• Where does Java execute?
• Where does javascript execute?

I said they were "supposed" to be the good guys. And they are.

This is why we Americans now have the Fourth Amendment, requiring due process (with various levels of proof) before interfering with someone's life.

Well, but that was a while ago. Now the legal system is using rationales like "hey, your MONEY doesn't have any rights, so we don't need due process to seize it, just suspicion" and also "terrorism", "you are on this list", and the big winner, "I think I'll just shoot you" (and often your dog, even, every once in a while, your cat), plus "we like searching your finances and communications without a warrant, so we do (IRS, NSA, DEA, other TLAs)", etc.

You gotta keep up a little better.

Also, the 4th constrains the federal government. With significant optimism poured on the 14th amendment, plus a judge who hasn't received his most recent bribes, the 4th also constrains state governments. It does not, however, constrain corporations or individuals. That is, of course, if anyone was still paying it serious notice, which is clearly not the case anyway.

This stuff actually depends upon civil law, and there, the rules are *completely* different and not at all what you expect. Or will enjoy. Civil law exists specifically so the system can hammer you in the event that criminal law is not up to the job. Any other usefulness is wholly coincidental.

Java and so forth is not limited enough. Not even close. And outside of that, there's the whole "ooops, the bug let some code execute" that will plague browser-side executables forever, or as close to it as makes no difference.

This is one of the core (ha) problems with client-side execution in a general purpose machine.

If you want to host a reputable website, then the more you can put active functionality for the user in server-side CGI, the better you can actually take that high road. All this java-loaded stuff on websites is a constant invitation to problems. It's an idea that is only safe in a world without bad guys. And our world is hardly that -- even the ones that are supposed to be the good guys (the government) are bad guys now.

But if you can tell your users "turn off client side execution" and your website will still work, then all they need is a browser that can read HTML, CSS and CGI and follow the HTTP and HTTPS protocols. Then if you can get browser manufacturers to quit pretending that HTTPS provides "identity" so the browsers drop the SCARE tactics for self-signed certificates, we can all enjoy the web without nearly as much risk for the surfer or paid blackmail for the site owner.

For all of us who remember how to read and enjoy real web sites, this would just be another (good) day. On the other hand, if you're one of those who doesn't read, likes to type "tl;dr" (and thinks it's funny, instead of sad as heck) and/or one of the video-addicted, you're probably completely screwed. :)

I was merely saying we have flying devices that don't plummet to the ground when they run out of gas.

Sure they do. :)

There was a time when 1GHz/1GB was overkill

Not for desktop computers, there wasn't. Perhaps for your watch. Then again, probably not.

There's no such thing as "overkill" in computing power and resources. There is only "I can't get (or afford) anything faster than this right now."

Make donuts?

Clearly, you are unfamiliar with Marijuana. :)

The hemp we use... has no THC in it at all - so there's no overlap with any recreational activities," Mitlin says.

Well, every technology has bugs and birthing pains. Keep working at it, and perhaps you can graduate to a better class of hemp, Mr. Mitlin.

The price? At Oshkosh, they were saying around $270k

Nah, for that amount of money I'd rather buy a used exoticar and try my best to make it fly. Plus, chicks dig exoticars. Mine does, anyway.

People are bad enough driving in on two axes, do we really want to add a third?

Well, you should see me driving two chainsaws. Keep your distance, though.

...and the ground is very unstable in many areas, not to mention under water.

Another benefit of flying is straight line transport. Roads -- particularly around here --- add huge distances to any trip because you can't go directly to one's destination, but instead, must go waaaaaay around to get there.

The best solution is actually monorails. There is no need for them to take up much ground other than a post every so often, they don't disturb the greenery or the wildlife or the settlements, they can mostly ignore terrain, they can go whiz-bang fast, they can never hit cows or cars or people (well, REALLY stupid people they might hit, but I see that as a feature, not a bug), properly built monorails can't be snowed in or under, the scenery is better than either aircraft (too high) or car/train/bus (too low) they're quieter than trains by far, the ride is better, elevation means better radio coverage for cell or whatever, two tracks for bidirectional operations can be hung from single poles, thereby taking no extra right of way.

Also, they're hella cool.

Too bad the government hasn't enough sense to Manhattan project a bunch of 'em. Sure rather pay for that than yet another bombing of brownish people with funny beliefs and (coincidence only, of course) oil and other natural resources.

...and If only we had envelopes that would hold such a light gas without leaking it the heck out through every surface, or otherwise leak away the characteristic (heat) that makes it light... and if only such a technology didn't require such a large envelope as to function as a highly effective sail in any high prevailing wind such that it would take a huge amount of energy to counter said impetus... and if only we had a place to store such a large envelope... and if only such a device wouldn't cost seven figures... and if only there was a place available to land such things at your desired destination...

Yes, I believe you're on the right track. I'll start buying H and He futures immediately, and subscribe to your newsletter as well. Thank you!

I live 300 road miles from the nearest city of with enough resources to be worth visiting. I could actually use a flying car. Air distance is much less than the road distance, for one thing, and for another, max legal road speed is pitiful - 70 to 75 mph. Yet Amazon and the occasional other net vendor pretty much fulfill all our material needs. The big deal when we take a trip these days (usually medically related now) is access to a spectrum of decent restaurant choices.

However, all things considered, I'd rather have a couple of robots. A household one, basically a full featured maid, and another for walking a dog, mowing the lawn, taking out the trash, etc.

I expect to get them well before I get a flying car, too, unless someone discovers a low-power, very safe, antigravity system in the interim. Otherwise, it's just not energy efficient.

Most people speak at under 150 wpm, anyway, and...

The future here is not using your hands, but is 100% in the speech-to-text area. My phone does a pretty amazing job today, all things considered. Just the tip of the iceberg.

What would you prefer -- a funky keyboard and reams of training, or a tiny microphone and no training?

Seriously, the future of computer interfacing lies in Speech-to-Text, in-eye displays, and something ranging from an earphone to a bone conduction implant. And that's just until they tie the things right to your nervous system.

I love my keyboard, and I'm really, really fast and accurate with it, but I know its time is going to come.

While the technologies and tools underlying this transformation can make development work more powerful and efficient

...and they can also bury them in irrelevancy. It can make them depend on debuggers instead of good coding practices and skills and self-checking that tend to make the debugger an uncommon go-to. It can isolate them further from the hardware so that the difference between what is efficient and what can only be said to work becomes a mystery to the new-style programmer. It can turn what should really be a one-programmer project into a team effort, where "team" should carry the same negative connotations as "committee." It can move critical portions of projects into the black boxes of libraries and objects sourced from outside the primary development effort, and in so doing, reduce both the maintainability and the transparency of the overall result. Languages with garbage collection can create much looser coupling between performance and system capacity, reducing the range of what can actually be done with them. Worst of all, with all the wheel spinning and checking code in and out and the testing methodology of the month, it can make them feel like they're really doing something worthwhile in terms of time spent and results obtained, when what it really boils down to is something far less efficient and effective overall.

There's another factor, too; the industry really wants young programmers. The costs are less for remuneration, insurance, and vacation; the families are smaller or non-existent, and these people will work much longer hours based on nothing more than back patting and (often empty) promises. One of the consequences here is that some of the deeper skill sets are being lost because they simply aren't around the workplace any longer.

I think there is no question that all of this has changed the face of coding. An interesting exercise is to ask yourself: When was the last time you saw a huge project hit the market. Now ask yourself how many little does-a-couple-of-things projects you've seen hit the market in the same time frame. My contention is that there are very few of the larger projects being undertaken at this point, or at least, being finished.

Just one (retired) guy's opinion. :)