Did you think and speak the same during the O.J. Simpson trial, I wonder, or did you jump right in there and play jurist like everyone else on the outside? If you did the latter it would make you something of a situational hypocrite now.
It's my recollection that the general feelings about the Simpson trial was that the prosecution did its job poorly, and failed to put its case together well enough for a conviction. Juries are obligated to give an innocent verdict if the prosecution doesn't handle the burden of proof, but the reverse is not true.
I think you should re-examine what you think the right thing is, because it's different than what this guy's supervisors, his employers and, ultimately, the courts thought it was.
I've been following this case since it first hit/. and my impression of Childs is that he's an arrogant BOFH who forgot that it wasn't "his" system. He was pissed that they took his tinker toys away and gave it to what he considered inferior intellects. He was so sure he was smarter than everyone else that he bet his life, or at least up to five years of it, on it.
He hasn't been administering the network for a long time now and, holy shit, San Francisco isn't a smoking hole in the ground.
Who cares? That's a long way off from being a criminal and going to jail.
No, I daresay it's not very appealing to him. However, as far as I can tell, the man is indeed guilty. I've forgotten a lot of the details of the the original circumstances, but I remember enough to say that holding a city's computer systems random (which is essentially what he was doing) certainly deserves a guilty verdict on a count of "computer tampering." You really think it's acceptable under any circumstances for someone to hijack a network like that? Yes, he works there and technically "administrates" those machines, but he has a duty to his employers (ultimately, the citizens), and he was not upholding that duty.
As an insubordinate employee, I can see how he could be sued for damages for costs accrued while the network is admin-less, as well as the extra time and personnel required to regain access to the network. Convicting him for "computer tampering" is just ridiculous, though. There are lots of jobs more suited to the concept of "duty" involved, and how many of them are turned into criminal matters?
According to everything I have read he refused to hand over the password under any circumstance when his supervisors asked for them. There was no "only give to the mayor" rule. He was a regular employee working a regular job where he has the obligation to hand over information requested by his supervisor.
Okay.
After he was arrested and placed in custody...
Wait, what? You're skipping over something really important. One moment he's a regular employee working a regular job, the next moment he's a criminal for not meeting the obligations of said job. None of his motivations or feelings or attitudes have any relevance to the issue of criminalizing insubordination at work.
Far too often there is this attitude of "I am always right when it comes to the computers. They are MY systems, it is MY network, I make the rules you all must follow." No, actually. You are in the business of customer service, like it or not. The computers belong to your organization. Your job is to make them do what they need to do. They are tools, nothing more or less, and you are there to help people get those tools to do the job they are needed for. You don't get to tell people how it is. You certainly can and should suggest policies and try to make things safer or better, but you aren't god, you don't get to come in and lay down the law and tell people how it's going to be. Do that and you may well be looking for work, or in extreme cases, in jail.
How can you make the leap of being in the business of customer service to being convicted in a criminal court? Who cares about his thought process or attitude, for good or bad? If he won't do his job, fire him, and hire someone to take over. If he has a contract requiring that he disclose the password information, sue him. What extreme cases warrant jail? I don't see anything criminal about civilian insubordination.
And as for needing a faster computer, well, bloat is increasing just as fast in the OSS world as in the closed source world, unless you limit yourself to simple and old fashioned apps.
I was recently quite pleasantly surprised to discover that this genuinely isn't the case. I've been running Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit on my desktop for a while without a dual boot, since I had only been using my desktop for gaming. A few weeks ago, I found a lot of inspiration to start working on various projects again, so I wiped one of my hard drives and installed Linux on it again. The Ubuntu beta actually, which reminded me why it's a good choice immediately after install, when in GNOME's system tray, I noticed an icon giving me the low battery sign and a warning that my MX1000 batteries were critically low (with nothing more than the default install).
Try as I might, I couldn't help obsess over the failure to smoothly draw (or at least blur) the rounded corners in the window decoration, and since I use KDE reliant programs anyway, the next thing I did was a system upgrade with KDE, effectively turning it into a Kubuntu machine (but will the full GNOME setup still there). I've have not been at all cautious about package dependencies or redundancies (meaning, I presently have more than one program installed that do the same thing for many different categories). I also have the most lavish effects enabled (those that are functional), and a ridiculous 24 virtual desktops. I'm pressed to think how I could have a more bloated set up, thinking back to my Slackware / Fluxbox roots.
The point, however, is that the K/Ubuntu bloated install performs amazingly fast, very noticeable against the Windows 7 Ultimate install. Both OSes have increasing bloat, but in terms of performance impact and hardware I've really been impressed with Linux, which, in my judgement, has blown away Windows in terms of how it's been handled.
would also imply more experienced developers. And that's not (necessarily) a bad thing.
The suggestion that "the Linux kernel no longer has the same appeal to young open source developers that it did 10 years ago" is a statement that shields an assumption: the Linux kernel is losing young developers to other, similar projects.
The article points out the iPhone has had more success attracting younger developers than the Linux kernel, which makes me wonder how anyone possibly thought that might sound anything other than idiotic along side concepts such as "declining sense of community".
Writing apps for the iPhone is not the same as developing an OS kernel's code base in practically any way. It often draws a furore when I point this out, but all areas that fall under the umbrella name "Computer Science" are not equal. A web developer is not an Apache developer. An iPhone app developer is not an iPhone OS kernel developer (or any other kernel developer). Of course, I'm not making a broad statement that web or iPhone app developers don't have the capacity to be skilled programmers in other areas. I'm just pointing the obvious: iPhone apps do not have the learning curve and project scope that a kernel project has, and yes, less talented programmers can find a place more easily wherever learning curves and language complexities/nuances are lower/less/fewer.
10 years ago, there weren't as many developers, nor were there as many platforms, toolkits, IDEs, SDKs, etc. Apple, behind the iPhone, has every reason to do as much as possible to make it as easy as possible for as many people as possible to produce software for their platform (subject to their approval, of course), since available applications are so important to young platforms and/or OS's. The Linux kernel project does not have cause to do the same, and let's hope it never does. The only proper way to judge the interest in the Linux kernel project with young developers is to compare it to how well other kernel projects are attracting young developers. Or, at the very least, compare it to projects that deal with a similar area and scope.
I have no idea why Firefox still fights against the giant and loses money and time on it.
I think it's great, completely aside from the merits of any video codec or open vs proprietary. I'm just happy to read about software makers standing behind their solution and pushing to make it work. A lot of Slashdotters rightly pointed out hardware support as a major issue for Mozilla's Theora support, and Mozilla seems to be working on it. Obviously, this is a small step against a massive obstacle, that should go without saying (but I'm not actually new here). I think it's great precisely because it would be so much easier for Mozilla to take the H.264 path of least resistance.
Everything to do with the web is becoming more and more... convergent. The Internet doesn't crumble to a halt if browsers don't all work the same; we still got by when some sites built their layouts with divs, and others with layers. I'd much rather see smart people still working to develop different implementations of things then reach the point where everyone gets behind whatever manages to be the entrenched giant.
It's a lost battle.... Open source has some advantages, but if it's technically lesser and doesn't work with companies, it's not going to win.
That could be said now and in the past about so many things that didn't give up and go away, and yet have users. You can still buy Ogg portable media players, because even though they've gone from ugly to pricey, they've always found a customer base. I've read comments that lament that pushing this issue could be the death of Firefox, but they will find a user base (not everyone picks a browser on the ability to stream videos). Opera is still around, thanks to its loyal users, and it's not even open source.
As good as it was to see so many friends and family members shift from IE5 & 6 to Firefox, I don't think there's any danger of those people reverting to IE6. I don't mind if they switch to Chrome or Opera or Safari, so long as it does the job well enough. Mozilla (or any other company/project) fighting the uphill battle and supporting what it thinks is best isn't something I ever want to see stop, particularly with the Internet. The strength of the "web development platform" is in full bloom, and with it seems to come an assumption that it's vital for all browsers to always go in a direction that supports and strengthens the "web platform" concept.
Well, I work in web development, and I admit it's definitely nicer when browsers are more consistent at handling the same code the same way. Nicer, meaning, we can officially support more browsers. IMHO, that luxury isn't worth moving into an age where browsers all emphasise conformity rather than developing what makes them unique in their vision.
If you have a summary of your clients (and you should) you should send out a mass email and let them know what's going on
Talk to a lawyer, too. You sound pretty liable in all this, as it all sounds like it stems from business negligence / lack of due diligence. A domain name should not be the key to any third-party web services accounts, among other things.
Obviously competitors have realized that it's worth it to come out with clone or me-too products much faster than they did in the past with the iPhone. This suggests to me that they'll be at least somewhat more successful than before in taking market share from apple.
The problem I see is that every new clone announced is heavier than the iPad. People may not adjust to 1.5 lbs, but adding to that does not spell success.
What are you comparing? Or are you fond of TiVo? Because that "like" serves absolutely no purpose in that sentence.
It's an idiomatic usage that gives additional emphasis on the word that follows it.
Re:The iPad is original Apple Redux
on
The Apple Two
·
· Score: 1
I could also see it used in industry for doctors to carry around instead of clipboard and have access to more advanced lists of information, or a mechanic to keep one in the garage to lookup specs and diagrams, or a hair stylist to quickly show clients different styles as opposed to a bulky catalog.
Professionals like these already have computers where they need access to them, most likely cheaper than an iPad, and in most cases, invested in the specialty software that is specific to their industry, and seems to always be Windows-based. I'm told I might be surprised by a particular industry adopting the iPad, but honestly I think it's the last scenario we're going to see.
Doctors scribble on clipboards, and those that need computerized access to information have thin clients in examination rooms. I can't imagine any advantage an iPad has over a keyboard, mouse, and a screen they can point to rather than hold up. Not to mention the cache 22 software issue. Doctors have no reason to adopt the iPad until their software is developed for it, and there's no reason to develop the software for it until it's adopted.
Same goes for mechanics, in addition to the grease and grime jokes. Mechanics use computers as a normal part of their tool set, to connect to, monitor performance, and diagnose issues with the computers in modern cars. These computers are usable for things like looking up diagrams, and they also can run cables to hook up to cars.
The point is, professionals that need computers already have computers, with software designed specifically for their profession. That's not to say it won't find use in any profession (I hear sysadmins who have Windows servers are just itching to take a look at the VNC/RDC usefulness), and I'm interested to see where, if anywhere, it finds a solid must-have, value to the field (not just a novelty, sort-of-useful but neat value).
Rights are something you HAVE. That the government should not get in the way of. Healthcare and the internet are WANTS. We want them really bad. Both are very cool. Though really neither is a RIGHT.
For those passionate about the American constitution and it's roots, there sure are a lot who like to tell people what rights they don't have. The US was founded on the concept that as people, individuals are naturally endowed by certain rights, regardless of whether or not the ruling body acknowledges them. They included in the amended Constitution a set of rights they felt are in that category. Obviously they did not include all such rights, as they were smart men influenced by their times, and to imply they foresaw everything and included it all perfectly is to deny both history and reality.
Of course, the right to have unfettered Internet access is pretty silly, although having widespread and unfettered Internet access is a good thing in many ways. Protections against failings of the privatized health care system as it developed in the US, well, that's debatable. What makes something an inherent right of people? Clearly we don't have the same criteria that was initially used, or universal voting would not be considered a right (a process in which the federal government was definitely involved, both by granting suffrage to those previously denied it, and intervening on the side of individuals who were being denied the ability to vote by states, localities, and even communities). The idea that the federal government has no role when it comes to rights other than staying out of the way is a nice one, but not based on reality.
Any gamer with half a brain sees the gaming world as a complex ecosystem that has room for consoles and computers. Sitting there and decrying a platform because it's "too hard" just shows how bad your developers are, not how bad the platform is.
Game pirates generally pirate games. That group can't really be counted as lost sales, as there was never a sale to be made. I spend more money on PC games that I do on any other entertainment media (and I mean new purchases, not subscriptions). I'm not a hardcore gamer, and that fact is skewed by how little I buy music or movies, as well as how cheap books are.
I think the important thing is that some games are, by nature, better suited for the console (Super Puzzle Fighter II Turbo, for example), and some games are better suited for the PC: MMORPGs, old school deathmatch FPS games (where mastering speed and pin point accuracy are part of gameplay), RTS games, games that provide modding tools, and so on and so on. Some games are better for the iPhone, whatever those are.
As long as the PC is a better tool to play certain types of games, there's going to be a market for games on the PC. The PC isn't dead as a gaming platform, but it has taken some wounds, in as certain types of games are forgotten or replaced. Old school deathmatch is all but gone from FPS releases, after the onslaught of console titles have produced a new (and widely successful) idea of what a good FPS is. That's fine, but I still want the purity and rush of railgun duels, or bouncing someone up in the air with an intentionally low fired rocket and hitting them three times in the air before they hit the ground dead (and never having stopped moving full speed while doing so). If the idea of a type of gameplay dies out that is best played on the PC, then I think the PC is taking a very real hit as a gaming platform.
I liked the Mako controls on the 360. But they did change them for the PC—unfortunately, for the worse. (The 360 version would, if the camera was angled too far to one side or another, start turning the vehicle. The PC dropped that, so you could have the camera up to 180 degrees from where the vehicle was going. Very disorienting, at least for me.)
The trick to dealing with that is to keep the camera pointed in the direction you are going;P
An online game requiring you to be logged in and have a subscription is "draconian DRM"? How else would you do it? Would you prefer they release the game for free? Sure, we all want every company to give everything away for free. It isn't going to happen.
They provide a monthly service, which requires you be logged in. It doesn't require you install drivers, sweet talk a CD, or sacrifice a chicken. Nothing draconian about that.
Agreed; technically they don't even require that you buy the game, and it can all be downloaded as many times as needed to as many different computers. From the perspective of friends of mine who still play, it's extremely cheap entertainment compared to what they would be doing otherwise.
Good. 40 man raiding was a chore. Terrible, terrible chore.
I'm sure it is less so, but 25 man raiding sure felt like a chore also, at least as an organizer. I came in after TBC. Instead of managing 50-64 people to keep a 40 player roster, we got the task of balancing out groupds for multiple raids each week within a 70-90 player guild. Raiding burned me out, too, but I had never intended to be dedicated to raiding. As soon as the tanks that had been training and gearing up came to raid boss maturity, I stopped playing. It had become less like a chore and more like a job for which I didn't receive wages.
Considering it more or less requires you to create an app that breaks native OS look and feel, I'd say you are certainly wrong in almost every single possible case.
Thank you, well put. That was exactly my reaction that I wasn't able to put into words in my response.
I find the simple fact that Economics has produced successful models that accurately explain situations of how real people act (on an economic scale) absolutely fantastic.
It's produced some pretty unsuccessful ones too. Now all we need is some way to work out[1] which is which.
[1] ideally in advance.
One of the expectations people have about Economics is that it should serve as a predictor. This is, of course, fostered mostly by all the economists who go on news and political shows to give their opinions. I don't remember the economist (modern day) who said, to paraphrase, if someone is speaking about what we "should" do, he's not acting as an economist.
I like to make a general comparison to physics. A physicists's job is not to predict when or where two trains will collide, but rather be able to explain the forces at work if they do.
Re:CmdrTaco drags big brass ones along the ground
on
iPad Review
·
· Score: 1
The more reasonable solution is to engage in discussions with people who do want it, in order to understand why as a means to understanding what it is. Just because a person can't see how the iPad fits in to anyone's needs, doesn't mean that it really doesn't fit in. That perspective isn't one where everyone should just ignore the iPad and move on. Many of the people you complain about might end up buying one, they just don't know why it's worth buying at this point, and they're asking.
Re:CmdrTaco drags big brass ones along the ground
on
iPad Review
·
· Score: 1
[Aside - not directed at the review] perhaps it's just me, but the qualifier "just" in "just a bigger iphone/ipod touch" seems somewhat questionable. Does anyone here want to trade their HDTV for an SD model ? Thought so. With a TV, all you do is view it. On an iPad you'll interact with it - that 5x screen-estate isn't a "just", it's a "crucially", IMHO. [/aside]
You're not expected to carry the larger TV around, though. I'm interested to see how people react to the weight, when the likely already have iPhones and Macbooks.
You sound spot on with your list on what the demo shows and why those are important points.
The rest doesn't matter. As long as the framework can draw graphics to the system consistently across devices, nothing else really matters. Flash is become the ultimate platform for GUI development.
The rest matters. Enough that I find your last assertion horrible depressing. I could go on trying to explain the reasons why I think so, but your initial point is more valid for this story. Regardless of what is being done to the user experience, the implementation behind the demo seems like it could help Flash / AS3 developers make money. Besides, if someone writes a great iPhone app, I won't complain if it doesn't require any additional work for there to be an Android release as well.
I'm familiar with Qt and Trolltech, as well as it's role in KDE, specifically KDE4. I wasn't aware of the extent the cross-platform efforts have reached, though, so I was wondering if that was a separate effort. It seems to be much more comprehensive than my perception of just the KDE folk working to port their office suite to Windows. I'll definitely take a closer look at Qt with this new information.
Unfortunately, the problem with economics is that it has TOO MUCH math in it. Or rather, it has too much math misuse.
There should be a large amount of statistics, but little calculus. That's because we're dealing with human beings and their obstinate free will. So much of modern economics is about making assumptions so that you can start applying some math to the problem. But the assumptions are often unwarranted, like micro's assumption of "perfect knowledge" that can only exist in a fantasy land.
Yes, you're going to have to do a shitload of math to get a degree in economics. But you shouldn't have to. Economics is not a hard science like physics, and should not be treated as such.
Are you really an economist, because what you're talking about sounds like the classic outside perspective after having taken a couple courses. A lot of your points are accurate, but the assertion that assumptions such as "perfect knowledge" are unwarranted. It's similar to assuming zero friction in physics: it's a step to building a useful model. Physics is a strange choice to pick as an example as a hard science when on the topic of making assumptions, with so much of it happening entirely within models that explore theories using math, built off of assumptions. Within those models that math is indeed much more "hard science like" than the way models are developed in Economics, but as you say, we're dealing with human beings here, not the laws of the universe. I find the simple fact that Economics has produced successful models that accurately explain situations of how real people act (on an economic scale) absolutely fantastic.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you think and speak the same during the O.J. Simpson trial, I wonder, or did you jump right in there and play jurist like everyone else on the outside? If you did the latter it would make you something of a situational hypocrite now.
It's my recollection that the general feelings about the Simpson trial was that the prosecution did its job poorly, and failed to put its case together well enough for a conviction. Juries are obligated to give an innocent verdict if the prosecution doesn't handle the burden of proof, but the reverse is not true.
Remind me never to do the right thing ever again.
I think you should re-examine what you think the right thing is, because it's different than what this guy's supervisors, his employers and, ultimately, the courts thought it was.
I've been following this case since it first hit /. and my impression of Childs is that he's an arrogant BOFH who forgot that it wasn't "his" system. He was pissed that they took his tinker toys away and gave it to what he considered inferior intellects. He was so sure he was smarter than everyone else that he bet his life, or at least up to five years of it, on it.
He hasn't been administering the network for a long time now and, holy shit, San Francisco isn't a smoking hole in the ground.
Who cares? That's a long way off from being a criminal and going to jail.
No, I daresay it's not very appealing to him. However, as far as I can tell, the man is indeed guilty. I've forgotten a lot of the details of the the original circumstances, but I remember enough to say that holding a city's computer systems random (which is essentially what he was doing) certainly deserves a guilty verdict on a count of "computer tampering." You really think it's acceptable under any circumstances for someone to hijack a network like that? Yes, he works there and technically "administrates" those machines, but he has a duty to his employers (ultimately, the citizens), and he was not upholding that duty.
As an insubordinate employee, I can see how he could be sued for damages for costs accrued while the network is admin-less, as well as the extra time and personnel required to regain access to the network. Convicting him for "computer tampering" is just ridiculous, though. There are lots of jobs more suited to the concept of "duty" involved, and how many of them are turned into criminal matters?
According to everything I have read he refused to hand over the password under any circumstance when his supervisors asked for them. There was no "only give to the mayor" rule. He was a regular employee working a regular job where he has the obligation to hand over information requested by his supervisor.
Okay.
After he was arrested and placed in custody...
Wait, what? You're skipping over something really important. One moment he's a regular employee working a regular job, the next moment he's a criminal for not meeting the obligations of said job. None of his motivations or feelings or attitudes have any relevance to the issue of criminalizing insubordination at work.
Far too often there is this attitude of "I am always right when it comes to the computers. They are MY systems, it is MY network, I make the rules you all must follow." No, actually. You are in the business of customer service, like it or not. The computers belong to your organization. Your job is to make them do what they need to do. They are tools, nothing more or less, and you are there to help people get those tools to do the job they are needed for. You don't get to tell people how it is. You certainly can and should suggest policies and try to make things safer or better, but you aren't god, you don't get to come in and lay down the law and tell people how it's going to be. Do that and you may well be looking for work, or in extreme cases, in jail.
How can you make the leap of being in the business of customer service to being convicted in a criminal court? Who cares about his thought process or attitude, for good or bad? If he won't do his job, fire him, and hire someone to take over. If he has a contract requiring that he disclose the password information, sue him. What extreme cases warrant jail? I don't see anything criminal about civilian insubordination.
And as for needing a faster computer, well, bloat is increasing just as fast in the OSS world as in the closed source world, unless you limit yourself to simple and old fashioned apps.
I was recently quite pleasantly surprised to discover that this genuinely isn't the case. I've been running Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit on my desktop for a while without a dual boot, since I had only been using my desktop for gaming. A few weeks ago, I found a lot of inspiration to start working on various projects again, so I wiped one of my hard drives and installed Linux on it again. The Ubuntu beta actually, which reminded me why it's a good choice immediately after install, when in GNOME's system tray, I noticed an icon giving me the low battery sign and a warning that my MX1000 batteries were critically low (with nothing more than the default install).
Try as I might, I couldn't help obsess over the failure to smoothly draw (or at least blur) the rounded corners in the window decoration, and since I use KDE reliant programs anyway, the next thing I did was a system upgrade with KDE, effectively turning it into a Kubuntu machine (but will the full GNOME setup still there). I've have not been at all cautious about package dependencies or redundancies (meaning, I presently have more than one program installed that do the same thing for many different categories). I also have the most lavish effects enabled (those that are functional), and a ridiculous 24 virtual desktops. I'm pressed to think how I could have a more bloated set up, thinking back to my Slackware / Fluxbox roots.
The point, however, is that the K/Ubuntu bloated install performs amazingly fast, very noticeable against the Windows 7 Ultimate install. Both OSes have increasing bloat, but in terms of performance impact and hardware I've really been impressed with Linux, which, in my judgement, has blown away Windows in terms of how it's been handled.
would also imply more experienced developers. And that's not (necessarily) a bad thing.
The suggestion that "the Linux kernel no longer has the same appeal to young open source developers that it did 10 years ago" is a statement that shields an assumption: the Linux kernel is losing young developers to other, similar projects.
The article points out the iPhone has had more success attracting younger developers than the Linux kernel, which makes me wonder how anyone possibly thought that might sound anything other than idiotic along side concepts such as "declining sense of community".
Writing apps for the iPhone is not the same as developing an OS kernel's code base in practically any way. It often draws a furore when I point this out, but all areas that fall under the umbrella name "Computer Science" are not equal. A web developer is not an Apache developer. An iPhone app developer is not an iPhone OS kernel developer (or any other kernel developer). Of course, I'm not making a broad statement that web or iPhone app developers don't have the capacity to be skilled programmers in other areas. I'm just pointing the obvious: iPhone apps do not have the learning curve and project scope that a kernel project has, and yes, less talented programmers can find a place more easily wherever learning curves and language complexities/nuances are lower/less/fewer.
10 years ago, there weren't as many developers, nor were there as many platforms, toolkits, IDEs, SDKs, etc. Apple, behind the iPhone, has every reason to do as much as possible to make it as easy as possible for as many people as possible to produce software for their platform (subject to their approval, of course), since available applications are so important to young platforms and/or OS's. The Linux kernel project does not have cause to do the same, and let's hope it never does. The only proper way to judge the interest in the Linux kernel project with young developers is to compare it to how well other kernel projects are attracting young developers. Or, at the very least, compare it to projects that deal with a similar area and scope.
I have no idea why Firefox still fights against the giant and loses money and time on it.
I think it's great, completely aside from the merits of any video codec or open vs proprietary. I'm just happy to read about software makers standing behind their solution and pushing to make it work. A lot of Slashdotters rightly pointed out hardware support as a major issue for Mozilla's Theora support, and Mozilla seems to be working on it. Obviously, this is a small step against a massive obstacle, that should go without saying (but I'm not actually new here). I think it's great precisely because it would be so much easier for Mozilla to take the H.264 path of least resistance.
Everything to do with the web is becoming more and more... convergent. The Internet doesn't crumble to a halt if browsers don't all work the same; we still got by when some sites built their layouts with divs, and others with layers. I'd much rather see smart people still working to develop different implementations of things then reach the point where everyone gets behind whatever manages to be the entrenched giant.
It's a lost battle.... Open source has some advantages, but if it's technically lesser and doesn't work with companies, it's not going to win.
That could be said now and in the past about so many things that didn't give up and go away, and yet have users. You can still buy Ogg portable media players, because even though they've gone from ugly to pricey, they've always found a customer base. I've read comments that lament that pushing this issue could be the death of Firefox, but they will find a user base (not everyone picks a browser on the ability to stream videos). Opera is still around, thanks to its loyal users, and it's not even open source.
As good as it was to see so many friends and family members shift from IE5 & 6 to Firefox, I don't think there's any danger of those people reverting to IE6. I don't mind if they switch to Chrome or Opera or Safari, so long as it does the job well enough. Mozilla (or any other company/project) fighting the uphill battle and supporting what it thinks is best isn't something I ever want to see stop, particularly with the Internet. The strength of the "web development platform" is in full bloom, and with it seems to come an assumption that it's vital for all browsers to always go in a direction that supports and strengthens the "web platform" concept.
Well, I work in web development, and I admit it's definitely nicer when browsers are more consistent at handling the same code the same way. Nicer, meaning, we can officially support more browsers. IMHO, that luxury isn't worth moving into an age where browsers all emphasise conformity rather than developing what makes them unique in their vision.
If you have a summary of your clients (and you should) you should send out a mass email and let them know what's going on
Talk to a lawyer, too. You sound pretty liable in all this, as it all sounds like it stems from business negligence / lack of due diligence. A domain name should not be the key to any third-party web services accounts, among other things.
Obviously competitors have realized that it's worth it to come out with clone or me-too products much faster than they did in the past with the iPhone. This suggests to me that they'll be at least somewhat more successful than before in taking market share from apple.
The problem I see is that every new clone announced is heavier than the iPad. People may not adjust to 1.5 lbs, but adding to that does not spell success.
What are you comparing? Or are you fond of TiVo? Because that "like" serves absolutely no purpose in that sentence.
It's an idiomatic usage that gives additional emphasis on the word that follows it.
I could also see it used in industry for doctors to carry around instead of clipboard and have access to more advanced lists of information, or a mechanic to keep one in the garage to lookup specs and diagrams, or a hair stylist to quickly show clients different styles as opposed to a bulky catalog.
Professionals like these already have computers where they need access to them, most likely cheaper than an iPad, and in most cases, invested in the specialty software that is specific to their industry, and seems to always be Windows-based. I'm told I might be surprised by a particular industry adopting the iPad, but honestly I think it's the last scenario we're going to see.
Doctors scribble on clipboards, and those that need computerized access to information have thin clients in examination rooms. I can't imagine any advantage an iPad has over a keyboard, mouse, and a screen they can point to rather than hold up. Not to mention the cache 22 software issue. Doctors have no reason to adopt the iPad until their software is developed for it, and there's no reason to develop the software for it until it's adopted.
Same goes for mechanics, in addition to the grease and grime jokes. Mechanics use computers as a normal part of their tool set, to connect to, monitor performance, and diagnose issues with the computers in modern cars. These computers are usable for things like looking up diagrams, and they also can run cables to hook up to cars.
The point is, professionals that need computers already have computers, with software designed specifically for their profession. That's not to say it won't find use in any profession (I hear sysadmins who have Windows servers are just itching to take a look at the VNC/RDC usefulness), and I'm interested to see where, if anywhere, it finds a solid must-have, value to the field (not just a novelty, sort-of-useful but neat value).
Rights are something you HAVE. That the government should not get in the way of. Healthcare and the internet are WANTS. We want them really bad. Both are very cool. Though really neither is a RIGHT.
For those passionate about the American constitution and it's roots, there sure are a lot who like to tell people what rights they don't have. The US was founded on the concept that as people, individuals are naturally endowed by certain rights, regardless of whether or not the ruling body acknowledges them. They included in the amended Constitution a set of rights they felt are in that category. Obviously they did not include all such rights, as they were smart men influenced by their times, and to imply they foresaw everything and included it all perfectly is to deny both history and reality.
Of course, the right to have unfettered Internet access is pretty silly, although having widespread and unfettered Internet access is a good thing in many ways. Protections against failings of the privatized health care system as it developed in the US, well, that's debatable. What makes something an inherent right of people? Clearly we don't have the same criteria that was initially used, or universal voting would not be considered a right (a process in which the federal government was definitely involved, both by granting suffrage to those previously denied it, and intervening on the side of individuals who were being denied the ability to vote by states, localities, and even communities). The idea that the federal government has no role when it comes to rights other than staying out of the way is a nice one, but not based on reality.
Any gamer with half a brain sees the gaming world as a complex ecosystem that has room for consoles and computers. Sitting there and decrying a platform because it's "too hard" just shows how bad your developers are, not how bad the platform is.
Game pirates generally pirate games. That group can't really be counted as lost sales, as there was never a sale to be made. I spend more money on PC games that I do on any other entertainment media (and I mean new purchases, not subscriptions). I'm not a hardcore gamer, and that fact is skewed by how little I buy music or movies, as well as how cheap books are.
I think the important thing is that some games are, by nature, better suited for the console (Super Puzzle Fighter II Turbo, for example), and some games are better suited for the PC: MMORPGs, old school deathmatch FPS games (where mastering speed and pin point accuracy are part of gameplay), RTS games, games that provide modding tools, and so on and so on. Some games are better for the iPhone, whatever those are.
As long as the PC is a better tool to play certain types of games, there's going to be a market for games on the PC. The PC isn't dead as a gaming platform, but it has taken some wounds, in as certain types of games are forgotten or replaced. Old school deathmatch is all but gone from FPS releases, after the onslaught of console titles have produced a new (and widely successful) idea of what a good FPS is. That's fine, but I still want the purity and rush of railgun duels, or bouncing someone up in the air with an intentionally low fired rocket and hitting them three times in the air before they hit the ground dead (and never having stopped moving full speed while doing so). If the idea of a type of gameplay dies out that is best played on the PC, then I think the PC is taking a very real hit as a gaming platform.
I liked the Mako controls on the 360. But they did change them for the PC—unfortunately, for the worse. (The 360 version would, if the camera was angled too far to one side or another, start turning the vehicle. The PC dropped that, so you could have the camera up to 180 degrees from where the vehicle was going. Very disorienting, at least for me.)
The trick to dealing with that is to keep the camera pointed in the direction you are going ;P
An online game requiring you to be logged in and have a subscription is "draconian DRM"? How else would you do it? Would you prefer they release the game for free? Sure, we all want every company to give everything away for free. It isn't going to happen.
They provide a monthly service, which requires you be logged in. It doesn't require you install drivers, sweet talk a CD, or sacrifice a chicken. Nothing draconian about that.
Agreed; technically they don't even require that you buy the game, and it can all be downloaded as many times as needed to as many different computers. From the perspective of friends of mine who still play, it's extremely cheap entertainment compared to what they would be doing otherwise.
Good. 40 man raiding was a chore. Terrible, terrible chore.
I'm sure it is less so, but 25 man raiding sure felt like a chore also, at least as an organizer. I came in after TBC. Instead of managing 50-64 people to keep a 40 player roster, we got the task of balancing out groupds for multiple raids each week within a 70-90 player guild. Raiding burned me out, too, but I had never intended to be dedicated to raiding. As soon as the tanks that had been training and gearing up came to raid boss maturity, I stopped playing. It had become less like a chore and more like a job for which I didn't receive wages.
Considering it more or less requires you to create an app that breaks native OS look and feel, I'd say you are certainly wrong in almost every single possible case.
Thank you, well put. That was exactly my reaction that I wasn't able to put into words in my response.
It's produced some pretty unsuccessful ones too. Now all we need is some way to work out[1] which is which.
[1] ideally in advance.
One of the expectations people have about Economics is that it should serve as a predictor. This is, of course, fostered mostly by all the economists who go on news and political shows to give their opinions. I don't remember the economist (modern day) who said, to paraphrase, if someone is speaking about what we "should" do, he's not acting as an economist.
I like to make a general comparison to physics. A physicists's job is not to predict when or where two trains will collide, but rather be able to explain the forces at work if they do.
The more reasonable solution is to engage in discussions with people who do want it, in order to understand why as a means to understanding what it is. Just because a person can't see how the iPad fits in to anyone's needs, doesn't mean that it really doesn't fit in. That perspective isn't one where everyone should just ignore the iPad and move on. Many of the people you complain about might end up buying one, they just don't know why it's worth buying at this point, and they're asking.
[Aside - not directed at the review]
perhaps it's just me, but the qualifier "just" in "just a bigger iphone/ipod touch" seems somewhat questionable. Does anyone here want to trade their HDTV for an SD model ? Thought so. With a TV, all you do is view it. On an iPad you'll interact with it - that 5x screen-estate isn't a "just", it's a "crucially", IMHO.
[/aside]
You're not expected to carry the larger TV around, though. I'm interested to see how people react to the weight, when the likely already have iPhones and Macbooks.
You sound spot on with your list on what the demo shows and why those are important points.
The rest doesn't matter. As long as the framework can draw graphics to the system consistently across devices, nothing else really matters. Flash is become the ultimate platform for GUI development.
The rest matters. Enough that I find your last assertion horrible depressing. I could go on trying to explain the reasons why I think so, but your initial point is more valid for this story. Regardless of what is being done to the user experience, the implementation behind the demo seems like it could help Flash / AS3 developers make money. Besides, if someone writes a great iPhone app, I won't complain if it doesn't require any additional work for there to be an Android release as well.
I'm familiar with Qt and Trolltech, as well as it's role in KDE, specifically KDE4. I wasn't aware of the extent the cross-platform efforts have reached, though, so I was wondering if that was a separate effort. It seems to be much more comprehensive than my perception of just the KDE folk working to port their office suite to Windows. I'll definitely take a closer look at Qt with this new information.
Unfortunately, the problem with economics is that it has TOO MUCH math in it. Or rather, it has too much math misuse.
There should be a large amount of statistics, but little calculus. That's because we're dealing with human beings and their obstinate free will. So much of modern economics is about making assumptions so that you can start applying some math to the problem. But the assumptions are often unwarranted, like micro's assumption of "perfect knowledge" that can only exist in a fantasy land.
Yes, you're going to have to do a shitload of math to get a degree in economics. But you shouldn't have to. Economics is not a hard science like physics, and should not be treated as such.
Are you really an economist, because what you're talking about sounds like the classic outside perspective after having taken a couple courses. A lot of your points are accurate, but the assertion that assumptions such as "perfect knowledge" are unwarranted. It's similar to assuming zero friction in physics: it's a step to building a useful model. Physics is a strange choice to pick as an example as a hard science when on the topic of making assumptions, with so much of it happening entirely within models that explore theories using math, built off of assumptions. Within those models that math is indeed much more "hard science like" than the way models are developed in Economics, but as you say, we're dealing with human beings here, not the laws of the universe. I find the simple fact that Economics has produced successful models that accurately explain situations of how real people act (on an economic scale) absolutely fantastic.
I would have guessed sociology, economics or psychology.
That is a horribly unfair to the field of Economics. Replace it with "Political Science" and then you've got a proper grouping.