While you strive for agility, you should also strive for maintainability, and Javascript is far from maintainable. In fact, try to make your Javascript maintainable will greatly reduce performance. That's the point of GWT, writing great AJAX applications that are scalable and maintainable.
That's not true at all. There are a number of ways to communicate with the server from GWT, and GWT-RPC is just one of them. A popular method is to use JSON to communicate with any server you like. There are also GWT-RPC bindings for a number of languages which lets you use GWT-RPC but communicate with Python, etc. See the Voices That Matter: GWT - Client Server Communication presentation for all the details.
In my mind, the real question is, what happened to the whole Open and Free policy that the OLPC program claimed to maintain. They turned down Microsoft (originally) and Apple. However, now seem to be more then happy to work with Microsoft. WTF? Has Openness and Freedom been thrown out the Window? What happened to allowing the kids to extend the laptops? To not locking them in? I don't know what's going on, but I'll bet that large quantities of money were slipped under the table. Unfortunately, it seems everyone has a price.
Remember how unwillingness Steve had been about native apps? He even went out on a leg to try and make Web Apps easy to get to by creating that apps repository.... Well it seems that the _large_ number of people who are jailbreaking their iPod Touches and iPhones to install third party apps have been heard. They probably weren't planning on releasing an SDK until Steve realized how popular native apps are/would be.
I never really understood the resistance to third party apps in the first place. The iPhone could not only take a chunk of the phone market, but it could take over the entire smart phone market. The same goes for the iPod Touch and the PDA market.
This puts me in a tough position though... I want a Touch right now, but what if Steve screws current Touch owners by making the SDK cost money? Or only allows for proprietary apps to be installable (locking out the Open Source developers)? or something else... hmmm
I've used several of those searches before, Beagle, Meta Tracker and Strigi. I've found them pretty useless. They gave far too many results and it was hard to find exactly what I was looking for. Their interfaces were pretty crappy and didn't offer the important results.
I'm playing with GDS right now and I'm finding it to be significantly better.
What about religions not of the book? How did they treat Hindu's, etc? Hmm? Also, the thing is, Mohammad said many times that Muslims must fight and die in the name of god, that they will be rewarded with 72 virgins and that they should kill infidels. Just because Christians and Jews were considered people of the book, doesn't mean this same "tolerance" was extended to other religions.
Except that if you look at the graph you'll notice that temperature also starts to _fall_ before CO2 levels start falling... ops! So exactly how can there be a "feed-back" effect when it seems that temperature is _always_ leading. In several other occasions on the graph you can see how even with CO2 levels remaining constant, temperature continues to drop (then CO2 drops).
The big problem here is that throughout history it has been shown that CO2 follows temperature. So we should ignore what happened in the past and say that our theory that CO2 increases the temperature only applies to the current century? You state that its well know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and therefore must increase temperature as its concentration rises. But these facts are know only in closed system experiments! You can't test this out on the planet itself. The only thing that's clear is that we need to do a _lot_ more research and get away from this hysterical state that we have entered. We need to push green technologies for _our_ sake (health, etc) anyway, but in a gradual way not in a radical "cut all CO2 now!" way.
Last note, I find it funny how the environmentalists are pushing for drastically cutting CO2. It's funny because when you drastically reduce CO2 you also drastically reduce the economy. However, it's only the rich nations that can actually afford (barely) green technologies! If you turn first world nations into third world nations you'll end up having them spouting out more CO2 and toxic chemicals then they did before. By slowly forcing companies to reduce CO2 emissions, we'll get innovation in green technologies and a gradual shift towards using them.
You know, one thing I don't get is this hypocrisy. I assume that you also believe that the US Government is taking away all your liberties and trying to impose a fascist dictatorship or something along those lines right? So you criticize the "taking away" of liberties and then sit there talk about how to take other people's liberties away. If someone wants to drive a Hummer, that's their bloody choice. Saying things like "Get the Hummers of the road" implies that you want to forcefully take then away as well as force the car industry to stop producing them. Thus you're advocating for restriction of freedom, the very thing you complain when other topics are discussed.
While I agree with your post, I want to complain about this new catch phrase that people seem to be using, "control/fight climate change". Just sit back and look at that phrase for a few seconds. Do you realize that you are advocating that we should try to fight/control a process that has happened throughout the entire existence of the Earth? This is just absurd! How do you expect to control a system that has 1000s of Terawatts of power in it? Why not call a spade a spade? We're trying to "control CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions" with the hope that it might prevent rapid climate change in our decade/generation. This sounds like reasonable goal rather then something silly like saying we will control/fight climate change.
Except that the Canadian government was heavily subsidizing the softwood lumber industry. From here:
The heart of the dispute is the claim that the Canadian lumber industry is unfairly subsidized by the federal and provincial governments. Specifically, most timber in Canada is owned by provincial governments. The price charged to harvest the timber (the "stumpage fee") is set administratively rather than through a competitive auction, as is often the practice in the United States. The United States claims that the provision of government timber at below market prices constitutes an unfair subsidy. Under U.S. trade remedy laws, foreign goods benefiting from subsidies can be subject to a countervailing duty tariff to offset the subsidy and bring the price of the product back up to market rates.
Oops, seems that we (Canadians), were in the wrong. We were essentially giving our land away rather then having it actioned off and thus subsidizing the industry. The US slapped on a tariff that brought the price up to market rates (not over). Unfortunately, the previous Liberal government refused to acknowledge that they were in the wrong. The current Conservative government managed to settle the dispute and will receive almost all of the money that was collected through the tariffs back.
If you want a really challenging AI, and one of the best I've seen around, I highly recommend Galactic Civilizations 2. It's a 4X game similar to Civilization but takes place in space. The developers frequently post articles about the AI and how they are continuing to improve it. Furthermore, they read user's strategies and then improve the AI. The greatest part is that on the Tough setting (highest difficulty before they start giving the AI bonuses), the AI provides a challenging game. This is unlike most AIs where a "challenging" AI essentially means that it has a 200% economy bonus. Interestingly, the AI adapts to your game play and they have talked about using the second core in dual core processors to analyze previous games and use different tactics to counter known strategies.
Bush's majority is increasing? That's news to me (and everyone else on the planet). I also wasn't aware that Bush was running for a 3rd term and was going to change the constitution. Very enlightening, I think you should mod parent as the brightest person on the planet for knowing things that no one else does.
Have you even read realclimate.org's "debunk" of the movie? The most telling of these "debunks" is when they try to "explain" the 800-year lag. Here, I'll quote it for you:
Not quite as true as they said, but basically correct; however they misinterpret it. The way they said this you would have thought that T and CO2 are anti-correlated; but if you overlay the full 400/800 kyr of ice core record, you can't even see the lag because its so small. The correct interpretation of this is well known: that there is a T-CO2 feedback: see RC again for more.
(emphasis mine).
So they say that if you "zoom out" you can't even see the lag (since 800 years v.s. 400/800 thousand years isn't really visible). Is that a joke or something? There is still a bloody 800 year lag! Doing more research going into their linked explanation they say the follow:
Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.
The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.
The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.
(emphasis mine)
So here they claim that CO2 could have caused the next 4200 years of heating? But the truth is we aren't even sure? Furthermore, this explanation is also clearly false. Why? Taking a look at this graph of temperature vs CO2 concentration graph from the Vostok ice core samples, you can clearly see that temperature actually started to fall before CO2 falls (by hundreds of years too). How does this work? How could it be that CO2 is causing the warming (through feedback) if temperature fell while CO2 was still rising!
The most important point that the movie makes (IMHO), is that we aren't even sure if CO2 actually drives climate change. Having read many of the attempted debunks of the movie, I have yet to come across an explanation that holds water. Excuses like, "oh well that was in the past, the warming happening now is from CO2" clearly show the unwillingness to look at evidence and try to get a more meaningful scientific theory.
There were some factual errors in the movie (volcanoes producing more CO2 then humans is not true, the temperature records were shown to go to the year 2000 but were in fact up to 1980). However, there were numerous factual and exaggerated points made in Al Gore's (who btw isn't even a scientists, and you attack the real scientists in The Great Global Warming Swindle?) An Inconvenient Truth (claiming that CO2 matches temperature but never overlaying to see the 800 year lag, temperature increases are occuring only small parts of the Antarctic not everywhere, etc) yet it is seen as an accurate film by AGW proponents (including those that write realclimate.org). I suggest that instead of launching personal attacks on the filmmakers and those that participated in it that you (and others) instead look at their arguments. The 800 year lag argument casts a very long shadow (IMHO) on AGW proponents claims and really shows how much more research we need before we start making economy crushing decisions.
Of course being funded by environmental groups and left-wing minded Universities doesn't constitute any bias. And of course, lets just throw personal attacks at the scientists for their source of funding, instead of of, you know, what scientists are suppose to do, like looking at the evidence being presented and pointing out errors (if the are any) or going back and modifying your theory (if the comments made show flaws in it).
Huh? Read the Wikipedia article rather then some random website. From the page:
While some commentators have called for the relocation of the population of Tuvalu to Australia, New Zealand or Kioa (Fiji), the current Prime Minister Maatia Toafa says his government does not regard rising sea levels as such a threat that the entire population would need to be evacuated. New Zealand has agreed to accept an annual quota of 75 evacuees.
They are very vulnerable to rising sea levels, but they have a lot more to worry about:
The South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission suggest that while Tuvalu is vulnerable to climate change, there are additional environmental problems such as population growth and poor coastal management, which are affecting sustainable development on the island, they rank the country as extremely vulnerable using the Environmental Vulnerability Index.
Well what they actually say there is:
The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data. (emphases mine)
So what they're really saying is that could in fact be CO2, but we really don't know. So I say a big WTF?! I mean, you don't really know if CO2 increase is what causes the Earth the heat up? Huh? Isn't this what the whole Global Warming by Anthropogenic generated greenhouse gases is all about? Why should we start cutting our CO2 emissions if we're still guessing about this aspect? If the historical data doesn't really show much (800 year lag, i.e. no correlation), and all we have is some recent correlation (no correlation between 1940s and 1970s) with some controlled lab experiments (i.e. nothing like the real world), how can we use this information for policy making.
Btw, as an aside, I'm not really sure about they're claim that it might cause further warming, if you look at the overlay of CO2 and temperature you'll see that temperature also start to fall while CO2 is still rising, and then, several hundred years later (after the Earth started cooling), CO2 starts falling.
Ah of course when a huge number of climate scientists are funded by Seirra Club that's fine right?
The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million
reference.
The real point isn't who funds the research, it's the scientific basis on which it's based. I hate when people say, "but look, they're funded by X and therefore are biased so lets not even bother trying to show how they are wrong" instead of what scientists (and others) should be doing, "I'm not interested in personal attacks since that doesn't prove anything, but here is why this is wrong..."
This doesn't only apply to climate change but to things like Microsoft's Get the Facts campaign and so forth. Some people on/. would say, "but it's from Microsoft, don't even bother looking at it", but the smart/.ers would actually point out faults in the papers (such as having sys admins upgrade libc, etc).
Most (and by that I mean pretty much all) DSL and cable providers in Canada don't start with the notices until you're into the hundreds of GB - if they even send letters at all.
Hmm strange, I have a cap of 60 GB here in Toronto with Rogers...
This is very true. Using SVG is _very_ slow. I'm not entirely sure why, but I really hope they fix this before KDE 4 comes out (which is suppose to use SVG by default)
I'm kind of confused by the/. obsession with Breeder and Pebble bed reactors. Sure, these reactors are great, in theory, but they are still a long way away from being used as commercial reactors. There was of course that small accident in Germany with the Pebble bed reactor (too lazy to look for link now) and Breeders also only exist as small prototype reactors.
I love Nuclear, but the reactors/. users keep proposing aren't viable, better to use LWRs or HWRs.
Note: I'm not a Nuclear physicist, but a friend of mine is:P
Disclaimer: I have a short memory, so if I messed up something (if some of these reactors do exist in industrial scale, please point it out).
In case anyone does continue reading this, they should understand that polls are notoriously inaccurate and when someone quotes pre-election polls as what the results would be, then they're pretty stupid. According to that assessment the Conservatives should have a majority government here in Canada, unfortunately, it seems that the Liberals rigged the elections (according to your logic) and so now they have a very small minority government (the original polls showed that they would easily get a majority government). Furthermore, all that BS about the Republicans rigging the elections (to a large extent, because as most people are aware, there is fraud in both camps) is well, BS and conspiracy theories akin to the 9/11 ones. So try to take a less "this must turn out the way I want or it's fraud" approach and leave other people be (something Liberals always preach but never follow).
Slashdot Mirror
While you strive for agility, you should also strive for maintainability, and Javascript is far from maintainable. In fact, try to make your Javascript maintainable will greatly reduce performance. That's the point of GWT, writing great AJAX applications that are scalable and maintainable.
That's not true at all. There are a number of ways to communicate with the server from GWT, and GWT-RPC is just one of them. A popular method is to use JSON to communicate with any server you like. There are also GWT-RPC bindings for a number of languages which lets you use GWT-RPC but communicate with Python, etc. See the Voices That Matter: GWT - Client Server Communication presentation for all the details.
In my mind, the real question is, what happened to the whole Open and Free policy that the OLPC program claimed to maintain. They turned down Microsoft (originally) and Apple. However, now seem to be more then happy to work with Microsoft. WTF? Has Openness and Freedom been thrown out the Window? What happened to allowing the kids to extend the laptops? To not locking them in? I don't know what's going on, but I'll bet that large quantities of money were slipped under the table. Unfortunately, it seems everyone has a price.
Remember how unwillingness Steve had been about native apps? He even went out on a leg to try and make Web Apps easy to get to by creating that apps repository.... Well it seems that the _large_ number of people who are jailbreaking their iPod Touches and iPhones to install third party apps have been heard. They probably weren't planning on releasing an SDK until Steve realized how popular native apps are/would be.
I never really understood the resistance to third party apps in the first place. The iPhone could not only take a chunk of the phone market, but it could take over the entire smart phone market. The same goes for the iPod Touch and the PDA market.
This puts me in a tough position though... I want a Touch right now, but what if Steve screws current Touch owners by making the SDK cost money? Or only allows for proprietary apps to be installable (locking out the Open Source developers)? or something else... hmmm
I've used several of those searches before, Beagle, Meta Tracker and Strigi. I've found them pretty useless. They gave far too many results and it was hard to find exactly what I was looking for. Their interfaces were pretty crappy and didn't offer the important results.
I'm playing with GDS right now and I'm finding it to be significantly better.
What about religions not of the book? How did they treat Hindu's, etc? Hmm? Also, the thing is, Mohammad said many times that Muslims must fight and die in the name of god, that they will be rewarded with 72 virgins and that they should kill infidels. Just because Christians and Jews were considered people of the book, doesn't mean this same "tolerance" was extended to other religions.
Except that if you look at the graph you'll notice that temperature also starts to _fall_ before CO2 levels start falling... ops! So exactly how can there be a "feed-back" effect when it seems that temperature is _always_ leading. In several other occasions on the graph you can see how even with CO2 levels remaining constant, temperature continues to drop (then CO2 drops).
The big problem here is that throughout history it has been shown that CO2 follows temperature. So we should ignore what happened in the past and say that our theory that CO2 increases the temperature only applies to the current century? You state that its well know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and therefore must increase temperature as its concentration rises. But these facts are know only in closed system experiments! You can't test this out on the planet itself. The only thing that's clear is that we need to do a _lot_ more research and get away from this hysterical state that we have entered. We need to push green technologies for _our_ sake (health, etc) anyway, but in a gradual way not in a radical "cut all CO2 now!" way.
Last note, I find it funny how the environmentalists are pushing for drastically cutting CO2. It's funny because when you drastically reduce CO2 you also drastically reduce the economy. However, it's only the rich nations that can actually afford (barely) green technologies! If you turn first world nations into third world nations you'll end up having them spouting out more CO2 and toxic chemicals then they did before. By slowly forcing companies to reduce CO2 emissions, we'll get innovation in green technologies and a gradual shift towards using them.
But this is suppose to be tethered to the ground, I highly doubt moving it around is going to be easy/possible.
I was under the impression that the jet stream moved around throughout the year...
You know, one thing I don't get is this hypocrisy. I assume that you also believe that the US Government is taking away all your liberties and trying to impose a fascist dictatorship or something along those lines right? So you criticize the "taking away" of liberties and then sit there talk about how to take other people's liberties away. If someone wants to drive a Hummer, that's their bloody choice. Saying things like "Get the Hummers of the road" implies that you want to forcefully take then away as well as force the car industry to stop producing them. Thus you're advocating for restriction of freedom, the very thing you complain when other topics are discussed.
While I agree with your post, I want to complain about this new catch phrase that people seem to be using, "control/fight climate change". Just sit back and look at that phrase for a few seconds. Do you realize that you are advocating that we should try to fight/control a process that has happened throughout the entire existence of the Earth? This is just absurd! How do you expect to control a system that has 1000s of Terawatts of power in it? Why not call a spade a spade? We're trying to "control CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions" with the hope that it might prevent rapid climate change in our decade/generation. This sounds like reasonable goal rather then something silly like saying we will control/fight climate change.
Oops, seems that we (Canadians), were in the wrong. We were essentially giving our land away rather then having it actioned off and thus subsidizing the industry. The US slapped on a tariff that brought the price up to market rates (not over). Unfortunately, the previous Liberal government refused to acknowledge that they were in the wrong. The current Conservative government managed to settle the dispute and will receive almost all of the money that was collected through the tariffs back.
OK I'm next in line, can I get modded insightful for no reason?
If you want a really challenging AI, and one of the best I've seen around, I highly recommend Galactic Civilizations 2. It's a 4X game similar to Civilization but takes place in space. The developers frequently post articles about the AI and how they are continuing to improve it. Furthermore, they read user's strategies and then improve the AI. The greatest part is that on the Tough setting (highest difficulty before they start giving the AI bonuses), the AI provides a challenging game. This is unlike most AIs where a "challenging" AI essentially means that it has a 200% economy bonus. Interestingly, the AI adapts to your game play and they have talked about using the second core in dual core processors to analyze previous games and use different tactics to counter known strategies.
Bush's majority is increasing? That's news to me (and everyone else on the planet). I also wasn't aware that Bush was running for a 3rd term and was going to change the constitution. Very enlightening, I think you should mod parent as the brightest person on the planet for knowing things that no one else does.
So they say that if you "zoom out" you can't even see the lag (since 800 years v.s. 400/800 thousand years isn't really visible). Is that a joke or something? There is still a bloody 800 year lag! Doing more research going into their linked explanation they say the follow:
(emphasis mine)So here they claim that CO2 could have caused the next 4200 years of heating? But the truth is we aren't even sure? Furthermore, this explanation is also clearly false. Why? Taking a look at this graph of temperature vs CO2 concentration graph from the Vostok ice core samples, you can clearly see that temperature actually started to fall before CO2 falls (by hundreds of years too). How does this work? How could it be that CO2 is causing the warming (through feedback) if temperature fell while CO2 was still rising!
The most important point that the movie makes (IMHO), is that we aren't even sure if CO2 actually drives climate change. Having read many of the attempted debunks of the movie, I have yet to come across an explanation that holds water. Excuses like, "oh well that was in the past, the warming happening now is from CO2" clearly show the unwillingness to look at evidence and try to get a more meaningful scientific theory.
There were some factual errors in the movie (volcanoes producing more CO2 then humans is not true, the temperature records were shown to go to the year 2000 but were in fact up to 1980). However, there were numerous factual and exaggerated points made in Al Gore's (who btw isn't even a scientists, and you attack the real scientists in The Great Global Warming Swindle?) An Inconvenient Truth (claiming that CO2 matches temperature but never overlaying to see the 800 year lag, temperature increases are occuring only small parts of the Antarctic not everywhere, etc) yet it is seen as an accurate film by AGW proponents (including those that write realclimate.org). I suggest that instead of launching personal attacks on the filmmakers and those that participated in it that you (and others) instead look at their arguments. The 800 year lag argument casts a very long shadow (IMHO) on AGW proponents claims and really shows how much more research we need before we start making economy crushing decisions.
Of course being funded by environmental groups and left-wing minded Universities doesn't constitute any bias. And of course, lets just throw personal attacks at the scientists for their source of funding, instead of of, you know, what scientists are suppose to do, like looking at the evidence being presented and pointing out errors (if the are any) or going back and modifying your theory (if the comments made show flaws in it).
They are very vulnerable to rising sea levels, but they have a lot more to worry about:
The South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission suggest that while Tuvalu is vulnerable to climate change, there are additional environmental problems such as population growth and poor coastal management, which are affecting sustainable development on the island, they rank the country as extremely vulnerable using the Environmental Vulnerability Index.So what they're really saying is that could in fact be CO2, but we really don't know. So I say a big WTF?! I mean, you don't really know if CO2 increase is what causes the Earth the heat up? Huh? Isn't this what the whole Global Warming by Anthropogenic generated greenhouse gases is all about? Why should we start cutting our CO2 emissions if we're still guessing about this aspect? If the historical data doesn't really show much (800 year lag, i.e. no correlation), and all we have is some recent correlation (no correlation between 1940s and 1970s) with some controlled lab experiments (i.e. nothing like the real world), how can we use this information for policy making.
Btw, as an aside, I'm not really sure about they're claim that it might cause further warming, if you look at the overlay of CO2 and temperature you'll see that temperature also start to fall while CO2 is still rising, and then, several hundred years later (after the Earth started cooling), CO2 starts falling.
The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million reference.
The real point isn't who funds the research, it's the scientific basis on which it's based. I hate when people say, "but look, they're funded by X and therefore are biased so lets not even bother trying to show how they are wrong" instead of what scientists (and others) should be doing, "I'm not interested in personal attacks since that doesn't prove anything, but here is why this is wrong..."
This doesn't only apply to climate change but to things like Microsoft's Get the Facts campaign and so forth. Some people on /. would say, "but it's from Microsoft, don't even bother looking at it", but the smart /.ers would actually point out faults in the papers (such as having sys admins upgrade libc, etc).
Hmm strange, I have a cap of 60 GB here in Toronto with Rogers...
This is very true. Using SVG is _very_ slow. I'm not entirely sure why, but I really hope they fix this before KDE 4 comes out (which is suppose to use SVG by default)
I love Nuclear, but the reactors /. users keep proposing aren't viable, better to use LWRs or HWRs.
Note: I'm not a Nuclear physicist, but a friend of mine is :P
Disclaimer: I have a short memory, so if I messed up something (if some of these reactors do exist in industrial scale, please point it out).
In case anyone does continue reading this, they should understand that polls are notoriously inaccurate and when someone quotes pre-election polls as what the results would be, then they're pretty stupid. According to that assessment the Conservatives should have a majority government here in Canada, unfortunately, it seems that the Liberals rigged the elections (according to your logic) and so now they have a very small minority government (the original polls showed that they would easily get a majority government). Furthermore, all that BS about the Republicans rigging the elections (to a large extent, because as most people are aware, there is fraud in both camps) is well, BS and conspiracy theories akin to the 9/11 ones. So try to take a less "this must turn out the way I want or it's fraud" approach and leave other people be (something Liberals always preach but never follow).
My boss? You mean my boss at work? If you're talking about Mr. Bush, that's very funny because I'm Canadian, sorry.
I'm confused, how is my comment wrong? That's exactly what he meant.