If you're banked over on a bike and your engine stalls, you're likely to lose control of it. If you're upright it will be perfectly safe unless there are other vehicles in your immediate proximity that didn't anticipate a sudden change of velocity on your part.
One facet of this is that increasingly, any application of any great interest runs over the network, often using HTTP, so its UI is coded in JavaScript or somesuch and the back end can be any motley arrangement you like that happens to work.
Even traditionally single-host applications like word processors nowadays involve mechanisms for installing software updates and online dictionaries or cloud-based functionality. As for games, you can't even launch most single-player games that should have no need of a network connection without having to log in.
The popularity of the mobile app model is such that this trend is only going to increase. As such, the issue is not about binary runtime language compatibility frameworks like SWIG, but more about network protocols.
Well, after reading further I find that Dart compiles down to JavaScript in any case, presumably even in the Dart-capable browser, which makes it about as useful as a fifth wheel.
Also of note is this:
if (1) { // this will be executed in JavaScript and other sane languages
} else { // this will be executed in Dart
}
Got to love it when those language designers have such hubris that they think they can do the exact opposite of what everyone else in the world is used to.
Assuming that range is correct how is that in any way useful?
In rebutting the hypothesis that a liberal newspaper is "far left".
And where would you place Libertarians or Anarchists on your chart?
Libertarianism is orthogonal to the left-right issue: you can be a socialist libertarian like Gandhi or a conservative libertarian like Rand. And anarchists (in the strong "anarchy" sense, rather than the weak "anarchism" sense) are purely reactionary and basically oppose any kind of political system. Anarchists in the weak "anarchism" sense are indistinguishable from libertarians from any moderate viewpoint.
Is the New York Times a liberal newspaper? Of course it is.
Far left = communist.
Left = socialist.
Middle of the road = liberals, greens.
Right = Democrats, New Labour, David Cameron.
Far right = Republicans, Marine le Pen, Bashar al-Assad.
3. possibly to a coarse-grained degree, depends on the purpose.
4. don't know (probably not knowable).
Apart from anything else it seems that Lloyd is still stuck in the Age of Reason and has never read Freud, Skinner, or any other influential thinkers in the last couple of hundred years. We've moved on from the homunculus theory now.
many of these US citizens are giving up their US citizenship because of this.
That, and the fact that the IRS is attempting to tax them twice on the same income: even when they can show that they've paid income tax in the nation the income was generated, they claim that they're due income tax in the US as well due to you being an American citizen.
By the way, do you have multiple accounts with a little bot army that just goes round modding up your comments? Because they don't really seem particularly insightful to me.
I mean for Firefox OS, Ubuntu Phone, Android, Windows Phone, iOS, and any other or future platforms for tablets, phones, wearable computing, and other mobile devices.
I think that Google needs to review the whole Android permissions thing. It's really not enough for the app to just say "I need X and Y". For each of these permissions the user needs to be able to go in and put a check next to it: "ok, you can have X, but not Y".
I am aware that there are 3rd party apps that can provide this functionality on rooted devices, however it needs to be viable for standard users as well.
In any case some of the permissions are just ridiculously coarse grained. "Full network access"? Seriously? You need to be able to communicate with exactly one domain for most apps. With apps that actually need to communicate with more than one host you should be able to validate each host as and when the app tries to open the socket. You should be able to limit bandwidth on a per-app basis, etc, etc.
One of the things that doesn't ring true with TBL's analysis is that he says he wants to pursue this to avoid fragmentation in the Web. Currently in order to implement DRM you have to use a Flash plugin or somesuch. However what he's glossing over is that the DRM binary blob is exactly the same as that Flash plugin.
The reason the Web can work is because everything needed to make it work is basically declarative. If I have some unheard-of platform (a new kind of RISC chip, for instance) then to make it Web-enabled all I have to do is implement an HTML parser and a JavaScript interpreter and a bit of network protocol and bingo, I have a browser on my system.
However what I don't have is the DRM executable in my browser, because I don't know how to implement it. And the DRM author doesn't even know about my system and doesn't care anyway. They're not going to distribute their executable for any but the most profitable platforms, everything else is just cut out of the loop.
This is totally disastrous for the Web ecosystem as we know it. The ability to make a device Web-enabled is taken away from the people who know and/or use the device, who have a strong interest in the device being Web-enabled, and given to people who have no particular interest in anything except revenue. You can see where this is going.
In a nutshell, introducing DRM into Web standards is absolutely promoting fragmentation, because the smaller the player, the less interest the DRM providers have in providing for their platform.
You may not have noticed but a number of manufacturers are going down the road of using HTML5 web apps as their mobile application platform. JavaScript certainly seems to fit your description. Actually, it doesn't have a concurrency model at all.
When Java first came out it was also incredibly slow and had a pretty primitive concurrency model. It's taken many years and a crapload of cash to get it to where it is now. Python hasn't had any cash to speak of.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're banked over on a bike and your engine stalls, you're likely to lose control of it. If you're upright it will be perfectly safe unless there are other vehicles in your immediate proximity that didn't anticipate a sudden change of velocity on your part.
One facet of this is that increasingly, any application of any great interest runs over the network, often using HTTP, so its UI is coded in JavaScript or somesuch and the back end can be any motley arrangement you like that happens to work.
Even traditionally single-host applications like word processors nowadays involve mechanisms for installing software updates and online dictionaries or cloud-based functionality. As for games, you can't even launch most single-player games that should have no need of a network connection without having to log in.
The popularity of the mobile app model is such that this trend is only going to increase. As such, the issue is not about binary runtime language compatibility frameworks like SWIG, but more about network protocols.
Well, after reading further I find that Dart compiles down to JavaScript in any case, presumably even in the Dart-capable browser, which makes it about as useful as a fifth wheel.
Also of note is this:
Got to love it when those language designers have such hubris that they think they can do the exact opposite of what everyone else in the world is used to.
What I find hilarious is that the Dart language website (dartlang.org) actually requires JavaScript to work.
Blowing up a crapload of innocent people has national and world ramifications.
Tell me if that's a good thing.
In rebutting the hypothesis that a liberal newspaper is "far left".
Libertarianism is orthogonal to the left-right issue: you can be a socialist libertarian like Gandhi or a conservative libertarian like Rand. And anarchists (in the strong "anarchy" sense, rather than the weak "anarchism" sense) are purely reactionary and basically oppose any kind of political system. Anarchists in the weak "anarchism" sense are indistinguishable from libertarians from any moderate viewpoint.
Far left = communist.
Left = socialist.
Middle of the road = liberals, greens.
Right = Democrats, New Labour, David Cameron.
Far right = Republicans, Marine le Pen, Bashar al-Assad.
Quanta is plural. You cannot have "a quanta" any more than you can have "a mice".
In fact the word is essentially meaningless within the OP, but hey, it sounds all sciencey and shit, so let's whack it in anyway.
Don't store it in metal tanks then...
If you're talking about absolute trust, i.e. "I trust him" = "I trust him to do anything", you should probably have your head examined.
Phrase your questions better and you will get more useful answers.
Would you expect a filing clerk who works in a bank to have a degree in economics, or a plumber to have a degree in civil engineering?
Here are my honest answers to Lloyd's test:
Apart from anything else it seems that Lloyd is still stuck in the Age of Reason and has never read Freud, Skinner, or any other influential thinkers in the last couple of hundred years. We've moved on from the homunculus theory now.
That, and the fact that the IRS is attempting to tax them twice on the same income: even when they can show that they've paid income tax in the nation the income was generated, they claim that they're due income tax in the US as well due to you being an American citizen.
Write once in XML using domain-specific vocabulary and markup; convert to HTML/PDF/plaintext using XSL.
Simples.
By the way, do you have multiple accounts with a little bot army that just goes round modding up your comments? Because they don't really seem particularly insightful to me.
I mean for Firefox OS, Ubuntu Phone, Android, Windows Phone, iOS, and any other or future platforms for tablets, phones, wearable computing, and other mobile devices.
The hypothetical one I am describing that would unify software development for the mobile platform.
Like I said.
I think that Google needs to review the whole Android permissions thing. It's really not enough for the app to just say "I need X and Y". For each of these permissions the user needs to be able to go in and put a check next to it: "ok, you can have X, but not Y".
I am aware that there are 3rd party apps that can provide this functionality on rooted devices, however it needs to be viable for standard users as well.
In any case some of the permissions are just ridiculously coarse grained. "Full network access"? Seriously? You need to be able to communicate with exactly one domain for most apps. With apps that actually need to communicate with more than one host you should be able to validate each host as and when the app tries to open the socket. You should be able to limit bandwidth on a per-app basis, etc, etc.
Israel is not a Western nation. It's in the Middle East.
Indeed, a questionable judgement from a "human rights" court.
Indeed; it's entirely possible that the ferry company itself posted the anonymous libel.
One of the things that doesn't ring true with TBL's analysis is that he says he wants to pursue this to avoid fragmentation in the Web. Currently in order to implement DRM you have to use a Flash plugin or somesuch. However what he's glossing over is that the DRM binary blob is exactly the same as that Flash plugin.
The reason the Web can work is because everything needed to make it work is basically declarative. If I have some unheard-of platform (a new kind of RISC chip, for instance) then to make it Web-enabled all I have to do is implement an HTML parser and a JavaScript interpreter and a bit of network protocol and bingo, I have a browser on my system.
However what I don't have is the DRM executable in my browser, because I don't know how to implement it. And the DRM author doesn't even know about my system and doesn't care anyway. They're not going to distribute their executable for any but the most profitable platforms, everything else is just cut out of the loop.
This is totally disastrous for the Web ecosystem as we know it. The ability to make a device Web-enabled is taken away from the people who know and/or use the device, who have a strong interest in the device being Web-enabled, and given to people who have no particular interest in anything except revenue. You can see where this is going.
In a nutshell, introducing DRM into Web standards is absolutely promoting fragmentation, because the smaller the player, the less interest the DRM providers have in providing for their platform.
Because that is the only way to forge a standard.
You may not have noticed but a number of manufacturers are going down the road of using HTML5 web apps as their mobile application platform. JavaScript certainly seems to fit your description. Actually, it doesn't have a concurrency model at all.
When Java first came out it was also incredibly slow and had a pretty primitive concurrency model. It's taken many years and a crapload of cash to get it to where it is now. Python hasn't had any cash to speak of.