Indeed! Most programming languages are actually pretty easy, and I think most people wouldn't have much trouble learning the basics (it's just basic logic if/then, loops etc.), but the platforms are so monstrously complicated that it requires a massive time investment to get anything that does anything, that it's just not worth people's time.
Like most not-really-a-programmer types, I've learned the a portions of the web stack (SQL, PHP, Javascript), and I feel pretty comfortable reading other languages such as Python, Ruby, Java, or C--they just aren't that different. But learning how to get from lines of Objective-C, say, to a functional Application? Oh man, that'll take me weeks.
No, Webkit is slow at compositing images, which I'm sure is what this benchmark reflecting. Firefox is really fast. Interestingly, this seems to be the case whether you use a bunch of HTML elements or canvas. The image rendering in Webkit needs an overhaul.
I found this out when I was making this. Check it out in Firefox or Opera compared to Safari or Chrome.
I was expecting it to stay in genre (science fiction), and they went off into fantasy land. I also wanted some of the feeling of discovery of the first, although I recognised that was going to be hard. They also needed to come up with some new action, rather than the same stuff, but fucking hours of it.
Where are you getting this from? What datamining, and by whom? Because personal experience (I, and most people I know, are much more likely to see films that have actors I like in them), and the way things are done in Hollywood suggest that actors have big box-office pull. I think you need to back up this extraordinary claim with at least some evidence.
You've pulled out a few huge-budget films that didn't have particularly famous actors in them, and succeeded, but what about the hundreds of films that did -- most importantly, what about the hundreds of mediocre, but commercially successful, films that rely on having stars in them (e.g. much of Julia Roberts films)?
Seems to me you're suffering, like a many of the sort of Slashdotians, with a case of technological myopia. Feature X was already available here, feature Y could be could there, etc. Look, I get that this seems like a reasonable way of arguing the point, but when it comes down to it, NO revolutions are completely sparkly and new. It's the way it all comes together that counts, and touch screen phones and tablets were unpopular (and generally rubbish, yes I played with some of those phones) before the the iPhone and the iPad.
Here's a challenge for you: name some other "revolutionary" tech that's been brought to market in that period. I'm curious to see what sorts of high standards you have in mind.
There are strong arguments for not using Apple products: legitimate concerns about their openness, price, and some legitimate concerns about functionality, but the typical slashdot attitude of "marketing", "reality distortions fields", "shiny", and "sheeple" just goes to show how out-of-touch the Slashdot bubble is. Acknowledge your opponents strengths, otherwise people think that you're just a delusional fool.
And let's face it: over the past three years or so, Apple hasn't released a single revolutionary product.
Look, I know it's popular here on Slashdot to act like there's nothing new under the sun, but this statement is wrong and disingenuous. Firstly, I note that you chose your period very carefully to leave out the iPhone. The iPhone really did change phones and handheld computers, Slashdot whinging notwithstanding. However, I suspect you are willing to concede that. In the last three years... well there's the fucking iPad (2010) for one. I mean, look guys, you can deny all you like, but this shit is changing the whole computing landscape. It's going to pretty much usher in the end of desktop computing as we know it for most people. The App Store (2008), was a revolutionary, microsoftware for the masses.
You may think these aren't revolutions because they aren't revolutionary enough for you on a technological level. But they are business and social revolutions.
If someone guessed the combination of my lock to my writing shed*, walked in, took photos of my private correspondence, and posted them on the internet in an attempt to discredit me, I'd sure as hell want them punished! And rightly so!
You would to, and you're a dirty rotten liar if you say otherwise.
*I don't have a writing shed, but I was trying to think of something you might protect with a combination lock.
Have you ever tried to find a real shop that you can go to an buy something on Google? Because it's next to impossible. Granted, I don't think Bing's any better in this regard, but Google's falling failing to live up to waht i want from a search engine. They are ripe for toppling.
Give DuckDuckGo a try. I've been pretty satisfied with the results so far (I've been using it for a couple weeks after getting totally sick of the link farms on Google). They seem to be pretty strong on privacy too, if you're into that.
I'm having the same problem adjusting to DuckDuckGo which I've switched to because I think Google's getting crap. I think it's returning better results than Google, and has a few neat features like disambiguation, but I've got so used to Wikipedia being the top or second hit for just about everything I'm finding it annoying.
This is interesting isn't it; modern CGI looks completely fake! In a couple of decades, we'll look back on this stuff and cringe. In a couple more decades, there will be people will watch it purely for the cheese factor.
Put down that crack pipe dude, you'll set fire to your straw-men. I am encouraging climate change sceptics to do exactly what you're seem to be accusing me of wanting to get rid of--put their arguments in the fucking literature. I suspect the reason they aren't doing that is because they are full of crap, and their reasoning and evidence is faulty.
Arm waving about conspiracies among thousands of scientists is verging on batshit insane. I bet you wouldn't take that kind of bullshit argument from creationists, holocaust deniers, or HIV-AIDS deniers.
As an aside, I note that you seem to be a libertarian--could it be that you don't like the notion of a problem like this because it's very difficult to solve using your political ideology? I'm curious as to why libertarians seem to be so much more likely to be sceptical about this than other people.
I am expressing an opinion that they should shut up of their own free will. I would not condone any action that would actually force them to do so, however. Take your straw-man elsewhere.
My position is pretty simple--being sceptical of a single new paper with surprising conclusions is perfectly sensible. You don't need to be an expert; single papers get knocked down all the time. Being sceptical of a hard-won scientific consensus, when there are large practical issues at hand, and withholding political consent for action is different. This, I think, morally requires you to do better than "gee, I'm not buyin' it" (or worse yet, as the post that set of this thread did, calling the scientific consensus "ridiculous" and "idiotic").
You know, I suspect you don't disagree with me, you just want an argument.
Being sceptical of one recent paper that hasn't been through much kind of scrutiny is quite a different thing to withholding political consent to do something about a looming environmental disaster that scientific consensus of thousands of scientists has been warning us about for years.
The time has come for anthropogenic global warming sceptics to put up or shut up. Either knock down the science in the journals, or shut the fuck up and let everyone else get on with doing something about the problem.
Uh huh, and I suppose you're a published researcher in a relevant field, and have published rebuttals to all the peer reviewed research that says ocean acidification is a result of increased atmospheric CO2?
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed! Most programming languages are actually pretty easy, and I think most people wouldn't have much trouble learning the basics (it's just basic logic if/then, loops etc.), but the platforms are so monstrously complicated that it requires a massive time investment to get anything that does anything, that it's just not worth people's time.
Like most not-really-a-programmer types, I've learned the a portions of the web stack (SQL, PHP, Javascript), and I feel pretty comfortable reading other languages such as Python, Ruby, Java, or C--they just aren't that different. But learning how to get from lines of Objective-C, say, to a functional Application? Oh man, that'll take me weeks.
No, Webkit is slow at compositing images, which I'm sure is what this benchmark reflecting. Firefox is really fast. Interestingly, this seems to be the case whether you use a bunch of HTML elements or canvas. The image rendering in Webkit needs an overhaul.
I found this out when I was making this. Check it out in Firefox or Opera compared to Safari or Chrome.
I like the white, it makes the pages easier to read, like luxurious, man!
I was expecting it to stay in genre (science fiction), and they went off into fantasy land. I also wanted some of the feeling of discovery of the first, although I recognised that was going to be hard. They also needed to come up with some new action, rather than the same stuff, but fucking hours of it.
Where are you getting this from? What datamining, and by whom? Because personal experience (I, and most people I know, are much more likely to see films that have actors I like in them), and the way things are done in Hollywood suggest that actors have big box-office pull. I think you need to back up this extraordinary claim with at least some evidence.
You've pulled out a few huge-budget films that didn't have particularly famous actors in them, and succeeded, but what about the hundreds of films that did -- most importantly, what about the hundreds of mediocre, but commercially successful, films that rely on having stars in them (e.g. much of Julia Roberts films)?
Horseshit, there are great movies being made, especially for kids. "Up" is one that spings to mind.
Sentence fragment!
Seems to me you're suffering, like a many of the sort of Slashdotians, with a case of technological myopia. Feature X was already available here, feature Y could be could there, etc. Look, I get that this seems like a reasonable way of arguing the point, but when it comes down to it, NO revolutions are completely sparkly and new. It's the way it all comes together that counts, and touch screen phones and tablets were unpopular (and generally rubbish, yes I played with some of those phones) before the the iPhone and the iPad.
Here's a challenge for you: name some other "revolutionary" tech that's been brought to market in that period. I'm curious to see what sorts of high standards you have in mind.
There are strong arguments for not using Apple products: legitimate concerns about their openness, price, and some legitimate concerns about functionality, but the typical slashdot attitude of "marketing", "reality distortions fields", "shiny", and "sheeple" just goes to show how out-of-touch the Slashdot bubble is. Acknowledge your opponents strengths, otherwise people think that you're just a delusional fool.
And let's face it: over the past three years or so, Apple hasn't released a single revolutionary product.
Look, I know it's popular here on Slashdot to act like there's nothing new under the sun, but this statement is wrong and disingenuous. Firstly, I note that you chose your period very carefully to leave out the iPhone. The iPhone really did change phones and handheld computers, Slashdot whinging notwithstanding. However, I suspect you are willing to concede that. In the last three years... well there's the fucking iPad (2010) for one. I mean, look guys, you can deny all you like, but this shit is changing the whole computing landscape. It's going to pretty much usher in the end of desktop computing as we know it for most people. The App Store (2008), was a revolutionary, microsoftware for the masses.
You may think these aren't revolutions because they aren't revolutionary enough for you on a technological level. But they are business and social revolutions.
You are joking, right? Please tell me you are joking!
Just adding to the chorus of "I like the awesome bar". Stupid name, but I like what it does.
There is a very loud bunch of people on Slashdot who hate it, but I suspect they are in a tiny minority.
If someone guessed the combination of my lock to my writing shed*, walked in, took photos of my private correspondence, and posted them on the internet in an attempt to discredit me, I'd sure as hell want them punished! And rightly so!
You would to, and you're a dirty rotten liar if you say otherwise.
*I don't have a writing shed, but I was trying to think of something you might protect with a combination lock.
Have you ever tried to find a real shop that you can go to an buy something on Google? Because it's next to impossible. Granted, I don't think Bing's any better in this regard, but Google's falling failing to live up to waht i want from a search engine. They are ripe for toppling.
Give DuckDuckGo a try. I've been pretty satisfied with the results so far (I've been using it for a couple weeks after getting totally sick of the link farms on Google). They seem to be pretty strong on privacy too, if you're into that.
I'm having the same problem adjusting to DuckDuckGo which I've switched to because I think Google's getting crap. I think it's returning better results than Google, and has a few neat features like disambiguation, but I've got so used to Wikipedia being the top or second hit for just about everything I'm finding it annoying.
I'm sure Microsoft marketing can come up with something catchy, like "There's an executable for that".
.Exe's are sexy.
Squirt your sexy .exe on my interface. ...I feel a bit sick now so I'll stop.
The iPod Touch would argue: yes.
In what context do you object to "ecosystem"? What word would you prefer we use for the system of biological interdependency?
This is interesting isn't it; modern CGI looks completely fake! In a couple of decades, we'll look back on this stuff and cringe. In a couple more decades, there will be people will watch it purely for the cheese factor.
Newfags can't triforce.
Put down that crack pipe dude, you'll set fire to your straw-men. I am encouraging climate change sceptics to do exactly what you're seem to be accusing me of wanting to get rid of--put their arguments in the fucking literature. I suspect the reason they aren't doing that is because they are full of crap, and their reasoning and evidence is faulty.
Arm waving about conspiracies among thousands of scientists is verging on batshit insane. I bet you wouldn't take that kind of bullshit argument from creationists, holocaust deniers, or HIV-AIDS deniers.
As an aside, I note that you seem to be a libertarian--could it be that you don't like the notion of a problem like this because it's very difficult to solve using your political ideology? I'm curious as to why libertarians seem to be so much more likely to be sceptical about this than other people.
Angry people... like you?
I am expressing an opinion that they should shut up of their own free will. I would not condone any action that would actually force them to do so, however. Take your straw-man elsewhere.
My position is pretty simple--being sceptical of a single new paper with surprising conclusions is perfectly sensible. You don't need to be an expert; single papers get knocked down all the time. Being sceptical of a hard-won scientific consensus, when there are large practical issues at hand, and withholding political consent for action is different. This, I think, morally requires you to do better than "gee, I'm not buyin' it" (or worse yet, as the post that set of this thread did, calling the scientific consensus "ridiculous" and "idiotic").
You know, I suspect you don't disagree with me, you just want an argument.
Being sceptical of one recent paper that hasn't been through much kind of scrutiny is quite a different thing to withholding political consent to do something about a looming environmental disaster that scientific consensus of thousands of scientists has been warning us about for years.
The time has come for anthropogenic global warming sceptics to put up or shut up. Either knock down the science in the journals, or shut the fuck up and let everyone else get on with doing something about the problem.
Uh huh, and I suppose you're a published researcher in a relevant field, and have published rebuttals to all the peer reviewed research that says ocean acidification is a result of increased atmospheric CO2?
No?
Better get on that.