Possible solutions include:
o having another small slot so the two antennae aren't right next to each other and you'd have to short both slots.
o Cover with a non-conductive coating
o Put the antennae actually inside the phone.
Even if they are getting paid to do it, most honest people don't like to waste time.
Citation needed.
... just so your client's site can support a 10 year old, intentionally shitty browser...
Citation needed. You know what Steve Jobs said about that so called "intentionally shitty browser"? Oh look, its in my sig.
... probably isn't the best use of resources for your client
If its not the best use of the clients resources, then why are they paying for it? Are you claiming that your clients are stupid and that they dont actually benefit from legacy browser support? Really?
They would like to code to worldwide standards a single time and get on to handling the next job/client.
Yeah, everyone wants their job to be different. Cry me a fucking river.
Safari runs the new Asteroid Belt demo just fine at about 15 FPS.
For me:
Opera 10.54 : 31 FPS
Safari 533.16:20 FPS, but doesnt work right (only animates when receiving user input, FPS is mostly without displaying anything)
Chrome 5.0.375.70 : 1 FPS
IE9 Preview : 60 FPS
So Opera is the only official browser that can run that Asteroid Belt Demo.
The real questions is "how many man hours, and how much of our client's money, should we spend trying to handle IE 6 compatibility and functionality?"
Thats for the client to decide.
Its as if you think that if IE6 was eliminated from the landscape, that you would get to do the job in less time for the same money. Thats not how markets work. If your job gets easier, so does your competitions job.
The answer is No, YouTube has not switched, and has no plans to switch, from Flash to HTML5.
They can't because some browsers (most notably Firefox and Opera) will not support H.264, yet nearly all of their content is already in H.264. Thats game over right there for YouTube converting to HTML5. Maybe in 5 years or more, and only when all major browsers support a single codec.
One cost would be the loss of oil-industry jobs, and the secondary jobs that depend on them. The thing is, all of those jobs would have gone away in any case, once the supply of available oil had been exhausted. So this would just be speeding up the inevitable.
Now, can you make (as you claimed) a pro vs con point? Let me illustrate why this isnt a point. Our Sun is eventually going to kill all life on earth, therefore nuclear war will just speed up the inevitable.
This is neither Pro nor Con. It lacks the quality of either.
The second cost would be the loss of the profit that would have been made on the oil that was retrieved. On the hand, the risk of another disastrous oil leak would drop to zero as well. Is that a net gain or a net loss? It's hard to say, since we can't predict when the next leak would occur, or how bad it would be.
These things happen naturally as well. There is a 100% chance that it will happen again without drilling. With drilling, it might never happen again. I see what you did there.
hmm.. I thought you were going to give a pros vs cons list. feh.
Apple makes money if customers like their products. A better experience means more sales, means more $$$$. Come on, this is basic stuff.
har har har
By better experience, you mean can't visit many very popular websites? Can't play many popular flash games? Many complaints about lack of Flash from iDevice owners? Is that the better experience that you are talking about?
You are stretching. You so want to believe that the lack of Flash has something to do with Apple Quality, when really it has to do with maximizing App Store profits. Flash would replace a very large chunk of whats in the App Store, with no profit on those app sales for Apple. That, you dimwit, is what its all about and always has been. Everyone but Apple fanboys know this.
The biggest video site on the web, YouTube, is adopting HTML5.
Do you know how to tell the truth?
YouTube is not adopting HTML5. YouTube is supporting HTML5.
Show me the plans to phase out Flash on YouTube. There should be some expected shutoff date announced.. right? oh wait.. there isn't.
Several have already been listed. Maybe you should read the discussion before you start raging.
The several that have been listed are Canvas, SVG, and the Video tag. Now please list the ones that enable replacing Flash. Don't just claim that there exists ones that do.. NAME THEM... STILL WAITING.
Oil industry apologists are saying we're all being whining, ungrateful children because we reap the benefits of cheap energy but bash the poor, hard-working people who put the gas in our cars. But what they don't mention is the fantastic amount of money spent buying this oil-dependent reality in the first place.
You know, its common for people to say how corporations, and especially oil companies, throw around lots of money to protect their interests and enact legislation and all that...
...but I just dont see it being true in the case of the oil industry. I see an industry that was forced to drill many miles off the coast in 5000 feet of water when they could have (and very much would have) drilled closer to shore in shallower water, where it was easier, cheaper, and knowledge was greater.
Apparently you would have us believe that the awesome power of oil money was used for everything but cutting costs.
Every few years Congress goes up-in-arms over the oil industry even when no disaster happens, such as the recent cry for a 'windfall tax' on them, even though their profit per revenue was significantly less than the governments share of the pie, and also significantly less than most other industries.
The oil industry has been the bitch of the government for decades. If you have evidence that this is not the case, please present it. I am thinking that, no, you don't... you are just blowing wind.
Something similar happened after the Three Mile Island incident.
America has never recovered from Three Mile Island, not because of the physical effects of the disaster, but because of the regulatory effects.
This administration is going to kill the drilling industry in America. Literally kill it. Fuck the emotional asshats that are defending it, and fuck the emotional asshats that defended Carter when he fucked over our nuclear industry.
the government does have authority to fine, issue and kill licenses for this kind of stuff within reason, and BP is involved in a huge environmental catastrophe.
All under existing rules. The existing rules dont allow $20B, making your rebuttal wrong. Period. Thats the end of the discussion. If you dont like it, take it up with congress.
Well as a PERSON I would tell them to "bring it on" and use the Constitution as my shield, my friends in the patriot movement as my sword, and my faith in the American people & the jury of peers to block the government from smashing me underfoot and violating the Bill of Rights.
No, he's equating the ditching of technologies in the past with the ditching of another technology today. How is that a lie?
its a lie because a CEO doesn't make decisions based on that metric. A CEO bases decisions on $$$$$. It is a lie because it doesn't follow the $$$$ motive.
There exists a $$$$ motive, and he has yet to admit to it. We enlightened folk know what it is, but fanboys like to believe crap.
Does HTML5 do DRM? No? Then the chance of mainstream adoption, from sites like Hulu, is 0%.
and HTML5 does that.
As long as the devices supports 2 different codecs... oh wait, *nobody* is supporting 2 different codecs. Apple refuses to support Theora. Firefox and Opera are refusing to support X.264. Google also refuses to support Theora, but wait.. they are dicking around with a 3rd codec. And who the fuck knows when Internet Explorer will support any?
You were saying?
If you want to learn about open standards, maybe you should pick up a book on the subject?
I searched for "Open Technologies that allow HTML5 to replace Flash" but got zero hits. The claim is that there exists unnamed technologies that are part of HTML5 that allow HTML5 to replace Flash.
Still. Fucking. Waiting.
I know why you can't name them. THEY ARE IMAGINARY.
Because they found out that there is no reason that a 64-bit platform can't run a 32-bit browser with 32-bit plugins. If your platform doesnt allow this, then find one that supports all the features of your processor.
You don't need to be a climatologist to study that, high school math easily does it!
Fail.
You need to account for the absorption rate of the surface as a whole, the absorption rate of the desert now, and the absorption rate of the desert once you stick giant black objects all over it.
You havent done that. Instead you guessed that the absorption rate will only double in the desert.
The absorption rate of solar cells is defined in part by the thermodynamic efficiency limit. The drive to maximize solar cell efficiency has pushed solar cells designs into nearly perfect black bodies. Nearly all photons which strike them are converted into electricity or heat, with very little being reflected.
Your claim of a doubling is laughable. Try 100 times as much, as a minimum. While the desert does absorb heat, it is far away from black body behavior. Its heat absorption is only in narrow bands of the EM spectrum.
And how did you conclude that the environmentalists are against it just because they asked how you ensure that the energy does actually come from renewable resources.
Because you don't have to ensure it.
This isnt like making sure that Gas is burned instead of Coal. A solar plant cannot be turned off in order to conserve fuel. Use it, or lose it.
Essentially, their "fear" is that these people will turn off the solar collectors and burn a fossil fuel instead, and its a stupid claim that doesnt pass simple logical tests of believability.
100% of the power generated by solar will be sold as long as there are buyers within reach. Really. Dont be fucking stupid.
If 100% of the solar generated power is being used, then whats the problem with more comming over the line as well? None. There is no problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Possible solutions include:
o having another small slot so the two antennae aren't right next to each other and you'd have to short both slots.
o Cover with a non-conductive coating
o Put the antennae actually inside the phone.
Getting an android.
What are you talking about?
Your description of how steam works doesnt jive with how steam works.
Even if they are getting paid to do it, most honest people don't like to waste time.
Citation needed.
... just so your client's site can support a 10 year old, intentionally shitty browser ...
Citation needed. You know what Steve Jobs said about that so called "intentionally shitty browser"? Oh look, its in my sig.
... probably isn't the best use of resources for your client
If its not the best use of the clients resources, then why are they paying for it? Are you claiming that your clients are stupid and that they dont actually benefit from legacy browser support? Really?
They would like to code to worldwide standards a single time and get on to handling the next job/client.
Yeah, everyone wants their job to be different. Cry me a fucking river.
For economic reasons, there will continue to be USB 1.1 devices, such as mice, keyboards, headsets, and floppy drives.
Safari runs the new Asteroid Belt demo just fine at about 15 FPS.
For me:
:20 FPS, but doesnt work right (only animates when receiving user input, FPS is mostly without displaying anything)
Opera 10.54 : 31 FPS
Safari 533.16
Chrome 5.0.375.70 : 1 FPS
IE9 Preview : 60 FPS
So Opera is the only official browser that can run that Asteroid Belt Demo.
I think the uploaders of videos do.
The real questions is "how many man hours, and how much of our client's money, should we spend trying to handle IE 6 compatibility and functionality?"
Thats for the client to decide.
Its as if you think that if IE6 was eliminated from the landscape, that you would get to do the job in less time for the same money. Thats not how markets work. If your job gets easier, so does your competitions job.
The answer is No, YouTube has not switched, and has no plans to switch, from Flash to HTML5.
They can't because some browsers (most notably Firefox and Opera) will not support H.264, yet nearly all of their content is already in H.264. Thats game over right there for YouTube converting to HTML5. Maybe in 5 years or more, and only when all major browsers support a single codec.
One cost would be the loss of oil-industry jobs, and the secondary jobs that depend on them. The thing is, all of those jobs would have gone away in any case, once the supply of available oil had been exhausted. So this would just be speeding up the inevitable.
Now, can you make (as you claimed) a pro vs con point? Let me illustrate why this isnt a point. Our Sun is eventually going to kill all life on earth, therefore nuclear war will just speed up the inevitable.
This is neither Pro nor Con. It lacks the quality of either.
The second cost would be the loss of the profit that would have been made on the oil that was retrieved. On the hand, the risk of another disastrous oil leak would drop to zero as well. Is that a net gain or a net loss? It's hard to say, since we can't predict when the next leak would occur, or how bad it would be.
These things happen naturally as well. There is a 100% chance that it will happen again without drilling. With drilling, it might never happen again. I see what you did there.
hmm.. I thought you were going to give a pros vs cons list. feh.
BP put that money voluntarily into the escrow fund. There's no reading of the rules that prevents this.
Why don't you get it?
Apple makes money if customers like their products. A better experience means more sales, means more $$$$. Come on, this is basic stuff.
har har har
By better experience, you mean can't visit many very popular websites? Can't play many popular flash games? Many complaints about lack of Flash from iDevice owners? Is that the better experience that you are talking about?
You are stretching. You so want to believe that the lack of Flash has something to do with Apple Quality, when really it has to do with maximizing App Store profits. Flash would replace a very large chunk of whats in the App Store, with no profit on those app sales for Apple. That, you dimwit, is what its all about and always has been. Everyone but Apple fanboys know this.
The biggest video site on the web, YouTube, is adopting HTML5.
Do you know how to tell the truth?
YouTube is not adopting HTML5. YouTube is supporting HTML5.
Show me the plans to phase out Flash on YouTube. There should be some expected shutoff date announced.. right? oh wait.. there isn't.
Several have already been listed. Maybe you should read the discussion before you start raging.
The several that have been listed are Canvas, SVG, and the Video tag. Now please list the ones that enable replacing Flash. Don't just claim that there exists ones that do.. NAME THEM... STILL WAITING.
Oil industry apologists are saying we're all being whining, ungrateful children because we reap the benefits of cheap energy but bash the poor, hard-working people who put the gas in our cars. But what they don't mention is the fantastic amount of money spent buying this oil-dependent reality in the first place.
You know, its common for people to say how corporations, and especially oil companies, throw around lots of money to protect their interests and enact legislation and all that...
...but I just dont see it being true in the case of the oil industry. I see an industry that was forced to drill many miles off the coast in 5000 feet of water when they could have (and very much would have) drilled closer to shore in shallower water, where it was easier, cheaper, and knowledge was greater.
Apparently you would have us believe that the awesome power of oil money was used for everything but cutting costs.
Every few years Congress goes up-in-arms over the oil industry even when no disaster happens, such as the recent cry for a 'windfall tax' on them, even though their profit per revenue was significantly less than the governments share of the pie, and also significantly less than most other industries.
The oil industry has been the bitch of the government for decades. If you have evidence that this is not the case, please present it. I am thinking that, no, you don't... you are just blowing wind.
6 months of wait and dozens of new regulations.
Something similar happened after the Three Mile Island incident.
America has never recovered from Three Mile Island, not because of the physical effects of the disaster, but because of the regulatory effects.
This administration is going to kill the drilling industry in America. Literally kill it. Fuck the emotional asshats that are defending it, and fuck the emotional asshats that defended Carter when he fucked over our nuclear industry.
the government does have authority to fine, issue and kill licenses for this kind of stuff within reason, and BP is involved in a huge environmental catastrophe.
All under existing rules. The existing rules dont allow $20B, making your rebuttal wrong. Period. Thats the end of the discussion. If you dont like it, take it up with congress.
Well as a PERSON I would tell them to "bring it on" and use the Constitution as my shield, my friends in the patriot movement as my sword, and my faith in the American people & the jury of peers to block the government from smashing me underfoot and violating the Bill of Rights.
That worked quite well for Terry Childs...
No, he's equating the ditching of technologies in the past with the ditching of another technology today. How is that a lie?
its a lie because a CEO doesn't make decisions based on that metric. A CEO bases decisions on $$$$$. It is a lie because it doesn't follow the $$$$ motive.
There exists a $$$$ motive, and he has yet to admit to it. We enlightened folk know what it is, but fanboys like to believe crap.
But the main use case for Flash is video
Does HTML5 do DRM? No? Then the chance of mainstream adoption, from sites like Hulu, is 0%.
and HTML5 does that.
As long as the devices supports 2 different codecs... oh wait, *nobody* is supporting 2 different codecs. Apple refuses to support Theora. Firefox and Opera are refusing to support X.264. Google also refuses to support Theora, but wait.. they are dicking around with a 3rd codec. And who the fuck knows when Internet Explorer will support any?
You were saying?
If you want to learn about open standards, maybe you should pick up a book on the subject?
I searched for "Open Technologies that allow HTML5 to replace Flash" but got zero hits. The claim is that there exists unnamed technologies that are part of HTML5 that allow HTML5 to replace Flash.
Still. Fucking. Waiting.
I know why you can't name them. THEY ARE IMAGINARY.
Because they found out that there is no reason that a 64-bit platform can't run a 32-bit browser with 32-bit plugins. If your platform doesnt allow this, then find one that supports all the features of your processor.
Perhaps not such a smart business decision to go with Flash and a write-once-deploy-everywhere strategy?
Yeah, its a much better decision to write once and deploy only on the iDevices, and distribute only through the App store.
Do you even read what you write before posting? I mean seriously..?
So he is equating things that would cost him money if he included it in his hardware with software developed on someone elses dime.
That is called a lie.
So you are claiming that there exists magical (nameless) standards that allow HTML5 to replace Flash.
Why not name them?
People all over the world are doing it near power lines.
It has been defined as a crime in the United States to do it, but people do it anyways. Hard to detect, harder to locate.
You don't need to be a climatologist to study that, high school math easily does it!
Fail.
You need to account for the absorption rate of the surface as a whole, the absorption rate of the desert now, and the absorption rate of the desert once you stick giant black objects all over it.
You havent done that. Instead you guessed that the absorption rate will only double in the desert.
The absorption rate of solar cells is defined in part by the thermodynamic efficiency limit. The drive to maximize solar cell efficiency has pushed solar cells designs into nearly perfect black bodies. Nearly all photons which strike them are converted into electricity or heat, with very little being reflected.
Your claim of a doubling is laughable. Try 100 times as much, as a minimum. While the desert does absorb heat, it is far away from black body behavior. Its heat absorption is only in narrow bands of the EM spectrum.
And how did you conclude that the environmentalists are against it just because they asked how you ensure that the energy does actually come from renewable resources.
Because you don't have to ensure it.
This isnt like making sure that Gas is burned instead of Coal. A solar plant cannot be turned off in order to conserve fuel. Use it, or lose it.
Essentially, their "fear" is that these people will turn off the solar collectors and burn a fossil fuel instead, and its a stupid claim that doesnt pass simple logical tests of believability.
100% of the power generated by solar will be sold as long as there are buyers within reach. Really. Dont be fucking stupid.
If 100% of the solar generated power is being used, then whats the problem with more comming over the line as well? None. There is no problem.
Don't side with idiots.