...making Linux just a little more fun!
Jimmy O'Regan [joregan at gmail.com]
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/08/ff_webrip/all/1 ("The Web Is Dead, Long Live The Internet")
The first graph in that is put into context here: http://boingboing.net/2010/08/17/is-the-web-really-de.html
the 'X is dead' idea is discussed here: http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2010/08/whats-wrong-with-x-is-dead/61663/
("[I]t's impossible not to notice ... that Anderson's inevitable technological path happens to run perfectly through the domains (print/tablet) he controls at Wired, and away from the one that he doesn't.")
Oh, and... "THEN Javascript NOW Objective C".... rofl.
-- <Leftmost> jimregan, that's because deep inside you, you are evil. <Leftmost> Also not-so-deep inside you.
Jimmy O'Regan [joregan at gmail.com]
On 18 August 2010 13:17, Jimmy O'Regan <joregan at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/08/ff_webrip/all/1 ("The Web Is > Dead, Long Live The Internet") > > The first graph in that is put into context here: > http://boingboing.net/2010/08/17/is-the-web-really-de.html > the 'X is dead' idea is discussed here: > http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2010/08/whats-wrong-with-x-is-dead/61663/ > ("[I]t's impossible not to notice ... that Anderson's inevitable > technological path happens to run perfectly through the domains > (print/tablet) he controls at Wired, and away from the one that he > doesn't.") > > Oh, and... "THEN Javascript NOW Objective C".... rofl.
Just saw this on Twitter: "RT @johnolilly: I miss the web so much already -- I mean, I just saw him. Seemed like he was doing great. Didn't even say he was sick."
-- <Leftmost> jimregan, that's because deep inside you, you are evil. <Leftmost> Also not-so-deep inside you.
Ben Okopnik [ben at linuxgazette.net]
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 01:19:43PM +0100, Jimmy O'Regan wrote:
> On 18 August 2010 13:17, Jimmy O'Regan <joregan at gmail.com> wrote: > > http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/08/ff_webrip/all/1 ("The Web Is > > Dead, Long Live The Internet") > > > > The first graph in that is put into context here: > > http://boingboing.net/2010/08/17/is-the-web-really-de.html > > the 'X is dead' idea is discussed here: > > http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2010/08/whats-wrong-with-x-is-dead/61663/ > > ("[I]t's impossible not to notice ... that Anderson's inevitable > > technological path happens to run perfectly through the domains > > (print/tablet) he controls at Wired, and away from the one that he > > doesn't.") > > > > Oh, and... "THEN Javascript NOW Objective C".... rofl. > > Just saw this on Twitter: "RT @johnolilly: I miss the web so much > already -- I mean, I just saw him. Seemed like he was doing great. > Didn't even say he was sick."
I almost fell off my seat at comment #15 at BoingBoing:
"Tim Berners-Lee here.
I'm sorry. We lost. Now everyone get out. They need to build a big Gopher machine here. Sorry."
-- * Ben Okopnik * Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette * http://LinuxGazette.NET *
Ben Okopnik [ben at linuxgazette.net]
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 01:17:00PM +0100, Jimmy O'Regan wrote:
> http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/08/ff_webrip/all/1 ("The Web Is > Dead, Long Live The Internet") > > The first graph in that is put into context here: > http://boingboing.net/2010/08/17/is-the-web-really-de.html > the 'X is dead' idea is discussed here: > http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2010/08/whats-wrong-with-x-is-dead/61663/ > ("[I]t's impossible not to notice ... that Anderson's inevitable > technological path happens to run perfectly through the domains > (print/tablet) he controls at Wired, and away from the one that he > doesn't.") > > Oh, and... "THEN Javascript NOW Objective C".... rofl.
What, are you implying that ObjC isn't JavaScript v2.0? For shame, sir. It's just as powerful, just as secure...
-- * Ben Okopnik * Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette * http://LinuxGazette.NET *
Jimmy O'Regan [joregan at gmail.com]
On 18 August 2010 20:10, Ben Okopnik <ben at linuxgazette.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 01:17:00PM +0100, Jimmy O'Regan wrote: >> http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/08/ff_webrip/all/1 ("The Web Is >> Dead, Long Live The Internet") >> >> The first graph in that is put into context here: >> http://boingboing.net/2010/08/17/is-the-web-really-de.html >> the 'X is dead' idea is discussed here: >> http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2010/08/whats-wrong-with-x-is-dead/61663/ >> ("[I]t's impossible not to notice ... that Anderson's inevitable >> technological path happens to run perfectly through the domains >> (print/tablet) he controls at Wired, and away from the one that he >> doesn't.") >> >> Oh, and... "THEN Javascript NOW Objective C".... rofl. > > What, are you implying that ObjC isn't JavaScript v2.0? For shame, > sir. It's just as powerful, just as secure...
Clearly I'm wrong: http://cappuccino.org/ http://cappuccino.org/learn/tutorials/objective-j-tutorial.php
or: http://code.google.com/p/cocoawebtoolkit/ (though I saw that one and thought 'hey, I met that guy. he didn't seem /that/ crazy')
-- <Leftmost> jimregan, that's because deep inside you, you are evil. <Leftmost> Also not-so-deep inside you.
Ben Okopnik [ben at linuxgazette.net]
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 08:32:38PM +0100, Jimmy O'Regan wrote:
> On 18 August 2010 20:10, Ben Okopnik <ben at linuxgazette.net> wrote: > > > > What, are you implying that ObjC isn't JavaScript v2.0? For shame, > > sir. It's just as powerful, just as secure... > > Clearly I'm wrong: http://cappuccino.org/ > http://cappuccino.org/learn/tutorials/objective-j-tutorial.php > > or: > http://code.google.com/p/cocoawebtoolkit/ > (though I saw that one and thought 'hey, I met that guy. he didn't > seem /that/ crazy')
Favorite quote:
"The current status of this project is proof-of-concept. It's possible to trans-compile ObjC classes into ECMAScript but there's no Ajax library."
JS without Ajax? Awesome. Next up: Assembler to DOS Batch File Language converter. The conversion is 100% accurate, but the output feature is still in development...
-- * Ben Okopnik * Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette * http://LinuxGazette.NET *
Jimmy O'Regan [joregan at gmail.com]
On 18 August 2010 20:07, Ben Okopnik <ben at linuxgazette.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 01:19:43PM +0100, Jimmy O'Regan wrote: >> On 18 August 2010 13:17, Jimmy O'Regan <joregan at gmail.com> wrote: >> > http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/08/ff_webrip/all/1 ("The Web Is >> > Dead, Long Live The Internet") >> > >> > The first graph in that is put into context here: >> > http://boingboing.net/2010/08/17/is-the-web-really-de.html >> > the 'X is dead' idea is discussed here: >> > http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2010/08/whats-wrong-with-x-is-dead/61663/ >> > ("[I]t's impossible not to notice ... that Anderson's inevitable >> > technological path happens to run perfectly through the domains >> > (print/tablet) he controls at Wired, and away from the one that he >> > doesn't.") >> > >> > Oh, and... "THEN Javascript NOW Objective C".... rofl. >> >> Just saw this on Twitter: "RT @johnolilly: I miss the web so much >> already -- I mean, I just saw him. Seemed like he was doing great. >> Didn't even say he was sick." > > I almost fell off my seat at comment #15 at BoingBoing: > > "Tim Berners-Lee here. > > I'm sorry. We lost. Now everyone get out. They need to build a big > Gopher machine here. Sorry."
I quite like the tone of ReadWriteWeb's 'The Web Is Undead' (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/the_web_is_undead.php)
"Over-enthusiastic proponents - Millennialists - seem to be convinced that every burp in online tech, every new tool, every momentary trend, every relocation of a dialog box on a popular site, hails the onset of a Brave New World."
..
"Web 2.0
"This one has died a couple times. Last year, Tech Crunch declared Web 2.0 (also known as the social web, the read/write web, the live web, the webbity-web-web web) dead. ... Four years before the TC post, ZDNet proclaimed Web 2.0 so dead it never actually existed in the first place. (I wonder if these folks ever feel like the guy with the sign proclaiming "The End is Nigh!")"
-- <Leftmost> jimregan, that's because deep inside you, you are evil. <Leftmost> Also not-so-deep inside you.