When I learnt programming on an old VIC20, there was no stinking internet.... just a few books I got from the library. Really, I think that the internet can be a huge distraction.... and, if cut off from the internet, I would probably do my best work!
Java applications have no sandbox. They're just as 'unsafe' as exe's, or other native apps.
I agree, you wouldn't want to do GTA5 in java...... However, Minecraft is currently chugging away on my laptop at 512MB, and performing quite well.....Even low end laptops have at least 2gb, and most of the graphics is offloaded to the GPU. It is very possible to make things run in half the memory, and be very strict about deallocating stuff after you allocated them....reference counting, etc. But, one mistake, and you've core-dumped your app. It is much harder to make something using C, than Java....especially cross platform. I would say Java is good enough, in this instance.
So, you're talking about Java Applets..... Which happen to have the same security flaws as other browser based plugins, like Flash (Zero-Day flaw patched just last week).... Who uses applets now anyhow? Minecraft is a Java *application* - not an applet.
Why does Java suck?.....seems ok to me?
My 10 year old lad has already said he hates version 1.8 of minecraft, and blames Microsoft for it.... Regardless of if its M$'s fault or not (admittedly its not), I am really proud of him for hating microsoft already!.... That's my boy!
What you can buy is an 'Toast Decorator' - its a Chinese import, probably not the most legal thing as they've cracked the DRM........ what you do is just slip your generic, non toastable bagels in this toasting bag, and then shove it in your toaster. It accepts the 'self.toast()' method, and does whats required to make sure your bagels are toasted to perfection every time. Result!
Oh FFS. Look on the bloody Bagel packet before you buy. If it doesn't say 'implements toastable' then don't buy em. Yeh , they may be a few bucks more, but thats your own fault for getting a toaster that is made by the same people who make the bagels.
The only reason the robot exists, is because the man who owns it paid someone to build it for him, or if he built it himself, paid someone for the components. He would only do this if he expects a return on his investment. I assume, that for him, a robot would be cheaper than paying for a human to do the work. So, he would be able to make more profit. > So we can all agree that we have all things for free since robots made them No, the man who owns the bot wont let that happen. >or we have to create bullshit jobs no one needs to distribute the money No one is going to pay anyone for doing a bullshit jobs. The only way out of this problem, is if everyone gets paid a Basic Income by the government. Money for nothing. Its inevitable this will have to happen.
BUT.....wait, without these people, those who have the machines wont have enough customers to turn a profit, and will probably go bankrupt after investing so much in the first place..... This is a house of cards. Get rid of the poor people, and those above them will fall.
I think if I knew about TDD at the start of wanting to learn to program, I think I would have avoided it completely, and done something else with my time. Seriously, for all the advantages of TDD, the problem is it is just not fun at all.
mx+b - I used to think, as you did. Then I read this. - http://quantumtantra.com/bell2... - and then I still didn't believe it. So, as a computer programmer, I tried to make a program that would mock what was happening. My theory was if I could model it in code, then it wasn't spookiness. Well, after trying for a few days, I couldn't do it. I realised the *only* way I could make my program work, would be to make the emulated particles in my program communicate with each other..... which means one of two things 1) Entangled particles have some way of Faster than light communication with each other.... (I still think this is impossible!) or 2) The universe we live in is just so weird, that nothing actually exists as we know it. Its only our observation that makes things real. everything is somehow influenced by everything else. That space and time and thought... aren't the separate things they appear (As Wesley Said)..... thinking this way, two entangled particles don't need to communicate - they behave like they do, because they can only ever behave this way in the observational field we project, and that they inteact within..... this observational field isn't something that only intelligent beings can produce - but more, any particle can be an observer of other particles if it is able to receive information about those particles. This I believe to be more the truth. Have you seen a speckle pattern made by a laser as it hits a wall?..... have you notice when you move, the speckle patten moves? How does the speckle patten know where you are, in order to move? It doesn't. You are just effecting it, by your observation of it. A different observer, sees the speckle patten differently. I think, somehow, something similar to this is going on. However, the observed quantum behaviour is caused by every observer of the event, causing it to show a particular result.
Maybe not communication.....
....but, maybe its part of a super ion-drive thruster, that can accelerate ions to near lightspeed before throwing them out the back of their spacecraft. This would give them very close to an actual impulse drive, without violating that annoying Newton's Third Law.