Even better, they can use that information to build or enhance profiles WITHOUT getting any kind of judicial approval or oversight. Yay, Patriot Act (not).
186 karma · joined November 12, 2010
This is just flat out incorrect. SC 2 is a more moduler SC 1.x runtime, not an entirely new codebase. Similarly, SC 1.x apps will be able to run almost unchanged on SC 2 once their UI frameworks are updated for the changes in the SC 2 runtime.
The only "change" is that instead of making Web-app style opt-in, and Desktop-style the default, Web-app style is now the default and Desktop-style is opt-in. That change could have easily been made on the SC 1.x runtime as well, but it makes the most sense to do it on the modular, tighter SC 2 runtime for obvious reasons.
I do agree that HTML 5 apps should not be trying to emulate native desktop or mobile apps. Instead, they should be what they really are: native browser apps.
It's easy to use SproutCore's (very) powerful model layer on both the client and the server.
UPDATE: To clarify, in the specific situation the author describes (exactly one model class, no relationships, basically the simplest "schema" one could create), the load will go down slightly. For real, interactive single-page apps (the kind backbone.js is targeting), the load will go up because apps requests data often, way faster than your current app which is limited by page refresh time.
(I didn't see a license anywhere allowing that.)
Or just ignore them; this is what successful people do. It's not sexy, but life is far too short to spend it "giving love" to other people's ideas.
(I'm violating my own statement by writing this; what can I say? I like to explain things.)
That's because mathematicians do use algorithms, and concepts like "position" (indexing to us programmers), though they don't have names for them. If you explain programming using the concrete things every educated person knows, it is much easier to teach.
Which is sad, because the individuals publish there in order to move up through the academic ranks. By moving forward in their careers, they are also marginalizing their own work.
The incentives are perverse, and it will be a very happy day when all CS content is freely available online, as it should be.
I wish Hixie would retire and get some new blood in there. He's done good work, but it's time to move on.
I think I know which one the world is behind and which one Google is behind. I vote: world.
Yes, this could (and should) be fixed. And someday, perhaps, it will be. For now, it's just not a serious problem, outside of Hacker News.
Having three different IM clients on a phone pre-installed and unremovable? Yeah, that's the kind of shit Apple doesn't do.
From the article: "I had originally hoped to do a Kickstarter project, but I have since been informed that we do not fit the profile of project they are trying to promote at this time."
It's really not valid to compare Apple now to Apple pre-Steve Jobs.
If the company with products you describe, over many years, lost money consistently and it was not due to just "giving away" product at lower than the market would pay but was truly because the market would not pay the company's cost of production for the goods and services offered, then in that case, the company will have destroyed global wealth.
Happens all the time.
What you didn't get right was my example. I'm not talking about a situation where Microsoft is pricing a $100 product at $80. That does not result in wealth destruction, as you explained in detail. (It does result in less $$$ in Microsoft's bank account, though.)
My example was specifically about an Xbox that people were only willing to pay $80 for, and that Microsoft spent $100 to create. (Obviously, $100/$80 are illustrative, not actual figures.)
I will continue to assert that spending $100 to create a product that no one else values at more than $80 does, in fact, destroy global wealth. And that that is a Bad Thing, not "wise". You're free to continue to tell people the opposite.
Is the downvoting on some kind of logarithmic scale? I've lost something like 27 karma points, so clearly something is happening. Any ideas?
UDPATE: I suppose it could be that people can't read it anymore, and so the downvotes have stopped. Hard to say. My karma has started creeping back up though.
When wealth is converted into $100 for trade with someone (e.g. Microsoft, by buying Windows and Office products) and Microsoft takes that $100 and converts it into something that can only be traded for $80, it has destroyed wealth, even though the original $100 of money is still around (it paid for materials and labor after all). The "world" still has the $100 that Microsoft used to have, but instead of having $100 worth of wealth to trade it for, Microsoft has stupidly destroyed wealth and now there is only $80 of wealth to trade for.
So yes, the money is the same, but the wealth actually did decrease, by $20. Someone, somewhere is stuck with $20 and nothing to buy after the Xbox is sold for $80, thanks to Microsoft. Global wealth was destroyed; the amount of $100 bills stayed the same.
And here we have yet another comment purporting to argue against the article, and inadvertently proving it's main thesis.
Google should give the profits back to shareholders instead of trying to duplicate or continue what you yourself agree was success that was "extremely lucky".
The author isn't expecting lightning to strike twice at Google, and thinks they should put the money back in the marketplace where it can be spent wisely.