How many have been tested in the last handful of decades? A lot more than sixteen. Give everyone nukes I say, make it so that interference in the affairs of other nations will always come at too high a price. Then people can sort things out for themselves, and reap the rewards or suffer the consequences as they deserve. The age of gunboat diplomacy is at an end.
JS is a bit too deeply entrenched to be dislodged at this point I reckon. Still, you can go a long way with some abstraction. Bootstrap is halfway there, or most of the way there, as are several competing frameworks although that results in a few too many layers of removal from the underlying scripts, themselves pretty far from the code and bare iron, plus it leads to lots of same-looking sites. The web is in all probability going to end up as a macrocosm of wikipedia, complication built upon complication until there's just no way back.
Eh as long as someone's willing to pay people for it, why not.
People seem to be forgetting that javascript can break a lot of accessibility readers. Everything about HTML, CSS, etc., was about separating content from layout. Javascript shits on that entire model, as does Java, ActiveX, and most other plugins.
That's because it was a shit model. Clear, yes, simple yes, all that useful for doing stuff, not so much.
Web developers should continue to create websites that don't require javascript, and we shouldn't be in such a hurry to move away from that.
99% of web development is done for someone else. If clients want to pay extra to accommodate the few people who won't use JS, that's up to the clients.
The promise of the internet was accessibility, the ability to freely share information, and to connect everything together.
This push towards app-ification of the internet, the W3C caving to DRM in HTML5... it's after the very heart and soul of the internet. The internet we built, as hackers, as creatives, as professors, academics, researchers, scientists... it's being gutted. And Firefox, the white horse of the "free" internet, in it's 11th hour of need, chooses this?
They should be ashamed.
Such hyperbole, you should write a sonnet. I do agree it was pointless and counterproductive of the FF team to remove the option though, and I'm a big fan of FF. It's not as though people were accidentally unchecking the javascript box as a regular event.
I miss the days when web developers still gave a shit about progressive enhancement.
I miss the days when you couldn't be considered a real web developer unless you could make a CSS Zen Garden (http://www.csszengarden.com) skin without cheating by changing the markup or using JS.
I miss the days when you were only considered a good web web developer if your site was usable with both JS and CSS disabled because you used semantic HTML.
I miss the days when accessibility still mattered.
I miss the days when writing semantic HTML, enhancing it with CSS, and enhancing it further with JS was considered the best practice, rather than starting with just JS and an empty body tag as is so common today.
I miss the days before the now popular false dichotomy of thinking that progressive enhancement is extra work was popular among web developers.
Those days never existed. Seriously, do you remember what things were like back in the 90s? Or the early 00s? It's a bit early for the rose coloured blindfold to drop I think.
Every time there is an advancement in technology we end up being able to produce more for less cost. This has been going on since the time of your luddites (1817) and probably earlier. If what you're saying was true, we'd be able to graph a rising unemployment rate to correlate with advancing industrialisation. This, again, hasn't happened. Instead what's happened is standards of living have improved and unemployment has fluctuated up and down due to a wide variety of factors, but generally remaining low in industrialised countries. Wealth has become progressively less important as the cost of goods and services decrease, and this is important. Technology is the inflation which eats into the gap between rich and poor.
A CNET doom prophecy means nothing against the historical reality.
Some people have made the claim that any previous civilisation would have used up all the oil, but that's not supportable. A civilisation could have gone from steam to electric fairly easily and skipped the oil step. Or there could have been a lot more oil in the ground once. Or a lot less, at the time. Really there's no solid reason why there might not have been earlier advanced civilisations.
It takes huge amount of energy and labour to get something into orbit
This is in fact the only major stumbling block in the way of economical and profitable space exploration and development. The solution to this problem can be found here: http://maglaunch.com/
Interesting argument. What does it cost to feed and maintain a horse? What is the maximum speed and range of a horse? Can a horse power air travel? The energy cost efficiency of internal combustion is pretty hard to beat with today's technology.
The advantage of asteroid resource exploitation and indeed deep space manufacturing is that it can be scaled up arbitrarily, not terribly dissimilar to the speeds and economies achievable with internal combustion engines. There are no effective limits to how big we can make things and how much we can do up there, an advantage that terrestrial manufacturing does not share, if for no other reason than we'd have to turn the planet into a slag heap to approach a similar result.
That undersea oil was there 100 years ago, but there was more readily available oil that was easier and cheaper to get to so we didn't have a motivation to go after the harder stuff. Technology also improved to enable us to go after the harder to retrieve resources.
We've been approaching peak oil for twenty years now. What is the forecast for hitting peak iron or peak nickel?
Did we hit peak speed or peak fodder to force a change from horses to cars? No of course not, and with enough effort cars became much more viable than horses. The only difference between the rise of the car and the rise of solar system resource exploitation is a longer period to profitability. But this has always been the case for game changing technologies - once upon a time only the richest of nations could afford a trireme, and we look back upon them as future generations will look back upon us with our miniscule space exploration efforts.
Someone makes an allegation, they can't expect Jimmy to respond unless they substantiate it in the process. I don't think it's unreasonable, and in fact by providing said substantiation the odds of the question being answered increase immeasurably. Is that stunning too? Are you stunned?
The point of course is that without massive investment in infrastructure, pipelines, manufacturing capability, and technological advancement which continues to this day, cars would make much less sense than horses, particularly economically. Cars and oil didn't become cheaper by accident/act of god, they are the product of decades, even centuries, of effort.
Obviously it isn't difficult to extrapolate this as regards asteroid mining.
And if it were cheaper and easier to construct a metal alloy machine using sophisticated internal combustion mechanics after extracting the fuel from suboceanic deposits and refining the stuff before transporting it around the globe in huge container ships, more of these vehicles, and finally pumping it back into the ground from whence it gets pumped up again, we'd do that rather than riding horses everywhere.
In databases things get normalised down to their most basic elements, which is neccessary and good. In coding, everything might individually be simple, but the whole might be horrendously complex. Good documentation makes almost anything simple though, and by that I mean docs written intentionally to explain the overall codebase rather than disconnected sections.
Slashdot Mirror
Also the bundled webdev tools are some next level Tony Stark type stuff, man. Love em and they've actually proven really useful a few times.
How many have been tested in the last handful of decades? A lot more than sixteen. Give everyone nukes I say, make it so that interference in the affairs of other nations will always come at too high a price. Then people can sort things out for themselves, and reap the rewards or suffer the consequences as they deserve. The age of gunboat diplomacy is at an end.
JS is a bit too deeply entrenched to be dislodged at this point I reckon. Still, you can go a long way with some abstraction. Bootstrap is halfway there, or most of the way there, as are several competing frameworks although that results in a few too many layers of removal from the underlying scripts, themselves pretty far from the code and bare iron, plus it leads to lots of same-looking sites. The web is in all probability going to end up as a macrocosm of wikipedia, complication built upon complication until there's just no way back.
Eh as long as someone's willing to pay people for it, why not.
Anybody whose website failed to work in Lynx was derided as an idiot.
Wow. Rose coloured blindfolds indeed.
People seem to be forgetting that javascript can break a lot of accessibility readers. Everything about HTML, CSS, etc., was about separating content from layout. Javascript shits on that entire model, as does Java, ActiveX, and most other plugins.
That's because it was a shit model. Clear, yes, simple yes, all that useful for doing stuff, not so much.
Web developers should continue to create websites that don't require javascript, and we shouldn't be in such a hurry to move away from that.
99% of web development is done for someone else. If clients want to pay extra to accommodate the few people who won't use JS, that's up to the clients.
The promise of the internet was accessibility, the ability to freely share information, and to connect everything together.
This push towards app-ification of the internet, the W3C caving to DRM in HTML5... it's after the very heart and soul of the internet. The internet we built, as hackers, as creatives, as professors, academics, researchers, scientists... it's being gutted. And Firefox, the white horse of the "free" internet, in it's 11th hour of need, chooses this?
They should be ashamed.
Such hyperbole, you should write a sonnet. I do agree it was pointless and counterproductive of the FF team to remove the option though, and I'm a big fan of FF. It's not as though people were accidentally unchecking the javascript box as a regular event.
I miss the days when web developers still gave a shit about progressive enhancement.
I miss the days when you couldn't be considered a real web developer unless you could make a CSS Zen Garden (http://www.csszengarden.com) skin without cheating by changing the markup or using JS.
I miss the days when you were only considered a good web web developer if your site was usable with both JS and CSS disabled because you used semantic HTML.
I miss the days when accessibility still mattered.
I miss the days when writing semantic HTML, enhancing it with CSS, and enhancing it further with JS was considered the best practice, rather than starting with just JS and an empty body tag as is so common today.
I miss the days before the now popular false dichotomy of thinking that progressive enhancement is extra work was popular among web developers.
Those days never existed. Seriously, do you remember what things were like back in the 90s? Or the early 00s? It's a bit early for the rose coloured blindfold to drop I think.
Even though Chrome is faster
Hahaha hahaaaa... ahahaha!!
Every time there is an advancement in technology we end up being able to produce more for less cost. This has been going on since the time of your luddites (1817) and probably earlier. If what you're saying was true, we'd be able to graph a rising unemployment rate to correlate with advancing industrialisation. This, again, hasn't happened. Instead what's happened is standards of living have improved and unemployment has fluctuated up and down due to a wide variety of factors, but generally remaining low in industrialised countries. Wealth has become progressively less important as the cost of goods and services decrease, and this is important. Technology is the inflation which eats into the gap between rich and poor.
A CNET doom prophecy means nothing against the historical reality.
Except that hasn't happened. Unemployment rates bear no correlation whatsoever to industrialisation or ongoing automation.
One question: how much are they going to pay me?
And yet automation has made a lot of jobs obsolete while hugely improving the standard of living overall.
Some people have made the claim that any previous civilisation would have used up all the oil, but that's not supportable. A civilisation could have gone from steam to electric fairly easily and skipped the oil step. Or there could have been a lot more oil in the ground once. Or a lot less, at the time. Really there's no solid reason why there might not have been earlier advanced civilisations.
What? 370 odd million people prefer living in London? Save us from little englanders....
It's a JSON world baby. I'm learning flash myself, it's the COBOL of the future, niche knowledge for the win.
She, and show some respect. Honestly I hope I'm active enough at 73 to go cruising around the world in my yacht.
Oh for pity's sake. Here, you muppet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BLRJ_A9KKrk
Perhaps we're using different googles.
It takes huge amount of energy and labour to get something into orbit
This is in fact the only major stumbling block in the way of economical and profitable space exploration and development. The solution to this problem can be found here: http://maglaunch.com/
Interesting argument. What does it cost to feed and maintain a horse? What is the maximum speed and range of a horse? Can a horse power air travel? The energy cost efficiency of internal combustion is pretty hard to beat with today's technology.
The advantage of asteroid resource exploitation and indeed deep space manufacturing is that it can be scaled up arbitrarily, not terribly dissimilar to the speeds and economies achievable with internal combustion engines. There are no effective limits to how big we can make things and how much we can do up there, an advantage that terrestrial manufacturing does not share, if for no other reason than we'd have to turn the planet into a slag heap to approach a similar result.
That undersea oil was there 100 years ago, but there was more readily available oil that was easier and cheaper to get to so we didn't have a motivation to go after the harder stuff. Technology also improved to enable us to go after the harder to retrieve resources.
We've been approaching peak oil for twenty years now. What is the forecast for hitting peak iron or peak nickel?
Did we hit peak speed or peak fodder to force a change from horses to cars? No of course not, and with enough effort cars became much more viable than horses.
The only difference between the rise of the car and the rise of solar system resource exploitation is a longer period to profitability. But this has always been the case for game changing technologies - once upon a time only the richest of nations could afford a trireme, and we look back upon them as future generations will look back upon us with our miniscule space exploration efforts.
Someone makes an allegation, they can't expect Jimmy to respond unless they substantiate it in the process. I don't think it's unreasonable, and in fact by providing said substantiation the odds of the question being answered increase immeasurably. Is that stunning too? Are you stunned?
The point of course is that without massive investment in infrastructure, pipelines, manufacturing capability, and technological advancement which continues to this day, cars would make much less sense than horses, particularly economically. Cars and oil didn't become cheaper by accident/act of god, they are the product of decades, even centuries, of effort.
Obviously it isn't difficult to extrapolate this as regards asteroid mining.
Have you got any?
And if it were cheaper and easier to construct a metal alloy machine using sophisticated internal combustion mechanics after extracting the fuel from suboceanic deposits and refining the stuff before transporting it around the globe in huge container ships, more of these vehicles, and finally pumping it back into the ground from whence it gets pumped up again, we'd do that rather than riding horses everywhere.
Okay, most databases and most use cases.
In databases things get normalised down to their most basic elements, which is neccessary and good. In coding, everything might individually be simple, but the whole might be horrendously complex. Good documentation makes almost anything simple though, and by that I mean docs written intentionally to explain the overall codebase rather than disconnected sections.