On 24 Mai, 13:33, Fabrizio Giudici fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it
wrote:
Yes, I think it's very doable. But from the user point of view, do you
think it makes sense? I mean, in your experience do you see users
actually providing feedback in that way?
In general: If you get feedback from 1% of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/26/10 04:03 , RogerV wrote:
Sayonara, iPhone: Why I'm Switching to Android
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/techtonicshifts/archive/2010/05/20/sayonara-iphone-why-i-m-switching-to-android.aspx
It will also stream songs from your music library
I recently read Coders At Work and in the interview with Joshua Bloch,
he pretty much inferred that generics may not have been a good thing
because of the complexity it produced.
If generics had been used to restrict types in collections, fine but
people were using the ? extends Blah and ? super
Most definitely!
Use-site variance declarations are a total pain, and worse still, they push
that pain onto library consumers... never good.
For comparison, take a look at the declaration-site variance that Scala
uses. In this regards it's a very different type system to Java, made
possible in
This is not entirely correct, if I understood correctly what I read -
if I'm not wrong, this feature is delivered by an application whose
manufacturer has been bought by Google - they had the app also
available in the App Store, but withdrew it after the Google bought.
Obviously this doesn't
Casper--
That blog is *highly* speculative, borderline childish, and it doesn't
follow that MPEG-LA has done a nefarious misdeed, that Nero's problems
are anybody's but their own, and that this has anything to do with
Java media.
Starting with the last of these, Sun had a history of having to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'm in. Others?
- --
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - We make Java work. Everywhere.
java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people
fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version:
I've been working with the RadioTime API's lately and like how they handle
feedback. It is a part of the API and is essentially a click and forget. It
all depends on how you implement the calls to their API, but they have
certainly made it easy to get information back to them. I agree with the 1%
On 26 Mai, 14:14, Robert Casto casto.rob...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been working with the RadioTime API's lately and like how they handle
feedback. It is a part of the API and is essentially a click and forget. It
all depends on how you implement the calls to their API, but they have
certainly
non-local returns and control flow in general are 'out' - they have
been explicitly excluded from the scope of project lambda.
However, the ability of whatever proposal makes it to be expanded
later to support of course isn't, and this is in fact a (minor) aspect
of the closure debates - how much
Rakesh, as I already said, closures itself are in. Folks like you that
think generics sucked and closures are too complicated lost.
Fortunately.
On May 26, 11:42 am, Rakesh rakesh.mailgro...@gmail.com wrote:
I recently read Coders At Work and in the interview with Joshua Bloch,
he pretty much
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot reini...@gmail.comwrote:
Rakesh, as I already said, closures itself are in. Folks like you that
think generics sucked and closures are too complicated lost.
Fortunately.
Hehe, :-)
On May 26, 11:42 am, Rakesh rakesh.mailgro...@gmail.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/26/10 15:55 , Karsten Silz wrote:
On 26 Mai, 14:14, Robert Casto casto.rob...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been working with the RadioTime API's lately and like how
they handle feedback. It is a part of the API and is essentially
a click and forget.
oh well. Back in the box I go
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot reini...@gmail.com
wrote:
Rakesh, as I already said, closures itself are in. Folks like you that
think generics sucked and
There's *some* merit in objecting based on complexity
Why must it always be the case (in Java at least) that new functionality so
often seems to come with a whole bucketload of new boilerplate as well?
Other languages have already shown us that this needn't be the case, and
that features can be
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Kevin Wright kev.lee.wri...@googlemail.com
wrote:
There's *some* merit in objecting based on complexity
I don't see the difference between anon classes and closures from a
complexity-standpoint if we omit non-local returns and control flow.
Why must it
Generics are complex (more to produce API than consume), but I don't think it's
fair to say that all it did was add boilerplate. As a consumer of generified
API, I hardly ever see casts anymore (which should count as a reduction in
boilerplate as well as an improvement in type safety -- one of
Well, the promise of closures has always been to support more elegant
(functional) styles of programming; so I'm ever hopeful...
I'm under no illusion that Java can ever be made as syntactically nice as a
language designed with this stuff from the beginning.
But, until we can persuade everyone
I agree with you my friend on the google part. I would suggest IBM to
be the best in making the human brain anytime.
I don't know what 'intelligence' means to other people, but I will be
happy with the part where one can do the work better than the average
person's ability. Emotional intelligence
Generics have 3 big issues (from memory)
- Having specified the type parameters on declaring a variable, they must
then be repeated when instantiating it.
- Co/Contravariance (i.e. ArrayListX extends ParentType). Not so bad on
collections, but a nightmare for more advanced structures where
Actually Kevin, this supports the intelligent design t
eory..Evolution is the next step in product of intelligent behavior.
No wonder computers are becoming smarter with our support.
However, evolution in computers will be the point when we can call
computers equal to us ...long way to go..lbut
Jitesh,
Intelligent Design is a theory, created by Creationists to denounce Evolution.
I nominate this post to be the most pointless and ill-conceived in the
history of threads ever.
Rakesh
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:55 PM, jitesh dundas jbdun...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually Kevin, this supports
Bit of a typo on my part there, given that intelligent design isn't
actually a theory (it must be at least disprovable to qualify as such)
But the point that we can't just design intelligence, and that it must be
evolved. Surely there's something very deep and metaphysical in
that realization.
I thought the rule was you couldn't claim that until someone's been compared
to Hitler and/or the Nazis
On 26 May 2010 17:03, Rakesh rakesh.mailgro...@gmail.com wrote:
Jitesh,
Intelligent Design is a theory, created by Creationists to denounce
Evolution.
I nominate this post to be the
if computers gained sentience, they would be worse than the Nazis.
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Kevin Wright
kev.lee.wri...@googlemail.com wrote:
I thought the rule was you couldn't claim that until someone's been compared
to Hitler and/or the Nazis
On 26 May 2010 17:03, Rakesh
hey, this hijacking someone else's thread into a random direction is
fun! Sorry, I complained before.
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Rakesh rakesh.mailgro...@gmail.com wrote:
if computers gained sentience, they would be worse than the Nazis.
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Kevin Wright
So the uselessness of this conversation is now predicated on the ability of
computers to achieve sentience?
On 26 May 2010 17:10, Rakesh rakesh.mailgro...@gmail.com wrote:
if computers gained sentience, they would be worse than the Nazis.
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Kevin Wright
Ouch no! I can do Devoxx including travel and accommodation for less
than Jazoon's conference fee. Much as I like Zurich. See you in
November.
On May 26, 1:02 pm, Fabrizio Giudici fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it
wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'm in. Others?
- --
Google subsidiary AdMob put out its mobile metrics report for April
2010 with some surprising and not so surprising results. The problem
with these kind of market share reports is that they are built on ad
requests from a particular ad network, not on any retails numbers or
so, so please take
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/26/10 19:06 , Karsten Silz wrote:
Google subsidiary AdMob put out its mobile metrics report for
April 2010 with some surprising and not so surprising results. The
problem with these kind of market share reports is that they are
built on ad
Hahaha,
Really..That is quite an expression..
I am a Science student and I think science only..I welcome your
opinions Rakesh, that will bring some good pointers for us to
discuss..I don't believe I aimed at hijacking your thread.That thought
is so narrow-minded..In any case, please go ahead
I will be attending/speaking as well. Good luck on your JavaFX mobile
talk. I will be rooting for you from the audience! :-)
Cheers,
--Steve
On 5/26/2010 5:02 AM, Fabrizio Giudici wrote:
I'm in. Others
--
--Steve
blog: http://steveonjava.com/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic
At least you have paid apps in Italy! :) I'm on my second Android
phone, running 2.2 and yet it is not possible for me to (officially)
purchase commercial apps in the entire Scandinavia (or Canada and
various other countries). That's Google's biggest blunder by far and
it fits your theory that
What can I say, I'm a militant atheist.
I genuinely feel that acknowledging your atheism is the only wise choice.
After all, give me any person on the planet and I bet you I can find at
least one deity they don't believe in.
So we're all atheists really of one kind or another, it's easier to just
Pardon me, but you sound like having been seduced by Kurzweil's
books... have you read any of his stuff?
What gives you such an optimistic outlook, considering researchers to
this day are still struggling with just understanding facets of the
human brain (why we need sleep, what is conscienceless,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/26/10 18:13 , Kevin Wright wrote:
So the uselessness of this conversation is now predicated on the
ability of computers to achieve sentience?
It's true that this thread is one of the quirkiest, still it's amusing
and gives somes hint.
BTW,
Why do you think this way Rakesk? Atleat we can control robots. Can we
control humans including nazis.l
Before blaming robots(who are still yet to have human intelligence )
have you looked at the human perception.
If we get one right humanoid robot,it will help us solve so many issues.
I
I agree with you Kevin, interesting point .
Regards,
Jitesh Dundas
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups The
Java Posse group.
To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Is it even possible to define human intelligence, given the variability of
our species?
When I consider some of my past coworkers, all human (or close enough), I
have to wonder if that's really the right direction to be taking AI...
On 26 May 2010 20:37, jitesh dundas jbdun...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for your reply. However, I still think we can do it. Why do we
think that such inventions are impossible. I am just expressing that
we are on the road to success(when computers will have human like
brains)..Very ue, this is difficult. However,not impossible.
So I request you to look at
You are right Kevin , but being able to solve problems faster than
normal average human abilities is enough to grade computers in this
direction of intelligence...
Regards,
Jitesh Dundas
On 5/27/10, Kevin Wright kev.lee.wri...@googlemail.com wrote:
Is it even possible to define human
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/26/10 21:50 , jitesh dundas wrote:
Thanks for your reply. However, I still think we can do it. Why do
we think that such inventions are impossible. I am just expressing
that we are on the road to success(when computers will have human
like
On 26 Mai, 20:04, Casper Bang casper.b...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, it also tells the story of how afraid Apple and Nokia
should be with Android artillery quietly moving in and getting ready
to carpet-bomb and saturate the marked.
Right now, I guess the gap between iPhone OS and Android is
On 26 Mai, 22:51, Karsten Silz karsten.s...@gmail.com wrote:
competitor to Android. The other one is how much Apple values market
share over profits: Nokia sells more than times the amount of phones
that Apples does, but Apple makes more money doing this.
Speaking of money - Apple has now a
JRuby supports Android out of the box and there's a demo
IRB (interactive ruby) app called Ruboto IRB in the marketplace
today. It's incredibly fun to interactively script your phone :)
JRuby's particular advantages over most other popular JVM languages on
Android: because we have an interpreter,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/26/10 22:51 , Karsten Silz wrote:
Right now, I guess the gap between iPhone OS and Android is still
widening. Google says that there are 100,000 Android phones
activated a day. Assuming that's for every day in the week, then
this comes up
that reminds me of a funny thing that happened with a major newspaper here
on brazil: its main page had a link to an iPad version that would open the
flash version of the page
it was taken down after a couple of days (it lasted a bit because the iPad
is not officially here yet)
On Wed, May 26,
Generics attempt to represent co- and contravariance in the type
system.
co- and contravariance are inherently complex. You can't make them non-
complex. See scala, haskell, and any other language with them. You
could go without it altogether, but then we have a dynamic typing
system - a system
Repetition of generics in type declaration and object instantiation go
away in java 7. This is already in the java 7 nightlies:
ListString list = new ArrayList();
(Backwards compatibility again rears its head here: new ArrayList()
wasn't possible because in current java that means: raw type, and
I am not saying this because I want to be a marketing/political
guy..That is the last thing to think off..l
I just look at the possibilities that we could achieve in the near
future. I hope you agree that we are moving in this direction.All
inventions/discoveries ,including computers were a dream
May I ask what kind of science are you studying?
On May 27, 4:23 am, jitesh dundas jbdun...@gmail.com wrote:
I am not saying this because I want to be a marketing/political
guy..That is the last thing to think off..l
I just look at the possibilities that we could achieve in the near
future.
I have just started studying computational neuroscience. I have
interests in this field .
Thank you for your replies. I hope we can brainstorm and get answers
to questions that we all think of as impossible at present .
Regards,
jd
On 5/27/10, Casper Bang casper.b...@gmail.com wrote:
May I ask
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Reinier Zwitserloot reini...@gmail.comwrote:
Repetition of generics in type declaration and object instantiation go
away in java 7. This is already in the java 7 nightlies:
ListString list = new ArrayList();
(Backwards compatibility again rears its head
53 matches
Mail list logo
