Web standards are becoming too complicated to reliably support across a range of operating systems and devices. And this is just another symptom of that.
In fact, the probability that a program written now actually works when the user opens it is much lower now than it was before the web era. Is that progress? I'm not sure.
Actually, I think we should ditch these complicated standards for a much more simple and concise standard. Because as we all know, one can build complicated things using only a few simple primitives. The primitives we have now in HTML5 and javascript are far from simple, and thus shouldn't actually be called "primitives".
Why actually is HTML so complicated? Because it was made for laymen, not for professionals. And also because W3C wanted to support a semantic web, something which actually should be pursued in an entirely different way (using AI like google does, instead of by requiring developers to mark up everything with semantic info, mixing meaning and layout, that is simply too much to ask).
Those two reasons gave us, from the developer's point of view, the messed up web we have now. Time to rewind it, I would say.
Just visit Microsoft Research and you'll realize that Microsoft has always been more innovative than Apple (at least for the last decades). Apple does not even do open research.
Perhaps it's time for an analogy: Imagine your child starting to cry in the cinema, and then the cinema clerk tells your child to STFU, and when he doesn't, hits him. "That'll teach you".
We know it is not allowed to cry in the cinema. We know it bothers other people. We'll parent our own child, thank you.
Any serious management team will discard the "Chrome Frame" option as it requires the user to go through extra hassles, and like you said, in some cases where the user does not have the proper privileges it simply does not work. Therefore, this solution is actually a non-solution, unfortunately.
What we need first is to compile Firefox or Chromium to javascript. That way, we can finally be freed from that annoying non-compliant and otherwise broken IE crap that calls itself a browser.
AFAIK, port 22 (ssh) is not allowed to be accessed from within a browser. This means that everything you do must go through a server, which means, big brother may be watching you, completely defeating the purpose of ssh. Please tell me I am wrong.
First of all, Apple makes its own OS and applications while Amazon just uses Android.
The origin of the goods are not of interest here. Just the price versus the quality. If Apple is more expensive by making more expensive decisions, that's their choice. It doesn't help the consumer.
The article says that this monk was eschewing intimate relationships and a career. This means that he basically (for a long time) had no peers, which could solve this apparent contradiction.
Actually some time ago I read about a study that said basically that a person feels happier if he was performing (in some respect) better than another person. This form of happiness comes with the UNhappiness of other people. The happiest man alive is doing way better than his peers, while his peers must be feeling very unhappy.
This actually contradicts with the idea of feeling compassion leading to happiness, thus I can only conclude that happiness is something which is totally not understood yet.
The beam could be directed based on some set-up protocol between the energy-source and the energy-consumer. And you can easily direct beams by using some antenna array.
Such direction-sensitivity could also be used to (partly) solve the billing problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Web standards are becoming too complicated to reliably support across a range of operating systems and devices. And this is just another symptom of that.
In fact, the probability that a program written now actually works when the user opens it is much lower now than it was before the web era. Is that progress?
I'm not sure.
Actually, I think we should ditch these complicated standards for a much more simple and concise standard. Because as we all know, one can build complicated things using only a few simple primitives. The primitives we have now in HTML5 and javascript are far from simple, and thus shouldn't actually be called "primitives".
Why actually is HTML so complicated? Because it was made for laymen, not for professionals. And also because W3C wanted to support a semantic web, something which actually should be pursued in an entirely different way (using AI like google does, instead of by requiring developers to mark up everything with semantic info, mixing meaning and layout, that is simply too much to ask).
Those two reasons gave us, from the developer's point of view, the messed up web we have now. Time to rewind it, I would say.
Compute how much these new internet business models actually cost you in the long term. Send them a bill for potential losses.
MPAA and RIAA do it all the time!
This is of course like saying a stone is intelligent.
It has never said something, okay, but you'll never know if it really is trying to outsmart us inside!
Just visit Microsoft Research and you'll realize that Microsoft has always been more innovative than Apple (at least for the last decades). Apple does not even do open research.
Has Apple really ever invented anything? Just watch this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFeC25BM9E0
Sigh, you totally didn't get the point.
Perhaps it's time for an analogy:
Imagine your child starting to cry in the cinema, and then the cinema clerk tells your child to STFU, and when he doesn't, hits him.
"That'll teach you".
We know it is not allowed to cry in the cinema. We know it bothers other people. We'll parent our own child, thank you.
I hope it is clear now.
Any serious management team will discard the "Chrome Frame" option as it requires the user to go through extra hassles, and like you said, in some cases where the user does not have the proper privileges it simply does not work. Therefore, this solution is actually a non-solution, unfortunately.
What we need first is to compile Firefox or Chromium to javascript. That way, we can finally be freed from that annoying non-compliant and otherwise broken IE crap that calls itself a browser.
I/O bound servers, where a more powerful CPU would be mostly idle anyway.
How about distributed databases with high throughput and complex commit protocols?
Don't we need fast CPU's for that?
Unfortunately, these tools didn't have the shape of a rounded rectangle.
But the tokenizer and parser for an IDE have to work incrementally (parsing as you type), making them wholly different beasts.
AFAIK, port 22 (ssh) is not allowed to be accessed from within a browser. This means that everything you do must go through a server, which means, big brother may be watching you, completely defeating the purpose of ssh. Please tell me I am wrong.
First of all, Apple makes its own OS and applications while Amazon just uses Android.
The origin of the goods are not of interest here. Just the price versus the quality.
If Apple is more expensive by making more expensive decisions, that's their choice. It doesn't help the consumer.
At least the union can demand the takedown of IE.
Let M$ base their webbrowser on webkit if they cannot follow the standard.
Imagine the time and frustration we'd collectively save.
Can we, within this theory, somehow equate human-induced ecological catastrophes to asteroid impacts?
This quote by Isaac Asimov may be appropriate here:
The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.
Therefore, can we really say that technology is neutral, if we consider the context?
be a good little sheep
Unfortunately, a sheep that behaves abnormally ends up in someone's dinner rather quickly.
If you move the panel closer to the Sun, you'll need quadratically less area for the same amount of energy.
Of course, you'll need a parallel laser beam to send the energy to Earth, and a receptor, etc. but those are left as an exercise for the reader.
Is there a higher resolution available somewhere? I want to use it on my desktop.
paving the way in the future for the ... iCar ...
I bet we'll see an Android car first.
it's just the modus operandi of the adversarial legal system
If every person on Earth would walk as close to the line of what is legally acceptable as Apple, what a world we would live in.
Come on, we discussed RIAA accounting way before that post.
The article says that this monk was eschewing intimate relationships and a career. This means that he basically (for a long time) had no peers, which could solve this apparent contradiction.
Actually some time ago I read about a study that said basically that a person feels happier if he was performing (in some respect) better than another person. This form of happiness comes with the UNhappiness of other people. The happiest man alive is doing way better than his peers, while his peers must be feeling very unhappy.
This actually contradicts with the idea of feeling compassion leading to happiness, thus I can only conclude that happiness is something which is totally not understood yet.
Unfortunately, the next Slashdot article will be about a design patent that Apple has on laptops with a high resolution.
Power drops with the square of distance.
Not if you have a directed beam of energy.
The beam could be directed based on some set-up protocol between the energy-source and the energy-consumer.
And you can easily direct beams by using some antenna array.
Such direction-sensitivity could also be used to (partly) solve the billing problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_array_(electromagnetic)