|
Haha I don't look at icons so I didn't notice that. It's a hilariously dumb question though, and you'd think CP staff would know enough about technology to know that that is the case.
|
|
|
|
|
Worse: *Marketing* :shudder:
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey! I'm good these days; I just say "No"! 
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
Dina Hamdieh wrote: regardless of type, front end, JavaScript, etc
so pretty much everything!!
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
Please do my work and I will do yours
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, did Kevin hand you over the dirt work?
There you go:
- .Net
- jQuery
- Qt
- Mono
- Java
- Boost
- Android SDK
This list is very incomplete, we'll need a bit more details to get something usable.
I will never again mention that Dalek Dave was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel.
How to ask a question
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't consider Boost or jQuery frameworks.
I'd add WxWidgets, MFC, Silverlight and Xojo.
|
|
|
|
|
Why not?
I will never again mention that Dalek Dave was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel.
How to ask a question
|
|
|
|
|
Because they are libraries, not frameworks.
From JQuery website: A fast, concise, library that simplifies how to traverse HTML documents, handle events, perform animations, and AJAX.
From Boost website: Welcome to Boost.org! Boost provides free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: A framework can be everything you use in application development. It can be a library, a collection of many libraries, a collection of scripts, or any piece of software you need to create your application. Framework is just a very vague term.
Source: SO[^]
Certainly an interesting discussion, but I guess you can say that a framework is a bundle of libraries.
I will never again mention that Dalek Dave was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel.
How to ask a question
|
|
|
|
|
For me, the question is whether something is ancillary or central. For me, a framework is a foundation that sits between the OS API and your code and can't be switched out without a whole lot of rewriting and even re-architecting (this last point is often lost on management; "We'll just switch from .NET to Qt--how hard can it be?" Or, "Can't you just convert the RealBasic code to C++?" Convert meaning, do it in a weekend.)
|
|
|
|
|
Agree on that 
Maybe Dina shall be more concrete on what she wants...
I will never again mention that Dalek Dave was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel.
How to ask a question
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"In a discovery that raises questions about the validity of a huge volume of animal research, not to mention the personal hygiene of male scientists, a study has found that mice dislike the smell of men.
Scientists found that even the presence of a T-shirt that had been worn by a man was enough to trigger a stress response and this appeared to blunt the rodents’ experience of pain." Times UK: "Scientists sniff out the truth of mice and men" April 29, 2014 [^].
I've thought that to the degree contemporary western psychology has been based on research carried out on mice, rats, and select college students, that it is dubious, and its correlations and generalizations often unwarranted. I'm not saying, however, that I have some bias against quantitative research !
I am utterly fascinated by what current advances in the technology of monitoring the human brain are telling us about the biological basis on consciousness, and I have been fascinated by this topic since the 1970's when Dr. Joe Kamiya (a pioneer in the development of bio- and neuro- feedback) was carrying out his research on physiological response to meditation at UC San Francisco.
Among the delightful highlights of Kamiya's studies: those assigned to "meditate on mantras" of syllables chosen at random had the same physiological responses that those using mantras given to them by their "Transcendental Meditation" teachers (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi flavor meditation) had. Please note that by mentioning that study I do not mean to imply that there may not be many other significant, but difficult-to-quantify, effects ... social, emotional, behavioral ... of meditation shaped by the social context, and belief-systems, in which it occurs.
Interviews with Kamiya here: [^].
p.s. I bet we stink to chimps, too.
“I speak in a poem of the ancient food of heroes: humiliation, unhappiness, discord. Those things are given to us to transform, so that we may make from the miserable circumstances of our lives things that are eternal, or aspire to be so.” Jorge Luis Borges
|
|
|
|
|
All we need to find out now is that Drosophila is biologically harmed by captivity and frankly the whole medicine cabinet will need to be thrown out...
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: I am utterly fascinated by what current advances in the technology of monitoring the human brain are telling us about the biological basis on consciousness
My gf is getting her MA in psychology and we've been having a few philosophical discussions regard consciousness. What I'm particular interested in is the middle ground. Let me explain. The neuroscientists et al look for consciousness strictly in the physical processes of the brain, while the "metaphysicists" (I use this term loosely because I can't think of anything else, and philosopher / theologian / spiritualist is too wordy and incomplete as well) looks for consciousness connected to the unmeasurable concepts of the soul, the spirit, the breath of God, etc., usually to the exclusion of any physical basis (or as so many new-agers demonstrate, any grasp of the physical basis, to the point of even complete denial.)
What I'm curious about is, what about the middle ground, in which the brain, as a physical organ, must exist because it's part of the physical world, but there is, in addition, an aspect of consciousness that cannot ever be measured but none-the-less still exists. Along the lines of what Alan W. Watts writes (I'll paraphrase), consciousness is the result of a completely unconscious evolutionary process. For me, that is quite a statement to contemplate, because I don't think we can separate what we call consciousness from the processes that created consciousness -- they are intimately intertwined. Or, in different words, consciousness is something that exists both worlds -- in the "measurable" physical world and the unmeasurable (or immeasurable?) non-physical world. Take, for example, an idea. It has a certain concreteness to it in that it can be conveyed to another person, and yes, you could even possibly determine and measure the neurons the fire when the person thinks "the idea", but you cannot capture the essence of what the idea actually is by physical measurement alone. And I personally don't believe we ever will, not matter how fine and advanced our instruments become.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
How would you classify states of matter? They obviously exist and it is natural for us to think about them, however they only exist as a statistical relationship between a collection of objects. Water molecules exist, but what level of existence do you assign to the concept of ice? The only difference between that and an idea is a difference of degree.
|
|
|
|
|
Werner Heisenberg: "Atoms are not things." quoted by Richard Rhodes in his masterpiece, "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" [^]. A book so compelling I have read it three times, and still feel it has much to teach me.
“I speak in a poem of the ancient food of heroes: humiliation, unhappiness, discord. Those things are given to us to transform, so that we may make from the miserable circumstances of our lives things that are eternal, or aspire to be so.” Jorge Luis Borges
|
|
|
|
|
I'll put that on my wish list, thanks.
BillWoodruff wrote: Werner Heisenberg: "Atoms are not things."
I think I understand the quote, but I'm not sure how you think it relates to my earlier statement. Things that we consider the most permanent and solid, exist purely as statistical relationships between the smaller elements that make them up. I don't know where you stand on Mark's statements that thoughts belong to another realm, but is it impossible to believe that our thoughts and selves could exist in the relations of billions of much more complicated building blocks.
|
|
|
|
|
What is the current status of Silverlight in the Microsoft technology stack?
The last time I used Silverlight was 2010 or so, and I'm aware that v5 was the last major release made. I'm interviewing for a new job and I want to be able to speak with authority regarding the viability of using it. Beyond the fact that MS isn't updating it anymore, is there any reason not to recommend it? The only other alternative is MVC, but I'm much more comfortable with Silverlight.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: What is the current status of Silverlight in the Microsoft technology stack?
Dead? 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-----
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-----
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
