The campus from 2000-ish or is there an even newer one? FWIW, that campus has a good view in the sumi-e classroom and fancy bidet toilets in the bathrooms.
No. Your whole argument is a series of assertions that Java is big today (its not) and that therefore it can never lose market domination (it can). It's so wrong that it's irritating.
1. The iPhones market share is a tiny drop in the global bucket, even if all the Apple-loving tech media journalists would like to have you think otherwise.
So is the mobile Java market. Who the hell plays a mobile Java game on purpose? People either buy them by accident when they click the wrong thing with their phones nub, or when theyre incredibly bored and they dont have any other way of gaming.
2. iPhone game development restricts you to a MacOS development environment. This basically guarantees that even if the iPhone becomes hugely successful, its place in mobile game development will never capture more than a minority status among game developers.
Are you aware of a little thing called consoles? You dont develop for the Xbox, PlayStation, or Wii using a conventional PC setup either, but those guys seem to be doing OK. If anything, the barrier to entry for the iPhone is much lower than in those cases, since the SDK is free, and anyone who cares about their computing experience runs either a Mac or a Mac with Linux on it anyway.
3. Unless all of the other mobile industry players spontaneously decide to line up behind Apple, Java is not going to lose ground to C# anytime soon as the language of choice for game developers.
You dont know the difference between C# and Objective-C.
Java is not the language of choice for game developers. C++ is. Java is the language of choice for enterprise slaves.
4. Java is a programming language and a set of industry standards for mobile hardware, not mobile phone hardware itself. Pointing to the cool new hardware features that the iPhone supports isnt an argument against java phone games, it just points towards Apples decision not to play nice with the rest of the industry standard apps and developers out there. If anything, this decision will limit the scope iPhone-specic game development (who wants to waste their resources on such a small market segment when they can make games that will run on a much larger amount of phones out there), it doesnt pose any threat to the use of Java as a mobile game development standard. At the very least, it means that Java game developers will have to wait for Sun (or any other company) to provide a good set of translation tools that will let them develop for the iPhones hardware in Java.
If that logic were true, PC would be dominating the consoles, and no one would develop for Mac. Good developers realize that you get rich by leading the market, not following.
The threat isn't to shitty cellphone games. The threat is to the Nintendo DS and PlayStation Portable. The iPhone has a touch screen like the DS and can play movies like the PSP, and WiFi like both of them, plus it has a tilt sensor and oh, yeah, multiple gigs of storage space. Once the iPhone costs the same as a PSP and game manufacturers are allowed to build for it (ie. after Monday), Nintendo and Sony are going to be entering a world of pain.
Konqueror developers are considering implementing WebKit as the rendering engine for the next version of Konqueror, replacing KHTML (this would, as George points out, provide more of a bug-for-bug compatibility between Safari and Konqueror).
It's a shame you got modded Troll. You are factually correct. Konqueror uses KHTML, but it's planning to switch to WebKit. WebKit derives from KHTML, but sheez, you can't list the whole history everything in a short blurb.
A.) The dates for both of those figures are sketchy at best.
B.) Who said the religions didn't evolve after their founding?
The accusation of certain scholars is that Judaism was more or less re-invented during the Babylonian exodus. For example, the use of angels is supposed to be an import from Zoroastrianism. I don't necessarily buy the claim, but I can concede that different people in Jewish history have had very different interpretations of how things are supposed to fit together, and that the canon probably evolved somewhat in part due to competition with outside influences.
The word dualism has different meanings in different contexts. There's mind-body dualism, form-matter dualism, noumena-phenomena dualism, or (this case) good-evil dualism. Don't confuse the different dualisms together.
Lithobreaking was a contingency measure enacted in order to prevent the vgerization of the craft. With a successful landing and the risk of vgerization greatly diminished, the next challenge for the mission controllers is preventing an outbreak of quaids.
Yeah, but that doesn't mean if I get pulled over by the cops for speeding, and they see a candlestick in the back seat that I'll be arrested for arms dealing.
The candlestick thing works against your point. Anything can be used as a weapon under the right circumstances. If it's heavy, you can pile it on someone until they're crushed. If it's light, you can grind it up and use it to suffocate. So, anything could be used as a weapon. Thus, that's not the question the law should ask if it wants to figure out what to ban or else we would need to suspend all trade period.
The issue for the law should be whether the primary intent (or even a strong secondary intent) for the device is its use as a weapon. So, candlesticks have interesting other purposes, but a directed sound device is basically only good for hurting people.
"It's not incoherent to say that the brain controls the arm, so why is it incoherent to suggest something controls the brain?"
"Free will" is a very poorly defined term. However, generally speaking the term is distinct from the theory that there are immaterial forces which control the brain (a soul or spirit). I'm sympathetic to that theory, but not to the theory of free will as it generally described.
A provisional definition of free will might be, "I am the cause of my decisions, not prior (material) conditions." However, if one asks what is the cause of the I's deciding the way it does, the answer is either "there is no cause" in which case our actions are random (meaningless) or there is a cause. If there is a cause, it must be the I itself for us to have free will. If it is the I, then either the I has a "state" which gives rise to its decisions or the I does not. If the I is without a state, then the I's deciding would either have circular causation, which is typical considered impossible, or it would be random, which means that I don't really have free will. If the I has a state, then that state is either based on prior conditions or not. If it's not, then it's random. If it is then the decisions of the I are determined by prior events, which goes against the definition of free will used provisionally here.
So, there is a dilemma: either our choices are caused by our internal state, which is determined by the interaction of prior events and our prior state (character, personality, etc.), or our choices are caused by nothing and thus are random.
Of the two, I find the first preferable, since it makes my choices due to me, even if the existence of me is due to other things out of my control.
In any event, I'm not sure why our culture considers free will to be an intrinsic good. We only need to make choices when we don't know what course of action is best. If we knew what was best, it would be perverse to choose the second best thing. If there are multiple choices of equal value, then it doesn't make a difference what is chosen. Free will is a fancy name for ignorance.
Much more important in terms of making human being a valuable and unique organism in the world is the fact that we have moral feelings which we sometimes act on. For example, if you kick a dog and then give it a bowl of food, the dog will eat it. If you kick a man, then offer him wealth, some (but not all) men will turn you down. If a monkey sees one monkey kill another, he will hide from the killing monkey. Sometimes (but not always) men choose to be killed for a principle.
It's not our thinking that makes us better than animals, and it's certainly not our deciding (which again, is a fancy name for ignorance). It's our ability to cultivate our moral feelings that makes us special.
Read this article's comments at -1. Do you notice something? Yes. A shitton of people using the word "nigger" and making racist remarks.
No, racism is not the only problem in society, and it's probably not even the biggest currently existing cause of low rates of African-American programmers, but it is around and it is real. It's not just something people make up. Go on Xbox Live sometime, then say that there's no racism. Read this thread. Look at the world around you.
Google is actually much scarier than MS. Google has a crapton more search logs than MS. That means that if you had Google's corpus and could search it, you would be able to identify at least a few high level politicians who have searched for escort services or gay porn. Remember when just a few of AOL's searches were leaked and many of them could be traced back to the people who made the searches even without the IP addresses?
MS is a bit more likely to catch someone emailing their mistress with an "anonymous" (heh) Hotmail account, but Gmail isn't that much smaller, and besides Google has more practice in searching your email than MS anyway, since they do it as a part of their ad system.
In any case, someone should really pass privacy laws that require companies to not keep this information bundled tightly enough to give these large corporations the ability to blackmail people, but I don't see it as likely until after something really bad happens and people get caught.
That does lead to the rather worrying question of just how many nukes are in transit between their SILOs and the (re)manufacturing facilities on any given day.
In what sense is that worrying? I can't ever imagine a scenario in which it's a good idea for the US to actually launch several nukes, as opposed to just appearing to possess the ability to. As far as nukes go, the best case scenario is to never use them. If China or Russia suddenly decides to kill us all, I sincerely hope that we don't retaliate, because what would be the point of increasing the death toll by another hundred million? It's bad enough that we got hit. There's no need to make it worse by hitting them.
That's an idiotic plan. First of all, how does "use a house" solve the fundamental problem: sneaking the uranium into the country without being noticed? If anything, having a street level presence increases the odds of someone noticing something weird going on. If you just ship the whole bomb to the house, then it's not any easier at all. If you disassemble the bomb and re-assemble it in the house, people will notice that you're running a factory in a residential neighborhood and turn you in. If you buy an actual factory, people will ask to see your permits, and those aren't easy to get.
Second of all, detonating a house would waste almost all of the potential of the bomb. For a bomb to be effective, it needs to be detonated in the air above the target, so that the blast radius is roughly tangential to the ground. Blowing up a house makes an already weak bomb (for the given amount of nuclear material and cost) weaker.
Third, why would anyone with the resources to do such an elaborate attack waste their time with such an idiotic implementation? For the cost of the house, you can rent a cargo plane and just blow it up instead. For the cost of manufacturing the crappy old bomb, you could implement a much more efficient AQ Khan design. The whole thing makes no sense.
Slashdot Mirror
In fairness to China, they make the iPod, so they should get a veto over what crap people listen to on it.
Aren't all Slashdot posts made up on the spot except for copy-paste trolls?
No, /. sucks. Try to point out the price of something in Euros. It won't work. Nor does the cents symbol.
You're mostly right. I would add that Japan = Yahoo and China = QQ.
The campus from 2000-ish or is there an even newer one? FWIW, that campus has a good view in the sumi-e classroom and fancy bidet toilets in the bathrooms.
Word of advice: the doors on the train in Hirakata (and everywhere else in Japan for that matter) are only about 5'11". Learned that the hard way.
(Go to Kansai Gaidai. It's fun. Get a host family that knows no English if you actually want to get better at speaking Japanese quickly.)
No. Your whole argument is a series of assertions that Java is big today (its not) and that therefore it can never lose market domination (it can). It's so wrong that it's irritating.
So is the mobile Java market. Who the hell plays a mobile Java game on purpose? People either buy them by accident when they click the wrong thing with their phones nub, or when theyre incredibly bored and they dont have any other way of gaming.
Are you aware of a little thing called consoles? You dont develop for the Xbox, PlayStation, or Wii using a conventional PC setup either, but those guys seem to be doing OK. If anything, the barrier to entry for the iPhone is much lower than in those cases, since the SDK is free, and anyone who cares about their computing experience runs either a Mac or a Mac with Linux on it anyway.
If that logic were true, PC would be dominating the consoles, and no one would develop for Mac. Good developers realize that you get rich by leading the market, not following.
The threat isn't to shitty cellphone games. The threat is to the Nintendo DS and PlayStation Portable. The iPhone has a touch screen like the DS and can play movies like the PSP, and WiFi like both of them, plus it has a tilt sensor and oh, yeah, multiple gigs of storage space. Once the iPhone costs the same as a PSP and game manufacturers are allowed to build for it (ie. after Monday), Nintendo and Sony are going to be entering a world of pain.
-- Lars Knoll and George Staikos on KHTML and WebKit
Perhaps they changed plans since then and I didn't hear it.
It's a shame you got modded Troll. You are factually correct. Konqueror uses KHTML, but it's planning to switch to WebKit. WebKit derives from KHTML, but sheez, you can't list the whole history everything in a short blurb.
Indeed. Two or three feet tall, sure. But a seven foot one? It seems like the only market for them would be bored NBA players.
Why do you think half the rovers sent to Mars "crash."
A.) The dates for both of those figures are sketchy at best.
B.) Who said the religions didn't evolve after their founding?
The accusation of certain scholars is that Judaism was more or less re-invented during the Babylonian exodus. For example, the use of angels is supposed to be an import from Zoroastrianism. I don't necessarily buy the claim, but I can concede that different people in Jewish history have had very different interpretations of how things are supposed to fit together, and that the canon probably evolved somewhat in part due to competition with outside influences.
The word dualism has different meanings in different contexts. There's mind-body dualism, form-matter dualism, noumena-phenomena dualism, or (this case) good-evil dualism. Don't confuse the different dualisms together.
I have no idea why they write it in the first person like that. It's freaking creepy.
Lithobreaking was a contingency measure enacted in order to prevent the vgerization of the craft. With a successful landing and the risk of vgerization greatly diminished, the next challenge for the mission controllers is preventing an outbreak of quaids.
Yeah, but that doesn't mean if I get pulled over by the cops for speeding, and they see a candlestick in the back seat that I'll be arrested for arms dealing.
The candlestick thing works against your point. Anything can be used as a weapon under the right circumstances. If it's heavy, you can pile it on someone until they're crushed. If it's light, you can grind it up and use it to suffocate. So, anything could be used as a weapon. Thus, that's not the question the law should ask if it wants to figure out what to ban or else we would need to suspend all trade period.
The issue for the law should be whether the primary intent (or even a strong secondary intent) for the device is its use as a weapon. So, candlesticks have interesting other purposes, but a directed sound device is basically only good for hurting people.
"It's not incoherent to say that the brain controls the arm, so why is it incoherent to suggest something controls the brain?"
"Free will" is a very poorly defined term. However, generally speaking the term is distinct from the theory that there are immaterial forces which control the brain (a soul or spirit). I'm sympathetic to that theory, but not to the theory of free will as it generally described.
A provisional definition of free will might be, "I am the cause of my decisions, not prior (material) conditions." However, if one asks what is the cause of the I's deciding the way it does, the answer is either "there is no cause" in which case our actions are random (meaningless) or there is a cause. If there is a cause, it must be the I itself for us to have free will. If it is the I, then either the I has a "state" which gives rise to its decisions or the I does not. If the I is without a state, then the I's deciding would either have circular causation, which is typical considered impossible, or it would be random, which means that I don't really have free will. If the I has a state, then that state is either based on prior conditions or not. If it's not, then it's random. If it is then the decisions of the I are determined by prior events, which goes against the definition of free will used provisionally here.
So, there is a dilemma: either our choices are caused by our internal state, which is determined by the interaction of prior events and our prior state (character, personality, etc.), or our choices are caused by nothing and thus are random.
Of the two, I find the first preferable, since it makes my choices due to me, even if the existence of me is due to other things out of my control.
In any event, I'm not sure why our culture considers free will to be an intrinsic good. We only need to make choices when we don't know what course of action is best. If we knew what was best, it would be perverse to choose the second best thing. If there are multiple choices of equal value, then it doesn't make a difference what is chosen. Free will is a fancy name for ignorance.
Much more important in terms of making human being a valuable and unique organism in the world is the fact that we have moral feelings which we sometimes act on. For example, if you kick a dog and then give it a bowl of food, the dog will eat it. If you kick a man, then offer him wealth, some (but not all) men will turn you down. If a monkey sees one monkey kill another, he will hide from the killing monkey. Sometimes (but not always) men choose to be killed for a principle.
It's not our thinking that makes us better than animals, and it's certainly not our deciding (which again, is a fancy name for ignorance). It's our ability to cultivate our moral feelings that makes us special.
Read this article's comments at -1. Do you notice something? Yes. A shitton of people using the word "nigger" and making racist remarks.
No, racism is not the only problem in society, and it's probably not even the biggest currently existing cause of low rates of African-American programmers, but it is around and it is real. It's not just something people make up. Go on Xbox Live sometime, then say that there's no racism. Read this thread. Look at the world around you.
Google is actually much scarier than MS. Google has a crapton more search logs than MS. That means that if you had Google's corpus and could search it, you would be able to identify at least a few high level politicians who have searched for escort services or gay porn. Remember when just a few of AOL's searches were leaked and many of them could be traced back to the people who made the searches even without the IP addresses?
MS is a bit more likely to catch someone emailing their mistress with an "anonymous" (heh) Hotmail account, but Gmail isn't that much smaller, and besides Google has more practice in searching your email than MS anyway, since they do it as a part of their ad system.
In any case, someone should really pass privacy laws that require companies to not keep this information bundled tightly enough to give these large corporations the ability to blackmail people, but I don't see it as likely until after something really bad happens and people get caught.
Well, for people using Internet Explorer, access to a real web browser via the web would be a big step up!
I thought your comment was funny. It's a shame about the moderation.
In what sense is that worrying? I can't ever imagine a scenario in which it's a good idea for the US to actually launch several nukes, as opposed to just appearing to possess the ability to. As far as nukes go, the best case scenario is to never use them. If China or Russia suddenly decides to kill us all, I sincerely hope that we don't retaliate, because what would be the point of increasing the death toll by another hundred million? It's bad enough that we got hit. There's no need to make it worse by hitting them.
That's an idiotic plan. First of all, how does "use a house" solve the fundamental problem: sneaking the uranium into the country without being noticed? If anything, having a street level presence increases the odds of someone noticing something weird going on. If you just ship the whole bomb to the house, then it's not any easier at all. If you disassemble the bomb and re-assemble it in the house, people will notice that you're running a factory in a residential neighborhood and turn you in. If you buy an actual factory, people will ask to see your permits, and those aren't easy to get.
Second of all, detonating a house would waste almost all of the potential of the bomb. For a bomb to be effective, it needs to be detonated in the air above the target, so that the blast radius is roughly tangential to the ground. Blowing up a house makes an already weak bomb (for the given amount of nuclear material and cost) weaker.
Third, why would anyone with the resources to do such an elaborate attack waste their time with such an idiotic implementation? For the cost of the house, you can rent a cargo plane and just blow it up instead. For the cost of manufacturing the crappy old bomb, you could implement a much more efficient AQ Khan design. The whole thing makes no sense.