This article misses the point of frameworks like Angular. Its never been about whether a framework is qualitatively better that vanilla or some other framework. The issue is when your codebase and your team reach a certain size you need the baseline, predictability and the guard rails that a framework provides. Otherwise you risk your project spiraling into chaos.
We need some kind of screening for these high-stress PTSD inducing roles ... a Voight-Kampff test. Or limit the number of years one can be in these roles.
I work for a large company, and I can say that context switching is also a problem here. I guess it comes down to the organization, or maybe the individual team. But yeah, there isn't a week that goes by where a development task isn't interrupted by something.
To put this in perspective, US daily oil consumption is 18 million barrels. So a 50 million barrel release from the strategic reserve is less than a 3 day supply.
Nova does oversimplify things. Tho, I have yet to hear "golly gee whilikers" on it. Nova has become the science equivalent of 60 minutes, both of which are geared toward the public at large. Personally I find these programs entertaining, and if I want to go deeper I can always fire up a browser.
The US and others have fallen into the trap of preparing for the next big war by looking at the last (WWII). Did anyone see the recent opening ceremonies at the Olympics? It included a presentation of 1800 drones flying in precise coordination. It does not take much imagination to see potential of drone swarms on the battlefield.
The mistake most people make, including this article, is thinking that Avatar was an "animated" movie. It was not animated, it was motion-captured. If you saw the making-of Avatar, which I think aired on HBO, you would see that Cameron did actually direct the movie. He was able to see a realtime 3-D representation of his actors and set using a special hand-held camera.
Some countries should be disbanded. Their citizens should be given a passport to the country of their choice along with a 1-way ticket and a small stipend.
Facebook and Twitter (and their like) have yet to turn a profit or even come up with a plan to make one. Meanwhile, Blizzard's World of Warcraft continues to rack up millions a month from loyal and paying users. If you want to make money on the internet you need to take a good long look at what Blizzard is doing.
The answer is Yes. The real question is 'when?'. My guess is it will take some time before Flash and its competitors finally join the dinosaurs. It will be slowed down by html5 adoption and by the need for tools/libraries that take canvas to the level of what flash can do today.
The idea of making a web browser that is also a web server makes a lot more sense than the current trend of cloud computing. The privately owned data center concept is unsustainable, and defeats the concept the internet, which is distributed data.
The mathematics of most sites, especially the super large ones like Youtube and Facebook, simply do not add up. They are putting all their chips down on some profitable future that I just don't see materializing. Giving aways tons of content, functionality and bandwith is simply not a sustainable operation. In my opinion, the future of the internet will contain a lot of toll booths or perhaps we will find a better way. These large monolithic web services just does not seem the way to go.