No they couldn't. Her time replacing Kari during her pregnancy was painful to watch. Not saying they couldn't replace a single person leaving, but definitely not with Jessy.
No, the purpose is to prevent unknown code from running at all. It doesn't matter if its in a sandbox or not. It's an end run around the security, and that's always a bad thing.
Doesn't mean you should. Congratulations- you managed to write your app in the least effective way possible and got both the performance of javascript and the ease of writing code in C++. You are the biggest idiot on slashdot today. Your reward is getting to write a nice check to Dice for the slashvertisement.
Given that every time I try to check into a hotel I spend 20 minutes waiting for my tun then waiting for the clerk to type in the info I tell them, I doubt it will be slower. My guess is it will save me 19 minutes. Another great win for automation.
I think that HTML5 would make it far worse. Where do most of these bad programmers start? Where the barriers to entry are lowest-- javascript. You'd be making the problem worse, not better.
I do think that there's much improvement to be made with permissions on mobile phones. But that's a separate problem, and one a lot of the Android custom ROMs do well.
Design guidelines are just recommendations. Frequently bad ones. A developer should design the best UI he can, not follow what Google says regardless of whether it fits. And most developer guidelines, Google and Apple both, are crap.
The problem is that the whole app movement has brought in a whole slew of crappy developers who's idea of coding is to search stack overflow or git for stuff to copy paste. They don't read it, don't understand how to use it right, and expect it to magically work. Worse half of the people writing that code fall into the same category, so its the blind reading the blind. If you pick a library off of github and assume it will work, you deserve what you get. Unfortunately your users don't.
These people have been around for a while (they used to be "web developers" and program by copy pasting big chunks of javascript). The problem is that on a phone they can do more damage. In a world where the number of quality programmers is fixed and far less than the demand for programmers, how do you fix it? Making it easier to program actually hurts, you end up with those crappy coders trying to do even more. Maybe its time to raise the barriers to entry for a while.
Sure they are. My school had AP classes, but not everyone in the class takes the test- those who didn't think they would pass skipped it and save the 70 bucks. In each one the teacher suggested to a few people not to take the test because they didn't think they had the understanding to pass. In at least 1 case they talked someone into taking the test when they were borderline (I think he passed).
As for financial incentive- read the article. Google was paying teachers directly. It was going to the teachers, administrators not involved. With financial incentives I can easily see the teachers telling more/all of those tweeners to take it and see if they pass.
Lets be fair- its always been boring. Nobody gives a fuck about these sports for 3.9 years out of 4. Nobody should care about them the other.1 either. Or are you buying tickets to the local synchronized diving competition?
You tell teachers they'll be paid if more people pass a test. So they encourage more of their students to take it. Many of those aren't ready, they're just hoping they'll pass for a payout. So the pass rate goes down, as the majority of additional takers weren't capable. Yup, statistics work.
I don't have kids, but when I was one my parents were spending most weekends taking us somewhere to do something. Watching movies was not on the agenda, at least not at home (maybe the occasional trip tot he movie theater). Why would you waste prime family time on movies? You do those on the weekdays because there's fewer entertainment options and most of them are closed by the time you get home from work.
I think you have that backward. M-Th is when you go to work then come home and want to just watch TV for the night. F/S/S is when you go out and do something because you don't have to be home early.
Unless you like carrying a smartphone in your hands all the time in crowded places, or like leaving your smartphone on the table where it can get lost or stolen, the smart watch is better. Nothing beats a watch for quickly checking something. Constantly fishing a phone out of your pocket, unlocking it, checking stuff and putting the phone back in your pocket can become extremely tedious quickly.
Can't say I've ever left mine anywhere. And I have no problem getting it out of my pockets. Meanwhile a watch is fucking uncomfortable to wear, and tends to break within a few months as you accidently bang it on things. I cried tears of joy the day I realized my new cell phone meant I'd never have to wear a watch again. I think taking it out of your pockets is a problem only about 1% of the people in the world have, everyone else seems to prefer the phone.
There's a few other things in the hardware that would bring up issues:
*Battery- smaller form factor, smaller battery, less life. People complain about that already *camera- is there any place to put a camera on there that isn't going to be blocked by write hair or inconvenient to take a picture with? Can you see the screen to see the image? is it easy to hold your arm steady enough? *Text input- voice recognition isn't there yet, and even when it is you don't always want to be public with your messages. How do you type on one quickly? *Is there enough physical room for everything? *Heat- if we do all that in a watch, how hot will it get? Will it become a safety hazard or uncomfortable to wear? *Power- even if everything works, a phone can have the same stuff and more, due to form factor. So why would you limit yourself to the watch?
Two seconds in a year!?! That means in a mere 30 years you'll have to adjust it by a minute. In your life you'll have to adjust it 3 times! DO you know how much effort and time you'll save by buying a $10,000 high end mechanical watch? You'll only have to adjust it once- that's got to save you 2 minutes over the course of your lifetime. Isn't 10K a small price to pay for that?*
*Math void if anything heavier than a feather ever touches it, as it may break the delicate alignment of gears.
* Displace smart phones/dedicated GPSes used for turn-by-turn directions (visual and audio) while driving. It's going to be great for motorcycle users. I'm not sure yet whether it will be legal for this use.
So could smartphones, at no additional difficulty. In fact they'll do so better if you have a bluetooth earpiece, as the audio will be routed right to your ear. There's nothing here a watch will do better than a phone. (There's also good reasons for continuing to use the dedicated GPS, as they tend to lose signal less, have maps predownloaded in case you go to an area with spotty internet, and have better databases of nearby locations. But I can understand wanteing to ditch it).
It will make the policeman's job more difficult by allowing drivers to check their emails/texts while driving without it being obvious to an observer.
Here's an idea- on the extremely rare occasion you actually have to deal with the police, wait 10 fucking minutes to look at your texts. Also, if you need to deal with the police more than once every 5 or 6 years, take a good hard look at what you're doing wrong with your life.
Provide quick updates to stock/commodity traders who are on the go or not near a desktop/laptop.
So does a smartphone, with a better UI, and more screen space for easy access to information
Allow joggers to skip songs without carrying their smartphones in their hands.
Or they could use voice control. But I doubt holding it in their hands or fishing it out of ones pocket is really all that much worse than trying to fuck around with your watch while jogging. In fact I would bet either of those are easier.
I've been doing technical interviews for 15 years. And any day of the week I'd take someone with a degree over someone with 5 or 6 years more experience without one. Oh, I'll miss a few good hires that way, but I'll miss out on more bad ones. And that's what far more important- its better to miss making a good hire than make a bad one. In those 15 years I have seen perhaps 4 people without a degree have even a basic knowledge of the fundamentals of the craft-- and 2 of those I'm thinking of dropped out their senior year of college for medical or family reasons. The rest have all been language of the week cruft who I wouldn't hire to write webpages. I won't even interview them anymore- too many have failed, the small percentage of useful hires you'd find aren't worth the time.
But equivalent work experience is a lot longer. I might believe that someone with no degree and a decade plus of experience is as good as someone with a degree and 3-4 years, but he'd have to prove it. I find almost nobody without at least 3 years of college has a decent grasp of the fundamentals of computer science- data structures, algorithms, critical thinking and design. The people without degrees tend to just know how to google for answers and copy the results, and god forbid you change frameworks or languages on them- they're hopeless. Its to the point that no degree and less than 6 or 7 years of experience isn't going to get an interview over a guy right out of college because the odds favor the college grad having a higher ceiling.
Slashdot Mirror
No they couldn't. Her time replacing Kari during her pregnancy was painful to watch. Not saying they couldn't replace a single person leaving, but definitely not with Jessy.
I read that as iCoin at first. Which would have immediately created a horde of fanbois using it.
No, the purpose is to prevent unknown code from running at all. It doesn't matter if its in a sandbox or not. It's an end run around the security, and that's always a bad thing.
So you're saying that the advantage of this is being able to work around the security restrictions on a machine- and you think this is a good thing?
Of course any such machine will have javascript turned off anyway.
Doesn't mean you should. Congratulations- you managed to write your app in the least effective way possible and got both the performance of javascript and the ease of writing code in C++. You are the biggest idiot on slashdot today. Your reward is getting to write a nice check to Dice for the slashvertisement.
Given that every time I try to check into a hotel I spend 20 minutes waiting for my tun then waiting for the clerk to type in the info I tell them, I doubt it will be slower. My guess is it will save me 19 minutes. Another great win for automation.
For the .1% of programmers who ever do that, it will matter. For the rest of us we'll use a GUI.
A pretty trivial non-problem. Make a mutable one and just don't change anything in it.
What kind of pockets do you have? I fit my wallet, keys, and Note all in 1 pocket.
I think that HTML5 would make it far worse. Where do most of these bad programmers start? Where the barriers to entry are lowest-- javascript. You'd be making the problem worse, not better.
I do think that there's much improvement to be made with permissions on mobile phones. But that's a separate problem, and one a lot of the Android custom ROMs do well.
Design guidelines are just recommendations. Frequently bad ones. A developer should design the best UI he can, not follow what Google says regardless of whether it fits. And most developer guidelines, Google and Apple both, are crap.
The problem is that the whole app movement has brought in a whole slew of crappy developers who's idea of coding is to search stack overflow or git for stuff to copy paste. They don't read it, don't understand how to use it right, and expect it to magically work. Worse half of the people writing that code fall into the same category, so its the blind reading the blind. If you pick a library off of github and assume it will work, you deserve what you get. Unfortunately your users don't.
These people have been around for a while (they used to be "web developers" and program by copy pasting big chunks of javascript). The problem is that on a phone they can do more damage. In a world where the number of quality programmers is fixed and far less than the demand for programmers, how do you fix it? Making it easier to program actually hurts, you end up with those crappy coders trying to do even more. Maybe its time to raise the barriers to entry for a while.
Sure they are. My school had AP classes, but not everyone in the class takes the test- those who didn't think they would pass skipped it and save the 70 bucks. In each one the teacher suggested to a few people not to take the test because they didn't think they had the understanding to pass. In at least 1 case they talked someone into taking the test when they were borderline (I think he passed).
As for financial incentive- read the article. Google was paying teachers directly. It was going to the teachers, administrators not involved. With financial incentives I can easily see the teachers telling more/all of those tweeners to take it and see if they pass.
Lets be fair- its always been boring. Nobody gives a fuck about these sports for 3.9 years out of 4. Nobody should care about them the other .1 either. Or are you buying tickets to the local synchronized diving competition?
You tell teachers they'll be paid if more people pass a test. So they encourage more of their students to take it. Many of those aren't ready, they're just hoping they'll pass for a payout. So the pass rate goes down, as the majority of additional takers weren't capable. Yup, statistics work.
I don't have kids, but when I was one my parents were spending most weekends taking us somewhere to do something. Watching movies was not on the agenda, at least not at home (maybe the occasional trip tot he movie theater). Why would you waste prime family time on movies? You do those on the weekdays because there's fewer entertainment options and most of them are closed by the time you get home from work.
I think you have that backward. M-Th is when you go to work then come home and want to just watch TV for the night. F/S/S is when you go out and do something because you don't have to be home early.
He can't help it, the leads were weak.
Can't say I've ever left mine anywhere. And I have no problem getting it out of my pockets. Meanwhile a watch is fucking uncomfortable to wear, and tends to break within a few months as you accidently bang it on things. I cried tears of joy the day I realized my new cell phone meant I'd never have to wear a watch again. I think taking it out of your pockets is a problem only about 1% of the people in the world have, everyone else seems to prefer the phone.
There's a few other things in the hardware that would bring up issues:
*Battery- smaller form factor, smaller battery, less life. People complain about that already
*camera- is there any place to put a camera on there that isn't going to be blocked by write hair or inconvenient to take a picture with? Can you see the screen to see the image? is it easy to hold your arm steady enough?
*Text input- voice recognition isn't there yet, and even when it is you don't always want to be public with your messages. How do you type on one quickly?
*Is there enough physical room for everything?
*Heat- if we do all that in a watch, how hot will it get? Will it become a safety hazard or uncomfortable to wear?
*Power- even if everything works, a phone can have the same stuff and more, due to form factor. So why would you limit yourself to the watch?
Two seconds in a year!?! That means in a mere 30 years you'll have to adjust it by a minute. In your life you'll have to adjust it 3 times! DO you know how much effort and time you'll save by buying a $10,000 high end mechanical watch? You'll only have to adjust it once- that's got to save you 2 minutes over the course of your lifetime. Isn't 10K a small price to pay for that?*
*Math void if anything heavier than a feather ever touches it, as it may break the delicate alignment of gears.
Even more real answer- I'm in the subway. I'm not getting that call/text because the signal isn't reaching me through 10m of solid earth.
So could smartphones, at no additional difficulty. In fact they'll do so better if you have a bluetooth earpiece, as the audio will be routed right to your ear. There's nothing here a watch will do better than a phone. (There's also good reasons for continuing to use the dedicated GPS, as they tend to lose signal less, have maps predownloaded in case you go to an area with spotty internet, and have better databases of nearby locations. But I can understand wanteing to ditch it).
Here's an idea- on the extremely rare occasion you actually have to deal with the police, wait 10 fucking minutes to look at your texts. Also, if you need to deal with the police more than once every 5 or 6 years, take a good hard look at what you're doing wrong with your life.
So does a smartphone, with a better UI, and more screen space for easy access to information
Or they could use voice control. But I doubt holding it in their hands or fishing it out of ones pocket is really all that much worse than trying to fuck around with your watch while jogging. In fact I would bet either of those are easier.
Yeah, still no valid use cases for a smartwatch.
I've been doing technical interviews for 15 years. And any day of the week I'd take someone with a degree over someone with 5 or 6 years more experience without one. Oh, I'll miss a few good hires that way, but I'll miss out on more bad ones. And that's what far more important- its better to miss making a good hire than make a bad one. In those 15 years I have seen perhaps 4 people without a degree have even a basic knowledge of the fundamentals of the craft-- and 2 of those I'm thinking of dropped out their senior year of college for medical or family reasons. The rest have all been language of the week cruft who I wouldn't hire to write webpages. I won't even interview them anymore- too many have failed, the small percentage of useful hires you'd find aren't worth the time.
Umm, Einstein wasn't bad at math. Apparently you're bad at history though.
http://content.time.com/time/s...
But equivalent work experience is a lot longer. I might believe that someone with no degree and a decade plus of experience is as good as someone with a degree and 3-4 years, but he'd have to prove it. I find almost nobody without at least 3 years of college has a decent grasp of the fundamentals of computer science- data structures, algorithms, critical thinking and design. The people without degrees tend to just know how to google for answers and copy the results, and god forbid you change frameworks or languages on them- they're hopeless. Its to the point that no degree and less than 6 or 7 years of experience isn't going to get an interview over a guy right out of college because the odds favor the college grad having a higher ceiling.