You remind me of people who throw out the word "fascist" without realizing what it actually means, having never experienced an actual fascist government. Talk to a Holocaust survivor sometime.
just because the fascists haven't achieved their goals yet doesn't take away the danger. by the time we have our own night of the long knives here in america it will be too late.
You say it as if it doesn't, but it does. Science inherently threatens any form of ill-founded blind belief, and seeks to find support and evidence for all ideas. While I say this is not inherently incompatible with faith in general, it seems to be incompatible with most people's faith.
Not for scientists themselves, at least not historically. Science could be incompatible with the faith of the ignorant, I can agree with that.
No, JavaScript was new compared to "being there in 1994".
But javascript didn't change application architecture other than offloading field validation or allowing table column sorting, image swapping and stuff. AJAX breaks the web document model. A bigger change has come with other applications that use the web (ie http and URIs) outside of the browser - like RSS for instance. and websites that provide an API with xml-rpc or something similar. that's huge. the javascript change is nothing compared to that. web services, I guess they're called.
so to answer the question: is it a fad? yes, in the sense that now is the time to cash in with your 1115 page Bleating with AJAX book with DVD-ROM in the back and your smug mug on the front. yes, in the sense that lots of people will do unnecessary AJAX implementations for entirely selfish resume-style reasons. no, in the sense that the existence of AJAX points out the disconnect between the browser concept and what we want for applications on the net.
I don't object to Ajax, I actually think it's pretty cool. But it's not new, and it doesn't change the way the Web actually works.
You're either insane or you weren't there in 1994. From the perspective of one who thought CGI was stupid in 1994, AJAX is totally new and better. That is all.
3. IBM encouraged other companies to build hardware and software for the IBM PC. It literally came with a full set of manuals documenting the entire BIOS and the internal wiring among the chips of the motherboard. Compare that open approach to, say, the typical Sony laptop. The plethora of software and hardware peripherals for the IBM PC enabled it to be adapted to a wide-range of useful applications: music synthesis, video games, desktop publishing, real-time intruder monitoring, etc.
I'm not sure about this one; after all, the apples had full schematics in their manuals as well, ROM assembly code, and all those open slots, etc.
First, you are far less likely to return to school after leaving with your BS. Secondly, there is tons of math-heavy work in finance. applied math, of course, but then we all need a day job. some good pointers here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_mathematics
Quite Frankly, I'm not surprised... It is well known that the OpenID project (Open Intelligent Design) is far more promising.
Dude, the design phase of the ID project was done eons ago, literally, and before any implementation work was begun. It was never open. I think the requirements document must have been lost long ago though, because nobody knows wtf any of this stuff is. but EVERYONE knows that for a project this vast and complex, the only way to do it is to plan everything in advance from structures the size of galaxies to the smallest subatomic detail.
Capturing that kind of intensity in the game will mean the difference between making something that does well, and something that offers Diablo 1 with better graphics. I like the Arnold flick as much as anyone, but it doesn't represent the fun of Conan at all. It also gives Sword and Sorcery writers and fans a worse stereotype than they deserve.
That particular Conan will probably have to stay in the books. Slightly OT, but I always found the story behind howard's writing more interesting than his subject. It might not be true, but it's been said and recorded here and there that howard felt compelled to write the conan stories as if conan himself were standing behind his chair as he wrote at night. That is the movie to be made about conan, imho.
Oil isn't the problem, ENERGY is. So instead of burning oil everwhere, we'll be burning more coal in a few places. Maybe this is the kind of thing we need to turn public sentiment away from the greenies and get some more nuclear power plants built.
energy is the general problem, yes, but oil is the specific problem. your car doesn't run on coal and you can't make plastic out of coal, etc.
I could spend the entire night listing problems with Xcode. I feel like my soul has been drained over the past two to three years of struggling with this nightmare of a development environment. I think the only reason there isn't a larger outcry from Mac developers is there simply is no real alternative outside of vi and makefiles.
NeXT was known for their quality dev tools. what happened? is xcode a rewrite or the evolution of projectbuilder? This is funny, as I don't think XCode is all that bad. But then again, it's the first IDE I've really used outside of THINK C back in 92 or 93 for that one other time I did mac programming. I've been doing command line development since about 1984. I see XCode as a simple alternative to make, basically, as I'm unfamiliar with how to tell cc where to find frameworks or make a universal binary, etc. I suppose I could look at what xcode produces...
aren't there other IDEs? and as I understand it, XCode is stuck with the gnu compiler, while the expensive intel compiler kicks its ass.
The biggest problem with the semantic web is spam. If you can trust the tags, it's a beautiful idea. If you can't, it's worse than useless - it's a waste of time. Google has the right idea, automatic extraction of semantics from content. If there's no real content, then (hopefully) that will be reflected in the semantic analysis.
yes, in theory, nobody needs google in a semantic web populated by lawful good users. But the power of google is in its verification, which will translate to the semantic world. ultimately it may not be all that different from today, except search will be highly nuanced, and may be more like browsing among relevant things rather than wondering what keywords to type.
Re:Seems an obvious patent
on
Talking iPods
·
· Score: 1
As someone else already pointed out, the second question should not be relevant, rather, the relevant question should be: 'are you an expert in the field', and yes I am. Maybe somewhere in the claims of the patent there is actually a genuine invention, I failed to spot it, but that might actually be one of the first and biggest problems with patents. As an expert in the field, I should be able to take a patent and implement the invention described in it. As it is, this is often not true for software related 'inventions'. If I have to also become a legal expert and solve some purposefully created language puzzles, the patent stops forfilling one of its primary goals.
I agree with everything you say. However the purpose of the patent is legal protection, not technology documentation. The patent description usually is or should be plain enough for you the expert to implement something that falls under the claims. and legally only the claims matter, which are usually written as broadly as possible. the context is not technology, or plain english and common sense, but the law and the universe of patents. what's the fix? abolishing the system? raising the bar for what is patentable? replacing legalese with plain language ? I don't know but I think abolishing it cold turkey has the highest entertainment value
Re:Seems an obvious patent
on
Talking iPods
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
A large number of my friends support drug (or at least marijuana) legalization, and the ones who don't at least acknowledge the arguments against prohibition, whereas my parents (and from what I can tell, most of their generation) don't bother finding the facts, but instead believe what the government tells them - that drugs are 100% bad.
Your parents tell you drugs are bad even if they don't believe it themselves because they can't stand the thought of you using. They've been there and done that while you haven't. so the biases are obvious; nobody is objective. Your parents imagine you becoming a homeless junkie. you're never going to convince them that your arguments are purely logical or objective and aren't simply you rationalizing your own, um, experimentation. fyi.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait till we have dataminers trapped in a network collapse.
Rescuers will be trying to ssh tunnel in...
...ducks....
So.. have you ever tried it? SubEthaEdit is one. Pretty darn cool.
Totally. I had a mini biography of him on my bookshelf for probably my entire childhood. That and Robert Goddard, another good one for this.
But javascript didn't change application architecture other than offloading field validation or allowing table column sorting, image swapping and stuff. AJAX breaks the web document model. A bigger change has come with other applications that use the web (ie http and URIs) outside of the browser - like RSS for instance. and websites that provide an API with xml-rpc or something similar. that's huge. the javascript change is nothing compared to that. web services, I guess they're called.
so to answer the question: is it a fad? yes, in the sense that now is the time to cash in with your 1115 page Bleating with AJAX book with DVD-ROM in the back and your smug mug on the front. yes, in the sense that lots of people will do unnecessary AJAX implementations for entirely selfish resume-style reasons. no, in the sense that the existence of AJAX points out the disconnect between the browser concept and what we want for applications on the net.
I don't object to Ajax, I actually think it's pretty cool. But it's not new, and it doesn't change the way the Web actually works. You're either insane or you weren't there in 1994. From the perspective of one who thought CGI was stupid in 1994, AJAX is totally new and better. That is all.
Good points. but on the bright side they can do a lot less damage to your system.
First, you are far less likely to return to school after leaving with your BS. Secondly, there is tons of math-heavy work in finance. applied math, of course, but then we all need a day job. some good pointers here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_mathematics
I think I just didn't consider the tone-deaf nature of text. though it's not as if that hasn't happened before.
jeez. why'd I get a troll for that?
great story, thanks for contributing.
NeXT was known for their quality dev tools. what happened? is xcode a rewrite or the evolution of projectbuilder?
This is funny, as I don't think XCode is all that bad. But then again, it's the first IDE I've really used outside of THINK C back in 92 or 93 for that one other time I did mac programming. I've been doing command line development since about 1984. I see XCode as a simple alternative to make, basically, as I'm unfamiliar with how to tell cc where to find frameworks or make a universal binary, etc. I suppose I could look at what xcode produces...
aren't there other IDEs? and as I understand it, XCode is stuck with the gnu compiler, while the expensive intel compiler kicks its ass.
You write as if the government hasn't been in the business of data or high tech standards. This is light years better than EDI.
jello shots, probably
uh. it would suck?
sounds like an aspergers sufferer.