The only yahoo service I use. And daily. Wo.
393 karma · joined July 1, 2010
Yes, thats where the "conspiracy" bit comes in. We know these things are happening. We know they are being funded by Dynocorp which is itself funded 95% by US tax dollars. But who exactly organized it, well, gosh, nobody actually wrote it down. Yet we are to believe that nobody knew. Like, "who could have imagined people would fly planes into buildings?", as our Secretary of State blathered. (Answer: NORAD. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.h...)
While we're at it: here's the legal definition of conspiracy: http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c103.htm
WikiLeaks documents many such conspiracies.
That's because when they are found out to be true, nobody calls them "Conspiracy stories" any more. We call them "scandals". (ref: "Watergate Scandal"). Note that the perpetrators were indited for conspiracy.
"it's too hard to coordinate all of these efforts."
You're doing it wrong.
>real-time voice communication Webmeeting
>remote whiteboards, Webmeeting
>ideally real-time video skype
> When you have to feel like you're "on a call" to get together with someone, you don't get this sort of spontaneous idea generation.
Some of our best ideas at a previous startup came straight out of our Scrum meetings: when we had the CEO, the COO, and everyone all arguing (no bruises, but close sometimes) about what we should/could do next. I'd like to try that over web conf.
Plus, you still get the idea generation from external techie meetings. I'm in San Diego. I'm not moving to NYC. But we still have a great tech scene.
a) That US tax dollars paid for a US "security" company to throw a boy-rape for stoned Afghan police recruits,
b) The US Government is engaging in censorship
c) Wikileaks' personal army of hackers is stealing credit card information.
We have the most damning release of information ever, and yet the media is successfully portraying this as a hacker issue. And we're all fucking making it happen.
Can I plug MonoTouch here then? I just ported a native app to MT. It is approx two seconds slower to load - which I do think is a big deal - but the productivity benefits ( = new features) vastly outweighs that drawback.
I use MonoTouch for iOS development. Why? Because I can build complex object graphs without having to maintain, in my head or in external documentation, the acyclic version of the graph. In a GC language I can create graphs that are happily cyclic, and have every reason to be, and yet have them deallocated when the application nulls the last reference.
In a reference counted system that desires cyclic pointers, one or more of those pointers have to be chosen as non-reference-incrementing pointers - and likewise one must remember not to release them either.
Memory management in Objective-C (without GC) is no effort provided one is making applications with simple object interactions, such as the plethora of tree-based hierarchies. Reference counting is great for that.
So it could be that the OP is lazy, or it could be that they have experience with problems that you do not. If you believe that OP actually requires a lesson on the basic rules of reference counted memory management (since thats what you provided) then I suggest that you are underestimating the experience of your detractors, which in turn leads me to believe that you are overestimating yours.
So, its not even news. Unless, I suppose, the reader learned javascript in 2001 and feels they don't need to keep up on new things. That's the HN crowd is it?
Fuck, I've been learning javascript for a week and I know how to do this.
There are also areas where the Java VM totally sucks, frankly. How is it that we only have decent IO after more than 10 years? Sun and now Oracle hold the Java community hostage with the VM and runtime. Time to move on.
http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html
I think Vinge explains it better than Kurzweil.
My advice, then, if you are up for it, is to imagine what would light you up at this company. What would get you excited about it again? Figure that out, and do it. If you really are that good, then have faith in yourself. Give yourself a shot. Give your partners a shot. And if it doesnt work, quit. Unless this company is curing cancer its just not that important.
PS What amazes me about toxic environments is not the number of toxic assholes (actually quite small), but that most everyone else chooses to be enablers for these people.
PPS I did go on meds, but as another poster says here, it can take a while to find the right one - one can make you wired, another lethargic. The best thing to do is exercise and eat right; but the meds can help you get started (IMHO).
IBM has it wrong too then. In each of the examples provided, they dont "make the variable in the calling frame actually point to an entirely new object"
What actually happens is that the object (or value) that is pointed to by the reference is changed. Specifically, if you took the addresses of a and b before the call, and then after the call, you would see that the addresses have not changed. It is the contents that have changed. This is what happens it C++ in all cases. The only difference between C++ and Java is that Java is always pass by reference for objects and always pass by value for primitives.
Pass-by-reference does not mean "I can change the variable in the caller to now point to a new object". It means, if I modify the properties of the parameter, it is modifying the same object that the variable references. In contrast, if you do this in C++:
class Foo; void bar( Foo x ) { x.value++; } void main() { Foo y(0); bar(y); }
You will discover that y's value remains 0. That is pass by value.
class Foo; void bar( Foo &x ) { x.value++; } void main() { Foo y(0); bar(y); }
This is pass by reference. y.value is now 1. So now if this is Java:
class Foo; void bar( Foo x ) { x.value++; } void main() { Foo y(0); bar(y); }
Then y.value is now 1 - just like the pass-by-reference case in C++. So either IBM has it wrong, or you have it wrong.
http://www.theprotectornetwork.com/
http://evolve108.com/#/section=home
For comparison, here are some websites put together by companies that ycombinator has funded, and which, I believe, are html/javascript without the middleman.
class Foo;
void Bar( Foo& somefoo) { ... }
class Foo; void modify( Foo& x) { x.setBar(1);} ; <- pass by reference in C++.
class Foo; void modify( Foo x) { x.setBar(1);} ; <- pass by reference in Java.
Java spares you the & because Java only passes by reference.
Again, to argue the contrary, simply because it passes an object pointer by value, automatically, is to argue that C++ never passes by reference because it too takes the address automatically.
The fact is that Java passes by reference exactly as C++ does. However, even if this were not the case, it would also be completely acceptable for Java to refer to what it does as pass by reference simply because it chooses too. These things are object references. If I pass a java object reference, is it acceptable to say I'm passing by reference? If Java people want to say it is, then it is. Will the world end, for example, because the word "heap" means two different things in computer science? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heap OMG! Who is right?
My point is basically summed up here: http://xkcd.com/435/
You are where the physicist is standing. You insist that Java biologists are using your terms wrong while oblivious to the mathematician. You have your abstractions. Java has theirs.
Of course, maybe you're the chemist, and I'm the physicist (I still write assembly) and the hardware guys are the mathematicians. Whatever.
As for the insulting tone, yes its a character flaw. When someone makes a statement like "I'm really tired of hearing folks (incorrectly) state [whatever]", its insulting. Its especially insulting when its wrong. In an ideal world I'd be able to respond without resorting to responding in kind, but I'm flawed. Sorry. You're still wrong.
The fact that various companies have sprung up that can take a language and generate javascript from it doesn't make javascript comparable to assembly.
Normally one takes a high level language and compiles it to a lower level language. However, it is not the case that simply compiling one language into another automatically dictates that one is higher than the other. In this case, it is done because javascript is the only language available, and some people don't want to learn it. I suspect that most people are put off learning javascript because the first time they tried it it was a PITA. Especially, it didnt do the same thing in IE as it did in Chrome. So people wrote frameworks like GWT and NOLOH so they could use languages that were familiar to them. I understand why: its easier to solve one unknown at a time. Presented with two problems: a) I don't know javascript and b) browsers are shitty, people decided to tackle problem (b) and ignore problem (a) by writing libraries in their familiar language. Ironically they probably now know more about javascript than anyone else.
I'm opting to deal with problem (a) and solve problem (b) by using jQuery. YMMV.
As for the advantages of something like NOLOH, yes, sure there are many advantages to using what is essentially big enough to be called middleware. However I suggest that the advantages initially presented by its ease of use will be quickly outweighed by all the things it can't do, or that it demands you do "its way". Perhaps NOLOH is the worlds first middleware that doesnt have this problem, or perhaps its the 2010 version of MFC. The problem is, by the time you find out its the latter, its too late. The risk of that discovery is greater than the learning curve of javascript and modern frameworks. Unlike assembly language.