No doubt JavaScript's past, present, and future is intertwined with the web, but really it's an independent programming language. It's not like there are primitives for divs and tables.
And by an accident of history, it also happens to be the world's most popular programming language and overall a decent scripting language, so I can't see why its web association should make it any less OS-ready than any other language.
Plus, Node's async model lends itself implementing lower-level OS features (not that they are present so far in NodeOS).
We are forced to use poorly-designed legacy languages on the "open" web, but why would you torment yourself with them when you are not limited outside of the "open" web?
Stop this MS h8 shit m8 if anything, MS will bring some stability to that company. Right now it's just a bunch of children making shittonnes of money for an indie games accident. They didn't work for it, they got lucky. Notch just prefers to be a little bitch on Twitter over everything while spending his 10mil a year on holidays.
Anyone who can bring accountability to Mojang will be a good thing.
It won't happen though. The minute that Apple closed off the Mac, with the Mac App Store being the only software source, the minute that idea might have a little credence.
The Mac App Store is not (yet) the only software source, though that restriction is available as an opt-in setting in System Preferences.
Applications from outside the App Store run just fine, as long as they're signed with a developer certificate. The certificate presumably costs $99/year, but you don't need Apple to approve your application.
Furthermore, you don't technically need the certificate. The deafest are protective but the system will happily launch unsigned apps if you right click them.
Yeah this article is completely awful and was most likely written by someone without any security knowledge whatsoever. Considering the number of victims, all of the possibilities discussed in this article are completely unreasonable.
There's only 2 real possibilities here:
1. iCloud was hacked
2. Someone at Apple can access the data and decided to leak it
So that means that if anyone dies or is seriously injured on their way to a client, the blood is on the client then? Come on now, that doesn't make any real sense.
My two previous comments were inundated with downvotes, so I gather that my original aside comment was seen by most as a stupid or irrelevant one. I accept that, but assigning responsibility for a possible accident wasn't really where I was coming from. It was more about increasing the odds of something tragic happening, for absolutely no justifiable reason.
To further elaborate on that point, I meant that driving is a fairly risky activity that we engage in. A driver is accepting that risk in order to make a living. A client is obviously not responsible if an accident happens, as the driver has accepted the risk associated with the transaction, in exchange for money.
However, for every extra minute or mile on the road, a driver has a slightly higher chance of getting into an accident. Uber has made thousands of such calls, for absolutely no good reason and with no monetary benefit for the drivers. Although not directly responsible for possible accidents, the sheer number could have conceivably contributed to increasing the odds of one such accident/injury or even death (in a worse case scenario) happening. Which makes Uber's actions even shittier in my books.
I understand that most people here don't see it that way.
Note: Of course my assumption about the odds might be entirely false, if I misunderstood the way Uber works. For example if cars are just running around town until a fare is requested, instead of being parked somewhere.
