"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
-- Bertrand Russell
The E.U. copyright directive and the laws in different countries don't mention embedding, and thus a court decides
That was the point. The fact that embedding is not described in the law means that this is a failure. Please read the original comment again if you still don't get it.
Wouldn't it be cool if they (Google) wrote a simulation environment that emits the (simulated) outputs of a radar (LiDAR) and other sensors to an API. If they would open-source this environment, everybody could write car-driving code and test it in the safety of their home (it doesn't even need to be real-time). They could even use this environment in a Google Code session, for example, and see which participants obtain the best results.
You don't need to describe it programmatically. You can just train a neural network for that, then test that the miss-rate is below a certain threshold.
Could you be a little more specific about the kind of software this is about? That might reveal why people shy away from the project.
Anyway, in general, keep in mind that maintaining software is boring and does not earn one brownie points. Motivating people to write the software from scratch might work better. In that case, make sure your functional specs are up to date.
The real underlying reason these apps feel flimsy is probably that Javascript is a single-threaded language.
The language is single threaded, doesn't mean it can't support "threads" in a message-passing way. The fact that my old Apple ][ can support threads by hooking 2 of them up through a serial interface doesn't make them "multithreaded". But if you want to look at it that way, then I apparently can't stop you:)
your assumptions simply don't match reality
Ok, so if a "for" loop is transformed so easily into an equivalent asynchronous structure, please enlighten me and show me how. For example, take these simple nested loops, and I'm curious what code it transforms into. function f(x) {
for(var i = 0; i < N; ++i)
for(var j = 0; j < N; ++j)
for(var k = 0; k < N; ++k)
x = g(x, i, j, k); }
A man is sitting in this ship, and throws a massive Korean-made LED TV-screen overboard into the water. As a result, will the water level rise, or drop?
As threads are not an option in JS, it's a great opportunity for you to explore various alternative approaches.
Please don't forget that the whole point of my comment was that threads are broken in JS.
Go do some reading about asynchronous programming and event-driven programming.
The problem with event-driven/asynchronous programming is that it requires a lot of work, and makes your code look awkward. For example, a simple "for" loop turns into a monster of functions calling eachother, in order to break the inside of the for-loop into small chunks that can't lock the UI. Now imagine a doubly-nested for-loop. You'd need special compilers to keep your code clean.
Remember that Windows 3.1 was replaced by true multitasking for a reason.
Also, asynchronous code can only make use of 1 core of your CPU, which is also a waste.
Slashdot Mirror
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
-- Bertrand Russell
Correlation != causation.
Still makes no sense, because of this quote:
In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.
(Carl Sagan)
Well, if a copy is made, you lose the possibility of removing the content or changing it.
The E.U. copyright directive and the laws in different countries don't mention embedding, and thus a court decides
That was the point. The fact that embedding is not described in the law means that this is a failure. Please read the original comment again if you still don't get it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Looks interesting. Where can I find the RFCs?
"E-mail" is a social network, a distributed one, and it works pretty well, even considering the spam problem.
Wouldn't it be cool if they (Google) wrote a simulation environment that emits the (simulated) outputs of a radar (LiDAR) and other sensors to an API. If they would open-source this environment, everybody could write car-driving code and test it in the safety of their home (it doesn't even need to be real-time). They could even use this environment in a Google Code session, for example, and see which participants obtain the best results.
You don't need to describe it programmatically.
You can just train a neural network for that, then test that the miss-rate is below a certain threshold.
Thinking of the #1 searched-for keyword on Google, I'm wondering what this will be used for mainly...
Could you be a little more specific about the kind of software this is about?
That might reveal why people shy away from the project.
Anyway, in general, keep in mind that maintaining software is boring and does not earn one brownie points.
Motivating people to write the software from scratch might work better.
In that case, make sure your functional specs are up to date.
No it's just that all other code besides mine sucks
Do you think the same way about the code written by the guys who wrote your compiler?
I thought app stores existed because of security.
Let's do away with them altogether then.
Reliability and security are critical.
It is much easier to make a handful of bytecode-instructions secure than it is to make the wealth of what is JS today secure.
If even half that effort was directed at making PNaCl viable on all browsers, we would be so much further forward.
If you start a kickstarter campaign, I would back it.
Just as we had a little hope of losing some of that "geeky" image that goes with coding... Dr. WHO starts teaching to code.
Sigh.
Will this appeal to, e.g., girls?
While you evaporate, there's a moment when you're surrounded by your own gas molecules, which can be used to push you forward, I suppose.
(I forgot to add "return x;" inside the function, but I guess that's clear)
The real underlying reason these apps feel flimsy is probably that Javascript is a single-threaded language.
The language is single threaded, doesn't mean it can't support "threads" in a message-passing way. The fact that my old Apple ][ can support threads by hooking 2 of them up through a serial interface doesn't make them "multithreaded". But if you want to look at it that way, then I apparently can't stop you :)
your assumptions simply don't match reality
Ok, so if a "for" loop is transformed so easily into an equivalent asynchronous structure, please enlighten me and show me how.
For example, take these simple nested loops, and I'm curious what code it transforms into.
function f(x)
{
for(var i = 0; i < N; ++i)
for(var j = 0; j < N; ++j)
for(var k = 0; k < N; ++k)
x = g(x, i, j, k);
}
where g is some constant-time function.
I know this is Slashdot, but you must be talking about Google here.
If they can tell legal from non-legal, why do they even show the illegal stuff?
In related news, most people earning over $1M through the development of an iOS app have the profession: software developer.
A man is sitting in this ship, and throws a massive Korean-made LED TV-screen overboard into the water.
As a result, will the water level rise, or drop?
As threads are not an option in JS, it's a great opportunity for you to explore various alternative approaches.
Please don't forget that the whole point of my comment was that threads are broken in JS.
Go do some reading about asynchronous programming and event-driven programming.
The problem with event-driven/asynchronous programming is that it requires a lot of work, and makes your code look awkward. For example, a simple "for" loop turns into a monster of functions calling eachother, in order to break the inside of the for-loop into small chunks that can't lock the UI. Now imagine a doubly-nested for-loop. You'd need special compilers to keep your code clean.
Remember that Windows 3.1 was replaced by true multitasking for a reason.
Also, asynchronous code can only make use of 1 core of your CPU, which is also a waste.