Maybe dead is too harsh, but "failed to live up to its promise as a client side application's framework", is still a fair assertion if you ask me. When I first heard about and learned Java, it was preached to me by everything I read as the future of everything; life as we knew it would end and this whole beautiful future of Java running everything would take over. Bunk.
Where Java excelled was code-once locations; cell phones, nifty watches, machines of different archetectures that want to run the same program. Now with Java coming back into the personal computer, I can't help but to gag; Microsoft realized it's out of the game and.Net became the next end-all, be-all application framework, and the open source goons jumped on it just as fast as they did java, only they came out with something that worked much faster.
So now I sit asking myself what I should be coding in, and I more and more find that the answer is as same as always, good ol' C++. Piece of shit language, but at least I know it'll still be around in 5 years, and everything should be able to compile without fighting a million version changes.
The thing that's different about an AJAX application is that the application has no file system hooks. About the only things it could read datawise are cookies, and if you're that afraid of webobjects, you've probably already got them disabled and you probably have a hard time with even the simplest websites (read: slashdot).
Note, this doesn't stop the annoyance factor. Those stupid flash ads will eventually become those stupid AJAX ads, as SVG matures into something usable, and people code more SVG-AJAX apps. But we've still got some time.
Besides, AJAX could do some good. I could think of it as possible to build a quick and dirty AJAX application to check if the packages on a system are out of date (yes, re-inventing the wheel is bad, but if you're changing the whole framework, sometimes you have to). Or any of the other millions of applications Dashboard widgets are already doing today.
I'd rather go back to the server every time for a small, 2k object than go back to the server for 14k of HTML, and 160k of images/flash/multimedia/etc. For most application's, it's even a smaller object than that. Just look at Google Maps vs Mapquest. Every time you change zoom, Mapquest has to refresh the entire page, whereas G Maps, it's entirely seemless, and doesn't even seem like it's going to the server at all.
It's got some other potential uses I've been investigating as well. Brings back the whole HTML-based video game idea, now that you don't have to refresh the entire page to change one variable to something useful...
Eh, this is just what I was told by the Cingular lady when I asked her "How is it that I can still call 911 even when my cell phone isn't connected to the network?". I'm guessing her understanding wasn't quite as good as yours.
While Win2k wasn't bloat city (XP), I'm sure that it could have been faster, especially on older hardware. If they adjusted the kernel not to swap so damned much, and maybe a few other tweaks, it's definitely a good start. And an overall footprint reduction of the kernel wouldn't hurt, if they can afford to get rid of some legacy archetectural code (ISA?? fuggitabouit).
Why isn't Mac OS X a prime example of GUI done right? It's fast and responsive. It hands off any CPU-intensive rendering tasks to the GPU, making it even faster and more responsive.
I think if Microsoft helped in writing a good graphics driver for their operating system, that they could do the same thing. Instead, you usually have to fight with two drivers (whatever your mainboard uses to drive the AGP bus, and then your AGP card vendor's driver), and once they're working, tune the hell out of it.
I won't even comment on Linux; it could have the same archetecture, but I would personally doubt if it mattered; I've never seen X run nearly as fast as Windows or Mac OS X in all of my attempts. But I guess there's promise in Cairo.
Just gotta pair it with the right technology; muscluar regenerators like they used on Neo when all of his muscles were atrophed.
Of course, a more portable version of this would be awesome anyways. Dormancy during space travel wouldn't be so bad (but bone mass would still suffer).
First of all, the VERY first patch to this new operating system, 10.4.1, will fix this bug. Developers can't always catch everything, and honestly, I wouldn't even have thought about it, so I can't blame Apple for not thinking about it. I'm just happy to know when my laptop arrives with Tiger installed that the very first thing that will happen is it will patch all of the holes they let slip in 10.4.0.
Second of all, deadlines like this are vicious. If you ask me, they rushed the release of Tiger a bit just to counteract some of the press Longhorn betas and Longhorn reviews were getting, and to help the sells of Mini Macs. So some of the things they released were a little broken.
Lastly, you said it yourself. Dashboard isn't even as useful as ActiveX, and is entirely deniable. You can turn it off and not ever use it if you choose, making any bugs like this completely null to you. ActiveX quickly became something that wasn't deniable; if you weren't running ActiveX, your bank's website would refuse to do business with you. Now doesn't that mean a flaw in ActiveX is a lot more critical than a flaw in some easily ignorable post-it note board?
I think there are plenty SR-71's out there that are no longer in service which could commit a few tonnes of raw titanium to the project.
Secondly, who the fuck cares? Wouldn't it be cheaper to use carbon fiber composites and stronger steal alloys where needed. Sure it'll be heavier, but it's definitely a lot more cost effective. Unless NASA has the power to make the government turn over a few decommissioned SR's to them.
How about writing a virtual machine/emulator for this overwhelmingly complex chip archetecture. Once you have it all realized in software, transporting it to hardware is a non-step, but from the look of the complexity of the system you're describing, it could readily take a few billion gates.
...latter. Ajax, though neat, isn't going to change the world, but it will make a lot of websites a lot easier to use.
Generally, all Ajax does is replace the constant "page jumping" that occurs with past server-client web pages. For example, when you are looking for something, and you have to jump across a hundred pages to find it, or when you're filling out a form, it doesn't jump to a new page for "confirmation".
I'm sure there will be a lot of other great uses for it as well. Does anyone remember games like "Stellar Crisis"? I'm sure it'd stand to gain a LOT from Ajax.
There's been tonnes of this reported as fusion, but we can't prove/disprove it as of yet, and even if we could, we wouldn't know how to use it as a power source yet. Many people relate this to the fusion that's going on with Wintergreen LifeSavers if you bite down on them hard in a dark room.
Obviously it scales up really well, but there is some point in which lithium tantalate no longer becomes effecient and "DiLithium" will be phased in as its replacement.
Is this anything like a company buying another? Like how Novell bought SuSE?
Technically, all that makes a "project" a "project", is the fact someone's coding on it. Hire the coder, have him sign something to turn the license for the software over to the company, and poof, ownership is transfered.
So what's the whoop here?
Re:more censorship, unimpressed
on
Google TrustRank
·
· Score: 1
You're using IQ to argue gullability. Just because you're smart, doesn't mean your not gullable, and just because you are stupid (as to IQ score), doesn't make you gullable.
Secondly, banner ads and popups haven't gone away because we as a society are trying to beat the problem where it lies; every modern web browser (and I use that term liberally; IE is NOT modern) has some kind of integrated Popup blocker. Many have optionally integrated BannerAdvertisement blockers. Email has SpamBlockers. We're not finding a solution, we're avoiding the problem.
If any advertising company took a survey of any sampling of people and asked them "Do you find popup advertising effective?", most would say no. So then why do they exist? Because they're still easy to implement, because they're still cheap, and because in a consumeristic society, we don't argue, we "vote with our dollar".
And by forcing on us popup ads, they're forcing our dollars to go to the companies.
Truthfully, if I were a business, I would find it virtually impossible to advertise effectively on the Internet without Google. AdWords and AdSense are the only two programs I know of that use a sensible advertising techinique.
Lastly, I haven't seen a change in Google's ads in forever. When they do change, I'm sure Google will cope with them in such a way that they don't become distructive to their "Do no evil" image. And if they do, I'll vote with my dollar and not use Google;), because that matters on the Internet, doesn't it?
Besides, if I were Google, I'd design it this way, as it just makes more sense in a Customer Service point of view. As Google has yet to show a public implement of TrustRank, we can only speculate as to how it will work. The theoretical and test implements I have read about as PDFs and such simply use a list of say 200 "good" websites determined by their "experts". Who's to say that when Google brings the implementation to life, they don't simply add a feature to tune these 200 good URLs? At this point it's all conjecture.
Even worse, Internet Explorer's default action on this computer running XP (which is a standard install minus a few group policies dealing with desktop admin) when you enter a mistyped domain is to go to an MSN search window, asking you if you mistyped the domain (like Verisign's scam a few months back). (Note: I'm no longer a system admin, and I don't care to know about how to change it; I'm a happy Mac user:).
Microsoft's tactic is simply to out-locate Google. Since they write the software on the desktop, they can simply integrate their web search into their desktop tools. And since people like simplicity, a lot of new users won't think to know where their search results are coming from.
A better explaination would be, "Is it a one or a zero?" "Depends on your perspective."
Quantum computing, as I understand it (IANAQCS/P) works off the principal of super position; the ability for a bit to represent multiple bits, simply by the spin of the electron, or some other random thing that I wouldn't know how to explain.
If you defined a zero as a square, and a one as a circle, then a quantum bit would be a cylinder; from one perspective you see the square, yet turn it on its side and you see its other property. But since you have other posibilities (cubes and spheres in this system), the "third dimension" persay has to be explicitly asked for by the requesting computer.
So it's able to perform a massive amount of calculations based on a little bit of data, and store it as one neat little package at the end (either the cube, the sphere, or the cylinder). When someone comes along to ask, "was the answer a zero or a one" then, the only way to answer is "depends on the perspective".
Re:more censorship, unimpressed
on
Google TrustRank
·
· Score: 1
Google makes money from advertising
So then wouldn't it make more sense to better target the advertisements rather than propogate more? I think this is generally the problem with the Internet as a whole currently; websites are running advertisements that aren't appropriate to their content, and an intellegent search engine like Google's PageRank is simply being confused into think that the ads are 100% to the point, and that the links are 100% focused.
TrustRank fixes this by better bringing you ad links that you're more likely to click, therefore bringing better revenue, therefore increasing stock value.
Google's not stupid like a lot of other websites. Throwing popup ads and click through ads do nothing but drive up the amount of frustration in a user; they aren't likely to sell anything. And frivolous advertisments like "Click here, you may have already won" are just as pointless, as any intellegent user would avoid them like the plague. But delivering smart, to the point advertisements are likely to generate revenue.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe dead is too harsh, but "failed to live up to its promise as a client side application's framework", is still a fair assertion if you ask me. When I first heard about and learned Java, it was preached to me by everything I read as the future of everything; life as we knew it would end and this whole beautiful future of Java running everything would take over. Bunk. .Net became the next end-all, be-all application framework, and the open source goons jumped on it just as fast as they did java, only they came out with something that worked much faster.
Where Java excelled was code-once locations; cell phones, nifty watches, machines of different archetectures that want to run the same program. Now with Java coming back into the personal computer, I can't help but to gag; Microsoft realized it's out of the game and
So now I sit asking myself what I should be coding in, and I more and more find that the answer is as same as always, good ol' C++. Piece of shit language, but at least I know it'll still be around in 5 years, and everything should be able to compile without fighting a million version changes.
The thing that's different about an AJAX application is that the application has no file system hooks. About the only things it could read datawise are cookies, and if you're that afraid of webobjects, you've probably already got them disabled and you probably have a hard time with even the simplest websites (read: slashdot).
Note, this doesn't stop the annoyance factor. Those stupid flash ads will eventually become those stupid AJAX ads, as SVG matures into something usable, and people code more SVG-AJAX apps. But we've still got some time.
Besides, AJAX could do some good. I could think of it as possible to build a quick and dirty AJAX application to check if the packages on a system are out of date (yes, re-inventing the wheel is bad, but if you're changing the whole framework, sometimes you have to). Or any of the other millions of applications Dashboard widgets are already doing today.
I'd rather go back to the server every time for a small, 2k object than go back to the server for 14k of HTML, and 160k of images/flash/multimedia/etc. For most application's, it's even a smaller object than that. Just look at Google Maps vs Mapquest. Every time you change zoom, Mapquest has to refresh the entire page, whereas G Maps, it's entirely seemless, and doesn't even seem like it's going to the server at all.
It's got some other potential uses I've been investigating as well. Brings back the whole HTML-based video game idea, now that you don't have to refresh the entire page to change one variable to something useful...
virus that replaces all .jpg files found with goatse, tubgirl and lemonparty.
Thanks for giving 'em the idea. Next time I go to look at pr0.. I mean my pictures, I'm going to be in fear of opening any of them.. *grumble*
So, what the Cingular lady told me was partially right, just dumbed down?
Eh, this is just what I was told by the Cingular lady when I asked her "How is it that I can still call 911 even when my cell phone isn't connected to the network?". I'm guessing her understanding wasn't quite as good as yours.
Simple really; the cell network has a seperate channel specifically for 911 service, or at least that's how it was explained to me.
When you don't pay your bill, they block you out of all the channels except the 911 channel. Maybe VoIP providers can use this as a guideline.
While Win2k wasn't bloat city (XP), I'm sure that it could have been faster, especially on older hardware. If they adjusted the kernel not to swap so damned much, and maybe a few other tweaks, it's definitely a good start. And an overall footprint reduction of the kernel wouldn't hurt, if they can afford to get rid of some legacy archetectural code (ISA?? fuggitabouit).
Why isn't Mac OS X a prime example of GUI done right? It's fast and responsive. It hands off any CPU-intensive rendering tasks to the GPU, making it even faster and more responsive.
I think if Microsoft helped in writing a good graphics driver for their operating system, that they could do the same thing. Instead, you usually have to fight with two drivers (whatever your mainboard uses to drive the AGP bus, and then your AGP card vendor's driver), and once they're working, tune the hell out of it.
I won't even comment on Linux; it could have the same archetecture, but I would personally doubt if it mattered; I've never seen X run nearly as fast as Windows or Mac OS X in all of my attempts. But I guess there's promise in Cairo.
Just gotta pair it with the right technology; muscluar regenerators like they used on Neo when all of his muscles were atrophed.
Of course, a more portable version of this would be awesome anyways. Dormancy during space travel wouldn't be so bad (but bone mass would still suffer).
..you're a good candidate for WiMax and VoIP.
Besides, it's probably cheaper to hire some guy that always knows where you are and will physically come out and find you if something happens.
You are blowing things way out of porportion.
First of all, the VERY first patch to this new operating system, 10.4.1, will fix this bug. Developers can't always catch everything, and honestly, I wouldn't even have thought about it, so I can't blame Apple for not thinking about it. I'm just happy to know when my laptop arrives with Tiger installed that the very first thing that will happen is it will patch all of the holes they let slip in 10.4.0.
Second of all, deadlines like this are vicious. If you ask me, they rushed the release of Tiger a bit just to counteract some of the press Longhorn betas and Longhorn reviews were getting, and to help the sells of Mini Macs. So some of the things they released were a little broken.
Lastly, you said it yourself. Dashboard isn't even as useful as ActiveX, and is entirely deniable. You can turn it off and not ever use it if you choose, making any bugs like this completely null to you. ActiveX quickly became something that wasn't deniable; if you weren't running ActiveX, your bank's website would refuse to do business with you. Now doesn't that mean a flaw in ActiveX is a lot more critical than a flaw in some easily ignorable post-it note board?
err, sed s/workstation/laptop/g.
I believe that happened with the Dell XPS workstations.. Come on an almost 3 inch thick laptop...
I think there are plenty SR-71's out there that are no longer in service which could commit a few tonnes of raw titanium to the project.
Secondly, who the fuck cares? Wouldn't it be cheaper to use carbon fiber composites and stronger steal alloys where needed. Sure it'll be heavier, but it's definitely a lot more cost effective. Unless NASA has the power to make the government turn over a few decommissioned SR's to them.
How about writing a virtual machine/emulator for this overwhelmingly complex chip archetecture. Once you have it all realized in software, transporting it to hardware is a non-step, but from the look of the complexity of the system you're describing, it could readily take a few billion gates.
...latter. Ajax, though neat, isn't going to change the world, but it will make a lot of websites a lot easier to use.
Generally, all Ajax does is replace the constant "page jumping" that occurs with past server-client web pages. For example, when you are looking for something, and you have to jump across a hundred pages to find it, or when you're filling out a form, it doesn't jump to a new page for "confirmation".
I'm sure there will be a lot of other great uses for it as well. Does anyone remember games like "Stellar Crisis"? I'm sure it'd stand to gain a LOT from Ajax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence
There's been tonnes of this reported as fusion, but we can't prove/disprove it as of yet, and even if we could, we wouldn't know how to use it as a power source yet. Many people relate this to the fusion that's going on with Wintergreen LifeSavers if you bite down on them hard in a dark room.
Obviously it scales up really well, but there is some point in which lithium tantalate no longer becomes effecient and "DiLithium" will be phased in as its replacement.
Is this anything like a company buying another? Like how Novell bought SuSE?
Technically, all that makes a "project" a "project", is the fact someone's coding on it. Hire the coder, have him sign something to turn the license for the software over to the company, and poof, ownership is transfered.
So what's the whoop here?
You're using IQ to argue gullability. Just because you're smart, doesn't mean your not gullable, and just because you are stupid (as to IQ score), doesn't make you gullable.
;), because that matters on the Internet, doesn't it?
Secondly, banner ads and popups haven't gone away because we as a society are trying to beat the problem where it lies; every modern web browser (and I use that term liberally; IE is NOT modern) has some kind of integrated Popup blocker. Many have optionally integrated BannerAdvertisement blockers. Email has SpamBlockers. We're not finding a solution, we're avoiding the problem.
If any advertising company took a survey of any sampling of people and asked them "Do you find popup advertising effective?", most would say no. So then why do they exist? Because they're still easy to implement, because they're still cheap, and because in a consumeristic society, we don't argue, we "vote with our dollar". And by forcing on us popup ads, they're forcing our dollars to go to the companies.
Truthfully, if I were a business, I would find it virtually impossible to advertise effectively on the Internet without Google. AdWords and AdSense are the only two programs I know of that use a sensible advertising techinique.
Lastly, I haven't seen a change in Google's ads in forever. When they do change, I'm sure Google will cope with them in such a way that they don't become distructive to their "Do no evil" image. And if they do, I'll vote with my dollar and not use Google
Prove it!
Besides, if I were Google, I'd design it this way, as it just makes more sense in a Customer Service point of view. As Google has yet to show a public implement of TrustRank, we can only speculate as to how it will work. The theoretical and test implements I have read about as PDFs and such simply use a list of say 200 "good" websites determined by their "experts". Who's to say that when Google brings the implementation to life, they don't simply add a feature to tune these 200 good URLs? At this point it's all conjecture.
Even worse, Internet Explorer's default action on this computer running XP (which is a standard install minus a few group policies dealing with desktop admin) when you enter a mistyped domain is to go to an MSN search window, asking you if you mistyped the domain (like Verisign's scam a few months back). (Note: I'm no longer a system admin, and I don't care to know about how to change it; I'm a happy Mac user :).
Microsoft's tactic is simply to out-locate Google. Since they write the software on the desktop, they can simply integrate their web search into their desktop tools. And since people like simplicity, a lot of new users won't think to know where their search results are coming from.
A better explaination would be, "Is it a one or a zero?" "Depends on your perspective."
Quantum computing, as I understand it (IANAQCS/P) works off the principal of super position; the ability for a bit to represent multiple bits, simply by the spin of the electron, or some other random thing that I wouldn't know how to explain.
If you defined a zero as a square, and a one as a circle, then a quantum bit would be a cylinder; from one perspective you see the square, yet turn it on its side and you see its other property. But since you have other posibilities (cubes and spheres in this system), the "third dimension" persay has to be explicitly asked for by the requesting computer.
So it's able to perform a massive amount of calculations based on a little bit of data, and store it as one neat little package at the end (either the cube, the sphere, or the cylinder). When someone comes along to ask, "was the answer a zero or a one" then, the only way to answer is "depends on the perspective".
Google makes money from advertising
So then wouldn't it make more sense to better target the advertisements rather than propogate more? I think this is generally the problem with the Internet as a whole currently; websites are running advertisements that aren't appropriate to their content, and an intellegent search engine like Google's PageRank is simply being confused into think that the ads are 100% to the point, and that the links are 100% focused.
TrustRank fixes this by better bringing you ad links that you're more likely to click, therefore bringing better revenue, therefore increasing stock value.
Google's not stupid like a lot of other websites. Throwing popup ads and click through ads do nothing but drive up the amount of frustration in a user; they aren't likely to sell anything. And frivolous advertisments like "Click here, you may have already won" are just as pointless, as any intellegent user would avoid them like the plague. But delivering smart, to the point advertisements are likely to generate revenue.