No, she's a moron. There is a vital public interest in seeing that justice is done. Otherwise you wouldn't know about a poor guy in Florida who was convicted for possession of a number of oxycodone pills. The fact that he had a valid prescription from a licensed doctor and it was filled by a licensed pharmacist was irrelevant under Florida law (and the court followed the law). Without journalists, bloggers and other busybodies talking about it, the law won't get changed.
Do the journalists, bloggers and other busybodies need to know the name of the guy to talk about it ? This story is not about making court records secret; it's about removing the names of the accused from them. Instead of knowing that Jack B. Eggar got unjustly convicted, you'll know that Mr. X got unjustly convicted. The purpose of the public record is still fulfilled, while the negative side effects - such as not getting a job because you've been accused but found innocent of a crime - are greatly reduced.
In other words, this seems like a good idea, and I lean towards supporting it.
This breaks for customers who use any of several non-PC platforms such as Wii and iPod Touch/iPhone. Neither has a JVM.
The premise of this discussion was the need to design something completely new, which would replace HTTP and HTML in order to support easier to develop Web apps. Do you think that these platforms would have that something, if it doesn't have even something as common as the JVM ?
Compare the number of angry customers who use an obscure setup for which your JavaScript code breaks to the number of angry customers you'll get when Java applets don't work at all on several common setups.
I'd imagine it would still pale in comparison to people who wouldn't have Brave New Browser.
If you really need all that, you can have it right now: just make a web page that contain nothing but a Java applet that connects back to your server. See http://www.mudmagic.com/java-client/ for example.
That few people bother doing this implies to me that it isn't, in fact, widely needed.
HTTP is connectionless, but many applications don't make sense in a connectionless setting
Internet is connectionless. It is based on exchange of data packets. If you need connections, you have to emulate them over the underlying packet protocol; the only question is whether you do this on OS (TCP/IP) or application (session id's) level. Both work.
Client side privileges are difficult to control, and relying solely on the server for security is not always possible
Relying on a client for security is unbelievably stupid when that client is running on the machine possessed, owned and operated by the very entity the security is directed against. You either implement security in the server or not at all.
HTML/XML requests use more bandwidth than binary protocols, which strains slow connections (yes, some people still use dialup, especially mobile users, and here in America many mobile users still rely on 9.6kbps cell phone connections). *ML requests also include a lot of useless tags that describe the "document," even though it is really an RPC request.
How likely do you think those cellphones would support the new, non-browser webapp client ? Which, in all likelihood, would be geared towards presenting lots and lots and lots of graphics and animations, in the exact layout the graphics designer intended and damn the different resolutions ?
XMLHTTPRequest is not standardized across all browsers, and multiple copies of some sections of code must be sent, wasting even more bandwidth.
True. However, if you add a new contender, and it starts gaining popularity, Microsoft will simply publish their own, slightly incompatible client in an attempt to get lockdown, which will return us to the current situation.
Properly it should be called "model-view", there is no "controller". Internal representation of data the program operates on is the "model". Interface between program and everything outside provides "view". Program itself would exist regardless of someone calling it "controller" or not, because without a program nothing would be there to implement model, view, and their relationship, so their description would not be applicable to anything at all.
Suppose you have a webstore. The "model" would be the data sitting on a database, the "view" would be your browser, and the "controller" would be the web server.
Javascript is extremely useful to create large scale applications but most programmers are to much educated towards 'convetional' OO-programming to use it right.
Do you have any links to where one could learn to use it right ? Reading the source code of various web page scripts seems like a bad idea if most of them are done wrong.
Of course, it's possible that one day we'll have a real answer to the question of the weather on Alpha Centauri 5, but for now, we might as well just live our lives as if doesn't exist.
But if you do, the aliens from Alpha Centauri will get upset, and burn you with their heat vision, or so some of the factions say.
Meanwhile, another faction goes around telling everyone that Alpha Centauri doesn't have any planets, and only a lunatic would believe it does. This understandably doesn't sit well with the alleged lunatics, resulting in heated pissing matches on online forums, where members of all factions come up with twisted logic and weird analogues to argue their point. It usually degenerates into actual flamewar as soon as anyone dare suggest that these a-Centaurians have any beliefs regarding Alpha Centauri's planets, at which point they for whatever reason often assert that not collecting stamps is not a hobby.
All this is pretty amusing, in a twisted way. In fact it sometimes seems like an intelligently designed farce;).
and the US, having shed all its manufacturing ability, will have no economy left and will probably have to return to agriculture. Since that won't employ many people (ag is highly automated now), we're going to have people starving in the streets, and very likely a very bloody revolution since so many people have firearms here.
Actually, what will probably happen is that the US turns to the left - to socialism - as that allows feeding the unemployed population.
Of course, that high-tech agriculture needs money to run, so if the US truly goes bankrupt, it will be back to toiling the soil with your bare hands, dissolution of cities, etc. Such is the price of free market in a world where you can be outcompeted. I wonder if libertarian trolls will still keep on piping then.
But if the researchers moved the prey while the wasp was checking its burrow, it would reposition the prey and then check its burrow again. And it would repeat this as long as they kept moving it.
That is not an infinite loop, any more than you diving for cover every time bullets ricochet from the ground near you would be. To qualify as an infinite loop, you'd have to get the wasp to go between the prey and burrow ad infinitum without any further interference from your part.
We are only another species of organism. There's nothing special about us; at least, no more than any other species. We have big brains, so what? We almost became extinct 70,000 years ago despite our big brains.
And since then, we've bounced back from the brink, come to number over 6 billion, dominate this world, and are on the verge of colonizing others. I guess those big brains count for something after all, so there:p.
This is a good argument for selling the 'last mile' to consumers. Some companies are looking into selling the last mile to consumers or smaller communities that way they do not have to pay for the cost.
But if they do that, what if some nearby communities put a direct line between their networks ? That way they might communicate with each other - great for BitTorrent or shared news or mail servers, for example - without paying the company ! That's clearly communism !
This also would make a much better argument for net neutrality in consumers and communities owned the last mile.
Communities telling private business what to do, for the benefit of the people rather than the shareholders ? That's socialism !
No, the real question is, why would someone who calls himself the Candidate For Change, and who is proclaimed by all of his media talking point specialists as a staggering intellect, a man of science and reason and "progressive" thinking (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean), not use the opportunity of having the public spotlight to actually see about making it less fashionable to proclaim belief in the supernatural?
Perhaps because even intelligent people don't necessarily agree about things, especially when talking about the existence or nature of supernatural, which is by definition impossible to verify either way with science. It is possible to be intelligent and a man of science and still believe in supernatural; "intelligent" doesn't mean "thinks like I do".
A more cynical part of me suggests that he's using that intellect to predict the reactions to such proclamation, and has decided it would likely cost him more support than it'd gain.
How many of those 80% do you suppose just say that because of peer pressure? I expect it's a huge share of them.
You know, "I think they lied" is not a very convincing way of rebutting statistical data you don't like. Some might even suggest you're not being very scientific, and not looking at reality as it is, but rather through a filter;).
Everyone has filters that they see the world through. Which set are you using?
Here's an intereting notion: how about seeing it as it actually is, rather than filtering it? You could even consider seeing your candidates that way.
Sadly, that is impossible. At it's most fundamental known level the world is just a list of properties (spin, place, velocity, etc.) of various particles. Extracting any kind of useful data out of that requires interpreting them; for example, your ability to see is based on your brain interpreting the chemical changes in your retina as reflecting the energy of photons hitting it, while your ability to read this text is your brain interpreting certain patterns of black and white as equivalent to speech.
Basically, there is no objective reality beyond that fundamental level; everything besides the list of properties of basic particles is just you interpreting that list with a filter that gives you information you consider relevant. A photon in a particular state is in that state objectively, but a dead rabbit might be a curiosity, insignificant, or a meal, depending on who you ask; if it's been dead long enough, some might even argue that it isn't rabbit but dust.
This gets even worse with political candidates, because the very same candidate, who's message is understood and character and abilities judged in the exactly same way by two people, might be considered entirely differently by them, depending on the filter of what they consider desirable.
AT&T these days will let you block up to 10 numbers to a land line you can specify through your web account. Other services often will allow the same. It's kept a few of the more annoying telemarketers away from our house. I'm particularly tired of the political messages but I seem to have no legal recourse for those.
Hmm... With mobile phones doing Java these days, would it be possible to make a spam filter for them ? Something in the lines of blocking all the incoming calls from numbers which aren't in the phone's phonebook ?
Where the movie "Wag the dog" made a fake war to get the attention away from alleged sexual behavior of the president. "Wag the dog II" will be about the alleged sexual behavior of the president to get the attention away from war.
Speaking of sexuality, does this mean that the various networks who transmitted the gymnastic event are guilty of pandering to paedophiles ? I mean, they transmitted video of underage girls in tight clothes bending every way on public television.
There doesn't need to be any actual child pornography involved for a person to be put in prison; they simply have to believe, and make another person believe, that they possess child pornography. You can't get much closer to thought crime than that.
Yeah. Next you know, if you try to rob a bank but only get monopoly money, you'll still get punished.
First of all, before someone jumps in with the ever popular, "OMG, you're not worthy to question the high priests!" (err... "scientists"), the uncanny valley is just a hypothesis. A very compelling and well argued one, no doubt, but hardly a proven fact.
"Uncanny valley" is the term given to an observed phenomenon - the tendency of human beings to feel uneasy when encountering almost, but not completely, realistic depictions of human beings. As such, it is not a hypothesis, but an observation (which, of course, might still be incorrect); the attempts to explain it are.
Second, before I get into the meat of the argument, the points chosen to represent it are highly debatable. E.g., is a zombie scary because of being close enough to the real thing to fall in the "uncanny valley", or because of the whole cultural meaning of death, undeath, corpses, etc?
Personally, I'd go with the "things which try to kill and eat you are scary" theory;).
Or let's take a game with zombies. They look gross, right? Because, we're told, they're in the Uncanny Valley. Well, let's reduce the polygon counts and texture resolution a bit. Make them pixelated or cartoonish. Add some cell shading. Hmm, nope, sorry they're not really cute anyway.
They don't look gross because they're in the Uncanny Valley, they look gross because they have lots of blood and gore on them and chunks of flesh missing or rotting. But I'd say that one reason why zombies are often depicted with stiff, "zombie-like" walk is that humans don't walk that way, so it looks creepy, despite it logically making the zombie slower and thus less dangerous.
And there has, in fact, been "cute" zombies, born from the twisted imaginations of Japanese doujin artists of course. Google for "Cute lovable zombie attack", it's positively heart-warming. "Uups, my noodles fell out" 8|.
Maybe it's just a case that for every complex problem there's a solution which is simple, elegant and _wrong_. In this case, it's the uncanny valley.
Except, of course, the uncanny valley is not the solution, it is the problem.
Yes we do NOTICE it when a seemingly realistic thing behaves unrealistic but I have the same sense when I see a car in a computer cut scene that doesn't obey the laws of physics and for instance slides.
It has nothing to do with the uncanny valley, if a real human being was holding a glass of water that didn't spill when tipped over you would get the same feeling.
We know how things work and when they don't we get upset. The trick that cartoons and such pull is that they say right up front by their looks that they are not real and therefor things don't have to work as we expect it.
This has everything to do with the uncanny valley, in fact it is the very definition of uncanny valley: you see something which looks almost like a human, but there's something wrong, whether it is the expressions, physics, body language, or whatever.
People get nervous when things don't work the way they should. With computer-generated photorealistic animation the result is called "the uncanny valley".
A common criticism was that the human beings were real enough to inspire comfort for long enough that one would be then shaken by their lack of certain flexibility and the bloodlessness of their faces.
What got me was how there was something wrong with inertia. When a huge soldier guy jumped out of a vehicle (or down the stairs - can't remember exactly) there was something wrong in the motion, like he weighted a lot less than he should had.
There's nothing to suggest our species isn't capable of maintaining a sufficient level of voluntary reproduction in the absence of rape, nor that it ever was incapable of it.
Well, for the sake of pedantry: if we take the view that any sexual act with someone without a normal adult humans mental facilities constitutes statutory rape, then it follows that any sexual reproduction prior to humanity reaching its current level of intelligence was rape.
Ah, but we can't see the source or recompile it. Only someone with the username "God" has any access to the CVS repository. And it supposedly takes days to compile modreality.
Sure you can, from any physics textbook, but you have to provide your own mainframe to run it.
Which is probably a good thing, considering some of the things people do to Sims.
Seriously, when did we decide as a society that we had to provide free public toilets to everyone?
When someone realized that piles of crap on the streets act as incubators for epidemics, I'd imagine. Then again, ancient Romans had public toilets too without having any idea about the germ theory, so maybe it has more to do with smell ?
This is just getting ridiculous.
Yes, it is. The problem is: are you an actual libertarian, or are you a troll parodying one ? It's hard to tell, with the movement being as ridiculous as it is...
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that you need a SHITLOAD of it. A ton is a drop in a floating oil spill, so to say.
Do the journalists, bloggers and other busybodies need to know the name of the guy to talk about it ? This story is not about making court records secret; it's about removing the names of the accused from them. Instead of knowing that Jack B. Eggar got unjustly convicted, you'll know that Mr. X got unjustly convicted. The purpose of the public record is still fulfilled, while the negative side effects - such as not getting a job because you've been accused but found innocent of a crime - are greatly reduced.
In other words, this seems like a good idea, and I lean towards supporting it.
The premise of this discussion was the need to design something completely new, which would replace HTTP and HTML in order to support easier to develop Web apps. Do you think that these platforms would have that something, if it doesn't have even something as common as the JVM ?
I'd imagine it would still pale in comparison to people who wouldn't have Brave New Browser.
If you really need all that, you can have it right now: just make a web page that contain nothing but a Java applet that connects back to your server. See http://www.mudmagic.com/java-client/ for example.
That few people bother doing this implies to me that it isn't, in fact, widely needed.
Internet is connectionless. It is based on exchange of data packets. If you need connections, you have to emulate them over the underlying packet protocol; the only question is whether you do this on OS (TCP/IP) or application (session id's) level. Both work.
Relying on a client for security is unbelievably stupid when that client is running on the machine possessed, owned and operated by the very entity the security is directed against. You either implement security in the server or not at all.
How likely do you think those cellphones would support the new, non-browser webapp client ? Which, in all likelihood, would be geared towards presenting lots and lots and lots of graphics and animations, in the exact layout the graphics designer intended and damn the different resolutions ?
True. However, if you add a new contender, and it starts gaining popularity, Microsoft will simply publish their own, slightly incompatible client in an attempt to get lockdown, which will return us to the current situation.
Suppose you have a webstore. The "model" would be the data sitting on a database, the "view" would be your browser, and the "controller" would be the web server.
Do you have any links to where one could learn to use it right ? Reading the source code of various web page scripts seems like a bad idea if most of them are done wrong.
But if you do, the aliens from Alpha Centauri will get upset, and burn you with their heat vision, or so some of the factions say.
Meanwhile, another faction goes around telling everyone that Alpha Centauri doesn't have any planets, and only a lunatic would believe it does. This understandably doesn't sit well with the alleged lunatics, resulting in heated pissing matches on online forums, where members of all factions come up with twisted logic and weird analogues to argue their point. It usually degenerates into actual flamewar as soon as anyone dare suggest that these a-Centaurians have any beliefs regarding Alpha Centauri's planets, at which point they for whatever reason often assert that not collecting stamps is not a hobby.
All this is pretty amusing, in a twisted way. In fact it sometimes seems like an intelligently designed farce ;).
Actually, what will probably happen is that the US turns to the left - to socialism - as that allows feeding the unemployed population.
Of course, that high-tech agriculture needs money to run, so if the US truly goes bankrupt, it will be back to toiling the soil with your bare hands, dissolution of cities, etc. Such is the price of free market in a world where you can be outcompeted. I wonder if libertarian trolls will still keep on piping then.
I guess that explains recent news.
That is not an infinite loop, any more than you diving for cover every time bullets ricochet from the ground near you would be. To qualify as an infinite loop, you'd have to get the wasp to go between the prey and burrow ad infinitum without any further interference from your part.
And since then, we've bounced back from the brink, come to number over 6 billion, dominate this world, and are on the verge of colonizing others. I guess those big brains count for something after all, so there :p.
But if they do that, what if some nearby communities put a direct line between their networks ? That way they might communicate with each other - great for BitTorrent or shared news or mail servers, for example - without paying the company ! That's clearly communism !
Communities telling private business what to do, for the benefit of the people rather than the shareholders ? That's socialism !
Perhaps because even intelligent people don't necessarily agree about things, especially when talking about the existence or nature of supernatural, which is by definition impossible to verify either way with science. It is possible to be intelligent and a man of science and still believe in supernatural; "intelligent" doesn't mean "thinks like I do".
A more cynical part of me suggests that he's using that intellect to predict the reactions to such proclamation, and has decided it would likely cost him more support than it'd gain.
You know, "I think they lied" is not a very convincing way of rebutting statistical data you don't like. Some might even suggest you're not being very scientific, and not looking at reality as it is, but rather through a filter ;).
Sadly, that is impossible. At it's most fundamental known level the world is just a list of properties (spin, place, velocity, etc.) of various particles. Extracting any kind of useful data out of that requires interpreting them; for example, your ability to see is based on your brain interpreting the chemical changes in your retina as reflecting the energy of photons hitting it, while your ability to read this text is your brain interpreting certain patterns of black and white as equivalent to speech.
Basically, there is no objective reality beyond that fundamental level; everything besides the list of properties of basic particles is just you interpreting that list with a filter that gives you information you consider relevant. A photon in a particular state is in that state objectively, but a dead rabbit might be a curiosity, insignificant, or a meal, depending on who you ask; if it's been dead long enough, some might even argue that it isn't rabbit but dust.
This gets even worse with political candidates, because the very same candidate, who's message is understood and character and abilities judged in the exactly same way by two people, might be considered entirely differently by them, depending on the filter of what they consider desirable.
No, because it isn't marketing anything, it's simply informing you on the progress of a priorly started transaction.
Hmm... With mobile phones doing Java these days, would it be possible to make a spam filter for them ? Something in the lines of blocking all the incoming calls from numbers which aren't in the phone's phonebook ?
Speaking of sexuality, does this mean that the various networks who transmitted the gymnastic event are guilty of pandering to paedophiles ? I mean, they transmitted video of underage girls in tight clothes bending every way on public television.
Yeah. Next you know, if you try to rob a bank but only get monopoly money, you'll still get punished.
And what of us who still dress at 30 like we did in high school ?-)
"Uncanny valley" is the term given to an observed phenomenon - the tendency of human beings to feel uneasy when encountering almost, but not completely, realistic depictions of human beings. As such, it is not a hypothesis, but an observation (which, of course, might still be incorrect); the attempts to explain it are.
Personally, I'd go with the "things which try to kill and eat you are scary" theory ;).
They don't look gross because they're in the Uncanny Valley, they look gross because they have lots of blood and gore on them and chunks of flesh missing or rotting. But I'd say that one reason why zombies are often depicted with stiff, "zombie-like" walk is that humans don't walk that way, so it looks creepy, despite it logically making the zombie slower and thus less dangerous.
And there has, in fact, been "cute" zombies, born from the twisted imaginations of Japanese doujin artists of course. Google for "Cute lovable zombie attack", it's positively heart-warming. "Uups, my noodles fell out" 8|.
Except, of course, the uncanny valley is not the solution, it is the problem.
This has everything to do with the uncanny valley, in fact it is the very definition of uncanny valley: you see something which looks almost like a human, but there's something wrong, whether it is the expressions, physics, body language, or whatever.
People get nervous when things don't work the way they should. With computer-generated photorealistic animation the result is called "the uncanny valley".
What got me was how there was something wrong with inertia. When a huge soldier guy jumped out of a vehicle (or down the stairs - can't remember exactly) there was something wrong in the motion, like he weighted a lot less than he should had.
Scientists are supposed to be creepy ;).
Well, for the sake of pedantry: if we take the view that any sexual act with someone without a normal adult humans mental facilities constitutes statutory rape, then it follows that any sexual reproduction prior to humanity reaching its current level of intelligence was rape.
Sure you can, from any physics textbook, but you have to provide your own mainframe to run it.
Which is probably a good thing, considering some of the things people do to Sims.
When someone realized that piles of crap on the streets act as incubators for epidemics, I'd imagine. Then again, ancient Romans had public toilets too without having any idea about the germ theory, so maybe it has more to do with smell ?
Yes, it is. The problem is: are you an actual libertarian, or are you a troll parodying one ? It's hard to tell, with the movement being as ridiculous as it is...