I didn't know about Bob until a few years ago, and I was around during the Windows 3 days. However, I was a wee lad at the time, and my family never had the latest and greatest, so we ended up skipping straight to 95/98 after Win 3.1.
Most of my problems involved cursing Compaq (those computers were shit, but cheap) and trying not to get caught downloading internet porn over a 33.6k modem. Net Nanny was super easy to get around, CyberSitter was much tougher.
Ah goodness, the days when a 50mb game demo would take 6 hours to download. Nostalgia galore.
Cosmos is awesome, we watched some of it in physics in high school.
He has the uncanny ability to explain very complicated and abstract ideas in a way that most anybody can understand. His explanation of why it's so hard to conceptualize in the 4th dimension (and beyond) was an eye opener.
I don't know, when all kinds of geeks are crying "Flash is dead", and an Adobe rep comes out and says "We've faced worse, we aren't worried" I don't think you can automatically assume they are worried.
Basically, it tells you nothing, because you can't just sit there and be silent - that will be more of a condemnation than anything. If you're scared shitless, you say "We aren't worried", and if you're not worried you also say "We aren't worried".
Basically you can't read much of anything into it, and I have to point out that Adobe is extremely good at making their products the de facto standard. Probably the biggest knock against HTML5 is it is not going to be nearly as consistent as Flash across browser versions, the next biggest would be the fact that Flash will always be in a better position to adjust to the market - H264 video is a perfect example, Flash has had it for two years now, IE has it for HTML5 but Firefox apparently won't have it for HTML5 (it's a licensing issue). So if you want to be sure everyone can see your H264 encoded video, you use Flash, not HTML5 at all.
Only on a fast connection, Flash can auto-adjust the bitrate. HTML5 can't, so anybody who's connection isn't quite up to snuff will have a worse experience in HTML5.
Also, HTML5 is missing a couple nice Flash features, like the ability to skip ahead in a video stream. Not necessary, but it's like gravy on mashed potatoes.
Last, but definitely not least, HTML5 has a half dozen different companies arguing over what should be in it, and none of the current HTML5 implementations are the same. For example, FireFox won't do H.264 video for licensing reasons. Any updates to the HTML spec will be a battle, while Flash can move with the market and update as needed. Case in point - H.264 video. Flash has had it for 2 years now.
Flash can always update to compete, and those updates will be uniform across all platforms, regardless of OS or browser version. HTML5, however, is at the whim of the browser implementation, and we will see the same problems we saw with JavaScript long ago, where web authors had to write four different versions of the same website just to maintain uniformity across browsers.
Flash has none of those problems, and is already well known - I can't see it going anywhere as long as Adobe keeps updating it. It has far too many upsides and not enough downsides compared to HTML5 to make the switch worth it for most websites.
Flash dies once people stop producing websites that need Flash. It has absolutely nothing to do with XP, or IE9, or a new HTML standard. You will note that IE6 is still the most popular browser on the market - web technologies, as fast as they change, are subject to the whims of those who use them, and in this regard Flash is a giant that won't be taken down easily. Since HTML5 can't do nearly what Flash can do overall, and HTML5 video is not any better than HTML5 (Flash has had H264 video for about two years now, and that hasn't even been settled yet for HTML5), and as others have pointed out doesn't even offer as many features for video as Flash does, I think all this talk of the death of Flash is wishful thinking.
The release of HTML5 is, by itself, not a compelling reason for anybody to switch from Flash to HTML5. Tying in to the browser doesn't help much in the way of security concerns, because you have the same types of processes going on that are just as vulnerable to the errors that create exploits. In fact, for anybody who already uses Flash regularly, switching to HTML5 will cost a significant amount of time and money with little to no benefit over just staying with Flash. That's not a recipe for a mass exodus.
Adobe has also never been known to stand still in the market, they are one of those companies that continually drives to stay on top. There are dozens of examples, Flash is just one of many.
I predict that most HTML5 based video will be primarily produced by people who are new to video and have no prior Flash experience, There may be a small number of people who try to switch from Flash to HTML5 for video only, but I think a large portion of them will eventually switch back to what they know better - which is Flash. This is small potatoes compared to the number of Flash developers on the market, and Flash-based websites.
I'm sorry, but Adobe has nearly 100% penetration into their market while Apple has significantly less than that in theirs. The same people who will want an iPad will want to view flash based websites.
If the iPad ships with no flash, and no option for flash, people are going to be pissed.
Try writing a flash app - that's where Adobe makes its money on Flash. It's the tools that they sell, just like for PDFs. The reader is free, but the writer costs bucks, and the primo publishing edition costs primo bucks.
The reason they give out the plugin for free is to make sure there is a good reason to write in Flash, and so long as Adobe keeps producing plugins there will always be a reason to write in Flash.
Do you not understand how many years it would be before they could release such a game?
Optimization costs time, time costs money. Asking for a Demoscene game is like asking for Duke Nukem Forever - it's never going to happen. It isn't practical.
Exactly. While OpenGL is compatible with 99% of the PC gaming market, it is compatible with 0% of the console market. D3D is compatible with 99% of the PC gaming market, and 30% (very rough estimate) of the console market. Linux and Mac aren't even a blip on the gaming market radar, so why would anybody bother with OpenGL in a marketing sense?
The few that do bother to do it in OpenGL get burned when they want to port it to the console, because instead of a simple re-package job, they have to do 10 times as much work to move to a console. It may not be a massive amount of work, no, but it is more work than necessary. That cuts into your profits. Besides, there will always be less to screw up going D3D to D3D.
I actually read the book after I saw the movie, and the second half was much better than the first. Still, the first half of the book is significantly better than the story they told in the movie - they probably would have made the second half suck too.
The book was a lot better than the movie, if a little... drawn out. I wouldn't put it in my top-10, but it was a good read.
What sucks about the movie the most is the most interesting part of the story was in the second half of the book, which the movie didn't cover. That's when rebellious-human-slave-boy takes over the universe. That was classic wtf, but in an entertaining way.
It's been a good six or eight years since I've seen Battlefield Earth, I've kinda got a hankering to see it again now.
That's what they use in airplanes to prevent this sort of thing. It's kinda surprising nobody at Toyota thought about a problem fly-by-wire has had from the get go when they implemented their own fly-by-wire.
It's not batshit crazy, as cosmic rays are well known and little understood as far as their potential effects go - it's a term for a group of several types of radiation anywhere from X-rays to Gamma-rays that do indeed penetrate the atmosphere and can potentially have noticeable affects on the earth. SETI has been sifting through cosmic radiation for decades looking for little green men, their job would be ultra easy if there were no cosmic radiation to get in the way.
It is, however, not anywhere near as likely as someone just fucking up, so yeah you're right on point with the thrust of your argument there.
Not necessarily, clouds absorb cosmic radiation - or more accurately water vapor absorbs cosmic radiation and forms clouds, so anywhere with a lot of cloud cover is going to have a lot of cosmic-ray cover too. Higher altitudes generally occur in hilly or mountainous regions (duh, that's what makes them high), and they also tend to have a lot more cloud cover because wind and moisture get blocked by the mountains.
You'd probably be most likely to see lots of cosmic rays in dry, flat areas that usually have light to no cloud cover. Periodic massive clouds won't have much affect if the area is clear on average, so your biggest suspect for cosmic-rays are areas like the mid-west.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a better job?
I don't get it.
I didn't know about Bob until a few years ago, and I was around during the Windows 3 days. However, I was a wee lad at the time, and my family never had the latest and greatest, so we ended up skipping straight to 95/98 after Win 3.1.
Most of my problems involved cursing Compaq (those computers were shit, but cheap) and trying not to get caught downloading internet porn over a 33.6k modem. Net Nanny was super easy to get around, CyberSitter was much tougher.
Ah goodness, the days when a 50mb game demo would take 6 hours to download. Nostalgia galore.
The /. editors add in those links.
Yeah.
Cosmos is awesome, we watched some of it in physics in high school.
He has the uncanny ability to explain very complicated and abstract ideas in a way that most anybody can understand. His explanation of why it's so hard to conceptualize in the 4th dimension (and beyond) was an eye opener.
I'm sure that will happen just as soon as you stop being so full of yourself.
Come on now, hurry up! The GUTOE (Grand Unified Theory Of Everything) is waiting!
Imagine for a moment that at some time in the near future, Adobe has a new option on the menu "Export to HTML5".
That's probably a very strong possibility, given that ActionScript is just an alternative JavaScript implementation.
Sure they'll be competing with DreamWeaver or whoever
Ahem, DreamWeaver is Adobe. :)
I don't know, when all kinds of geeks are crying "Flash is dead", and an Adobe rep comes out and says "We've faced worse, we aren't worried" I don't think you can automatically assume they are worried.
Basically, it tells you nothing, because you can't just sit there and be silent - that will be more of a condemnation than anything. If you're scared shitless, you say "We aren't worried", and if you're not worried you also say "We aren't worried".
Basically you can't read much of anything into it, and I have to point out that Adobe is extremely good at making their products the de facto standard. Probably the biggest knock against HTML5 is it is not going to be nearly as consistent as Flash across browser versions, the next biggest would be the fact that Flash will always be in a better position to adjust to the market - H264 video is a perfect example, Flash has had it for two years now, IE has it for HTML5 but Firefox apparently won't have it for HTML5 (it's a licensing issue). So if you want to be sure everyone can see your H264 encoded video, you use Flash, not HTML5 at all.
HTML5 loads faster and smoother than flash.
Only on a fast connection, Flash can auto-adjust the bitrate. HTML5 can't, so anybody who's connection isn't quite up to snuff will have a worse experience in HTML5.
Also, HTML5 is missing a couple nice Flash features, like the ability to skip ahead in a video stream. Not necessary, but it's like gravy on mashed potatoes.
Last, but definitely not least, HTML5 has a half dozen different companies arguing over what should be in it, and none of the current HTML5 implementations are the same. For example, FireFox won't do H.264 video for licensing reasons. Any updates to the HTML spec will be a battle, while Flash can move with the market and update as needed. Case in point - H.264 video. Flash has had it for 2 years now.
Flash can always update to compete, and those updates will be uniform across all platforms, regardless of OS or browser version. HTML5, however, is at the whim of the browser implementation, and we will see the same problems we saw with JavaScript long ago, where web authors had to write four different versions of the same website just to maintain uniformity across browsers.
Flash has none of those problems, and is already well known - I can't see it going anywhere as long as Adobe keeps updating it. It has far too many upsides and not enough downsides compared to HTML5 to make the switch worth it for most websites.
Flash dies once XP dies.
Flash dies once people stop producing websites that need Flash. It has absolutely nothing to do with XP, or IE9, or a new HTML standard. You will note that IE6 is still the most popular browser on the market - web technologies, as fast as they change, are subject to the whims of those who use them, and in this regard Flash is a giant that won't be taken down easily. Since HTML5 can't do nearly what Flash can do overall, and HTML5 video is not any better than HTML5 (Flash has had H264 video for about two years now, and that hasn't even been settled yet for HTML5), and as others have pointed out doesn't even offer as many features for video as Flash does, I think all this talk of the death of Flash is wishful thinking.
The release of HTML5 is, by itself, not a compelling reason for anybody to switch from Flash to HTML5. Tying in to the browser doesn't help much in the way of security concerns, because you have the same types of processes going on that are just as vulnerable to the errors that create exploits. In fact, for anybody who already uses Flash regularly, switching to HTML5 will cost a significant amount of time and money with little to no benefit over just staying with Flash. That's not a recipe for a mass exodus.
Adobe has also never been known to stand still in the market, they are one of those companies that continually drives to stay on top. There are dozens of examples, Flash is just one of many.
I predict that most HTML5 based video will be primarily produced by people who are new to video and have no prior Flash experience, There may be a small number of people who try to switch from Flash to HTML5 for video only, but I think a large portion of them will eventually switch back to what they know better - which is Flash. This is small potatoes compared to the number of Flash developers on the market, and Flash-based websites.
I'm sorry, but Adobe has nearly 100% penetration into their market while Apple has significantly less than that in theirs. The same people who will want an iPad will want to view flash based websites.
If the iPad ships with no flash, and no option for flash, people are going to be pissed.
Try writing a flash app - that's where Adobe makes its money on Flash. It's the tools that they sell, just like for PDFs. The reader is free, but the writer costs bucks, and the primo publishing edition costs primo bucks.
The reason they give out the plugin for free is to make sure there is a good reason to write in Flash, and so long as Adobe keeps producing plugins there will always be a reason to write in Flash.
Games and 'other stuff' are better off written in Open Source langauges using Open Source tools, to run on Open Source operating systems.
I've never found that to be true, just look at the state of OSS gaming today - it's shit.
Yeah, the dude is 70 and can still kick your ass!
In a related note, Chuck Norris turned 70 this month!
Aaaand here is Mr. Serious, always there when you need him to kill the buzz.
Avast me hearties! Yo-ho!
Are you really that stupid?
Do you not understand how many years it would be before they could release such a game?
Optimization costs time, time costs money. Asking for a Demoscene game is like asking for Duke Nukem Forever - it's never going to happen. It isn't practical.
Exactly. While OpenGL is compatible with 99% of the PC gaming market, it is compatible with 0% of the console market. D3D is compatible with 99% of the PC gaming market, and 30% (very rough estimate) of the console market. Linux and Mac aren't even a blip on the gaming market radar, so why would anybody bother with OpenGL in a marketing sense?
The few that do bother to do it in OpenGL get burned when they want to port it to the console, because instead of a simple re-package job, they have to do 10 times as much work to move to a console. It may not be a massive amount of work, no, but it is more work than necessary. That cuts into your profits. Besides, there will always be less to screw up going D3D to D3D.
Yup.
I actually read the book after I saw the movie, and the second half was much better than the first. Still, the first half of the book is significantly better than the story they told in the movie - they probably would have made the second half suck too.
Weed is what you need, man BFE would be so awesome high.
Of course, anything is awesome high - I know a guy who watch six hours of "The Puppy Bowl" while high.
Ditto!
The book was a lot better than the movie, if a little... drawn out. I wouldn't put it in my top-10, but it was a good read.
What sucks about the movie the most is the most interesting part of the story was in the second half of the book, which the movie didn't cover. That's when rebellious-human-slave-boy takes over the universe. That was classic wtf, but in an entertaining way.
It's been a good six or eight years since I've seen Battlefield Earth, I've kinda got a hankering to see it again now.
Wow man, take off the tin foil hat. Even if you're right, you'll be a lot happier pretending you aren't. ;)
Did he tell you to buy three computers and use voting logic to protect your paper for next time too?
That's what they use in airplanes to prevent this sort of thing. It's kinda surprising nobody at Toyota thought about a problem fly-by-wire has had from the get go when they implemented their own fly-by-wire.
Does nobody do a google search first?
Now that's just ign'ant, just ign'ant.
This type of thing is just plain bat shit crazy.
It's not batshit crazy, as cosmic rays are well known and little understood as far as their potential effects go - it's a term for a group of several types of radiation anywhere from X-rays to Gamma-rays that do indeed penetrate the atmosphere and can potentially have noticeable affects on the earth. SETI has been sifting through cosmic radiation for decades looking for little green men, their job would be ultra easy if there were no cosmic radiation to get in the way.
It is, however, not anywhere near as likely as someone just fucking up, so yeah you're right on point with the thrust of your argument there.
Not necessarily, clouds absorb cosmic radiation - or more accurately water vapor absorbs cosmic radiation and forms clouds, so anywhere with a lot of cloud cover is going to have a lot of cosmic-ray cover too. Higher altitudes generally occur in hilly or mountainous regions (duh, that's what makes them high), and they also tend to have a lot more cloud cover because wind and moisture get blocked by the mountains.
You'd probably be most likely to see lots of cosmic rays in dry, flat areas that usually have light to no cloud cover. Periodic massive clouds won't have much affect if the area is clear on average, so your biggest suspect for cosmic-rays are areas like the mid-west.