I can't wait to be submit my credit card, using my e-banking or book airline tickets, to a bunch of random desktop machines hosting a distributed web application.
I'm using edge cases? I'm being biased? Well, here's how IBM describes their project: "Such a computer would be capable of hosting not only individual web-scale workloads but the entire Internet."
The *entire* Internet is vastly more complex and demanding on its *backend* than its *frontend* reveals. What can be hosted entirely on a distributed network of desktop machines precludes many trusted and secure online transactions we make use of in the Internet today. It's obvious from the get go, that this will be only usable for a limited subset of online applications (like, hosting Wikipedia for ex.?) , but I guess making overly broad statements caught the eye of some bloggers and journalists.
Always fun to watch both sides fight in whether..or argument, because reality consistently demands hybrid solutions to most problems, for best efficiency and maintainability. The balance needs to be carefully selected on a per project basis, what types of users will the OS target be, in what environment it'll be used, commonly run on what type hardware etc. etc.
They are both wrong and right, and it's tragic they don't realize it.
I think what you are referring to is another learning mechanism which bypasses redundant mental steps on tasks that you repeatedly do. So when neurons A B C and fired in sequence often enough it will create a connection between A and C, so that the task is preformed quicker - essentially "you are doing things without thinking" is a very good description of what is happening!
The cerebellum ('the little brain') does a lot of the work of automating such motor skills. There's even a simpler description of what is happening in there, and elsewhere, when we do something without thinking: a caching system. Do something similar plenty of times, and your brain creates a structure to "cache it" using various heuristics and patterns, so it takes less resources to perform it next time.
This way your concentrate on other details of your actions, thus forming even more complex habits, and the cache builds up, as you become essentially "skilled" to do whatever you do.
Similar mechanisms apply not just to motor control, but thought processes in general. As a programmer myself, I often sense things by "intuition" when designing a piece of software. I knew the details of why I do what I do when I first learned it, but in the process they reduced to a number of semi-automated "rules of thumb" that I don't need to think about every time, just apply them, and get superior results.
You only have receptor density for reading dead center in your eye. You can't put Terminator-style displays of to the side of your FOV, because you can only see motion and coarse detail off dead center.
You're very correct. But now combine this with head/eye tracking.
Suddenly looking in a different direction will shift the displayed picture in your lens, so you can read naturally. This in fact puts quite modest resolution requirements on your lens display, as it needs to be high-res only in the dead center.
Augmented reality comes to mind, where you see objects superimposed in your environment which don't exist.
You can finally have that 500 inch screen covering all four walls in your bedroom. And a realistic virtual stripper "hologram" in your living room;).
Well, there is no need for traffic lights if all cars are robots. Of-course the humans have to cross, but this can be done with overpasses or tunnels under the streets. Once cars can really drive themselves, they should be in contact with other cars, road signs and such to maintain the best traffic conditions possible.
Removing traffic lights and going for a "P2P" meshing with other cars means you need to trust all other cars on the road. Not to mention: what happens if a system fails and you need to go in manual mode? You're hosed.
Some activities still need to be delegated to a trusted party, and I trust more a simple central traffic lights system. That lights system could then exchange basic information with the cars, and slightly adjust its schedule to optimize traffic as necessary.
Just like you need central certificate authority for e-commerce, or you don't give all your software "root" access and hope they work it out, you don't entrust human life on the road to random parties.
# It wouldn't go east to get west (unless Microsoft made its nav system) # It wouldn't pick the route with the most stop signs
Actually, we're already aware a GPS guiding system could sometimes drive you in a tree, train tracks, water, off a cliff.
Given a computer will rely at least just as heavily (if not a lot more) on such a system to plan and execute a route, I hope GPS guiding systems are regulated to a much stricter standard about accuracy and real time updates, if they are to be certified to be used with a driverless car.
The calculus on the simulation argument is surprisingly solid when you think about it
Of course it is. Our brains, science and inventions evolved in this universe. Math was used to abstract an aspect of the universe. Computers are used to simulate various aspects of the universe.
Then someone forgets where all this came from and has an "Eureka!" moment, when he discovers that there are plenty of similarities between the universe, and what we came up with while evolving in it.
The universe is like our technology, because our technology was developed, and runs, within our universe.
Not to mention "it's a VR" is a pointless argument. It's also called "The Alien Fallacy". I.e. "we can't explain how this happened, therefore aliens created it!". It's a cop out.
Our "universe" can't be VR, since then this VR runs within a "real" universe, and that in fact is our universe. Or is that VR too. We just add levels of indirection so we don't have to face the hard questions of being unable to yet explain certain quantum and relativity phenomena.
The outcome of exploring this could only lead us to elaborate "simulations" of knowledge.
Wikipedia receives most of its traffic from its articles appearing in Google's search results, Wikipedia being relevant content, and Google being the top search engine.
How is Wikipedia to draw traffic to their search engine? Obviously not via Google, as search engines are content free on their own. Integrating it with Wikipedia? But again, Wikipedia is the end target, not a start point, so how could this work.
I don't think Wikipedia has the strategy or money for this to reach critical mass and show its potential, but it'll be interesting as an experiment.
'More of them are experiencing data breaches, and they're responding to them in a reactive way, rather than proactively looking at the company's security and seeing where the holes might be,' said Linda Foley, who founded the San Diego-based Identity Theft Resource Center after becoming an identity theft victim herself."
That would indirectly suggest that in this galaxy there was no sufficiently advanced life that would detect, and try to protect itself, or stop, said "death ray".
Some people believe the universe is chock full of life, but this one is score for the skeptics. I remain a cautious optimist.
I note that he mentions there is a list of "browsers that support" any given tag, and some notes. If it actually has some of the quick workarounds for the different browsers, I'm so buying this book.
What I can not figure out is, why use a printed book to tediously look up a bug into, when a good IDE or editor does the same for you automatically.
TopStyle or Dreamweaver will not just assist and autocomplete CSS properties for you, they'll check your HTML/CSS code on the fly against a list of selected browsers you want, and offer tips on common bugs your code may cause, as well as common solutions.
Also, this is the second time CSS "pocket reference" is reviewed on Slashdot (maybe the same one), and I wonder: who buys a *reference* manual as a printed book in the 21-st century. Maybe to have it handy on the road when you have no laptop around? Because, of course, the thing you'll be doing on the road, with no laptop, is debugging CSS.
I just stick to computer books for lengthy theoretic materials, that's read from start to finish. Such as, say, compiler design.
I see few recurring themes in the questions asked, so I'll try to cover them briefly:
Q1: How do you deploy an AJAX application offline? A1: You can use integrated HTML/CSS/JS/Flash/PDF runtime, like Adobe AIR.
Q2: How do I deliver bulky complex AJAX applications over the net, if it's a lot of code? A2: You don't. It's not a suitable deployment model, at least until we have a simple delivery vehicle for bundling multiple app elements into a single file, such as a browser downloading and directly reading a ZIP file with collection of resources/JS files (as with Java's JAR). Until then, and for complex UI-s in general, look into established compiled solutions like Flash.
Q3: Do we need JS2.0? A3: No, we don't (right now), since JS2 delivers benefits for larger projects only (refer to Q2 why large online JS projects are not viable). If this is resolved, then JS2 will be highly desirable.
Q4: Hand-made AJAX or AJAX framework? Q4: Framework. Cuts development time, provides consistent code, avoid wheel reinvention (Exception: very large projects may need custom code. Are you Google? Yahoo? If not, use a framework).
Q5: Is AJAX wide-spread / easy / hard / common? Q5: It's easy, wide-spread, and accepted. Fallback is usually present, unless the AJAX is a component of a complex online app that can't have no-JS fallback (example: rich text editor).
Q6: Do I pick AJAX or Web 1.0 / iPhone SDK ? A6: Apply common sense. In general, when a new technology comes around, people abuse it and try to shoehorn it into replacing everything before it. Then comes the backlash ("AJAX sucks"). Only then, people settle to use said tech in moderation, co-existing versus replacing, evolution versus revolution, and solving unique problems not solved before.
"Stan - you are the man. We've been reading this thread and totally cracking up."
So did I! Because you know, even if you're using Perl script to generate most of the message (and maybe even this message I'm replying to), you still came here, read my message and added some content that directly addresses my post. You think using Perl for the insults and being called GNAA makes me silly for replying? Oh hell no, the joke's on your assholes! Hahaha!
"You have got to be by far the dumbest mofo on this site."
Yea I know this is EXACTLY how it would've been interpreted. And if I cared enough to look smart, I would've just ignored you, because you're an ignore material.
But do you know why I keep replying and doing it even right now? Because I'm curious, and learn new shit every day, and when I see something weird, I'm eager to explore it. Now I know more - that something as pointless and stupid as GNAA exists... Someone sat there and actually wrote a bunch of scripts and carefully scan online communities and apply them to spam users? Hahaha, what the hell is the point of that? What is the friggin point:))?
How do you live with yourselves:)?
You're not doing a dent, you're not changing anything. I can chose to ignore you as if you never existed, or I can talk to you until I'm receiving entertainment and then ignore you. It's my choice, not yours!
"You're talking to a guided script moron. welcome to the white list. the gay niggers like out white bitches bent over."
Oh bye bye to your white list, I've made a new user. What you have in your white lists is a user who'll now log out and never log in back.. I've just spammed GNAA! Not too shabby. See ya.
"you're talking to one of the GNAA guided perl scripts (the part where he mentions being black and gay is a dead giveaway)."
haha, so they are saving time with by finishing their posts with PERL scripts, eh:) good good, hahahahahah. I honestly can't believe what pathetic losers exists in this world, thanks for the heads up, and don't worry, I can't care less (except for the excessive spamming of Slashdot, but CmdrTaco will have to care of this, its his site). They will be spamming my posts? Oh no my gawd! What a life threat! If they keep doing it I'll make a new user.
"nice warning Frank, but you're too late. Anyone who bites more than once is whitelisted. Hello Stan. Please keep replying."
Dude you can't believe how much I don't care:) If you spam my posts I'll make a new user. I'm not here to build karma or try "to be famous ot teh Slashdot!!", I'm here to read interesting news, and contribute with comments I think add to the discussion. While you and your buddies are here to prove you're a bunch of worthless losers. So do as you wish, I can't STRESS enough how amazingly stupid and pointless this all is, I'm truly having fun right now:)
BTW, the reason I keep replying is you're being increasingly nonsensical, repetetive and frustrated, trully attracting pitty with your posts. You're my free show, and we all enjoy a free show from time to time. Keep it coming.
I get the hint all right, we discuss DRM, and you come here talk about your dick, having sex, being smart and beautiful. Guess you couldn't convince yourself or the people around you but hiding behind a silly nick name and posting anonymous on the Internet is so much easier:) btw: last word
Damn, you're so boring and predictable. I even wonder why I waste time replying, because I for sure didn't waste time reading all the stuff your wrote.
The point of posts like that is to laugh at how uncomfortable they make losers like you.
Oh sure:) As you see I'm terribly uncomfortable right now. You only attract pitty to your persona with those silly posts.
Of course, I could be a totally serious psycho who's standing outside of your house right now waiting for your kids come out and play. hmmm, you decide.
And yes, I am a normal fucking good looking fucking person who is still, somehow, smarter than you, better looking than you
:) smart people who post here get the hint the first 5-6 times they are modded -1 for posting incoherent insults and obscenities, but you apparently don't.
Thing is we oppose at the idea of these things, but when they come in small portions and properly "marketed", we accept them. Where is your freedom? Your government tells you what you can do and what not (and it sometimes right, but also many times wrong), eavesdrops your phones and communications because of phantom threats and even forces you to pay for the pleasure or you go to jail.
This is not freedom, but we came to accept it and live with it. I'm not saying I like any of this, but just like I don't like it, I may wake up one day and find out I've trained myself to accept it as a fact of life.
Shouting about those issues on blogs and news sites won't change the direction of the way things develop. The majority of people have to refuse to use these technologies to make a real difference, and I just instead see the majority of them accepting them even today, despite the vocal minority of people opposing it. Therefore it's hopeless.
"Free is as much about the principle as the price. GIMP really isn't a photoshop substitute, but if I had to offer up my thumb every time I was about to use Photoshop, I wouldn't. I refuse to work that way"
Somehow, million of people don't refuse this way and put themselves to authorisation and authentication ("genuine advantage") procedures, product activation and "calling home" on startup.
So you may not, but the business doesn't care about you, you're a minority.
It's not targetted at warez-kiddies, movie downloaders or porn magnets...yet
This is how these things get adopted: they are offered to the businesses and parents, but soon same businesses will demand to control their users because of piracy and infair business tactics.
And you know it'll get used for privacy invasion and remote control.
Slowly, carefully, but it's inevitable. Few years from now we won't even know how it happened.
It's not the gun that kills, the man holding it is. Whether the technology is "evil" or not basically is completely unrelated.
OSS RIA won't be feasible until SVG stabilizes and is as ubiquitous as the Flash plug-in.
I.e. never. SVG has no reference implementations, so in a comparison I saw recently, 10 different SVG "compliant" renderers renders the same content in 10 different ways.
SVG is just a vector engine slapped on top of HTML/CSS and JS. Flash has audio, video, sockets, it has JavaScript 2.0 JIT compiler (coming in a couple of months) with true OOP and it's hella fast.
Flash has advanced authoring environment for building multimedia content and advanced IDE for developers (Flex), SVG has nothing serious. Flash has a strong framework of GUI components (buttons, tabs, windows, checkboxes and all that), SVG has none.
Yea, people do ugly banners in Flash as well, because they can, while in SVG they can't, since there's no support and there are no tools. Also SVG actually can't even do animation (in its pure spec).
Adobe did some extensions to SVG, like add sound and animation, but now that they have Flash, which is better, faster and smaller... well SVG is officially dead.
Oh, and Avalon/XAML is coming. The last nail in the coffin of SVG.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't wait to be submit my credit card, using my e-banking or book airline tickets, to a bunch of random desktop machines hosting a distributed web application.
I'm using edge cases? I'm being biased? Well, here's how IBM describes their project: "Such a computer would be capable of hosting not only individual web-scale workloads but the entire Internet."
The *entire* Internet is vastly more complex and demanding on its *backend* than its *frontend* reveals. What can be hosted entirely on a distributed network of desktop machines precludes many trusted and secure online transactions we make use of in the Internet today. It's obvious from the get go, that this will be only usable for a limited subset of online applications (like, hosting Wikipedia for ex.?) , but I guess making overly broad statements caught the eye of some bloggers and journalists.
Always fun to watch both sides fight in whether..or argument, because reality consistently demands hybrid solutions to most problems, for best efficiency and maintainability. The balance needs to be carefully selected on a per project basis, what types of users will the OS target be, in what environment it'll be used, commonly run on what type hardware etc. etc.
They are both wrong and right, and it's tragic they don't realize it.
I think what you are referring to is another learning mechanism which bypasses redundant mental steps on tasks that you repeatedly do. So when neurons A B C and fired in sequence often enough it will create a connection between A and C, so that the task is preformed quicker - essentially "you are doing things without thinking" is a very good description of what is happening!
The cerebellum ('the little brain') does a lot of the work of automating such motor skills. There's even a simpler description of what is happening in there, and elsewhere, when we do something without thinking: a caching system. Do something similar plenty of times, and your brain creates a structure to "cache it" using various heuristics and patterns, so it takes less resources to perform it next time.
This way your concentrate on other details of your actions, thus forming even more complex habits, and the cache builds up, as you become essentially "skilled" to do whatever you do.
Similar mechanisms apply not just to motor control, but thought processes in general. As a programmer myself, I often sense things by "intuition" when designing a piece of software. I knew the details of why I do what I do when I first learned it, but in the process they reduced to a number of semi-automated "rules of thumb" that I don't need to think about every time, just apply them, and get superior results.
You only have receptor density for reading dead center in your eye. You can't put Terminator-style displays of to the side of your FOV, because you can only see motion and coarse detail off dead center.
;).
You're very correct. But now combine this with head/eye tracking.
Suddenly looking in a different direction will shift the displayed picture in your lens, so you can read naturally. This in fact puts quite modest resolution requirements on your lens display, as it needs to be high-res only in the dead center.
Augmented reality comes to mind, where you see objects superimposed in your environment which don't exist.
You can finally have that 500 inch screen covering all four walls in your bedroom. And a realistic virtual stripper "hologram" in your living room
Well, there is no need for traffic lights if all cars are robots. Of-course the humans have to cross, but this can be done with overpasses or tunnels under the streets.
Once cars can really drive themselves, they should be in contact with other cars, road signs and such to maintain the best traffic conditions possible.
Removing traffic lights and going for a "P2P" meshing with other cars means you need to trust all other cars on the road. Not to mention: what happens if a system fails and you need to go in manual mode? You're hosed.
Some activities still need to be delegated to a trusted party, and I trust more a simple central traffic lights system. That lights system could then exchange basic information with the cars, and slightly adjust its schedule to optimize traffic as necessary.
Just like you need central certificate authority for e-commerce, or you don't give all your software "root" access and hope they work it out, you don't entrust human life on the road to random parties.
# It wouldn't go east to get west (unless Microsoft made its nav system)
# It wouldn't pick the route with the most stop signs
Actually, we're already aware a GPS guiding system could sometimes drive you in a tree, train tracks, water, off a cliff.
Given a computer will rely at least just as heavily (if not a lot more) on such a system to plan and execute a route, I hope GPS guiding systems are regulated to a much stricter standard about accuracy and real time updates, if they are to be certified to be used with a driverless car.
The calculus on the simulation argument is surprisingly solid when you think about it
Of course it is. Our brains, science and inventions evolved in this universe. Math was used to abstract an aspect of the universe. Computers are used to simulate various aspects of the universe.
Then someone forgets where all this came from and has an "Eureka!" moment, when he discovers that there are plenty of similarities between the universe, and what we came up with while evolving in it.
The universe is like our technology, because our technology was developed, and runs, within our universe.
Not to mention "it's a VR" is a pointless argument. It's also called "The Alien Fallacy". I.e. "we can't explain how this happened, therefore aliens created it!". It's a cop out.
Our "universe" can't be VR, since then this VR runs within a "real" universe, and that in fact is our universe. Or is that
VR too. We just add levels of indirection so we don't have to face the hard questions of being unable to yet explain certain quantum and relativity phenomena.
The outcome of exploring this could only lead us to elaborate "simulations" of knowledge.
Wikipedia receives most of its traffic from its articles appearing in Google's search results, Wikipedia being relevant content, and Google being the top search engine.
How is Wikipedia to draw traffic to their search engine? Obviously not via Google, as search engines are content free on their own. Integrating it with Wikipedia? But again, Wikipedia is the end target, not a start point, so how could this work.
I don't think Wikipedia has the strategy or money for this to reach critical mass and show its potential, but it'll be interesting as an experiment.
'More of them are experiencing data breaches, and they're responding to them in a reactive way, rather than proactively looking at the company's security and seeing where the holes might be,' said Linda Foley, who founded the San Diego-based Identity Theft Resource Center after becoming an identity theft victim herself."
IE 6 users are equally likely to move to Firefox as they are to IE7 ...
Reality check:
1. MSIE 6.x (44%)
2. MSIE 7.x (35%)
3. FireFox (14%)
4. Safari (3%)
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the word "equally", but we have 35% vs. 14%. Add the IE6 users, the number becomes 79%.
Should I also remind anyone that IE8 is under progress, including new UI and engine that passes ACID.
That would indirectly suggest that in this galaxy there was no sufficiently advanced life that would detect, and try to protect itself, or stop, said "death ray".
Some people believe the universe is chock full of life, but this one is score for the skeptics. I remain a cautious optimist.
I note that he mentions there is a list of "browsers that support" any given tag, and some notes. If it actually has some of the quick workarounds for the different browsers, I'm so buying this book.
What I can not figure out is, why use a printed book to tediously look up a bug into, when a good IDE or editor does the same for you automatically.
TopStyle or Dreamweaver will not just assist and autocomplete CSS properties for you, they'll check your HTML/CSS code on the fly against a list of selected browsers you want, and offer tips on common bugs your code may cause, as well as common solutions.
Also, this is the second time CSS "pocket reference" is reviewed on Slashdot (maybe the same one), and I wonder: who buys a *reference* manual as a printed book in the 21-st century. Maybe to have it handy on the road when you have no laptop around? Because, of course, the thing you'll be doing on the road, with no laptop, is debugging CSS.
I just stick to computer books for lengthy theoretic materials, that's read from start to finish. Such as, say, compiler design.
I see few recurring themes in the questions asked, so I'll try to cover them briefly:
Q1: How do you deploy an AJAX application offline?
A1: You can use integrated HTML/CSS/JS/Flash/PDF runtime, like Adobe AIR.
Q2: How do I deliver bulky complex AJAX applications over the net, if it's a lot of code?
A2: You don't. It's not a suitable deployment model, at least until we have a simple delivery vehicle for bundling multiple app elements into a single file, such as a browser downloading and directly reading a ZIP file with collection of resources/JS files (as with Java's JAR). Until then, and for complex UI-s in general, look into established compiled solutions like Flash.
Q3: Do we need JS2.0?
A3: No, we don't (right now), since JS2 delivers benefits for larger projects only (refer to Q2 why large online JS projects are not viable). If this is resolved, then JS2 will be highly desirable.
Q4: Hand-made AJAX or AJAX framework?
Q4: Framework. Cuts development time, provides consistent code, avoid wheel reinvention (Exception: very large projects may need custom code. Are you Google? Yahoo? If not, use a framework).
Q5: Is AJAX wide-spread / easy / hard / common?
Q5: It's easy, wide-spread, and accepted. Fallback is usually present, unless the AJAX is a component of a complex online app that can't have no-JS fallback (example: rich text editor).
Q6: Do I pick AJAX or Web 1.0 / iPhone SDK ?
A6: Apply common sense. In general, when a new technology comes around, people abuse it and try to shoehorn it into replacing everything before it. Then comes the backlash ("AJAX sucks"). Only then, people settle to use said tech in moderation, co-existing versus replacing, evolution versus revolution, and solving unique problems not solved before.
"Stan - you are the man. We've been reading this thread and totally cracking up."
:))?
:)?
So did I! Because you know, even if you're using Perl script to generate most of the message (and maybe even this message I'm replying to), you still came here, read my message and added some content that directly addresses my post. You think using Perl for the insults and being called GNAA makes me silly for replying? Oh hell no, the joke's on your assholes! Hahaha!
"You have got to be by far the dumbest mofo on this site."
Yea I know this is EXACTLY how it would've been interpreted. And if I cared enough to look smart, I would've just ignored you, because you're an ignore material.
But do you know why I keep replying and doing it even right now? Because I'm curious, and learn new shit every day, and when I see something weird, I'm eager to explore it. Now I know more - that something as pointless and stupid as GNAA exists... Someone sat there and actually wrote a bunch of scripts and carefully scan online communities and apply them to spam users? Hahaha, what the hell is the point of that? What is the friggin point
How do you live with yourselves
You're not doing a dent, you're not changing anything. I can chose to ignore you as if you never existed, or I can talk to you until I'm receiving entertainment and then ignore you. It's my choice, not yours!
"You're talking to a guided script moron. welcome to the white list. the gay niggers like out white bitches bent over."
Oh bye bye to your white list, I've made a new user. What you have in your white lists is a user who'll now log out and never log in back.. I've just spammed GNAA! Not too shabby. See ya.
"you're talking to one of the GNAA guided perl scripts (the part where he mentions being black and gay is a dead giveaway)."
:) good good, hahahahahah. I honestly can't believe what pathetic losers exists in this world, thanks for the heads up, and don't worry, I can't care less (except for the excessive spamming of Slashdot, but CmdrTaco will have to care of this, its his site). They will be spamming my posts? Oh no my gawd! What a life threat! If they keep doing it I'll make a new user.
:)
haha, so they are saving time with by finishing their posts with PERL scripts, eh
At least I had my fun
"nice warning Frank, but you're too late. Anyone who bites more than once is whitelisted. Hello Stan. Please keep replying."
:) If you spam my posts I'll make a new user. I'm not here to build karma or try "to be famous ot teh Slashdot!!", I'm here to read interesting news, and contribute with comments I think add to the discussion. While you and your buddies are here to prove you're a bunch of worthless losers. So do as you wish, I can't STRESS enough how amazingly stupid and pointless this all is, I'm truly having fun right now :)
Dude you can't believe how much I don't care
BTW, the reason I keep replying is you're being increasingly nonsensical, repetetive and frustrated, trully attracting pitty with your posts. You're my free show, and we all enjoy a free show from time to time. Keep it coming.
I get the hint all right, we discuss DRM, and you come here talk about your dick, having sex, being smart and beautiful. Guess you couldn't convince yourself or the people around you but hiding behind a silly nick name and posting anonymous on the Internet is so much easier :) btw: last word
Damn, you're so boring and predictable. I even wonder why I waste time replying, because I for sure didn't waste time reading all the stuff your wrote.
The point of posts like that is to laugh at how uncomfortable they make losers like you.
:) As you see I'm terribly uncomfortable right now. You only attract pitty to your persona with those silly posts.
Of course, I could be a totally serious psycho who's standing outside of your house right now waiting for your kids come out and play. hmmm, you decide.
Oh sure
I'll be waiting.
And yes, I am a normal fucking good looking fucking person who is still, somehow, smarter than you, better looking than you
:) smart people who post here get the hint the first 5-6 times they are modded -1 for posting incoherent insults and obscenities, but you apparently don't.
Thing is we oppose at the idea of these things, but when they come in small portions and properly "marketed", we accept them. Where is your freedom? Your government tells you what you can do and what not (and it sometimes right, but also many times wrong), eavesdrops your phones and communications because of phantom threats and even forces you to pay for the pleasure or you go to jail.
This is not freedom, but we came to accept it and live with it. I'm not saying I like any of this, but just like I don't like it, I may wake up one day and find out I've trained myself to accept it as a fact of life.
Shouting about those issues on blogs and news sites won't change the direction of the way things develop. The majority of people have to refuse to use these technologies to make a real difference, and I just instead see the majority of them accepting them even today, despite the vocal minority of people opposing it. Therefore it's hopeless.
"Free is as much about the principle as the price. GIMP really isn't a photoshop substitute, but if I had to offer up my thumb every time I was about to use Photoshop, I wouldn't. I refuse to work that way"
Somehow, million of people don't refuse this way and put themselves to authorisation and authentication ("genuine advantage") procedures, product activation and "calling home" on startup.
So you may not, but the business doesn't care about you, you're a minority.
It's not targetted at warez-kiddies, movie downloaders or porn magnets ...yet
This is how these things get adopted: they are offered to the businesses and parents, but soon same businesses will demand to control their users because of piracy and infair business tactics.
And you know it'll get used for privacy invasion and remote control.
Slowly, carefully, but it's inevitable. Few years from now we won't even know how it happened.
It's not the gun that kills, the man holding it is. Whether the technology is "evil" or not basically is completely unrelated.
OSS RIA won't be feasible until SVG stabilizes and is as ubiquitous as the Flash plug-in.
I.e. never. SVG has no reference implementations, so in a comparison I saw recently, 10 different SVG "compliant" renderers renders the same content in 10 different ways.
SVG is just a vector engine slapped on top of HTML/CSS and JS. Flash has audio, video, sockets, it has JavaScript 2.0 JIT compiler (coming in a couple of months) with true OOP and it's hella fast.
Flash has advanced authoring environment for building multimedia content and advanced IDE for developers (Flex), SVG has nothing serious. Flash has a strong framework of GUI components (buttons, tabs, windows, checkboxes and all that), SVG has none.
Yea, people do ugly banners in Flash as well, because they can, while in SVG they can't, since there's no support and there are no tools. Also SVG actually can't even do animation (in its pure spec).
Adobe did some extensions to SVG, like add sound and animation, but now that they have Flash, which is better, faster and smaller... well SVG is officially dead.
Oh, and Avalon/XAML is coming. The last nail in the coffin of SVG.