So if you need a framework so you can pretend to have a native version of the application

No, you need a framework so you don't need to reinvent the wheel for every project you work on. With Sencha's frameworks, I can write a pretty slick-looking responsive site in a few hours (or days, for something larger) that would take literally months to roll on my own (and for the record, yes, I can and have rolled my own, back in the dark ages).


why not just focus on having a webpage instead of a shitty application which is just a web page?

Two reasons. First, it increasingly doesn't make sense to force your end users to download and install potentially untrusted code - never mind needing to maintain separate versions for every major platform you target (oh, you want this on iOS and Android and Windows and Linux and OS X, etc?), when you can accomplish the same result in one nice tidy webapp. Second (and you can fairly call this a matter of personal preference), IMO just about everything looks like crap in a browser on a phone, and even that assumes the browser handles it correctly (yeah, like I want to support Chrome and FireFox and *shudder* MSIE and Dolphin and Safari and Opera, etc - Going right back to all the joys of supporting multiple OSs, woo hoo!).

The concept of a "webpage" hasn't limited itself to some statically published version of a document-with-markup in over 20 years; that model lost so thoroughly that pining for it doesn't even count as beating a dead horse anymore, more like trying to clone a mammoth from frozen DNA.


This sounds like lazy people who want to claim they have an app, when all they're doing is pointing to a web page.

It really doesn't matter to me what you want to call it, whether an app or a webpage or a widget or a three-handled family gredunza, if it accomplishes the intended goal... All just a matter of using the right tool in your box for each task - Sure, you can hammer in a screw, but sometimes a plain ol' nail will do the job just as well.

Basically funded bogus studies and had a negative press campaign as they came out.

Sacharine-- it turns out-- is actually quite safe while aspartame is bad for some people regardless of how it is handled. Handled improperly (over 100 degrees) it breaks down into bad stuff... but also many people break it down into bad stuff anyway and get headaches from it.

Exactly.

It's like they think people smart enough to work at google are dumb enough to believe that line.

Those were the days......

And there's the problem.

Who fits best with a team of 25 year olds?

It leads to a recursive situation where candidates with less experience or other negatives are chosen because they are young and not ugly.

And yet, right here on slashdot, I've had google employees swear in other discussions that google maintains a 45 hour work week when I said a friend declined due to work/life balance issues around her child.

The 'normal' level of vitamin D has also crept upwards over the years.

The crazy prior owner put in over 2' of blown in flock fill insulation in the attic. It will probably never pay for itself but holy crap I have low utility bills.

In another 10 years, those will be actual renewable system batteries. A lot of money is going into batteries now-- prices are dropping at microprocessor like rates. And they recently found a new technology around non-rare, non-explosive elements.

I greatly prefer conservation up front over power generation on the back end however.

But batteries are improving rapidly at this point while at the same time prices are dropping rapidly.

They're just trying to shoot the messenger but they created the problem by circumventing or ignoring the law.

The real problem here - And finish reading this post before you start shooting at me - Rowley has it absolutely correct. Tech companies do behave in ways friendly to terrorists.

Except, he has committed a fundamental attribution error by assuming they do in support of actual terrorism. Tech companies don't support terrorism - They support fairness, they support security, they support usability, for everyone. Unfortunately, "safe" and "secure" includes "from government tampering", and "fair" and "everyone" includes terrorists.

If the encryption software I use doesn't block all attempts to intercept my data, whether by flaw or by design, I will use something that does. Simple as that. Tech companies behave in ways friendly to terrorists because tech companies can't readily discriminate between the actions of crackers and governments, between privacy advocates and terrorists, between a legal court-ordered wiretap and an NSA hijacking - Nor should they.

- Has been operating on conventional rail (cost $ vs. $$$ for maglev) since 1981.
- Is holding the world record of 574,8 km/h on conventioanl rail since 2007.
- Is linking all major cities in France and some abroad (Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, UK).
- Has commercial speeds of 280km/h for the oldest ones, to 320km/h for the current generation.
- Costs a fraction of the price of the maglev.

But, YMMV. And by all means go Japan !

I'm sure you had the same level of skepticism towards an article published in Rolling Stone last fall.

It takes a good stab at examining the challenges and possibilities of superintelligent A.I.

Nice summary view here:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/l4h/su...

It posits three possible intelligence advance scales.

The first is self improvement over seconds.
I.e., the machine become conscious. It is able to increase it's intelligence to superhuman levels at machine speeds within a few seconds. There will be no time to react. Even air gapping the machine might not be sufficient as it may figure out new principles which allow it to bridge the air gap, figure out ways to mislead it's human owners as to it's capabilities so they enhance it further, etc.

The second is over a scale of weeks or months.
Not much time to react to it. A reliable way to cut the power should work. A nuclear safety net should definitely work. Society certainly couldn't react to it in time. There would likely be mass unemployment as it enabled human replacement within a few years for thinking jobs (and combined with robotic bodies- almost all methods of manual labor).

The last way is over a long time period. Society would have time to react. Perhaps to see and stop it if it was turning bad. Especially if it simply became the equivalent of IQ 160-300 slowly, you might be able to understand it. Later phases where it's iq reached meaningless numbers (6000... compared to it, humans would be like horses in relative intelligence).

---

The definitional problem is also there.

"Make people happy".
Okay- rig them to machines that feed them pleasure signals in the brain 24/7. Extinct.

Make people smile!
Easily obtainable with surgery.

---

There is a risk the machine will be "greedy" and basically convert the entire planet (and then the solar system) into a system for increasing it's intelligence. Humans don't play a large part in that scenario. Nothing malicious or personal about it-- not a failure of friendliness.

High score 1.1 million. Best other than that 680k... so a big leap.
Might have been higher... I was in the zone. But the right joystick broke.

If you can't find a picture of me online with 30 seconds on the googles, you need to stop eating the paintchips.