People have been trying to create displays with tactile feedback for a while; Microsoft and other companies are simply patenting all the combinations of possible technologies for making that happen.
The USPTO should really require a working model...
The "software infrastructure" I was referring to wasn't just GWT.
Furthermore, while GWT makes you happy as a Java programmer, it made me unhappy as a user, since there was no reason Wave had to be that slow and have so many browser incompatibilities.
As far as we can tell now, as far as current state of knowledge goes: an absolute beginning does logically follow from observation and math
No, sorry, you're misinformed.
Is consistent will lack of time, too, as far as we can tell... And it doesn't matter beyond the light cone of visible universe.
Inflationary/deflationary effects aren't limited by the speed of light, so what's beyond the light cone matters for cosmology. Since the visible universe is likely only an insignificant fraction of the entire universe, it's a mere guess whether our patch is typical or a statistical anomaly.
but the mythological "envelope" is almost certainly only a useful mean to an end, at best - even if seen as a metaphor for our lack of uniqueness and simply being part of societal progress)
Mythology or cosmology have no deeper significance for the spiritual meaning of Buddhism. Even if everything in the Bible were literally true, it wouldn't alter the spiritual message of Buddhism and God would just be another sentient being (albeit an omnipotent one).
No, it's not "semantics". "Virtual particles" follow logically from observations and math. The connection may not be intuitive to you, but once you do some simple table top experiments, they follow. An absolute beginning does not logically follow from anything; it is completely new physics that we have no observations to support.
And as far as Christianity is concerned, God is described as creating the universe, i.e. being its cause. Causes predate effects and therefore God must predate the universe. Hence, time cannot have started with the creation of the universe. The usual Christian verbal acrobatics on this point are logically inconsistent; you can't say that "God created the universe and time" because then the term "create" (=cause to exist) doesn't make sense. Furthermore, God is consistently described in the Bible as being subject to the laws of cause and effect, with not the slightest indication that he has any existence out of time.
Whether this argument convinces Christians really doesn't matter (they'll believe a lot of nonsense), what matters is that a lot of people saw logical inconsistencies in the "creator" view even thousands of years ago to look for an alternative. And there is nothing logically inconsistent about the alternative they found: an infinite timeline.
The best argument that Christians can come up with against it is that it violates the laws of thermodynamics and that there isn't enough visible mass for a big crunch, but from a physics point of view, those are not convincing. We simply don't see enough of the universe to draw any firm conclusions.
You can read the Christian b.s. on the subject here:
Yes, those make sense: they are just complex expressions of cause and effect. Even though they may seem counterintuitive, they follow inevitably from intuitive assumptions about the world.
A finite beginning of time, on the other hand, is extremely weird in comparison because it's an effect without a cause. It doesn't follow from anything.
Are you fucking serious? Read your Bible: it starts with the creation of heaven and earth, the creation of man, the fall of man, armageddon, and resurrection. Those are totally contradicted and meaningless in an eternal universe. The already inconsistent and contradictory mess that is Christianity completely falls apart then. You're right in one respect: Christianity really cannot become any less accurate than it already is.
When it was discovered that the universe did not in fact revolve around the Earth, it didn't invalidate all other knowledge about celestial mechanics did it?
No, it's not "unsubstantiated", merely subjective.
Quantum mechanics and relativity also don't make sense for neural systems evolved to survive in completely different, intermediate scale of the Universe.
QM and relativity are both pretty straightforward theories. What doesn't "make sense" about them is the parts that are actually inconsistent or incomplete, plus a bunch of erroneous conclusions from people whose understanding of them is limited to manipulating equations without actual insight.
Adding SMTP and other features isn't rocket science. The reason it took so long was probably because they were bogged down by their unwieldy software infrastructure.
For a German of all people, your statements are shameful and display a complete lack of historical awareness and understanding. You're a disgrace to your nation.
I think a second problem with Wave was that the implementation sucked. They built Wave using some kind of Java toolkit that hid the JavaScript frontend code from programmers. As a result, the page the user interacted with was slow and inflexible. There was more Java library and framework bloat on the server. Writing extensions for it also was unnecessarily cumbersome. For example, the content of a wavelet wasn't in XHTML subset as you might expect, it was in some weird attributed text format. Just getting the text out of that was work.
If they had hand-coded the frontend and written a lightweight backend, Wave would likely still be around. As it was, it was probably sucking up developer resources big time and causing Google developers to jump ship.
I made no common on the availability of languages, or the feasibility of choosing something else, I said that C and its derivatives are harming the industry and need to be replaced.
As it turns out, there are actually plenty of alternatives, there simply isn't a one-size-fits-all replacement.
He was recommending "code in what language you like". Since Objective-C was his first exposure to dynamic OOP, I suggested broadening his horizons to languages that he might like more.
Ruby and Python both have been used a lot for commercial software. Think of them as better, faster versions of VisualBasic, including native, JVM, and.NET backends. You may be running some commercial Ruby or Python app without even knowing it.
The only reason Ruby and Python aren't choices on iOS is because Apple hates anything that threatens their control over the platform. If they allowed alternatives to their shitty Objective-C tools, there would soon be hardly any Objective-C software left.
Sure it delivers on that. And in 1985, that was a great thing; it was technically obsolete even then, but for underpowered personal computers, it was a decent compromise.
In 2010, it's just stupid. We don't need extensions to C of any form, we need C and its satanic spawn to die.
I think you got your causation backwards there. Penises are esthetically up there with elephant trunks, probosces, and skin tags. It looks pretty ridiculous how they are kind of stuck onto the human form. Heck, usually they aren't even color-matched. If looking at penises does anything for you, it's because you like guys, not the other way around.
My question and your dilemma remains: Those rules have been defined by someone. Defining rules for someone else means that you put yourself above them. By what authority?
It's not "rules" it's definitions. The fact that I define something one way doesn't mean I put myself above anybody or that I have authority. The definition I use for democracy happens to be fairly widely used. Islamic scholars and military dictators have different ideas, but, frankly, I don't care any neither does anybody else who matters to me.
Second, what you call it doesn't matter anyway. The US has a strong military, and it's going to use that to protect its citizens, its allies, and people it considers innocent and threatened, in that order of priority. The US does not have any qualms eliminating a foreign government that threatens it even if that government was democratically elected. The "authority" for that derives from the US military. You may not like that, but tough shit.
FWIW, such US foreign actions are consistent with domestic actions: the US federal government intervenes when local and state decisions are inconsistent with Constitutional principles or threaten the national peace.
Buddhist cosmology isn't really "religious"; whether it is true or not has little bearing on whether you're a Buddhist. The cyclic model in Buddhist cosmology simply makes sense and avoids issues of first causes and the end of time.
In contrast, Christian cosmology is used to justify Christianity: if Christian cosmology is wrong, the whole theological edifice of Christianity comes crashing down. Christian cosmology also fails to address the question of where God comes from.
Slashdot Mirror
People have been trying to create displays with tactile feedback for a while; Microsoft and other companies are simply patenting all the combinations of possible technologies for making that happen.
The USPTO should really require a working model...
No, sorry, those ideas have little to do with Buddhism.
Just from a cosmological point of view, Christian resembles an individual cycle of Buddhist cosmology (and that may not be an accident either).
Why are you so hung up on GWT? I blamed GWT for the bad user interface, not the delays. Get over it.
The "software infrastructure" I was referring to wasn't just GWT.
Furthermore, while GWT makes you happy as a Java programmer, it made me unhappy as a user, since there was no reason Wave had to be that slow and have so many browser incompatibilities.
As far as we can tell now, as far as current state of knowledge goes: an absolute beginning does logically follow from observation and math
No, sorry, you're misinformed.
Is consistent will lack of time, too, as far as we can tell... And it doesn't matter beyond the light cone of visible universe.
Inflationary/deflationary effects aren't limited by the speed of light, so what's beyond the light cone matters for cosmology. Since the visible universe is likely only an insignificant fraction of the entire universe, it's a mere guess whether our patch is typical or a statistical anomaly.
but the mythological "envelope" is almost certainly only a useful mean to an end, at best - even if seen as a metaphor for our lack of uniqueness and simply being part of societal progress)
Mythology or cosmology have no deeper significance for the spiritual meaning of Buddhism. Even if everything in the Bible were literally true, it wouldn't alter the spiritual message of Buddhism and God would just be another sentient being (albeit an omnipotent one).
No, it's not "semantics". "Virtual particles" follow logically from observations and math. The connection may not be intuitive to you, but once you do some simple table top experiments, they follow. An absolute beginning does not logically follow from anything; it is completely new physics that we have no observations to support.
And as far as Christianity is concerned, God is described as creating the universe, i.e. being its cause. Causes predate effects and therefore God must predate the universe. Hence, time cannot have started with the creation of the universe. The usual Christian verbal acrobatics on this point are logically inconsistent; you can't say that "God created the universe and time" because then the term "create" (=cause to exist) doesn't make sense. Furthermore, God is consistently described in the Bible as being subject to the laws of cause and effect, with not the slightest indication that he has any existence out of time.
Whether this argument convinces Christians really doesn't matter (they'll believe a lot of nonsense), what matters is that a lot of people saw logical inconsistencies in the "creator" view even thousands of years ago to look for an alternative. And there is nothing logically inconsistent about the alternative they found: an infinite timeline.
The best argument that Christians can come up with against it is that it violates the laws of thermodynamics and that there isn't enough visible mass for a big crunch, but from a physics point of view, those are not convincing. We simply don't see enough of the universe to draw any firm conclusions.
You can read the Christian b.s. on the subject here:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html
Yes, those make sense: they are just complex expressions of cause and effect. Even though they may seem counterintuitive, they follow inevitably from intuitive assumptions about the world.
A finite beginning of time, on the other hand, is extremely weird in comparison because it's an effect without a cause. It doesn't follow from anything.
Are you fucking serious? Read your Bible: it starts with the creation of heaven and earth, the creation of man, the fall of man, armageddon, and resurrection. Those are totally contradicted and meaningless in an eternal universe. The already inconsistent and contradictory mess that is Christianity completely falls apart then. You're right in one respect: Christianity really cannot become any less accurate than it already is.
When it was discovered that the universe did not in fact revolve around the Earth, it didn't invalidate all other knowledge about celestial mechanics did it?
Well, yeah, actually it did.
"Makes sense" is unsubstantiated(*).
No, it's not "unsubstantiated", merely subjective.
Quantum mechanics and relativity also don't make sense for neural systems evolved to survive in completely different, intermediate scale of the Universe.
QM and relativity are both pretty straightforward theories. What doesn't "make sense" about them is the parts that are actually inconsistent or incomplete, plus a bunch of erroneous conclusions from people whose understanding of them is limited to manipulating equations without actual insight.
Well, what they accomplished was to have their project killed within 3 months of general release, so, yeah, I tend to agree.
Adding SMTP and other features isn't rocket science. The reason it took so long was probably because they were bogged down by their unwieldy software infrastructure.
How are you different from the terrorists, then?
For a German of all people, your statements are shameful and display a complete lack of historical awareness and understanding. You're a disgrace to your nation.
It's not just the fact that it was slow; the user interface had problems, it didn't work on mobile devices, and the APIs were bad in places as well.
I'm not sure WIAB a good thing to build on; PyGoWave may be a better platform to build on.
Making an Amazon EC2 image might help.
I think a second problem with Wave was that the implementation sucked. They built Wave using some kind of Java toolkit that hid the JavaScript frontend code from programmers. As a result, the page the user interacted with was slow and inflexible. There was more Java library and framework bloat on the server. Writing extensions for it also was unnecessarily cumbersome. For example, the content of a wavelet wasn't in XHTML subset as you might expect, it was in some weird attributed text format. Just getting the text out of that was work.
If they had hand-coded the frontend and written a lightweight backend, Wave would likely still be around. As it was, it was probably sucking up developer resources big time and causing Google developers to jump ship.
Thought control has been built into iOS for a long time.
How else would you explain this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dikaQjMO388
Facial hair, like penis size, is a sexual characteristic and used for mate selection.
I made no common on the availability of languages, or the feasibility of choosing something else, I said that C and its derivatives are harming the industry and need to be replaced.
As it turns out, there are actually plenty of alternatives, there simply isn't a one-size-fits-all replacement.
He was recommending "code in what language you like". Since Objective-C was his first exposure to dynamic OOP, I suggested broadening his horizons to languages that he might like more.
Ruby and Python both have been used a lot for commercial software. Think of them as better, faster versions of VisualBasic, including native, JVM, and .NET backends. You may be running some commercial Ruby or Python app without even knowing it.
The only reason Ruby and Python aren't choices on iOS is because Apple hates anything that threatens their control over the platform. If they allowed alternatives to their shitty Objective-C tools, there would soon be hardly any Objective-C software left.
Why not learn something decent instead, like Ruby or Python?
Yeah, but Objective-C just isn't high quality, it's obsolete.
Sure it delivers on that. And in 1985, that was a great thing; it was technically obsolete even then, but for underpowered personal computers, it was a decent compromise.
In 2010, it's just stupid. We don't need extensions to C of any form, we need C and its satanic spawn to die.
I think you got your causation backwards there. Penises are esthetically up there with elephant trunks, probosces, and skin tags. It looks pretty ridiculous how they are kind of stuck onto the human form. Heck, usually they aren't even color-matched. If looking at penises does anything for you, it's because you like guys, not the other way around.
My question and your dilemma remains: Those rules have been defined by someone. Defining rules for someone else means that you put yourself above them. By what authority?
It's not "rules" it's definitions. The fact that I define something one way doesn't mean I put myself above anybody or that I have authority. The definition I use for democracy happens to be fairly widely used. Islamic scholars and military dictators have different ideas, but, frankly, I don't care any neither does anybody else who matters to me.
Second, what you call it doesn't matter anyway. The US has a strong military, and it's going to use that to protect its citizens, its allies, and people it considers innocent and threatened, in that order of priority. The US does not have any qualms eliminating a foreign government that threatens it even if that government was democratically elected. The "authority" for that derives from the US military. You may not like that, but tough shit.
FWIW, such US foreign actions are consistent with domestic actions: the US federal government intervenes when local and state decisions are inconsistent with Constitutional principles or threaten the national peace.
Buddhist cosmology isn't really "religious"; whether it is true or not has little bearing on whether you're a Buddhist. The cyclic model in Buddhist cosmology simply makes sense and avoids issues of first causes and the end of time.
In contrast, Christian cosmology is used to justify Christianity: if Christian cosmology is wrong, the whole theological edifice of Christianity comes crashing down. Christian cosmology also fails to address the question of where God comes from.