Come on, take for example Twitter. Being the first big player in this field, it was easy for them to get "customers". However, their service could be much better when it would be open. Like e-mail is open. For instance, if the protocal was open, no single company would have had insight into all the messages being sent around, and that's a huge plus from a privacy standpoint. Skype is in a similar position.
But I guess, being the first is what counts. It started with plain old "land". And now it extends to patents (IP) and protocols.
If you don't understand the problem we have with that, then I suggest you imagine that the first telecom company kept their protocols private, locking everybody in!
Why not show an annoying popup when an old browser is detected?
That will motivate users to upgrade.
And it will be especially effective if a lot of websites would play this trick. I'm actually surprised nobody successfully pulled off a campaign to do exactly this in the old IE6 days (actually not so long ago).
So using your logic, the police should be putting all their effort in chasing the truly big criminals, and they should stop handing out traffic tickets.
DO we even have a consumer protection agency? I'm getting the feeling lately we consumers are being pretty much abandoned, with Apple pulling all those dirty misleading walled-garden tricks, Google successfully using the tagline "do no evil", and now this.
Cooperative multitasking is like going back to Windows 3.1. That operating system totally relied on the trick you mentioned, and as we all know, it sucked.
Why did it suck? Obviously, for many reasons but most of all because once such a "fake thread" of execution starts taking a long time, it blocks all other threads.
Why do you think a modern webserver uses many different threads?
Sigh... I guess you need to gain some more experience in the parallel programming world.
Nice idea, but although javascript is a functional language, it is not a pure functional language (it has side-effects). This probably makes that a lot more difficult.
It seems the author of the article knows little about how real servers use multithreading to reduce latency.
From the article:
Node.js is one good solution. It uses only one thread for your server and everything runs within it. When the requests come flying in, Node.js takes them one at a time and hands them to the single function that was specified when the server is invoked.
Sadly, one of the best javascript engines is V8 (used in google chrome), and it does not support multithreading.
I've been reading the posts above and I'm stymied that nobody seems to have figured out that you video card is equipped with a number of bit planes for matte-ness.
For example, in HTML, for a matte brown-ish color, instead of specifying "#cec5b4", you can specify "#cec5b4ffff", where the first "ff" is the alpha (opacity) value, and the second "ff" is the matte-ness.
Ok, imagine that AT&T made their phone services free of charge, in return for being able to "spy" on their users. Do you think that people, and regulators, would accept that?
If you still answer "yes" to the above question, then imagine that AT&T disallowed people to change to a different provider. Don't you think that situation is a little awkward? And still we accept it from social media.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you serious???
Come on, take for example Twitter. Being the first big player in this field, it was easy for them to get "customers".
However, their service could be much better when it would be open. Like e-mail is open. For instance, if the protocal was open, no single company would have had insight into all the messages being sent around, and that's a huge plus from a privacy standpoint. Skype is in a similar position.
But I guess, being the first is what counts. It started with plain old "land". And now it extends to patents (IP) and protocols.
If you don't understand the problem we have with that, then I suggest you imagine that the first telecom company kept their protocols private, locking everybody in!
Hey, try reselling an iPad. :)
You can't even give them away for free
If the frequency is not the problem, then how do you explain the large number of children having cancer, living near the radio aerials in the Vatican?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10634977
Why not show an annoying popup when an old browser is detected?
That will motivate users to upgrade.
And it will be especially effective if a lot of websites would play this trick. I'm actually surprised nobody successfully pulled off a campaign to do exactly this in the old IE6 days (actually not so long ago).
Apple is worse than Microsoft.
Why do we still need to buy "graphics" hardware to use GPGPU-like acceleration? Why not extend our general notion of the cpu?
It makes me feel rather silly to be buying a graphics card just to improve the performance of some non-graphics-related computation.
Humans adapt their surroundings a lot faster than they'll adapt their own brains.
Ha! You just failed the Turing test.
And he saves on shaving cream.
So using your logic, the police should be putting all their effort in chasing the truly big criminals, and they should stop handing out traffic tickets.
Or maybe his intentions are to collect a lot of money from these patents and do something useful with it, like, say, medical research.
So, why do we have a consumer protection agency?
DO we even have a consumer protection agency? I'm getting the feeling lately we consumers are being pretty much abandoned, with Apple pulling all those dirty misleading walled-garden tricks, Google successfully using the tagline "do no evil", and now this.
The fact that a successful company has a slogan "do no evil" makes me think that something is seriously wrong with consumer protection.
Cooperative multitasking is like going back to Windows 3.1. That operating system totally relied on the trick you mentioned, and as we all know, it sucked.
Why did it suck? Obviously, for many reasons but most of all because once such a "fake thread" of execution starts taking a long time, it blocks all other threads.
Why do you think a modern webserver uses many different threads?
Sigh... I guess you need to gain some more experience in the parallel programming world.
I imagined that too. Wikipedia contains some information on it, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron:
The electron has no known substructure. Hence, it is defined or assumed to be a point particle with a point charge and no spatial extent.
I thought the theory was that an electron is a point-particle (a mathematical perfect point, having zero diameter).
Nice idea, but although javascript is a functional language, it is not a pure functional language (it has side-effects). This probably makes that a lot more difficult.
It seems the author of the article knows little about how real servers use multithreading to reduce latency.
From the article:
Node.js is one good solution. It uses only one thread for your server and everything runs within it. When the requests come flying in, Node.js takes them one at a time and hands them to the single function that was specified when the server is invoked.
Sadly, one of the best javascript engines is V8 (used in google chrome), and it does not support multithreading.
Too bad that chrome's V8 javascript engine does not support multithreading, thereby making itself unsuitable for server-side scripting.
(Of course, you can run each script in a separate process, but that is way too expensive)
Why not make it customizable?
Look-and-feel patents suck, and there's a very simple argument for that: users like to have similar interfaces for similar functions.
In case you don't agree: imagine that somebody patented the querty keyboard.
I've been reading the posts above and I'm stymied that nobody seems to have figured out that you video card is equipped with a number of bit planes for matte-ness.
For example, in HTML, for a matte brown-ish color, instead of specifying "#cec5b4", you can specify "#cec5b4ffff", where the first "ff" is the alpha (opacity) value, and the second "ff" is the matte-ness.
Gee, I thought this was a website for nerds.
Ok, imagine that AT&T made their phone services free of charge, in return for being able to "spy" on their users. Do you think that people, and regulators, would accept that?
If you still answer "yes" to the above question, then imagine that AT&T disallowed people to change to a different provider. Don't you think that situation is a little awkward? And still we accept it from social media.
What sort of a question is that?
Well, what sort of a question is that?
They'll put a paddle-wheel in the cash-flow going to the nation's banks.