Its development tools are a decade or more behind those of Java and C++.

It's worse than just being behind. Behind is a solvable problem. Basic IDE features like auto-completion/typo checking are impossible for the IDE when the content of an object can't be known until run-time. Consider a simple example that uses a random number to either define a given property on an object or not - the IDE fundamentally cannot know whether than property should show up in its autocomplete list. So I think the poor quality of the tools can also be blamed on poor JS design. JSDoc provides reasonable solution to this problem at the cost of writing a bunch of documentation that would be pedantic in other languages and negates weak types (not enforced unfortunately). I compare this to documenting every "int foo = 0;" in C++ with a comment saying "//this is an integer".

Ultimately, I feel the lesson comes down to this: Weakly-typed languages are for smaller projects than strongly-typed languages.

Unfortunately, if you need to do something in a browser you don't really have a strongly typed option right now. That is also a solvable problem, and as the browser becomes more and more important as a platform someone will solve it. Though, if you'd have asked me 10 years ago I'd have at least expected to be able to see the solution on the horizon by this point. :-(

"All of this is done wirelessly and doesn't require the use of any exploit or security vulnerability"

"...detects the wireless signal sent out by a target drone, injects WiFi packets into the target’s connection, de-authenticates it from its real controller and then authenticates it to the Skyjack drone"

Uhh... for what definition of "security vulnerability" is this not a "security vulnerability"?

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.

To me, this sounds like a pretty open and shut case of "Hey, I've heard that these 'NoSQL' database thingies are trendy these days. Let's use one of those!"

There's a difference between using fun, exciting new technologies and learning something new while doing that... and doing a project which stays in schedule and budget, is based on technology you already know thoroughly, and on which people's lives can depend (well, indirectly).

I have deployed computers and devices in a manufacturing setting. The number one factor in ensure that a device or even rugged terminals is to make sure your putting stuff on it that makes the users job easier or benefits the user directly. Quality checking systems, work reporting tools, extra work when its functioning will DOOM a device. These things are breaking because they have homework on them...I'm really sad to say.

Hakin9 is a magazine that's not exactly too reputable.

It looks like someone took a paper "written" using SciGen and submitted it to them. Because they didn't read the paper at all, they didn't notice it was absolute bullshit courtesy of finest context-free grammars people could code.

Brilliant work - not only is SciGen great for busting less than reputable scientific publications that don't exactly value this "peer review" thing, but now it has busted security magazines too.

but there's SOO much downtime in between PVP fights

I reopened my account a little under a month ago (originally quit when Diablo 3 came out, THAT game was a waste of time and money.). After two weeks back with my old alliance, spinning ships, AFKing in station, I joined a new one. Night and day. I have seen more action every day in the new alliance than all 2 weeks with the old one. The problem for me was that the old alliance had largely faded from glory and the remaining members are 80% people in a 12 hour different time zone, and located way out in the middle of where there was nothing for a lone player to shoot at. The remaining 20% were insulated in their own system 15 jumps away and own teamspeak server. They invited no one else to come with them. The new one is right in the sweet spot for my time zone, and in a much better location for PVP and quite active. There is so much PVP going on I haven't had as much time to try out the new exploration mechanics as I would like, and best of all I don't feel like I need to be on all the time so that I don't miss what little action there is.

Ultimate lesson: A new corp solved your situation in my case.

I felt barely competent after 4 months of play.

But competent nonetheless... Mastering a game ultimately makes it boring. Four months would be quite a short time scale to master any decent MMO. The deeper the game, the longer it takes.

The curve is just too high for people looking to have fun and not turn the game into a way of life

I assume you have seen this, but I will post it for the amusement of others: EVE Learning Curve

Unrelated comment: I have only recently come to realize that EVE is only cosmetically a game about space ships. Its true nature is more a game of risk versus reward. You can mine in 0.5 space and make money faster... but those suicide gankers are 2 jumps away, or you can mine in 0.9 space and make less. Make your choice and live with the consequences. Trust no one, and never undock anything you cannot afford to lose.

My first computer: Spectravideo SV-318: 16 KB.

Current computer: A not exactly a new PC, way behind the curve even after a few bits of RAM added: 2 GB.

So 125000x the memory, I guess.

That would stop mashup services from working easily, for example embedded maps, which I work on: openspace

Gamers and engineers and other hardcore users comprised a larger % of the PC market. These users tend to upgrade often to run the latest Doom at max 640x480 resolution with all options on.

Speaking as a gamer who was on the 1-2 year upgrade cycle 10+ years ago, even my PCs last a lot longer now too. My last 2 PCs have been play able to play the latest games at good settings for upwards of 4 years. This longer lifetime change coincided with my budget for building PCs increasing significantly (thank you, computer science degree). I'm unsure how much of an effect that has had, so take this with a grain of salt.

Why am I reminded of Star Wreck 4½? Can't remember the exact quote, but...

"Alert the enemies, that we're about to warm up the twinkler banks... soon."

"Alert the enemies, that we're about to warm up the twinkler banks... now."

(Several hours later)

"All right, if you want it. So be it. We will not make any more warnings. All light balls and twinkler banks... feuer."

(The ensuing fight consists mostly of dodging maneuvers of "turn right very slowly" variety)

You are not being bayesian enough.

You need the probability someone is telling the truth given the evidence of being dumb enough to say "I've got a bomb".

If the Hypothesis is 'got a bomb' and the Evidence is 'said bomb', here are my estimates:

p(E) = 10**-7 proportion of travellers who are dumb enough to say bomb (one in ten million)
p(H) = 10**-13 proportion of travellers who have had a bomb so far (one in ten million million)
p(E|H) = well, ZERO so far, but let's say 10**-3 bombers who mention the word bomb (one in a thousand)

Then p(H|E) = proportion of people who say bomb who have a bomb = P(H) * P(E|H) / P(E) = 10**(-13-3+7) = 10**-9

One in one billion people who mention the word bomb will have a bomb.

So if we close the airport each time for two hours, our losses for an actual bomb need to exceed the damages for closing an airport for two billion hours before it is worth it. That's over 200,000 lifetimes of waiting in the departure lounge.

Just.

Any comments on my maths / approach happily received.