You are free to believe in copying and preach about it all you want, but if you break the law, you will still get cuffed and jailed.
A cult may believe in human sacrifice or slavery or under-aged marriage or the execution of homosexuals. Thank god (or gov to be more accurate) it has never given them the right to do it.
Ask an engineer, and they will tell you how it is a technical one.
Information is viral, intangible, and free. All ownership and constraints on anything to do with information/data is held in place by law only. Markets cannot contain it. Technology cannot contain it. And if there were zero legal consequences, even if you had the money, you'd be an idiot to pay for it.
Programming is about utilizing paradigms. Not being stuck in one. OO is just another layer on top of anything else. It is a set of rules that one can follow in any language. Some languages have it built in for convenience, but it is also an inconvenience for implementations where it is not so optimal.
There was definitely a moment when OO seemed to be some new paradigm in programming, but no, it is merely a tool, and CMU put it in its rightful place.
T-Mobile is cheaper than AT&T. If acquisition = cost performance, everyone will pay less than current T-Mobile rates. But we know that will never happen. Macro business is all about leverage. AT&T had enough of it to make the government cave. Next victim is the consumer who has none of it.
It's like asking why my car won't start when the engine is blown. Or why my wounds aren't healing when I'm already dead. The power plants just broke. It's not really an issue of how they're suppose to work at that point but rather the extent of how fault tolerant they are. Like airbags if it were a car etc.
Be it the levees that failed in New Orleans, or the I-35W bridge over the Mississippi, it isn't a lack of innovation that causes any of these disasters. It is in lack of maintenance, and just *caring* in general.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Well, look where it got us.
I would contest innovation actually. That is how governments waste tax dollars. Stick to time tested simple solutions that multiple contractors can compete for. Innovation is for the private sector.
Mathematicians can write the algorithms and spam filters that the rest of us copy and paste... It takes one. If you want to become this person, then pursue it.
As for the rest of us who copy and paste, we may not need to be inventive, but we should be literate. We may not need to solve problems ourselves, but we should be able to recognize the best answers and the best code to use.
On a similar tangent, how about the role of art and user psyche in CS? There is little emphasis on user interfaces, and the graphical representations that are the glue between the computer and its users. Even the design of programming languages is user centric. It is not a matter of math, but rather of convenience, efficiency, and utility.
In any case, this is a typical case of oversimplification. If you are confused about your own role or your research in CS, you may have a problem, but as of CS as a whole, the requirements of being a competent "computer scientist" can remain undefined. It is a mythical being which its ambiguity can be entertaining.
Unless they were on private property? Even if the car is considered private property, unless the officer was sitting in the passenger seat, anyone can record anything they want anywhere if it is in public. That is the premise for most all security cameras and recordings anywhere ever.
Like they say, loading time is crucial to the sense of speed, and with these new browsers I was really expecting the heavy JS to speed up... Instead the heavy JS sites would freeze for a while. Very annoying. Most sites are OK though. Ebay is by far the worst.
That is a highly prevalent problem too, especially in politics. It is easy to sell people and voters on good thoughts. But when one considers what is required to implement them, all of a sudden everyone stops listening, there is no money, no one wants to do it, there is no time to get it right... or it's simply impossible. But hey, it was a good thought and it's what got you elected.
I believe this "smart elitism" view that intelligence deserves rights is, on the flip-side, what leads many to justify discriminating against human idiot persons as well. Just because someone or some species is smarter, doesn't make it any better, nor does being stupid make someone or some species any lesser.
How about we treat all animals as Non-Human Persons?
Must agree. This article and the millions of "journalists" who write ones like it, have always drove the buzz-sphere up into space and back into the ground.
The writer spends more time on how insightful he is for being all over the socio-mobi-web than just reviewing the damn app for what it is... a DESKTOP browser. Far more insight can be found on/. like always.
Besides, if he's sticking with it like he says, then the browser won.
No one will be anonymous. We will all just be other people. Also, you don't have to steal an identity to be someone. You can just create one in many cases.
These philosophies of uncontrollable openness by both Facebook and Google will spell their demise. A competitor who thinks otherwise will have a huge value proposition to use against them, and that is the value of control. Is it possible? Anything is possible.
Right. But all that you've said is at a higher comprehension level than most, and that is the problem. Which is precisely my point.
Scientists can tell the difference between a scientist that is wrong and a scientist that is right. But to others, they are all in the same choir singing a similar tune.
There is a huge gap between intelligent design and evolution, and poor Mr. Behe has managed to fill that gap in a way that has given the intelligent design folk some major leverage.
He needs to either come out and refute claims that his work = proof of God, and discredit those who make such claims (while admiting his theories need more work), or come out and just confess he is acting on behalf of the Bible so that even the pseudo scientists are forced discredit him once and for all.
That would be doing all of us a favor.
I don't believe his theory of irreducible complexity equates to God created life, and on the surface it appears that he doesn't either. He simply points out that he finds some systems to be too sophisticated to be random, and *appears* to be a *scientist* while making his points.
Most if not all intelligent design advocates have jumped on this, and it is really too bad, because it's working. And I say whether he likes it or not, he could very well be responsible for the miseducation of millions of children.
Slashdot Mirror
The hardware is beautiful but the marketing strategy was epic fail.
YOU CANNOT STORE GAMES.
It's download only, but you only get 16GB. And you could buy PSP games for the price of those super-mini not to mention empty memory cards.
They had a hard time selling them, because they had a hard time explaining why the normal PGP was better.
EPIC FAIL.
You are free to believe in copying and preach about it all you want, but if you break the law, you will still get cuffed and jailed.
A cult may believe in human sacrifice or slavery or under-aged marriage or the execution of homosexuals. Thank god (or gov to be more accurate) it has never given them the right to do it.
T-Mobile is way cheaper... oh wait...
Ask an engineer, and they will tell you how it is a technical one.
Information is viral, intangible, and free. All ownership and constraints on anything to do with information/data is held in place by law only. Markets cannot contain it. Technology cannot contain it. And if there were zero legal consequences, even if you had the money, you'd be an idiot to pay for it.
Programming is about utilizing paradigms. Not being stuck in one. OO is just another layer on top of anything else. It is a set of rules that one can follow in any language. Some languages have it built in for convenience, but it is also an inconvenience for implementations where it is not so optimal.
There was definitely a moment when OO seemed to be some new paradigm in programming, but no, it is merely a tool, and CMU put it in its rightful place.
Why is everyone so afraid of being open? Maybe it's just part of the human condition.
We have little hope if even Mozilla leans towards nondisclosure.
making it harder for Oracle to clone.
= more proprietary.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but if emailing, mailing, gathering signatures, or even peaceful protests worked, we'd all have cheaper cable.
T-Mobile is cheaper than AT&T. If acquisition = cost performance, everyone will pay less than current T-Mobile rates. But we know that will never happen. Macro business is all about leverage. AT&T had enough of it to make the government cave. Next victim is the consumer who has none of it.
It's like asking why my car won't start when the engine is blown. Or why my wounds aren't healing when I'm already dead. The power plants just broke. It's not really an issue of how they're suppose to work at that point but rather the extent of how fault tolerant they are. Like airbags if it were a car etc.
Be it the levees that failed in New Orleans, or the I-35W bridge over the Mississippi, it isn't a lack of innovation that causes any of these disasters. It is in lack of maintenance, and just *caring* in general.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Well, look where it got us.
I would contest innovation actually. That is how governments waste tax dollars. Stick to time tested simple solutions that multiple contractors can compete for. Innovation is for the private sector.
Mathematicians can write the algorithms and spam filters that the rest of us copy and paste... It takes one. If you want to become this person, then pursue it.
As for the rest of us who copy and paste, we may not need to be inventive, but we should be literate. We may not need to solve problems ourselves, but we should be able to recognize the best answers and the best code to use.
On a similar tangent, how about the role of art and user psyche in CS? There is little emphasis on user interfaces, and the graphical representations that are the glue between the computer and its users. Even the design of programming languages is user centric. It is not a matter of math, but rather of convenience, efficiency, and utility.
In any case, this is a typical case of oversimplification. If you are confused about your own role or your research in CS, you may have a problem, but as of CS as a whole, the requirements of being a competent "computer scientist" can remain undefined. It is a mythical being which its ambiguity can be entertaining.
Unless they were on private property? Even if the car is considered private property, unless the officer was sitting in the passenger seat, anyone can record anything they want anywhere if it is in public. That is the premise for most all security cameras and recordings anywhere ever.
Does this help?
http://headjs.com/
Like they say, loading time is crucial to the sense of speed, and with these new browsers I was really expecting the heavy JS to speed up... Instead the heavy JS sites would freeze for a while. Very annoying. Most sites are OK though. Ebay is by far the worst.
Does all this JS optimization happen on loading a page?
I've noticed pages freezing up longer now, and this is my only guess as to why.
If this is the case, do these benchmarks take account of this?
Fast execution is great, but not at the price of waiting for it.
Absolutely Beautiful.
No wonder he has a big smile on his face. And why am I not surprised he is Asian! (denim geek reference)
I'm interested in knowing what jeans they are.
That is a highly prevalent problem too, especially in politics. It is easy to sell people and voters on good thoughts. But when one considers what is required to implement them, all of a sudden everyone stops listening, there is no money, no one wants to do it, there is no time to get it right... or it's simply impossible. But hey, it was a good thought and it's what got you elected.
Draw lines where you may, but I just don't like intelligence being the line, for many people will fall below it.
If you have a compelling argument for plants, then go for it, but it won't be based on intelligence.
This would require law enforcement to be perfect and everyone to already be educated. Impossible. Good thought, but impossible.
I believe this "smart elitism" view that intelligence deserves rights is, on the flip-side, what leads many to justify discriminating against human idiot persons as well. Just because someone or some species is smarter, doesn't make it any better, nor does being stupid make someone or some species any lesser.
How about we treat all animals as Non-Human Persons?
Focus.
Must agree. This article and the millions of "journalists" who write ones like it, have always drove the buzz-sphere up into space and back into the ground.
The writer spends more time on how insightful he is for being all over the socio-mobi-web than just reviewing the damn app for what it is... a DESKTOP browser. Far more insight can be found on /. like always.
Besides, if he's sticking with it like he says, then the browser won.
No one will be anonymous. We will all just be other people. Also, you don't have to steal an identity to be someone. You can just create one in many cases.
These philosophies of uncontrollable openness by both Facebook and Google will spell their demise. A competitor who thinks otherwise will have a huge value proposition to use against them, and that is the value of control. Is it possible? Anything is possible.
Right. But all that you've said is at a higher comprehension level than most, and that is the problem. Which is precisely my point.
Scientists can tell the difference between a scientist that is wrong and a scientist that is right. But to others, they are all in the same choir singing a similar tune.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
There is a huge gap between intelligent design and evolution, and poor Mr. Behe has managed to fill that gap in a way that has given the intelligent design folk some major leverage.
He needs to either come out and refute claims that his work = proof of God, and discredit those who make such claims (while admiting his theories need more work), or come out and just confess he is acting on behalf of the Bible so that even the pseudo scientists are forced discredit him once and for all.
That would be doing all of us a favor.
I don't believe his theory of irreducible complexity equates to God created life, and on the surface it appears that he doesn't either. He simply points out that he finds some systems to be too sophisticated to be random, and *appears* to be a *scientist* while making his points.
Most if not all intelligent design advocates have jumped on this, and it is really too bad, because it's working. And I say whether he likes it or not, he could very well be responsible for the miseducation of millions of children.