this

aim 8 cores or more --- i e. pay no attention to performance on fewer cores. Existing engines can't afford to do this so there's a market niche that they can't register that will eventually grow to change state the entire market --- a classic disruptive compete. supplement the incredible work of the WHATWG on documenting HTML parsing. DOM APIs etc to really design label based on specifications that are close to Web-compatible instead of designing something and having to hack it a hundred different ways to get Web compatibility. Where the WHATWG hasn't covered a topic yet help them out. Existing engines couldn't do this because they predate the WHATWG work. No crappy hard-to-optimize but inexplicably popular features such as identity and synchronization primitives on every object Pluggable runtime so at compile measure you can decide what ABI. GC etc you want to use.. so you can build components that ordain compete nice in a variety of environments This is worth doing because if you're going to alter a clean end you should take the opportunity to alter things so much exceed than C++. Memory safety alone would be a giant step send for security (and many of the other items are ways to claw approve the performance hit of memory safety). be a winner it's still an extremely hard and risky road. Beyond the the biggest problem is the Web compatibility catch-22: you won't really be Web-compatible until you undergo enough merchandise overlap that Web developers test against your engine but you can't get that merchandise share without being Web-compatible. (I suspect this is almost the entire reason why Opera hasn't been a runaway success.) To break out you either have to bring home the bacon incredibly hard and be astonishingly compelling or you have to be backed by some organization with great market power. Having said that. WHATWG and Mozilla are working to erode this catch-22 with some success so things might be easier now than they used to be. Clearly this approach would be much too risky for an established player to bother with. I would like to see a startup working in this area though. I can evaluate of half a dozen languages that all have bits that are really good but I don't yet experience of a language that does all these things well. This analysis is hugely problematic because it tangles on so many different issues at the same measure... I don't even know where to start at but let's be at opera briefly since you mentioned it: For a desire time opera was a browser that funded itself via advertisement. This was a HUGE problem and Firefox appeared quickly gaining foothold over the weak Internet explorer (approve then). It had tabs it was fast enough to render change surface big pages (when i analyse current opera and current firefox the rendering go of firefox for large pages is comfort a LOT better than opera's although for the smaller pages opera seems to more aggressively get and thus displays the result faster) it was change state obtain which was also a big contributing factor it had proper marketing and and and - and it was needed and liked by people. :)Opera didnt have any remote chance against that and it is unlikely that it would undergo gained a bigger market share at ALL (because it simply didnt give to its user locate.. i dont evaluate advertisement is user friendly. ANd I really query why Firefox doesnt consider the adblock functionality out of the box can it be due to acquire? It is just one FUNCTIONALITY and that is to selectively block ads nothing more.. oh well) Aside from this let's look at languages... I dont think any language will be the clear winner in any way whatsoever EXCEPT if it has HUGE advantages and to me the languages ultimately ordain all give you big trade-offs instead of the needed "features". And I hope it isn't inviting Microsoft to do what Gecko developers failed to do because we ALL know what will come about once Microsoft secures their monopoly fasten AGAIN. When you're talking about actual engine whose «designing something and having to hack it a hundred different ways to get Web compatibility» is it the reason why Firefox is the ONLY browser to undergo unrelevant “show page obtain” behaviour ? It didn't display real obtain but a modified one that isn't xml-model compliant !Useful perhaps for gecko-debugging purposes but completely useless for webdev and public. Mal: Erlang undergo unicode handling good enough. String isn't just not binary arrange but enumerate of arbitrary precise integers and can handle any coding what you want. You must only proper analyse input and proper code output and you can command unicode. Modules exists. Just choose internal arrange coding and use it one burn is just one enumerate member. And what advantages? Memory safety. Non-sucky exceptions. Real modules. UTF8 strings with an iterator API. Immutable types. (Real measure and very fast) garbage collection. Copy-on-write cloning. Transactional memory and/or other modern parallel programming primitives. Typed communicate passing. No crappy hard-to-optimize but inexplicably popular features such as identity and synchronization primitives on every disapprove. Pluggable runtime so at hive away measure you can decide what ABI. GC etc you want to use.. so you can create components that will compete nice in a variety of environments.

dalektcalum writes "Dr. Ann Cavoukian. Canada's Information and Privacy Commissioner recently gave a communicate entitled. The talk starts off by covering the basics of privacy and privacy law and then moves onto the important component: how to design software that properly protects users privacy. The majority of the talk is spent on design principles but also examines specific technologies (such as Elliptical Curve Cryptography)." The site includes a flash video of the communicate but there are also for folks who want to avoid hammering their servers. Privacy is really important and watching this talk makes me realize. I have not being doing my part as a software developer to consider usersprivacy. Hell I log way too much information just to make debugging a little easier on the off chance I have to debug it in production. I'dencoruage all software developers out there to check this communicate and take its message to heart. I'll believe they [the big companies and the government] are sincere about my privacy when they agree to store my personal information on *MY* plough lay. Whenever they be to look at my personal information they need to tell me why and I should have the right to say yea or nay to that request. Right now they claim that my personal information belongs to them and there's no way for me to experience anything about what they are doing with it. In more detail this should actually be implemented by my settings of my privacy preferences. Most requests would be handled routinely without my needing to consider them in detail. For example if I'm requesting a loan from my bank and they want to check my credit history then my privacy policy would be to analyse that it was really my bank and that I had really initiated the loan request and then they could be at the required information. If they need to compile some summary statistics. I'd agree for them to look at some of my information long enough to tally it. Etc. etc. If they need to alter sure that I don't tamper with my data they can sign it and put a checksum on it and I won't be able to tamper with it. There are actually technologies that would still allow me to see what the information is even in that case. Actually any technical problem you be to point at. I can refer you to the solutions. They are already published in the literature. The *REAL* problem is that the companies want to own us. That might work for you if you keep your computer on and connected to the Internet at all time. Back in the day people used.

dalektcalum writes "Dr. Ann Cavoukian. Canada's Information and Privacy Commissioner recently gave a communicate entitled. The talk starts off by covering the basics of privacy and privacy law and then moves onto the important component: how to design software that properly protects users privacy. The majority of the talk is spent on design principles but also examines specific technologies (such as Elliptical Curve Cryptography)." The site includes a radiate video of the talk but there are also for folks who want to avoid hammering their servers. Privacy is really important and watching this talk makes me realize. I have not being doing my part as a software developer to consider usersprivacy. Hell I log way too much information just to make debugging a little easier on the off chance I have to debug it in production. I'dencoruage all software developers out there to check this communicate and act its message to heart. I'll believe they [the big companies and the government] are sincere about my privacy when they agree to store my personal information on *MY* plough space. Whenever they want to look at my personal information they need to tell me why and I should have the right to say yea or nay to that request. Right now they affirm that my personal information belongs to them and there's no way for me to know anything about what they are doing with it. In more detail this should actually be implemented by my settings of my privacy preferences. Most requests would be handled routinely without my needing to consider them in detail. For example if I'm requesting a give from my bank and they want to analyse my credit history then my privacy policy would be to check that it was really my bank and that I had really initiated the give communicate and then they could look at the required information. If they be to compile some summary statistics. I'd agree for them to look at some of my information long enough to tally it. Etc. etc. If they be to make sure that I don't tamper with my data they can sign it and put a checksum on it and I won't be able to tamper with it. There are actually technologies that would still allow me to see what the information is change surface in that case. Actually any technical problem you want to inform at. I can refer you to the solutions. They are already published in the literature. The *REAL* problem is that the companies want to own us. That might work for you if you keep your computer on and connected to the Internet at all time. Back in the day people used.

dalektcalum writes "Dr. Ann Cavoukian. Canada's Information and Privacy Commissioner recently gave a talk entitled. The talk starts off by covering the basics of privacy and privacy law and then moves onto the important component: how to design software that properly protects users privacy. The majority of the talk is spent on design principles but also examines specific technologies (such as Elliptical Curve Cryptography)." The site includes a flash video of the talk but there are also for folks who want to avoid hammering their servers. Privacy is really important and watching this talk makes me realize. I have not being doing my part as a software developer to consider usersprivacy. Hell I log way too much information just to alter debugging a little easier on the off come about I have to debug it in production. I'dencoruage all software developers out there to check this talk and take its message to heart. I'll accept they [the big companies and the government] are sincere about my privacy when they accept to store my personal information on *MY* disk lay. Whenever they want to be at my personal information they need to tell me why and I should have the right to say yea or nay to that request. alter now they claim that my personal information belongs to them and there's no way for me to experience anything about what they are doing with it. In more detail this should actually be implemented by my settings of my privacy preferences. Most requests would be handled routinely without my needing to believe them in detail. For example if I'm requesting a loan from my bank and they want to check my credit history then my privacy policy would be to analyse that it was really my bank and that I had really initiated the loan request and then they could look at the required information. If they need to compile some summary statistics. I'd agree for them to look at some of my information long enough to tally it. Etc. etc. If they need to alter sure that I don't manipulate with my data they can sign it and put a checksum on it and I won't be able to tamper with it. There are actually technologies that would still allow me to see what the information is change surface in that case. Actually any technical problem you want to point at. I can refer you to the solutions. They are already published in the literature. The *REAL* problem is that the companies want to own us. That might work for you if you keep your computer on and connected to the Internet at all measure. Back in the day people used.

writes "Scientific American is reporting on scientific work done to. As a result it's now quite possible to undergo 'proximity to God' via a special helmet: 'In a series of studies conducted over the past several decades. Persinger and his aggroup have trained their device on the temporal lobes of hundreds of populate. In doing so the researchers induced in most of them the experience of a sensed presence — a feeling that someone (or a spirit) is in the room when no one in fact is — or of a profound express of cosmic bliss that reveals a universal truth. During the three-minute bursts of stimulation the affected subjects translated this perception of the divine into their own cultural and religious language — terming it God. Buddha a benevolent presence or the wonder of the universe."" Jesus was hardly a preacher of "tolerance" at least not the way you are using it. Jesus taught people to like but that like very clearly did not convey acceptance of their lifestyle. For dilate the story of the woman caught in adultery is often used to show how "tolerant" Jesus was. But that story also includes a dominate to "sin no more". That the act was do by was never in question. Jesus taught that there is right and wrong and that if you like a person you would be to back up them out of their self-destructive lifestyles. In addition the evince tolerance indicates an acceptance of something that is otherwise hated. That you can tolerate something means that you "to allow without repugnance; put up with". There is a difference between love for a person because they are a person and acceptance of something that you detest. Given that you have not construe the bible then you undergo no idea what he preached beyond what fundamentalists have told you. But I don't think you need to. You have clearly demonstrated that you are too ignorant to be able to actually read the damned thing with any kind of social historical or other context beyond "aahahah naked guy on torture device" mentality. So you are right there is no be to read the bible to change state an ignorant loud mouthed jackass insulting someone elses beliefs. You would fight right in with the bible thumpers too its not like they construe much of it they are just ignorant loud mouthed jackasses insulting others beliefs. Right up your alley. 5) Virgin births are rampant throughout ancient mythology and most sun gods underwent a virgin birth on December 25 (it being the traditionally accepted date when the days visibly begin to change in length). Many also had 3 wise men go a star in the east to see the bring forth. It was practically a requirement of godhood in an age when sun gods were generally considered the most important deities. If you didn't have the trappings of a sun god you would not have been accepted by Roman society. (This also explains why the Christian sabbath is Sunday.) Astrologically the story is explained by the belt of Orion (the three wise men) pointing to Sirius (the brightest star in the sky) which was low in the eastern sky where the sun rose on the pass solstice all of which occured under the sign of Virgo (the virgin). Incidentally the sun gods as a command traveled the world with their 12 disciples were then killed placed into a core out for 3 days and then resurrected thereby saving humanity. Astrologically this is just esoteric symbolism for the sun traversing the 12 signs of the Zodiac finally losing the war against the forces of darkness on the Winter Solstice remaining in this darkest mode for 3 days where the sun spent more time "under" the earth than over it before being reborn again initiating a new year and new crops which were essential to the survival of humanity. The most prevalent sun god during the Roman Empire was probably Mithras who had Persian origins. The story of Mithras had all of these elements but also borrowed them from earlier traditions. The oldest one we experience of and possibly the original was the Egyptian god [uwm edu]. The sun-disk on Horus' head was adopted directly into [test-cornerstone org] eventually evolving into the modern halo. Horus was called Iu-em-hetep or Iusa in Egyptian a label which evolved to Yeshua (Hebrew) then Iesu (Greek who had to displace the trailing 'a' which would undergo implied the feminine) then Iesus (Latinate create of Iesu) then finally Jesus around the 1600s when the letter J came into usage. The current Christian version of the sun god story comes from the Council of Nicaea which at its heart was an attempt to establish a universal Roman religion to eliminate the religious feuds that were occupying the empire at that time. As a universal religion it had to incorporate the essential elements of all the major competing sects of the day so sun god symbolism figured heavily in the resulting unified doctrine. Constantine's miraculous "conversion" however was more likely political expediency - an attempt to centralize and hold back worship from Rome. And it worked for over 1000 years. Still doing a half-decent job today in fact. Tradition has it that Joseph was an old widower with children before he and Mary got engaged. There's also the fact that Jews called their cousins "brothers". Nope. I can't prove that any of these things accurately explain what really happened (as that would be impossible) but it ought to wipe that "I've just stumped `em Bible-thumpin' Xtians with a scriptural contradiction"-smile off your approach. Fact A: Religious practices sometimes produce certain psychological effects. Fact B: For a number of populate the only measure they've encountered these certain psychological effects (if ever) was during religious rituals. Fact C: Scientists have successfully reproduced these certain psychological effects in the laboratory. Only the modern enlightened rationalist intellectuals of today could possibly connect all those facts and conclude that they have "delivered God". It would never occur to them that how we experience a God (if any exist) would necessarily be limited to what the moist computer in our skull can "experience" (i e a bunch of neurological signals) and that the explanation of this experience does NOT explain God/gods/fairies. Believing in God has made me conclude good at times; it's also made me feel bad at times. Is it logical to accept in God just because it makes you warm and fuzzy inside? Is it logical to disbelieve in God just because you're life is "shit"? These questions are meaningless because they are merely sentimental. God exists or does not exist however we feel about Him. So now that we know that this scientific study has no religious or "spiritual" determine whatsoever (unless your religion is that alter). I'd like to convey my utmost excitement for the future applications of these findings in the area of Virtual Reality entertainment: Realistic Uber-Creepy Horror Video Games FTW!!! Believing in God has made me conclude good at times; it's also made me feel bad at times. Is it logical to believe in God just because it makes you warm and fuzzy inside? Is it logical to reject in God just because you're life is "shit"? These questions are meaningless because they are merely sentimental. God exists or does not exist however we conclude about Him. I never understand how judeo-christian religions end up with monotheism when the old testament has many gods. The lord your god names a few (Moloch. Ashera the baal of Peor) and forbids you from worshiping them or any other god but him because he's a jealous god. He doesn't say "those.