I hate to be the one defending the Christians, but the whole protestant branch was formed because Christians didn't all just accept current cannon as fact.
I would take it one step farther and say that the definition of "scientist" has been polluted to have lost much of it's value. It now means, "has the right certifications". Unfortunately, that is not what makes a scientist. We perform many MANY experiments using the scientific method in my household. While I am confident as to what the outcome of our experiments will be, my son, being 6, is not.
Most people would not say that we are scientists. The fact that we follow the scientific method to learn and discover would not be enough for most people. Many of those same people WOULD call someone with the "right credentials" a scientist, even if they do not follow the scientific method, are pulling facts out of their bum, and their "theories" are demonstratively false.
So, before any sane persons decides whether they should "believe scientists" they should first get a decent definition of what a "scientist" is. If we go with the definition of a person who "is right because they have the right certifications", then not trusting "scientists" out of hand seems like a pretty good idea.
Your example does not show a zero tolerance for violence. It shows a zero tolerance for annoying faculty. And an unethical principal who was way over stepping his bounds in a sick attempt to bully kids. The question isn't how many students got in trouble for fighting when two people are fighting. The question is how many got in trouble for violence when the violence only went one way.
You are correct on most parts. The place that you are confused is that you got punished for fighting. Kids don't get punishied for fighting in school. They only get punished for making the faculty deal with fighting. Since you defended yourself, you were just as much to blame for making the faculty deal with the issue as the guy that attacked you.
Understand. Schools do NOT have a zero tolerance policy against violence. They have a zero tolerance policy against making them deal with the violence in their schools.
The lack of any hardware controls for phones is definitely the killer for me in replacing my DS with my phone. I tried to play Pacman on my iPhone, and it completely failed. I didn't even bother to try it on my Android because it also lacks proper gaming controls. I have hopes that eventually Google will add a gamepad API to Android. If I could buy a control pad that I snap my Android into, and it could be seen by every game that was written to the open API, I would start to consider my phone as a hand held gaming system. As it stands, I see my phone as a gaming system in the same way that I see playing solitaire on Windows as "gaming".
To be fair, if you were buying an Android phone for gaming, you don't need to have phone service, and if you wanted an iPhone without a phone contract, you could just buy an iPod. So, the phone contract isn't really a valid knock against them as gaming devices.
Plus the first rule of driving, when driving that should be your only task
That sounds great as a sound bite, but I'll take it a little more seriously when I ever meet even one single person that follows it, as opposed to people that hypocritically pull it out when they just don't want other people doing something.
Obviously not, since no-one in the industry agrees with you. Your definition of what is cross-platform changes depending on whether the native platform for the code can be emulated.
Yes, there are many people in the industry that do not understand the underling technology, as well as many that have a vested interest in 'enterprise speak', but anybody that knows what an emulator is, knows that Java is one. I have never changed my definition. Cross platform is always, and one hundred percent of the time software that will run on multiple platforms unchanged. How it accomplishes it is irrelevant.
Wrong again, i never said the JVM was cross-platform. Obviously for example you cannot run the windows JVM on linux, or did you not know that? Again, your lack of knowledge regarding native vs interpreted code.
You are misinterpreting what I said. The JVM is just an emulator. Just as Vice is written for many platforms, the JVM is written for many platforms. As the link I supplied showed, the Java byte code IS machine language, just as 6502 machine language is machine language. Java is no more or no less cross platform than C64 Machine code. There is no confusion. Generally, but not always, the JVM is native code running on hardware. Always Java byte code is running in an emulator, but only because Sun failed to deliver the actual hardware.
Native code will execute natively on the hardware/os for which it was compiled. Interpreted code will execute on any hardware/os for which there is a native interpreter.
Yes, native code will execute natively on the hardware for which it is compiled. Interpreted code will execute on any hardware that there is an interpreter, native or otherwise. The same code can be run natively OR interpreted, depending on how and in what environment it is launched. You seem to think that code is somehow fixed as native or interpreted. This is not the case. Just look at some of the full PC emulator for the PC. They run x86 code interpreted on the PC which is the same platform that the same code could run natively.
6502 is a machine language, not an interpreted language. Python is an interpreted language, not a machine language. Those are not my definitions, they are the correct industry definitions.
No it is not the correct industry definition. 6502 is machine code, but there have been many 6502 interpreters. Claiming that when code is native when it is running in an interpreter is absurd. When 6502 code is running on a 6502 processor, it is native. When it is running in an interpreter on an x86, it is interpreted. Same code, different status concerning native/interpreted. Either way, if running on multiple platforms makes it cross platform.
If you're so confident that you know the difference between native and interpreted code then give me your definition. It would seem that you don't consider anything to be native code.
Native code is code that is compiled to a format that matches and runs commands that exist in the hardware it is currently running on. Interpreted code is code that issues commands to another layer which then figures out what commands to actually issue to the processor. The same compiled program can be one, the other, or both depending on where it is run.
I know exactly what the difference between the two are. I also know that native machine code for one system can be interpreted on another. That is what non-JIT emulators do. Emulators like VICE and Java. I also know that using the technique of "Just In Time" compilation, chunks of native code for one system can be recompiled to the host platforms native code for dramatic speed ups. This is done in some Jave emulators, as well as many other emulators such as UAE.
Right from suns site a description of the java virtual machine looks exactly like the description of a physical processor. Why? Because the JVM is an emulator of a real machine that may or may not have ever actually been built.
I understand the definition just fine. You are just trying to change the definition to something that boils down to "cross platform is whatever I decide is cross platform". You define one emulator (JVM) as cross platfrom, while other emulators (VICE) you define as not. You define some interpreted instruction sets (Python) as cross platform, while other interpreted instruction sets (6502) are not cross platform even when code written in it can be run across multiple platforms.
If I write a VM like the Python VM, but I dropped the context of white space, and use commands that look like one or two bytes for each command, would that be cross platform or not?
No, it's not hard to do. You just have to deliver a useful app with the Trojan. That way the code runs in the forground. The hoops that Apple erects and the functionality that they lack, in no way prevent malware on the iPhone. If users can install software, users can install software that does things they don't want. Yes, there are things that can help inform users of some of the risks, but the best we can hope for is that we are given the tools to easily check for obvious security holes, and that a system is in place to prevent other peoples systems from causing problems to ours. I have no hope that both security and functionality will ever be achived at the same time. They are mutually exclusive.
It's not semantics at all. Cross-platform software executes natively on the target platform as it is compiled from a generic source to platform-specific code - that of the target platform - at runtime. Software running in an emulator does not, it executes platform-specific code on a virtual implementation of the original Hardware/OS platform implemented in software.
If that is the case, then Java as it was originally written and frequently implemented is not cross platform. Neither is any web development beyond ActiveX. You would also have to exclude Flash, Silverlight, Python, Perl, and a ton of other commonly accepted cross platform solutions. Heck, you can't even count X86 Assembly by your definition, since frequently that is run in 'microcode' on the processor. You are defining cross platform by the solutions you want to include, not including the solutions that meet the definition.
No, that is a simple, misinformed assumption. As i stated above there is a clear difference.
If you don't want to define cross platform as being software that runs across different platforms, that is ok, but it puts you in a different conversation that the rest of the people in this thread.
Wrong again. Java was always designed, from the very beginning, to be a set of technologies for cross-platform development, abstraction layers created so that from a programming perspective the underlying Hardware/OS is irrelevant as it is compiled at runtime, hence the term 'write once, run anywhere' that they coined for the idea at the time. Later they announced the possibility of developing CPUs optimised to run java, but obviously bytecode cannot be executed in hardware, it has to be JIT-compiled at some point, even if that is in some sort of hardware-based compiler. The Java runtime is not emulating any kind of Hardware/OS.
Revisionist history. Sun was clear that the reason they were implementing emulators for the other platforms was because they knew they could not get enough software written for their platform quick enough to get people to migrate off of windows. So, they took the approach of writing emulators so that people would write software for their platform even if they were still on windows. They expected to be able to run the code faster natively than they could emulated. They were wrong, so they revised history.
As for Java isn't an emulator...Really? What do you think "byte code" is? it is machine language. Calling it "byte code" is just smoke and mirrors. JIT compliling byte code to speed up running a virtual machine IS JIT compiling machine code to run in an emulator. The words and the meanings are synonymous.
The "Write Once, Run anywhere" slogan, besides completely failing to deliver, was an attempt by Sun to out Microsoft Microsoft. It was an attempt to embrace (Windows), Extend (Java), and Extinguish (with the JavaOne processor). The fact that their emulator completely sucked caused this plan to fail.
The discussion is on the subject of getting code to run on multiple platforms. Splitting hairs between "Emulator", "Framework", "Markup Language with code engines" is just arguing symantics. No, you cannot run C64 GEOS Write on any platform without VICE or it's equivelent as a container, but then you cannot run any Web apps without a browser as a container, and you cannot run any Java apps without a Java virtual machine as a container. Every single person in this conversation up until this point has accepted cross platform as including code that runs inside of another container as being a valid method to achieve cross-platform status. Thus Code running in a C64 emulator most definitly IS cross platform.
There is one simple question that can let you know if something is cross platform: Can it run on multiple platforms? If the answer is yes, then it is cross platform.
The silliest thing to do would be to try to claim that Java code is cross platform, but C64 code is not. People seem to live in some alternate reality where if you name your emulator a "Virtual Machine", fail to give it a decent UI, and fail to produce an hardware reference platform it somehow isn't an emulator. Java IS an emulator. No different than a C64 emulator other than the lack of a decent UI. When Java was first introduced, Sun even claimed that they would be producing actual Java processors. When they discovered that the x86 could emulate a Java processor faster than any real Java chip Sun could produce, they changed their marketing tactic.
T-Mobile has just changed this. They now call the loan a loan and it is itemized seperately. I suspect that they expect to sell people phones more frequently this way with the rapid pace of improvement in the cell phone market.
You don't have to worry. T-Mobile is now starting to separate out the phone from the plan. Now instead of getting a "free" phone, they give you an interest free line of credit on the phone. So if you are a frequent upgrade, you don't "have to wait", and if you are not, you don't have to pay past the cost of the phone.
There are literally dozens of truly cross platform development environments. C64, Atari 2600, NES, SNES, Genesis, Amiga, Atari ST. They may not have good network features built in, but as cross platform compatibility goes, they are WAY more compatibly than HTML will every be, and noticeably more compatible than Java. If you write an application and it runs on the C64, you can bet it will run on just about every platform that any user sits in front of. Heck, Apple had to ban it from the iPhone to keep it from running there. The single code base will easily run on over 25 different platforms.
They did this for a legitimate reason too; the legacy system was holding back the modern Live service, applying specific limitations that couldn't be overcome without shutting it down like this.
I hear you. Maybe one day humanity will be able to achieve the lofty goal of more than one IP address on the internet, and MS can convince IBM to make a 6th computer for the world.
OK...OK... Yes, that was snarky, but claiming that MS could not run legacy and modern XBox Live servers concurrently is just plain silly.
Of course, they didn't just decide to shut off the servers. That decision was made when XBox Live first went into development. MS made a conscious decision to cut off users as some time to be determined later. Thay paid a lot of people a lot of money to make sure that they could disable your multi-player mode.
He should just tell her to get her tubes tide if he doesn't want one. We hear women whine about how it is major surgery, well, it isn't 1950 any more. These days it is a 30 minute procedure and the woman is back home the same day.
There is nothing wrong with vasectomies if HE is done breeding and HE is comfortable with it, but if your friend is trying to convince him to have the procedure because SHE is done breeding WITH HIM, and she wants him changed in a way that she is unwilling to do herself, then she is just a bitch.
I in fact DO pay a subscription to download programs for a flat fee. http://www.gametap.com/
They are not as good as they used to be, but the price is low enough that it beats the hassle of pirating games. The same case applies to movies and Netflix.
I might not get the newest titles the day they come out, but I don't play games and watch movies to be first.
Because the portion of the brain responsible for detecting threats and territorial behavior is triple the size in men than it is in the brains of women.
So in other words because of bigotry that you share, and rationalize with a modern phrenology explanation.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate to be the one defending the Christians, but the whole protestant branch was formed because Christians didn't all just accept current cannon as fact.
The same could be true about God. Except the more believable part.
Bingo!
I would take it one step farther and say that the definition of "scientist" has been polluted to have lost much of it's value. It now means, "has the right certifications". Unfortunately, that is not what makes a scientist. We perform many MANY experiments using the scientific method in my household. While I am confident as to what the outcome of our experiments will be, my son, being 6, is not.
Most people would not say that we are scientists. The fact that we follow the scientific method to learn and discover would not be enough for most people. Many of those same people WOULD call someone with the "right credentials" a scientist, even if they do not follow the scientific method, are pulling facts out of their bum, and their "theories" are demonstratively false.
So, before any sane persons decides whether they should "believe scientists" they should first get a decent definition of what a "scientist" is. If we go with the definition of a person who "is right because they have the right certifications", then not trusting "scientists" out of hand seems like a pretty good idea.
Your example does not show a zero tolerance for violence. It shows a zero tolerance for annoying faculty. And an unethical principal who was way over stepping his bounds in a sick attempt to bully kids. The question isn't how many students got in trouble for fighting when two people are fighting. The question is how many got in trouble for violence when the violence only went one way.
You are correct on most parts. The place that you are confused is that you got punished for fighting. Kids don't get punishied for fighting in school. They only get punished for making the faculty deal with fighting. Since you defended yourself, you were just as much to blame for making the faculty deal with the issue as the guy that attacked you.
Understand. Schools do NOT have a zero tolerance policy against violence. They have a zero tolerance policy against making them deal with the violence in their schools.
The lack of any hardware controls for phones is definitely the killer for me in replacing my DS with my phone. I tried to play Pacman on my iPhone, and it completely failed. I didn't even bother to try it on my Android because it also lacks proper gaming controls. I have hopes that eventually Google will add a gamepad API to Android. If I could buy a control pad that I snap my Android into, and it could be seen by every game that was written to the open API, I would start to consider my phone as a hand held gaming system. As it stands, I see my phone as a gaming system in the same way that I see playing solitaire on Windows as "gaming".
To be fair, if you were buying an Android phone for gaming, you don't need to have phone service, and if you wanted an iPhone without a phone contract, you could just buy an iPod. So, the phone contract isn't really a valid knock against them as gaming devices.
Plus the first rule of driving, when driving that should be your only task
That sounds great as a sound bite, but I'll take it a little more seriously when I ever meet even one single person that follows it, as opposed to people that hypocritically pull it out when they just don't want other people doing something.
As long is they are not nucular virii, we will be ok....uh oh....
Obviously not, since no-one in the industry agrees with you. Your definition of what is cross-platform changes depending on whether the native platform for the code can be emulated.
Yes, there are many people in the industry that do not understand the underling technology, as well as many that have a vested interest in 'enterprise speak', but anybody that knows what an emulator is, knows that Java is one. I have never changed my definition. Cross platform is always, and one hundred percent of the time software that will run on multiple platforms unchanged. How it accomplishes it is irrelevant.
Wrong again, i never said the JVM was cross-platform. Obviously for example you cannot run the windows JVM on linux, or did you not know that? Again, your lack of knowledge regarding native vs interpreted code.
You are misinterpreting what I said. The JVM is just an emulator. Just as Vice is written for many platforms, the JVM is written for many platforms. As the link I supplied showed, the Java byte code IS machine language, just as 6502 machine language is machine language. Java is no more or no less cross platform than C64 Machine code. There is no confusion. Generally, but not always, the JVM is native code running on hardware. Always Java byte code is running in an emulator, but only because Sun failed to deliver the actual hardware.
Native code will execute natively on the hardware/os for which it was compiled. Interpreted code will execute on any hardware/os for which there is a native interpreter.
Yes, native code will execute natively on the hardware for which it is compiled. Interpreted code will execute on any hardware that there is an interpreter, native or otherwise. The same code can be run natively OR interpreted, depending on how and in what environment it is launched. You seem to think that code is somehow fixed as native or interpreted. This is not the case. Just look at some of the full PC emulator for the PC. They run x86 code interpreted on the PC which is the same platform that the same code could run natively.
6502 is a machine language, not an interpreted language. Python is an interpreted language, not a machine language. Those are not my definitions, they are the correct industry definitions.
No it is not the correct industry definition. 6502 is machine code, but there have been many 6502 interpreters. Claiming that when code is native when it is running in an interpreter is absurd. When 6502 code is running on a 6502 processor, it is native. When it is running in an interpreter on an x86, it is interpreted. Same code, different status concerning native/interpreted. Either way, if running on multiple platforms makes it cross platform.
If you're so confident that you know the difference between native and interpreted code then give me your definition. It would seem that you don't consider anything to be native code.
Native code is code that is compiled to a format that matches and runs commands that exist in the hardware it is currently running on. Interpreted code is code that issues commands to another layer which then figures out what commands to actually issue to the processor. The same compiled program can be one, the other, or both depending on where it is run.
You seem to be confused by Sun's strategic market approach in seizing the opportunity to take bold steps toward capturing momentum of the period of market disruption caused by it's industry-leading, award-winning flagship brand leading to accelerate its growth in the commercial space and an increase in its North American market penetration.
I know exactly what the difference between the two are. I also know that native machine code for one system can be interpreted on another. That is what non-JIT emulators do. Emulators like VICE and Java. I also know that using the technique of "Just In Time" compilation, chunks of native code for one system can be recompiled to the host platforms native code for dramatic speed ups. This is done in some Jave emulators, as well as many other emulators such as UAE.
Right from suns site a description of the java virtual machine looks exactly like the description of a physical processor. Why? Because the JVM is an emulator of a real machine that may or may not have ever actually been built.
I understand the definition just fine. You are just trying to change the definition to something that boils down to "cross platform is whatever I decide is cross platform". You define one emulator (JVM) as cross platfrom, while other emulators (VICE) you define as not. You define some interpreted instruction sets (Python) as cross platform, while other interpreted instruction sets (6502) are not cross platform even when code written in it can be run across multiple platforms.
If I write a VM like the Python VM, but I dropped the context of white space, and use commands that look like one or two bytes for each command, would that be cross platform or not?
No, it's not hard to do. You just have to deliver a useful app with the Trojan. That way the code runs in the forground. The hoops that Apple erects and the functionality that they lack, in no way prevent malware on the iPhone. If users can install software, users can install software that does things they don't want. Yes, there are things that can help inform users of some of the risks, but the best we can hope for is that we are given the tools to easily check for obvious security holes, and that a system is in place to prevent other peoples systems from causing problems to ours. I have no hope that both security and functionality will ever be achived at the same time. They are mutually exclusive.
It's not semantics at all. Cross-platform software executes natively on the target platform as it is compiled from a generic source to platform-specific code - that of the target platform - at runtime. Software running in an emulator does not, it executes platform-specific code on a virtual implementation of the original Hardware/OS platform implemented in software.
If that is the case, then Java as it was originally written and frequently implemented is not cross platform. Neither is any web development beyond ActiveX. You would also have to exclude Flash, Silverlight, Python, Perl, and a ton of other commonly accepted cross platform solutions. Heck, you can't even count X86 Assembly by your definition, since frequently that is run in 'microcode' on the processor. You are defining cross platform by the solutions you want to include, not including the solutions that meet the definition.
No, that is a simple, misinformed assumption. As i stated above there is a clear difference.
If you don't want to define cross platform as being software that runs across different platforms, that is ok, but it puts you in a different conversation that the rest of the people in this thread.
Wrong again. Java was always designed, from the very beginning, to be a set of technologies for cross-platform development, abstraction layers created so that from a programming perspective the underlying Hardware/OS is irrelevant as it is compiled at runtime, hence the term 'write once, run anywhere' that they coined for the idea at the time. Later they announced the possibility of developing CPUs optimised to run java, but obviously bytecode cannot be executed in hardware, it has to be JIT-compiled at some point, even if that is in some sort of hardware-based compiler. The Java runtime is not emulating any kind of Hardware/OS. Revisionist history. Sun was clear that the reason they were implementing emulators for the other platforms was because they knew they could not get enough software written for their platform quick enough to get people to migrate off of windows. So, they took the approach of writing emulators so that people would write software for their platform even if they were still on windows. They expected to be able to run the code faster natively than they could emulated. They were wrong, so they revised history.
As for Java isn't an emulator...Really? What do you think "byte code" is? it is machine language. Calling it "byte code" is just smoke and mirrors. JIT compliling byte code to speed up running a virtual machine IS JIT compiling machine code to run in an emulator. The words and the meanings are synonymous.
The "Write Once, Run anywhere" slogan, besides completely failing to deliver, was an attempt by Sun to out Microsoft Microsoft. It was an attempt to embrace (Windows), Extend (Java), and Extinguish (with the JavaOne processor). The fact that their emulator completely sucked caused this plan to fail.
The discussion is on the subject of getting code to run on multiple platforms. Splitting hairs between "Emulator", "Framework", "Markup Language with code engines" is just arguing symantics. No, you cannot run C64 GEOS Write on any platform without VICE or it's equivelent as a container, but then you cannot run any Web apps without a browser as a container, and you cannot run any Java apps without a Java virtual machine as a container. Every single person in this conversation up until this point has accepted cross platform as including code that runs inside of another container as being a valid method to achieve cross-platform status. Thus Code running in a C64 emulator most definitly IS cross platform.
There is one simple question that can let you know if something is cross platform: Can it run on multiple platforms?
If the answer is yes, then it is cross platform.
The silliest thing to do would be to try to claim that Java code is cross platform, but C64 code is not. People seem to live in some alternate reality where if you name your emulator a "Virtual Machine", fail to give it a decent UI, and fail to produce an hardware reference platform it somehow isn't an emulator. Java IS an emulator. No different than a C64 emulator other than the lack of a decent UI. When Java was first introduced, Sun even claimed that they would be producing actual Java processors. When they discovered that the x86 could emulate a Java processor faster than any real Java chip Sun could produce, they changed their marketing tactic.
T-Mobile has just changed this. They now call the loan a loan and it is itemized seperately. I suspect that they expect to sell people phones more frequently this way with the rapid pace of improvement in the cell phone market.
You don't have to worry. T-Mobile is now starting to separate out the phone from the plan. Now instead of getting a "free" phone, they give you an interest free line of credit on the phone. So if you are a frequent upgrade, you don't "have to wait", and if you are not, you don't have to pay past the cost of the phone.
There are literally dozens of truly cross platform development environments. C64, Atari 2600, NES, SNES, Genesis, Amiga, Atari ST. They may not have good network features built in, but as cross platform compatibility goes, they are WAY more compatibly than HTML will every be, and noticeably more compatible than Java. If you write an application and it runs on the C64, you can bet it will run on just about every platform that any user sits in front of. Heck, Apple had to ban it from the iPhone to keep it from running there. The single code base will easily run on over 25 different platforms.
They did this for a legitimate reason too; the legacy system was holding back the modern Live service, applying specific limitations that couldn't be overcome without shutting it down like this.
I hear you. Maybe one day humanity will be able to achieve the lofty goal of more than one IP address on the internet, and MS can convince IBM to make a 6th computer for the world.
OK...OK... Yes, that was snarky, but claiming that MS could not run legacy and modern XBox Live servers concurrently is just plain silly.
Of course, they didn't just decide to shut off the servers. That decision was made when XBox Live first went into development. MS made a conscious decision to cut off users as some time to be determined later. Thay paid a lot of people a lot of money to make sure that they could disable your multi-player mode.
He should just tell her to get her tubes tide if he doesn't want one. We hear women whine about how it is major surgery, well, it isn't 1950 any more. These days it is a 30 minute procedure and the woman is back home the same day.
It amazes me how many people don't question the absurd statement that it is major surgery. The fact that women get breast implants through their belly buttons should have been tip off that they might be able to do the same with Tubal ligation.
There is nothing wrong with vasectomies if HE is done breeding and HE is comfortable with it, but if your friend is trying to convince him to have the procedure because SHE is done breeding WITH HIM, and she wants him changed in a way that she is unwilling to do herself, then she is just a bitch.
Jolly Ranchers are a gateway crime. Today a piece of candy tomorrow MUSIC!
Plasmas also use more power, so if you are going with total cost of ownership, it is going to be way more than a buck.
No, your making up bogus anatomical claims to explain away your discriminatory behavior is based entirely on bigotry.
No, I said that making up bogus anatomical claims to explain away discriminatory behavior is the result of bigotry.
I in fact DO pay a subscription to download programs for a flat fee. http://www.gametap.com/
They are not as good as they used to be, but the price is low enough that it beats the hassle of pirating games. The same case applies to movies and Netflix.
I might not get the newest titles the day they come out, but I don't play games and watch movies to be first.
Because the portion of the brain responsible for detecting threats and territorial behavior is triple the size in men than it is in the brains of women.
So in other words because of bigotry that you share, and rationalize with a modern phrenology explanation.
Well, one could say that a corporation, being a fabrication of the government is a part of the government.