I was not trolling, I was disagreeing with the simile, I just chose to be a smart-ass instead of writing a well reasoned response.
The simile is about as good as saying "we humans are like planets, totally insignificant in the grand dance of stars, dust and dark matter". And especially we don't die too fast to appreciate slowly unfolding majesty of the universe, because thanks to finite speed of light, we can see a cross-section of the entire history of the universe by just looking up. If you don't believe me, there was an article on slashdot just recently, which had links to some nifty images and even videos "looking up". Of course it'd be nice to see single events unfold "live", but it's not at all necessary for appreciating the whole thing.
No, we're not at all like insects. Insects are "cold-blooded", have chitinous exoskeleton and six legs, often wings and webbed eyes. We're very different. There's been like 600+ million years of evolution since our last common ancestor.
Sheesh, don't they teach biology in schools any more?
USB and Firewire Ports, meet Mister Hot Glue Gun. Mister Hot, the heat is on, do your thing, get some holes lubed up, do the old in-out, fill 'em up good with the creamy goodness.
FTFS: "and for all practical purposes, the Supersymmetric Extension of the Standard Model of Physics is dead." Was it ever alive for any practical purposes?
You misunderstand how QML is supposed to be used. It's nothing at all like building a web app. Its biggest problem right now is that there aren't any good books about how to use it correctly
Ah, the no true Scotsman fallacy. Sorry if I'm being rude, but I don't see anything in your post that couldn't be better solved with a QShaderEffectItem instead of the ridiculous QML UI. I get it, it appeals to all the people who know HTML/CSS/JavaScript. It still sucks to everyone who knows C++/Qt, no matter how much you polish the turd.
A "no true scotsman" fallacy? No, it's like saying one doesn't like a saw when felling trees, but prefers axes, then being pointed out that hey, with a saw, you don't hit the tree, you move the saw back and forth... (Note: I'm not here implying anything about superiority of either a saw or an axe.)
Also, feel free to do the example with C++, then compare the amount of code needed. Then multiply that by the number of screens/views/windows of an application.
Also, as soon as you start having for example tables which you pass to a generalised animation framework (or whatever), you're doing what you could do with QML using far less effort.
And finally, this is programming. Anybody judging a language they have not tried is IMO in the wrong field altogether... This even applies to "VB is trWTF" comments (when it's not said just as a joke, in which case it's just old). Also, QML is cross-platform open source, so not having the environment available is no excuse.
Well, not really, because what you are giving there is a relative time. The best time to feed the chickens is +4h from mid-day. Then everyone knows what time mid-day is in their zone, job done. Absolute time being absolute seems like a good plan. Your issue is you are confusing the two.
Just what do you think "4 PM" means, if not "+4h from mid-day", Post Meridiem? And the suggestion was, stop doing this, start using global time. And the answer is obviously "no". Local time is needed for some things, and it'd be hell of a more confusing to have two different ways of telling time in everyday use.
"So" nothing special, it's just biology. I guess if you drew a suitably logarithmic scale for sense of smell based on whatever measuring method, you could drag human sense of smell into "pretty good" region, but then practical difference between "good" and "excellent" becomes ridiculously large. But meh, this level of classification is of course subjective, matter of opinion.
I'm sure we'll eventually get to wearing goggles, unless brain interfacing makes it obsolete before it's ready. But that'll take longer then one might think. First of all, goggles that cover the eyes are very impractical if there's anything outside the screen that needs attention, be it co-workers, books, post-it notes, cup of coffee... And I don't think using cameras will cut it any time soon, apart from reaching for the coffee cup. Then I don't know if current technology is anywhere near not straining eyes when looked at for losafelyng hours. Displays that would project directly to the eye parctically, safely and strain-free are still way off too, I think.
Actually I think we'll have to wait for holographic display breakthrough until using goggles instead of a monitor becomes really practical, and for starters that'll require insane computing power to generate the image. It will not happen in 10 years. 20, maybe, but not 10.
When talking about IT work and IT at work, there are a few practical things that will not happen:
We will not get get rid of physical keyboard, until we have a brain interface that can match typing speed on keyboard.
We will not get rid of 20+" displays with FullHD+ resolutions either, because doing actual work on some postage stamp sized display is much less efficient, much more pain.
These two things set pretty hard limits on what will happen.
So start producing and selling Model T's as cars. Let me know when you get one to be considered an automobile that I can walk into the DMV and plate with no restrictions.
Abraham Lincoln once said "If we call a tail a paw, how many paws does a dog have." When people said "5", he replied "Calling it a paw doesn't make it one." Those crappy phones were not smartphones.
They were smartphones, but todays terminology they would be called "feature phones", as meanings of defininitons have creeped up. By old terminology, today's smartphones would be better described as "mini-tablets", considering how they even use same OSs etc.
Ctrl+A is also "home" (not sure of origin, emacs maybe, works in bash by default). Which is why it's so stupid to have it as default escape key for screen.
In bash, Ctrl+V is "quote next keypress", so you can enter eg. ASCII 3 character to command line by pressing ctrl+v ctrl+c.
I think Linus said it partly in jest, at least the the "evil" word. I'm not sure of the latest developments, but I think his head is not yet big enough to think, that if he prefers something, then it makes things that go against it evil... Dumb, maybe, but not evil;)
Actually humans have a pretty decent but not spectacular sense of smell.
The biggest issue is having a nose that's over a meter off the ground.
Considering where dogs (and many other animals) set the bar, humans do not have "pretty decent" sense of smell. Humans maybe have "not the worst" sense of smell, but it's not very decent. I mean, just observing dogs, there's an entire world we're oblivious to. It's more than seeing just black&white versus colors, it's probably more like... being able to enjoy fine nuances of music versus being able to notice Richter 3 earthquake.
Honestly, experienced drivers know what the safe speed for a road is, and generally drive it - speed limits be damned.
Of course, the problem with that is, a driver themself isn't able to judge if they're experienced enough... Total kilometers driven is only a guideline, some drivers will never be experienced enough no matter how many kilometers they've driven. Applies also to those who use miles.
Sorry, an unlimited speed limit is not possible. You can't exceed the speed of light.
But you could always go faster than you're going, there's no limit to that. You can always have arbitrarily high acceleration, assuming your car isn't so wimpy as to be limited by running out of fuel, or loss of structural integrity due to air resistance and friction, or having insufficient power to accelerate arbitrarily fast.
if apple or HTC doesn't want to pay kodak they should just write their own algorithms
So what happens when they do write their own algorithm and then some troll climbs out from under the bridge and says 'no, that's no good, I patented adding numbers together on a computer, you owe me a bazillion dollars'?
Now that's just unfair example. I think there's prior art on that from the '60's. The troll would need to innovate to get a patent, he'd need to patent something like "adding numbers together on a mobile computer". It's not like you can patent just anything, you have at least combine words in a new way...
Nothing more inappropriate than giving research grants investigate questions we don't know the answer to.
Indeed, that's practically flushing money down the drain. The worst part is not, that scientist getting the grand might not get any new answers. They could actually get an answer that is damaging to the giver of the grant. How's that biting the hand that feeds you? And these science types even have the nerve to tell that this is how science should be done! Inconceivable!
The idea is tantamount to expecting to go to the moon by pulling on your own boot straps.
In order for it to work, you'd need to have some energy source to resist the pull of the item you're wanting to lift into space. And by the time you start sending rockets up with fuel to do that, you might as well just use rockets to send the payload into orbit because it's much more efficient.
There's power aplenty at the orbit, so just use ion or plasma propulsion, and send stuff up at frequency that matches the average lift generated. The amount of propellant sent up will be a tiny fraction of what current chemical rockets need to get a single kilogram to orbit. And if more capacity, more frequent lifts, are needed, then just strap on more engines, and/or send more stuff down to earth.
Cellular standards have their own IP transfer specs, for everything else - Mobile IP. Changing IP address on the fly? Hell that'll break HTTP, screw everything else.
Eh, break HTTP? Change in user's IP will not break HTTP(S)-based applications at all. They're based on non-critical connections initiated from user's end, and cookies, and any persistent connections being re-created on the fly as needed.
HTTP(S)-based web applications can also survive suspend/hibernate without problem, even if user's machine gets completely different IP in completely different network when it wakes up, as long as there won't be session time-out during the sleep.
It may be a bit sad in a way, but for most common uses, mobile IP is not needed, so it will not be configured automatically for every user (or even enabled without installing extra software), so uses and software that need it will not become common. Same applies to IPv6 actually, HTTP-based web works just fine with IPv4+NAT still as well as for mobile use with constantly changing network.
X11 has enormous amount of crud, legacy code that must be there or it's not X11, yet is seldom used by anything. Also at least some people seem to disagree with how X.org is developing their server. Both forking X.org or rewriting the server from scratch would be unnecessarily huge tasks due to all the things that X11 includes.
Sometimes it's better to just start from scratch.
Now I haven't looked into Wayland carefully enough to have an opinion about how good an effort Wayland is, considering it's starting from scratch.
But one thing very hard to bolt onto X11 is getting a steady 60 fps frame rate with synced sounds. I think this will be much easier with Wayland.
OMG, that is the worst twist of logic that I have ever seen. That's like saying my Jeep doesn't lack flight, it just doesn't define or come with wings. NOT HAVING IT AS A DEMONSTRABLE DESIGN GOAL MEANS THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE IT. In other words, Wayland lacks network transparency.
Wayland doesn't support network transparency the same way as eg. TCP/IP doesn't support encryption.
Problem with X11 on mobile use is, the applications don't support going to the background, they don't support the X server suddenly just disappearing, then re-appearing at a completely different address. For this reason, VNC and its ilk are much more suitable for mobile remote desktop use.
Slashdot Mirror
I was not trolling, I was disagreeing with the simile, I just chose to be a smart-ass instead of writing a well reasoned response.
The simile is about as good as saying "we humans are like planets, totally insignificant in the grand dance of stars, dust and dark matter". And especially we don't die too fast to appreciate slowly unfolding majesty of the universe, because thanks to finite speed of light, we can see a cross-section of the entire history of the universe by just looking up. If you don't believe me, there was an article on slashdot just recently, which had links to some nifty images and even videos "looking up". Of course it'd be nice to see single events unfold "live", but it's not at all necessary for appreciating the whole thing.
No, we're not at all like insects. Insects are "cold-blooded", have chitinous exoskeleton and six legs, often wings and webbed eyes. We're very different. There's been like 600+ million years of evolution since our last common ancestor.
Sheesh, don't they teach biology in schools any more?
Since when is "friend" a verb? I enemy that.
I think you mean "I foe that". Everybody knows "enemy" is not a verb.
Four basic choices:
1. take your chances
2. stop using WiFi
3. move
4. start revolution
USB and Firewire Ports, meet Mister Hot Glue Gun. Mister Hot, the heat is on, do your thing, get some holes lubed up, do the old in-out, fill 'em up good with the creamy goodness.
FTFS: "and for all practical purposes, the Supersymmetric Extension of the Standard Model of Physics is dead."
Was it ever alive for any practical purposes?
You misunderstand how QML is supposed to be used. It's nothing at all like building a web app. Its biggest problem right now is that there aren't any good books about how to use it correctly
Ah, the no true Scotsman fallacy. Sorry if I'm being rude, but I don't see anything in your post that couldn't be better solved with a QShaderEffectItem instead of the ridiculous QML UI. I get it, it appeals to all the people who know HTML/CSS/JavaScript. It still sucks to everyone who knows C++/Qt, no matter how much you polish the turd.
A "no true scotsman" fallacy? No, it's like saying one doesn't like a saw when felling trees, but prefers axes, then being pointed out that hey, with a saw, you don't hit the tree, you move the saw back and forth... (Note: I'm not here implying anything about superiority of either a saw or an axe.)
Also, feel free to do the example with C++, then compare the amount of code needed. Then multiply that by the number of screens/views/windows of an application.
Also, as soon as you start having for example tables which you pass to a generalised animation framework (or whatever), you're doing what you could do with QML using far less effort.
And finally, this is programming. Anybody judging a language they have not tried is IMO in the wrong field altogether... This even applies to "VB is trWTF" comments (when it's not said just as a joke, in which case it's just old). Also, QML is cross-platform open source, so not having the environment available is no excuse.
Well, not really, because what you are giving there is a relative time. The best time to feed the chickens is +4h from mid-day. Then everyone knows what time mid-day is in their zone, job done. Absolute time being absolute seems like a good plan. Your issue is you are confusing the two.
Just what do you think "4 PM" means, if not "+4h from mid-day", Post Meridiem? And the suggestion was, stop doing this, start using global time. And the answer is obviously "no". Local time is needed for some things, and it'd be hell of a more confusing to have two different ways of telling time in everyday use.
"So" nothing special, it's just biology. I guess if you drew a suitably logarithmic scale for sense of smell based on whatever measuring method, you could drag human sense of smell into "pretty good" region, but then practical difference between "good" and "excellent" becomes ridiculously large. But meh, this level of classification is of course subjective, matter of opinion.
I'm sure we'll eventually get to wearing goggles, unless brain interfacing makes it obsolete before it's ready. But that'll take longer then one might think. First of all, goggles that cover the eyes are very impractical if there's anything outside the screen that needs attention, be it co-workers, books, post-it notes, cup of coffee... And I don't think using cameras will cut it any time soon, apart from reaching for the coffee cup. Then I don't know if current technology is anywhere near not straining eyes when looked at for losafelyng hours. Displays that would project directly to the eye parctically, safely and strain-free are still way off too, I think.
Actually I think we'll have to wait for holographic display breakthrough until using goggles instead of a monitor becomes really practical, and for starters that'll require insane computing power to generate the image. It will not happen in 10 years. 20, maybe, but not 10.
When talking about IT work and IT at work, there are a few practical things that will not happen:
We will not get get rid of physical keyboard, until we have a brain interface that can match typing speed on keyboard.
We will not get rid of 20+" displays with FullHD+ resolutions either, because doing actual work on some postage stamp sized display is much less efficient, much more pain.
These two things set pretty hard limits on what will happen.
So start producing and selling Model T's as cars. Let me know when you get one to be considered an automobile that I can walk into the DMV and plate with no restrictions.
Abraham Lincoln once said "If we call a tail a paw, how many paws does a dog have." When people said "5", he replied "Calling it a paw doesn't make it one." Those crappy phones were not smartphones.
They were smartphones, but todays terminology they would be called "feature phones", as meanings of defininitons have creeped up. By old terminology, today's smartphones would be better described as "mini-tablets", considering how they even use same OSs etc.
Ctrl+A is also "home" (not sure of origin, emacs maybe, works in bash by default). Which is why it's so stupid to have it as default escape key for screen.
In bash, Ctrl+V is "quote next keypress", so you can enter eg. ASCII 3 character to command line by pressing ctrl+v ctrl+c.
I think Linus said it partly in jest, at least the the "evil" word. I'm not sure of the latest developments, but I think his head is not yet big enough to think, that if he prefers something, then it makes things that go against it evil... Dumb, maybe, but not evil ;)
Actually humans have a pretty decent but not spectacular sense of smell.
The biggest issue is having a nose that's over a meter off the ground.
Considering where dogs (and many other animals) set the bar, humans do not have "pretty decent" sense of smell. Humans maybe have "not the worst" sense of smell, but it's not very decent. I mean, just observing dogs, there's an entire world we're oblivious to. It's more than seeing just black&white versus colors, it's probably more like... being able to enjoy fine nuances of music versus being able to notice Richter 3 earthquake.
Nice winding roads and an unlimited speed limit would get rid of much of that monotony.
That is a very good idea. Not, of course, for reducing car crashes, but for accelerating the process of natural selection.
German autobahns disagree with you.
Autobahns aren't exactly "winding roads", and "nice" is very debatable also.
Honestly, experienced drivers know what the safe speed for a road is, and generally drive it - speed limits be damned.
Of course, the problem with that is, a driver themself isn't able to judge if they're experienced enough... Total kilometers driven is only a guideline, some drivers will never be experienced enough no matter how many kilometers they've driven. Applies also to those who use miles.
Sorry, an unlimited speed limit is not possible. You can't exceed the speed of light.
But you could always go faster than you're going, there's no limit to that. You can always have arbitrarily high acceleration, assuming your car isn't so wimpy as to be limited by running out of fuel, or loss of structural integrity due to air resistance and friction, or having insufficient power to accelerate arbitrarily fast.
if apple or HTC doesn't want to pay kodak they should just write their own algorithms
So what happens when they do write their own algorithm and then some troll climbs out from under the bridge and says 'no, that's no good, I patented adding numbers together on a computer, you owe me a bazillion dollars'?
Now that's just unfair example. I think there's prior art on that from the '60's. The troll would need to innovate to get a patent, he'd need to patent something like "adding numbers together on a mobile computer". It's not like you can patent just anything, you have at least combine words in a new way...
Nothing more inappropriate than giving research grants investigate questions we don't know the answer to.
Indeed, that's practically flushing money down the drain. The worst part is not, that scientist getting the grand might not get any new answers. They could actually get an answer that is damaging to the giver of the grant. How's that biting the hand that feeds you? And these science types even have the nerve to tell that this is how science should be done! Inconceivable!
The idea is tantamount to expecting to go to the moon by pulling on your own boot straps.
In order for it to work, you'd need to have some energy source to resist the pull of the item you're wanting to lift into space. And by the time you start sending rockets up with fuel to do that, you might as well just use rockets to send the payload into orbit because it's much more efficient.
There's power aplenty at the orbit, so just use ion or plasma propulsion, and send stuff up at frequency that matches the average lift generated. The amount of propellant sent up will be a tiny fraction of what current chemical rockets need to get a single kilogram to orbit. And if more capacity, more frequent lifts, are needed, then just strap on more engines, and/or send more stuff down to earth.
Cellular standards have their own IP transfer specs, for everything else - Mobile IP. Changing IP address on the fly? Hell that'll break HTTP, screw everything else.
Eh, break HTTP? Change in user's IP will not break HTTP(S)-based applications at all. They're based on non-critical connections initiated from user's end, and cookies, and any persistent connections being re-created on the fly as needed.
HTTP(S)-based web applications can also survive suspend/hibernate without problem, even if user's machine gets completely different IP in completely different network when it wakes up, as long as there won't be session time-out during the sleep.
It may be a bit sad in a way, but for most common uses, mobile IP is not needed, so it will not be configured automatically for every user (or even enabled without installing extra software), so uses and software that need it will not become common. Same applies to IPv6 actually, HTTP-based web works just fine with IPv4+NAT still as well as for mobile use with constantly changing network.
X11 has enormous amount of crud, legacy code that must be there or it's not X11, yet is seldom used by anything. Also at least some people seem to disagree with how X.org is developing their server. Both forking X.org or rewriting the server from scratch would be unnecessarily huge tasks due to all the things that X11 includes.
Sometimes it's better to just start from scratch.
Now I haven't looked into Wayland carefully enough to have an opinion about how good an effort Wayland is, considering it's starting from scratch.
But one thing very hard to bolt onto X11 is getting a steady 60 fps frame rate with synced sounds. I think this will be much easier with Wayland.
OMG, that is the worst twist of logic that I have ever seen. That's like saying my Jeep doesn't lack flight, it just doesn't define or come with wings. NOT HAVING IT AS A DEMONSTRABLE DESIGN GOAL MEANS THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE IT. In other words, Wayland lacks network transparency.
Wayland doesn't support network transparency the same way as eg. TCP/IP doesn't support encryption.
Problem with X11 on mobile use is, the applications don't support going to the background, they don't support the X server suddenly just disappearing, then re-appearing at a completely different address. For this reason, VNC and its ilk are much more suitable for mobile remote desktop use.