Considering your inability to use a spellchecker it seems that the machines are smarter than you. However I don't believe machines will be able to displace even you.
It's "flourish" not "florish".
Companies don't do research anymore?! Every other fucking day there's an article about some new invention from Google, a new patented thing from IBM, Toyota releasing patents (the results of research), etc. etc. And you stand there and parrot this garbage about companies not doing research?!
Now if the President, and the Congress were the same party; and a) the low-taxes hawk, b) the deficit hawks, or c) both could be convinced to shut up for 10 goddamn years and let the government pay for nice things
If we borrowed and spent like that for ten years there wouldn't be a point in having a nice space program because we'd cease to have a country. It's like you're proposing that we ignore the mortgage so that we can buy nice drapes-- we wouldn't have a house to hang the drapes in!
Running an app in a browser is already a heavyweight solution. Using Javascript instead of a real (i.e. native) programming language is already a heavyweight solution. The web is neat, but it could be vastly better than it is. How?
By getting rid of Javascript all together and replacing it with something native (i.e. C++ running under a run-time similar to NaCl).
Pre-compiling HTML and CSS to some kind of bytecode rather than parsing it all down from text.
Then bundle all that up into a single compressed package per-page and ready to go. The packages would be signed with a crypto key so that you know it came from the site you're navigating to and has the contents that it claims to have.
I'm not a security expert, but a crypto hash like this should be possible, right? Anyway let's not pretend like the current mess on the web is totally secure.
I'm not a code guru, but running a native binary should get much better performance than Javascript I don't care how optimized modern JS interpreters/JITs are (and I know they've done some amazing things with them).
I'm not an HTML/CSS guru, but surely it'd be faster to parse bytecode than plain text.
Worried that the web will turn into a wasteland without the ability to read the source code of web pages? First, when was the last time you looked at the source to anything without being paid to do so? Second, browsers could simply de-compile the markup bytecode and display it-- it's not anywhere close to as complex as real code.
Worried about security holes? The native run-time would simply not support functions that allow you to work outside the browser's resources (i.e. the file system). Worried about pointers etc? Fine, use ref counting or a GC language like Go or Rust. Anyway, do you worry about that stuff right now? The browser you're using ALREADY is completely written in C or C++.
I don't want to come across as being an iconoclast or as trying to sound like I'm better or more know more than the guys currently building the infrastructure. I'm just putting this stuff out there as an idea that I hope is a good one or at least not a terrible one.
Discounting gangland violence seems appropriate to me because why should we care about those who die while disobeying the law and actively undermining our society? The point of law and order is to safeguard members of society while they obey and contribute.
I don't see anywhere in Reagan's executive order that says government agencies can spy on citizens. It says other agencies have to give info to the CIA if they want it. Nowhere does it even mention the word "collection"... Or am I missing something?
Please explain how banning certain guns, or certain kinds of guns, doesn't infringe upon the second amendment yet banning certain books, or kinds of books, does infringe upon the first amendment.
If you think that neither case is one of infringement then please explain how any part of the Bill of Rights is meaningfully binding to the government.
If no part of the Bill of Rights is meaningfully binding to the government then please explain in what sense do you care about freedom or the safeguarding of freedom
If you do not care about freedom or the safeguarding of freedom then please explain why anyone should listen to your opinion regarding how a free society should be governed.
Do you somehow find yourself aggrieved by not being able to do what you want in your bedroom? Are you really so oppressed just because you can't admit in public what you do with other consenting adults (homosexual relationships)? Is it ruining your fabulous look or something?
Or are you just looking for thing to kvetch about?
I should think there's very little call for walking around with a flamboyant, gay, air.
Basically, what you just said was "I don't think you should have the right to do things that make me uncomfortable" and that's very immature of you. It seems that you don't actually care about real freedom. You want to live in a nanny state where the mob pounces on anything and anyone that falls short of the pravda du jour. Little do dunces and fools like you suspect that pravda is subject to change. It suits you for now, but it's not hard to imaging it turning really ugly very quickly.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out. - Martin Niemöller
What is more free than being able to defend oneself (against bullies, rapists, thieves, and/or government thugs)?
This should sum things up.
You knew it was a beheading video... and you CHOSE to watch it. Now you're trying to say that someone else should take responsibility for the things you view.
How about just letting someone else take responsibility for your entire life and be done with it?
Get off the internet and go bury your head in the sand, child, real life is much too rough for you.
>The Abrahamic religious nonsense about "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" needs to stop, or we'll never progress into a peaceful society.
You are woefully ignorant it seems.
Matthew 5:38:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’h 39But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Perhaps you should spend more time reading about worldviews similar to your own and less time listening to Dawkins podcasts.
If you think those two seats are held by anyone other than puppets, if they're even held by real Jews or Christians in the first place, then you're a fool.
Slashdot Mirror
Which of the Ten Commandments are confusing to you?
Considering your inability to use a spellchecker it seems that the machines are smarter than you. However I don't believe machines will be able to displace even you. It's "flourish" not "florish".
Companies don't do research anymore?! Every other fucking day there's an article about some new invention from Google, a new patented thing from IBM, Toyota releasing patents (the results of research), etc. etc. And you stand there and parrot this garbage about companies not doing research?!
Now if the President, and the Congress were the same party; and a) the low-taxes hawk, b) the deficit hawks, or c) both could be convinced to shut up for 10 goddamn years and let the government pay for nice things
If we borrowed and spent like that for ten years there wouldn't be a point in having a nice space program because we'd cease to have a country. It's like you're proposing that we ignore the mortgage so that we can buy nice drapes-- we wouldn't have a house to hang the drapes in!
roman_mir: You. Are. My. Hero.
If she doesn't know she ate meat then how does she know it's the meat that made her sick?
Couldn't it have been salmonella on her spinach?
Running an app in a browser is already a heavyweight solution. Using Javascript instead of a real (i.e. native) programming language is already a heavyweight solution. The web is neat, but it could be vastly better than it is. How?
By getting rid of Javascript all together and replacing it with something native (i.e. C++ running under a run-time similar to NaCl).
Pre-compiling HTML and CSS to some kind of bytecode rather than parsing it all down from text.
Then bundle all that up into a single compressed package per-page and ready to go. The packages would be signed with a crypto key so that you know it came from the site you're navigating to and has the contents that it claims to have.
I'm not a security expert, but a crypto hash like this should be possible, right? Anyway let's not pretend like the current mess on the web is totally secure.
I'm not a code guru, but running a native binary should get much better performance than Javascript I don't care how optimized modern JS interpreters/JITs are (and I know they've done some amazing things with them).
I'm not an HTML/CSS guru, but surely it'd be faster to parse bytecode than plain text.
Worried that the web will turn into a wasteland without the ability to read the source code of web pages? First, when was the last time you looked at the source to anything without being paid to do so? Second, browsers could simply de-compile the markup bytecode and display it-- it's not anywhere close to as complex as real code.
Worried about security holes? The native run-time would simply not support functions that allow you to work outside the browser's resources (i.e. the file system). Worried about pointers etc? Fine, use ref counting or a GC language like Go or Rust. Anyway, do you worry about that stuff right now? The browser you're using ALREADY is completely written in C or C++.
I don't want to come across as being an iconoclast or as trying to sound like I'm better or more know more than the guys currently building the infrastructure. I'm just putting this stuff out there as an idea that I hope is a good one or at least not a terrible one.
Try Dillo. It doesn't support Javascript though.
Discounting gangland violence seems appropriate to me because why should we care about those who die while disobeying the law and actively undermining our society? The point of law and order is to safeguard members of society while they obey and contribute.
we refuse to treat our politicians like royalty
Except for the Queen?
The exceptions to that opposition usually occur in circumstances where liberals benefit personally from the profits.
Like Solyndra?
I don't think you have the childrens' best interests at heart, you monster.
At roughly 33% less power/cycle cost vs DX which requires being sent through the CPU two or three times instead of going directly to the GPU.
Citation required.
I don't see anywhere in Reagan's executive order that says government agencies can spy on citizens. It says other agencies have to give info to the CIA if they want it. Nowhere does it even mention the word "collection"... Or am I missing something?
Please explain how banning certain guns, or certain kinds of guns, doesn't infringe upon the second amendment yet banning certain books, or kinds of books, does infringe upon the first amendment. If you think that neither case is one of infringement then please explain how any part of the Bill of Rights is meaningfully binding to the government. If no part of the Bill of Rights is meaningfully binding to the government then please explain in what sense do you care about freedom or the safeguarding of freedom If you do not care about freedom or the safeguarding of freedom then please explain why anyone should listen to your opinion regarding how a free society should be governed.
The problem is: widespread firearms ownership is demonstrably, empirically, a terrible solution to the problem of personal protection.
Citation required. And I don't mean some bullshit link to a blog.
Do you somehow find yourself aggrieved by not being able to do what you want in your bedroom? Are you really so oppressed just because you can't admit in public what you do with other consenting adults (homosexual relationships)? Is it ruining your fabulous look or something? Or are you just looking for thing to kvetch about? I should think there's very little call for walking around with a flamboyant, gay, air.
Basically, what you just said was "I don't think you should have the right to do things that make me uncomfortable" and that's very immature of you. It seems that you don't actually care about real freedom. You want to live in a nanny state where the mob pounces on anything and anyone that falls short of the pravda du jour. Little do dunces and fools like you suspect that pravda is subject to change. It suits you for now, but it's not hard to imaging it turning really ugly very quickly.
When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist. When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn't a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out. - Martin Niemöller
What is more free than being able to defend oneself (against bullies, rapists, thieves, and/or government thugs)? This should sum things up.
You knew it was a beheading video... and you CHOSE to watch it. Now you're trying to say that someone else should take responsibility for the things you view. How about just letting someone else take responsibility for your entire life and be done with it? Get off the internet and go bury your head in the sand, child, real life is much too rough for you.
Herb Sutter responded to this on his blog (Sutter's Mill): http://herbsutter.com/2013/08/...
Considering that 70% of the US population is White I'd say that Apple is actually quite racist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
>The Abrahamic religious nonsense about "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" needs to stop, or we'll never progress into a peaceful society. You are woefully ignorant it seems. Matthew 5:38: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’h 39But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. Perhaps you should spend more time reading about worldviews similar to your own and less time listening to Dawkins podcasts.
If you think those two seats are held by anyone other than puppets, if they're even held by real Jews or Christians in the first place, then you're a fool.
I want to see someone get Musk's full opinion of Obama, say, two years from now...
It does, actually: http://blog.atom.io/
This more than any other reason is why I'm losing my taste for /. and my faith in humanity.