Someday, in a terrifying moment of introspection, you'll realize how many things you believe without evidence -- and in the face of evidence to the contrary.
It's going to be quite painful for you, I suspect. You have my sympathy.
No, there are plenty of articles that ought to be deleted. Wikipedia should be punished for allowing organized special interest groups to take near total control over articles to push their own agendas.
So you think that it's okay for a company to, for example, hire a number of people from an impoverished country with a lower cost of living at a rate acceptable to them while living in that country and bring them to another country with a dramatically higher cost of living while offering them the same (now clearly unlivable) wage while they're here?
Let me guess "no one forced them!" Sure, they didn't have to come here to work for slave wages under horribly abusive conditions. They could have stayed in their home country and lost one of the few jobs available to them.
If believing that people should not be unfairly exploited so that a socially irresponsible company can save a few bucks means that there's something wrong with me, then that's a label I'll proudly wear.
That's just a snake trying to eat it's own tail. If you raise the minimum wage, prices go up and then you have to increase government assistance to compensate.
I see that you're deeply confused. What bizarre libertarian whack-a-do gave such a pitifully simple-minded talking point?
There isn't a good reason why social networking couldn't function more like email, with multiple providers inter-operating over some standard protocol. There just isn't as much money in it for the big players to be interested.
Please don't forget that the whole point of my comment was that threads are broken in JS.
That's new. Here I thought it was this:
The real underlying reason these apps feel flimsy is probably that Javascript is a single-threaded language. [...] This means that when processing one action of the user (especially if it is a complicated action), the user interface will temporarily freeze.
Which is, of course, total nonsense.
For example, a simple "for" loop turns into a monster of functions calling eachother, in order to break the inside of the for-loop into small chunks that can't lock the UI. Now imagine a doubly-nested for-loop. You'd need special compilers to keep your code clean.
Which is also total nonsense. I'm sorry, but your assumptions simply don't match reality. Where did you come up with this stuff?
Again, I recommend you go do some reading about asynchronous programming and event-driven programming.
The problem is that "threads" are supposed to be a solution to dividing work.
Yes, but it's one of many solutions, and certainly not the best in every case. Threads come with their own set of problems, after all. They're no panacea. It's your job to understand the benefits and drawbacks of threads, and alternative solutions, and pick the best approach for your project. As threads are not an option in JS, it's a great opportunity for you to explore various alternative approaches. Tossing up your hands and saying "I must lock the UI!" is silly, particularly when it's clear that other applications don't seem to share that problem.
Lets face it: If your code locks the UI, you have a serious problem with your code! Go do some reading about asynchronous programming and event-driven programming. You'll find it quite helpful. Your users will thank you as well.
Oddly enough, that makes my point. That "problem" was solved ages ago. Why is that we've seemed to have collectively forgot old, but excellent, solutions to common problems?
My certainly did. It restarted and reloaded my tabs, including this one, without a hitch.
that grim sense of foreboding that I now get with Firefox upgrades ("what's going to stop working this time? how is the UI I've been using for many years changed now?")
Just curious, what has been breaking for you? What UI features have changed in some significant way since Australis? I only ask because I switched back to Firefox from Chrome when Australis hit and have seen nothing but positive improvements with each release.
No. This is why I don't care for pop science. An hypothesis doesn't "grow-up" and become a theory. An hypothesis is, put simply, a testable prediction. A theory, also in the simplest possible terms, is a predictive model.
I should have said that it was obvious it wasn't universal.
And provided an example. You won't find any. (Not that a single example would make Randi's claims that the media were totally taken-in by his non-hoax any more fraudulent.)
do you have a reference that it was universal
Yes! I do! Mendham, Tim (1988) The Carlos Hoax, The Skeptic, 8(1)
It should also be stated that to a certain extent the whole hoax backfired [...] the media were extremely cynical (if not sceptical) of Alvarez' claims, and he received no sympathetic coverage at all.
Randy did not do any of those. Someone else who was close to him did.
Sure, a young foreign art student managed to do that all by himself, without any assistance from his infinitely more capable lover. Randi was blissfully ignorant. Let's just ignore the fact that Randi was well-aware of his true identity, knowingly employed an illegal immigrant under a false identity, and even lied to protect that identity (he even claimed to be worried about Pena's thick Bronx accent spoiling the "hoax") and, of course, to the US government on his I-9 form. Oh, and the fact that he admitted as much in court, stating that they didn't believe they were hurting anyone.
But sure, Randi was totally uninvolved, because he's a personal hero of yours.
Slashdot Mirror
Most Buddhists would strongly disagree with you.
Oh, my...
Someday, in a terrifying moment of introspection, you'll realize how many things you believe without evidence -- and in the face of evidence to the contrary.
It's going to be quite painful for you, I suspect. You have my sympathy.
None of the mods remember the ubiquitous "Winners don't use drugs" message from the later arcade days?
No, there are plenty of articles that ought to be deleted. Wikipedia should be punished for allowing organized special interest groups to take near total control over articles to push their own agendas.
So you think that it's okay for a company to, for example, hire a number of people from an impoverished country with a lower cost of living at a rate acceptable to them while living in that country and bring them to another country with a dramatically higher cost of living while offering them the same (now clearly unlivable) wage while they're here?
Let me guess "no one forced them!" Sure, they didn't have to come here to work for slave wages under horribly abusive conditions. They could have stayed in their home country and lost one of the few jobs available to them.
If believing that people should not be unfairly exploited so that a socially irresponsible company can save a few bucks means that there's something wrong with me, then that's a label I'll proudly wear.
Please tell me that you're being sarcastic.
That's just a snake trying to eat it's own tail. If you raise the minimum wage, prices go up and then you have to increase government assistance to compensate.
I see that you're deeply confused. What bizarre libertarian whack-a-do gave such a pitifully simple-minded talking point?
You'd be willing to work for free too when the alternative is being beaten to death.
There isn't a good reason why social networking couldn't function more like email, with multiple providers inter-operating over some standard protocol. There just isn't as much money in it for the big players to be interested.
There are many, many, reasons not to trust Google.
This, however, is not one of them.
Please don't forget that the whole point of my comment was that threads are broken in JS.
That's new. Here I thought it was this:
The real underlying reason these apps feel flimsy is probably that Javascript is a single-threaded language. [...]
This means that when processing one action of the user (especially if it is a complicated action), the user interface will temporarily freeze.
Which is, of course, total nonsense.
For example, a simple "for" loop turns into a monster of functions calling eachother, in order to break the inside of the for-loop into small chunks that can't lock the UI. Now imagine a doubly-nested for-loop. You'd need special compilers to keep your code clean.
Which is also total nonsense. I'm sorry, but your assumptions simply don't match reality. Where did you come up with this stuff?
Again, I recommend you go do some reading about asynchronous programming and event-driven programming.
The problem is that "threads" are supposed to be a solution to dividing work.
Yes, but it's one of many solutions, and certainly not the best in every case. Threads come with their own set of problems, after all. They're no panacea. It's your job to understand the benefits and drawbacks of threads, and alternative solutions, and pick the best approach for your project. As threads are not an option in JS, it's a great opportunity for you to explore various alternative approaches. Tossing up your hands and saying "I must lock the UI!" is silly, particularly when it's clear that other applications don't seem to share that problem.
Lets face it: If your code locks the UI, you have a serious problem with your code! Go do some reading about asynchronous programming and event-driven programming. You'll find it quite helpful. Your users will thank you as well.
And if done right, it can be really nice. I usually write classes
Just wait, it gets even better once you learn the basics...
Oddly enough, that makes my point. That "problem" was solved ages ago. Why is that we've seemed to have collectively forgot old, but excellent, solutions to common problems?
This means that when processing one action of the user (especially if it is a complicated action), the user interface will temporarily freeze.
Only if the developer is a total moron.
To be clear: I'm not talking about web-workers.
Did everyone forget about Java?
It failed in the browser for good reason.
Because they wrote the program, of course.
That's only if you count nonsense like candy crush as games.
If Candy Crush isn't a game, what is it?
Welcome to Slashdot! We, er, do that sort of thing here...
It's scheduled for Firefox 37, to be released at the end of March next year.
Thanks. Having returned to FireFox after years of Chrome, I'm not likely to notice, or be irritated, by those kinds of changes.
YMMV
My certainly did. It restarted and reloaded my tabs, including this one, without a hitch.
that grim sense of foreboding that I now get with Firefox upgrades ("what's going to stop working this time? how is the UI I've been using for many years changed now?")
Just curious, what has been breaking for you? What UI features have changed in some significant way since Australis? I only ask because I switched back to Firefox from Chrome when Australis hit and have seen nothing but positive improvements with each release.
Because I have evidence on my side. That puts me in a nice position. You have a sad devotion to a fallen hero and nothing to offer accept innuendo.
No. This is why I don't care for pop science. An hypothesis doesn't "grow-up" and become a theory. An hypothesis is, put simply, a testable prediction. A theory, also in the simplest possible terms, is a predictive model.
I should have said that it was obvious it wasn't universal.
And provided an example. You won't find any. (Not that a single example would make Randi's claims that the media were totally taken-in by his non-hoax any more fraudulent.)
do you have a reference that it was universal
Yes! I do! Mendham, Tim (1988) The Carlos Hoax, The Skeptic, 8(1)
It should also be stated that to a certain extent the whole hoax backfired [...] the media were extremely cynical (if not sceptical) of Alvarez' claims, and he received no sympathetic coverage at all.
Randy did not do any of those. Someone else who was close to him did.
Sure, a young foreign art student managed to do that all by himself, without any assistance from his infinitely more capable lover. Randi was blissfully ignorant. Let's just ignore the fact that Randi was well-aware of his true identity, knowingly employed an illegal immigrant under a false identity, and even lied to protect that identity (he even claimed to be worried about Pena's thick Bronx accent spoiling the "hoax") and, of course, to the US government on his I-9 form. Oh, and the fact that he admitted as much in court, stating that they didn't believe they were hurting anyone.
But sure, Randi was totally uninvolved, because he's a personal hero of yours.
Let's put reason and evidence first, shall we?