Wait, how are you going from Java source, to Java bytecode, and then magically to JavaScript? I think I missed something here,
Yes, you missed what GWT does.
With Google Web Toolkit (GWT), you write your AJAX front-end in the Java programming language which GWT then cross-compiles into optimized JavaScript that automatically works across all major browsers. During development, you can iterate quickly in the same "edit - refresh - view" cycle you're accustomed to with JavaScript, with the added benefit of being able to debug and step through your Java code line by line. When you're ready to deploy, GWT compiles your Java source code into optimized, standalone JavaScript files.
Google's ambition is that you don't use local apps. You use a web app. Preferably their web app. Some of the Chrome Browser's features are there to blur the line between "web page" and "app" (e.g. "create application shortcuts").
I think the vision is that a punter can walk into a shop and buy a netbook that boots to the browser in 5 seconds. The punter might just want to browse the web and use webmail -- so he's happy. If he wants office apps - Google Docs is there (and so are its competitors).
They're pushing for the browser to be a platform where literally any kind of app can be written.
That's their vision. Whether they make it happen, whether the market actually wants this, it'll be interesting to see.
Depends on your definition of "automatically". From what I hear, there is this little prerequisite called "internet access".
Correct, but Google is betting the farm on almost ubiquitous internet access. Gears and HTML5 allow offline modes, but if you're planning to be offline for long periods, I don't think you're part of their market.
"I've recently decided to go back to college. I have a lot of experience with movies, having watched them for most of my adult life, and have always toyed with the idea of making them one day. I've finally decided to give it my best. What I'd like to know is: what are the best cameras to learn? What are the minimum scriptwriting qualifications that movie studios will accept? Finally, is method acting the way to go? Expressionist? Mime?"
A mainstream game nowadays is made by a team of specialists: the guy who designs the gameplay is not the guy who draws the textures, or the girl who produces the concept art, or the ASM god who writes the engine, or the AI wizard who scripts the NPC behaviour etc. etc. etc.
Even a small team like the World of Goo guys has specialists.
The best way to characterise The Guardian is by attempting to characterise its readership. The Guardian once bundled a poster by one of their cartoonists Posy Simmonds, which had charicatures of the various archetypes -- the social science academic with his beard and wooly sweater, the New Labourite in a suit, the muesli eating sandal wearer, the earnest social worker, etc.
For a while the term 'Guardianista' has been used, in a gently mocking tone.
I'm pretty faithful to the paper. Although it's stuck with New Labour as they shamelessly drifted to the right, it's still (what I would call) moderate-left at its heart, and has its share of columnists who keep the faith.
It's funded by a trust, so it's meant to be independant of owner interests. It was the first paper to appoint a Reader's Editor.. it's generally good stuff.
Readership is low compared to the big hitters, but it's mainstream enough that you'll find a copy in any newsagent.
800x600 is not merely retrograde, it's downright Cro-Magnon! Four times that area was a minimum for me a decade ago.
For a desktop, sure. For media, it's not too bad. I do find it a bit odd not to go up the few percent to 720 lines, bringing it in line with a typical 32" HTDV.
You've kinda missed the point - which is that a line rated for extremely high tension can fail catastrophically when exposed to forces it's not designed for.
It's not a deal breaker for kite power though - it just means the lines have to be engineered to deal with all eventualities.
Obviously the 600LBS lines are only designed to lift a man, under circumstances where a broken line means an embarassing splash-landing - not the more 'industrial' application under discussion.
I think we have enough evidence to draw a conclusion: By the time a green tech gets into actual production it isn't green anymore. The real world at work? Or perhaps we need to understand the underlying truth. Greens don't want us to find innovative new sources of energy to continue our lifestyle, they want to make energy scarce so as to reshape our society along lines THEY find more pleasing. We aren't to get a vote in this, we aren't even supposed to know we have other options because we can't be trusted to make the 'correct' choice.
Here's my explanation for that: that block of people you've just damned for being inconsistent hypocrites, are not a single uniform group.
That is, the people in favour of wind turbines, are still in favour of wind turbines. They're "environmentalists" in the sense that they want sustainable power sources.
The people who oppose wind turbines likely couldn't care less about sustainable power. They care about the pretty view on their favourite countryside hike. They're "environmentalists" in the sense that that view is part of the environment.
So it's not one lobby that can't keep a consistent view. It's many lobbies, and we have to work out either how to keep them all happy, or who we can most afford to piss off.
I notice that CouchDB makes a big deal of its Erlang based core -- essentially "this part is trustworthy and parallelises well because it's in Erlang".
I also notice Joe Armstrong (or more likely a transcriber) is as bad at spelling "lose" as the rest of the internet...
Control line drag, 30,000ft induces a lot of delay etc. Where is the computer and control equipment? On the ground will not the control delay crash the kite. Aloft, how do we get enough power up to the motors controlling the kite.
One potential solution, from my head:
A single line goes most of the distance from the ground to a control robot. The control robot contains a microprocessor, and motorized winches for adjusting the length of lines leading to the kite. Four such lines would be enough - but I guess you could potentially have more for even greater control.
You don't need all that much power to steer/trim a kite, so I don't see too much of a problem in delivering a current along the single tether line - or collecting solar power - or having a local mini-generator using power from the kite.
Conversion to electricity. I see no way to efficiently generate power from a kite. If I have constant pull on the line how do I transfer that to rotation without letting out line?
You alternate between letting out the line, and reeling it back in. By adjusting the angle of the kite, you ensure that reeling it in takes significantly less energy than was generated while letting it out.
It's not even a nice idea in theory. It's an obviously stupid idea.
Maybe it's a stupid idea. But not obviously so. Perhaps you can put your finger on the 'obvious' flaws, instead of dismissing someone's hard work in two sentences.
I agree. If these kites are being pulled by the wind to generate energy, how do we pull them back? Or do we just keep manufacturing cable until they've gone around the world and we can unhook them and use the cable again?
A four line kite can be adjusted to manage the ratio of lift to power. One power generation scheme involves using the kite to unwind cable from a winch, hooked up to a generator. Then you depower the kite, and use electric power to wind it back in. You've made a net energy gain.
Another ambitious scheme I really like in involves making a huge turntable (or the equivalent)- kms across, with kites tethered around its circumference. Kites that can help it turn are powered up. Kites that impede its turning are powered down. The whole thing turns, and you can run turbines off that. In theory this could generate the same power as a nuclear power plant on the same sized site -- nuclear power plants already have no-fly zones.
Wish I could give you the source - but I'd be googling from scratch, just as you would be.
Work out just how much load is on a line 30,000ft in the air. Now do some calcs based on a light plane hitting that line.
Basically the light plane is going to get cut in half and maybe take down one or two kites.
Depends on the makeup of the line. Typical power kite lines are rated for 600 LBS, but the friction from a brush against a 'toy' kite's line while under tension will cause it to break almost instantly.
But all of this stuff can be thought about and engineered around. Nobody says 'OMG we can't have hot air balloons, what if someone crashes a plane into them?'
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, how are you going from Java source, to Java bytecode, and then magically to JavaScript? I think I missed something here,
Yes, you missed what GWT does.
With Google Web Toolkit (GWT), you write your AJAX front-end in the Java programming language which GWT then cross-compiles into optimized JavaScript that automatically works across all major browsers. During development, you can iterate quickly in the same "edit - refresh - view" cycle you're accustomed to with JavaScript, with the added benefit of being able to debug and step through your Java code line by line. When you're ready to deploy, GWT compiles your Java source code into optimized, standalone JavaScript files.
GWT overview
This is what Google uses to write apps like Docs, Gmail, Wave, etc.
It's meant to be open source...
Google's ambition is that you don't use local apps. You use a web app. Preferably their web app. Some of the Chrome Browser's features are there to blur the line between "web page" and "app" (e.g. "create application shortcuts").
I think the vision is that a punter can walk into a shop and buy a netbook that boots to the browser in 5 seconds. The punter might just want to browse the web and use webmail -- so he's happy. If he wants office apps - Google Docs is there (and so are its competitors).
They're pushing for the browser to be a platform where literally any kind of app can be written.
That's their vision. Whether they make it happen, whether the market actually wants this, it'll be interesting to see.
Judging by Google's vague statements, it doesn't appear to be meant as a bare metal OS, but something you add on top of what you have. ICBW.
Bare metal - specifically netbooks at first.
I'm sure you'll be able to try it out in a VM or from a live CD or whatever.
Depends on your definition of "automatically". From what I hear, there is this little prerequisite called "internet access".
Correct, but Google is betting the farm on almost ubiquitous internet access. Gears and HTML5 allow offline modes, but if you're planning to be offline for long periods, I don't think you're part of their market.
Given Google's history, I'm betting it will run Java apps.
Nah. I bet it's GWT all the way. Develop in Java on a "real" OS; see that compiled into Javascript that's deployed as the app.
What do they plan to do to grant pixel-level access? Flash? Java? Introduce new capabilities to Javascript?
How do they plan to allow "web applications" to access the local filesystem in a standards-compliant fashion?
I think HTML5 is meant to be the solution to all of these - or the HTML5 panel has decided it's not necessary.
Yes, but one without X.
This is sort of like saying:
"I've recently decided to go back to college. I have a lot of experience with movies, having watched them for most of my adult life, and have always toyed with the idea of making them one day. I've finally decided to give it my best. What I'd like to know is: what are the best cameras to learn? What are the minimum scriptwriting qualifications that movie studios will accept? Finally, is method acting the way to go? Expressionist? Mime?"
A mainstream game nowadays is made by a team of specialists: the guy who designs the gameplay is not the guy who draws the textures, or the girl who produces the concept art, or the ASM god who writes the engine, or the AI wizard who scripts the NPC behaviour etc. etc. etc.
Even a small team like the World of Goo guys has specialists.
I'm with you right up to the caffeine bit. Caffeine is not a healthy substance.
(I drink a lot of coffee - but I don't pretend it's healthy)
... always assuming this nightmare employer provides showers in the workplace.
I think it's more that in certain circles it became so endemic that people thought it was normal and allowed.
In a sense, people felt as if the expenses system was a perk to go with their salary - like a company car or a healthcare package.
That clip dates from the Thatcher government.
The Guardian readers who thought they should run the country then, came into power in 1997, and are now busy self-destructing.
The best way to characterise The Guardian is by attempting to characterise its readership. The Guardian once bundled a poster by one of their cartoonists Posy Simmonds, which had charicatures of the various archetypes -- the social science academic with his beard and wooly sweater, the New Labourite in a suit, the muesli eating sandal wearer, the earnest social worker, etc.
For a while the term 'Guardianista' has been used, in a gently mocking tone.
I'm pretty faithful to the paper. Although it's stuck with New Labour as they shamelessly drifted to the right, it's still (what I would call) moderate-left at its heart, and has its share of columnists who keep the faith.
It's funded by a trust, so it's meant to be independant of owner interests. It was the first paper to appoint a Reader's Editor.. it's generally good stuff.
Readership is low compared to the big hitters, but it's mainstream enough that you'll find a copy in any newsagent.
800x600 is not merely retrograde, it's downright Cro-Magnon! Four times that area was a minimum for me a decade ago.
For a desktop, sure. For media, it's not too bad. I do find it a bit odd not to go up the few percent to 720 lines, bringing it in line with a typical 32" HTDV.
it will actually increase the energy consumption of the market.
But it will lower their electricity bill. And isn't that the most important thing?
Mmm?
Get serious. Nobody's going to run fiberoptics to every farm on the countryside
Time was they might have said that about telephone lines - but it got done.
You've kinda missed the point - which is that a line rated for extremely high tension can fail catastrophically when exposed to forces it's not designed for.
It's not a deal breaker for kite power though - it just means the lines have to be engineered to deal with all eventualities.
Obviously the 600LBS lines are only designed to lift a man, under circumstances where a broken line means an embarassing splash-landing - not the more 'industrial' application under discussion.
I think we have enough evidence to draw a conclusion: By the time a green tech gets into actual production it isn't green anymore. The real world at work? Or perhaps we need to understand the underlying truth. Greens don't want us to find innovative new sources of energy to continue our lifestyle, they want to make energy scarce so as to reshape our society along lines THEY find more pleasing. We aren't to get a vote in this, we aren't even supposed to know we have other options because we can't be trusted to make the 'correct' choice.
Here's my explanation for that: that block of people you've just damned for being inconsistent hypocrites, are not a single uniform group.
That is, the people in favour of wind turbines, are still in favour of wind turbines. They're "environmentalists" in the sense that they want sustainable power sources.
The people who oppose wind turbines likely couldn't care less about sustainable power. They care about the pretty view on their favourite countryside hike. They're "environmentalists" in the sense that that view is part of the environment.
So it's not one lobby that can't keep a consistent view. It's many lobbies, and we have to work out either how to keep them all happy, or who we can most afford to piss off.
I notice that CouchDB makes a big deal of its Erlang based core -- essentially "this part is trustworthy and parallelises well because it's in Erlang".
I also notice Joe Armstrong (or more likely a transcriber) is as bad at spelling "lose" as the rest of the internet...
Do any of these kite-engineers know how much a wind turbine and generator WEIGH? [...] Please point to a kite that can lift 1% of that.
The Samrey Mistral weighs 20kg. I weigh 90kg, and have played with kites that will lift me.
But, they're talking about kites the size of passenger jets, or bigger.
Two questions :-
Control line drag, 30,000ft induces a lot of delay etc. Where is the computer and control equipment? On the ground will not the control delay crash the kite. Aloft, how do we get enough power up to the motors controlling the kite.
One potential solution, from my head:
A single line goes most of the distance from the ground to a control robot. The control robot contains a microprocessor, and motorized winches for adjusting the length of lines leading to the kite. Four such lines would be enough - but I guess you could potentially have more for even greater control.
You don't need all that much power to steer/trim a kite, so I don't see too much of a problem in delivering a current along the single tether line - or collecting solar power - or having a local mini-generator using power from the kite.
Conversion to electricity. I see no way to efficiently generate power from a kite. If I have constant pull on the line how do I transfer that to rotation without letting out line?
You alternate between letting out the line, and reeling it back in. By adjusting the angle of the kite, you ensure that reeling it in takes significantly less energy than was generated while letting it out.
It's not even a nice idea in theory.
It's an obviously stupid idea.
Maybe it's a stupid idea.
But not obviously so. Perhaps you can put your finger on the 'obvious' flaws, instead of dismissing someone's hard work in two sentences.
I agree. If these kites are being pulled by the wind to generate energy, how do we pull them back? Or do we just keep manufacturing cable until they've gone around the world and we can unhook them and use the cable again?
A four line kite can be adjusted to manage the ratio of lift to power. One power generation scheme involves using the kite to unwind cable from a winch, hooked up to a generator. Then you depower the kite, and use electric power to wind it back in. You've made a net energy gain.
Another ambitious scheme I really like in involves making a huge turntable (or the equivalent)- kms across, with kites tethered around its circumference. Kites that can help it turn are powered up. Kites that impede its turning are powered down. The whole thing turns, and you can run turbines off that. In theory this could generate the same power as a nuclear power plant on the same sized site -- nuclear power plants already have no-fly zones.
Wish I could give you the source - but I'd be googling from scratch, just as you would be.
I take it you are not a pilot or a kite flyer?
Work out just how much load is on a line 30,000ft in the air. Now do some calcs based on a light plane hitting that line.
Basically the light plane is going to get cut in half and maybe take down one or two kites.
Depends on the makeup of the line. Typical power kite lines are rated for 600 LBS, but the friction from a brush against a 'toy' kite's line while under tension will cause it to break almost instantly.
But all of this stuff can be thought about and engineered around. Nobody says 'OMG we can't have hot air balloons, what if someone crashes a plane into them?'