Also, as a longtime C++ programmer, I can say that C++ is no more a "real" language than Python or Ruby
But Javascript or ECMAScript isn't a 'real' language, or at least not in practice, and that's the issue. Code written in it needs to run on multiple different implementations with no properly accepted standards. Contrast that to C, which yeah, has a number of various flavors, but it only matters that you have a compiler that understands that dialect. The stuff you distribute to users isn't going to explode because of your choice of C.
When you write in javascript, you are passing it to end users to interpret with interpreters that you have little control over, interpreters that exist in mutiple versions, have poorly documented quirks, and deviate from the standards wildly in places, with competing implementations and standards. And your code is supposed to run reliably on all of them.
Then add HTML / CSS / XHTML / etc which suffer from the same problems as javascript... they too have no suitable standards (sure standards exist, but that's more an intellectual point than a useful one). People generate invalid statements left and right, and browsers are supposed to guess how to do things. None of them implement the standards, and all of them have quirks.
People use what gets the job done quickly and hopefully with fewer bugs
Nothing has more bugs than stuff written in the 'web languages'. The current slashdot home page has 91 SGML parser errors and 1 warning, 225 HTMLTidy warnings, and 40 errors via the W3C markup validation service.
and when the dust settles certain languages and technologies are shown to work, and others not. But you never know unless you try.
For what values of 'shown to work' are we interested in? Quality standards and expectations are unbelievably low.
The biggest one - The menu bar. I realize putting the menu bar on the top of the primary monitor is a MacOS legacy thing... but in todays world of multiple monitors, it is downright fucking HOSTILE to the user.
Heh, I pointed out the same flaw myself on/. just a few days ago, in relation to Mac OSX for power users and developers. But at the end of the day, -most- people aren't running large / multiple monitors... yet, and while I absolutely agree the menu bar breaks down in that situation, its not affecting most people.
As for other OSX related UI annoyances, I agree, many of them are annoying, including some of the window management stuff.
But OSX's grip bar in the bottom corner, while annoying to people like us, is -easier to understand- for a non-computer user than windows hover the mouse on the border until it becomes an arrow thing, especially since it doesn't always work, and the type of border is supposed to clue you into whether its re-sizable but a lot of developers deviate from this guideline because they think a particular border type 'looks better', or whatever.
not to be sexists but there is some data showing that women more often refer to their gaming experiences in the third person while males are more likely to talk about it in the first.
If I had to speculate it might be because the majority of avatars in games are male and women don't as easily identify themselves with it?
Hmmm... I thought I replied to this... maybe i forgot to hit submit. The main point I wanted to make though...
The problem is, most people who really want something different aren't willing to put up with something that isn't as polished and attractive as the newer games. That leads to the paradox: people won't play a game without a large budget, and games with large budgets rarely try anything radical or niche. You have to ask yourself: do you want to play something pretty, or do you want to play something different? You're not going to get both anytime soon. That's the truth, beyond trying to get people to play my game (or future ones!);)
I'm not really seeing anything really innovative or niche coming from anywhere though, except for a push for more 'player-generated' content. Player generated quests, player generated cities, player-vs-player conflict, etc.
And, for me, at least, I've had my fill of PvP, and player-driven worlds, and I don't like them. They have three key flaws from my perspective...
1) 'He who plays most wins'. PvP and player run anythings are inherently competitive, and to the most dedicated go the spoils. I don't have time to play enough to be the King of Town, but I have no interest in being low man on the totem pole either, simply because I'm only going to play 6 hours a week. Shadowbane and Eve really drive this home -- if you don't feel like playing for a couple weeks over the summer and hit the beach instead your town/space station might be gone when you get back. The game shouldn't hold me hostage... yet if it doesn't... then what's the point of the PvP consequences? (WoW / WAR PvP consequences for example are irrelevant to the point that I just could not care less if 'my team is winning'.)
2) The gank factor. PvP encounters, unless carefully controlled and regulated are virtually all grossly one sided. In a game with open PvP, most encounters will just be a slaughter.
3) As much as playing against humans is 'more challenging' than against the PvE AI, the PvE AI is actually free to be much more varied. When you engage a new PvE encounter you don't know what you are in for... the mob could summon allies, it could have AE effects, it could have a million hit points, it could regenerate, it could swarm you with adds or you can fight it alone... it could rise up from the dead, it could explode, it might have immunities and vulnerabilities...it could have access to spells and skills you've never seen before...good PvE encounters are like puzzles that are as much solved as fought. (Sadly too many players just want their PvE mobs to do nothing special, come when they are tagged, and die efficiently, while moving the xp bar along at a fair clip. Because modern games seem to be filled to the brim with these things.)
PvP is JUST other players, and always JUST other players, who have all the same skills and abilities you do, and while there might be some variation in how you fight a given class, at the end of the day any PvP battle has a certain uniformity to it -- where you get the same variety and challenge as you would from a game of unreal tournament or guildwars... but without the recurring monthly fee for the privilege.
I enjoy pvp... and I've played PvP games... from EQ's rallos zek to AC's DarkTide to Shadowbane, to DAoC to WoW and WAR pvp options... but I've come to the personal conclusion, that when I want to fight other players I'm generally far happier in an proper 'arena' game... whether its unreal tournament, or ghost recon... or whatever.
When I hit an mmorpg, I really want to explore and see something truly =different=. I think PvP is a good thing to have in an mmorpg, but too much focus on it, and I'd rather be playing a Guildwars or something.
I wonder why the people who complain about 75 Hz CRT monitors being flickery are perfectly willing to work in 50/60 Hz lamp flicker.
1) They aren't staring at the lamp for 8 hour a day.
2) Incandescant bulbs don't actually flicker on/off, they just deviate a little. Think about how it works, when the current changes direction, and the power drops off, yes the light emitting filament starts to cool down but it stays glowing plenty long enough to still be glowing at nearly full brightness when the power comes back up the other side. So instead of '100%-0%-100%-0%' its more a slightly wiggling 100%-95%-100%-95% and few humans can see this slight brightness wobble.
3) As for flourescents, the older ones actually WERE horrible, and people OFTEN complained of headaches after working under them. Modern flourescents though, with modern ballast technology, cycle much faster, and are much less of a problem for people.
Mine does, with Shaw Cable, and I have the Shaw HD PVR box. Half a dozen HD channels or so are included with the package, and by subscribing to moviecentral or superchannel I qualify for the HD feeds on those.
But there are SEVERAL channels I currently get in SD... like A&E, TSN, etc that I would have to subscribe to an extra package upgrade to get the HD version of it, which I think is pure money grabbing B.S.
This is a possibility no matter who owns the gear or provides the funding.
To be sure, but that's not to say that all cases are remotely equal.
Money is rarely provided for pure independent research....most people no matter what their ideology expects a return on their investment.
If I invest in your company to develop a cure for X, because I want to profit from selling the cure for X, that's not really a conflict of interest. Just because money is involved doesn't mean there is an automatic conflict of interest.
speaking as someone in that industry, you have no fucking idea, so much so that it's amusing.
I never said this was happening. I simply outlined where the argument for a conflict of interest arises. There =is= indisputably a conflict of interest here, however, that doesn't mean there is any actual corruption or abuse, or even that anyone is trying to abuse it.
Perhaps, but this is irrelevant to the question of when to use js or whether to use AJAX.
Its entirely relevant. Any time you choose to make an 'application' in AJAX, you have probably failed at correctly determining when to use AJAX.
A company like Google shouldn't be trying to make ajax apps like googledocs... they should be pushing better platforms to run googledocs on. Whether its 'moon/silverlight' or 'java' or whatever, and then building googledocs on top of that. Or going the route of citrix published applications... but publishing applications that were designed from the ground up to be published in this way, or hybridizing the two... but do something actually works... and not try to emulate multi-threaded event driven applications in a web browser environment that doesn't actually support half those things.
So, if they take submersible time from the oil companies they're at risk of spuriously deciding that giant squid cause cancer? Or that they cause global warming?:)
At risk of concluding that the oil companies presence is destroying an ecosystem, or otherwise negatively impacting it. And then deciding not to pursue that area of research, for fear of losing access to submersible time and other resources.
The data doesn't care, but oil drillers are unlikely to give information that harms their potential to drill, and can afford to be "selective" on what they provide.
The conflict is potentially deeper than that. The oil drillers, by providing the hardware, may be able dictate the direction science takes.
Its no different really than the cigarette companies providing the labs for cancer research. Any scientist working in the lab who finds that 'cigarettes cause cancer' is out of work... any scientist who finds that cigarettes and cancer is unrelated gets increased funding and access to better equipment.
THAT is the real potential conflict of interest here.
It has been over a decade since the last time I used one.
Uh huh... and what did you use for that decade? Guess what, that has largely determined what you "intuitively" think now in terms of UI. In fact, you aren't even using intuition at all, you are simply applying your learned knowledge, and finding that it doesn't apply.
Apple's UI is intuitive to people who haven't used computers extensively, to people who don't have much experience to draw from.
Who doesn't? Went to Wendy's the other day and got a #2 combo because it looked pretty awesome on the order board.
Got back to the office and opened it up to discover something pretty gross looking, a mash of squashed bun and grey meat. Yum.
I actually worked at Wendy's back in high school, and we did a challenge once where we tried to make the food look like the 'order board' to use your words. Turns out its not that hard... but
1) You had to use fresh toasted buns straight off the toaster 2) You had to 'cherry pick' things like lettuce and tomatoes. 3) You had to have someone who really knew how to work 'grill' to get perfect looking meat. 4) Most importantly - you couldn't wrap it up. You had to serve it unwrapped. Wrapping ALWAYS squashes it to at least some degree, and meat drippings and condiment get spread to the wrapper.
That said, a significant percentage of burgers actually look a lot like the advertising, prior to wrapping, when made by competent staff.
So...I'm not saying Wendy's isn't false advertising, but in their case at least, the real food CAN actually look like the ads, even though it usually doesn't. So at least they aren't showing food that simply can't come out of their 'kitchens'.
What difference does that make? An adult WAS involved. The fact that she didn't know show was being manipulated by an adult doesn't change the fact that an adult drove her to make the decision she made.
Yes, well, the human body doesn't function according to law does it?
The question is whether convincing a minor to commit homicide/suicide is legally murder. The question is how the law functions not how the human body functions, and the law sees little distinction between a 3 year old and a 13 year old.
Remember, there was a time with 14 year olds were on their own starting families. Clearly, much of our opinion of what children can handle is societal, but does not represent reality.
The question before us here is how the law functions, specifically the law in effect today. If she was 15 and the law recognized 14 year olds as an adult, I would agree with you, that this isn't legally murder.
You assume the decision of who is legally responsible is correct. I argue it is not. She may lack experience, but she does know death is irreversible.
As one who has been tormented and also pushed near that same brink, I understand what its like. I also chose not to follow through.
Your very own metaphor states you were 'pushed' near that same brink. Pushed by external forces no doubt. If they could "push" you to the brink, why exactly can't they "push" you over the brink? What magical line exists at the brink that only you can choose to cross it, but not be pushed across it?
And that's -you- whose to say that if they pushed somone else the same amount, someone else, might go over the brink where you only got near it. People develop at different rates mentally and emotionally and not all people are as strong. This kid in particular was being treated for depression. And from what I've heard, Lori Drew KNEW this.
Except that I'm sure you'd agree that a 13 year old, even when instructed by her mother to do so, would be responsible enough to know not to listen, and that if she did, she should be tried for murder as well.
Your average 13 year old yeah, if Mom just asked, I'd agree they say no, that's wrong. But then look at how many 13-15 year olds endure sexual abuse at the hands of a parent and keep it bottled up. You seem to have no appreciation for what a child will do for a parent, or the amount of influence a parent exerts.
And actually, if the average mother went out of her way to influence and wear down (over a period of months) her 13 year old into killing someone/herself, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they had a high success rate.
Lori Drew didn't just casually throw out a 'kill yourself' instant message. She became this girl's (who was already being treated for depression) entire world, built this girl up, and then destroyed her over a period of time, the 'kill yourself' was just the coupe de grace. And it was perpetrated by an adult deliberately looking to hurt her (maybe not looking to kill her, but Lori had done all this deliberately to hurt her).
Let's not; she was old enough and responsible enough to make her own choices.
The average person her age might generally be. This kid, in this circumstance, was not.
No, it's not. Said person always had a choice to live; a murder victum does not get that choice. You're trivializing murder
A minor isn't automatically responsible for the choices they make, especially when they are under the strong influence of an adult.
If a 3 year old puts a gun to Daddy's head and pulls the tigger because mommy said to, how is that not murder?
If a 3 year old puts a gun to her own head and pulls the trigger because mommy said to, how is that not murder?
A 13-15 year old is generally expected to have better judgement, and be responsible for MORE of what they do, but legally they really aren't different from 3 year olds. With a 3 year old we would probably all agree, that they aren't responsible for their choice... with a 13-15 year old, given the circumstances, deciding that she isn't responsible for her choice is entirely reasonable.
And if we determine that she isn't legally responsible for her choice, then WHO is responsible for this choice that led to a death?
If we can agree that mommy is responsible for getting her 3 year old girl to kill daddy or herself , and that mommy should be charged with murder in either case.
Then assigning Lori Drew the responsibility for this poor kids choice to end her own life, is equivalmently murder.
No its just the the browser DOM, event model, plus a scripting language happen to be a lousy platform for applications.
Well written apps like Google Docs/Google Reader handle crappy network connection situations much better.
But they are ALL utter crap compared to a client side application, even on a fantastic network, because the browser itself is a lousy application platform for modern apps. scheduling, multi-threading, and so on simply aren't supported. You can't fix it by writing 'better code', you fix it by building a better more robust platform to run things on.
So "don't use Ajax", is that it? You know, quite often reloading a div is a whole of a lot faster than refreshing an entire page.
I despise ajax. I agree it feels a need. But I'd rather the 'web' be the 'web', and and web applications be -something else-. Asynchronous Javascript and XML is a the ugliest kludge to make an application I have ever seen... its not designed for it, and it breaks all the time. Show me any AJAX app and I can bang on it for a few seconds and break it. Click too fast, too often, in too many places and you'll break it every time. Either it will hang, or render wrong, or you'll confuse it some other way.
Re:A simple request
on
jQuery in Action
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Don't use scripting to sanitize your POST submissions; You should handle that on the backend, it's more secure anyway.
You ALWAYS should handle it on the backend regardless, but doing it on the front-end TOO isn't necessarily a bad idea; it takes some load off the backend, and saves the user waiting for a round-trip to the server to find out something simple is missing or whatever.
I mean geez...if you can't afford to go out to eat with the group, don't go. Sure sometimes you pay a little more...some times a little less..but, it adds up in the end.
No it doesn't. Some of my friends pound back 9$ drinks through a meal, others drink water. Some order steak EVERY time, others order a chicken salad, or a club sandwich.
And there is no reason someone who orders 25$ worth of food should have to split the bill evenly with the guy who had a $30 entree and another $50+ in booze. And when we go out to dinner -again- it won't even out, it will just get further out of balance. Because we consistently pick the same items and drink choices.
It's just as natural for a player to say, "I defeated that boss," as it is to say, "Snake defeated that boss," since Snake is and is not the player at the same time.
I have never once heard anyone ever say "Snake defeated that boss". Not once. Not Ever.
I get what the author is saying, but that was a dud example. Depending on the game, the protagonist avatars may be connected to different degrees to the player. Some games like quake, there is only me. My space marine projection is naught but me. Other games like Sam and Max have very strong characters. I control them, at some of the time, but they have their own personality separate from me. And there is a continuum from one extreme to the other.
Most players that I know instinctively differentiate between things the character does as a direct result of the player control, and the things the character does as a result of the game script. And take or deny 'ownership' of the action appropriately. And sometimes they acknowledge the control... like "Watch me make snake jump off a cliff..." But if Snake does something in a cut scene for example, there would be few players who would would say "I did X..." when describing it.
It is likewise natural for a player to say, "I punched an enemy soldier," when in reality, she punched no one. All she did was press a button.'"
This might come as a shock to the article author, but when someone shoots someone in a movie, in reality, no one got shot either.
Ok so, kids who spend alot of time playing 'WoW' because they don't fit in socially, whats the problem? They'll probably learn some social skills in the game, whereas if they remain marooned in real life they will just become socially isolated as a lot of these kids do.
I doubt they'll learn social skills in WoW.
WoW, despite being "massively multiplayer" isn't a terribly social game. One of the reasons it became as popular as it did is that people who played previous mmorpgs generally had to be a LOT more social to survive/get anywhere. You had to be social... to ask for help... to get into groups... to eliminate downtime...to trade items... WoW's greatly expanded the 'solo' game... and "team PvP"? Sign up into a queue and be automatically dumped into a battleground with 20 other people whom you don't have to speak to at all.
Now that's not the universal experience... if your a social person, you -can- find other social people, and hang out and do stuff together, and be all 'social'. But if your not social to start, WoW isn't likely to change that... the only exception being if you are seriously self conscious about your appearance or something, a video game can be a social outlet that frees you from that... but that's only a small part of the "socially awkward" player base.
I can understand how convicts, felons, suspects, and arrestees get their DNA thrown into a federal database, but how do they get the DNA of their family members if crime doesn't happen to run in the family? Where are all these DNA samples coming from?
Sperm/Blood donors?
People crossing the border? (ok... currently just being photographed and fingerprinted afaik... but DNA is next...)
People subjected to drug tests?
People subjected to 'reference/elimination samples'?... (ie you were attacked, and now we need your blood sample, so know which blood is the attackers and which is yours...)
Medical teststing? Bloodwork?
Screening tests for sensitive jobs (law enforcement, military, medicine, security...)
Parents volunteering their children's DNA for use if they are kidnapped, etc
And remember, the moment this becomes legal, they will start begging/demanding/legislating that DNA from any source they can get their hands on be added to the database.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, as a longtime C++ programmer, I can say that C++ is no more a "real" language than Python or Ruby
But Javascript or ECMAScript isn't a 'real' language, or at least not in practice, and that's the issue. Code written in it needs to run on multiple different implementations with no properly accepted standards. Contrast that to C, which yeah, has a number of various flavors, but it only matters that you have a compiler that understands that dialect. The stuff you distribute to users isn't going to explode because of your choice of C.
When you write in javascript, you are passing it to end users to interpret with interpreters that you have little control over, interpreters that exist in mutiple versions, have poorly documented quirks, and deviate from the standards wildly in places, with competing implementations and standards. And your code is supposed to run reliably on all of them.
Then add HTML / CSS / XHTML / etc which suffer from the same problems as javascript ... they too have no suitable standards (sure standards exist, but that's more an intellectual point than a useful one). People generate invalid statements left and right, and browsers are supposed to guess how to do things. None of them implement the standards, and all of them have quirks.
People use what gets the job done quickly and hopefully with fewer bugs
Nothing has more bugs than stuff written in the 'web languages'. The current slashdot home page has 91 SGML parser errors and 1 warning, 225 HTMLTidy warnings, and 40 errors via the W3C markup validation service.
and when the dust settles certain languages and technologies are shown to work, and others not. But you never know unless you try.
For what values of 'shown to work' are we interested in? Quality standards and expectations are unbelievably low.
Why the quote marks around "grill"? Is it not really a grill?
You decide...
Back when I worked there they were something like this...
http://www.griddleworld.com/hobart-cgseries.html
The biggest one - The menu bar. I realize putting the menu bar on the top of the primary monitor is a MacOS legacy thing... but in todays world of multiple monitors, it is downright fucking HOSTILE to the user.
Heh, I pointed out the same flaw myself on /. just a few days ago, in relation to Mac OSX for power users and developers. But at the end of the day, -most- people aren't running large / multiple monitors... yet, and while I absolutely agree the menu bar breaks down in that situation, its not affecting most people.
As for other OSX related UI annoyances, I agree, many of them are annoying, including some of the window management stuff.
But OSX's grip bar in the bottom corner, while annoying to people like us, is -easier to understand- for a non-computer user than windows hover the mouse on the border until it becomes an arrow thing, especially since it doesn't always work, and the type of border is supposed to clue you into whether its re-sizable but a lot of developers deviate from this guideline because they think a particular border type 'looks better', or whatever.
not to be sexists but there is some data showing that women more often refer to their gaming experiences in the third person while males are more likely to talk about it in the first.
If I had to speculate it might be because the majority of avatars in games are male and women don't as easily identify themselves with it?
Hmmm... I thought I replied to this... maybe i forgot to hit submit. The main point I wanted to make though...
The problem is, most people who really want something different aren't willing to put up with something that isn't as polished and attractive as the newer games. That leads to the paradox: people won't play a game without a large budget, and games with large budgets rarely try anything radical or niche. You have to ask yourself: do you want to play something pretty, or do you want to play something different? You're not going to get both anytime soon. That's the truth, beyond trying to get people to play my game (or future ones!) ;)
I'm not really seeing anything really innovative or niche coming from anywhere though, except for a push for more 'player-generated' content. Player generated quests, player generated cities, player-vs-player conflict, etc.
And, for me, at least, I've had my fill of PvP, and player-driven worlds, and I don't like them. They have three key flaws from my perspective...
1) 'He who plays most wins'. PvP and player run anythings are inherently competitive, and to the most dedicated go the spoils. I don't have time to play enough to be the King of Town, but I have no interest in being low man on the totem pole either, simply because I'm only going to play 6 hours a week. Shadowbane and Eve really drive this home -- if you don't feel like playing for a couple weeks over the summer and hit the beach instead your town/space station might be gone when you get back. The game shouldn't hold me hostage... yet if it doesn't... then what's the point of the PvP consequences? (WoW / WAR PvP consequences for example are irrelevant to the point that I just could not care less if 'my team is winning'.)
2) The gank factor. PvP encounters, unless carefully controlled and regulated are virtually all grossly one sided. In a game with open PvP, most encounters will just be a slaughter.
3) As much as playing against humans is 'more challenging' than against the PvE AI, the PvE AI is actually free to be much more varied. When you engage a new PvE encounter you don't know what you are in for... the mob could summon allies, it could have AE effects, it could have a million hit points, it could regenerate, it could swarm you with adds or you can fight it alone... it could rise up from the dead, it could explode, it might have immunities and vulnerabilities...it could have access to spells and skills you've never seen before...good PvE encounters are like puzzles that are as much solved as fought. (Sadly too many players just want their PvE mobs to do nothing special, come when they are tagged, and die efficiently, while moving the xp bar along at a fair clip. Because modern games seem to be filled to the brim with these things.)
PvP is JUST other players, and always JUST other players, who have all the same skills and abilities you do, and while there might be some variation in how you fight a given class, at the end of the day any PvP battle has a certain uniformity to it -- where you get the same variety and challenge as you would from a game of unreal tournament or guildwars... but without the recurring monthly fee for the privilege.
I enjoy pvp... and I've played PvP games... from EQ's rallos zek to AC's DarkTide to Shadowbane, to DAoC to WoW and WAR pvp options... but I've come to the personal conclusion, that when I want to fight other players I'm generally far happier in an proper 'arena' game... whether its unreal tournament, or ghost recon... or whatever.
When I hit an mmorpg, I really want to explore and see something truly =different=. I think PvP is a good thing to have in an mmorpg, but too much focus on it, and I'd rather be playing a Guildwars or something.
I wonder why the people who complain about 75 Hz CRT monitors being flickery are perfectly willing to work in 50/60 Hz lamp flicker.
1) They aren't staring at the lamp for 8 hour a day.
2) Incandescant bulbs don't actually flicker on/off, they just deviate a little. Think about how it works, when the current changes direction, and the power drops off, yes the light emitting filament starts to cool down but it stays glowing plenty long enough to still be glowing at nearly full brightness when the power comes back up the other side. So instead of '100%-0%-100%-0%' its more a slightly wiggling 100%-95%-100%-95% and few humans can see this slight brightness wobble.
3) As for flourescents, the older ones actually WERE horrible, and people OFTEN complained of headaches after working under them. Modern flourescents though, with modern ballast technology, cycle much faster, and are much less of a problem for people.
Mine does, with Shaw Cable, and I have the Shaw HD PVR box. Half a dozen HD channels or so are included with the package, and by subscribing to moviecentral or superchannel I qualify for the HD feeds on those.
But there are SEVERAL channels I currently get in SD... like A&E, TSN, etc that I would have to subscribe to an extra package upgrade to get the HD version of it, which I think is pure money grabbing B.S.
This is a possibility no matter who owns the gear or provides the funding.
To be sure, but that's not to say that all cases are remotely equal.
Money is rarely provided for pure independent research....most people no matter what their ideology expects a return on their investment.
If I invest in your company to develop a cure for X, because I want to profit from selling the cure for X, that's not really a conflict of interest. Just because money is involved doesn't mean there is an automatic conflict of interest.
speaking as someone in that industry, you have no fucking idea, so much so that it's amusing.
I never said this was happening. I simply outlined where the argument for a conflict of interest arises.
There =is= indisputably a conflict of interest here, however, that doesn't mean there is any actual corruption or abuse, or even that anyone is trying to abuse it.
Goddamn rule 34!
Yeah, but did you visit wetriffs.com it mentions ? ;)
Perhaps, but this is irrelevant to the question of when to use js or whether to use AJAX.
Its entirely relevant. Any time you choose to make an 'application' in AJAX, you have probably failed at correctly determining when to use AJAX.
A company like Google shouldn't be trying to make ajax apps like googledocs... they should be pushing better platforms to run googledocs on. Whether its 'moon/silverlight' or 'java' or whatever, and then building googledocs on top of that. Or going the route of citrix published applications... but publishing applications that were designed from the ground up to be published in this way, or hybridizing the two ... but do something actually works... and not try to emulate multi-threaded event driven applications in a web browser environment that doesn't actually support half those things.
So, if they take submersible time from the oil companies they're at risk of spuriously deciding that giant squid cause cancer? Or that they cause global warming? :)
At risk of concluding that the oil companies presence is destroying an ecosystem, or otherwise negatively impacting it. And then deciding not to pursue that area of research, for fear of losing access to submersible time and other resources.
The data doesn't care, but oil drillers are unlikely to give information that harms their potential to drill, and can afford to be "selective" on what they provide.
The conflict is potentially deeper than that. The oil drillers, by providing the hardware, may be able dictate the direction science takes.
Its no different really than the cigarette companies providing the labs for cancer research. Any scientist working in the lab who finds that 'cigarettes cause cancer' is out of work... any scientist who finds that cigarettes and cancer is unrelated gets increased funding and access to better equipment.
THAT is the real potential conflict of interest here.
It has been over a decade since the last time I used one.
Uh huh... and what did you use for that decade? Guess what, that has largely determined what you "intuitively" think now in terms of UI. In fact, you aren't even using intuition at all, you are simply applying your learned knowledge, and finding that it doesn't apply.
Apple's UI is intuitive to people who haven't used computers extensively, to people who don't have much experience to draw from.
Who doesn't? Went to Wendy's the other day and got a #2 combo because it looked pretty awesome on the order board.
Got back to the office and opened it up to discover something pretty gross looking, a mash of squashed bun and grey meat. Yum.
I actually worked at Wendy's back in high school, and we did a challenge once where we tried to make the food look like the 'order board' to use your words. Turns out its not that hard... but
1) You had to use fresh toasted buns straight off the toaster
2) You had to 'cherry pick' things like lettuce and tomatoes.
3) You had to have someone who really knew how to work 'grill' to get perfect looking meat.
4) Most importantly - you couldn't wrap it up. You had to serve it unwrapped. Wrapping ALWAYS squashes it to at least some degree, and meat drippings and condiment get spread to the wrapper.
That said, a significant percentage of burgers actually look a lot like the advertising, prior to wrapping, when made by competent staff.
So...I'm not saying Wendy's isn't false advertising, but in their case at least, the real food CAN actually look like the ads, even though it usually doesn't. So at least they aren't showing food that simply can't come out of their 'kitchens'.
She didn't know another adult was involved.
What difference does that make? An adult WAS involved. The fact that she didn't know show was being manipulated by an adult doesn't change the fact that an adult drove her to make the decision she made.
Yes, well, the human body doesn't function according to law does it?
The question is whether convincing a minor to commit homicide/suicide is legally murder. The question is how the law functions not how the human body functions, and the law sees little distinction between a 3 year old and a 13 year old.
Remember, there was a time with 14 year olds were on their own starting families. Clearly, much of our opinion of what children can handle is societal, but does not represent reality.
The question before us here is how the law functions, specifically the law in effect today. If she was 15 and the law recognized 14 year olds as an adult, I would agree with you, that this isn't legally murder.
You assume the decision of who is legally responsible is correct. I argue it is not. She may lack experience, but she does know death is irreversible.
As one who has been tormented and also pushed near that same brink, I understand what its like. I also chose not to follow through.
Your very own metaphor states you were 'pushed' near that same brink. Pushed by external forces no doubt. If they could "push" you to the brink, why exactly can't they "push" you over the brink? What magical line exists at the brink that only you can choose to cross it, but not be pushed across it?
And that's -you- whose to say that if they pushed somone else the same amount, someone else, might go over the brink where you only got near it. People develop at different rates mentally and emotionally and not all people are as strong. This kid in particular was being treated for depression. And from what I've heard, Lori Drew KNEW this.
Except that I'm sure you'd agree that a 13 year old, even when instructed by her mother to do so, would be responsible enough to know not to listen, and that if she did, she should be tried for murder as well.
Your average 13 year old yeah, if Mom just asked, I'd agree they say no, that's wrong. But then look at how many 13-15 year olds endure sexual abuse at the hands of a parent and keep it bottled up. You seem to have no appreciation for what a child will do for a parent, or the amount of influence a parent exerts.
And actually, if the average mother went out of her way to influence and wear down (over a period of months) her 13 year old into killing someone/herself, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they had a high success rate.
Lori Drew didn't just casually throw out a 'kill yourself' instant message. She became this girl's (who was already being treated for depression) entire world, built this girl up, and then destroyed her over a period of time, the 'kill yourself' was just the coupe de grace. And it was perpetrated by an adult deliberately looking to hurt her (maybe not looking to kill her, but Lori had done all this deliberately to hurt her).
Let's not; she was old enough and responsible enough to make her own choices.
The average person her age might generally be. This kid, in this circumstance, was not.
www.facebook.com
That site a shit hole.
troll.
right back at ya
No, it's not. Said person always had a choice to live; a murder victum does not get that choice. You're trivializing murder
A minor isn't automatically responsible for the choices they make, especially when they are under the strong influence of an adult.
If a 3 year old puts a gun to Daddy's head and pulls the tigger because mommy said to, how is that not murder?
If a 3 year old puts a gun to her own head and pulls the trigger because mommy said to, how is that not murder?
A 13-15 year old is generally expected to have better judgement, and be responsible for MORE of what they do, but legally they really aren't different from 3 year olds. With a 3 year old we would probably all agree, that they aren't responsible for their choice... with a 13-15 year old, given the circumstances, deciding that she isn't responsible for her choice is entirely reasonable.
And if we determine that she isn't legally responsible for her choice, then WHO is responsible for this choice that led to a death?
If we can agree that mommy is responsible for getting her 3 year old girl to kill daddy or herself , and that mommy should be charged with murder in either case.
Then assigning Lori Drew the responsibility for this poor kids choice to end her own life, is equivalmently murder.
AJAX isn't the problem - it's just broken code.
No its just the the browser DOM, event model, plus a scripting language happen to be a lousy platform for applications.
Well written apps like Google Docs/Google Reader handle crappy network connection situations much better.
But they are ALL utter crap compared to a client side application, even on a fantastic network, because the browser itself is a lousy application platform for modern apps. scheduling, multi-threading, and so on simply aren't supported. You can't fix it by writing 'better code', you fix it by building a better more robust platform to run things on.
So "don't use Ajax", is that it? You know, quite often reloading a div is a whole of a lot faster than refreshing an entire page.
I despise ajax. I agree it feels a need. But I'd rather the 'web' be the 'web', and and web applications be -something else-. Asynchronous Javascript and XML is a the ugliest kludge to make an application I have ever seen... its not designed for it, and it breaks all the time. Show me any AJAX app and I can bang on it for a few seconds and break it. Click too fast, too often, in too many places and you'll break it every time. Either it will hang, or render wrong, or you'll confuse it some other way.
Don't use scripting to sanitize your POST submissions; You should handle that on the backend, it's more secure anyway.
You ALWAYS should handle it on the backend regardless, but doing it on the front-end TOO isn't necessarily a bad idea; it takes some load off the backend, and saves the user waiting for a round-trip to the server to find out something simple is missing or whatever.
I mean geez...if you can't afford to go out to eat with the group, don't go. Sure sometimes you pay a little more...some times a little less..but, it adds up in the end.
No it doesn't. Some of my friends pound back 9$ drinks through a meal, others drink water. Some order steak EVERY time, others order a chicken salad, or a club sandwich.
And there is no reason someone who orders 25$ worth of food should have to split the bill evenly with the guy who had a $30 entree and another $50+ in booze. And when we go out to dinner -again- it won't even out, it will just get further out of balance. Because we consistently pick the same items and drink choices.
It's just as natural for a player to say, "I defeated that boss," as it is to say, "Snake defeated that boss," since Snake is and is not the player at the same time.
I have never once heard anyone ever say "Snake defeated that boss". Not once. Not Ever.
I get what the author is saying, but that was a dud example. Depending on the game, the protagonist avatars may be connected to different degrees to the player. Some games like quake, there is only me. My space marine projection is naught but me. Other games like Sam and Max have very strong characters. I control them, at some of the time, but they have their own personality separate from me. And there is a continuum from one extreme to the other.
Most players that I know instinctively differentiate between things the character does as a direct result of the player control, and the things the character does as a result of the game script. And take or deny 'ownership' of the action appropriately. And sometimes they acknowledge the control... like "Watch me make snake jump off a cliff..." But if Snake does something in a cut scene for example, there would be few players who would would say "I did X..." when describing it.
It is likewise natural for a player to say, "I punched an enemy soldier," when in reality, she punched no one. All she did was press a button.'"
This might come as a shock to the article author, but when someone shoots someone in a movie, in reality, no one got shot either.
Ok so, kids who spend alot of time playing 'WoW' because they don't fit in socially, whats the problem? They'll probably learn some social skills in the game, whereas if they remain marooned in real life they will just become socially isolated as a lot of these kids do.
I doubt they'll learn social skills in WoW.
WoW, despite being "massively multiplayer" isn't a terribly social game. One of the reasons it became as popular as it did is that people who played previous mmorpgs generally had to be a LOT more social to survive/get anywhere. You had to be social... to ask for help... to get into groups... to eliminate downtime...to trade items... WoW's greatly expanded the 'solo' game... and "team PvP"? Sign up into a queue and be automatically dumped into a battleground with 20 other people whom you don't have to speak to at all.
Now that's not the universal experience... if your a social person, you -can- find other social people, and hang out and do stuff together, and be all 'social'. But if your not social to start, WoW isn't likely to change that... the only exception being if you are seriously self conscious about your appearance or something, a video game can be a social outlet that frees you from that... but that's only a small part of the "socially awkward" player base.
I can understand how convicts, felons, suspects, and arrestees get their DNA thrown into a federal database, but how do they get the DNA of their family members if crime doesn't happen to run in the family? Where are all these DNA samples coming from?
And remember, the moment this becomes legal, they will start begging/demanding/legislating that DNA from any source they can get their hands on be added to the database.