Comment Re:No AI is a Wizard (Score 2) 148
Damn, dude, you must be deaf, dumb, and blind.
Damn, dude, you must be deaf, dumb, and blind.
The same can be said about any and all values including "a child should be taught is to always think for him or her self".
Once you realize that, you'll be well on your way to being able to understand moral reasoning, and far less likely to spout silly "relijuns is the bad" comments at inappropriate times.
I'm sorry that it didn't work out for you. It didn't work out for me either, which is frustrating. Still, that doesn't mean it didn't benefit an overwhelming majority. The simple fact remains that far more people are better off than they were before. Just a handful (relatively speaking) are negatively affected.
I'm among that handful, which sucks. I get it. There is now opportunity, however, to improve on the system.
Those applications are all *drumroll* web pages
Only if you don't count 20 years worth of java, flash, etc. apps that previously enabled that kind of rich content in the browser. Like it or not, the web has been an application platform for at least the past 20 years. It's about time you got over it, and accepted the fact that the web simply isn't what you personally want it to be, and hasn't been for nearly it's entire existence.
Anyone who thinks those belong in a browser is a fucking idiot.
Or people who have had to deal with complex deployments and cross-platform development. A set of simple standards that significantly reduces the demand for shaky third-party plugins is a great thing.
I'm curious now: what browser technologies do you find acceptable? What does " should display webpages- period" mean to you?
If your beef is with media types, what would be allowed in your world? Text, presumably, but what about images? If images are okay, would you also be opposed to the audio tag? Is video right out, or is YouTube okay with you?
If it's not the media type that bugs you, but interactivity, do you disapprove of forms and form controls? How about CSS as it allows for some pretty fancy interactivity? What about hyperlinks? They could presumably be used to add a level of interactivity that you might find uncomfortable.
You're a long-time user of a site that does far more than mere "display" so you presumably draw a line somewhere. Where is that line?
Well, they aren't all that great. They're in the 'let you do it' category, which is decidedly different from 'let you do well it'. I like this analogy: I can tap out a message on a telegraph key, or I could use a keyboard. They both let you do the same thing, but one does the job significantly better than the other.
The same thing is true for the e-reader vs the hard-copy, though in the case of the e-reader, you're dramatically more limited as there are fewer memory cues and navigation options of which you can take advantage. For example, you may not have placed a bookmark at a specific section, but you might remember "reading something about that", "close to the middle", "a few pages after that orangish picture near the bottom". With the e-reader, it's a guessing game: "what page was that on?" or "what section was that in" followed by a tedious one-page-at-a-time search. With the hard-copy, it's a couple quick flips along the edge.
We're a long-way from replicating that. I love my kindle, sure, but I always buy a hard-copy of anything I find that's worth-while.
Yes, yes, very funny. Humor is a great way to cope when reality challenges your preconceptions. Just don't forget that it's merely a coping mechanism and that you'll need to accept the world for how it is eventually.
It doesn't have to be that way. Get web developers to stop competing with one another on how many frameworks and general-purpose libraries they can cram on a single page to do something better handled with CSS. It's like a plague.
You can have a fancy site with lots of "dynamic" elements than is efficient and performant. It actually takes significantly less effort than forcing a bunch of buggy and bloated "time saving" libraries to work together.
I can't believe how slow a modern browser can get on a decent machine. I shouldn't need 8 cores at 4.5ghz with 16gb of DDR4 or something ridiculous like that.
I have several older computers in a public lab (P4, 1-2gb) that run FireFox exceptionally well. (Chrome, oddly enough, barely runs at all. The reverse used to be true.) You don't need 8 cores at 4.5ghz and 16gb of DDR4 or "something ridiculous like that" A nearly 10-year-old computer with FireFox seems to cope well enough with the modern web.
Google WebRTC, then hang your head in shame.
A browser should display webpages- period.
The rest of the world disagrees with you. The web has been billed as an application platform since at least 1995.
Blame the W3C if you don't like the direction the web has been moving.
Though I'm curious, would you rather Mozilla ignore standards? Strict adherence is what is saving us from the nightmare that is a fragmented web, after all. I don't pine for the days of "Best viewed in ______"
I can dig it. I'm a big fan of eInk as well.
I'll keep an eye out for any head-to-head comparison post iWatch launch -- the crown bit has piqued my curiosity.
I had you pegged as Apple iWatch all the way. With the release less than two months away, what is it about the Pebble that's got you wavering?
They really should have come up with something other than the infinitely dense point at the center of a black hole.
It seems okay to me. Singularity nuts, after all, are infinitely dense.
You are serious? Your reading comprehension is that contemptible? Show me the wonderful set of JS apps for mobile.
There are tons of 'em. You've just never noticed that they were written in JS! I've seen everything from fast-paced 3D games to utilities -- not just on mobile, but on low-end mobile phones running FirefoxOS.
On BlackBerry and other platforms, you'll find quite a few as well, they're just incredibly difficult to spot, being indistinguishable from native apps.
See, you're confused by the problems phonegap users encountered by using jquery. Once they learned that lesson, and dropped that awful library, things improved dramatically.
A Node.js programmer works for a company that is OK if their applications don't work as long as they are flashy.
Like the guys at Pay Pal, Dow Jones, and the New York Times?
Sure.
"Been through Hell? Whaddya bring back for me?" -- A. Brilliant