This illustrates the main problem with JavaScript - (ignorant) people seem to think it can do absolutely everything in terms of coding and will be the wave of the future.
The word has to get out that JavaScript has its place but any kind of sophisticated app/webpage requires a lot of server support which is written in !JavaScript.
I love Chromebooks and think that Google really has a nice approach to a thin client that would be excellent in the home as suggested in TFA.
However, I never see that happening in a big way. Storing data on "The Cloud" is going to be scary for people used to working with hard drives and I think that applications that access large amounts of data for phones, tablets, cameras and video recorders such as iTunes, (Android) Transfer and video editing software will be a sticking point for most users.
Thinking about it, Linux would be the best for everyone's desktops, Chromebooks would be best for everybody's laptops and both are only five years away from becoming the most popular platform.
I would argue that they don't provide any meaningful, actionable data.
There are implications about what developers should look at to prepare for the future, but I don't think anybody will tell you that basing your education/training on what's popular now is of any long term value (although you could argue that learning Cobol and MVS/JCL in the 1970s/1980s would provide you with a nice living now).
I honestly don't care what IDEs, drinks or music other developers use while working: unless they result in flashing screens, smell awful or are too loud (I've experienced all three with different coworkers).
From TFA: "More than 15K people participated in the Developer Ecosystem Survey 2018, but only the responses of 6K respondents were included in this report." They go on to say that they used social media to find their population and weighted the results according to countries and whether or not the respondent was a student.
So why should I consider these results as representative of anything? First, almost 2/3rds of the responses weren't used and then, on the responses they deemed acceptable, they were weighted in some way which they don't explain.
I bet that if I took the same data, applied my own response filter and weighting system, I could show that: - Pascal is the number one programming language - Arduino IDE is the most popular development environment - 42% listen to old Jack Benny radio shows while coding and so on...
Doing so, I did see the rendering of the unit on its side with a keyboard in between. Other than having to keep a separate keyboard, that's not too terrible.
However, I still like the concept of a dual screen laptop where a secondary screen can slide out behind the primary one so that the system can expand to the space available.
I guess I'm too much of the mindset that laptops are for meetings and coding requires at least two displays.
When I first saw the summary, I was hoping there would be a second screen which slid out from behind the first (and the two sliding so that they are centred over the keyboard), allowing for a wider viewing experience. If you're on a plane or other restricted area, leave the second screen behind the first.
Personally, I find it easier to look side to side between windows on displays than up and down. I never found the dual screen Gameboy to be a great user experience (or better than what I got from a traditional console).
Oh, and if you decide to take the idea above and create a product from it - remember you saw it here first.
From the headline & summary, I was immediately flashed back to my time at RIM where the company had exactly the same vision for Blackberries - the talking points are identical to what I heard at RIM. TFA goes into a bit of the technology required for the vision but, again, I could go back 8-10 years to RIM and see identical issues (connectivity, battery life, processors & software omnipotence) being discussed as requirements for the platform.
RIM's failure to succeed was largely due to hubris and inattention to what was going on around them but I tend to think that there was a basic underpinning that there is NO single device that can do everything for everybody and trying to come up with the ultimate device, whether it is on a communications device (Blackberry) or a "personal contribution platform" isn't going to end where the proponents think it will.
For a poor school, a Raspberry Pi Zero is a bookmark that cost $5.
For it to be usable, you have to add: - Power Supply - SD Card for File System - Keyboard - Display - Network infrastructure for school to support a classroom of Raspberry Pis - Network and programmingTechnical support - Trained teacher that has curriculum
When you have a poor school, the suggestion of a $5 processor card isn't all that helpful when they see the investments that must be made to be able to actually get it to first power up and then set up a class and then find somebody who can teacher with it.
When I RFTA, I have to wonder if the only result of this is going to primarily highlight schools in areas that cannot afford sufficient computers for training students or teachers with the skills in order to teach programming.
Even if the money is allocated, who's going to benefit the most? Microsoft and Google will probably be the biggest beneficiaries of monies allocated out to "rectify" the problem as well as give CS teachers priorities over other teacher classifications.
That's an amazing pixel count and density but what is going to be the method of generating those 3-D images and passing them from the computer into the headset?
4,800 x 3840 x 120 x 32bits/pixel = 64 Gbps.
I guess for practical operation, this would be a fibre optic connection but, as I understand it, current single mode fibre optic tops out at 10 Gbps which is a fraction of the speed required.
So propeller heads and prognosticators, how will these VR headsets be connected to their controllers?
You don't consider a big piece of metal being chewed up by a propeller powered by a 4,500 hp turbine on the deck of a ship (or even on a tarmac) to be a safety issue?
In 2012, two E-2C Hawkeye aircraft were involved in an incident where one unfolded it's wings into the spinning propellers of the other.
Folding wing aircraft accidents like this are unusual, but they do happen and are representative of what would probably happen at an airport.
I should point out that airlines *haven't* been getting their pilots primarily from the military for more than twenty years - most of them come from the aviation colleges and then through regionals/cargo carriers.
I would disagree as the LM software was pretty straightforward - no routines was started without the astronauts (and NASA) not knowing exactly what the current state of the LM was with expected parameters and then execute quite simple routines. Don't forget that the Apollo Guidance Computers (AGCs) in the LM and CM only had 32k of ROM and 2K of RAM.
The "1201" and "1202" issues encountered during the Apollo 11 descent are probably the best examples of what you're talking about. They were caused by Aldrin leaving the CM rendezvous radar on during descent (this was done in the simulator without any issues because the landing simulator didn't include this radar because the LM designers didn't think it would be used during landing). Input from the radar was continually passed to the computer even though the software was written to process it or take it out of the memory area that it was automatically stored in...
This is where the genius of the hardware came in, when the data area the extraneous radar data was dumped into (as I understand it, causing the equivalent of a stack overflow), instead of trying to resolve the issue (which is what I would consider sophisticated software to do) the computer reset itself while returning to the currently executing routine. The landing routine itself would continuously poll altitude and attitude which means that upon reset, it would re-establish where the LM was and make the necessary computations for the engines & thrusters as necessary.
So, the MIT engineers did design for the unknown and to compensate for it, it just wasn't in the software.
My biggest problem with Microsoft is their continual efforts in monetizing long term use of Windows 10 products.
They really need to take a look at what is being offered by others (Google & Apple) and explain what is the tangible benefit to a customer of being part of the Microsoft infrastructure and pay for Office 365 and other money grabs, er, value added features.
Outlook is my primary mail client that I use for the reasons you cite. Mac Mail (on my Airbook) is a second choice when I'm on the road.
Personally, I like being able to send/receive HTML mail - a picture is worth a thousand words and formatting/emphasizing/listing/etc. makes things more readable.
Honestly, I don't love it and I feel like there should be better ones out there but I haven't found them. If I could find a Linux mail client I really liked, I'd probably drop Windows (and Microsoft) all together.
Personally, I think this capability could be extremely useful and should be pursued.
But, my first thought was to type handling - both environments largely handle data typing automagically and I would like to see how incompatible types are recognized and handled. I would worry about JavaScript's tendency to ignore failures and carry on as best it can without notifying the user as being a significant concern. For this reason, I would consider Python to be a better choice.
I wish in the TFA, when they reference getting web information using JavaScript, they didn't jump to getting a "bank account balance". That should strike terror in just about everyone - I'd be a bit more amenable if they used an example like getting the temperature in Tampa. It's not like Microsoft or JavaScript have been shown to be paragons of protecting user information and security.
I guess it is to Mr. Cameron, but in reality, does it matter if a Sci-Fi movie wins an Oscar (for anything)?
We're living in a golden age of TV; CGI and more liberal rules regarding stories and content allow for longer, more engaging stories to be told that appeal to more specific audience. Movies are tied into a shorter time base with more restrictions on content with the expectation that there needs to be a definite punch that knocks the viewer out of their seat and is tweeting to their friends that they must see this movie NOW.
Yesterday I saw "Ready Player One" and, despite not loving the book, the movie is engaging and fun - it is a true Spielberg movie that keeps your attention, gets a few smiles but won't make me think about it much afterwards. I can't think of anybody (including Mr. Cameron) that could have done it better. It will make a few hundred million dollars (like the latest Avengers or Star Wars) but non of them are worthy of any accolades (other than box office records).
In the current world, I don't think Sci-Fi should be shooting for an Oscar as a standard for being good. I thought "Arrival" was very good with an interesting twist at the end - but I know of very few people who really understand what had really happened at the end with regards how Any Adams' character's perspective on everything had changed (left vague to avoid spoilers). The movie did win an Hugo and that's probably what Sci-Fi movies should shoot for - great Sci-Fi makes the reader/viewer think and challenge their views and perspectives on things.
These are things I don't think movie execs/suits want.
Slashdot Mirror
This illustrates the main problem with JavaScript - (ignorant) people seem to think it can do absolutely everything in terms of coding and will be the wave of the future.
The word has to get out that JavaScript has its place but any kind of sophisticated app/webpage requires a lot of server support which is written in !JavaScript.
I love Chromebooks and think that Google really has a nice approach to a thin client that would be excellent in the home as suggested in TFA.
However, I never see that happening in a big way. Storing data on "The Cloud" is going to be scary for people used to working with hard drives and I think that applications that access large amounts of data for phones, tablets, cameras and video recorders such as iTunes, (Android) Transfer and video editing software will be a sticking point for most users.
Thinking about it, Linux would be the best for everyone's desktops, Chromebooks would be best for everybody's laptops and both are only five years away from becoming the most popular platform.
I would argue that they don't provide any meaningful, actionable data.
There are implications about what developers should look at to prepare for the future, but I don't think anybody will tell you that basing your education/training on what's popular now is of any long term value (although you could argue that learning Cobol and MVS/JCL in the 1970s/1980s would provide you with a nice living now).
I honestly don't care what IDEs, drinks or music other developers use while working: unless they result in flashing screens, smell awful or are too loud (I've experienced all three with different coworkers).
From TFA: "More than 15K people participated in the Developer Ecosystem Survey 2018, but only the responses of 6K respondents were included in this report." They go on to say that they used social media to find their population and weighted the results according to countries and whether or not the respondent was a student.
So why should I consider these results as representative of anything? First, almost 2/3rds of the responses weren't used and then, on the responses they deemed acceptable, they were weighted in some way which they don't explain.
I bet that if I took the same data, applied my own response filter and weighting system, I could show that:
- Pascal is the number one programming language
- Arduino IDE is the most popular development environment
- 42% listen to old Jack Benny radio shows while coding
and so on...
I'm not really sure where the negative vibes came from; I thought it was better than "The Last Jedi" and a lot better than "Infinity Wars".
Ron Howard did a credible job as director (you can see what was done before him).
I think it really comes down to "Jedi Fatigue" and a really stupid release date (against "Infinity Wars" and "Deadpool 2").
WTFV - Watched The Fucking Video
Doing so, I did see the rendering of the unit on its side with a keyboard in between. Other than having to keep a separate keyboard, that's not too terrible.
However, I still like the concept of a dual screen laptop where a secondary screen can slide out behind the primary one so that the system can expand to the space available.
I guess I'm too much of the mindset that laptops are for meetings and coding requires at least two displays.
When I first saw the summary, I was hoping there would be a second screen which slid out from behind the first (and the two sliding so that they are centred over the keyboard), allowing for a wider viewing experience. If you're on a plane or other restricted area, leave the second screen behind the first.
Personally, I find it easier to look side to side between windows on displays than up and down. I never found the dual screen Gameboy to be a great user experience (or better than what I got from a traditional console).
Oh, and if you decide to take the idea above and create a product from it - remember you saw it here first.
The headline should read Facebook security is so underpowered that CSS can deanonymize users.
Another day, another reason to stay away from Facebook.
From the headline & summary, I was immediately flashed back to my time at RIM where the company had exactly the same vision for Blackberries - the talking points are identical to what I heard at RIM. TFA goes into a bit of the technology required for the vision but, again, I could go back 8-10 years to RIM and see identical issues (connectivity, battery life, processors & software omnipotence) being discussed as requirements for the platform.
RIM's failure to succeed was largely due to hubris and inattention to what was going on around them but I tend to think that there was a basic underpinning that there is NO single device that can do everything for everybody and trying to come up with the ultimate device, whether it is on a communications device (Blackberry) or a "personal contribution platform" isn't going to end where the proponents think it will.
For a poor school, a Raspberry Pi Zero is a bookmark that cost $5.
For it to be usable, you have to add:
- Power Supply
- SD Card for File System
- Keyboard
- Display
- Network infrastructure for school to support a classroom of Raspberry Pis
- Network and programmingTechnical support
- Trained teacher that has curriculum
When you have a poor school, the suggestion of a $5 processor card isn't all that helpful when they see the investments that must be made to be able to actually get it to first power up and then set up a class and then find somebody who can teacher with it.
When I RFTA, I have to wonder if the only result of this is going to primarily highlight schools in areas that cannot afford sufficient computers for training students or teachers with the skills in order to teach programming.
Even if the money is allocated, who's going to benefit the most? Microsoft and Google will probably be the biggest beneficiaries of monies allocated out to "rectify" the problem as well as give CS teachers priorities over other teacher classifications.
While I never met him in person, I did speak to him on several occasions over the phone/Skype and we did email over the years.
Very nice person and he will be missed.
That's an amazing pixel count and density but what is going to be the method of generating those 3-D images and passing them from the computer into the headset?
4,800 x 3840 x 120 x 32bits/pixel = 64 Gbps.
I guess for practical operation, this would be a fibre optic connection but, as I understand it, current single mode fibre optic tops out at 10 Gbps which is a fraction of the speed required.
So propeller heads and prognosticators, how will these VR headsets be connected to their controllers?
You don't consider a big piece of metal being chewed up by a propeller powered by a 4,500 hp turbine on the deck of a ship (or even on a tarmac) to be a safety issue?
In 2012, two E-2C Hawkeye aircraft were involved in an incident where one unfolded it's wings into the spinning propellers of the other.
Folding wing aircraft accidents like this are unusual, but they do happen and are representative of what would probably happen at an airport.
I should point out that airlines *haven't* been getting their pilots primarily from the military for more than twenty years - most of them come from the aviation colleges and then through regionals/cargo carriers.
It's fun until you come to the end of the tunnel.
If you add IoT to a product, that means there's gold, copper, rare earths, etc. that should make recycling them a lot more attractive.
Maybe the separation processes and resulting waste aren't all that great for the environment but I would think there might be a silver lining here.
It could play games and learn that war is wrong.
QED
(Human) DNA is an excellent example of some very sophisticated software.
I would disagree as the LM software was pretty straightforward - no routines was started without the astronauts (and NASA) not knowing exactly what the current state of the LM was with expected parameters and then execute quite simple routines. Don't forget that the Apollo Guidance Computers (AGCs) in the LM and CM only had 32k of ROM and 2K of RAM.
The "1201" and "1202" issues encountered during the Apollo 11 descent are probably the best examples of what you're talking about. They were caused by Aldrin leaving the CM rendezvous radar on during descent (this was done in the simulator without any issues because the landing simulator didn't include this radar because the LM designers didn't think it would be used during landing). Input from the radar was continually passed to the computer even though the software was written to process it or take it out of the memory area that it was automatically stored in...
This is where the genius of the hardware came in, when the data area the extraneous radar data was dumped into (as I understand it, causing the equivalent of a stack overflow), instead of trying to resolve the issue (which is what I would consider sophisticated software to do) the computer reset itself while returning to the currently executing routine. The landing routine itself would continuously poll altitude and attitude which means that upon reset, it would re-establish where the LM was and make the necessary computations for the engines & thrusters as necessary.
So, the MIT engineers did design for the unknown and to compensate for it, it just wasn't in the software.
My biggest problem with Microsoft is their continual efforts in monetizing long term use of Windows 10 products.
They really need to take a look at what is being offered by others (Google & Apple) and explain what is the tangible benefit to a customer of being part of the Microsoft infrastructure and pay for Office 365 and other money grabs, er, value added features.
Outlook is my primary mail client that I use for the reasons you cite. Mac Mail (on my Airbook) is a second choice when I'm on the road.
Personally, I like being able to send/receive HTML mail - a picture is worth a thousand words and formatting/emphasizing/listing/etc. makes things more readable.
Honestly, I don't love it and I feel like there should be better ones out there but I haven't found them. If I could find a Linux mail client I really liked, I'd probably drop Windows (and Microsoft) all together.
Personally, I think this capability could be extremely useful and should be pursued.
But, my first thought was to type handling - both environments largely handle data typing automagically and I would like to see how incompatible types are recognized and handled. I would worry about JavaScript's tendency to ignore failures and carry on as best it can without notifying the user as being a significant concern. For this reason, I would consider Python to be a better choice.
I wish in the TFA, when they reference getting web information using JavaScript, they didn't jump to getting a "bank account balance". That should strike terror in just about everyone - I'd be a bit more amenable if they used an example like getting the temperature in Tampa. It's not like Microsoft or JavaScript have been shown to be paragons of protecting user information and security.
Just one more thought that occurred to me; with how Hollywood regards movies, would I be interested in an Oscar winning Sci-Fi film?
I guess it is to Mr. Cameron, but in reality, does it matter if a Sci-Fi movie wins an Oscar (for anything)?
We're living in a golden age of TV; CGI and more liberal rules regarding stories and content allow for longer, more engaging stories to be told that appeal to more specific audience. Movies are tied into a shorter time base with more restrictions on content with the expectation that there needs to be a definite punch that knocks the viewer out of their seat and is tweeting to their friends that they must see this movie NOW.
Yesterday I saw "Ready Player One" and, despite not loving the book, the movie is engaging and fun - it is a true Spielberg movie that keeps your attention, gets a few smiles but won't make me think about it much afterwards. I can't think of anybody (including Mr. Cameron) that could have done it better. It will make a few hundred million dollars (like the latest Avengers or Star Wars) but non of them are worthy of any accolades (other than box office records).
In the current world, I don't think Sci-Fi should be shooting for an Oscar as a standard for being good. I thought "Arrival" was very good with an interesting twist at the end - but I know of very few people who really understand what had really happened at the end with regards how Any Adams' character's perspective on everything had changed (left vague to avoid spoilers). The movie did win an Hugo and that's probably what Sci-Fi movies should shoot for - great Sci-Fi makes the reader/viewer think and challenge their views and perspectives on things.
These are things I don't think movie execs/suits want.