I build and maintain dozens of websites and have thoroughly tested them on a variety of machines running different versions of Windows and Mac OS. If anything, Flash and most Adobe products for the last couple of years work better on Windows.
Adobe might have a few differences of principle with Microsoft, but they like the money from Microsoft's customers as much as anyone else's.
Can someone please explain to me why anyone would regard jquery as a black mark on John Resig's work?
I've found it very useful for anything but the most mundane js tasks. Certainly better than the piles of other libraries that all seem to be based around the fallacy that javascript needs classical inheritance. (Hint: It doesn't. It has prototypal inheritance.)
I think you've misunderstood me. I wasn't suggesting that a modern PC couldn't display HD resolutions. I was suggesting that there isn't any significant quantity of PC games that would justify hooking your PC up in the living room to play with your friends.
One would think that the time required to actually do a Linux port would be trivial.
As would be their revenue from such an endeavor. I doubt that the total linux market for WoW is much greater than the willing-to-run-it-in-Wine market.
Indie developers should be using cross-platform tools and libraries so as not to limit their already limited market. There's no law preventing indie game developers from using or developing for Macs.
Obviously, this being Slashdot, I didn't read tfa, but I thought the whole point of this thread was to discuss the rumor that Apple was going to start a push for *mainstream* Mac gaming.
What Mac is targeted to people who want to game with their friends on a 32 inch television?
There isn't one. Which windows PC fills that niche? PC games aren't known for simultaneous multiplayer. If that's the need you're looking fill, I would recommend a console. I have several and they work well for that purpose.
A lot of users here seem to find a hole in Apple's product line between Mac mini and Mac Pro.
I'm one of them. I really only like the Macbook Pro, but if you look at their current lineup they have perfectly respectable video cards across the board.
The lowest-end iMac comes with a Radeon HD 2400XT. The high-end iMac has a GeForce 8800. The MacBook Pros have Geforce 8600/8800s. You can get a geforce 8800 on a Mac Pro.
Mac Minis and Macbooks aren't targeted in any way toward anyone who's interested in gaming.
Unless you're uber-l337, modern Macs are just fine in the graphics department.
I could never decide as a kid whether the platypus disproved intelligent design (I mean, come on, look at it) or whether it was just God's grand joke.
Well, really, it's the misshapen chimera all of the anti-evolution people demand to see, but it's too cute and mild-mannered to want to upset anyone's world view.
That's an interesting conclusion there. Nowhere in the GP's post does he define "monopoly", nowhere does the GP mention "evil", and nowhere did the GP suggest that companies other than Microsoft are immune from being evil.
He was explaining merely *having* a monopoly is legal, the illegality comes from utilizing your monopoly power anti-competitively, for which Microsoft, being the most prominent modern example of a convicted anti-competitive monopolist, is a rich mine of examples.
You seem to suffer from the classic creationist misunderstanding of the nature of evolution.
Evolution does not have a goal. You cannot say that evolution requires creature A to evolve into hypothetical creature B. From the standpoint of natural selection, you can't demonstrate that dogs are "better" or "worse" than cockroaches or parrots or llamas by simply observing them as they are now. You cannot say that "given condition Y, creature X will evolve into creature Z". You can, however, observe evolution happening right before your eyes in very fast breeding species such as bacteria and fruit flies, or as has been previously mentioned, in the fossil record of more primitive apes evolving into humans or small, bipedal dinosaurs evolving into birds.
I think Javascript is also hampered by the fact that... a lot of people do view it as a semi-essential skill
I've never seen that in practice, and if you're working on the web in any capacity and you view Javascript as a semi-essential skill then I can say from experience that you're dedicated to building terrible websites.
Even if you don't write javascript, you need to understand it (Unfortunately, too few do. *Surprise! It's a functional lanaguage!*) if you're doing anything of any significance on the web.
You'll need it to incorporate any decent analytics solution, just about any 3rd party front-end product or to understand some of the many ways ASP.NET is destroying your users' experiences.
(I'm using "you" generally, from the context of your post, I don't think you specifically view javascript as less-than-essential.)
The same way as anything else. Just because everyone can SEE the source doesn't mean they have the right to redistribute it. It just makes enforcing that closed-sourcedness highly impractical.
The temptation, though, is to make something better from either the ground up or based off of an earlier version. With the 'power' of the internet and collaboration, the 'need' for a company like WotC is diminishing by the day. Unfortunately without the very real dollars they pump into and out of the industry - well, this notion would likely die a death of starvation.
I get disappointed when I think that the lineage that DnD represents is going off on a tangent.
I don't think it will be that big of a problem. Some people never accepted 3rd edition. Some people never accepted 2nd edition. D&D isn't going to die. It's changed before.
#3 ensures that everyone of a given class/level combination will have almost exactly the same number of HP's. That's a net loss for the game as a whole.
Unless, like I have, you're playing a melee combat character with a decent CON and roll a 1 at nearly every level. The whole idea of rolling when the game is balanced around your having ~50% of your total potential hitpoints + CON starts to seem pretty stupid.
#4 is novel, but is firmly in the 'maybe' column. This could change the genre. It could completely destroy any concept of game balance, making casters the only class to play at any level. Hard to say, but it certainly doesn't strike me as something that makes sense without a lot of testing.
Spells in 4E are only one form of "power" other classes have comparable abilities with comparable use slots, so I'd worry more that it will *reduce* the appeal of playing a wizard.
#13 was in place to give combat types an edge, so hopefully it got replaced with something
In Star Wars saga edition, extra attacks are gained through feats. They cost penalties to use (like a Flurry of Blows or Rapid Shot does now) and they have BAB as a requirement. So everyone has the option to get multiple attacks. I'm hoping 4E D&D will have something similar.
#17 represents a serious change for DM's to bear in mind. Hopefully the ENTIRE rule-set has been reworked to take this into account and every DM is drilled on the changes. The 3e DMG makes a fairly solid case as to how much 'oomph' an encounter is supposed to expend. This limited (yet unlimited) healing is VERY different and could be quite damaging beyond it's short-term gains.
Monsters are supposed to be much more challenging in 4E. I like the idea of a character getting a second wind over the idea of waking up in the morning, getting in a fight, using up your spells and going back to sleep 10 minutes later.
#18 means less opportunities for skill-based encounters, which used to be some character build's pride and joy. Fewer skills probably means a more combat oriented Rogue class. for example, which is a net loss for the game also...
I don't think that's true at all. AFAIK, they didn't flat out remove the ability to perform any actions based on a skill check that could be performed in third edition, they just organized those actions into a smaller set of skills. For example, Thievery replaces Open Lock, Pick Pocket, etc.
I could go on, but my point is these changes may or may not have been necessary at all, and until we get to measure the full impact of them, there is good cause to be concerned. Some of them seem to be quite huge...
It's not inappropriate to be concerned if you're interested in 4E, but my take is that I might as well keep an open mind about it. We can't pressure WotC into changing anything at this point, and the worst case scenario is we get to keep playing 3.X.
The reason for the license is that, in addition to being able to use D&D branding, if you're running a business, you know that you can release your product and continue to make a profit without having to spends thousands or millions of dollars defending your perfectly legal activities.
Essentially, you know WotC can't/won't pull a Monster Cables on you.
Actually, no. Though I think the 3.5 ranger is an improvement on the 3e ranger.
I think they're going with something more like Star Wars saga edition, where you have various "talent trees" and you pick an ability from any of them (as long as you meet the prerequisites) each time you get a talent. This is largely speculation on my part, but saga is essentially 4E Star Wars, and it fits with the concepts they've been describing so far for 4E D&D.
I haven't been horribly impressed with what I've seen either, and I can't figure out how they could have spent millions on design, unless they're rolling in the costs of all the pizzas, sodas and chips they bought during the process.
If their accountants are worth more than dirt they are including that in the cost.
The cost likely comes largely from the wages and/or benefits of the probably hundreds of people who've participated in its development. Game designers, graphic designers, programmers, playtesters, artists, copy editors, accountants, managers.. etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you're just paranoid.
I build and maintain dozens of websites and have thoroughly tested them on a variety of machines running different versions of Windows and Mac OS. If anything, Flash and most Adobe products for the last couple of years work better on Windows.
Adobe might have a few differences of principle with Microsoft, but they like the money from Microsoft's customers as much as anyone else's.
Actually, I said it was useful for anything except the most mundane tasks (where the overhead of loading a library is not justified by the task).
Can someone please explain to me why anyone would regard jquery as a black mark on John Resig's work?
I've found it very useful for anything but the most mundane js tasks. Certainly better than the piles of other libraries that all seem to be based around the fallacy that javascript needs classical inheritance. (Hint: It doesn't. It has prototypal inheritance.)
I think you've misunderstood me. I wasn't suggesting that a modern PC couldn't display HD resolutions. I was suggesting that there isn't any significant quantity of PC games that would justify hooking your PC up in the living room to play with your friends.
As would be their revenue from such an endeavor. I doubt that the total linux market for WoW is much greater than the willing-to-run-it-in-Wine market.
Indie developers should be using cross-platform tools and libraries so as not to limit their already limited market. There's no law preventing indie game developers from using or developing for Macs.
Obviously, this being Slashdot, I didn't read tfa, but I thought the whole point of this thread was to discuss the rumor that Apple was going to start a push for *mainstream* Mac gaming.
There isn't one. Which windows PC fills that niche? PC games aren't known for simultaneous multiplayer. If that's the need you're looking fill, I would recommend a console. I have several and they work well for that purpose.
A lot of users here seem to find a hole in Apple's product line between Mac mini and Mac Pro.I'm one of them. I really only like the Macbook Pro, but if you look at their current lineup they have perfectly respectable video cards across the board.
The lowest-end iMac comes with a Radeon HD 2400XT. The high-end iMac has a GeForce 8800. The MacBook Pros have Geforce 8600/8800s. You can get a geforce 8800 on a Mac Pro.
Mac Minis and Macbooks aren't targeted in any way toward anyone who's interested in gaming.
Unless you're uber-l337, modern Macs are just fine in the graphics department.
Well, really, it's the misshapen chimera all of the anti-evolution people demand to see, but it's too cute and mild-mannered to want to upset anyone's world view.
That's an interesting conclusion there. Nowhere in the GP's post does he define "monopoly", nowhere does the GP mention "evil", and nowhere did the GP suggest that companies other than Microsoft are immune from being evil.
He was explaining merely *having* a monopoly is legal, the illegality comes from utilizing your monopoly power anti-competitively, for which Microsoft, being the most prominent modern example of a convicted anti-competitive monopolist, is a rich mine of examples.
We on Slashdot already quit buying CDs.
The masses don't read tech sites, nor are they aware of the RIAA, nor would most of them care if they did.
No, he's saying a proposition is a word with which a sentence should not be ended.
You forgot to charge us a consulting fee for your advice.
You seem to suffer from the classic creationist misunderstanding of the nature of evolution.
Evolution does not have a goal. You cannot say that evolution requires creature A to evolve into hypothetical creature B. From the standpoint of natural selection, you can't demonstrate that dogs are "better" or "worse" than cockroaches or parrots or llamas by simply observing them as they are now. You cannot say that "given condition Y, creature X will evolve into creature Z". You can, however, observe evolution happening right before your eyes in very fast breeding species such as bacteria and fruit flies, or as has been previously mentioned, in the fossil record of more primitive apes evolving into humans or small, bipedal dinosaurs evolving into birds.
I've never seen that in practice, and if you're working on the web in any capacity and you view Javascript as a semi-essential skill then I can say from experience that you're dedicated to building terrible websites.
Even if you don't write javascript, you need to understand it (Unfortunately, too few do. *Surprise! It's a functional lanaguage!*) if you're doing anything of any significance on the web.
You'll need it to incorporate any decent analytics solution, just about any 3rd party front-end product or to understand some of the many ways ASP.NET is destroying your users' experiences.
(I'm using "you" generally, from the context of your post, I don't think you specifically view javascript as less-than-essential.)
Yeah, right!
Next thing you're going to tell us is that Highlander had a bunch of sequels.
So what you're saying, essentially, is that over the long term the grocery store actually has a lower total cost of ownership?
Best 2 out of 3?
You're making the assumption that his suggestion was a "find the sausage" joke, and you're being a dick.
The same way as anything else. Just because everyone can SEE the source doesn't mean they have the right to redistribute it. It just makes enforcing that closed-sourcedness highly impractical.
I don't think it will be that big of a problem. Some people never accepted 3rd edition. Some people never accepted 2nd edition. D&D isn't going to die. It's changed before.
Unless, like I have, you're playing a melee combat character with a decent CON and roll a 1 at nearly every level. The whole idea of rolling when the game is balanced around your having ~50% of your total potential hitpoints + CON starts to seem pretty stupid.
#4 is novel, but is firmly in the 'maybe' column. This could change the genre. It could completely destroy any concept of game balance, making casters the only class to play at any level. Hard to say, but it certainly doesn't strike me as something that makes sense without a lot of testing.Spells in 4E are only one form of "power" other classes have comparable abilities with comparable use slots, so I'd worry more that it will *reduce* the appeal of playing a wizard.
#13 was in place to give combat types an edge, so hopefully it got replaced with somethingIn Star Wars saga edition, extra attacks are gained through feats. They cost penalties to use (like a Flurry of Blows or Rapid Shot does now) and they have BAB as a requirement. So everyone has the option to get multiple attacks. I'm hoping 4E D&D will have something similar.
#17 represents a serious change for DM's to bear in mind. Hopefully the ENTIRE rule-set has been reworked to take this into account and every DM is drilled on the changes. The 3e DMG makes a fairly solid case as to how much 'oomph' an encounter is supposed to expend. This limited (yet unlimited) healing is VERY different and could be quite damaging beyond it's short-term gains.Monsters are supposed to be much more challenging in 4E. I like the idea of a character getting a second wind over the idea of waking up in the morning, getting in a fight, using up your spells and going back to sleep 10 minutes later.
#18 means less opportunities for skill-based encounters, which used to be some character build's pride and joy. Fewer skills probably means a more combat oriented Rogue class. for example, which is a net loss for the game also...I don't think that's true at all. AFAIK, they didn't flat out remove the ability to perform any actions based on a skill check that could be performed in third edition, they just organized those actions into a smaller set of skills. For example, Thievery replaces Open Lock, Pick Pocket, etc.
I could go on, but my point is these changes may or may not have been necessary at all, and until we get to measure the full impact of them, there is good cause to be concerned. Some of them seem to be quite huge...It's not inappropriate to be concerned if you're interested in 4E, but my take is that I might as well keep an open mind about it. We can't pressure WotC into changing anything at this point, and the worst case scenario is we get to keep playing 3.X.
The reason for the license is that, in addition to being able to use D&D branding, if you're running a business, you know that you can release your product and continue to make a profit without having to spends thousands or millions of dollars defending your perfectly legal activities.
Essentially, you know WotC can't/won't pull a Monster Cables on you.
Actually, no. Though I think the 3.5 ranger is an improvement on the 3e ranger.
I think they're going with something more like Star Wars saga edition, where you have various "talent trees" and you pick an ability from any of them (as long as you meet the prerequisites) each time you get a talent. This is largely speculation on my part, but saga is essentially 4E Star Wars, and it fits with the concepts they've been describing so far for 4E D&D.
If their accountants are worth more than dirt they are including that in the cost.
The cost likely comes largely from the wages and/or benefits of the probably hundreds of people who've participated in its development. Game designers, graphic designers, programmers, playtesters, artists, copy editors, accountants, managers.. etc.