One thing I personally like about Javascript is that it covers all three of the currently most popular programming paradigms.
You want an imperative style of development? Javascript can do that, check.
You want an object-oriented style of development? Javascript can do that, check.
You want a functional style of development? Javascript can do that too, check.
Some would argue that by covering so many different paradigms, it ends up covering none of them as well as languages that are designed for a specific paradigm from the ground up, and I wouldn't really refute this point... but it easily does all three of them well enough to still be profoundly productive when developing in any of them, and this means that a programmer is relatively free to pick the paradigm that best models the original problem when designing a solution. This, in my experience, results in shorter development cycles, and frequently much less buggy code.
When the car is going slow enough that road noise isn't easily audible (bearing in mind that many blind people rely so much more heavily on their other senses that they can and often do notice sounds or vibrations that most other people could not), stopping distance is short enough that the driver can reasonably be responsible for avoiding an accident, even if the other person did not see him or his car.
Should we also force electric wheelchairs or scooters for disabled or elderly people to make more noise than they otherwise do so that blind people will also hear them?
Point being that these vehicles travel slowly enough that an responsible operator can be trusted to not cause an accident. I see no difference between that and an electric car that is moving at slow enough speeds that you can't hear its tires on the road (which is really quite slow, by the way... a veritable crawl).
How do you figure they would't be able to find out when you file a claim? Or do you think you'll be able to still have a claim while not letting them inspect your vehicle?
This whole idea stinks, but it's that expression that really has me worried, Because it does not in any way connote the notion that they necessarily would have any kind of remotely just cause to take such action. They could do so just because they wanted to... and not need any justification for the action because that's what "at will" means
Actually, I was talking about anybody who acts like a dick online... generally a person who would call somebody that they didn't know a moron online because they said something amazingly stupid or uninformed but never to their face for the same reason is usually just somebody who is trying to avoid the social complications that would arise from such namecalling, and is not really any less of a dick just because they are wise enough to recognize that it's socially inappropriate in such contexts.
I'm inclined to think that in general, people who act like dicks on the internet are actually dicks in real life who at best, possibly for reasons of conformity, may just be curbing their tendency towards being a dick around people they meet in real life to avoid the potential social and cultural complications. That doesn't mean that's who they really are, however.
Hey., I'm not saying its bad that they target Linux... I'm saying that targeting Linux without actually having the development environment work on Linux is really shooting the whole notion in the foot. For most people that even care about it, the fact that Unity3D can target Linux is liable to matter only to people who don't use windows or osx in the first place. a group that can't possibly even develop with it because the software needs OSX or windows anyways.
If people are seriously going to migrate to Linux from whatever platform they use now for gaming, then it's pretty obvious that it's going to have to offer games that aren't available *on* their original platform... but if the dev tools only work on those platforms, then it's pretty much a given that, since they are making a desktop game anyways, it's going to be available for that platform, and from the user's perspective, Linux will offer no significant advantage over their current OS for gaming, meaning they won't switch and meaning that Linux stays pretty much at the same popularity level.
Apples and oranges. PS4 and PS3 aren't desktop OS's.... Linux is a desktop platform, so are OSX and Windows. It makes absolutely no sense that you need to have Windows or OSX to develop games for Linux.
The only major game development tool that I know of so far which can create games for Linux is Unity3D, and it doesn't even run under Linux, and so is very unlikely to result in any Linux-exclusive games, If the developer already has windows or a mac, and they are making a desktop version of a game anyways, even if they ultimately intend to support Linux, they are almost always going to target their own native platform first.
Exclusive content is important if there's ever to be any large scale adoption expected. Becase without it, people will just continue to use whatever they have already, because it's good enough for them. This means that migration to Linux for gaming will progress at a much slower rate than it otherwise potentially could.
And there's plenty of historical precedent in the gaming industry of people going out of their way to just to buy hardware with exclusive content. With Linux, it may not even require that a person buy new hardware... it just requires a different OS to be installed, one that's freely available, even.
Actually, it isn't... but if it's really just for your private home use, it's unlikely that the person owning the patent would ever even know that you did it, let alone try to sue you for doing so. Still technically not legal, though.
People who dodge or walk around people taking video or photos aren't typically doing so because they have any kind of paranoia about who is taking picture or video that they might be in or what they might do with it, they are usually doing so out of respect for the person taking said picture or video, because presumably the thing being pointed at is what is interesting the person, and people who are simply walking by. That tends to happen only in the foreground, however... most people are unconcerned if they happen to be in the periphery or background of a video or photo taken at a public place because they have the sense to realize that they aren't generally going to be important enough to the people who are going to see the picture or video to worry about who they were or what they were doing.
People who are trying to hide from people who pose a physical threat to them are the exception, and not the norm. I do maintain that it's still not worth being physically violent, however. And even the law would agree.
I wouldn't tell my wife that a dress made her look like a fat cow, because no dress ever really could... A dress isn't really going to change how my wife actually looks at all... at most it will be the case that it may be a dress itself that is unattractive, and I would make that distinction by saying that I didn't like the dress.
I punctuated it the way I did because from my recollection, all of the nations that are not US territories and which use Fahrenheit are in the Carribean.
Do you know something about Norway and the Carribean that I do not?
Why should a person who's minding their own business actually care if they happen to incidentally be in a video that somebody recorded near them? I don't see people jumping out of the way to avoid or threatening to assault people holding up cell phones when they are actively taking photographs or video in public. People just go on doing what they do.
You appear to be complaining about the entire industry of personal computing's equivalent of eternal september. This decline actually started when Visicalc was invented.
I'm just saying that the fact that Clinton lied about it didn't seem to matter in the least with regards to his overall popuarlity with the American public (notwithstanding a few very hard-core and perhaps somewhat vocal zealots, but they were a minority), so why should the fact that this guy in congress told another fib, albeit about a matter considerably more important, that it should be judged any more harshly just because of what was being lied about? If you're not going to condemn a man for lying about something trivial, it makes no sense to do so to another for lying about something else, even it was more important... in fact, dragging the whole notion of "he lied" is immaterial and irrelevant. If what he did was bad, it shouldn't matter that he lied about it or not, unless one is prepared to consider lying as being particularly wrong in the first place, which in my observation, most people do not.
Slashdot Mirror
It does them well enough to still be useful... which was my point.
One thing I personally like about Javascript is that it covers all three of the currently most popular programming paradigms.
You want an imperative style of development? Javascript can do that, check.
You want an object-oriented style of development? Javascript can do that, check.
You want a functional style of development? Javascript can do that too, check.
Some would argue that by covering so many different paradigms, it ends up covering none of them as well as languages that are designed for a specific paradigm from the ground up, and I wouldn't really refute this point... but it easily does all three of them well enough to still be profoundly productive when developing in any of them, and this means that a programmer is relatively free to pick the paradigm that best models the original problem when designing a solution. This, in my experience, results in shorter development cycles, and frequently much less buggy code.
When the car is going slow enough that road noise isn't easily audible (bearing in mind that many blind people rely so much more heavily on their other senses that they can and often do notice sounds or vibrations that most other people could not), stopping distance is short enough that the driver can reasonably be responsible for avoiding an accident, even if the other person did not see him or his car.
Should we also force electric wheelchairs or scooters for disabled or elderly people to make more noise than they otherwise do so that blind people will also hear them?
Point being that these vehicles travel slowly enough that an responsible operator can be trusted to not cause an accident. I see no difference between that and an electric car that is moving at slow enough speeds that you can't hear its tires on the road (which is really quite slow, by the way... a veritable crawl).
They exist
Really? How many things have *YOU* soft-landed on the moon?
How do you figure they would't be able to find out when you file a claim? Or do you think you'll be able to still have a claim while not letting them inspect your vehicle?
This whole idea stinks, but it's that expression that really has me worried, Because it does not in any way connote the notion that they necessarily would have any kind of remotely just cause to take such action. They could do so just because they wanted to... and not need any justification for the action because that's what "at will" means
Actually, I was talking about anybody who acts like a dick online... generally a person who would call somebody that they didn't know a moron online because they said something amazingly stupid or uninformed but never to their face for the same reason is usually just somebody who is trying to avoid the social complications that would arise from such namecalling, and is not really any less of a dick just because they are wise enough to recognize that it's socially inappropriate in such contexts.
I'm inclined to think that in general, people who act like dicks on the internet are actually dicks in real life who at best, possibly for reasons of conformity, may just be curbing their tendency towards being a dick around people they meet in real life to avoid the potential social and cultural complications. That doesn't mean that's who they really are, however.
They "promise" to do it... but they don't promise when.
This may be possible someday, but not yet.
Of course, if they do it too well, it may cause psychological trauma for some people who won't accept that the person they cared about is really dead.
Hey., I'm not saying its bad that they target Linux... I'm saying that targeting Linux without actually having the development environment work on Linux is really shooting the whole notion in the foot. For most people that even care about it, the fact that Unity3D can target Linux is liable to matter only to people who don't use windows or osx in the first place. a group that can't possibly even develop with it because the software needs OSX or windows anyways.
If people are seriously going to migrate to Linux from whatever platform they use now for gaming, then it's pretty obvious that it's going to have to offer games that aren't available *on* their original platform... but if the dev tools only work on those platforms, then it's pretty much a given that, since they are making a desktop game anyways, it's going to be available for that platform, and from the user's perspective, Linux will offer no significant advantage over their current OS for gaming, meaning they won't switch and meaning that Linux stays pretty much at the same popularity level.
Apples and oranges. PS4 and PS3 aren't desktop OS's.... Linux is a desktop platform, so are OSX and Windows. It makes absolutely no sense that you need to have Windows or OSX to develop games for Linux.
Let's say that they diagnose somebody as "mentally unfit"... what happens then? Do they get locked up "for their own protection" or something?
The only major game development tool that I know of so far which can create games for Linux is Unity3D, and it doesn't even run under Linux, and so is very unlikely to result in any Linux-exclusive games, If the developer already has windows or a mac, and they are making a desktop version of a game anyways, even if they ultimately intend to support Linux, they are almost always going to target their own native platform first.
Exclusive content is important if there's ever to be any large scale adoption expected. Becase without it, people will just continue to use whatever they have already, because it's good enough for them. This means that migration to Linux for gaming will progress at a much slower rate than it otherwise potentially could.
And there's plenty of historical precedent in the gaming industry of people going out of their way to just to buy hardware with exclusive content. With Linux, it may not even require that a person buy new hardware... it just requires a different OS to be installed, one that's freely available, even.
Actually, it isn't... but if it's really just for your private home use, it's unlikely that the person owning the patent would ever even know that you did it, let alone try to sue you for doing so. Still technically not legal, though.
[nt]
People who dodge or walk around people taking video or photos aren't typically doing so because they have any kind of paranoia about who is taking picture or video that they might be in or what they might do with it, they are usually doing so out of respect for the person taking said picture or video, because presumably the thing being pointed at is what is interesting the person, and people who are simply walking by. That tends to happen only in the foreground, however... most people are unconcerned if they happen to be in the periphery or background of a video or photo taken at a public place because they have the sense to realize that they aren't generally going to be important enough to the people who are going to see the picture or video to worry about who they were or what they were doing.
People who are trying to hide from people who pose a physical threat to them are the exception, and not the norm. I do maintain that it's still not worth being physically violent, however. And even the law would agree.
I wouldn't tell my wife that a dress made her look like a fat cow, because no dress ever really could... A dress isn't really going to change how my wife actually looks at all... at most it will be the case that it may be a dress itself that is unattractive, and I would make that distinction by saying that I didn't like the dress.
That's just as likely to happen with somebody pointing a cell phone to take a picture. How often does it happen?
That might be harder than it sounds, since google glass *is* a camera, after all.
I punctuated it the way I did because from my recollection, all of the nations that are not US territories and which use Fahrenheit are in the Carribean.
Do you know something about Norway and the Carribean that I do not?
Why should a person who's minding their own business actually care if they happen to incidentally be in a video that somebody recorded near them? I don't see people jumping out of the way to avoid or threatening to assault people holding up cell phones when they are actively taking photographs or video in public. People just go on doing what they do.
And the people who would actually resort to such measures deserve being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for assault.
Since we're talking about justice, after all...
You appear to be complaining about the entire industry of personal computing's equivalent of eternal september. This decline actually started when Visicalc was invented.
I'm just saying that the fact that Clinton lied about it didn't seem to matter in the least with regards to his overall popuarlity with the American public (notwithstanding a few very hard-core and perhaps somewhat vocal zealots, but they were a minority), so why should the fact that this guy in congress told another fib, albeit about a matter considerably more important, that it should be judged any more harshly just because of what was being lied about? If you're not going to condemn a man for lying about something trivial, it makes no sense to do so to another for lying about something else, even it was more important... in fact, dragging the whole notion of "he lied" is immaterial and irrelevant. If what he did was bad, it shouldn't matter that he lied about it or not, unless one is prepared to consider lying as being particularly wrong in the first place, which in my observation, most people do not.