lucrative, lucrative browser market", which implies (since you were being sarcastic) that there's no money to be made by having more people using your browser. In the macro sense, this just isn't true.
And yes, I think that people are being naive. I can't know what the original intention was on the first day they started working on Chrome. At that point, they may well have wanted the other browsers to accelerate their development, and comply with standards. But Chrome's market share is rising. Whatever their plans are, unless they're going to intentionally slow down Chrome development, it will keep rising.
Like you said, IE will always be here as long as Windows is the dominant PC OS (also, IE9 is really quite good, they seem to be taking it seriously this time). Safari will likely be there because it's not in Apple's nature to let it go. But Firefox? I'm not sure. If you're using Firefox (which I am), then, on a PC or an Apple, you've made the decision to switch to a different browser. If people decide that Chrome is the better alternative browser, then there's no safety net for Firefox.
I really hope this doesn't happen, I like an array or competing browsers, but I don't see Google backing down just to let Firefox keep up. You're basically asking Google: "would you like to have Firefox's market share?". Do you really think they'd say "no"?
I can't know for sure, but I think it's a matter of scope. How many levels of abstraction do you go through? How do you deal with generics? You might be able to do it with C, but when you've got C++/STL/Boost, there's just too much branching to do it real-time (I think...).
History says you can program the same performance and capability as C++ in .NET, Java, C#, Scala, Ada, and Haskell
What does history say about cross-platform support? Or the availability of a huge existing codebase? Or the fact that practically every major software project is developed using C++?
.Net is getting gently walked off the plank by MS itself. The only languages that keep making a comeback (when people need a solid ground to work on) are C and C++. So far there aren't any exceptions.
If you want to put your money on Scala, be my guest. There's always a cool-new-thing, and it's usually fun to play with. But where's your paycheck coming from? If it's Java or C#, then start updating your resume. Java's legal crap (and Oracle crap) is pushing companies away, and
Damn it, my keyboard... mod parent up or something.
Do I really need to explain why it's beneficial to own the leading browser? The leading browser sets the agenda -- just look at how long it took to get rid of the *extremely* non-standard IE DOM stuff. You could argue that they don't make money off of Android, but it's obvious why they need it to succeed. The browser is gradually becoming the biggest software platform. You see the web through the browser's eyes -- and in Chrome's case -- Google's eyes.