Not in the original. In that one, the story--by inference--is that humans blew up the world, and thus killed themselves; and that the apes eventually evolved to be the superior species and took over the planet.
It was a cautionary message of determinism, and how insignificant we actually are on the large scale of things: we ceased to exist, and nature found a way to replace us. Eventually, the apes would have done the same, as they were going in ostensibly the same path.
Everything else was revisionist crap to sell more tickets on an increasingly absurd franchise.
Hum, you didn't seem to get my point. The term "oriented" in "Object Oriented Programming" refers to the programming, not to the objects. As your comment suggests, it is a paradigm in which the programming is focused on, or oriented towards objects.
Saying "object orientation," although a common idiom, implies that the objects themselves are oriented, which is not what the term represents. My comment was that the idiom suggests the re-arranging of objects as furniture rather than the methodology of focusing on the object as the central point.
That's not the point. The complaint is not that modern developers are not writing lean apps. The complaint is that modern developers are not instructed or experienced in lean development at all, and so they cannot learn from the lessons of the past.
What's more, the problem is compounded by their cockiness in stating things like, "those are obsolete techniques, they are all old timers, there is absolutely nothing of value that can be learned from them or their programs from 20 years ago." So they will not learn from the lessons of the past.
This results in the state of the (so called) art: lots of databases, applications, and web sites without security, large amounts of glue-code, and badly conceived infrastructure because someone decided that a particular service that works exceptionally well in a known and established environment, say, needs to be tunneled through HTTP and implemented in JavaScript.
But not only do they re-invent the wheel in JavaScript, they come up with a slightly oval wheel--can't pay attention to all those old wheels, they're obsolete, and absolutely irrelevant!. But it's OK because you just need to push it harder to run smoothly, so they just add an industrial power plant to it. It's all well, power plants are cheap nowadays.
Eventually, they all hit the same problems and have to deal with similar constraints, yet there is no memory of the past lessons.
That's the problem, and that's the complaint. It is not that people ignore what's irrelevant from the past, it is that people are ignoring the past wholesale with a misguided view that everything old must be irrelevant by definition.
I'd imagine that if you'd ever had to deal with someone stalking you, you would avoid Facebook or Google+; because, you know, they require your real name.
The fact the otherwise smart people do not seem to grasp the concept of voluntary participation, just surprises me.
>> but I do know one thing. Apple would not be building them it if it were not expected to be a profitable venture.
But we all agree that it is a profitable venture: it increases the value proposition of the ecosystem and thereby helps to sell more hardware, which is where the money is.
The poster to whom you were responding alluded to this. What he or she argued was your assertion that the App Store is run for direct profit. In other words, that most of that 30% goes to pay the cost of doing business.
Other businesses may sell your information to advertising companies and data brokers for profit. Google is itself an advertiser and data broker, so while it may not sell your information to external parties, it nonetheless exploits it equally.
Regular people understand that in order to do commerce with businesses, they need to give some information necessary for the transaction. When they talk about protecting information, they refer to using it only for its intended purpose and protecting it from extraneous exploitation.
Saying that Google protects your information from external parties is a straw-man argument, for the problem is not the sale of the information, but its exploitation.
What are you talking about? When did an old IIS/SQL Server vulnerability "took the internet down *hard*"?
Those hosts being DoS'ed went down, sure, and then they were patched and came back up. Who died? What was the threat to humanity's future?
When an outbreak of a disease occurs, people die. We create the CDC and other organizations, protocols, and methods in order to protect ourselves and secure our future. We do it because human death is a tragedy, not necessarily because it is inconvenient to be sick, or because it costs us too much.
Comparing computer malware to biological diseases is ridiculous and only trivializes the latter.
I always enter my pin number when I go to an atm machine.
Notice how he is exaggerating the fact that the word "pin" already has "number" in it by repeating the error with "atm," which already has "machine" in it.
Your response seemed to imply that he didn't know this by pointing it out expressly.
First, you're supposed to know before hand that you are going to be on a train in the middle of nowhere where there's no wireless access. Because you already know this, you should synchronize all your local documents and application data from their online sources to get ready.
This includes opening and caching locally any news or other reference web sites you may want to read on the train. You do all this before leaving home of course.
Second, when you get on the train, you start working on the local copies that you synchronized earlier, or catch up on your news reading on the cached pages. You use the local versions since your connection may go out at any minute (which you were already expecting).
Then, as soon as you get to the office (or your planned destination that offers wireless access), you synchronize again with the online sources, and continue as normal. At this point you can reload the news site portals or other content pages that you cached, and browse the web normally.
You mean, it displays Flash content using Flash, right?
So far, all the sites I like to visit* that offer Flash content, offer the same content without Flash to my iPad, which makes sense considering that it is such a popular device. I don't care what content format is used in the other sites I don't visit.
I suspect this trend will continue to expand as time goes on.
Slashdot Mirror
Final Fantasy: The Spirit Within, and Beowolf.
Beware, however, that both fall rather hard smack-dab in the bottom of the uncanny-valley.
-dZ/
Not in the original. In that one, the story--by inference--is that humans blew up the world, and thus killed themselves; and that the apes eventually evolved to be the superior species and took over the planet.
It was a cautionary message of determinism, and how insignificant we actually are on the large scale of things: we ceased to exist, and nature found a way to replace us. Eventually, the apes would have done the same, as they were going in ostensibly the same path.
Everything else was revisionist crap to sell more tickets on an increasingly absurd franchise.
-dZ.
They're throwing spaghetti at the wall to see which noodles stick.
Actually, sounds like a fruit dessert, with some kind of berry. Hmmm.
-dZ.
I guess you missed the reports of Staples employees claiming huge numbers of returns.
-dZ.
Hum, you didn't seem to get my point. The term "oriented" in "Object Oriented Programming" refers to the programming, not to the objects. As your comment suggests, it is a paradigm in which the programming is focused on, or oriented towards objects.
Saying "object orientation," although a common idiom, implies that the objects themselves are oriented, which is not what the term represents. My comment was that the idiom suggests the re-arranging of objects as furniture rather than the methodology of focusing on the object as the central point.
-dZ.
That's not the point. The complaint is not that modern developers are not writing lean apps. The complaint is that modern developers are not instructed or experienced in lean development at all, and so they cannot learn from the lessons of the past.
What's more, the problem is compounded by their cockiness in stating things like, "those are obsolete techniques, they are all old timers, there is absolutely nothing of value that can be learned from them or their programs from 20 years ago." So they will not learn from the lessons of the past.
This results in the state of the (so called) art: lots of databases, applications, and web sites without security, large amounts of glue-code, and badly conceived infrastructure because someone decided that a particular service that works exceptionally well in a known and established environment, say, needs to be tunneled through HTTP and implemented in JavaScript.
But not only do they re-invent the wheel in JavaScript, they come up with a slightly oval wheel--can't pay attention to all those old wheels, they're obsolete, and absolutely irrelevant!. But it's OK because you just need to push it harder to run smoothly, so they just add an industrial power plant to it. It's all well, power plants are cheap nowadays.
Eventually, they all hit the same problems and have to deal with similar constraints, yet there is no memory of the past lessons.
That's the problem, and that's the complaint. It is not that people ignore what's irrelevant from the past, it is that people are ignoring the past wholesale with a misguided view that everything old must be irrelevant by definition.
-dZ.
Doesn't Object Oriented Programming mean "programming oriented toward objects"? If so, then the orientation is in the programming, not in the objects.
Whenever I hear "object orientation" it sounds to me like re-arranging furniture, which I guess is not at all what the term OOP is meant to imply.
-dZ.
Or a hammer. Here, let me show you, lets compare.
-dZ.
I'd imagine that if you'd ever had to deal with someone stalking you, you would avoid Facebook or Google+; because, you know, they require your real name.
The fact the otherwise smart people do not seem to grasp the concept of voluntary participation, just surprises me.
-dZ.
You forgot to bitch about his mentioning of browsers having tailfins. What the heck was he thinking, right?
Am I the only one that cannot get over a mental mispronunciation of the name Boehner?
Tsk!
Send them to me too, though I won't necessarily be polite and I can't promise an escape route.
But trust me.
>> but I do know one thing. Apple would not be building them it if it were not expected to be a profitable venture.
But we all agree that it is a profitable venture: it increases the value proposition of the ecosystem and thereby helps to sell more hardware, which is where the money is.
The poster to whom you were responding alluded to this. What he or she argued was your assertion that the App Store is run for direct profit. In other words, that most of that 30% goes to pay the cost of doing business.
-dZ.
I think they are blaming Obama for cancelling the Constellation program, which inevitably turns the $9bn already invested in it into waste.
-dZ.
Other businesses may sell your information to advertising companies and data brokers for profit. Google is itself an advertiser and data broker, so while it may not sell your information to external parties, it nonetheless exploits it equally.
Regular people understand that in order to do commerce with businesses, they need to give some information necessary for the transaction. When they talk about protecting information, they refer to using it only for its intended purpose and protecting it from extraneous exploitation.
Saying that Google protects your information from external parties is a straw-man argument, for the problem is not the sale of the information, but its exploitation.
-dZ.
+1 Funny
LOL!
Oh wait, you were serious?
Nobody asks to be snarky. It just happens, embrace it.
By the way, that doesn't even consider that back "ages ago," IIS and SQL Server were hardly de rigueur in the Internet.
What are you talking about? When did an old IIS/SQL Server vulnerability "took the internet down *hard*"?
Those hosts being DoS'ed went down, sure, and then they were patched and came back up. Who died? What was the threat to humanity's future?
When an outbreak of a disease occurs, people die. We create the CDC and other organizations, protocols, and methods in order to protect ourselves and secure our future. We do it because human death is a tragedy, not necessarily because it is inconvenient to be sick, or because it costs us too much.
Comparing computer malware to biological diseases is ridiculous and only trivializes the latter.
-dZ.
No, the World Wide What?
The parent poster made a joke.
Exhibit A:
Notice how he is exaggerating the fact that the word "pin" already has "number" in it by repeating the error with "atm," which already has "machine" in it.
Your response seemed to imply that he didn't know this by pointing it out expressly.
-dZ.
First, you're supposed to know before hand that you are going to be on a train in the middle of nowhere where there's no wireless access. Because you already know this, you should synchronize all your local documents and application data from their online sources to get ready.
This includes opening and caching locally any news or other reference web sites you may want to read on the train. You do all this before leaving home of course.
Second, when you get on the train, you start working on the local copies that you synchronized earlier, or catch up on your news reading on the cached pages. You use the local versions since your connection may go out at any minute (which you were already expecting).
Then, as soon as you get to the office (or your planned destination that offers wireless access), you synchronize again with the online sources, and continue as normal. At this point you can reload the news site portals or other content pages that you cached, and browse the web normally.
There you go! Easy as pie.
-dZ.
You mean, it displays Flash content using Flash, right?
So far, all the sites I like to visit* that offer Flash content, offer the same content without Flash to my iPad, which makes sense considering that it is such a popular device. I don't care what content format is used in the other sites I don't visit.
I suspect this trend will continue to expand as time goes on.
-dZ.
*yes, pr0n too.
You and I apparently have different scales to gauge "enormous."
-dZ.