Hi. Yes, you are right - people do want to be able to run apps. I am just saying that these frameworks are now being used where they should not be. It seems like so many sites now use them, when the site really only has static content; but because a framework is used, I have to enable Javascript, or enter click after click in my NoScript plugin just to see a web page. I would prefer that single-page web app frameworks only be used when one really needs an app. For static content, one should be able to turn off Javascript, especially since Javascript is such a powerful malware vector.
Truly, there should be a different protocol - not HTTP - for apps. Javascript's architecture was a mistake - mixing static content with apps is not a good idea, because it makes it possible to hide active attacks within all content.
What if the user does not want to use Javascript, for security reasons? Javascript is the primary vector for a large percent of malware infections. Yet, with single-page web apps, one has to enable Javascript to see anything. Not so with websites such as the NY Times and other major news sites; why should it be with company XYZ site?
Javascript has destroyed the Web, but with the latest frameworks we are shoving it down people's throat.
Hi. The difference is that model aircraft is a true hobby - people who use model aircraft are a small minority of the population, and are aficionados - they tend to be knowledgeable and responsible; whereas drones are mass marketed and every kid and goofball tends to have one. Drones also have cameras on them - I think most model aircraft don't - and so there is a tendency to want to send a drone far and wide to see what is there - violating the line of sight rules.
There needs to be a way to either (1) restrict drones to people who are responsible and serious (perhaps like yourself), perhaps via a type of pilot license that requires training and money to obtain - i.e., an investment that proves a level of seriousness - that will eliminate the goofballs, or (2) make the devices such that they warn human passenger aircraft.
Anyway, I have no say about it - that's just my opinion.
I know it is burdensome, but consider what happens when a private aircraft with people on board strikes a drone - all the people are at risk of dying, and the damage to the aircraft can be catastrophic. Many amphibious sport aviation aircraft fly at low altitude over lakes or near local private runways - now pilots have to worry about someone flying a drone over the lake or near a private runway. It is just too risky. This is very serious. Perhaps the cost of the transponders will come down if all drones must have them.
Otherwise they are a menace. We cannot count on the general public operating drones safely, and a collision can result in catastrophe. Many aircraft fly at low altitude at points. Also, some drones can fly very high. They are aircraft, and they are too small to see from an airplane - they all need to have transponders.
Many filmmakers get started making small short films. If they have not yet published a film, are they not a filmmaker? Seems like any definition of "filmmaker" would unfairly exclude some people.
Yes, agreed. I think this is natural for our species, however: greed. Not everyone of course, but enough that we will always see what you describe. That's why we need protection. It is hard to get those protections: the people with the locked up wealth do their best to hold on to their situation. I also agree about competition. The challenge is to preserve fair markets, which are made unfair by consolidation.
Good point - essential point. US Supreme Court decisions that have equated paid advertising with free speech were wrong, IMO: free speech is the ability to speak one's mind: that is not the same thing as paying others to say things.
This is not communism. I am not a communist: I believe in freedom, whereas communism puts the state above freedom, even telling people what jobs they should have.
Your implication that it is hard to decide what should be restricted - the balance - is a tough process: it requires a guiding philosophy. I completely agree with you on that. In the end, everything comes down to having good judgment. Look at the terrible court decisions that happen every day. People have limits: people will make bad choices, there is no way to prevent that. But we can have a philosophy that guides people, to reduce the bad choices. I think the philosophy needs to emphasize personal freedom, while also emphasizing protection from others - other individuals as well as companies, governments - any organization or source of power. Power is what individuals need protection from, no matter its source. I do not advocate that the state protect us from ourselves.
Yes friend, I am libertarian. But there are many different interpretations of the term. For example, I believe in _personal_ liberty, free of government intrusion, but I do not believe in liberty for aggregations of power: organizations - corporations, unions, non-profits, government agencies, etc. Collections of people are not people, any more than a plant is a cell.
That said, there are limits, as with anything. People need protection from aggregations of power, and they also need protection from each other. That's why we have a police force: it is a lesser of two evils calculation.
One thing I have learned in my 61 years is that extremes do not work: the key is to have the right balance. Where people differ in in where the right balance lies;-)
I am libertarian and hate unnecessary regulation; but drones pose a huge threat to aviation - both commercial and sport aviation. Imagine hitting one of those things in the windshield of your airplane at a few hundred miles per hour. Death is the certain result. And now every kid has a drone.
Drones that are able to fly above 100 feet should be required to have transponders. Sport amphibious aircraft fly at low altitude when landing on a lake.
Perhaps registration is not needed; perhaps what we need is to require the manufacturers to embed transponders in the things, and have a $100,000 fine for flying a drone without a transponder or a defective transponder. Something needs to be done.
Several reasons. One is that the imperative languages we use are inherently vulnerable to TOCTOU (race condition) errors. We should be using design level languages. However, while design level languages and architecture level languages have cropped up in academia from time to time, programmers - who are largely self taught - have not learned of these and don't want to know about them anyway, because it is more fun to just "code".
Another problem is that all of the incentive today is around producing more features fast. This is because software producers are not liable for damage caused by vulnerabilities. Until that changes, nothing will change. Most programmers know very little about application level security, because their employer is not telling them that is the priority. There is no incentive - if there were, programmers would respond.
Yes, since C and C++ have their own issues, Go is a reasonable alternative. I also am looking at Rust - looks very promising. I spent a year with Go and have walked away from it. Another aspect that seems a mess - the library/import mechanism.
Interesting. What use cases do you think that Go is well suited for?
It seemed to me that it became popular among the Linux container tool community because it was early in having libraries for LXC. But that doesn't make it a good language - just a lucky one.
One caveat in my bad opinion of it is that the alternatives each have deficits as well. What are your thoughts?
It's my opinion, yes, but Google and see the number of websites and posts about "go gotchas". It is the only language I know where you can check for null, then do a type inference and check for null on that and get a different result; or how about the fact that an argument passed as a method target gets treated differently than an argument passed in an argument list. And the culture of go is terrible - short little variable names like "unm" and "d" instead of expressive names like "userName" and "documentId" - try searching for all instances of "d" when you want to find where it is used. And then the fact that you can't look at an object and tell what type it is, or what methods might actually apply to it. It is the _MOST_ difficult language for examining someone else's code and trying to figure out what is going on.
How can it be the same? They used his photos - a photo is an entire work - they didn't use part of a photo. He used screen shots of TV shows - a screen shot is not an entire work, and should be subject to fair use.
Still, it seems they are having a large impact. I am puzzled by the numbers. Malls are closing, and non-mall retail is struggling even more than before.
Hard to reconcile these things - I must be missing something.
So we just need to ensure that Amazon (and eBay) cannot dominate - if they dominate then they can set unfair terms. But at least hope is not lost for small businesses.
They are destroying retail. Perhaps it is inevitable, but it is terrible: retail was the last way that an average person could have their own business - by opening a "shop". Now all the "shops" are going under because everyone buys online. No more shops - just Amazon employees, all working for "the man".
Yes, train everyone in the specific skills Google needs, while at the same time importing people from overseas to undercut wages, which thereby discourages people from entering IT.
"Man, this job running cable in the Google data center is great! I woulda' been a programmer, but it doesn't pay well anymore".
Yes, good points. Orchestration frameworks definitely add a-lot in terms of what one can do. And automated testing is better too, you are right on that. Guess I am just griping about the things that are worse, and forgetting that some things have improved!
It also means the death of small retail business - the way that most people rise up in society, from being a worker/slave to having their own business and accumulating some wealth.
I strongly believe that programmer productivity today is less than it was decades ago, partly a result of distraction and the inability to think deeply, and partly due to the poor quality of todayâ(TM)s tools and tool documentation. It is hard to measure programmer productivity, but I recall that when I worked on a DevOps team a few years back, there were things that should have taken minutes to do that I spent days on, âoebanging my head against a wallâ - because the tool did not work as advertised, or the API I wanted to use was poorly documented, and so I had to resort to trial and error. In addition, I recall that while I enjoyed working in an open room, I would often stop thinking and just stare at my screen, waiting for a nearby conversation to conclude. When I had to think deeply, I found that I could not - and so I would go home, do the deep thinking, and then return to the office the next day to code it up. I found that coding did not require deep thinking as long as the problem was "obvious", but if it was complex, I could not do it effectively in the open room. As for email, I learned long ago that I need to close my email program while I am working, and only check it at intervals. As for the phone, I don't use the phone that much - I am in the "older generation" and did not pick up the habit of always looking at it, and I discourage people from texting me, because I find that texting - which is pre-emptive - is very disruptive to deep thought.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed - you are spot on!
Hi. Yes, you are right - people do want to be able to run apps. I am just saying that these frameworks are now being used where they should not be. It seems like so many sites now use them, when the site really only has static content; but because a framework is used, I have to enable Javascript, or enter click after click in my NoScript plugin just to see a web page. I would prefer that single-page web app frameworks only be used when one really needs an app . For static content, one should be able to turn off Javascript, especially since Javascript is such a powerful malware vector.
Truly, there should be a different protocol - not HTTP - for apps. Javascript's architecture was a mistake - mixing static content with apps is not a good idea, because it makes it possible to hide active attacks within all content.
What if the user does not want to use Javascript, for security reasons? Javascript is the primary vector for a large percent of malware infections. Yet, with single-page web apps, one has to enable Javascript to see anything. Not so with websites such as the NY Times and other major news sites; why should it be with company XYZ site? Javascript has destroyed the Web, but with the latest frameworks we are shoving it down people's throat.
Hi. The difference is that model aircraft is a true hobby - people who use model aircraft are a small minority of the population, and are aficionados - they tend to be knowledgeable and responsible; whereas drones are mass marketed and every kid and goofball tends to have one. Drones also have cameras on them - I think most model aircraft don't - and so there is a tendency to want to send a drone far and wide to see what is there - violating the line of sight rules. There needs to be a way to either (1) restrict drones to people who are responsible and serious (perhaps like yourself), perhaps via a type of pilot license that requires training and money to obtain - i.e., an investment that proves a level of seriousness - that will eliminate the goofballs, or (2) make the devices such that they warn human passenger aircraft. Anyway, I have no say about it - that's just my opinion.
I know it is burdensome, but consider what happens when a private aircraft with people on board strikes a drone - all the people are at risk of dying, and the damage to the aircraft can be catastrophic. Many amphibious sport aviation aircraft fly at low altitude over lakes or near local private runways - now pilots have to worry about someone flying a drone over the lake or near a private runway. It is just too risky. This is very serious. Perhaps the cost of the transponders will come down if all drones must have them.
Otherwise they are a menace. We cannot count on the general public operating drones safely, and a collision can result in catastrophe. Many aircraft fly at low altitude at points. Also, some drones can fly very high. They are aircraft, and they are too small to see from an airplane - they all need to have transponders.
Many filmmakers get started making small short films. If they have not yet published a film, are they not a filmmaker? Seems like any definition of "filmmaker" would unfairly exclude some people.
Yes, agreed. I think this is natural for our species, however: greed. Not everyone of course, but enough that we will always see what you describe. That's why we need protection. It is hard to get those protections: the people with the locked up wealth do their best to hold on to their situation. I also agree about competition. The challenge is to preserve fair markets, which are made unfair by consolidation.
Good point - essential point. US Supreme Court decisions that have equated paid advertising with free speech were wrong, IMO: free speech is the ability to speak one's mind: that is not the same thing as paying others to say things.
This is not communism. I am not a communist: I believe in freedom, whereas communism puts the state above freedom, even telling people what jobs they should have.
Your implication that it is hard to decide what should be restricted - the balance - is a tough process: it requires a guiding philosophy. I completely agree with you on that. In the end, everything comes down to having good judgment. Look at the terrible court decisions that happen every day. People have limits: people will make bad choices, there is no way to prevent that. But we can have a philosophy that guides people, to reduce the bad choices. I think the philosophy needs to emphasize personal freedom, while also emphasizing protection from others - other individuals as well as companies, governments - any organization or source of power. Power is what individuals need protection from, no matter its source. I do not advocate that the state protect us from ourselves.
What do you think?
Yes friend, I am libertarian. But there are many different interpretations of the term. For example, I believe in _personal_ liberty, free of government intrusion, but I do not believe in liberty for aggregations of power: organizations - corporations, unions, non-profits, government agencies, etc. Collections of people are not people, any more than a plant is a cell.
That said, there are limits, as with anything. People need protection from aggregations of power, and they also need protection from each other. That's why we have a police force: it is a lesser of two evils calculation.
One thing I have learned in my 61 years is that extremes do not work: the key is to have the right balance. Where people differ in in where the right balance lies ;-)
I am libertarian and hate unnecessary regulation; but drones pose a huge threat to aviation - both commercial and sport aviation. Imagine hitting one of those things in the windshield of your airplane at a few hundred miles per hour. Death is the certain result. And now every kid has a drone.
Drones that are able to fly above 100 feet should be required to have transponders. Sport amphibious aircraft fly at low altitude when landing on a lake.
Perhaps registration is not needed; perhaps what we need is to require the manufacturers to embed transponders in the things, and have a $100,000 fine for flying a drone without a transponder or a defective transponder. Something needs to be done.
Several reasons. One is that the imperative languages we use are inherently vulnerable to TOCTOU (race condition) errors. We should be using design level languages. However, while design level languages and architecture level languages have cropped up in academia from time to time, programmers - who are largely self taught - have not learned of these and don't want to know about them anyway, because it is more fun to just "code".
Another problem is that all of the incentive today is around producing more features fast. This is because software producers are not liable for damage caused by vulnerabilities. Until that changes, nothing will change. Most programmers know very little about application level security, because their employer is not telling them that is the priority. There is no incentive - if there were, programmers would respond.
Yes, since C and C++ have their own issues, Go is a reasonable alternative. I also am looking at Rust - looks very promising. I spent a year with Go and have walked away from it. Another aspect that seems a mess - the library/import mechanism.
Interesting. What use cases do you think that Go is well suited for?
It seemed to me that it became popular among the Linux container tool community because it was early in having libraries for LXC. But that doesn't make it a good language - just a lucky one.
One caveat in my bad opinion of it is that the alternatives each have deficits as well. What are your thoughts?
Touche!
It's my opinion, yes, but Google and see the number of websites and posts about "go gotchas". It is the only language I know where you can check for null, then do a type inference and check for null on that and get a different result; or how about the fact that an argument passed as a method target gets treated differently than an argument passed in an argument list. And the culture of go is terrible - short little variable names like "unm" and "d" instead of expressive names like "userName" and "documentId" - try searching for all instances of "d" when you want to find where it is used. And then the fact that you can't look at an object and tell what type it is, or what methods might actually apply to it. It is the _MOST_ difficult language for examining someone else's code and trying to figure out what is going on.
How can it be the same? They used his photos - a photo is an entire work - they didn't use part of a photo. He used screen shots of TV shows - a screen shot is not an entire work, and should be subject to fair use.
;-) And soon all they will want is brain implants to connect them to the matrix (willingly).
Interesting.
Still, it seems they are having a large impact. I am puzzled by the numbers. Malls are closing, and non-mall retail is struggling even more than before.
Hard to reconcile these things - I must be missing something.
Ah, good point. And eBay as well.
So we just need to ensure that Amazon (and eBay) cannot dominate - if they dominate then they can set unfair terms. But at least hope is not lost for small businesses.
They are destroying retail. Perhaps it is inevitable, but it is terrible: retail was the last way that an average person could have their own business - by opening a "shop". Now all the "shops" are going under because everyone buys online. No more shops - just Amazon employees, all working for "the man".
Yes, train everyone in the specific skills Google needs, while at the same time importing people from overseas to undercut wages, which thereby discourages people from entering IT.
"Man, this job running cable in the Google data center is great! I woulda' been a programmer, but it doesn't pay well anymore".
Yes, good points. Orchestration frameworks definitely add a-lot in terms of what one can do. And automated testing is better too, you are right on that. Guess I am just griping about the things that are worse, and forgetting that some things have improved!
It also means the death of small retail business - the way that most people rise up in society, from being a worker/slave to having their own business and accumulating some wealth.
I strongly believe that programmer productivity today is less than it was decades ago, partly a result of distraction and the inability to think deeply, and partly due to the poor quality of todayâ(TM)s tools and tool documentation. It is hard to measure programmer productivity, but I recall that when I worked on a DevOps team a few years back, there were things that should have taken minutes to do that I spent days on, âoebanging my head against a wallâ - because the tool did not work as advertised, or the API I wanted to use was poorly documented, and so I had to resort to trial and error. In addition, I recall that while I enjoyed working in an open room, I would often stop thinking and just stare at my screen, waiting for a nearby conversation to conclude. When I had to think deeply, I found that I could not - and so I would go home, do the deep thinking, and then return to the office the next day to code it up. I found that coding did not require deep thinking as long as the problem was "obvious", but if it was complex, I could not do it effectively in the open room. As for email, I learned long ago that I need to close my email program while I am working, and only check it at intervals. As for the phone, I don't use the phone that much - I am in the "older generation" and did not pick up the habit of always looking at it, and I discourage people from texting me, because I find that texting - which is pre-emptive - is very disruptive to deep thought.