Nope, far from it. But if it helps you carry on being arrogant you're free to believe it if you like.
I did have a longer post that this answering some of your other points but since you have just gone though all my posts replying to them all seperately I am convinced you are just a troll or something now.
Looks like it takes the same amount of code to me.
Did you look at any?
Compare: $('body').append('<div>A div with content</div>');
With: var newDiv = document.createElement("div"); var newContent = document.createTextNode("A div with content"); newDiv.appendChild(newContent); document.body.appendChild(newDiv);
Whatever else you may say you cannot possibly miss that jquery let you do the same thing but with far few characters being typed.
The unreadable mess that jQuery forces you to write
Granted Jquery does let you make a mess, but I gather from your sig that you are not a fan of OOP so you are pretty much guaranteed to hate it in that case. You can write beautiful simple jquery if you are careful, like in any language. Once you get used to Jquery you can often find that it is easier to read than the pure JS alternative (see my example above).
Your users care. They care a lot
Most users know fuck all, and even if they do they don't pay the bills in web development, the client does.
That's why you should AVOID jQuery! You get a massive performance boost simply by avoiding it! You waste tons of time and effort already trying to get acceptable performance out of jQuery -- which ultimately leaves you with slower, less readable, and less reliable code in the end.
I have never had any performance issues with the stuff I have been creating, if I did I would dive straight into pure JS to get it done as I have been doing this for a while so can do either. Maybe if you were having Jquery performance issues it was with very old versions or you were not writing decent code?
For the bulk of real-world jQuery use, you can use getElementById, querySelector, and querySelectorAll.
Jquery is just quicker to write so takes less dev time.
Also, out of your list of pure JS replacements about you missed document.createElement(). Once you start having to create elements of the dom tree on the fly JQuery comes into its own in terms of writing less code and hence developers producing quicker results.
Nobody cares about efficiency any more as cpu time is just so much cheaper than the man hours put in to creating code. Writing super efficient code is just not worth wasting time over when modern PC's are so powerful and underutilized. You can complain about this all you like but you are just pissing into the wind, it will never change now even phones have quad core cpus.
(BTW - I actually think everyone should learn to write more efficient code but am old enough to know that most people who pull the strings don't care.)
Then take this as a message to those buying websites.
Also please tell restaurants that all I want is your hours and menu. A simple text page can do all that in one page and it you can save a fortune on dev time.
The problem is that people like yourself are a tiny minority. Most people go "wow, look at pretty swirl that follows my mouse pointer around, isn't it neat!" (this is a piss poor example)
Seriously though, most people love jquery as it means we don't have to do basic animations in flash any more and can do ajax type stuff. Without things like jquery you would be stuck with whole page refreshes just because you wanted to add a row to a form. I have done this sort of stuff in raw JS (I have been a web dev for almost 10 years) and it was just not worth the effort making it cross browser without doing whole page reloads that were slow for the average user. JQuery lets you do dynamic html pages far more easily and build user interfaces that more closely resemble stand alone applications.
Recently I had to create a page that lets users sort a list by clicking and up down arrow next to each item. When I did stuff like this before JQuery it was a PITA to get working and horrible to use, now it is much quicker and easier. For the same amount of time I put in previously I could have let them drag and drop stuff up and down now (I wanted to, but couldn't get it passed management).
I've only spent a few months in the USA, but I don't remember any restaurants I saw offering all-you-can-drink including alcoholic beverages along with a fixed price meal, and yet I recall this being fairly common in Tokyo. Or are you deliberately misreading the grandparent so that you can call him a retard?
This is just because many japanese people lack the gene to process alcohol efficiently so can't drink for shit.
This makes excessive drinking more of a cultural taboo than it is in Europe and America where it was essential to drink in order to get the nutrition you needed to survive from seasonal crops that only came once a year in our climate. Japan and the far east had the ability to grow crops that could be harvested throughout the year unlike grain.
Do explain which international laws forbid whale hunting the way Japan practices it. It's a completely legal practice according to IWC.
Whaling for food is illegal. But Japan has come up with some bullshit excuse that they need to conduct scientific research which is why they need to kill whales, then selling the meat as byproduct just makes good sense.
The problem with this is that there is simply no need to kill so many whales for research it's just that Japan's (ruling) older generation view eating whale as such an essential part of their culture they refuse to contemplate change on this front. You might be able to make an argument that what Japan does it legal, but it is still against the spirit of the treaty.
I also think that the individual ships flout the law because they know their is no appetite to prosecute them back home. I certainly think that the average Japanese whaling ship captain will happily follow his prey into Australian waters then lie about it later if they Australian Navy is not around to stop them.
Finally, later this year or early next year the final word on whether what Japan does is legal or not will come down from the ICJ. That will be final and binding (no appeals allowed) but until then no one really knows either way.
Or if you are in a commonwealth country like New Zealand, Canada, or Australia and have ISPs with 2 gig limits each month?
I image lots of hi res images being downloaded over and over again can fill that cap fairly quickly
Lol. Here in the UK bandwidth caps are pretty much a thing of the past nowadays, I reckon this will just push the ISP's in your country to catch up and start offering decent internet with no caps.
No I meant more data access/web services layer not javascript/CSS/HTML/flavor of the month client side monkey:)
Most web developers I know are forced to do crap loads of PHP on the server side, particularly MVC and OOP stuff. In my neck of the woods we call people who only do client side stuff "front end web developers" and similar. If anyone wants to be a web developer and only knows client side stuff they better be some sort of Javascript / Jquery / Knockout ninja.
If I hired a web developer who could not at least integrate with a web service I would consider them not up to the task. Once you have done that a few times you should be able to create one for other people to use. Web services are an essential part of web development nowadays
he purpose is not US-centric. The real value of the Liberator is in places where guns are illegal.
Exactly, the problem is that there are plenty of democratic countries where guns are illegal. I live in one. We try and make a democratic choice as a society to make hand guns hard to obtain and this technology undermines our democratic right.
There are a great many people who simply do not want to own a gun. I know people who refused to even try firing one at a designated range in country where it was perfectly legal. Personally I have fired a gun (an AK47) but I have no interest in living in a society where guns are easy to obtain. You might say that guns are already easy to obtain in my country (the UK) but that is not actually the truth, even if you live in and are with rampant gun crime (you can try and buy a gun, but most likely you will just be robbed unless the criminal selling you then gun has reason to not just take you money and keep the gun).
This post will probably be down modded to hell and get a million replies saying how wrong I am and whatever, as most americans I know simply cannot see how you could find the idea of not wanting to have anything to with a gun a bit alien.
Of course the real problem here though is that once new technology is out of the bottle there is no putting it back, its just that I personally would rather Cody he Texan did not go on his crazy evangelical "everyone should be able to own any gun they like" mission in the first place.
Maybe us the UK should start exporting plutonium to Iran if the US is going to force guns onto our streets. (Ok, this is obviously a joke as they would send some of it back our way as well as yours).
There is still more developers would love to cram in but there is about 0.5/2s window where you can load before people get bored and leave we just load more crap and do more client side processing now to use up the bandwidth and CPU.
Contrary to the popular belief on slashdot us professional web developers do not sit around thinking of ways to use new browser features to make sites as slow as shit.
Instead clients come to us as some graphic designer has mocked up this amazing new site for them with tons of flash animations they created, psd files that represent all aspects of the site with each layer representing a different page and some notes on which bits of the site need to be easily editable by the client, which bits obtain dynamic data from another site (like the companies aher price) and finally, with a detailed list of which tracking they want to use to track users journey through their website.
Yup. much of this tracking crap is actually added at the clients request because they want to track how their users browse the site and what advert they clicked on a different site which brings though the clients who buy and what adverts on other sites just generate them click throughs but none that result in a purchase or sign up or whatever they want from the site.
Web developers have to work through this crap and try and convince the designer that some of his design elements are going to kill the page loading time and are uttterly pointless. The ones that have to stay they try their best to make efficient by re-implementing it completely in JQuery or whatever. Try and convert the pointless flash object into a much smaller animated GIF or PNG since it is has no interactivity and is only flash as that is what the designer has tools to create.
They then finally try and steer the client to only implementing the tracking shit on the pages that that are REALLY important (index, basket, purchase complete, etc). But no, the client first insists on the third party tracking be used to track every goddamn product so they can have all the analytics in the system their marketing chumps like using and not forcing them to login in to your site as well. Then they decide that the site is too complicated or something so you need to add the tracking to every page in the help section, then they notice that loads of people get to the index but never buy anything so you have add tracking to find out why (they load the index and decide it loads too slowly then fuck off to a quicker site probably due to the analytics shit).
Finally, the client realises that when the get stuff demoed to them it was done in a designers office with fibre to the back of the demo PC, tests their web site at home and realises everything is slow as shit and asks you to find out why. You tell them, and they say that blaming Google or whoever does the tracking is just passing the buck as the google home page loads really quickly, you must have messed up in creating their site instead.
At this point the web developer realises he can't win and shoots himself in the head:)
True but claiming to save 5% of load time by making a browser while at the same time marketing products that slow down the page load in the first place seems kind of circular.
Without the shitty marketing products Google and Facebook would cease to exist.
Money makes the world go round and neither of these companies would exist without some way of making money, however great Google search and Facebooks social network is. They both now need huge internet pipes and servers which does not come cheap.
You know, I have never once seen someone use a game console for watching movies.
Have you read this thread? There are tons of people talking about want Netflix to work without paying for an Xbox Live subscription, they are not using their console just for gaming are they?
So far I've not seen anything about the always-on requirement for the internet connection.
That feature is make or break for me, because if it *needs* an internet connection to be always enabled, I can tell you now I won't buy this -- they had their chance, and they put ads into both my home screen and my games.
Did anyone who actually watched the event see anything about this? I've checked several articles so far, and none of them have mentioned that part.
to ask for a classic-style game console built with modern tech/processing power?
Yes, I'd like to be able to play online with friends. That is the only other thing that I really want out of my console. I don't care if plays music or movies. I don't want it to be the center of my entertainment center. I sure as hell don't want it always on and spying on me.
I just want to play games, and that includes used ones.
As to music and movies you must realise that if they did not build in a blueray player then the vast majority of people would have opted for the PS4 or whatever it will be called (myself included as I don't have a blueray player yet). Also, Bluray drives are so cheap now there is almost no point in using a DVD drive instead. You are very much in the minority if you do not use a games console for watching any sort of movies or other multimedia so betting on everyone being like you would be a sure fire recipe for MS going bankrupt.
As to used games I doubt any of the companies that create games want you you to be able to do this, so they have been lobbying to make sure this is not possible. There will never be another console that supports this unless they can come up with a cast iron DRM system that ensures the same licence can be used on two different machines at the same time, this would probably require an always on internet connection.
Personally I get annoyed by games on my old Xbox360 making get up off the couch to swap disks when both games are installed on the hard disk just so they can be sure I have not sold one of them to a second hand shop (something I would never do as the second hand or trade in cost of a game is a pittance and I buy everything off the web). If they can use an always on internet connection to ensure that two copies of the same game are not being played at once that might fix this and let me stay on the couch but I bet a crap load of other people here would go mental at such an idea so the it is very likely that second hand games will be blocked.
The only way to keep everybody happy in this regard would be to trust their customers to not pirate stuff and the chances of that happening are somewhere between slim and none since the existence of any software piracy whatsoever proves that some people cannot be trusted. This is not saying that piracy costs them a sale, just that people who produce games don't want it to happen even if it doesn't.
Actually I just checked and it seems you will have to pay an additional fee to play a second hand game so you might be able to buy a second hand disk but the licence to use it's contents will be extra and always on internet will be down to the games developers. Seems like they are ignoring no-money cheapskate gypos like you to make it easier for me to stay on the couch, good move MS!
I don't want my saved games "in the cloud" where I can't access them if my ISP takes a shit. If you're going to put half a terabyte of disk in the thing, let me save a few 1MB save files on it.
I would hope that the savegames go in both places in a similar way to steam does it although steam seems to screw this up too often for my liking so I don't trust it 100% but if they made it always work it would be perfect. Steam tries to sync the save games to the cloud when you launch and exit a game. This enables me to play on both my gaming PC's (I have been hovering between my own pad and my girlfriends for years and they are a few hundred miles apart).
That way if you have no internet then you can still play but only if you played last on that PC. I don't think it is only people like me who find this functionality useful, I reckon people who play games in internet cafe type places would find it useful too.
Both Larry and Sergei are no longer connected with reality.. I don't begrudge them anything, but they are seriously in outer space.
which is kind of funny.
imagine having all the data in the world but being disconnected from reality still.
The problem is they have tons of cash. When you become that rich you end up bypassing the crap that the little people have to deal with as you can always pay someone else to deal with that for you.
He does not have to worry about ever being refused health insurance or the exorbitant cost of it as he has no sense of perspective when it comes to money any more.
America pays more, but they can also generally see a specialist for any field within a matter of days or sometimes hours for non-emergency care.
It only costs a few extra quid per month to get a Bupa (private company) top up to smooth out all the areas where the NHS is a bit rough. The end result is that we still end up paying less than you do in the US since the Bupa cover does not have to worry about the really expensive stuff as the NHS covers that.
With a Bupa policy I can leave work now and go and talk to the private clinic just down the road with no appointment. Even without a Bupa policy I can still go and talk to them and then just pay cash for their time (I have done this to get some jabs for going to South America on short notice).
In contrast, I sat in a hospital with my daughter, her hand oozing blood after being crushed and having two broken bones and severe lacerations and soft tissue injuries, for nearly THREE HOURS before being treated. Watching her quietly cry the whole time I would have gladly written an American-sized cheque for £1000 to have her treated immediately.
It took me about 30 seconds to find that link via Google. I bet they have other clinics all over the country.
I know A&E is awful on a Friday night through experience, but that was when I was a poor student dropout and I broke my hand (cleanly snapped third and forth metacarpals). If I had been in the US at that time I probably wouldn't have had any cover either as my family are not that well off so god knows what would happened.
As it was though I was in surgery within 16 hours and then discharged within 36 at no cost apart from the taxes I had paid as a checkout boy in a supermarket (the only job I had ever done at that age). Now I happily pay my taxes as I am grateful to be able to type this using both hands and go climbing as a hobby thanks to my 100% recovery because the NHS pinned my hand back together.
In the US I very much doubt I would have been able to get my hand reconstructed the same way without paying a fortune, instead they would have just patched me up so it did not get any worse but left me with limited movement.
Erm, Steve Jobs died of cancer; a cancer that might very well have been treatable, had he not been absolutely mental and gone for "natural" cure.
Not only do you need funding, you also need someone who believes in science (like Bill Gates, whom by the way does a heck of a lot for research).
It is worth remembering that the only treatments for Pancreatic Cancer are: Surgery, Radiation Therapy or Chemotherapy. Ok, he probably should have gone down the surgery route sooner than he did (he waited nine months) but the other two options both suck.
Many people choose to die of cancer rather that go through the shit of Chemo or Radiation Therapy as they both utterly ruin your quality of life for the time you have left for a very low probability of success anyway. By choosing to avoid these two treatments you can actually make the most of the time you have left and remain relatively active.
No we won't. You obviously have no concept of the amount of money and time it takes to develop "cures" for most diseases. The personal wealth of these people is close to the order of magnitude of money that can be spent researching one of these diseases over the course of a single year and that doesn't even factor in the number of years (man hours and simply waiting for enough accurate data to be collected) it takes in the end to find a "cure," if there is one. [I wrote it as "cure" because I think the word is frequently used to infer a quick-acting, life term treatment when in many cases that is not and may never be possible]
Most medical research nowadays is done by drug companies. They are not interested in "cures" they are interested in finding a drug to manage a particular condition, that way they get to make tons of money from all the repeat prescriptions of their creation. If they came up with a cure for that condition they only get the money from a single prescription.
If they created a single pill that would cure and vaccinate you against all the worlds diseases they would all go bankrupt within a decade, even if they could sell the pill for $1 million.
So who knows what is possible when the corporations who fund (and hence choose the direction of) most medical research are not interested in looking? Instead they come up with crap like Viagra as that is where the money is.
In next weeks slashdot I expect to see something about Moxie Marlinspike being asked to deliver a nice shiny yacht to Saudi Arabia and it going horribly wrong when he gets arrested for piracy:)
As long as the actions are lawful, then no, there is no difference.
Only if you happen to be an immoral twat trying to justify their argument.
The truth is that thing like paying sales taxes on mail order goods involve you going out of your way to pay more tax. Setting up a dodgy offshore arrangement involves going out of your way to pay less tax. There is a massive difference between these two things in that in one case you are just taking the path of least resistance, in the other you are investing a shitload of extra effort in order to hide money from the taxman. The effort involved is key.
Also, there is the minor difference in terms of reward. By not paying the odd bit of sales tax you can probably save a few thousand or tens of thousands of dollars at most. By hiding money offshore you can save millions if you have it.
At some point, it would have been cheaper to pay another country to take it away for reprocessing and vitrification, even after considering the obscene cost of safely transporting one barrel at a time to said foreign country and transporting the glass logs back for long term storage.
Is that fair though? Just because you can find another government that you can pay to take that shit off your hands does not mean the people in the country actually want the damn stuff.
Also, what happens if the country in question falls apart and someone decides they want to give it back to you later in the form of a dirty bomb? Even though you shipped that crap abroad you still have to keep an eye on the stuff to stop it falling into the wrong hands.
I don't see how they could make any significant improvements over apt,
Apt is fine for the OS, they even said so. What they want to come up with is something completely different I think. This is not a replacement for apt, it is to complement apt. It actually sounds like this is really designed as a competitor to the APK file you use under android for distributing applications.
However great apt is, it is utterly useless from the point of selling commercial software as there is the possibility of software not installing due to dependency issues. This is not an option with commercial software as the (stupid) end use will blame the software he just bought for not installing, not the fact that his machine is not able to download a dependency package because it is not available upstream. As many have pointed out this wastes disk space, but who cares as it is cheap now.
It sounds like their grand idea is to come up with an additional application wrapper format that will always install everything for a particular application in a single directory also making uninstalling much easier.
Slashdot Mirror
Surely, you're new to web development.
Nope, far from it. But if it helps you carry on being arrogant you're free to believe it if you like.
I did have a longer post that this answering some of your other points but since you have just gone though all my posts replying to them all seperately I am convinced you are just a troll or something now.
Looks like it takes the same amount of code to me.
Did you look at any?
Compare:
$('body').append('<div>A div with content</div>');
With:
var newDiv = document.createElement("div");
var newContent = document.createTextNode("A div with content");
newDiv.appendChild(newContent);
document.body.appendChild(newDiv);
Whatever else you may say you cannot possibly miss that jquery let you do the same thing but with far few characters being typed.
The unreadable mess that jQuery forces you to write
Granted Jquery does let you make a mess, but I gather from your sig that you are not a fan of OOP so you are pretty much guaranteed to hate it in that case. You can write beautiful simple jquery if you are careful, like in any language. Once you get used to Jquery you can often find that it is easier to read than the pure JS alternative (see my example above).
Your users care. They care a lot
Most users know fuck all, and even if they do they don't pay the bills in web development, the client does.
That's why you should AVOID jQuery! You get a massive performance boost simply by avoiding it! You waste tons of time and effort already trying to get acceptable performance out of jQuery -- which ultimately leaves you with slower, less readable, and less reliable code in the end.
I have never had any performance issues with the stuff I have been creating, if I did I would dive straight into pure JS to get it done as I have been doing this for a while so can do either. Maybe if you were having Jquery performance issues it was with very old versions or you were not writing decent code?
Then why are you using jQuery?
For the bulk of real-world jQuery use, you can use getElementById, querySelector, and querySelectorAll.
Jquery is just quicker to write so takes less dev time.
Also, out of your list of pure JS replacements about you missed document.createElement(). Once you start having to create elements of the dom tree on the fly JQuery comes into its own in terms of writing less code and hence developers producing quicker results.
Nobody cares about efficiency any more as cpu time is just so much cheaper than the man hours put in to creating code. Writing super efficient code is just not worth wasting time over when modern PC's are so powerful and underutilized. You can complain about this all you like but you are just pissing into the wind, it will never change now even phones have quad core cpus.
(BTW - I actually think everyone should learn to write more efficient code but am old enough to know that most people who pull the strings don't care.)
Then take this as a message to those buying websites.
Also please tell restaurants that all I want is your hours and menu. A simple text page can do all that in one page and it you can save a fortune on dev time.
The problem is that people like yourself are a tiny minority. Most people go "wow, look at pretty swirl that follows my mouse pointer around, isn't it neat!" (this is a piss poor example)
Seriously though, most people love jquery as it means we don't have to do basic animations in flash any more and can do ajax type stuff. Without things like jquery you would be stuck with whole page refreshes just because you wanted to add a row to a form. I have done this sort of stuff in raw JS (I have been a web dev for almost 10 years) and it was just not worth the effort making it cross browser without doing whole page reloads that were slow for the average user. JQuery lets you do dynamic html pages far more easily and build user interfaces that more closely resemble stand alone applications.
Recently I had to create a page that lets users sort a list by clicking and up down arrow next to each item. When I did stuff like this before JQuery it was a PITA to get working and horrible to use, now it is much quicker and easier. For the same amount of time I put in previously I could have let them drag and drop stuff up and down now (I wanted to, but couldn't get it passed management).
I've only spent a few months in the USA, but I don't remember any restaurants I saw offering all-you-can-drink including alcoholic beverages along with a fixed price meal, and yet I recall this being fairly common in Tokyo. Or are you deliberately misreading the grandparent so that you can call him a retard?
This is just because many japanese people lack the gene to process alcohol efficiently so can't drink for shit.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2262318.stm
This makes excessive drinking more of a cultural taboo than it is in Europe and America where it was essential to drink in order to get the nutrition you needed to survive from seasonal crops that only came once a year in our climate. Japan and the far east had the ability to grow crops that could be harvested throughout the year unlike grain.
Do explain which international laws forbid whale hunting the way Japan practices it. It's a completely legal practice according to IWC.
Whaling for food is illegal. But Japan has come up with some bullshit excuse that they need to conduct scientific research which is why they need to kill whales, then selling the meat as byproduct just makes good sense.
The problem with this is that there is simply no need to kill so many whales for research it's just that Japan's (ruling) older generation view eating whale as such an essential part of their culture they refuse to contemplate change on this front. You might be able to make an argument that what Japan does it legal, but it is still against the spirit of the treaty.
I also think that the individual ships flout the law because they know their is no appetite to prosecute them back home. I certainly think that the average Japanese whaling ship captain will happily follow his prey into Australian waters then lie about it later if they Australian Navy is not around to stop them.
Finally, later this year or early next year the final word on whether what Japan does is legal or not will come down from the ICJ. That will be final and binding (no appeals allowed) but until then no one really knows either way.
Or if you are in a commonwealth country like New Zealand, Canada, or Australia and have ISPs with 2 gig limits each month?
I image lots of hi res images being downloaded over and over again can fill that cap fairly quickly
Lol. Here in the UK bandwidth caps are pretty much a thing of the past nowadays, I reckon this will just push the ISP's in your country to catch up and start offering decent internet with no caps.
No I meant more data access/web services layer not javascript/CSS/HTML/flavor of the month client side monkey :)
Most web developers I know are forced to do crap loads of PHP on the server side, particularly MVC and OOP stuff. In my neck of the woods we call people who only do client side stuff "front end web developers" and similar. If anyone wants to be a web developer and only knows client side stuff they better be some sort of Javascript / Jquery / Knockout ninja.
If I hired a web developer who could not at least integrate with a web service I would consider them not up to the task. Once you have done that a few times you should be able to create one for other people to use. Web services are an essential part of web development nowadays
he purpose is not US-centric. The real value of the Liberator is in places where guns are illegal.
Exactly, the problem is that there are plenty of democratic countries where guns are illegal. I live in one. We try and make a democratic choice as a society to make hand guns hard to obtain and this technology undermines our democratic right.
There are a great many people who simply do not want to own a gun. I know people who refused to even try firing one at a designated range in country where it was perfectly legal. Personally I have fired a gun (an AK47) but I have no interest in living in a society where guns are easy to obtain. You might say that guns are already easy to obtain in my country (the UK) but that is not actually the truth, even if you live in and are with rampant gun crime (you can try and buy a gun, but most likely you will just be robbed unless the criminal selling you then gun has reason to not just take you money and keep the gun).
This post will probably be down modded to hell and get a million replies saying how wrong I am and whatever, as most americans I know simply cannot see how you could find the idea of not wanting to have anything to with a gun a bit alien.
Of course the real problem here though is that once new technology is out of the bottle there is no putting it back, its just that I personally would rather Cody he Texan did not go on his crazy evangelical "everyone should be able to own any gun they like" mission in the first place.
Maybe us the UK should start exporting plutonium to Iran if the US is going to force guns onto our streets. (Ok, this is obviously a joke as they would send some of it back our way as well as yours).
I think once you've become a webdeveloper you've already shot yourself in the head ;) Server side is the place to be :)
Not really sure what you mean as i write mostly server side code even as a web developer.
If you mean being a server admin then I do that too but it doesn't pay as much as I would like.
There is still more developers would love to cram in but there is about 0.5/2s window where you can load before people get bored and leave we just load more crap and do more client side processing now to use up the bandwidth and CPU.
Contrary to the popular belief on slashdot us professional web developers do not sit around thinking of ways to use new browser features to make sites as slow as shit.
Instead clients come to us as some graphic designer has mocked up this amazing new site for them with tons of flash animations they created, psd files that represent all aspects of the site with each layer representing a different page and some notes on which bits of the site need to be easily editable by the client, which bits obtain dynamic data from another site (like the companies aher price) and finally, with a detailed list of which tracking they want to use to track users journey through their website.
Yup. much of this tracking crap is actually added at the clients request because they want to track how their users browse the site and what advert they clicked on a different site which brings though the clients who buy and what adverts on other sites just generate them click throughs but none that result in a purchase or sign up or whatever they want from the site.
Web developers have to work through this crap and try and convince the designer that some of his design elements are going to kill the page loading time and are uttterly pointless. The ones that have to stay they try their best to make efficient by re-implementing it completely in JQuery or whatever. Try and convert the pointless flash object into a much smaller animated GIF or PNG since it is has no interactivity and is only flash as that is what the designer has tools to create.
They then finally try and steer the client to only implementing the tracking shit on the pages that that are REALLY important (index, basket, purchase complete, etc). But no, the client first insists on the third party tracking be used to track every goddamn product so they can have all the analytics in the system their marketing chumps like using and not forcing them to login in to your site as well. Then they decide that the site is too complicated or something so you need to add the tracking to every page in the help section, then they notice that loads of people get to the index but never buy anything so you have add tracking to find out why (they load the index and decide it loads too slowly then fuck off to a quicker site probably due to the analytics shit).
Finally, the client realises that when the get stuff demoed to them it was done in a designers office with fibre to the back of the demo PC, tests their web site at home and realises everything is slow as shit and asks you to find out why. You tell them, and they say that blaming Google or whoever does the tracking is just passing the buck as the google home page loads really quickly, you must have messed up in creating their site instead.
At this point the web developer realises he can't win and shoots himself in the head :)
True but claiming to save 5% of load time by making a browser while at the same time marketing products that slow down the page load in the first place seems kind of circular.
Without the shitty marketing products Google and Facebook would cease to exist.
Money makes the world go round and neither of these companies would exist without some way of making money, however great Google search and Facebooks social network is. They both now need huge internet pipes and servers which does not come cheap.
You know, I have never once seen someone use a game console for watching movies.
Have you read this thread? There are tons of people talking about want Netflix to work without paying for an Xbox Live subscription, they are not using their console just for gaming are they?
So far I've not seen anything about the always-on requirement for the internet connection.
That feature is make or break for me, because if it *needs* an internet connection to be always enabled, I can tell you now I won't buy this -- they had their chance, and they put ads into both my home screen and my games.
Did anyone who actually watched the event see anything about this? I've checked several articles so far, and none of them have mentioned that part.
Always on internet definitely not needed according to this: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-05-21-xbox-always-online-the-answer-is-no
to ask for a classic-style game console built with modern tech/processing power?
Yes, I'd like to be able to play online with friends. That is the only other thing that I really want out of my console. I don't care if plays music or movies. I don't want it to be the center of my entertainment center. I sure as hell don't want it always on and spying on me.
I just want to play games, and that includes used ones.
As to music and movies you must realise that if they did not build in a blueray player then the vast majority of people would have opted for the PS4 or whatever it will be called (myself included as I don't have a blueray player yet). Also, Bluray drives are so cheap now there is almost no point in using a DVD drive instead. You are very much in the minority if you do not use a games console for watching any sort of movies or other multimedia so betting on everyone being like you would be a sure fire recipe for MS going bankrupt.
As to used games I doubt any of the companies that create games want you you to be able to do this, so they have been lobbying to make sure this is not possible. There will never be another console that supports this unless they can come up with a cast iron DRM system that ensures the same licence can be used on two different machines at the same time, this would probably require an always on internet connection.
Personally I get annoyed by games on my old Xbox360 making get up off the couch to swap disks when both games are installed on the hard disk just so they can be sure I have not sold one of them to a second hand shop (something I would never do as the second hand or trade in cost of a game is a pittance and I buy everything off the web). If they can use an always on internet connection to ensure that two copies of the same game are not being played at once that might fix this and let me stay on the couch but I bet a crap load of other people here would go mental at such an idea so the it is very likely that second hand games will be blocked.
The only way to keep everybody happy in this regard would be to trust their customers to not pirate stuff and the chances of that happening are somewhere between slim and none since the existence of any software piracy whatsoever proves that some people cannot be trusted. This is not saying that piracy costs them a sale, just that people who produce games don't want it to happen even if it doesn't.
Actually I just checked and it seems you will have to pay an additional fee to play a second hand game so you might be able to buy a second hand disk but the licence to use it's contents will be extra and always on internet will be down to the games developers. Seems like they are ignoring no-money cheapskate gypos like you to make it easier for me to stay on the couch, good move MS!
I don't want my saved games "in the cloud" where I can't access them if my ISP takes a shit. If you're going to put half a terabyte of disk in the thing, let me save a few 1MB save files on it.
I would hope that the savegames go in both places in a similar way to steam does it although steam seems to screw this up too often for my liking so I don't trust it 100% but if they made it always work it would be perfect. Steam tries to sync the save games to the cloud when you launch and exit a game. This enables me to play on both my gaming PC's (I have been hovering between my own pad and my girlfriends for years and they are a few hundred miles apart).
That way if you have no internet then you can still play but only if you played last on that PC. I don't think it is only people like me who find this functionality useful, I reckon people who play games in internet cafe type places would find it useful too.
Both Larry and Sergei are no longer connected with reality.. I don't begrudge them anything, but they are seriously in outer space.
which is kind of funny.
imagine having all the data in the world but being disconnected from reality still.
The problem is they have tons of cash. When you become that rich you end up bypassing the crap that the little people have to deal with as you can always pay someone else to deal with that for you.
He does not have to worry about ever being refused health insurance or the exorbitant cost of it as he has no sense of perspective when it comes to money any more.
America pays more, but they can also generally see a specialist for any field within a matter of days or sometimes hours for non-emergency care.
It only costs a few extra quid per month to get a Bupa (private company) top up to smooth out all the areas where the NHS is a bit rough. The end result is that we still end up paying less than you do in the US since the Bupa cover does not have to worry about the really expensive stuff as the NHS covers that.
With a Bupa policy I can leave work now and go and talk to the private clinic just down the road with no appointment. Even without a Bupa policy I can still go and talk to them and then just pay cash for their time (I have done this to get some jabs for going to South America on short notice).
In contrast, I sat in a hospital with my daughter, her hand oozing blood after being crushed and having two broken bones and severe lacerations and soft tissue injuries, for nearly THREE HOURS before being treated. Watching her quietly cry the whole time I would have gladly written an American-sized cheque for £1000 to have her treated immediately.
Then why didn't you: http://www.bmihealthcare.co.uk/hospital/description?p_hosp_id=294&p_hospital_page_id=163&in_page=Emergency%20care%20centre
It took me about 30 seconds to find that link via Google. I bet they have other clinics all over the country.
I know A&E is awful on a Friday night through experience, but that was when I was a poor student dropout and I broke my hand (cleanly snapped third and forth metacarpals). If I had been in the US at that time I probably wouldn't have had any cover either as my family are not that well off so god knows what would happened.
As it was though I was in surgery within 16 hours and then discharged within 36 at no cost apart from the taxes I had paid as a checkout boy in a supermarket (the only job I had ever done at that age). Now I happily pay my taxes as I am grateful to be able to type this using both hands and go climbing as a hobby thanks to my 100% recovery because the NHS pinned my hand back together.
In the US I very much doubt I would have been able to get my hand reconstructed the same way without paying a fortune, instead they would have just patched me up so it did not get any worse but left me with limited movement.
In the financial trading industry we...
we?
Do you really expect anyone to believe you work in the "financial trading industry" and hang out on slashdot?
Erm, Steve Jobs died of cancer; a cancer that might very well have been treatable, had he not been absolutely mental and gone for "natural" cure.
Not only do you need funding, you also need someone who believes in science (like Bill Gates, whom by the way does a heck of a lot for research).
It is worth remembering that the only treatments for Pancreatic Cancer are: Surgery, Radiation Therapy or Chemotherapy. Ok, he probably should have gone down the surgery route sooner than he did (he waited nine months) but the other two options both suck.
Many people choose to die of cancer rather that go through the shit of Chemo or Radiation Therapy as they both utterly ruin your quality of life for the time you have left for a very low probability of success anyway. By choosing to avoid these two treatments you can actually make the most of the time you have left and remain relatively active.
No we won't. You obviously have no concept of the amount of money and time it takes to develop "cures" for most diseases. The personal wealth of these people is close to the order of magnitude of money that can be spent researching one of these diseases over the course of a single year and that doesn't even factor in the number of years (man hours and simply waiting for enough accurate data to be collected) it takes in the end to find a "cure," if there is one. [I wrote it as "cure" because I think the word is frequently used to infer a quick-acting, life term treatment when in many cases that is not and may never be possible]
Most medical research nowadays is done by drug companies. They are not interested in "cures" they are interested in finding a drug to manage a particular condition, that way they get to make tons of money from all the repeat prescriptions of their creation. If they came up with a cure for that condition they only get the money from a single prescription.
If they created a single pill that would cure and vaccinate you against all the worlds diseases they would all go bankrupt within a decade, even if they could sell the pill for $1 million.
So who knows what is possible when the corporations who fund (and hence choose the direction of) most medical research are not interested in looking? Instead they come up with crap like Viagra as that is where the money is.
In next weeks slashdot I expect to see something about Moxie Marlinspike being asked to deliver a nice shiny yacht to Saudi Arabia and it going horribly wrong when he gets arrested for piracy :)
As long as the actions are lawful, then no, there is no difference.
Only if you happen to be an immoral twat trying to justify their argument.
The truth is that thing like paying sales taxes on mail order goods involve you going out of your way to pay more tax. Setting up a dodgy offshore arrangement involves going out of your way to pay less tax. There is a massive difference between these two things in that in one case you are just taking the path of least resistance, in the other you are investing a shitload of extra effort in order to hide money from the taxman. The effort involved is key.
Also, there is the minor difference in terms of reward. By not paying the odd bit of sales tax you can probably save a few thousand or tens of thousands of dollars at most. By hiding money offshore you can save millions if you have it.
At some point, it would have been cheaper to pay another country to take it away for reprocessing and vitrification, even after considering the obscene cost of safely transporting one barrel at a time to said foreign country and transporting the glass logs back for long term storage.
Is that fair though? Just because you can find another government that you can pay to take that shit off your hands does not mean the people in the country actually want the damn stuff.
Also, what happens if the country in question falls apart and someone decides they want to give it back to you later in the form of a dirty bomb? Even though you shipped that crap abroad you still have to keep an eye on the stuff to stop it falling into the wrong hands.
I don't see how they could make any significant improvements over apt,
Apt is fine for the OS, they even said so. What they want to come up with is something completely different I think. This is not a replacement for apt, it is to complement apt. It actually sounds like this is really designed as a competitor to the APK file you use under android for distributing applications.
However great apt is, it is utterly useless from the point of selling commercial software as there is the possibility of software not installing due to dependency issues. This is not an option with commercial software as the (stupid) end use will blame the software he just bought for not installing, not the fact that his machine is not able to download a dependency package because it is not available upstream. As many have pointed out this wastes disk space, but who cares as it is cheap now.
It sounds like their grand idea is to come up with an additional application wrapper format that will always install everything for a particular application in a single directory also making uninstalling much easier.