Simulating real-world devices to make computers more usable is a common idea, but not a very good one. Physical devices have lots of limitations and painful user interfaces (sometimes literally). Have a look at IBM's attempt at this. Some of the best attempts at using 3D as part of regular user interfaces probably come from these people; you can judge for yourself whether their user interfaces are useful.
These kinds of attempts at general-purpose 3D user interfaces have the smell of failure--companies desparately trying to look "hip" and "modern", but without anything real to show for it. To me, it's an indication how far behind Sun really is. Good user interfaces should be unsurprising, simple, fast, and use the medium they are presented on well. In the case of computers, that's a 2D, low-resolution, high color depth screen. Design for the medium.
I'm curious how it could be legal to use windows for an atm machine. It seems to me that a windows machine can't possibly be made trustworthy (in the "verification of what's running" way), and therefore is just a network break-in waiting to happen.
Why would it not be legal? Your bank isn't required to make their machines trustworthy or secure. They have to credit your money back if someone else took it out of your account, but that's all. And good luck proving that.
ATMs not connected to the Internet and without keyboard are pretty much unhackable unless you can pry open the case and attach a keyboard and/or wireless connection.
Ah, security through lack-of-keyboard.
Lack of a keyboard is a nuisance, but doesn't prevent people from operating the machine or breaking in. For example, Windows has an on-screen keyboard. Even if it doesn't, you can cut-and-paste text (a character at a time) from some other application. And there is probably special ATM maintenance software installed on those machines as well, which can likely be operated through the touch screen (since it is intended to be used by technicians).
Thank you for illustrating again how naive many people are about security.
This machine is indeed massive overkill, but the economics are that a desktop PC is about the cheapest computer out there
But it doesn't have to run Windows. It could run Linux or UNIX, in which case they could continue to run the old UNIX-based software. Or they could put any of a number of embedded POSIX-based systems in there.
There are drivers for everything, and software development will be cheaper because windows programmers are more available than embedded programmers.
Thing is, its easier to code up a quick ATM script in Flash or something,
No, it isn't.
than it is to design a whole "lean and mean" super customized secure embedded system from scratch, then code up some basic OS and development tools for it, and THEN do the interface in some obscure language with crappy libs.
There is nothing to "design" and nothing "obscure". People used to build these kinds of applications for mainframes and UNIX systems all the time and there are tons of tools for them.
The display traditionally was done using monospaced fonts. It is far easier and quicker to design a usable interactive program using a sequence of text screens than to build a usable interactive Flash application.
Yes, and as I was saying: deal with it. There just isn't a good alternative: whining isn't going to change things, and lobbying for stronger copyright enforcement is likely going to backfire.
Small companies need to figure out how to market and sell their products so as to avoid piracy. It's hard. Life sucks sometimes.
Sorry, I don't think any of those people have much credibility left: they have been in the business for decades, they have had enormous name recognition. We have seen the kind of software they produce. If they knew how to do better, they have had more opportunities than anybody else to fix it. I think it's time to listen to someone else.
Unfortunately, little do they realise, that the opposite is happening! Instead, rampant software theft benefits the 100 stone gorillas at the expense of new products that would otherwise be able to compete on price and features,
And if it wasn't unlicensed copying, it would be loss leaders and differential pricing from the big guys. The big guys just have more money to absorb costs and losses, to price their product aggressively, and to get their product out there. Either way, the small players have an extra hurdle. But small players also have some advantages.
One thing is certain: whining about piracy isn't going to help; small players need to figure out how to survive in the market as it is.
And small players should also be aware that stronger "copyright enforcement" is probably going to hurt them in the long run: the more widely accepted DRM schemes and raids on users become, the harder it will be for small players to get their product to market and for users to install and use it safely.
Knowing Java is very different from knowing programming. If you can't do a complex project in Java you can't do a complex project in any language
This "languages don't matter" argument comes up again and again, and it is bogus. Yes, you do need to know programming in order to do well at programming, but that is not sufficient. You also need to know a language and its libraries inside and out in order to be able to design and implement large projects in it effectively.
HR is far too hung up on what you have already done, not realizing that the data structures and algorithms are what counts, and they are the same in any language.
In most real-world applications, algorithms and data structures are irrelevant: all the algorithms and data structures needed are implemented either in the standard library or the underlying database. The time isn't far off in which knowledge of algorithms and data structures will be about as relevant to 99% of the programmers as knowledge of VLSI design. That may be sad, but it is the way things are going.
buzzwords rule the market from the big business' point of view.
Java did represent an important step for industry beyond C++: it was the first widely accepted language with runtime safety, garbage collection, and reflection. Those aren't just buzzwords, they make a real difference.
On the other hand, Java has failed to keep up: Sun's irrational insistence on insulating programmers from the underlying platform, their intellectual property claims and licensing strategy over Java, and their failure to evolve the language mean that Java has remained a poor choice for many applications.
C# improves over Java in several of these areas: it is "just" a language (Microsoft actually doesn't seem to want you to use third party.NET implementations they don't control), it is an open standard, it has excellent facilities for interfacing efficiently with native code, and it addresses some serious limitations of the Java language. This is progress. However, even C# is still years behind the state of the art in programming language technologies.
However, those who really know their stuff normally stick to the older languages... hype is good in some ways, but in the grand scheme of things, it's the older, better stuff that will prevail.
You mean, older languages like Lisp, Modula-3, CLU, Smalltalk-80, Algol-68, Prolog, and Scheme?
Or do you mean older languages like Visual Basic, C, and Fortran?
There are good, well-designed older languages, and there are poorly designed older languages. Many people seem to stick with poorly designed older languages out of habit and because they don't know any better.
If you are referring to C and C++, they are, in fact, relative newcomers as far as languages go, and they represent a significant step back over the languages that preceded them. And both C and C++ were enormously overhyped at their time.
Mainstream science, however, is all about proof, and if you don't have it, you get reamed. If you rely on unstated assumptions that turn out to be false, you get reamed. If you make errors, you get reamed when someone double-checks your work
You are wonderfully naive about how real, main-stream science works.
At the fringes, yes
No, not just at the fringes--core, mainstream science is driven by personality, ego, unproven assertions, fashion, popularity, and other irrational considerations. The way in which a proof is presented is more important than whether it is actually correct. Scientists are no more critical thinkers than any other profession.
Seriously. Show me an unfounded belief, error, or unstated assumption that has stuck around in physics, chemistry, biology, or any other scientific field for a signifigant period of time. Something that is clearly and demonstrably false, yet which the mainstream community refuses to correct. Good luck.
Have a look here. Lounesto looked at Clifford algebras because that's what he was an expert on, but his experience is pretty representative.
People like this nutcase must be debunked for the damage they do to serious astronomy.
As opposed to the nutcases who think our lives are run by an invisible, all-powerful being? The nutcases who talk ("pray") to invisible beings nightly? The nutcases who go out and start holy wars or burn people at the stake because invisible beings told them to? The nutcases that believe that when they die, they'll go to some really nice place, or maybe some really hot place, or some other place in between?
There are a lot of nutcases out there. The variety of nutcase that claims that there is intelligent life on Mars seems benign compared to the variety of nutcase that we have in our governments, churches, synagogues, and mosques. And it's the religious nutcases that are responsible for millions of deaths. Start with something that matters: debunk the religious nutcases first. The few nutcases that claim that there is life on Mars simply aren't a problem.
This sort of thing simply exemplifies the sad state of science education in the general public. People when presented with the most superficial of data will adopt as truth the most extreme or absurd of claims with no critical assessment.
I don't think it's a question of science education. Just look at how easy it was for this guy to pull the wool over the eyes of most of the solid state physics community. Science is full of dogma, unfounded beliefs, lack of proof, unstated assumptions, errors, etc. And science education usually does no more to address these problems than other academic disciplines.
Most people are gullible and don't think critically, whether they are scientists or not. The education system could help with that. But teaching critical thinking isn't tied to any particular subject: you can teach critical thinking in subjects like literature, history, philosophy, economics, or even physical education. All of those have assumptions that can be challenged and problems people can think through for themselves.
Science, if anything, is probably a bad subject to teach critical thinking because there is so much complexity to be mastered before you can even start thinking for yourself. Students can reasonably discuss different approaches to historical analysis without years of education because they can relate to it; students cannot meaningfully discuss the foundations of quantum mechanics or the meaning of general relativity or the possibility of the existence of life on other planets because that takes an enormous background of scientific knowledge and skills.
is its user community: anybody who says that Apple is less than perfect is moderated as a "Troll". That kind of blind zealotry in its user community usually happens with companies that are in serious trouble. Thanks for reinforcing my point.
I still think OS X is going to save Apple. [...] Ever since, I have been estatic about its performance, beauty, and stability.
Little of that is related to the underlying technology: Mach, Objective-C, and DisplayPDF don't make the Mac any faster, more beautiful, or stable. Performance is achieved through tuning, beauty through design, and stability through testing and using better tools.
Does the Mac have an advantage there? I don't think so. I suspect on most objective measures, Linux, X11, and Windows XP beat Mach and DisplayPDF in terms of performance. The use of scalable graphics in Gnome, KDE, and Windows allows them to look beautiful (and there are lots of beautiful themes for all those platforms). And Linux and Windows XP are both very stable. If anything, the tools that are becoming mainstream on Linux and Windows these days (Render, SVG, C#, GDI+, etc.) are technologically better than what OS X is based on.
What the Mac offers is simple answers: if you buy it, you know you are getting a certain level of quality and performance without having to think about it much. That level of quality and performance is arguably worse than what you would get out of Windows or Linux if you knew what to choose, but with Apple, you don't have to think about it much.
But don't mistake Apple's good branding strategy and good product strategy with good technology: technologically, Apple has little if anything that its competitors don't have, usually in better form.
How many tech companies (which were media darlings) imploded during the Dot-Bomb? Apple wasn't among them and they've been "Dying Since 1976".
Not at all. Until the late 1980's, Apple was a hot company. Their products had enormous impact in the market and Apple was perceived as an innovator.
The first problem appeared when Apple tried to assert ownership of all GUIs, in particular against Microsoft. This backfired because it became clear to many people that Apple didn't, in fact, invent most of the things they claimed ownership to. It also made Apple pretty hated in the (then pretty small) free software movement.
I think Apple has indeed been going downhill since then. In the mid-90's, they killed their research labs. A little later, they threw out their core technologies, because they had deteriorated to the point of being a drag on the company, and switched to NeXT's software platform.
What does Apple have these days? An OS and GUI essentially based on oddball 1980's technology (Mach, Objective-C). But because developers aren't taking to that in great numbers, they are also throwing in C++ toolkits and Apple-specific Java. That doesn't look like enough to succeed in the market in the long run.
What should Apple do? They need to become even more mainstream and standards-based. For example, X11 should become an OS X API on equal footing with Quartz and Carbon, so that people can develop in the toolkits they like and are used to. Objective-C, Cocoa, and Mach should probably be de-emphasized--I don't think they have a future.
In the long term, I think Apple should aim to have everything from X11 on down (command line, servers, kernel) to be standard Linux and add value with what they are good at: graphic design, hardware design and packaging, sales, documentation, and small end-user applications. That is, what I think Apple could become and thrive at in the long term is a consumer Linux-system vendor with their own desktop environment, but based on X11 so that it actually allows Gnome, KDE, and other applications to be run. But I think there is so much prejudice and attitude within Apple and the Apple community that that isn't going to happen.
Yes, but IrDA can be shielded predictably and easily. For example, most bags and pockets will shield an IrDA transmitter very well. And for communications between a stationary and a handheld device, you can have a simple black hood under which the user holds the device: it's simple yet gives a lot of extra security.
RF shielding is much harder in comparison, in particular if you want the resulting shield still to allow convenient user access.
People have known for thousands of years how to build buildings that stay pleasantly cool on hot days. So, if you want to do something environmentally friendly, design and build your house accordingly. A good architect and landscaper should be able to advise you.
There are also some things you can do after the building has been built, like planting trees, improving insulation, and putting reflective coatings on your windows. If you have lots of space in your yard, you can also use a bed of rocks together with some kind of ventilation system as heat storage, cooling your house during the day and warming it at night.
If that isn't enough and you just can't cope with the remaining heat, then you might as well do what everybody else is doing: install air conditioning and pay the power company. It seems doubtful that any kind of solar-energy drive air conditioner would, on balance, be more environmentally friendly than that anyway.
Goovy is an excellent language. And in case it gains momentum like one has written here, there is no doubt that people will port it to Parrot and the Python VM just like Python is ported to the JVM.
It is the stated goal of Groovy to be a dynamic and scripting language for Java (see here). That is, its design is driven by the needs of Java developers and adapted closely to the Java environment.
Maybe it will be ported to other platforms, but Groovy will then be as foreign on those other platforms as something like Jython may seem to Java developers.
Well, my main point answering in the first line to one of your posts was: you simply seem not to have looked at "Groovy the Language" at all.
Sure, I have. It's just another run-of-the-mill scripting language. The only significant distinction is that, so far, it seems particularly tied to the JVM.
Second I like to point out: Writing a Python compiler for the JVM is as trivial as writing a Python compiler to the PVM. Funny is: You start in a pure Python environment and use the Python compiler which is written in Python to generate Java Byte Code. Then you compile just that Python compiler with itself into Java Byte Code. Now you only need a Python class loader which compiles with that new compiler the on demand loaded python classes to the Python/Java mixed environment.
Getting Python to run well on the JVM is a major effort because the two object models are so different, and it requires much more effort than simply "compiling". In short, you simply don't know what you are talking about.
Why dont you keep your discussion straight? First you doubt groovy is worth it and you argue Python is better somehow.
I didn't argue that the Python language is better. Both Python and Groovy are boring as languages. The only significant difference between the two is the of user communities and implementations. Python has a large, existing user community and it has an implementation that is not tied to the JVM.
Now you start arguing with open source... where is the relation?
You asked about the difference between the JVM and the PVM. The biggest difference is the license and the patents (the PVM is free and open, the JVM isn't). (There are also significant technical differences--the PVM is a dynamically typed runtime, supports multiple inheritance, and supports dynamic changes to objects; the JVM does not).
Bluetooth has a usable range up to 300ft (there are also specs for 30ft and 3ft); it is commonly used for laptops and handhelds to connect to modems, printers, GPS receivers, and access points from across the room. Something that has a range of only a foot or so won't compete there.
I don't see much use for these new short-range wireless technologies--they aren't short-range enough to use their range limitations for security, and they aren't long-range enough to move into Bluetooth territory. Furthermore, there are short-range versions of Bluetooth.
For secure communications, IrDA would still be a better choice. For anything else, you might as well use Bluetooth.
But, hey, with enough marketing and sales muscle, these companies will probably manage to force another proprietary standard upon us, whether it is a good idea or not.
I also do not really see the difference between running a PVM or a JVM (python virtual machine versus java virtual machine).
Well, unlike Sun's Java runtime (which is the only one that counts), the Python runtime is open source. Furthermore, the Python runtime takes a fraction of the amount of memory of the Java runtime.
Goovy is an excellent language. And in case it gains momentum like one has written here, there is no doubt that people will port it to Parrot and the Python VM just like Python is ported to the JVM.
The Python port to the JVM was a fluke--it only works so well because someone really smart spent a lot of time on making it happen. If anybody ever creates a non-JVM implementation of Groovy, then it may become more than a niche language. But I wouldn't bet anything on that happening.
The poster was looking for information you essentially called him a moron for buying a piece of hardware that wasn't fully open.
Yes, I did. And by buying devices using proprietary formats, he not only hurt himself, he also hurt everybody else, by keeping companies using proprietary formats in business.
I like my device, and while I would love to be able to find a *nix version of software for it, I am not complaining or stating that *nix is awful because it doesn't support it.
The fault is not with UNIX, it is with your device vendor: the vendor of your device keeps the format closed. And the fault is with you by keeping companies like that in business.
It was their own choice, however, they are asking for help. Throw it out and buy something open doesn't seem to be an answer to their question.
It is, in fact, the only answer to their question: the format isn't closed and proprietary by accident, it is closed and proprietary because Sony wants it to be. The only way to circumvent Sony's restriction is by breaking the law. So, the choices come down to: (1) live with the current situation, (2) break the law, or (3) throw it out. Given that (1) seems not to be acceptable and we don't recommend (2), that only leaves (3).
Throw out the Sony player and buy something that uses an open format. If you buy something using a proprietary encoding format, it was your own choice.
.Net will continue to gain ground solely because of microsoft's promotional dollars, regardless of its merits as a language.
C# and the CLR will gain ground because they really do have considerable more technical merit than Java. They will also gain ground because there is a complete open source implementation available (there aren't for Java)..NET is a set of Microsoft-proprietary APIs. It will gain ground because Java doesn't address the needs of Windows programmers as well. Windows programmers aren't going to put up with Java if it doesn't solve their problems as well (which it doesn't).
Slashdot Mirror
Simulating real-world devices to make computers more usable is a common idea, but not a very good one. Physical devices have lots of limitations and painful user interfaces (sometimes literally). Have a look at IBM's attempt at this. Some of the best attempts at using 3D as part of regular user interfaces probably come from these people; you can judge for yourself whether their user interfaces are useful.
These kinds of attempts at general-purpose 3D user interfaces have the smell of failure--companies desparately trying to look "hip" and "modern", but without anything real to show for it. To me, it's an indication how far behind Sun really is. Good user interfaces should be unsurprising, simple, fast, and use the medium they are presented on well. In the case of computers, that's a 2D, low-resolution, high color depth screen. Design for the medium.
I'm curious how it could be legal to use windows for an atm machine. It seems to me that a windows machine can't possibly be made trustworthy (in the "verification of what's running" way), and therefore is just a network break-in waiting to happen.
Why would it not be legal? Your bank isn't required to make their machines trustworthy or secure. They have to credit your money back if someone else took it out of your account, but that's all. And good luck proving that.
ATMs not connected to the Internet and without keyboard are pretty much unhackable unless you can pry open the case and attach a keyboard and/or wireless connection.
Ah, security through lack-of-keyboard.
Lack of a keyboard is a nuisance, but doesn't prevent people from operating the machine or breaking in. For example, Windows has an on-screen keyboard. Even if it doesn't, you can cut-and-paste text (a character at a time) from some other application. And there is probably special ATM maintenance software installed on those machines as well, which can likely be operated through the touch screen (since it is intended to be used by technicians).
Thank you for illustrating again how naive many people are about security.
This machine is indeed massive overkill, but the economics are that a desktop PC is about the cheapest computer out there
But it doesn't have to run Windows. It could run Linux or UNIX, in which case they could continue to run the old UNIX-based software. Or they could put any of a number of embedded POSIX-based systems in there.
There are drivers for everything, and software development will be cheaper because windows programmers are more available than embedded programmers.
Yes, and this story shows you why.
Thing is, its easier to code up a quick ATM script in Flash or something,
No, it isn't.
than it is to design a whole "lean and mean" super customized secure embedded system from scratch, then code up some basic OS and development tools for it, and THEN do the interface in some obscure language with crappy libs.
There is nothing to "design" and nothing "obscure". People used to build these kinds of applications for mainframes and UNIX systems all the time and there are tons of tools for them.
The display traditionally was done using monospaced fonts. It is far easier and quicker to design a usable interactive program using a sequence of text screens than to build a usable interactive Flash application.
Yes, and as I was saying: deal with it. There just isn't a good alternative: whining isn't going to change things, and lobbying for stronger copyright enforcement is likely going to backfire.
Small companies need to figure out how to market and sell their products so as to avoid piracy. It's hard. Life sucks sometimes.
Sorry, I don't think any of those people have much credibility left: they have been in the business for decades, they have had enormous name recognition. We have seen the kind of software they produce. If they knew how to do better, they have had more opportunities than anybody else to fix it. I think it's time to listen to someone else.
Unfortunately, little do they realise, that the opposite is happening! Instead, rampant software theft benefits the 100 stone gorillas at the expense of new products that would otherwise be able to compete on price and features,
And if it wasn't unlicensed copying, it would be loss leaders and differential pricing from the big guys. The big guys just have more money to absorb costs and losses, to price their product aggressively, and to get their product out there. Either way, the small players have an extra hurdle. But small players also have some advantages.
One thing is certain: whining about piracy isn't going to help; small players need to figure out how to survive in the market as it is.
And small players should also be aware that stronger "copyright enforcement" is probably going to hurt them in the long run: the more widely accepted DRM schemes and raids on users become, the harder it will be for small players to get their product to market and for users to install and use it safely.
Knowing Java is very different from knowing programming. If you can't do a complex project in Java you can't do a complex project in any language
This "languages don't matter" argument comes up again and again, and it is bogus. Yes, you do need to know programming in order to do well at programming, but that is not sufficient. You also need to know a language and its libraries inside and out in order to be able to design and implement large projects in it effectively.
HR is far too hung up on what you have already done, not realizing that the data structures and algorithms are what counts, and they are the same in any language.
In most real-world applications, algorithms and data structures are irrelevant: all the algorithms and data structures needed are implemented either in the standard library or the underlying database. The time isn't far off in which knowledge of algorithms and data structures will be about as relevant to 99% of the programmers as knowledge of VLSI design. That may be sad, but it is the way things are going.
buzzwords rule the market from the big business' point of view.
.NET implementations they don't control), it is an open standard, it has excellent facilities for interfacing efficiently with native code, and it addresses some serious limitations of the Java language. This is progress. However, even C# is still years behind the state of the art in programming language technologies.
Java did represent an important step for industry beyond C++: it was the first widely accepted language with runtime safety, garbage collection, and reflection. Those aren't just buzzwords, they make a real difference.
On the other hand, Java has failed to keep up: Sun's irrational insistence on insulating programmers from the underlying platform, their intellectual property claims and licensing strategy over Java, and their failure to evolve the language mean that Java has remained a poor choice for many applications.
C# improves over Java in several of these areas: it is "just" a language (Microsoft actually doesn't seem to want you to use third party
However, those who really know their stuff normally stick to the older languages... hype is good in some ways, but in the grand scheme of things, it's the older, better stuff that will prevail.
You mean, older languages like Lisp, Modula-3, CLU, Smalltalk-80, Algol-68, Prolog, and Scheme?
Or do you mean older languages like Visual Basic, C, and Fortran?
There are good, well-designed older languages, and there are poorly designed older languages. Many people seem to stick with poorly designed older languages out of habit and because they don't know any better.
If you are referring to C and C++, they are, in fact, relative newcomers as far as languages go, and they represent a significant step back over the languages that preceded them. And both C and C++ were enormously overhyped at their time.
Mainstream science, however, is all about proof, and if you don't have it, you get reamed. If you rely on unstated assumptions that turn out to be false, you get reamed. If you make errors, you get reamed when someone double-checks your work
You are wonderfully naive about how real, main-stream science works.
At the fringes, yes
No, not just at the fringes--core, mainstream science is driven by personality, ego, unproven assertions, fashion, popularity, and other irrational considerations. The way in which a proof is presented is more important than whether it is actually correct. Scientists are no more critical thinkers than any other profession.
Seriously. Show me an unfounded belief, error, or unstated assumption that has stuck around in physics, chemistry, biology, or any other scientific field for a signifigant period of time. Something that is clearly and demonstrably false, yet which the mainstream community refuses to correct. Good luck.
Have a look here. Lounesto looked at Clifford algebras because that's what he was an expert on, but his experience is pretty representative.
People like this nutcase must be debunked for the damage they do to serious astronomy.
As opposed to the nutcases who think our lives are run by an invisible, all-powerful being? The nutcases who talk ("pray") to invisible beings nightly? The nutcases who go out and start holy wars or burn people at the stake because invisible beings told them to? The nutcases that believe that when they die, they'll go to some really nice place, or maybe some really hot place, or some other place in between?
There are a lot of nutcases out there. The variety of nutcase that claims that there is intelligent life on Mars seems benign compared to the variety of nutcase that we have in our governments, churches, synagogues, and mosques. And it's the religious nutcases that are responsible for millions of deaths. Start with something that matters: debunk the religious nutcases first. The few nutcases that claim that there is life on Mars simply aren't a problem.
This sort of thing simply exemplifies the sad state of science education in the general public. People when presented with the most superficial of data will adopt as truth the most extreme or absurd of claims with no critical assessment.
I don't think it's a question of science education. Just look at how easy it was for this guy to pull the wool over the eyes of most of the solid state physics community. Science is full of dogma, unfounded beliefs, lack of proof, unstated assumptions, errors, etc. And science education usually does no more to address these problems than other academic disciplines.
Most people are gullible and don't think critically, whether they are scientists or not. The education system could help with that. But teaching critical thinking isn't tied to any particular subject: you can teach critical thinking in subjects like literature, history, philosophy, economics, or even physical education. All of those have assumptions that can be challenged and problems people can think through for themselves.
Science, if anything, is probably a bad subject to teach critical thinking because there is so much complexity to be mastered before you can even start thinking for yourself. Students can reasonably discuss different approaches to historical analysis without years of education because they can relate to it; students cannot meaningfully discuss the foundations of quantum mechanics or the meaning of general relativity or the possibility of the existence of life on other planets because that takes an enormous background of scientific knowledge and skills.
is its user community: anybody who says that Apple is less than perfect is moderated as a "Troll". That kind of blind zealotry in its user community usually happens with companies that are in serious trouble. Thanks for reinforcing my point.
I still think OS X is going to save Apple. [...] Ever since, I have been estatic about its performance, beauty, and stability.
Little of that is related to the underlying technology: Mach, Objective-C, and DisplayPDF don't make the Mac any faster, more beautiful, or stable. Performance is achieved through tuning, beauty through design, and stability through testing and using better tools.
Does the Mac have an advantage there? I don't think so. I suspect on most objective measures, Linux, X11, and Windows XP beat Mach and DisplayPDF in terms of performance. The use of scalable graphics in Gnome, KDE, and Windows allows them to look beautiful (and there are lots of beautiful themes for all those platforms). And Linux and Windows XP are both very stable. If anything, the tools that are becoming mainstream on Linux and Windows these days (Render, SVG, C#, GDI+, etc.) are technologically better than what OS X is based on.
What the Mac offers is simple answers: if you buy it, you know you are getting a certain level of quality and performance without having to think about it much. That level of quality and performance is arguably worse than what you would get out of Windows or Linux if you knew what to choose, but with Apple, you don't have to think about it much.
But don't mistake Apple's good branding strategy and good product strategy with good technology: technologically, Apple has little if anything that its competitors don't have, usually in better form.
How many tech companies (which were media darlings) imploded during the Dot-Bomb? Apple wasn't among them and they've been "Dying Since 1976".
Not at all. Until the late 1980's, Apple was a hot company. Their products had enormous impact in the market and Apple was perceived as an innovator.
The first problem appeared when Apple tried to assert ownership of all GUIs, in particular against Microsoft. This backfired because it became clear to many people that Apple didn't, in fact, invent most of the things they claimed ownership to. It also made Apple pretty hated in the (then pretty small) free software movement.
I think Apple has indeed been going downhill since then. In the mid-90's, they killed their research labs. A little later, they threw out their core technologies, because they had deteriorated to the point of being a drag on the company, and switched to NeXT's software platform.
What does Apple have these days? An OS and GUI essentially based on oddball 1980's technology (Mach, Objective-C). But because developers aren't taking to that in great numbers, they are also throwing in C++ toolkits and Apple-specific Java. That doesn't look like enough to succeed in the market in the long run.
What should Apple do? They need to become even more mainstream and standards-based. For example, X11 should become an OS X API on equal footing with Quartz and Carbon, so that people can develop in the toolkits they like and are used to. Objective-C, Cocoa, and Mach should probably be de-emphasized--I don't think they have a future.
In the long term, I think Apple should aim to have everything from X11 on down (command line, servers, kernel) to be standard Linux and add value with what they are good at: graphic design, hardware design and packaging, sales, documentation, and small end-user applications. That is, what I think Apple could become and thrive at in the long term is a consumer Linux-system vendor with their own desktop environment, but based on X11 so that it actually allows Gnome, KDE, and other applications to be run. But I think there is so much prejudice and attitude within Apple and the Apple community that that isn't going to happen.
Yes, but IrDA can be shielded predictably and easily. For example, most bags and pockets will shield an IrDA transmitter very well. And for communications between a stationary and a handheld device, you can have a simple black hood under which the user holds the device: it's simple yet gives a lot of extra security.
RF shielding is much harder in comparison, in particular if you want the resulting shield still to allow convenient user access.
People have known for thousands of years how to build buildings that stay pleasantly cool on hot days. So, if you want to do something environmentally friendly, design and build your house accordingly. A good architect and landscaper should be able to advise you.
There are also some things you can do after the building has been built, like planting trees, improving insulation, and putting reflective coatings on your windows. If you have lots of space in your yard, you can also use a bed of rocks together with some kind of ventilation system as heat storage, cooling your house during the day and warming it at night.
If that isn't enough and you just can't cope with the remaining heat, then you might as well do what everybody else is doing: install air conditioning and pay the power company. It seems doubtful that any kind of solar-energy drive air conditioner would, on balance, be more environmentally friendly than that anyway.
Goovy is an excellent language. And in case it gains momentum like one has written here, there is no doubt that people will port it to Parrot and the Python VM just like Python is ported to the JVM.
It is the stated goal of Groovy to be a dynamic and scripting language for Java (see here). That is, its design is driven by the needs of Java developers and adapted closely to the Java environment.
Maybe it will be ported to other platforms, but Groovy will then be as foreign on those other platforms as something like Jython may seem to Java developers.
Well, my main point answering in the first line to one of your posts was: you simply seem not to have looked at "Groovy the Language" at all.
... where is the relation?
Sure, I have. It's just another run-of-the-mill scripting language. The only significant distinction is that, so far, it seems particularly tied to the JVM.
Second I like to point out: Writing a Python compiler for the JVM is as trivial as writing a Python compiler to the PVM. Funny is: You start in a pure Python environment and use the Python compiler which is written in Python to generate Java Byte Code. Then you compile just that Python compiler with itself into Java Byte Code. Now you only need a Python class loader which compiles with that new compiler the on demand loaded python classes to the Python/Java mixed environment.
Getting Python to run well on the JVM is a major effort because the two object models are so different, and it requires much more effort than simply "compiling". In short, you simply don't know what you are talking about.
Why dont you keep your discussion straight? First you doubt groovy is worth it and you argue Python is better somehow.
I didn't argue that the Python language is better. Both Python and Groovy are boring as languages. The only significant difference between the two is the of user communities and implementations. Python has a large, existing user community and it has an implementation that is not tied to the JVM.
Now you start arguing with open source
You asked about the difference between the JVM and the PVM. The biggest difference is the license and the patents (the PVM is free and open, the JVM isn't). (There are also significant technical differences--the PVM is a dynamically typed runtime, supports multiple inheritance, and supports dynamic changes to objects; the JVM does not).
Bluetooth has a usable range up to 300ft (there are also specs for 30ft and 3ft); it is commonly used for laptops and handhelds to connect to modems, printers, GPS receivers, and access points from across the room. Something that has a range of only a foot or so won't compete there.
I don't see much use for these new short-range wireless technologies--they aren't short-range enough to use their range limitations for security, and they aren't long-range enough to move into Bluetooth territory. Furthermore, there are short-range versions of Bluetooth.
For secure communications, IrDA would still be a better choice. For anything else, you might as well use Bluetooth.
But, hey, with enough marketing and sales muscle, these companies will probably manage to force another proprietary standard upon us, whether it is a good idea or not.
I also do not really see the difference between running a PVM or a JVM (python virtual machine versus java virtual machine).
Well, unlike Sun's Java runtime (which is the only one that counts), the Python runtime is open source. Furthermore, the Python runtime takes a fraction of the amount of memory of the Java runtime.
Goovy is an excellent language. And in case it gains momentum like one has written here, there is no doubt that people will port it to Parrot and the Python VM just like Python is ported to the JVM.
The Python port to the JVM was a fluke--it only works so well because someone really smart spent a lot of time on making it happen. If anybody ever creates a non-JVM implementation of Groovy, then it may become more than a niche language. But I wouldn't bet anything on that happening.
The poster was looking for information you essentially called him a moron for buying a piece of hardware that wasn't fully open.
Yes, I did. And by buying devices using proprietary formats, he not only hurt himself, he also hurt everybody else, by keeping companies using proprietary formats in business.
I like my device, and while I would love to be able to find a *nix version of software for it, I am not complaining or stating that *nix is awful because it doesn't support it.
The fault is not with UNIX, it is with your device vendor: the vendor of your device keeps the format closed. And the fault is with you by keeping companies like that in business.
It was their own choice, however, they are asking for help. Throw it out and buy something open doesn't seem to be an answer to their question.
It is, in fact, the only answer to their question: the format isn't closed and proprietary by accident, it is closed and proprietary because Sony wants it to be. The only way to circumvent Sony's restriction is by breaking the law. So, the choices come down to: (1) live with the current situation, (2) break the law, or (3) throw it out. Given that (1) seems not to be acceptable and we don't recommend (2), that only leaves (3).
Throw out the Sony player and buy something that uses an open format. If you buy something using a proprietary encoding format, it was your own choice.
.Net will continue to gain ground solely because of microsoft's promotional dollars, regardless of its merits as a language.
.NET is a set of Microsoft-proprietary APIs. It will gain ground because Java doesn't address the needs of Windows programmers as well. Windows programmers aren't going to put up with Java if it doesn't solve their problems as well (which it doesn't).
C# and the CLR will gain ground because they really do have considerable more technical merit than Java. They will also gain ground because there is a complete open source implementation available (there aren't for Java).